 |
|
NYT: Pakistani intelligence aided attack in Kabul, US officials say:
American intelligence agencies have concluded that members of Pakistan’s powerful spy service helped plan the deadly July 7 bombing of India’s embassy in Kabul, Afghanistan, according to United States government officials.
The conclusion was based on intercepted communications between Pakistani intelligence officers and militants who carried out the attack, the officials said, providing the clearest evidence to date that Pakistani intelligence officers are actively undermining American efforts to combat militants in the region.
The American officials also said there was new information showing that members of the Pakistani intelligence service were increasingly providing militants with details about the American campaign against them, in some cases allowing militants to avoid American missile strikes in Pakistan’s tribal areas.
Concerns about the role played by Pakistani intelligence not only has strained relations between the United States and Pakistan, a longtime ally, but also has fanned tensions between Pakistan and its archrival, India. Within days of the bombings, Indian officials accused the Directorate of Inter-Services Intelligence, or ISI, of helping to orchestrate the attack in Kabul, which killed 54, including an Indian defense attaché.
Just Out: The Hunt for Kurdish Oil.
I previously profiled Talabani here:
One muggy evening this summer, Qubad Talabani, the 31-year-old son of the president of Iraq, was chatting over drinks at a Dupont Circle bar when his BlackBerry rang. "It's Ray Hunt," Talabani said, looking at the caller ID on his phone. The Washington representative of the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government apologized for the interruption, and turned away to take the call.
His caller is a man who has no trouble getting his phone calls answered at any hour, anywhere in the world. A Bush/Cheney fundraising Pioneer, a member of Bush's President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, and the president of the Dallas-based Hunt Oil company, Ray Hunt is the kind of Texas oilman with easy insider access to the Bush White House. Perhaps not coincidentally, he also heads the first American oil firm to have received an oil exploration contract with the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Government, announced last September. As such, he has come to epitomize one of the more glaring contradictions about the Bush administration's policy toward Iraq and its oil wealth. Namely: If the Bush administration, as it proclaims, supports passage of an Iraqi oil law that would share the country's wealth across ethnic and regional divides, why do Bush-linked companies keep getting Kurdish-area oil concessions that bypass the Iraqi national government?
Hunt Oil isn't the only one. ...
Qubad Talabani is one of those cultural anomalies who somehow seem like natural creatures of Washington. Few twenty-nine-year-olds are trusted to serve as the top envoy of a foreign entity to the United States, as Talabani—the son of Iraqi President Jalal Talabani—is by Iraq’s Kurdistan Regional Government. But Talabani—slim, goateed, English-accented, a onetime Italian-car mechanic with an American wife—handles his duties with aplomb, rushing around town in subtle suits to meet with policy makers and power brokers. His most distinctive attribute may be that he represents perhaps the sole triumph to emerge from postwar Iraq: a relatively peaceful region free of foreign troops, eager for American protection and open for business. ...
Zachary Roth on McCain top national security advisor's long ties with Ahmad Chalabi and the INC (they even shared a website). But he leaves out that Scheunemann started the Project for the Liberation of Iraq at the request of now national security advisor Stephen Hadley, as a vehicle for the White House's efforts to sell the war to the American public, as reported by Aram Roston.
Not Immune. AP: US judge rules White House aides can be subpoenaed:
And the judge who issued the ruling?President Bush's top advisers are not immune from congressional subpoenas, a federal judge ruled Thursday in an unprecedented dispute between the two political branches.
House Democrats called the ruling a ringing endorsement of the principle that nobody is above the law.
In his ruling, U.S. District Judge John Bates said there's no legal basis for Bush's argument and that his former legal counsel, Harriet Miers, must appear before Congress. If she wants to refuse to testify, he said, she must do so in person. The committee also has sought to force testimony from White House chief of staff Joshua Bolten.
"Harriet Miers is not immune from compelled congressional process; she is legally required to testify pursuant to a duly issued congressional subpoena," Bates wrote. He said that both Bolten and Miers must give Congress all non-privileged documents related to the firings.
The ruling is a blow to the Bush administration's efforts to bolster the power of the executive branch at the expense of the legislative branch. Disputes over congressional subpoenas are normally resolved through political compromise, not through the court system. Had Bush prevailed, it would have dramatically weakened congressional authority in oversight investigations.
The administration can appeal the ruling. ...
Bates, who was appointed to the bench by Bush, issued a 93-page opinion that strongly rejected the administration's legal arguments. He noted that the executive branch could not point to a single case in which courts held that White House aides were immune from congressional subpoenas.
"That simple yet critical fact bears repeating: the asserted absolute immunity claim here is entirely unsupported by existing case law," Bates wrote.
CQ's Tim Starks:
Republicans walked out of a briefing this morning by Director of National Intelligence Michael McConnell on a new executive order overhauling the roles of intelligence agencies, Congressional Quarterly has learned.
A spokesman for Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, confirmed that GOP members did leave the panel briefing because they were displeased that the administration had “failed to notify and involve Congress” on this issue and other national security issues.
Committee Chairman Sylvestre Reyes, D-Texas, said that Congress wasn’t given any role in the order, and only given notice Wednesday after the president signed it.
An administration official, however, said there had been an ongoing conversation with Congress on all these issues since 2004.
Newsweek: "Gag Order: How Saudi Arabia's Prince Bandar muscled Tony Blair into silence."
WSJ: "Presidential rivals Barack Obama and John McCain both appear to be seizing the roles in which they have been cast: Sen. Obama as front-runner and Sen. McCain as underdog. The approach carries perils for both men. Democratic Sen. Obama, who has taken to openly musing about the likelihood that he will be elected, risks coming off as arrogant and presumptuous. His Republican rival, who proclaims himself to be running behind at every stop and relentlessly attacks his opponent, risks coming off as negative and whiny."
Jerusalem Post: German $100 million gas deal with Iran illegal? One would think this would be a subject Senators and Congressmen and the pro Israel lobby might make a stink about. If sanctions fail, military action becomes more likely. But as one trade lawyer told me, "As usual for Germany, business takes precedence." Update: MoonofA points out there are no UN or EU sanctions against Iran's oil and gas industry. The article above suggests that there may have been violations of German laws regarding undue political influence on the decision to approve the sale made by BAFA (the German Export Control Office), but not of EU or German sanctions laws. (MoonofA says that Schuarte did not exercise undue political influence to get the exports approved). The point still stands that, as helped explain France's Total recently cancelling a gas deal with Iran, if diplomatic pressure and economic sanctions fail to persuade Iran to change its behavior, then military action would seem to become more likely.
SF Chronicle: GOP kills media shield bill in Senate:
Supporters of the shield bill said it is possible - but unlikely - that the issue will be revived in September, after the Senate takes a planned monthlong recess starting this weekend. Otherwise, backers of the bill would be forced to begin again in January, when a new Congress convenes.
The shield bill was derailed in the Senate when Republican senators seeking a floor vote on a broad energy bill blocked efforts by Senate Democratic leaders to debate other measures, including the media shield proposal.
The Senate fell eight votes shy of the 60 necessary to limit debate - and thus thwart a Republican-led filibuster - on the media shield bill. Five Republicans, including bill sponsors Arlen Specter, R-Pa., and Dick Lugar, R-Ind., broke party ranks and voted to begin debating the shield legislation.
"I would say the odds are Republicans killed media shield today," said Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., who has used his chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee to advance the legislation.
NPR: Exxon Mobil posts biggest quarterly US corporate profit ever. Almost $12 billion. More.
MJ: "Mary McFate was a prominent gun control activist who led several gun control groups. Mary Lou Sapone was a freelance spy with an NRA connection. They are the same person."
Olmert to deliver 'surprise' public address.
Update: Olmert will resign, after party primary in September.
LAT: "In meetings Monday and Tuesday, administration officials told Defense Minister Ehud Barak that the option of attacking Iran over its nuclear program remains on the table, though U.S. officials are primarily seeking a diplomatic solution. At the same time, U.S. officials acknowledged that there is a rare divergence in the U.S. and Israeli approaches, with Israelis emphasizing the possibility of a military response out of concern that Tehran may soon have the know-how for building a nuclear bomb. 'Is there a difference of emphasis? It certainly looks as though there is,' said a senior American Defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity when discussing the sensitive talks. ..." More here and here.
Update: Obama reportedly told Democratic caucus Israel will strike Iran is sanctions fail.
Tim Rutten: "At some point, the American people will demand a precise accounting of how and why their government and its officials behaved in this reckless, appalling fashion. That will require following the chain of command into the White House. When it happens, you can bet that Cheney, Rumsfeld, Addington et al will demand every protection of the law and insist on every comma of the due process they've derided as mere inconvenience."
WP:
Thirty-four candidates told investigators that Goodling or one of her deputies raised the topic of abortion in job interviews and 21 said they discussed same-sex marriage, the report said. Another job applicant said he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, only to watch Goodling "frown" and respond, "But she's pro-choice."
More.
Aisha Labi in the Chronicle of Higher Ed:
Reza Negahdary cuts a surprisingly visible figure at the University of Tehran for someone who has been suspended. Clad in tight jeans and a maroon T-shirt emblazoned with a glittering double-headed eagle, he has stationed himself in the central hallway of the faculty of law and political science. Thrusting a pen at fellow students, he exhorts them to demand that the administration allow for "a free, open, and absolutely democratic election" to the Islamic Association of Students, the reformist group to which he belongs.
Mr. Negahdary, an intense young man who usually has a cigarette in his hand, is barred from classes for three terms and was kicked out of the dorms but has had little problem coming and going on the campus.
In fact, he says he feels safer here than anywhere else. "Outside the university is dangerous," he says. "There are executions if people get politically active. Here, there is suppression, but you don't get executed."
Iran's image in the West has been largely shaped by its defiant, blustering president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and his government's heavy-handed treatment of its citizens. Students have been arrested for their opposition politics, and scores more have been suspended. Internationally renowned scholars, like the Iranian-American Haleh Esfandiari, have been jailed. Provocative publications have been forced to close. And the morality police have upped their harassment of pedestrians on the streets of Tehran for clothing and hairstyles that do not meet the regime's definition of Islamic standards.
But as Mr. Negahdary's very visible presence illustrates, the sometimes cartoonish image of a nation oppressed, isolated, and angry fails to capture the complicated nature of Iranian society and, especially, academe. ...
Iran's universities provide some insights for those who want to understand its politics. Iranians have an acute sense of national pride and see their higher-education system as the repository of a robust intellectual tradition that predates the arrival of Islam in Persia. Professors are held in high esteem, and many high-ranking government officials, including Mr. Ahmadinejad, are academics by training.
While far from unfettered, many students and professors here remain unyielding and outspoken in their criticism of the regime. And academics continue to maintain ties to the outside world, playing host to a steady stream of international visitors and traveling abroad for conferences and study. ...
AP: "The naval officer who was in charge of the 15 British military personnel detained by Iran more than a year ago has been removed from his post and will be reassigned, the Defense Ministry said Monday."
Chicago Tribune: Robert Novak says he was diagnosed Sunday with a brain tumor.
Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak in Washington, meeting with Cheney, Rice, Pentagon today.
Perfect spoof of tragic recent events in the Tribune empire. More, here, here, and here.
NYT: McCain uses Int'l Republican Institute perch to promote American corporate lobbyists. "...The parade of lobbyists and fund-raisers at the dinner is emblematic of Mr. McCain’s tenure at the institute, one of a pair of nonprofit groups — taxpayer-financed and each allied with one of the two major political parties — that were created during the Reagan era to promote democracy in closed societies. Over the years, Mr. McCain has nurtured a reputation for bucking the Republican establishment and criticizing the influence of special interests in politics. But an examination of his leadership of the Republican institute — one of the least-chronicled aspects of his political life — reveals an organization in many ways at odds with the political outsider image that has become a touchstone of the McCain campaign for president. ..."
Worth reading this Jerusalem Post interview with Obama:
On the issue of Iran:Two months ago in the Oval Office, President George W. Bush, coming to the end of a two-term presidency and presumably as expert on Israeli-Palestinian policy as he is ever going to be, was accompanied by a team of no fewer than five advisers and spokespeople during a 40-minute interview with this writer and three other Israeli journalists.
In March, on his whirlwind visit to Israel, Republican presidential nominee John McCain, one of whose primary strengths is said to be his intimate grasp of foreign affairs, chose to bring along Sen. Joe Lieberman to the interview our diplomatic correspondent Herb Keinon and I conducted with him, looked to Lieberman several times for reassurance on his answers and seemed a little flummoxed by a question relating to the nuances of settlement construction.
On Wednesday evening, toward the end of his packed one-day visit here, Barack Obama, the Democratic senator who is leading the race for the White House and who lacks long years of foreign policy involvement, spoke to The Jerusalem Post with only a single aide in his King David Hotel room, and that aide's sole contribution to the conversation was to suggest that the candidate and I switch seats so that our photographer would get better lighting for his pictures.
Several of Obama's Middle East advisers - including former Clinton special envoy Dennis Ross and ex-ambassador to Israel Daniel Kurtzer - were hovering in the vicinity. But Obama, who was making only his second visit to Israel, knew precisely what he wanted to say about the most intricate issues confronting and concerning Israel, and expressed himself clearly, even stridently on key subjects.
Obama seems to have impressed a rather tough audience in this interview. More cynical take from Shmuel Rosner, who says ultimately Bush is not responsible for Israel's security problems, and any US president can only do so much.Can you assure the people of Israel, and beyond, that as president you will prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons?
What I can do is assure that I will do everything in my power as president to prevent Iran attaining nuclear weapons. And I think that begins with engaging in tough, direct talks with Iran, sending a clear message to Iran that they shouldn't wait for the next administration but should start engaging in the P5 process [involving the five permanent members of the UN Security Council] that's taking place right now, and elevating this to the top of our national security priorities, so that we are mobilizing the entire international community, including Russia and China, on this issue.
One of the failures, I think, of our approach in the past has been to use a lot of strong rhetoric but not follow through with the kinds of both carrots and sticks that might change the calculus of the Iranian regime. But I have also said that I would not take any options off the table, including military.
How do you address the concern that the Iranians, even in the "tough negotiations" that you envisage, will play you for time while moving towards a nuclear capability? Ahmadinejad said today, "We're not pulling back... not one iota." They are very adamant.
I think it is important in mobilizing the international community to make clear that this is not just a game that we're playing, but this is of the utmost seriousness - to send messages to Russia and China that in our bilateral relationships this is a top priority, not just a secondary priority. And one of my strong beliefs is that, to the extent that we are showing a willingness to negotiate but are very clear and direct in our goals, and are displaying a sense of urgency - that if the Iranians fail to respond, we've stripped away whatever excuses they may have, [and] whatever rationales may exist in the international community for not ratcheting up sanctions and taking serious action. ...
WP: Lobbyist friend of Curt Weldon pleas guilty to destruction of evidence, cooperating in Weldon probe.
Near the close of his visit to Israel on Wednesday, Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama met with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. A major topic of their long conversation was Obama's declared willingness to engage in direct dialogue with Tehran.
Obama reportedly told Olmert that he is interested in meeting the Iranians in order to issue clear ultimatums. "If after that, they still show no willingness to change their nuclear policy, then any action against them would be legitimate," an Israeli source quoted him as saying.
Obama said it is clear that the Iranian nuclear issue will be a top priority for him as president, but said that as part of the diplomatic effort to end Tehran's enrichment program, the Iranians must be given an opportunity to change.
The presumptive nominee also emphasized the importance of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He said he had been impressed by the Palestinians' assessment that there has been substantial progress in the talks.
Congressional Ethics. Presumably, Duke Cunningham and Curt Weldon weren't available? Two words about Nancy Pelosi and John Boehner's mysterious decision to appoint Porter Goss to co-chair it: Dusty Foggo. It isn't hard to believe that Congress isn't so interested in an effective ethics panel. Why deny the FBI all the fun?
WSJ: Voter unease with Obama lingers despite his lead. More from Kevin Drum.
Israeli defense forces chief of staff in Washington: "Ashkenazi's schedule on Wednesday included meetings with U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, White House national security adviser Stephen Hadley, Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte and key members of Congress. On Thursday, he is to meet Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff."
Samantha Power reviews Peter Scoblic's US vs. Them, and Matt Yglesias' Heads in the Sand.
Israel gives the impression that it was completely unprepared for the recent dramatic switch in American policy toward Iran. The Bush administration did not consult with Israel before deciding to add a senior American diplomat to the talks the Europeans are conducting with the Iranians, nor did Washington inform Jerusalem of its intentions to open an interests section in Tehran. The Prime Minister's Bureau received word of America's new policy almost at the last minute, just in order to ensure that Israel would not be taken totally by surprise. If clandestine diplomatic feelers between Washington and Tehran preceded the announcement, Israel was left completely in the dark as to their existence.
The American "detente" with Iran has one obvious consequence: As long as the diplomatic game continues, there is not the slightest chance in the world of any aggressive action being taken against Iran's nuclear program. Which means no bombing of nuclear facilities. And no naval blockade and no prevention of commercial flights from Iran, as Israel has proposed. If even a minor-ranking American diplomat is posted in Tehran, to ostensibly "speak with the people," the Iranian regime will enjoy total immunity.
Israeli leaders are still hoping that all is not lost, that America is merely making a strategic move here, that Washington is simply dangling a bit of diplomatic bait that will be doomed to fail but which can pave the way for a military strike. But all that is simply wishful thinking. The American public has no stomach today for an additional war and its army opposes the idea of opening up a "third front" in Iran, after Afghanistan and Iraq.
The average American is much more concerned about spiraling gasoline prices than about Iran's nuclear ambitions. Of all the steps U.S. President George W. Bush has undertaken to solve his country's energy crisis, the rapprochement with Iran has emerged as the most effective of all. At a cost of only one airline ticket for William J. Burns, the U.S. State Department's third-ranking official, the administration in Washington achieved an almost-immediate 12-percent drop in oil prices. [...]Now, Jerusalem must also change its approach. Instead of making the mistake of holding on to the false hope that Bush will actually order the bombing of Iran, Israelis should start looking at the positive aspects of an American-Iranian dialogue, while insisting that Israel's vital interests not be undermined. ...
AP:
Pincus: Scowcroft and Zbig warn against threatening to attack Iran.Rice said that instead of a coherent answer, Iran's chief nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili delivered a "meandering" monologue full of irrelevant "small talk about culture" that appeared to annoy many of the others present at the table in Geneva.
"We expected to hear an answer from the Iranians but, as has been the case so many times with the Iranians, what came through was not serious," Rice told reporters aboard her plane as she flew to the United Arab Emirates. "It's time for the Iranians to give a serious answer."
"They can't go and stall and make small talk about culture, they have to make a decision," she said. "People are tired of the Iranians and their stalling tactics."
Obama in Israel, but Israel doesn't quite get Obama. WP:
Obama is viewed quizzically by many Israelis, who believe he is likely to become the next U.S. president, but don't know quite what to make of his unusual name and his slim track record in foreign policy.
While Obama's statements of support for the Jewish state have gone over well, false rumors persist that he is Muslim (Obama is Christian). There is widespread apprehension in Israel that he would be more sympathetic to Palestinian interests than previous American presidents have been.
"On the one hand, I hear that he is a Muslim and dangerous to the Jews. On the other hand, I hear he supports us in his speeches, so I feel torn in my feeling towards him," said Haim Moyal, 29, a T-shirt designer working in a Jerusalem shop. [...]
Cameron S. Brown, deputy director of Israel's Global Research in International Affairs Center, said excitement over Obama's visit in Israel was muted by the knowledge that "he's not really here for us."
"When he comes here to kiss Israeli babies, he's not really kissing Israeli babies. He's kissing American Jewish babies," Brown said. "There's nothing wrong with that, but everyone is very clear-eyed about it." ...
(Reuters photo via Ha'aretz).
The Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting's David Enders and Richard Rowley on assignment in Iraq.
NYT's Elaine Sciolino: Iran's non paper. "The Iranian document, which has not been made public, offered a snapshot of Iran’s negotiating style. It put the burden on the other parties. Its imprecise language and misspellings were in sharp contrast to the rigorous approach by Iranian negotiators, many of them career diplomats, who were in charge in 2003 when France, Britain and Germany began the initiative of incentives in exchange for suspension of major nuclear activities. Those diplomats have since been replaced. The paper called for at least three more meetings with Javier Solana, the European Union foreign policy chief, who represents the six powers. Those would be followed by at least four meetings at the foreign ministers’ level, which would start with the halting of any sanctions against Iran, 'both inside and outside' the United Nations Security Council. The Iranian document also seemed to suggest that there could be no discussion of the main issue of contention: some sort of limit on Iran’s production of enriched uranium, which can be used to make electricity or to fuel bombs. ... In its paper, Iran focused only on negotiating a 'comprehensive agreement' for the rewards. The paper also said current international sanctions against Iran would be discontinued. The Iranian nuclear issue will no longer be dealt with by the Security Council or the 35-country governing board of the International Atomic Energy Agency. Only the atomic energy agency itself can deal with the subject, the paper said."
"I forgot to check my calendar," a DC lawyer reader writes. "Apparently today is the day that the entire ... Cuban exile infrastructure that has controlled US Cuba policy for the last fifty years gets indicted: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/613611.html." The same U.S. Attorney in the Pharmed case above, Alex Acosta, is also prosecuting UBS for tax evasion, he further notes. Coincidence? "I have a really hard time believing that the same U.S. Attorney brings two tax evasion cases in one month and they are not related," he says.
Karadzic's Website. A friend sends (and he's not kidding), a link to Karadzic's website, under his reported recent alias Dragan Dabic. Scroll down for the English. "But seriously, I think 'Dr. Dabic' could've had it made - and might never have been caught - if he had only had the sound business sense to set up shop in So. California instead of Belgrade." More. The Guardian: the healer on the 73 bus.
More from Rich Byrne.
Karadzic Arrest. An American friend in Sarajevo writes, "I apparently crashed before they got him, and missed the honking festivities in the rain last night. But people have more spring in their step, despite the March in July weather we are having. No idea why now – apparently he was under surveillance for a month as Dr. Davic. He was writing a column for a health magazine. The speculation on Jazeera that rings true was that the Serbian govt coalition needed to be set, then they got the green light. This shows conditionality works to me. At least that's my line." Former UN high rep Paddy Ashdown in Sarajevo today, he further reports, so we may learn more.
More thoughts from former Balkan hand Rich Byrne:
So what's this all about? A couple quick thoughts.
First, the new reform government is officially in -- and this is one of the first fruits of their ascension. They know that half measures to allay intransigent hardliners' wrath are not getting them anywhere. They need to show improvements in ordinary Serbs' lives and quickly -- loosening of visa regimes, flow of capital and investment, etcetera.
So today's arrest is one step. The quick call to send ambassadors back to countries that have recognized Kosovo is another. In return, the international community has to show some good will very quickly.
Second, today's arrest is also a decisive blow to former prime minister and chief Serbian pedant Vojislav Koštunica's Democratic Party of Serbia (DSS) -- which controlled the keys to government as the key party in the ruling coalition until recently. The rapid arrest of Karadžic; by the new government makes it very clear that Koštunica could have easily done it. Thus, Koštunica and his cronies are humiliated in front of two key audiences. Ordinary Serbs may see them impotent fools. And the international community sees Vojo and Company as the stupid and dishonest creeps that everyone thought them to be all this time. ...
Indicted war crimes suspect Radovan Karadzic captured in Serbia. "Mr. Karadzic’s place of arrest was not announced, but Serbian government officials said Mr. Karadzic had been arrested by the Serbian secret police at a site not far from Belgrade, Serbia’s capital, nearly 13 years after he was first indicted on war crimes." More from the Post. "Serbian officials released few details about how Karadzic was captured. Government sources in Belgrade, the capital, told reporters he had been under surveillance for some time, following a tip from a foreign intelligence service."
Yossi Sarid in Ha'aretz: " ... Official Jerusalem has gotten used to the idea that Obama will be the next American president. At first, Israelis didn't think he would be able to beat Queen Hillary, and they were proven wrong, as usual. Indeed, there will be less enthusiasm for his visit than in Europe or among American soldiers, but the reality of the situation will be enough to spur Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to glad-hand Obama, even though the premier is a friend of U.S. President George W. Bush and presumptive Republican presidential nominee John McCain, and to compel Knesset Speaker Dalia Itzik to whisper a secret in the leading Democrat's ear. Even if Obama is not elected president, his candidacy has already left a deep impression. It has changed the path of American policy. Bush has agreed to negotiate with Iran and discuss a timetable for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. Even a blinded president is beginning to understand that there is no choice but to speak with the axis of evil and, even more so, with allies. Just as the Bible decreed it is not good for man to be alone, so, too, it is not good for America to be alone, taking action in the world as it would at home. Libya and North Korea agreed to give up their nuclear activities thanks to a carrot, not just a stick. And that is precisely what Obama is suggesting - to try to talk - for which he is depicted as spineless and strange. ..."
AFP: Iran, EU, and US begin nuclear talks in Geneva. More here and here: "Chief EU envoy Javier Solana and Iranian negotiator Saeed Jalili left together as the talks broke for lunch, speaking earnestly with each other. Burns followed some time later, accompanied only by an aide. All three declined to answer questions. The Western diplomat -- who demanded anonymity because his information was confidential -- said Solana would try to coax Jalili into agreeing to discuss the 'freeze-for-freeze' concept and focusing on substantial negotiations."
NYT: Obama in Afghanistan. Politico's Mike Allen reports that Obama "made secret stop in Kuwait, where he also met troops ... Will confer with at least 15 world and opposition leaders ... "
Reuters: Maliki in interview with Der Spiegel endorses Obama troop exit plan.
Marty Lederman: This tells you everything you need to know: "[Jane] Mayer reports that [Dan] Levin warned Gonzales not to choose Stephen Bradbury as head of OLC, because 'he won't give you independent advice.' Which the [White House] viewed as the best possible recommendation of Steve Bradbury for the job. Nonetheless, they wanted to make sure Bradbury wouldn't be another Goldsmith (or Ciongoli, or Clement, or Kavanaugh, or Levin, or Whelan), so they put Bradbury 'on probation,' waiting to see if his work product was acceptable before nominating him. Of course, he gave them what they were looking for . . . advice that the CIA could engage many of the previously approved techniques in combination . . . and here we are."
"Imperceptible 180 Degree Turn." Former Iran hand in the Ford, Carter, and Reagan administrations Gary Sick on the latest US Iran developments:
A former boss of mine used to describe a policy reversal, while pretending that nothing had happened, as an attempted "imperceptible 180 degree turn." There is a lot of that going on today in Washington.
I found myself, to my own surprise, on an ultra right-wing radio show this week with a host who was clearly a Bill O'Reilly wannabe. We sparred for about 15 minutes on a variety of issues, but one of our exchanges was very enlightening to me. He commented with a sneer that Sen. Obama, if he became president, would go into unconditional talks with Iran. I reminded him that President Bush is already doing what any political leader would do to prepare for such talks -- feeling out your opponent.
That exchange made me think in a new way about what is going on. The Bush administration is now indicating that it can accept a specific time horizon for withdrawal of US troops in Iraq. They are also getting ready to sit down with Iranian nuclear negotiators without Iran first ceasing all enrichment and are openly promoting the idea of a US interests section in Tehran, the first step toward diplomatic relations. In both cases they insist nothing has changed, but the president's own right wing base makes no bones about the fact that they see these as anything but imperceptible 180 degree turns.
Both positions also happen to be consistent with the policy positions of Barack Obama and apparently contrary to the positions of John McCain. I would hate to be McCain in a policy debate in the next few months trying to pin the label of inexperience or excessive naivete on Obama on either Iraq or Iran, unless he is willing to expand those definitions to include George W. Bush. In fact, if McCain becomes president he will find it very difficult to reverse the course being set by his predecessor.
I happen to believe that the Bush administration shifts in policy, for whatever reason, are correct in terms of US long-term policy goals in the region. Neither of them settles the issue, but both suggest a practical way to get from here to a more favorable future condition. And in both cases, a line has been crossed, even if only symbolically, that will not easily be reestablished.
These were both serious decisions that had to be preceded by intense argument within the administration. Bill Burns, testifying to the Senate only a few days before the announcement that he would be going to meet with the Iranian negotiator (who happens to be the personal appointee of Mr. Ahmadinejad), could only answer in ultra-diplomatese formulas, suggesting that the decision still had not been settled.
We will have to wait for the inside story of what happened, but no one should doubt that this was a close and hard fought policy battle that was particularly painful for President Bush since he knew his own words would be thrown back in his face (as they were on the PBS Newshour report this evening) and, worse, that he might be doing a huge political favor to Sen. Obama just as he heads off to the Middle East. For those who continue to believe that all US foreign policy is in the hands of Dick Cheney, these moves are really difficult to explain.
It is essential to stress that both of these gambits may come to nothing and may represent nothing more than second term "Hail Mary passes," as Michael Rubin put it on the Newshour this evening. I do agree with Michael Rubin's further comment that the unexpectedly positive signals from both Washington and Tehran suggest that "something deeper" is underway.
Amid latest developments with Iran, this piece of mine from earlier this summer worth (re-)reading. "Like the president who leads it, the Bush administration has been known for holding fast to its views and seeing the world through an ideological lens. That world view explains in part why the administration often has refused to negotiate or even talk with what it considers to be some of the world’s most odious regimes. But, in its twilight, the Bush administration has shown hints of stepping back from its blanket refusal to engage some adversarial regimes and militant groups. The tactical shift, however sporadic, is no doubt a byproduct of the fact that there is now little time left for an administration hungry for foreign-policy victories. ..."
Shaun Waterman: "Undercover Maryland state troopers infiltrated three groups advocating peace and protesting the death penalty — attending meetings and sending reports on their activities to U.S. intelligence and military agencies, according to documents released Thursday." Via MJ's Jonathan Stein.
Ken Silverstein details more ethically dubious conduct by former Congressman Curt Weldon, this time accepting a $23,000 Eastern Europe trip for the wider Weldon clan paid for by controversial Serbian and Russian interests. "Back in January of 2007," Silverstein writes, "the House Ethics Committee ('Press 1 if you are a member of Congress covering up a criminal offense. Press 2 if…') released a statement saying that it had reviewed a foreign trip by Congressman Curt Weldon and determined that he had violated the gift-rule ban. ...The statement ... did say that the congressman had been told to reimburse the trip’s financial sponsors for some $23,000 in expenses." No word on whether Weldon had done so.
Check out my friend David Wagner's review of Mad Men. " ... The theme that runs through every scene of Weiner's series is the role of deception in the daily life of the U.S., from the grinding insincerities of the workplace to the systematic mendacity that keeps 'the machine' operating on a grand scale. ... Meanwhile, the society teeters on the brink of a catastrophically stupid war that will be sold as an advertising project now remembered as the Gulf of Tonkin provocation. Weiner paints this world, the immediate predecessor to our own, with such tiny strokes of characterization and minimalist dialogue that each hour of narrative is self-contained and can easily be viewed on its own. But it's necessary to see all of Mad Men to appreciate that this is a national portrait that penetrates to the backbone. ... As a genre, this feels like something new. It's not historical fiction, exactly; it's more like historical science fiction, a world in which time bends out in all directions and flows back to the viewer as an explanation of how things have gone so terribly wrong. ... " Go read.
Gershom Gorenberg on five reasons to doubt Israel will attack Iran, and Obama's Mid East trip.
Update: Military blogger Defense Springboard notes that Congress has been notified by a Defense panel that Israel has requested purchase of double the amount of jet fuel (JP-8) it purchased last year. "'On July 11, the Defense Security Cooperation Agency notified Congress of a possible Foreign Military Sale to the Government of Israel of unleaded gasoline, JP-8 aviation jet fuel, and diesel fuel. The total value, if all options are exercised, could be as high as $1.3 billion. The Government of Israel has requested a possible sale of 28,000,000 gallons of unleaded gasoline, 186,000,000 gallons of JP-8 aviation jet fuel, and 54,000,000 gallons of diesel fuel. The estimated cost is $1.3 billion.' ... JP-8 requests are not new....But the size of the buy is impressive. In July 2006, Israel requested up to $210 dollars-worth of JP-8. In September 2004, Israel requested up to $102 million dollars worth of JP-8...."
A colleague writes, "Everyone seems to have missed the obvious: The State Department's third man is going to [talk with] Iran to send oil prices down. I'm sure Paulson told Bush this was the only way to stop a panic." Almost certainly part of it. (And is it working?)
Indeed, a US official involved with Iran policy wrote me a couple weeks back that high oil prices had severely crimped their policy: "It’s clear that the two-track policy put in place a number of years ago (incentives vs. sanctions) has been overtaken somewhat by the unforeseeable and dramatic rise in oil prices. Iran’s GDP has doubled, and they are more isolated from the effects of economic sanctions. At the same time the Iranians have made significant progress on enrichment. There are many, many more economic sanctions in the quiver, but we have carefully resisted imposing economic sanctions, unilaterally or multilaterally, that would significantly affect the Iranian people. Our goal remains an Iran without nuclear weapons, and our strategy remains the two-track approach. In light of the rise in oil prices and Iran’s enrichment achievements, the interim objectives that the two-track strategy should be aiming to achieve is something everyone is looking at, and there is no question that there is a way forward. ..."
John Judis: McCain's plan for the next cold war. "... McCain is a radical idealist who wants to transform the world and is reluctant to acknowledge limits to this enterprise. He imagines a 'democratic' Iraq opposed to Iran and occupied indefinitely by American troops. And McCain does not seem to possess Nixon's detachment when it comes to foreign affairs. He can't see what drove Putin and now his successor to distance themselves from the United States; or what--since the time of the pro-American Shah--has driven Iran, irrespective of Ahmadinejad, to seek a nuclear capability. If anything, McCain brings the same readiness to anger to bear in foreign relations that marked his tenure in the Senate. But it's one thing to blow up at a colleague and quite another to do so at a foreign president. The former may lead to difficulties in getting a bill passed; the latter to protracted conflict and even war. If one insists upon identifying a nation with its leader and seeing that leader as either incurably wicked or deeply irrational, then that rules out diplomacy or deterrence. Regime change becomes the only way of addressing a foe's antagonism. That, of course, was the argument that McCain and others used to justify the invasion of Iraq, and he seems to be making the same argument about Russia and Iran. ..."
Zaman: "Turkey and Israel announced yesterday that feasibility studies will start on a planned pipeline project to carry water, natural gas, oil, electricity and fiber optics from Turkey's Mediterranean coast to Israel. Energy and Natural Resources Minister Hilmi Güler, speaking after a meeting with Israeli Infrastructure Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, said the feasibility studies will be completed in 10 months and that the construction of the pipeline, which he estimated will be finished in three years, will start thereafter."
WP: Ashcroft: Bush White House Sought Justice Rubber Stamp:
When Ashcroft and Goldsmith are the whistleblowers, one can only imagine the depth of concern about illegal White House behavior and policies was extreme. See this and this, related.Then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft offered the White House a list of five candidates to lead the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel in early 2003, but top administration officials summarily rejected them in favor of installing a loyalist who would provide the legal footing needed to continue coercive interrogation techniques and broadly interpret executive power, according to two former administration officials.
In an angry phone call hours after Ashcroft's list reached the White House, President Bush's chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., quickly dismissed the candidates, all Republican lawyers with impeccable credentials, the sources said. He and White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales insisted that Ashcroft promote John Yoo, a onetime OLC deputy who had worked closely with Gonzales and vice presidential adviser David S. Addington to draft memos supporting a controversial warrantless wiretapping plan and detainee questioning techniques.
Ashcroft's refusal created a tense standoff and was the only time in the attorney general's tenure that Bush was called upon to resolve a personnel dispute, the sources said.
The process led the White House team to introduce a compromise choice -- Jack L. Goldsmith, a Defense Department lawyer then on leave from a teaching post at the University of Chicago Law School.
But Goldsmith's tenure did not proceed as White House aides had expected.
He went on to challenge the administration, rescinding or rewriting several of Yoo's most sensitive memos after unearthing what he called numerous flaws.
The previously unreported disagreement between Ashcroft and the White House underscores the critical role that the once-obscure Office of Legal Counsel came to play in the administration's efforts to devise a strategy to bolster its treatment of terrorism suspects after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. White House spokesman Tony Fratto had no comment yesterday. ...
WP's Walter Pincus: "The House yesterday passed by voice vote the fiscal 2009 intelligence authorization bill, which limits the funds available for covert actions next year until all members of the House intelligence panel are briefed on the most sensitive ones already underway. As included in the bill, 75 percent of money sought for covert actions would be held up until the briefings are held. If that provision remains in the bill when it reaches President Bush, his senior advisers will recommend he veto the measure, a White House statement said yesterday."
Iran, Iran, Iran: "Washington's Iran Pivot: How big a shift?", and "A Test of US Flexibility on Iran":
And the Guardian reports on plans to post US diplomats to Iran, to be announced next month.What remains uncertain at this point is whether the move represents what Bush administration officials publicly insist – a one-time offer by Washington to demonstrate its willingness to negotiate only if Iran should agree to halt its uranium enrichment activities, or the beginnings of a greater flexibility and willingness by the Bush administration in its twilight months to engage in a more sustained diplomatic process toward Tehran – a process that is likely to be fraught with setbacks and delays, and short of easy breakthroughs.
Publicly, administration officials insist the move is a one-time offer that represents no fundamental change in its approach to Tehran. "Nothing has changed," White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Wednesday. "If they don't accept this offer, one, there will not be negotiations and two, there will be additional sanctions."
Former administration officials agreed that the decision represents less a shift in the Bush administration's approach to Tehran than a demonstration of a sustained commitment by the administration to deal with the Iran issue as part of a unified international coalition that had been taken as far back as 2006.
"Our main allies, like our government, don't believe that talking is an end in itself," said Philip Zelikow, former adviser to secretary of state Rice. "Otherwise we'll talk and talk; they'll build and build. Not a formula likely to relax tension. ..."
If the latter report is correct, it's really hard to imagine the US sending diplomats to Iran for the first time in three decades if there is any sort of intention for military action against Iran before Bush leaves office. Right? Unless something big changes. Would you send them in August to pull them in October? What's more, at what level must the US and Iran have been having negotiations on this for this to be reported as a fact? More than we know to be happening, I would think? (Update: See this: "This diplomatic reshuffle is set to continue in Ankara today, with both Mottaki and Stephen Hadley, the US national security adviser, both in town, and the Turks acting as willing go-betweens.")
Update: Glenn Kessler on the Iran and US signaling a possible deal.
WP: "After suffering significant setbacks in the fight against insurgents in eastern Afghanistan, U.S. and Afghan troops have pulled out of a combat outpost where nine American soldiers were killed in a pitched battle with Taliban fighters Sunday."
CQ's Tim Starks: White House threatens to veto House intel authorization bill, that has already been stripped of amendments requiring the CIA to abide by US military regulations restricting harsh interrogations:
After hearing Jane Mayer speak yesterday, one wonders if it was David Addington who pushed the White House to demand essentially total capitulation by Congressional intelligence oversight committees in their intel authorization bill. And whether, next up, he'll demand Congressional intelligence committee members wear "Kick Me" t-shirts under their suits. "Since interrogation stuff is still in the Senate bill, and that'll make it hard for that bill even to get to the floor, it may not ever get to a veto, because the bill may never get to the president at all," Starks adds.Foiling House Democrats’ ambition to produce an intelligence authorization bill that President Bush would sign, the White House issued a veto threat Wednesday against the measure headed for floor action.
The statement of administration policy targeted various accountability and reporting provisions that the White House said represented overzealous congressional interference in the workings of the intelligence community.
The House was likely to pass the fiscal 2009 measure (HR 5959) later Wednesday, despite the threat.The administration criticized portions of the bill that would demand additional information from the administration, create a statutory inspector general for the intelligence community and restrict the Central Intelligence Agency from using contractors to conduct interrogations — even though the administration could waive the latter provision.
The policy statement said the administration opposed provisions “that conflict with the effective conduct of intelligence activities, the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, and arrangements that for decades have balanced congressional oversight responsibility with the need to restrict access to intelligence information to safeguard sources and methods used to acquire that information.”
The White House said the bill’s requirement for a Senate-confirmed inspector general contradicted recommendations of the independent Sept. 11 commission that intelligence officials assume their posts without delay. ...
And while some on the committees are worried about whether to permit the CIA to conduct torture or not, former House intel committee chairman Peter Hoekstra added his own urgent amendment to the draft bill. Starks:
Hoekstra also recently complained that the intelligence community did an assessment of the seemingly ideologically incorrect topic of the potential national security implications of global climate change.Another amendment, offered by Michigan’s Peter Hoekstra, the top Republican on the Intelligence Committee, would prevent funds from being used to produce documents that discourage the use of terms such as “Islamic terrorists.”
Some intelligence officials have argued the terms could reinforce perceptions among Muslims that the United States takes issue with their religion.
But Hoekstra argues that the guidelines amount to censorship of accurate terms. A similar amendment was defeated when the Intelligence panel approved the bill on May 1.
Pro Publica's Eric Umansky interviews Jane Mayer, author of The Dark Side. (Pro Publica has published the first chapter of Mayer's book, here).
Ha'aretz's Zvi Barel analyzes Israel-Hezbollah prisoner swap today, in which Israel received the bodies of two Israeli reservists who died after being kidnapped in 2006 by Hezbollah. Olmert: We paid a high price due to moral duty to troops. Background on very low profile German intelligence officer Gerhard Conrad who coordinated the swap. More on Gerhard C. here. More analysis of the Israeli rationale for the swap here.
"Politicization at the Justice Department," a DC lawyer reader writes. "Does it extend to the FARA unit?"
[Houston lobbyist] Stephen Payne claims the FARA unit told him he didn't need to register as a foreign agent for Azerbaijan because he was exempt from registration under the commercial activities exception of FARA - a claim that is laughable to anyone with even a passing familiarity with the statute:http://www.metimes.com/Security/2008/07/15/analysis_more_bush_library_sleaze_charges/7bab/
So either Payne is lying to the press - or the Bush White House reached down into the bowels of the Justice Department to allow "loyal Bushies" to profit from representing brutal authoritarian regimes without the hassle of having to disclose what they were doing.
This would be the same Justice Department that has zealously pursued, with varying degrees of success, fundraisers for Islamic charities for failing to register as foreign agents.
Philly Inquirer: Lobbyist friend of Weldon to plead guilty: "...The investigation focuses, in part, on whether Weldon - identified as 'Representative A' by prosecutors in a criminal information filed yesterday - agreed to support contracts for Grimes' clients 'as a quid pro quo for the payment of fees' to the lobbying firm, court papers say. Weldon has not been charged and maintains his innocence. Grimes has agreed to cooperate with the investigation...." Among her clients, subsidiaries of Italian defense firm Finmeccanica. If the firms knowingly paid Grimes, a former ReMax real estate agent who worked out of her home in Media Pa, to get favors from Weldon who sat on House Armed Services committee, will they come under investigation too?
WP: US Mediator to Talk with Iran:
More from the NYT: "William J. Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs, will participate in a meeting on Saturday with the European Union’s foreign policy chief, Javier Solana, and Iran’s nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, a senior administration official said, speaking on condition of anonymity ahead of an official announcement on Wednesday."The Bush administration will send a senior envoy to international talks this weekend with Iran about its nuclear program, in what U.S. officials described as a "one-time deal," designed to demonstrate a serious desire to resolve the impasse over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
In a significant departure from longstanding policy, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns will join a scheduled meeting in Geneva between European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and top Iranian nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili, according to a senior State Department official.
Burns will not negotiate with the Iranians nor hold separate meetings, the official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because the decision had not been announced. Instead, he will advance the White House's position that serious negotiations can only begin after Iran suspends its enrichment of uranium.
Administration officials have long insisted that U.S. representatives would not join even preliminary discussions with Tehran until it suspends its enrichment of uranium, a distinction that presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama has called counterproductive.
In June, when Solana traveled to Tehran to present a sweetened offer to Iran to negotiate, the United States pointedly did not join other members in the international coalition in sending a senior official with Solana. At the time, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said there would be no U.S. representative at the talks unless "Iran suddenly has a change of tune and says that they will meet the demands of the international community, which are expressed in U.N. Security Council resolutions."
European officials hailed the news that Burns would come to Geneva as a breakthrough, one that sends a clear message to Iran that the international community was interested in negotiating a solution to the nuclear impasse. "It is a very interesting and important sign by the United States," one senior European official said.
More here: "With a lot of recent Iranian noises in different directions, some indicating they are considering going for a "freeze for freeze" offer -- in which Iran would freeze further installations on its nuclear enrichment program (but not suspend enrichment) and the UN would freeze further sanctions for a six week "pre-negotiations" period -- Burns' forthcoming presence in Geneva signals to Iran that Washington would actually support such a deal. It would also seem to signify that for now anyhow, Bush continues to entrust the major thrust of his administration's second term Iran policy to its relatively more pragmatic wing, led by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates."
Forward: Two leading Jewish Dems pull support for House Iran sanctions resolution.
AP: Lobbyist friend of Curt Weldon charged:
More from Ken Silverstein:A Pennsylvania-based lobbyist has been charged with destroying evidence related to an FBI investigation into former Congressman Curt Weldon.
According to court documents, Cecilia Grimes received grand jury subpoenas for documents related to Weldon and quickly threw out the documents. FBI agents found the documents in her garbage cans. Authorities say she also threw out her Blackberry at a fast-food restaurant to keep the FBI from retrieving her e-mail.
In the documents, Weldon is identified only as "Representative A." The documents filed Tuesday are known as a criminal information and are typically filed as part of a plea deal.
Silverstein says it's likely Grimes will plea on such charges.I’ve spoken to multiple sources familiar with the Weldon investigation and have been told that investigators were closely scrutinizing Grimes’s relationship with the former congressman. Sources have also told me that Weldon’s relationship with Grimes went well beyond mere friendship. If that is the case, any role Weldon might have played in assisting her business prospects as a lobbyist would be even more troubling. I have also been told that Grimes traveled to London in January 2004 when Weldon went there to meet with Saif Al-Islam Gaddafi, the son of Libyan president Moammar Gaddafi. (Incidentally, Weldon’s consulting firm is conducting Libyan-related business.) Weldon’s trip was paid for by a firm called SRA International.
Since last Thursday I have sought comment from Weldon’s attorney, William Winning, and from Cecelia Grimes, about the latter’s relationship with Weldon and about whether she was in London with him in 2004. Neither have replied to requests by phone or email. If I do hear back, I will immediately update this story.
Le Nouvel Observateur has published (.pdf) Iran former minister Manouchehr Mottaki's response to the P5+1 offer.
Here's an uploaded link (.pdf), and a Reuters summary.
.
Scott Horton: Six Questions for Jane Mayer.
Cheney leaned on CIA Inspector General:
.....The fact that John Helgerson—the inspector general at the CIA who is supposed to act as an independent watchdog—was called in by Cheney to discuss his tough report in 2004 is definitely surprising news. Asked for comment, Helgerson through the CIA spokesman denied he felt pressured in any way by Cheney. But others I interviewed have described the IG’s office to me as extremely politicized. They have also suggested it was very unusual that the Vice President interjected himself into the work of the IG. Fred Hitz, who had the same post in previous administrations, told me that no vice president had ever met with him. He thought it highly unusual.
Helgerson’s 2004 report had been described to me as very disturbing, the size of two Manhattan phone books, and full of terrible descriptions of mistreatment. The confirmation that Helgerson was called in to talk with Cheney about it proves that–as early as then–the Vice President’s office was fully aware that there were allegations of serious wrongdoing in The Program.
Henry Waxman writes letters:
Presumably Payne is somebody who falls outside the claim of executive privilege? More from the Tribune Company's Mark Silva (via ProPublica).Dear Mr. Payne:
I am writing regarding a report that you solicited funds for the George W. Bush Presidential Library in return for access to senior U.S. foreign policy officials. This is a matter that the Oversight Committee will investigate.
According to the Times of London, you solicited funds for President Bush’s library from foreign interests. Specifically, you reportedly offered access to several senior U.S. government officials, including Vice President Cheney, in return for six-figure contributions to the library.
If true, this report raises serious concerns about the ways in which foreign interests might be secretly influencing our government through large donations to the library. Under current law, there are few restrictions on efforts to raise funds for presidential libraries. For example, there are no limits on how much can be raised for a single source, and there is no requirement that donations be disclosed publicly. As a result, a presidential library can solicit secret donations from companies and foreign interests that seek to surreptitiously influence government action. In order to prevent abuses of this kind, the House of Representatives passed legislation last year that requires disclosure of information about donors to presidential libraries.
To help the Committee understand your role in soliciting funds for the George W. Bush Presidential Library, please provide written answers in response to the following questions:
1. What is your affiliation with George W. Bush Presidential Library? Have you been authorized or asked to solicit funds for the library?
2. Have you ever solicited funds for the library from any individuals, governments, companies, or organizations?
3. If you have ever solicited funds for the library, please describe each solicitation, including the persons or organizations solicited and amounts requested and received, and describe whether you arranged or attempted to arrange any meetings for such persons or organizations with U.S. government officials.
In addition, please provide the Committee with copies of any documents relating to contributions to or solicitations of contributions to President Bush’s library.
The Committee on Oversight and Government Reform is the principal oversight committee in the House of Representatives, with broad investigative jurisdiction as set forth in House Rule X. An attachment to this letter provides additional information about how to respond to the Committee’s request.
I would appreciate your cooperation in this important matter. Please provide answers to the questions above by July 23, 2008. If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact ...of the Committee staff at ...
Sincerely,
Henry A. Waxman
Chairman
Foreign Policy: Seven questions for Carnegie's Karim Sadjadpour on what Iran wants.
Andrew Tilghman: US ambassador to Albania talking with Florida grand jury -- and the LA Times -- about Albania arms deal. Says embassy significantly assisted federal investigation.
Ha'aretz's Shmuel Rosner in TNR:
For his part, Israeli member of the Knesset Ephraim Sneh, who has long been part of an effort to make the Iran issue an international one, writes me that, "I don't think that any military action will be taken before a new [U.S.] president assume office." More here. I'm told Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak has canceled his visit to Washington planned to start today because of a planned prisoner exchange.... Today, Israelis are convinced that the world is preparing to live with a nuclear Iran. Everyone, from the prime minister on down, agrees that Iran has not been made to feel the bite of real sanctions--at least not to an extent that would change its behavior. The U.S. National Intelligence Estimate published late last year--which argued that Iran had suspended its nuclear program--was widely dismissed in Israel as evidence that the U.S. defense establishment was now inclined to turn the other way as Iran pursued its nuclear ambitions. More recently, Israelis listened carefully to the words of President Bush on his June European tour when he said that he expected to "leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue." Bush used a similar formulation six weeks ago when I interviewed him in the Oval Office. Asked what can be achieved on the Iranian front before he leaves office, the president said, "I think what definitely will be done is a structure on how to deal with this ... a framework to make sure other countries are involved." Israelis hear "framework" and run to their shelters. ...
Interesting piece by Politico's Michael Calderone on new AP Washington bureau chief Ron Fournier's efforts to move beyond "he said, she said" model to "accountability journalism" - and the anxiety it's provoking:
Update: Check this out.Fournier and other critics of the conventional press model, especially those on the left, have said that being released from the tired conventions of news writing is exactly what journalism needs.
By these lights, the mentality that presumes both sides of an argument are entitled to equal weight is what prevented the media from challenging the Bush administration more aggressively on the Iraq war and other issues.
Others warn that what Fournier and other proponents see as truth-telling can easily bleed into opinionizing — exactly the opposite of the AP’s mission of “delivering fast, unbiased news.”
“The problem,” says James Taranto, the Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web columnist and a frequent critic of what he sees as the AP’s liberal bias, “is that while you can do opinion journalism and incorporate reporting into it, you can’t say you’re doing straight reporting, and then add opinion to that.”
A dispatch Fournier filed in 2005 in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina began: “The Iraqi insurgency is in its last throes. The economy is booming. Anybody who leaks a CIA agent's identity will be fired. Add another piece of White House rhetoric that doesn't match the public's view of reality: Help is on the way, Gulf Coast.”
Fournier cited the article in an essay titled “Accountability Journalism: Liberating reporters and the truth” he wrote for the June 1 issue of the AP’s internal newsletter, The Essentials, as an example of how to be “provocative without being partisan … truth-tellers without being editorial writers.”
The essay was preceded by an unsigned note declaring that “It's AP's goal this year (and henceforth) to make this accountability journalism a consistent theme in our coverage of public affairs, politics and government. We have unmatched resources and expertise in every state to report whether government officials are doing the job for which they were elected and keeping the promises they make.”...
WP's Jim Hoagland:
Via Rosner's Domain.At the strong urging of the Bush administration, Israel has pulled back from threatening to bomb Iran's nuclear enrichment program and has joined the U.S.-led effort to give coercive diplomacy with Tehran a (time-limited) chance. [...]
As U.S. officials ritualistically repeat when questioned about Iran, the bombing option may still be on the table. But it has been pushed beyond reach under almost all circumstances. In its past six months, the Bush administration has stopped playing into Ahmadinejad's political need for conflict and tension.
The most significant indication of that change comes from strong U.S. public and private pressure on Israel to forgo military strikes while Washington seeks new U.N. economic and travel sanctions against Tehran.
Neither government will confirm that such pressure was exerted. Bush hates to say no to Israel, and he and Olmert do not want Iran to think that it now has a free hand on enrichment. But diplomatic and U.S. sources describe the pushback by Washington as intense and say it included indications that the United States would not clear Israeli bombers through Iraqi airspace or provide other logistical support in the event of attack now.
Instead, Washington wants the focus kept on expanding financial and trade restrictions triggered by three U.N. Security Council resolutions condemning Iran's enrichment program. An interagency working group headed by the Treasury Department is drafting a plan to get international insurance companies to withdraw coverage from Iranian cargo shipments, infrastructure and businesses rather than face the "reputational risks" of maintaining links with Iran.
Israel sees this as a good first step but expects even greater pressures to be adopted urgently, Ambassador Sallai Meridor emphasized to me last week. ...
NYT: The shame of Postville, Iowa:
What a cruel, fascistic, and absurd prosecution.The essay chillingly describes what Dr. Camayd-Freixas saw and heard as he translated for some of the nearly 400 undocumented workers who were seized by federal agents at the Agriprocessors kosher plant in Postville in May.
Under the old way of doing things, the workers, nearly all Guatemalans, would have been simply and swiftly deported. But in a twist of Dickensian cruelty, more than 260 were charged as serious criminals for using false Social Security numbers or residency papers, and most were sentenced to five months in prison.
What is worse, Dr. Camayd-Freixas wrote, is that the system was clearly rigged for the wholesale imposition of mass guilt. He said the court-appointed lawyers had little time in the raids’ hectic aftermath to meet with the workers, many of whom ended up waiving their rights and seemed not to understand the complicated charges against them.
Dr. Camayd-Freixas’s essay describes “the saddest procession I have ever witnessed, which the public would never see” — because cameras were forbidden.
“Driven single-file in groups of 10, shackled at the wrists, waist and ankles, chains dragging as they shuffled through, the slaughterhouse workers were brought in for arraignment, sat and listened through headsets to the interpreted initial appearance, before marching out again to be bused to different county jails, only to make room for the next row of 10.”
He wrote that they had waived their rights in hopes of being quickly deported, “since they had families to support back home.” He said that they did not understand the charges they faced, adding, “and, frankly, neither could I.”
Update: A reader notes that you can donate to the local church providing assistance to the immigrant detainees and their families, at the bottom of the page here. Video here.
More from JTA: Meat company's PR firm accused of impersonating rabbi.
The translator's account here (.pdf)
Reuters: Chairman of JCS Mullen in Pakistan Saturday. "Pakistani newspapers said Mullen, in talks with Pakistani military commanders and leaders of a new government, had expressed deep frustration with growing cross-border militant attacks and had called for decisive action to stop it." More.
WP: SOFA deferred:
More from Dr. iRack. "The bigger problem, however, was how the entire negotiations was framed on the American side."U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have abandoned efforts to conclude a comprehensive agreement governing the long-term status of U.S troops in Iraq before the end of the Bush presidency, according to senior U.S. officials, effectively leaving talks over an extended U.S. military presence there to the next administration.
In place of the formal status-of-forces agreement negotiators had hoped to complete by July 31, the two governments are now working on a "bridge" document, more limited in both time and scope, that would allow basic U.S. military operations to continue beyond the expiration of a U.N. mandate at the end of the year.
The failure of months of negotiations over the more detailed accord -- blamed on both the Iraqi refusal to accept U.S. terms and the complexity of the task -- deals a blow to the Bush administration's plans to leave in place a formal military architecture in Iraq that could last for years. [...]
The idea, [the US official] said, is to "take the heat off [Maliki] a little bit, to rebrand the thing and counter the narrative that he's negotiating for a permanent military presence in Iraq."
Behind the bellicose talk of "will the US and Israel attack Iran's nuclear facilities?" and "how will Iran retaliate if it is attacked?" a much more interesting game of feints, hints and winks is taking place. Earlier this week, the Iranian president said there would be no war with the US and Israel, the Iranian foreign minister said that Iran could consider the opening of a US interests section in another embassy in Tehran, and senior advisers to supreme leader Ali Khamenei - the real power in Iran - made it clear that the latest offer from the major Western powers could be seen as the basis for discussions and pre-negotiations on the nuclear issue and other matters.
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice - the baseball equivalent of being out in left field - said the US would protect its allies and interests, while Iranian military officials said that they had their finger on the trigger at all times to protect their country.
What does all this add up to? I'd say it is a display of classic statecraft: fighting and threatening while simultaneously sending signals of a desire to negotiate and make a deal. We are witnessing three simultaneous, important developments: the two loose camps linked to the US and Iran have recognized that their respective power is limited, that the other side will fight back fiercely, and that they are, in fact, roughly evenly matched on the ground throughout the Middle East. So, they both have to behave like normal countries for a change, fighting and talking at the same time.
Times of London: Houston lobbyist Stephen Payne sells access to Bush/Cheney to various Central Asian dictators and kleptocrats, for fees including six figure donations to the Bush library. So much for the Bush Library's planned Freedom Institute, being paid for evidently by such types. Oh - and Payne didn't register with the Justice Department, despite his lobbying work at the White House on behalf of clients in Azerbaijan, Uzkbekistan, the Turkmenistan pipeline, and Kazakhstan, including organizing Cheney's trip there.
Video here.Payne and [WorldWide Strategic Partners] WSP [.pdf] do not appear to have registered much of their work for foreigners with the Department of Justice.
Payne said WSP’s work for Azerbaijan was nonpolitical, but its brochure says that it “implemented an aggressive media campaign to discredit the Azeri opposition”.
WSP did not register its work for an Uzbek politician as it was unpaid. The justice department says unpaid work must be registered.
WP:
A CIA analyst warned the Bush administration in 2002 that up to a third of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay may have been imprisoned by mistake, but White House officials ignored the finding and insisted that all were "enemy combatants" subject to indefinite incarceration, according to a new book critical of the administration's terrorism policies.
The CIA assessment directly challenged the administration's claim that the detainees were all hardened terrorists -- the "worst of the worst," as then-Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at the time. But a top aide to Vice President Cheney shrugged off the report and squashed proposals for a quick review of the detainees' cases, author Jane Mayer writes in "The Dark Side," scheduled for release next week.
"There will be no review," the book quotes Cheney staff director David Addington as saying. "The president has determined that they are ALL enemy combatants. We are not going to revisit it."
The reported exchange is one of dozens recounted by Mayer in a volume that describes how Cheney and his legal advisers pushed for policies on domestic wiretapping, detention and interrogation of suspected terrorists in the months after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Mayer, who has written extensively about terrorist detention for New Yorker magazine, argues that the administration set the stage for the use of waterboarding and other controversial techniques with a series of legal memos that gave government agencies virtually unchecked power in waging war against terrorist groups.
"For the first time in its history, the United States sanctioned government officials to physically and psychologically torment U.S.-held captives, making torture the official law of the land in all but name," she writes. [...]
The classified CIA report described by Mayer was prepared in the summer of 2002 by a senior CIA analyst who was invited to the prison camp in Cuba to help Defense Department officials grapple with a major problem: They were gleaning very little useful information from the roughly 600 detainees in custody at the time. After a study involving dozens of detainees, the analyst came up with an answer: A large fraction of them "had no connection with terrorism whatsoever," Mayer writes, citing officials familiar with the report. Many were essentially bystanders who had been swept up in dragnets or turned over to the U.S. military by bounty hunters. Previous published reports have described the CIA analyst's visit but have not provided details of its findings.
According to Mayer, the analyst estimated that a full third of the camp's detainees were there by mistake. When told of those findings, the top military commander at Guantanamo at the time, Major Gen. Michael Dunlavey, not only agreed with the assessment but suggested that an even higher percentage of detentions -- up to half -- were in error. Later, an academic study by Seton Hall University Law School concluded that 55 percent of detainees had never engaged in hostile acts against the United States, and only 8 percent had any association with al-Qaeda.
The CIA findings prompted a vigorous debate with the administration and prompted calls for a review of detainee cases. But "Addington's response was adamant and imperious. 'We are not second-guessing the President's decision. These are enemy combatants,' " Mayer wrote. ...
Andrew Bacevich in the Post: "Although [Jane] Mayer does not dwell on this historical context, her account suggests implicitly that the present period differs in at least one crucial respect. Whereas the earlier departures from the rule of law represented momentary if egregious lapses in democratic practice, the abuses orchestrated from within the Bush administration suggest that democracy itself is fast becoming something of a sham. From Mayer, we learn that in George W. Bush's Washington, the decisions that matter are made in secret by a handful of presidential appointees committed to the proposition that nothing should inhibit the exercise of executive power. The Congress, the judiciary, the bureaucracy, the "interagency process" -- all of these constitute impediments that threaten to constrain the president. In a national security crisis, constraint is intolerable. Much the same applies to the media and, by extension, to the American people: The public's right to know extends no further than whatever the White House wishes to make known. [...] Whether the prospect of war stretching for decades actually would serve the country's true interests received comparatively less attention. The issue was not one that troubled the War Council, obsessed as it was about ensuring that when it came to national security, nothing should encroach upon the prerogatives of the chief executive. 'What was missing,' Mayer says, 'was a discussion of policy -- not just what was legal, but what was moral, ethical, right, and smart to do.' Such matters remained on the periphery because 'fundamentally, the drive for expanded presidential authority was about power.' The extremists of the last century, both on the far left and far right, would have seen much to admire in Addington and his War Council. ..."
WP's Glenn Kessler: Iran's Conflicting Signals to the West: Some Observers Suggest That Missile Tests Show a Readiness to Bargain.
Ahmad Batebi, back in the Economist. More here about his escape, here and here.
Gershom Gorenberg on Tzipi Livni, who's likely to succeed Olmert as Israeli prime minister in a couple months.
CSM's Howard LaFranchi: Amid Iran's tests, signs of weakness. Evidence mounts that international sanctions are having an impact.
With Iran reporting a second day of missile tests this week, it appears to be intent upon signaling to its adversaries . primarily the United States and Israel . that it is prepared to meet and match both provocations and any eventual attack.
But the show of force, which Thursday reportedly included missiles test-fired from ships in the strategically sensitive Persian Gulf, may also be part of an attempt to cover over Iran's weaknesses and to draw attention away from signs that the international community's efforts to curtail Iran's nuclear program are having an impact.
Almost lost in an aggressive verbal exchange that continued Thursday . with a reminder to Tehran from Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the US will defend its interests and allies . was an announcement by French energy corporation Total. It said it was canceling plans to invest in Iran's energy sector by developing one of Iran's natural gas fields.
European companies like Total and banks working with Iranian business interests have come under increasing pressure to conform to international efforts, including United Nations sanctions and separate US and European Union sanctions, aimed at halting Iran's uranium-enrichment program.
On Wednesday, a top US diplomat told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that the international community is making headway in slowing Iran's nuclear program.
WP: Sudan president Omar Hassan al-Bashar to be charged with genocide by the Hague. Eric Witte of the Democratization Policy Council writes on the indictment: "Charges against Bashir could not only create accountability for atrocities in Darfur, but bring increased political resources to bear on the Sudanese crises. This could lead the international community beyond tactical crisis management, and into the realm of strategic thinking backed by requisite resources to forge a more durable peace."
More from Marc Goldberg.
Just Out: Iran Red Lines: A parade of high level Israeli officials are on their way to the White House over the next two weeks to discuss Iran policy. The two countries differ over what to do next.
While the Israeli government considers the Bush administration highly sympathetic and sensitive to its security concerns, there are growing signs that Washington and Jerusalem may be diverging in their analysis of the urgency of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its defensive military preparations for countering a possible strike, and their subsequent prospective timelines for considering possible military action against Iran. While Israeli national security experts say that Israel would not act without coordinating with the US, and there are other significant factors weighing against prospective Israeli military action on Iran before the Bush term ends, there are also emerging differences between the US and Israel on the accepted intelligence over when Iran would be considered to have a nuclear breakthrough, as well as what would constitute a “redline” that would prompt military action, Washington analysts say. In addition, the US, unlike Israel, feels more deeply constrained by the considerable investment it has made in blood and treasure in stabilizing Iraq, which could be risked by the tumult that could follow military action on Iran.Go read the rest. More from the Forward.“My sense is the Pentagon would be worried or opposed to an Israeli attack,” says David Wurmser, former Middle East advisor to Vice President Dick Cheney, who left the White House job late last summer. “They are afraid it would inflame the situation in Iraq, which could undermine the US position there.
“Ultimately, my gut tells me that most of the administration on most levels would push back very hard,” on Israeli pressure on Washington to authorize it to strike Iran, Wurmser added. “What those in the administration who don’t want Israel to act probably won’t want is for it to be taken to the highest level. They would always be afraid that [the president] might not be so tough on the Israelis. If the Israeli [government] really intends to do something, they would go to the highest level without a lot of people knowing.”
Last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael Mullen visited Israel, during which Mullen is reported to have told Israeli leaders that, speaking for the highest levels of the Bush administration, they did not have a green light from Washington for military action on Iran. Now, Mother Jones has learned, a parade of senior Israeli government officials is making its way to Washington over the coming two weeks, to discuss the Iran issue with top Bush administration officials. Among those scheduled to arrive, Mother Jones has confirmed with Israeli sources in Washington and Israel: Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, who departs Israel Monday for meetings in Washington with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Pentagon officials; and the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who comes the following week on his first visit to Washington in that position. A former Pentagon intelligence official who spoke with Mother Jones also alleges that Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli intelligence service the Mossad, held secret meetings with officials in the White House on Wednesday. Neither the Israeli embassy or National Security Council would comment on whether Dagan had been at the White House.
US sources who did not wish to be identified describe a disagreement between the US and Israeli intelligence communities over the timetable of Iran’s alleged weaponization and research and development efforts. [...]
Robert Gallucci, a former longtime State Department non proliferation expert who now serves as dean of Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service, said a recent consultation with US government scientists persuaded him that Iran is not likely to have significant nuclear breakout capability for about five years."The test is when Iran could plausibly accumulate significant quantities of highly enriched uranium or plutonium so you have to worry about not only nuclear weapons development, but also the possible threat of transfer to a terrorist organization," Gallucci said Friday.
"I came away [from recent consultations with government scientists] believing that is actually some distance away in time – beyond five years," Gallucci said.
Gallucci said he was talking about when Iran could conceivably produce five or ten or more nuclear weapons (Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability at all, and the 2007 US NIE concluded that Iran had halted its weaponization program in 2003). Are Israel's threat assessments based on the projection of when Iran could produce one nuclear weapon? "I tend to want to answer that and say there are two ways to come up with a difference [between US and Israeli assessments]. Technically, Israel and the US could have a different assessment of the obstacles that the Iranians might run into and how quickly they could overcome them."
"There could also be a tolerance [difference]," Gallucci said. "We're prepared to say, 'It's unlikely they could do this in this amount of time.' The Israelis could be saying, 'Thank you very much, we're a little closer to the problem than you are.' American national security types are not certain of how quickly Iran could do it, but are just as uncertain about whether Iran would do it or not."
Wired's Sharon Weinberger:
IS there a DoD IG investigation of Defense Soltuions' contracts yet?... In 2005, Defense Solutions, the Pennsylvania-based arms dealer that employs former Congressman Curt Weldon, got itself a contract to refurbish Soviet-era T-72 tanks for the Iraqi government. But the deal, for over decades-old equipment, included terms so lopsided, they likely would have been illegal under U.S. law.
The essence of Defense Solutions' proposal was to arrange a donation of of some 77 Hungarian-owned T-72s. ... The contract appears to be a "cost plus percentage of cost fee" agreement, meaning Defense Solutions was essentially guaranteed a profit regardless of what condition the tanks were in or how much it cost to get them running ...
Under typical U.S. defense contracts, fees are tied to performance (thus giving the contractor an incentive to keep costs down). Defense Solutions gets its fee, regardless. And with an eight percent fee, the more you spend, the more you earn. This would be a most unusual arrangement, at least in the United States, where cost plus percentage of cost contracts are prohibited under U.S. law. As federal acquisition regulations state quite clearly: "The cost-plus-a-percentage-of-cost system of contracting shall not be used (see 10 U.S.C. 2306(a) and 41 U.S.C. 254(b))."The Pentagon's Defense Acquisition University's wonderful "ask a professor" website sums up the obvious reason for this prohibition: "A cost plus percentage of cost type arrangement would encourage the contractor to experience as much cost as possible to receive a greater amount of fee."
Why would Iraq agree to such a contract? It's not clear, but Ziad Cattan, the man the United States chose to oversee Iraq's defense procurement, signed the contract. As the LA Times reported, Cattan, has since been accused of massive corruption, much it involving no-bid contracts for Soviet-era equipment.
An Iran based person who asked not to be identified gave me permission to use these observations on an editorial that appeared in the Iranian hardline newspaper Kayhan Wednesday:
Reading today's Kayhan, I was surprised to find that the newspaper's editor, in a very round-about way, stated that Iran should in fact enter into negotiations with the [UN Security Council Permanent] 5+1; "Iran has no reason for wasting opportunities in the process of negotiations with the 5+1. Based on the facts, our hand is full and we should not shun negotiations."
He goes on to repeat some of the typical Kayhan statements about the nuclear issue and the West (the piece was an interview Mr. Shariatmadari did with Fars News), but what struck me as interesting is that even Mr. Shariatmadari seems to have gotten in line regarding negotiating with the 5+1. He has often in the past advocated extreme positions such as pulling out of the NPT.
Although this may not seem like a major issue to most observers, the fact that Shariatmadari has gotten in line, in addition to the fact that the greater majority of the internal debate is now quite clearly focused how best to handle the negotiations rather than about whether or not to negotiate, once again highlights that when the Supreme Leader takes a clear stance on an issue (albeit indirectly this time, through Dr. Velayati), the rest of the system rather quickly falls in line. I recall Mr. Larijani even calling the incentive package a "mirage" but has since the Supreme Leader's indirect intervention remained rather quiet. This has largely been the case across the board (other list members please correct me if I've missed anything).
The way I see it, this is a positive sign and shows that Iran is in fact committed to initiating a process to reach a solution and that the main person in charge is bringing people into line.
Hopefully, the media can focus on the man with the real weight on policy - the Supreme Leader himself - rather than choosing to focus on dramatic statements by people with no real influence beyond propoganda usage (e.g. the Supreme Leader's representative in the IRGC Navy talking about setting things on fire...).
NYT: Iranian photo shop to make it look like they tested more missiles than they did.
In the four-missile version of the image released Wednesday by Sepah News, the media arm of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, two major sections (encircled in red) appear to closely replicate other sections (encircled in orange). (Illustration by The New York Times; photo via Agence France-Presse)
Below, another image that The Associated Press received from the same source on Thursday.
A friend writes, I believe if you look at the bottom photo, basically it appears that one of the missiles failed to launch, and then they tried to cover that up in the doctored photo.
FT: France's Total quits Iran gas deal
The boss of French energy giant Total says he will not invest in Iran because it is too risky.
The firm had been due to develop gas fields in the south of the country, but Christophe de Margerie told the Financial Times it would not go ahead.
The announcement comes a day after Iran test-fired a series of missiles, amid weeks of rising tensions with Israel over Tehran's nuclear ambitions.
Analysts say the move will be a big blow to Iran's energy industry.
"Today we would be taking too much political risk to invest in Iran because people will say: 'Total will do anything for money'," Mr Margerie told the newspaper.
The US has recently stepped up the pressure to impose tougher sanctions on Iran and companies that do business with it.
The FT reported that Total was the last major western energy group considering making a significant investment to develop Iran's huge natural gas reserves.
Just Out: Cigarettes and carpets are one thing. But why is so much export-controlled sensitive U.S. technology winding up in Iran?
But the wink and nod is not only coming from the Dubai bazaar, US export-control specialists say. "The rhetoric from Commerce…is all about national security," says one former US Commerce official. "US bureaucrats don't want to find their names in the press for not enforcing when a US soldier is killed [in Iraq] by US technology that was exported to Iran through UAE. So, the rhetoric is very tough for UAE enforcement. On the other hand, we desperately want the oil dollars…So, mixed messages galore."
Pro Publica's Paul Kiel: VOA to cut Russian, Bosnian, Macedonian, Serbian, Georgian, Ukrainian and Hindi broadcasts. US gov broadcasting funds being sapped by Al Hurra.
Just Out in the print issue of Mother Jones: "Shalom, Hamas: Tweedy, unapologetically hawkish ex-spymaster Efraim Halevy may just be the only Israeli capable of legitimizing talks with Hamas."
Go read.
At first glance, Efraim Halevy seems an unlikely champion of the virtues of engaging terrorists. The former chief of the Mossad, perhaps the world's most paranoia-inducing intelligence service, Halevy helped negotiate Israel's historic 1994 peace treaty with Jordan, but also had a role in developing his country's policy of targeted assassinations of terrorist leaders. Reserved, with some of the British formality of his youth—his family immigrated to Israel when he was a boy—Halevy, 73, brings to mind John LeCarré's George Smiley. And a tweedy, unapologetically hawkish ex-spymaster may just be the only advocate capable of legitimizing a notion effectively ostracized in US politics: talking to the Palestinian militant group Hamas.
"From my point of view, Hamas is a deadly enemy," Halevy told me in April. "So, with a deadly enemy, you can deal three ways: either destroy them, or cull them into submission, or simply wait for a better day. I think the way things are at the moment, there is a situation arising where Hamas is beginning to consider what its options are—and this is an opportunity." [...]
Beyond Halevy, Israeli hawks arguing in favor of engagement include former Shin Bet chief Yaakov Perry, who along with three other former top Israeli security officials urged the government to pursue peace with the Palestinians in 2003. ("We should talk with Hamas on issues that are hurting Israel," Perry told me. "Not negotiations, but talks.") Former top diplomat and Mossad official David Kimche has traveled to Washington to suggest that the administration pursue engagement with Syria, and former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami visited DC in March to promote talks with Israel's adversaries. "We need you to do diplomacy, because the military option does not work," Ben-Ami said at a private dinner. "We need a benign superpower who is able to engage." [...]
Such pragmatism puts Israel's "right-wing realists," as one American Middle East hand refers to Halevy, at odds with Washington's armchair hawks ... "My approach to Hamas is not an ideological one," Halevy says pointedly, noting that just as some Israelis, in the face of the realities of life on the front lines, have grown impatient with their administration's dogma, so too have American officials in Iraq grown more flexible than their bosses back in Washington. ....
Given that, Halevy asks, "If they can be pragmatic in Iraq, why are they ideological in Palestine?"
In attack on US consulate in Istanbul, three Turkish police and 3 assailants killed:
More from the Post:A group of unidentified gunmen opened fire on Turkish security guards outside the United States Consulate in Istanbul, Turkey, on Wednesday, the Turkish authorities said, and at least three police officers and three assailants were killed.
The late-morning attack was the first on a diplomatic mission in the city since 2003 when 62 people were killed in assaults on the British consulate, a bank and two synagogues. While the motives behind this attack were not immediately clear, Turkish officials described the gunmen as terrorists. [...]
The consulate is a heavily fortified building with heavy security measures. Witnesses and news reports said that about 15 minutes before the attack, the three gunmen were seen sitting in a gray car with another man — apparently the driver — that was parked in a carwash shop near the consulate. At about 10:30 a.m., the three, who looked to be between 25 and 30 years old, hopped out of the vehicle, walked up to a police post at the main entrance of the consulate, and opened fire, taking the officers by surprise.
“One of them approached a policeman while hiding his gun and shot him in the head,” a witness, Yazuz Erket Yuksel, said in remarks reported by Reuters.
In the ensuing clash, two of the officers fired back, killing all three attackers, according to news reports. The authorities said the three men used handguns and a “pump action shotgun,” and that the fourth man escaped by car. [...]
Istanbul’s chief prosecutor, Aykut Cengiz Engin, told reporters at a televised news conference that the authorities ‘’consider the incident a terrorist act.”
Turkey’s president, Abdullah Gul, condemned the attack in a statement to reporters. “I strongly denounce such terror attacks,” he said. ...
The consulate was for many years located in the center of the city in a bustling area near Taksim Square. But it was relocated five years ago to the Istinye area near the Bosphorous Straits to be better protected from terrorist attacks. ...
A contact reading Turkish daily Milliyet writes, "The dead attackers have been identified, and it seems pretty certain that they are Islamic extremists. Two have been in and out of Afghanistan. One had a Syrian passport. One had ties to an extremist Turkish group, the IBDA/C. Others who may have been involved have not been caught. Next of kin are being interrogated."Al-Qaeda was the first suspect to occur to many Turks, Cengiz Candar, a political columnist with Turkey's Sabah daily, said by telephone from Istanbul. Al-Qaeda carried out the last attack on a diplomatic outpost in Istanbul, detonating a bomb in front of the British Consulate in 2003.
Turks also have been shaken this month by the arrests of 21 people, including two retired generals, in an alleged plot to overthrow the country's Islamic-rooted government. Authorities have released few details on the plot, but newspapers close to the government have reported that the plan focused on carrying out a series of violent attacks in Turkey so as to justify an army takeover.
NYU Brennan Center "along with outside co-counsel, is representing a group of former United States ambassadors and diplomats filing brief as amicus curiae on the diplomatic impact of CIA extraordinary rendition practices in the case of Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan Inc. Amici include former Ambassador Morton Abramowitz and former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Michael Southwick. The case is a damages action for Jeppesen Dataplan's involvement in providing aircraft, pilots, and logistical support for CIA rendition flights involved in transporting detainees to U.S. secret prisons and black sites where they were subjected to torture. The case was dismissed on the basis of the state secrets privilege, which was invoked by the CIA after it intervened in the case."
State Iran Testimony. From undersecretary of state for political affairs William J. Burns' prepared testimony on Iran to the Senate Foreigh Relations committee tomorrow:
Behavior change, multilateral framework, tough-minded diplomacy, emphasis on some gains, unified international community, benefits to Iran and Iranians of accepting P5+1 offer.... The purpose of our policy is to change Iran’s problematic policies and behavior by making common cause with as much of the international community as we can. Our goal is to convince Iran to abandon any nuclear weapons ambitions, cease its support for terrorist and militant groups, and become a constructive partner in the region. As President Bush has said, “all options are on the table, but the first option for the United States is to solve this problem diplomatically.” This requires tough minded diplomacy, maximizing pressure on the Iranians at multiple points to drive home the costs of continued defiance of the rest of the world, especially on the nuclear issue. At the same time, however, we are trying to make clear to Iran and its people what they stand to gain if they change course. As Secretary Rice said at Davos earlier this year, “America has no permanent enemies, we harbor no permanent hatreds. Diplomacy, if properly practiced, is not just talking for the sake of talking. It requires incentives and disincentives to make the choice clear to those with whom you are dealing that you will change your behavior if they are willing to change theirs. Diplomacy can make possible a world in which enemies can become, if not friends, then no longer adversaries.”
This Committee is intimately familiar with the dual-track strategy that we have employed in concert with our P5+1 partners – the UK, France, Germany, Russia, and China – to put before the Iranian leadership a clear choice, so that it chooses a better way forward. Javier Solana’s June 14 visit to Tehran to present the updated incentives package was an essential element of this approach, stressing the significant political, economic, technological, and energy benefits that could accrue to Iran if its leaders chose cooperation over their current course.
President Bush emphasized last month at the US-EU Summit that we seek to address this issue through a multilateral framework. He said: “Unilateral sanctions don’t work…One country can’t solve all problems…A group of countries can send a clear message to the Iranians, and that is: ‘We are going to continue to isolate you. We’ll continue to work on sanctions. We’ll find new sanctions if need be if you continue to deny the just demands of a free world.’”
Consistent with the President’s vision, Iran’s failure to restore the international community’s confidence in its intentions has not gone without consequences. The UN Security Council has adopted four resolutions on Iran, including three imposing Chapter VII sanctions. While some have questioned the impact of these measures, we do see a tangible effect. Two and half weeks ago, the European Union adopted sanctions on 38 additional Iranian individuals and entities, including prohibiting business with, and imposing an asset freeze on, Iran’s largest bank, Bank Melli. ...
The international community is more unified than in the past on the necessity for Iran to fully and verifiably suspend its proliferation sensitive nuclear activities and reestablish international confidence in the peaceful nature of its nuclear program. [...]
In summary - -
We have presented the Iranian government with a historic opportunity to do two things: to restore the confidence of the international community in its nuclear intentions, and to give its own people the access to technology, nuclear energy, education, and foreign investment that would truly open the way to economic prosperity.
We have made clear that we do not object to Iran playing an important role in the region, commensurate with its legitimate interests and capabilities, but also that Iran is far more likely to achieve its desired level of influence if it works with the international community and its neighbors, rather than if it works against them. We recognize that it would be useful for Iran to be “at the table” on major international matters if Tehran is willing to contribute in a constructive fashion.
The dual-track strategy to which we often refer in connection with the nuclear file, in fact, applies more broadly. Engaging in a diplomatic process on the broad range of issues at stake between our two states and working toward the restoration of Iran’s relationship with the international community would offer clear benefits for Iran and the Iranian people. But equally so, any continuation on its present course will entail high and increasing costs for Iran. Putting that choice to the Iranian leadership as clearly and acutely as possible is the core of our policy.
What we seek, let me emphasize, is a change in Iran’s behavior--a change in how it assesses and interacts within its own strategic environment. We should not let the Iranian leadership entrench itself on the false pretext that it is under threat from the outside. We have committed repeatedly and at the highest levels to deal diplomatically with the Iranian regime. The fact that this diplomatic dialogue has been limited to less than satisfying talks in Baghdad is the unfortunate choice of the Iranian leadership. As the recent presentation of yet another P5+1 offer makes clear, we do not exclude engagement. We remain ready to talk to Tehran about its nuclear program and the array of other American concerns about Iranian policies, as well as to address any issues Iran chooses to raise in a diplomatic context.
The Iranians are not completely closed off, and neither should the United States be. Careful consideration suggests that in certain contexts, we should have overlapping interests with Iran – for example, in a stable, unified Iraq at peace with its neighbors, in a stable Afghanistan, and in stemming narcotics trafficking. Broadly speaking, a responsible Iran can and should play an important, positive role in the region. This is possible, if Iran is willing to work constructively with the international community and its neighbors.
We recognize that we have not yet achieved our desired goals: Iran has still not agreed to suspend uranium enrichment and other proliferation sensitive nuclear activities. Iran has not ceased unconventional warfare and some of its policies continue to contribute to regional instability. Iran’s current leadership may be so dogmatic or paralyzed by internal disagreements that it cannot agree in the near-term to terms so obviously to its advantage. With our long-term goal of persuading Iran to change its current course in mind, our immediate actions are intended to clarify the price of defiance by forcing Tehran to find new finance and trade partners and replace funding streams it has lost. We have made several notable successes, and will continue to work toward the objective of triggering a strategic recalculation in Iran’s thinking. ....
AP: Cheney's Office sought redactions of CDC Testimony on health effects of global warming:
Straight out of central casting. More here.Seeking to play down the effects of global warming, Vice President Dick Cheney's office pushed to delete from congressional testimony references about the consequences of climate change on public health, a former senior EPA official claimed Tuesday.
The official, Jason K. Burnett, said the White House was concerned that the proposed testimony last October by the head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention might make it tougher to avoid regulating greenhouse gases emitted into the atmosphere.
Burnett's assertion, which he made in a July 6 letter to Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, conflicts with the White House explanation at the time that the deletions reflected concerns by the White House Office of Science and Technology over the accuracy of the science.
Burnett, until last month a senior adviser on climate change at the Environmental Protection Agency, wrote that Cheney's office was deeply involved in getting nearly half of the CDC's original draft testimony removed.
''The Council on Environmental Quality and the office of the vice president were seeking deletions to the CDC testimony (concerning) ... any discussions of the human health consequences of climate change,'' Burnett wrote.
At a news conference, Boxer maintained that the heavy editing of the testimony given by CDC Director Julie Gerberding last fall was the first part of ''a master plan'' aimed at ''covering up the real dangers of global warming and hiding the facts from the public.''
Ha'aretz's Amos Harel:
... A senior U.S. strategic analyst says the Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, sent Israel an unequivocal message stating that Israel does not have a "green light" from the U.S. to attack Iranian nuclear facilities.
Professor Anthony Cordesman of the Washington, D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies foreign policy think tank is considered a leading researcher in the area of U.S. national security. In the past he served in senior positions in the Defense Department, and was Senator John McCain's National Security Assistant.
Cordesman is visiting Israel this week, and gave a lecture Monday at Tel Aviv University and at Hebrew University on Sunday. He talked about Mullen's comments last week in Washington when the Admiral said such an Israeli attack would be dangerous and could destabilize the Middle East.
Mullen spoke after returning from a visit to Israel, during which he met with Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi and other senior IDF officers.
Cordesman said Mullen came to Israel to deliver a message that Israel did not have a green light to attack Iran and that it would not receive U.S. support for such a move.
According to Cordesman, Mullen was expressing the official opinion of the U.S. administration, including that of President George W. Bush and the National Security Council.
Mullen said last week that the president, Secretary of Defense and Joint Chiefs of Staff said they are choosing to work for now through diplomatic channels to put pressure on Iran: "The best way to solve it diplomatically is for the United States to work with other nations to send a focused message, and that is that you will be isolated and you will have economic hardship if you continue trying to enrich," explained Mullen.
Cordesman explained that senior American officers do not make such public statements without permission from the White House.
In his Jerusalem lecture, Cordesman said the U.S. has a plan for a military attack on Iran, but is continuing with diplomatic efforts for now. He estimated that if a change were to be made in the U.S. position on an attack against Iran, it would only be made during the next administration.
Balt Sun: "With Congress on the verge of outlining new parameters for National Security Agency eavesdropping between suspicious foreigners and Americans, lawmakers are leaving largely untouched a host of government programs that critics say involves far more domestic surveillance than the wiretaps they sought to remedy. These programs - most of them highly classified - are run by an alphabet soup of federal intelligence and law enforcement agencies. They sift, store and analyze the communications, spending habits and travel patterns of U.S. citizens, searching for suspicious activity. The surveillance includes data-mining programs that allow the NSA and the FBI to sift through large databanks of e-mails, phone calls and other communications, not for selective information, but in search of suspicious patterns. Other information, like routine bank transactions, is kept in databases similarly monitored by the Central Intelligence Agency." Via Andrew Tilghman.
Hurriyet: High-Profile Arrests Made in Ergenekon Coup Investigation
Via Tusiad. More analysis from Soner Cagaptay.The detention of four retired high-ranking generals last week has extended an investigation into an illegal organization to include two failed coup attempts allegedly devised by currently retired force commanders against the current government.
Twenty-one people, including two former army commanders, a journalist and the leader of a business group, were detained in operations in the cities of Ankara, Istanbul, Antalya and Trabzon on Tuesday morning as part of an investigation into the powerful and illegal organization, Ergenekon, suspected of plotting to overthrow the Justice and Development Party (AK Party) government.
Retired Gen. Sener Eruygur, retired Gen. Hursit Tolon, retired Gen. Ilker Guven and former Gendarmerie General Command Intelligence Department head Levent Ersoz as well as Ankara Chamber of Commerce (ATO) Chairman Sinan Aygun and the Ankara bureau chief of the secularist Cumhuriyet daily Mustafa Balbay were among those taken into police custody. Eruygur, now head of the secularist Ataturkist Thought Association (ADD), was also a leading figure of so-called republican rallies held ahead of July elections last year in protest of the AK Party government.
The Ergenekon investigation began in the summer of 2007 when a house filled with arms and ammunition in Istanbul's Umraniye district was uncovered. The group is suspected of being responsible for a number of politically motivated murders, including that of ethnic Armenian journalist Hrant Dink in January 2007. Forty-nine people including former members of the army, journalists, drug lords and academics have been detained in the operation so far.
The investigation has significantly increased political tension in the country. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan had previously said a closure case against his party on charges of anti-secularism was a response to the government's determination in the Ergenekon operation, while others have claimed that the government is using the Ergenekon investigation to suppress its opponents. The detentions came hours ahead of a hearing in the closure case.
Mark Bowden on Murdoch and the Journal.:
... At least some industry observers are willing to give Murdoch the benefit of the doubt on this.
“I think he has enough sense not to trash what makes the newspaper so valuable,” said Rick Edmonds of the Poynter Institute. “He has owned TheTimes of London for more than 20 years, and it is still a serious newspaper.”
Serious, perhaps, but few Londoners would argue that the newspaper is anything like what it once was. Robert Block, a veteran Journal reporter who now covers the space beat for the Orlando Sentinel, worked for TheTimes in the late 1990s—more than a decade after Murdoch effectively dragged it from its pinnacle as the leading British newspaper and turned it into a hustling tabloid engaged in an incessant battle for sensational scoops. As a correspondent in South Africa, Block ran headlong into the consequences of that transformation. His editor insisted one day that he get an unsupervised interview with a 10-year-old boy at the center of an international custody dispute. Every newspaper in London was gunning for the story. Block knew where the boy was, outside Johannesburg, and knew that his parents were not at home.
“Do you have kids?” he asked his editor.
“Yes,” the man said.
“How would you feel if a reporter came after your child without approaching you first?”
“Look,” he recalls his editor saying. “It’s not your fucking kid and it’s not my fucking kid. Now go do your fucking job.”
Block refused, and quit. He joined The Wall Street Journal precisely because it was a newspaper whose values and priorities ran the opposite way. It wasn’t just the paper’s commitment to in-depth journalism, it was the commitment to finding unusual, unexpected stories, to giving readers not what they wanted every morning but stories they had never heard about before, and would hear about nowhere else—“You know, stories where you peel back the skin on something and really look underneath,” he said. Block fell in love with the paper and stayed for nearly 11 years. Last October, when it became apparent that Murdoch’s effort to buy Dow Jones would prevail, he grabbed a parachute and leapt, taking a job with the Sentinel. It was the equivalent of a power hitter for the New York Yankees opting to play for his scrappy hometown minor-league team.
“I knew that with his coming, there would inevitably be a clash of cultures,” Block said. “Murdoch is nothing if not consistent. I knew that his coming and the changes he would bring would cause a certain amount of pain. At my age and stage of my career, I just knew it was something that I did not want to go through.” [...]
“Rupert clearly likes the Wall Street Journal brand,” Block said. “But he doesn’t like the things that made the brand what it was. It is clear that the long-form journalism that made so many of us want to join the newspaper just doesn’t matter that much to Rupert.”
What matters is winning the war—against The New York Times, and against everyone else. In his first months as the new boss, Thomson held several meetings with his top underlings during which he opened that day’s issue of the Financial Times and circled the news items that TheJournal had missed. (One editor noted, “You don’t have to do something like that very often for it to make a big impression.”) At a session in Washington, Thomson irritated the bureau by repeatedly comparing TheJournal unfavorably with the FT, which his staffers regard as a far less impressive product—and which is, in fact, the very model of a business and financial newspaper that scorns the ambitious, in-depth story in favor of the scoop. [...]
Army Times: Medic in famous photo dies after PTSD struggle. "On June 28, [Army Spc. Joseph Patrick] Dwyer, 31, died of an accidental overdose in his home in Pinehurst, N.C., after years of struggling with post-traumatic stress disorder. During that time, his marriage fell apart as he spiraled into substance abuse and depression. He found himself constantly struggling with the law, even as friends, Veterans Affairs personnel and the Army tried to help him. [...] Military Times could not reach Dwyer’s family, but his wife, Matina Dwyer, told the Pinehurst Pilot, 'He was a very good and caring person. He was just never the same when he came back, because of all the things he saw. He tried to seek treatment, but it didn’t work.'"
Best CIA book ever written? Jeff Stein, riffing off a Spencer Ackerman piece, is taking comments.
Financial Times: Former British special forces officer Simon Mann sentenced to 34 years and four months in prison for his role in a failed coup attempt in oil-rich Equatorial Guinae. More from Bruce Falconer.
Robert Kaplan: "Bottom line: precisely because the U. S. dominates the airspace around Iran, it has checkmated itself. Israel will find it very hard to pull America’s chestnuts out of the fire in Iran. An Israeli attack is, in the last analysis, still unlikely."
BBC's John Leyne:
Worth reading the whole piece.Two parallel, and extraordinarily open, battles over policy are being fought out within the administrations in Washington and Tehran. The subject is relations between the United States and Iran. The choice, at its most stark, is between war and peace. The debate, once again, is over Iran's nuclear programme.
What seems to have provoked the latest heart-searching is a recent Israeli military exercise, clearly intended as a rehearsal for an attack on Iran, therefore also a threat.
At the same time, the details of Iran's response to a package of "incentives" brought to Tehran last month by the European Union envoy Javier Solana are still unknown. The incentives are designed to reopen negotiations over the nuclear issue.
Wired's Sharon Weinberger: Forgery alleged in Weldon Firm's Iraqi Arms deal.
LAT: "Colombian authorities sought over the weekend to discredit a Swiss academic and former intermediary in talks with a left-wing rebel group who has been linked to a disputed report that officials paid $20 million for last week's release of 15 high-profile hostages. A Colombian government official who asked to remain unnamed said Sunday that authorities suspect Geneva-based Jean Pierre Gontard was the source for the Swiss radio report last week stating that officials paid ransom for the release of the hostages. Officials have denied any ransom was paid and said the rescue was based on subterfuge and infiltration of the rebel high command. The notion of paying ransom is extremely sensitive here, since U.S. and Colombian authorities have labeled the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, a terrorist group and have ruled out payments to terrorists. Meanwhile, Colombian Defense Minister Juan Manuel Santos told the newspaper El Tiempo that captured rebel computer files name Gontard as the courier for $480,000 seized by Costa Rican police at the behest of the Colombian government this year from a FARC safe house in San Jose, the Costa Rican capital. With the Colombian government's permission, Gontard has represented Switzerland in past efforts to broker a peace agreement with FARC rebels. On June 30, the government announced that he and French diplomat Noel Saez had arrived in Colombia to resume those efforts. Two days later, onetime president candidate Ingrid Betancourt, three American defense contractors and 11 Colombian police and soldiers were rescued after spending more than five years in rebel captivity." Hmm. The Colombian government account seems to strangely give credence to the Swiss report that someone paid. Perhaps the French via the Swiss rep. "Gontard has been coming to Colombia for years as Swiss representative of a three-nation team, including Spain and France, that has acted as facilitator for possible talks between the FARC and the Colombian government."
Reuters: Ex-generals arrested in alleged Turkish coup plot. A state prosecutor is expected to soon release an indictment of, at last count, 53 prominent citizens, including retired four-star generals, on charges of coup plotting.
NYT:
More.Iran on Friday formally responded to an international proposal of incentives aimed at resolving the impasse over the country’s nuclear program, but failed to address the central issue of whether it would halt its uranium enrichment activities, according to officials involved in the diplomatic effort.
Instead, the response, which came in a letter by Iran’s Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, said that Iran would be willing to open a comprehensive negotiation with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and the six world powers involved in confronting Iran’s nuclear ambitions. It did not specifically address any of the proposals they presented to it last month. ...
But in their public statements on Friday, the governments involved declined to discuss the substance of the Iranian response.
“We intend to study the Iranian response,” said Gordon D. Johndroe, deputy White House press secretary, in a statement. He said the United States would discus the response with the five other governments — Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China — “before responding formally.”
Similarly, a British Foreign Office official said, “We have received the Iranian response and we are consulting” with the other governments before responding.
Officials in Mr. Solana’s office also said there would be no immediate comment on the substance of the letter.
Still, some officials involved in the negotiations expressed disappointment. ...
In their proposal, the six powers left Iran room for maneuver with a timetable for start-up talks. Under their proposal, preliminary talks would start with a mutual six-week “freeze” period, in which the Security Council would not take more punitive action against Iran and Iran would not expand its uranium enrichment program. ...
Bloomberg: Crude oil prices fall as Iran submits 'constructive and creative' atom response to Solana
More here and here:Crude oil fell from near a record as Iran said it gave a ``constructive'' response to incentives intended to persuade the nation to stop uranium enrichment.
A compromise may allay concern that Israel is ready to attack Iran's nuclear installations, starting a conflict likely to cut supply from OPEC's second-largest oil producer. Futures climbed to a record $145.85 a barrel yesterday on speculation tension in the Middle East may worsen. ...
The government in Tehran has prepared and presented its reply ``with a focus on common ground and a constructive view,'' state television cited Saeed Jalili, secretary of Iran's Supreme National Security Council, as saying today in a telephone call with European Union foreign policy chief, Javier Solana.
Here's the written package the US, Britain, France, Russia, China, and Germany offered Iran June 14 via Solana....``We can confirm that there was a phone conversation this morning. Mr. Jalili called Mr. Solana. They had a good conversation and it was decided that they would remain in contact in the coming hours,'' Solana's office in Brussels said in a statement.
Iran's response to the incentives package was delivered by the country's ambassador in Brussels, the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency said, citing an unidentified official at the Supreme National Security Council. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki signed a response letter, the news agency said, adding that Jalili and Solana are scheduled to hold talks later this month. ...
Iran will respond on Friday to incentives offered by six world powers to try to entice Tehran to stop enriching uranium, which they fear could result in a nuclear bomb.
Iran's chief nuclear negotiator was quoted as telling the European Union's top diplomat: "The Islamic Republic of Iran's response to the letter by the foreign ministers of the six countries ... will be given today."
State radio said Saeed Jalili, the chief nuclear negotiator, spoke to EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana by telephone and that they agreed to hold further talks later this month.
Perhaps unconnected, but one wonders if the path to Libya runs through the offices of Libya's new lobbyist, Bob Livingston, former RepublicanFormer congressman Curt Weldon is helping broker deals between Russian and Ukranian weapons suppliers and the Iraqi and Libyan governments as part of his new job with a private American defense consulting firm, Wired.com has learned.
Weldon, who is currently being investigated by the FBI over alleged corruption during his time in office, visited Libya in March to discuss a possible military deal, according to a letter describing the trip from Weldon to Defense Solutions CEO Timothy Ringgold. In May, Weldon, together with Ringgold and another company representative, traveled to Moscow to discuss working with Russia's weapons-export agency on arms sales to the Middle East.
Both trips were part of the company's effort to tap into the growing -- and often legally murky -- market for selling weapons from former Eastern Bloc countries to the Middle East and Afghanistan. [...]
In late March, Weldon traveled to Libya for a weeklong trip at the invitation of the Gaddafi Foundation, a group run by the son of Libya's leader, and the chairman of Libya's foreign affairs committee, according to the report he sent to Defense Solutions (.pdf), a copy of which was obtained by Wired.com. The trip reports states: "Agreement reached for Weldon to quickly return to Libya for meetings with son [of Libyan leader Gaddafi] Morti regarding defense and security cooperation."
A document dated April 16, just two weeks after Weldon's trip, outlines Defense Solutions' proposal to Libya to refurbish the country's fleet of armored vehicles, including its T-72 tanks, BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles, and BTR-60 armored personnel carriers. A copy of the sales proposal, also provided to Wired.com, is on Defense Solutions' letterhead, appears to bear the signature of company CEO Timothy Ringgold, and is addressed to Libya's defense procurement council. "Defense Solutions is committed to delivering a full end-to-end solution to its clients," the proposal states. "Besides refurbishing these vehicles, we are capable of providing a full logistics support package, including a two year supply of spare parts, maintenance and repair services, and operator, maintenance, and repair training." ....
Update: A reader who blogs here writes to remind that the Iraqi MOD contracts with Defense Solutions were signed by a former Iraqi Polish car dealer now on the lam in France:
Albanian stockpiles of Chinese weapons sold on US Defense Department contracts to Afghanistan. Hungarian tanks and Russian arms to MOD in Iraq and Libya with a cut for ex-US congressman Weldon and his company. Former Pennsylvania governor and first Bush DHS head Tom Ridge unregistered lobbyist for Albania, to drum it up some homeland security and defense business. Disgraced ex congressman Bob Livingston representing Libya. There seems to be a pattern of arms dealers with access to East Europe stockpiles getting themselves hooked up with ex US government officials who can grease the way to Pentagon-overseen deals to sell to Iraq, Afghanistan and the markets made available by Bush admin Mid East policy. Quite a bazaar. One former US official comments, "I think they are all scumbags and the reason there is so much confusion is that everyone 'feels' that somehow, somewhere, Weldon is doing what the administration wants him to do."The Defense Solutions contract to provide refurbished tanks donated to the Iraq Minister of Defense by Hungary was signed by Dr. Ziad Cattan on 3/5/05. Cattan is the former Polish Iraqi used car dealer who became the Iraq MoD's chief procurement officer in 2004. Cattan bought $400 million of worthless helicopters and armored cars from Bumar, the Polish state arms dealer, and he spent a billion dollars on worthless junk from Iraqi businessman, Naer Mohammed Jumaili.
The refurbished Hungarian tank contract was originally $3.2 million with an 8% award fee for Defense Solutions upon contract completion. Based on cost estimates, Currus, the Hungarian subcontract charged $1.5 million to refurbish the tanks and NATO picked up the cost of transporting the tanks from Hungary to Iraq.
However, Defense Industry Daily reported on 11/25/05 that the contract was about $4.5 million. In a 2/3/06 Defense Solutions proposal to sell refurbished Hungarian and Romanian tanks to the Sri Lanka army, Defense Solutions listed the Iraq tank contract at $4.6 million.
Although Defense Solutions is a Washington-based firm registered in Pennsylvania, the terms of the contract were specified as being underthe laws of New York State. DS was represented by James Donahue and the Iraq MoD by US LTC Rod Symons.
Defense Solutions did an excellent job promoting the contract as a great deal for the Iraqis. Even Condoleeza Rice touted it. When the Iraq MoD balked at paying Defense Solutions the balance of the contract in 1//05, Defense Solutions held up delivery. Since the DoD was anxious to use the tank deal for p.r. purposes, payment was promptly made.
As an aside, the photo of the tanks at the Taji ,military base in an 11/14/05 Defend America story about the tanks probably are not the actual tanks since the tanks at the time were still in Kuwait. Despite that fact, US LTC Kevin Meredith and Iraqi LTC Saleem praised the performance of the tanks in the article.
NYT's Eric Lichtblau:
A federal judge in California said Wednesday that the wiretapping law established by Congress was the “exclusive” means for the president to eavesdrop on Americans, and he rejected the government’s claim that the president’s constitutional authority as commander in chief trumped that law.
The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, the chief judge for the Northern District of California, made his findings in a ruling on a lawsuit brought by an Oregon charity. The group says it has evidence of an illegal wiretap used against it by the National Security Agency under the secret surveillance program established by President Bush after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Justice Department has tried for more than two years to kill the lawsuit, saying any surveillance of the charity or other entities was a “state secret” and citing the president’s constitutional power as commander in chief to order wiretaps without a warrant from a court under the agency’s program.
But Judge Walker, who was appointed to the bench by former President George Bush, rejected those central claims in his 56-page ruling. He said the rules for surveillance were clearly established by Congress in 1978 under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to get a warrant from a secret court.
“Congress appears clearly to have intended to — and did — establish the exclusive means for foreign intelligence activities to be conducted,” the judge wrote. “Whatever power the executive may otherwise have had in this regard, FISA limits the power of the executive branch to conduct such activities and it limits the executive branch’s authority to assert the state secrets privilege in response to challenges to the legality of its foreign intelligence surveillance activities.”
Judge Walker’s voice carries extra weight because all the lawsuits involving telephone companies that took part in the N.S.A. program have been consolidated and are being heard in his court. ...
The U.S. ambassador to Israel was on Thursday quoted as playing down speculation that an attack on Iranian nuclear sites by either country was imminent, saying that the allies agreed force should remain a last resort.
"I don't think any decisions have been made to attack Iran in the near future," YNet, an Israeli news Web site in Hebrew, quoted Richard Jones as saying.
"Use of military force is a last option and Israel and the United States are cooperating on this matter."
Sacha Baron Cohen, the ex Borat, takes on the Middle East conflict. Yossi Alpher:
The Hamas-hummus confusion went on for several minutes. Then, the interviewer declared: “Your conflict is not so bad. Jennifer-Angelina is worse.”
We probed our limited memory of Hollywood scandals: Was he comparing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to some sort of tension between Brad Pitt’s former and current wives?
What was going on here? Should we pull off our microphones, get up and leave? We exchanged worried glances. “Could we take a break?” one of us asked meekly. The request was ignored.
And so it went. The cameras kept rolling, the cameramen never cracking a smile. “Vy don’t you Jews and Arabs settle the conflict with a time share on the land?” “Ven vill you Jews return the pyramids?” “Vy can’t Jews and Hindus get along?”
Jews and Hindus? ...
More Iran Panic: A follow up discussion with the forum participants:
Go read.Jacqueline Shire: Recent statements by former Iranian foreign minister Ali Akbar Velayati and current foreign minister Manoucher Mottaki indicating that Iran might accept what has come to be known as a freeze-for-freeze arrangement (where the UN Security Council freezes sanctions and Iran freezes at least centrifuge installation if not actual enrichment) for six or so weeks would be a giant step in the current climate (ABC News reports that Israel may be getting serious about a strike before 2009, etc.). It would really take the air out the tension hanging over the issue and provide a context in which a longer-term strategy could be cobbled together.
So my hopes are high. I try not to remind myself that we have also been down this road before, though not in a long time; nor do I dwell on a nagging suspicion that it might prove awfully difficult to actually get the cascades at Natanz to fall silent, or that the White House may reject the installation-freeze as inadequate, or that Iran won't want to be seen as caving to Israeli saber rattling (though Velayati seemed to address this when he referred to the "traps" that Iran's enemies want it to fall into). So I'm very glass-is-half full right now.
Bush to Close Gitmo? ABC's Jan Crawford Greenberg: "President Bush will soon decide whether to close Guantanamo Bay as a prison for al-Qaeda suspects, sources tell ABC News. High-level discussions among top advisers have escalated in the past week, with the most senior administration officials in continuous talks about the future of the prison camp at Guantanamo Bay--and how it will be dramatically changed and/or closed in the wake of the Supreme Court's ruling that gave detainees there access to federal courts. Sources have confirmed that President Bush is expected to be briefed on these pressing GTMO issues--and may reach a decision on the future of the naval base as a prison for al Qaeda suspects--before he leaves for the G8 on Saturday. An announcement, however, is not expected before he leaves the country. High-level administration officials say the Court's decision dramatically changes the legal landscape--and raises questions about whether the government has solid evidence to present to federal judges to justify ongoing detentions."
Freeze for Freeze. Bijan Khajehpour, chairman of the Atieh Group, a group of consulting firms in Iran, writes:
Used with permission.The 5+1 proposal to Iran proposes a "pre-negotiation" phase at which stage there would be a "freeze for freeze", i.e. Iran would not add any new centrifuges and the 5+1 would not introduce any new sanctions. In this phase, Iran would negotiate with 5+1 minus the US to prepare the grounds for full-fledged negotiations which would then include the US. In this phase, Iran can also comment on the agenda of the negotiations and introduce new topics (eg. Tehran could insist that the issue of an uranium enrichment consortium on Iranian soil be discussed with high priority). Iran can also focus on the "commonalities of the two proposals" as Dr. Mottaki has underlined a few times. Once the two sides agree to enter full-fledged negotiations including the US at the table, then Iran will have to suspend enrichment and the 5+1 will lift the existing UN sanctions.
All signs are that Iran will accept the 5+1 package with 1 important change, i.e. Iran will insist that the deadline for the pre-negotiation phase (i.e. 6 weeks) be adjusted. The important element for Tehran is that negotiations can start without suspension being their prerequisite.
Tehran has said a number of times that suspension cannot be a precondition, but it could be a result of negotiations. If the period of the pre-negotiations is extended, then Tehran and 5+1 could agree on a period of suspension in return for the lifting of sanctions which would pave the grounds for more intense negotiations on the other aspects in the two proposals.
Gary Sick, former Iran hand in the Ford, Carter, Reagan White Houses, reads the Iranian tea leaves:
... This offer by Iran does not come out of the blue. Despite the US instinctive reaction that Iran rejected the Solana offer, it was quite clear from the start that Iran was giving it serious consideration.
What is different about this package from the ones that preceded it? It is difficult to say anything authoritative, since we haven't actually seen (or heard) what Solana delivered, and Iran's responses have been positive but ambiguous. Still, one thing that seems to have changed is what appears to me to be a fairly clear signal from the 5+1 negotiators that they are willing to contemplate the reality that Iran has acquired centrifuge technology, that there is probably little that can be done to reverse that entirely, and so the objective has perhaps subtly changed to consideration of how to stop the process before it gets worse and to contain it, if possible.
That may be reading more into the discourse than it deserves, but then I would never expect the 5+1 to simply announce that they have changed their objectives and tactics. So a little guess work is justified. But if it is true (even if that fact is left entirely to emerge during actual negotiations) it means that these talks might have a chance of success.
Has Iran been spooked into this by recent frantic signaling and demonstrations (the Syrian hit; Israeli bombing exercises in the E. Med; or even, as someone suggested today, reaction to Sy Hersh's latest broadside)? Possibly, but I'm dubious. Those with even fairly short memories will recall times when the US had three carriers in the Gulf and Cheney and Hersh were making direct threats/predictions and prompting even higher levels of pundit hysteria than today, and the Iranians seemed totally unmoved.
Is it because the Bush administration is in its waning days and so is a more palpable threat to do something rash? Actually, this familiar argument can be turned on its head. The time has probably already passed when the Bush administration can launch another war (against the will of the American people, the Pentagon, the Congress, the UNSC and all US friends and allies without exception -- not to mention simple good sense). But Bush seems to be moving into a late pragmatic phase, perhaps in the search for a legacy, that makes constructive negotiations more likely. (If you don't believe me, just look at what
apoplectic John Bolton is saying.)The "surge" in Iraq, although portrayed as super-hawkish, was in fact a total reversal of the faith-based, ideology-driven tactics of the previous four years to something more like a pragmatic effort to coopt (or "rent") the enemy and do some robust nation-building at the local, tribal and urban level. It has worked better than most ever expected, and it may become a lonely feather in Bush's otherwise disastrous Iraq cap.
The deal with North Korea is the other achievement of this waning presidency, and it is full of lessons for a potential deal with Iran. The Bush administration was willing to reverse course from a principled but self-defeating ideological position built on threats, to adopt a practical strategy of give and take, all the while pretending that we weren't negotiating directly with the crazy and unreliable folks in Pyongyang.
All we are missing on Iran is a Christopher Hill (or as Bolton calls him "Kim Jung-Hill"). Nick Burns didn't seem to be well equipped for that job, and he is now spending more time with his family. Is there someone else lurking in the wings? Who conducted the quiet negotiations with the Europeans that produced the Solana proposal?
Does Iran really want a deal? I think so. The sanctions are a constant drag on the oil industry and the economy. There is a strong current in Iranian leadership circles that wants to have a more constructive (and profitable) commercial and political relationship with the rest of the world, and the nuclear shouting match interferes at every level. There is an even stronger desire in Iran to be respected as a serious player and not always be regarded as a fanatic, unreliable pariah state.
Now that they have made their point about being able to construct and operate a nuclear infrastructure, they may feel it is time to stop standing on principle while shooting themselves in the foot, to coin a metaphor. A deal with the 5+1 negotiators would indeed mean that they could not build a nuclear weapon, but there is substantial evidence that that was not their intent. Simply showing they COULD do it (and that they could return to the game rather quickly), may have been enough for their purposes. It is certainly consistent with all of
their statements.This suggests a major push-back against the policies of Ahmadinejad, who had been making a play for far more power than any other president in the history of the Islamic Republic. [Former Iranian foreign minister] Velayati's admonition that Iran must avoid "provocative" nuclear talk seems aimed directly at the president and his predilection for extravagant rhetoric. Whatever the truth, Ahmadinejad has been uncharacteristically silent so far. And the foreign minister, in NY, went out of his way to declare that the Holocaust was a historical reality. Hmmm. . .
None of this adds up to any resolution of the problem very soon. But an optimistic reading would regard this at least as the end of the beginning.
Waxman (.pdf): "Documents provided to the Oversight Committee show that Administration officials knew about Hunt Oil’s interest in the Kurdish region months in advance, contradicting claims that Administration officials were caught off-guard and opposed Hunt Oil’s actions."
Update: NYT.On July 12,2007, Ray Hunt, president and CEO of Hunt Oil, sent a letter to the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, of which he was a member, making clear his intentions to pursue oil exploration in Kurdistan. Mr. Hunt disclosed that Hunt Oil was "approached a month or so ago by representatives of a private group in Kurdistan as to the possibility of our becoming interested in that region." He went on to describe the visit of an oil survey team and stated that "we were encouraged by what we saw. We have a larger team going back to Kurdistan this week." ...
The top U.S. military officer said on Wednesday he favored more dialogue with Tehran to avoid a confrontation as a senior Iranian leader indicated his country was open to negotiations over its nuclear program.
Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said a war with Iran would be "extremely stressful" on the U.S. military. But he made clear the United States would act to reopen the Strait of Hormuz if Tehran tried to block the key oil transport route in the Gulf.
Tensions have flared in recent days amid reports Israel is planning for a possible strike against Iran's nuclear facilities. That has sent crude oil prices near record highs and led U.S. officials to publicly criticize the reports.
"My position with regard to the Iranian regime hasn't changed. They remain a destabilizing factor in the region," said Mullen, recently returned from a trip to Israel.
"But I'm convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behavior, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure," he told reporters at the Pentagon.
"There is a need for better clarity, even dialogue at some level," he said.
President George W. Bush reiterated that diplomacy was the first option to address Iran's nuclear program, but he repeated that Washington had all options on the table.
McClatchy's Warren Strobel:
More here and here.Iran's senior diplomat said Tuesday that Tehran was seriously considering a new offer from six world powers to resolve the dispute over its nuclear program, and he praised the package as "constructive."
The unusually positive remarks by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki to a small group of reporters raised hope that a negotiated solution can be found to defuse the crisis.
The U.N. Security Council has demanded that Iran suspend the enrichment of uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons, and the Bush administration has refused direct talks with Iran until it meets that condition.
During a 90-minute luncheon at Iran's United Nations mission, Mottaki dismissed the growing speculation that Israel or the United States will strike at Iran's nuclear facilities during President Bush's last six months in office.
He described news reports to that effect as part of a long-running campaign of "psychological warfare."
The chance that Israel will attack Iran "is almost nil," Mottaki said. As for a U.S. strike, he said there was little public support in this country for a new conflict. "The consequences of such an attack cannot be predicted," he said.
Yet there are signs of intensified debate within Iran's leadership about its nuclear program. Iran has long said that it has an inalienable right to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. But Mottaki declined three opportunities to reiterate that position Tuesday, indicating that Iran is weighing its options.
"We are seriously and carefully examining" the proposal, Mottaki said....
Update: Barbara Slavin, a senior fellow at the U.S. Institute of Peace, and author of "Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies: Iran, the U.S. and the Twisted Path to Confrontation," was also at the Mottaki lunch, and comments:
At a luncheon today with about a dozen journalists at the iranian mission in new york, foreign minister mottaki did not repeat iran's contention that enrichment is Iran's legitimate right... even when repeatedly prodded to do so. Mottaki said that the proposal made by Iran last month to the U.N. secretary general and the P-5 plus 1 proposal put forward by Solana had enough in common to form the basis for an agenda for talks... It could be that the Iranians are just stalling but it also could be that they are getting ready to accept the Solana proposal....
A U.S. official adds on above developments, "No one is holding their breath, but at the same time we have to be prepared to accept yes for an answer from the Iranians."
NYT's Scott Shane: China inspired interrogations at Guantanamo:
Mr. Biderman’s 1957 article described “one form of torture” used by the Chinese as forcing American prisoners to stand “for exceedingly long periods,” sometimes in conditions of “extreme cold.” Such passive methods, he wrote, were more common than outright physical violence. Prolonged standing and exposure to cold have both been used by American military and C.I.A. interrogators against terrorist suspects.
The chart also listed other techniques used by the Chinese, including “Semi-Starvation,” “Exploitation of Wounds,” and “Filthy, Infested Surroundings,” and with their effects: “Makes Victim Dependent on Interrogator,” “Weakens Mental and Physical Ability to Resist,” and “Reduces Prisoner to ‘Animal Level’ Concerns.”
The only change made in the chart presented at Guantánamo was to drop its original title: “Communist Coercive Methods for Eliciting Individual Compliance.”
Update: A friend comments the piece "is just astonishing, even after all this time. In some ways, it is among the most damning evidence against the Bush administration, because, as Shane points out, they were taking techniques from communist China that either they did or they did not know were designed to elicit false confessions. Either way, it's incredibly damning."
Not Exactly Charlie Wilson's War. David Ignatius: "'Powerpoint' covert action program." Conveys something of the lackluster, ambivalence and even desperation of the policy, and dare one say it, total lack of ideological conviction? This does not seem to resemble the swashbuckling effort to back the Afghan muj against the Soviets in Afghanistan, for instance. Ignatius: "So far, that argument for a rollback of Iranian power hasn't prevailed inside a divided administration."
NYT: Plea for aid to avert starvation. "Warning that rising food and oil prices pose a crisis for the world’s poor, Robert B. Zoellick, the president of the World Bank, is calling on President Bush and other leaders convening in Japan next week in an economic summit meeting to make new aid commitments to avert starvation and instability in dozens of countries. 'What we are witnessing is not a natural disaster — a silent tsunami or a perfect storm,' Mr. Zoellick said in a letter sent Tuesday evening to the major leaders of the West. 'It is a man-made catastrophe, and as such must be fixed by people.' Mr. Zoellick’s letter, obtained by The New York Times, came with a lengthy study of the impact of rising prices for food, fuel and commodities on the world’s poor. He sent the letter as Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda prepares to host Mr. Bush and six other world leaders in the Group of 8 economic summit meeting on the northern island of Hokkaido."
Interpreting Iran "freeze" tea leaves. Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council, writes:
News of Iran potentially suspending enrichment for six weeks as a good will gesture to get talks going are sending shockwaves in the system. ...
In his interview with Jomhourie Eslami, [former Iranian foreign minister and foreign policy advisor to the Supreme Leader] Velayati argued that the Bush Administration wanted Iran to reject the P5+1 proposal in order to strengthen the case for sanctions and military action. In his view, Iran must work diplomatically to show the world that it isn't interested in war and that through diplomacy this could be achieved. Iran has in essence won recognition for its right to enrichment, he argued, and could as a result negotiate from a stronger position, unlike other regional powers that negotiated out of weakness and were humiliated by the West accordingly.
Iranian state TV have also aired discussions in the past weeks in which the P5+1 proposal has been discussed in a more open way than in the past, in which benefits of compromise have been debated.
Some may draw the conclusion that the sudden shift in Iran's position is a reaction to the recent bluster and threats of war. Several factors dispute this interpretation. [...] Iran's reaction to the P5+1 proposal has been remarkably different than its reaction to the earlier proposal. Note also the relative silence from Ahmadinejad. This preceded the recent spike in bluster between the US, Israel and Iran.
A more likely scenario is that the Iranians are doing this to:
1. Eliminate the risk for any US attack -- however small/large that risk may be -- for the remainder of the Bush Administration.
2. Initiate a process that ...would pave the way for a more robust diplomatic channel between the US and Iran that would be initiated now, but wouldn't bloom until the next [U.S.] President takes office. ...
NYT: State Dept counters latest bomb-Iran rumor:
Anonymous Pentagon sources are going to most visible media outlets in country - ABC, CBS, NYT -, to say looks like Israel is going to do it (when, far as I can tell, that's not true). Leaks to deter Israel from doing it, or, coordinated propaganda campaign aimed at getting Iran to the table?“It’s always amazing that there are lots of anonymous sources out there who profess to know the inner will of officials in other countries, Israel or otherwise,” Mr. Casey said.
Another reporter had a question: “This apparently anonymous official also said that it’s possible that Iran would have enough enriched uranium by the end of the year for a nuclear bomb.”Having reasoned with reporters, Mr. Casey turned to comedy. “You know, I need to find this guy, because apparently he’s an expert on the Israeli military, an expert on Iran and an expert on nuclear issues at the same time,” he said. “Let’s get him a Nobel Prize.”
ABC News, for its part, offered a follow-up article today that included doubts that war was on the horizon. Hirsch Goodman, a national security analyst in Tel Aviv, dismissed the story as “just the latest in the hype that has been generated in the last few weeks.”
Update: I'll just say, I've felt very intensely there's a Pentagon psy ops campaign underway (hence our little "Iran panic" forum), and some extremely credible journalists have been sucked into furthering it. ABC's Jonathan Karl, CBS's David Martin, etc. All of them being worked by presumably trusted or authoritative sources at the Pentagon to basically say Israel is about to do it, etc. when, as far as I can tell, that is just not true, but providing incredibly far reaching platforms to promote the intense sense that it might be.
My sense is the "they're going to do it" is largely coming from here, from the Pentagon - perhaps coordinated. But my sense also is they are not going to signal so hard before they are going to do it. This is signalling for another purpose.
Iran to freeze uranium enrichment for period of six weeks? An Iranian American academic reads at a Farsi-language news site that "Iran will accept a 6 week suspension if formally asked by the EU 5+1, as a precondition for starting talks. Some Majlis deputies have confirmed that head of the Iranian atomic energy organization, Mr. Gholamreza Aghazadeh, has stated Iran's agreement with this plan, and that talks with EU 5 will begin next week. Apparently such a 6 week 'suspension-while-negotiation' plan was part of Solana's proposal to Iran."
He warns that "as in everything in Iran, things could change tomorrow."
Wire reports indicate that Iran has signalled intentions to resume nuclear talks with the P5+Germany next week.
Update: More.
Via Steve Aftergood, new Congressional Research Service report: "Iran's Nuclear Program: Status" (.pdf).
WP: Ex CIA agent says CIA ignored Iran facts:
A former CIA operative who says he tried to warn the agency about faulty intelligence on Iraqi weapons programs now contends that CIA officials also ignored evidence that Iran had suspended work on a nuclear bomb.
The onetime undercover agent, who has been barred by the CIA from using his real name, filed a motion in federal court late Friday asking the government to declassify legal documents describing what he says was a deliberate suppression of findings on Iran that were contrary to agency views at the time.
The former operative alleged in a 2004 lawsuit that the CIA fired him after he repeatedly clashed with senior managers over his attempts to file reports that challenged the conventional wisdom about weapons of mass destruction in the Middle East. Key details of his claim have not been made public because they describe events the CIA deems secret. ...
In court documents and in statements by his attorney, the former officer contends that his 22-year CIA career collapsed after he questioned CIA doctrine about the nuclear programs of Iraq and Iran. As a native of the Middle East and a fluent speaker of both Farsi and Arabic, he had been assigned undercover work in the Persian Gulf region, where he successfully recruited an informant with access to
sensitive information about Iran's nuclear program, Krieger said.
The informant provided secret evidence that Tehran had halted its research into designing and building a nuclear weapon. Yet, when the operative sought to file reports on the findings, his attempts were "thwarted by CIA employees," according to court papers. Later he was told to "remove himself from any further handling" of the informant, the documents say. ....
Update: I hear the story may be more complex than above account would suggest. That the employee involved was never certified as a case officer. That his reporting on Iraq was initially inclined to promote that he knew where the WMD in Iraq were. And that he allegedly created fake informants/agents, got money to pay them, and then allegedly stole the money-- a story the CIA may not be so anxious to get out, I hear. And his wife was secretary for a prominent for Reagan administration official.
Walter Pincus: Pentagon creeps into West African counternarcotics mission:
... In his role as assistant secretary, Benkert said he is "working with various policy and intelligence elements of the department to help define this new mission space," meaning his expanded office of global security affairs.
He said he plans "to consolidate and institutionalize" what he termed "the 'toolkit' of programmatic and related options available for advancing the Department's strategy of building partner capacity." Two of the biggest tools, which together may draw nearly $1 billion in fiscal 2009, are what are known as Section 1206 funds, referred to as "global train and fit" authority with $800 million; and Section 1207 funds, referred to as "security and stabilization assistance" authority with $200 million.
Section 1206 money helps build the security and military forces of partner nations to "either conduct counterterrorist operations or participate in or support military and stability operations where U.S. forces are a participant," Benkert said.
With the State Department's blessing, Section 1206 this year is covering coalition partners in Iraq, including Algeria, Chad, the Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Lebanon, Morocco, Nigeria, Pakistan, Panama, Senegal, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Yemen, and Sao Tome and Principe. Also being added are a number of African, East Asian and Central European countries.