MEPGS: "...the Saudi outreach may come at a price that the US is not happy to see paid..."

Excerpts from MEPGS, July 11, 2009

"The continuing turmoil which has embroiled Iran since its disputed elections has left few in Washington certain of howrelations between the Islamic Republic and the outside world will unfold. Some top Administration officials believe that the Teheran regime, weakened by its blatant manipulation of last month's voting, is more likely to be susceptible to the all-important nuclear deal sought by the US and its European allies. Other analysts believe just the opposite, that a regime under attack by an invigorated opposition and engaged in an internal power struggle, is much less likely to be able to engage in the give and take necessary to promote a deal. They argue that what was previously a polycentric regime is now a dysfunctional one. "There is no one to pick up the phone to call," is the way one experienced diplomat put it recently.....
Prior to the election, regime officials were espousing a hard line, especially on the nuclear issue. Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, on a visit to European capitals was dismissive of American efforts to engage on the nuclear issue. He told European officials that the US was "weak" and "on the run" in Iraq. And that President Obama' s Cairo speech was made in reaction to events in the region, not an attempt to shape them.
Now, however, a number of regional actors, notably Saudi Arabia are trying to take advantage of Iran's preoccupation with its internal affairs. "The Saudis want to persuade Iran's erstwhile allies, notably Syria, that Teheran is a weak regime," says one veteran analyst. Another notes, "The uprising has killed the myth of Iran stability." One problem with this approach, say US officials, is that, in the case of Syria, the Saudi outreach may come at a price that the US is not happy to see paid. Specifically, they worry that the Saudis will reduce their support for their allies in the Lebanese government in order to attract Syria. Already, their protege, Saad Hariri, has seen Saudi support for a more independent Lebanese stance towards Syria dissipate. Or as one US official put it last week, "The Saudis may be willing to sell out Lebanon for Arab unity against Iran." [US officials say they have remonstrated with the Saudis about this, but so far to little effect].
As the Administration tries to confront the new reality in Iran, one policy has remained constant. Regardless of the form and substance of the regime in Teheran that emerges from the post election chaos, there is a "date certain" for the beginning of serious negotiations over Iran's nuclear program. "It has always been linked to the opening of the UNGA [the United Nations General Assembly] in September, " says one Administration insider. And Administration officials are still sticking to the President's public assertion that significant headway needs to be made by the end of the year in order for his policy of "engagement" with Iran not to turn into a determined effort to ratchet up economic sanctions against the regime.
What is still unclear is where the Israelis fits into Administration calculations. They have been told in no uncertain terms to stand aside thought the end of the year, while the Administration tries to work its will. But they, too, believe the picture has become murkier in the post-election environment. They note that dealing with the "Supreme Leader, " Ali Khamenei is more difficult for the American public to countenance, now that he is seen as even more repressive, if in fact he and not the even more widely disliked security forces led by Ahmadinejad supporters, hold the upper hand. And like other interested observers, they worry that internal political maneuvering has become a major distraction for Iran's leaders, even if they were to entertain the idea of dealing on the nuclear issue.
As all this complexity has come to the surface, Vice President Biden added another element last Sunday when he spoke of Israel's right to respond to what it perceives as an"existential" threat to its security, should Iran move to acquire a nuclear weapons capability. Although, President Obama and Joint Chiefs Chairman Mullen attempted to "walk back" those comments, it left observers puzzled. One veteran analyst said,"Joe Biden would never have said that if he were still Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. He, like Mullen, would have warned of the consequences of Israel's unilateral use of force." Others take a more benign view. One analyst notes that Biden, now famous for his impolitic remarks, may well have been reflecting options presented in the meetings he has attended on Iran. Israeli reaction is put this way by a skeptical diplomat,"I stop for all `green lights'."
Still, with Dennis Ross now overseeing Iranian policy from his heightened perch on the National Security Council staff, it is clear to most observers that the Israeli view will be well explained. Ross, who started this week as Senior Director for a wide swath of the region, was brought into the post at the personal request of President Obama. Able to bring with him few of his former State Department staff, Ross, nevertheless is expected to have provide an overview to issues that range from North Africa to Afghanistan. His role, first proposed by National Security Advisor General James Jones, is an attempt to be the civilian equivalent of the area of responsibility under General David Petreus, as head of Central Command [CENTCOM]. However, Ross will also be overseeing issues related to Israel and the Palestinians, something CENTCOM does not cover.
Until now, Special Envoy George Mitchell has had nocompetitors for suzerainty over Israeli-Palestinian issues. And, when Ross was working on Iran and the Gulf at the State Department, Mitchell reportedly made it clear that there was a wide "red line" that former Middle East negotiator Ross was not to cross. However, now some, particularly in the diplomatic community have begun to snipe at Mitchell's approach. Not unexpectedly, the Israelis have bristled at his insistence on a complete halt to settlement activity on the occupied West Bank [Noting, for example that private contractors now do most of the building, making it no easy matter to stop work in progress orcontracts undertaken]. But more telling criticism has come from other, unexpected sources. From within the Administration and as well as among European friends and allies there is growing concern that Mitchell's plans, based on his successful experience mediating the Irish conflict, do not transfer well to the many sided nature of Arabs vs.Israelis. As one experienced European diplomat put it recently, "Small incremental steps like those between two parties to the Irish conflict do not apply to the many Middle East players, notably the Saudis, who are not about to engage in a tit-for-tat exchange with Israel."

Iran prepares package to offer West

Reuters, here

"The package can be a good basis for talks with the West. The package will contain Iran's stances on political, security and international issues," Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki told a news conference.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy said Wednesday that the Group of Eight major powers would give Iran until September to accept negotiations over its nuclear ambitions or else face tougher sanctions.

In Iran's first reaction to Sarkozy's statement at the G8 summit in Italy, Mottaki said the Islamic state had not received "any new message" from the summit.

"We have not received any new message from the G8. But based on the news we have received, they had different views on different issues which did not lead to a unanimous agreement in some areas," Mottaki said..."

A pollster's recommendations on how to sell Americans on the idea of Israeli settlements

Dan Ephron in NEWSWEEK, here

How do you sell the American public on the idea that Israel has the right to maintain or even expand Jewish settlements in the West Bank? Be positive. Turn the issue away from settlements and toward peace. Invoke ethnic cleansing.

Those are three of the recommendations made by Frank Luntz, a political consultant and pollster, in an internal study he wrote for the Washington-based group The Israel Project (TIP) on effective ways to talk to Americans about the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians. The 117-page study, titled The Israel Project's 2009 Global Language Dictionary, was commissioned by the nonprofit group, which aims to promote Israel's side of the story, and leaked to NEWSWEEK. It includes chapters with such titles as "How to Talk About Palestinian Self Government and Prosperity" and "The Language of Tackling a Nuclear Iran."

The report is strewn with bolded examples of "Words That Work" and "Words That Don't Work," alongside rhetorical tips such as "Don't talk about religion" and "No matter what you're asked, bridge to a productive pro-Israel message." Taken together, the 18 chapters offer a fascinating look at the way Israel and its supporters try to shape the public debate in their favor.

The full report can be viewed here. ...

The report cites three particularly ineffective arguments Israeli officials often make in defense of settlements:

(1) The religious argument: "Quoting from the Bible in defense of the current settlements will have absolutely the opposite impact. Even your Jewish audiences will recoil at an attempt to use Biblical passages to justify the settlements."

(2) The ownership argument: "Some of those reading this document will reject this advice ideologically but to claim that Israel 'owns' the land that the settlements are on will cause most listeners to reject everything else you say. Semantics does matter, but if we correct Palestinians using the words 'disputed territory' when they say 'occupied territory,' we have to accept that the settlements are disputed territory as well."

(3) The scapegoat argument: "Claiming that Palestinians and other Arab groups are using the settlement issue to gain political advantage may be correct but it does nothing to legitimize Israeli policy."

In the report, Luntz describes the "best settlement argument" as one that draws a parallel between the Arab communities in Israel and the Jewish settlers in the West Bank—and refers to the idea of evacuating Jews as racist. "The idea that anywhere that you have Palestinians there can't be any Jews, that some areas have to be Jew-free, is a racist idea," he suggests saying. "We don't say that we have to cleanse out Arabs from Israel. They are citizens of Israel. They enjoy equal rights. We cannot see why it is that peace requires that any Palestinian area would require a kind of ethnic cleansing to remove all Jews. We don't accept it. Cleansing by either side against either side is unacceptable."

One line of argument that Luntz says actually harms the cause is Israel's policy of restricting Arab housing construction in East Jerusalem: "The arguments about demolishing Palestinian homes because they are not within the Jerusalem building code tested SO badly that we are not even going to dignify them with a Word's That Don't Work box. Americans hate their own local planning boards for telling them where they can and can't put swimming pools or build fences. You don't need to import that animosity into your own credibility issues. Worse yet, talking about 'violations of building codes' when a TV station is showing the removal of a house that looks older than the modern state of Israel is simply catastrophic."

... so, short of a 'Comprehensive Peace', & regardless of American & Saudi ambassadors, any new chapter is doomed to have the same old ending...

In the NATIONAL, here

"... With Barack Obama’s election to the White House, the mood had changed and, apart from the 2009 Gaza War – which again saw Syria and Saudi Arabia take different sides on supporting Hamas – the regional atmosphere had shifted. Mr Obama pledged a sincere involvement in the search for Middle East peace and cautiously rebuilt contacts with Syria that had been shattered under the Bush administration. In return, Syria stayed out of last month’s Lebanese election that saw Hizbollah, lose out to the US and Saudi-backed bloc.

With growing American and Arab concern about Iran’s nuclear programme – Iran says it is peaceful and civilian, not a weapons project – the region’s attention has been fixed on Tehran. Even renewed peace efforts seem aimed less at ending the Palestinian-Israeli conflict as an end in itself than at weakening Iran’s leverage over the Middle East.
The US, loyally backed by Saudi Arabia, appears to be following a strategy to isolate Iran. And that means pulling Syria back into the Arab fold. The sudden announcement that Riyadh will return an ambassador to its large Damascus embassy, a short walk from the US Embassy, is part of the gambit; the beginning of a new chapter in which Tehran is cut down to size and Riyadh reconfirmed as the region’s powerhouse.

What remains to be seen is whether or not these more positive regional atmospherics, and talk of peace, will result in real change, a change of the fundamental problems that have plagued the Middle East; a cleansing of the bad blood that stains its soil.
For decades Syria has doggedly insisted that the underlying situation can be solved only with a comprehensive regional peace agreement that sees it regain the Golan Heights. Regardless of American or Saudi ambassadors being posted to Damascus, or efforts to weaken the Syrian-Iranian alliance, if that does not happen, any new chapter is doomed to have the same old ending."

Israel must stay 'deep in Golan' .........

In the BBC, here

"An aide to Israel's prime minister has said Israel must keep a large part of the Golan Heights, rejecting Syria's major demand for a peace deal. In June, Syrian President Bashar Assad said there was no partner for talks on the Israeli side. ...The comments come amid a thaw in relations between the US and Syria...... the aide's comments will serve to reinforce this view.

"The position is that, if there is a territorial compromise, it is one that still leaves Israel on the Golan Heights and deep into the Golan Heights," the aide, Uzi Arad, said in an interview with Israeli newspaper Haaretz. He said the Israeli government was willing to resume negotiations with "no prior conditions", but Israeli control of parts of the territory was necessary for "strategic, military and land-settlement reasons... needs of water, wine and landscape". .."

Was The CIA Hiding Cheney's "Executive Assassination Ring"?

Sam Stein in the Huffington Post, here

" .....But the dates don't line up. In their letter, the lawmakers note that members of Congress were "misled" for "a number of years, from 2001 to this week." Pelosi, however, contended that the CIA lied to her about the use of harsh interrogation techniques during the fall of 2002.

And in a conversation with the Huffington Post, Rep. Anna Eshoo, (D-Calif.), one of the letter's signatories, said that Panetta "stopped the program the day after he was informed." Waterboarding was ended as a practice during the Bush years.

So what are the "significant actions" that these seven lawmakers insist were kept from Congress? Another theory being bandied about concerns an "executive assassination ring" that was allegedly set up and answered to former Vice President Dick Cheney. The New Yorker's Seymour Hersh, building off earlier reporting from the New York Times, dropped news of the possibility that such a ring existed in a March 2009 discussion sponsored by the University of Minnesota.

"It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently," Hersh said. "They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him. ...

Asked if this was the basis of her letter to Panetta, Eshoo said she could not discuss what was a "highly classified program." She did, however, note that when Panetta told House Intelligence Committee members what it was that had been kept secret, "the whole committee was stunned, even Republicans." A Republican committee member told Who Runs Gov's Greg Sargent it was something they hadn't heard before..."

Panetta himself was kept in the dark about the program -- whatever it was -- having only been told about the classified activity on June 23. "His own top leadership didn't even brief him that this program existed," said Eshoo. ..."

IDF is 'considering' a special Dahlan squad to carry out hits against Hamas...

in the JPost, here

"... Such a force would be able to carry out special operations against Hamas and Islamic Jihad terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank more effectively than could existing Palestinian security forces. The French have already offered to train such a team....

The four Palestinian battalions trained by the United States in Jordan and already deployed in the West Bank were taught how to enforce law and order and conduct regular police-like operations, but were not given military training.... The IDF is therefore considering allowing the establishment of a small, elite Palestinian squad that would be capable of conducting operations like the one in Kalkilya more effectively and with fewer casualties. ....

While the IDF Central Command, under the direction of Maj.-Gen. Gadi Shamni, has succeeded in dramatically reducing the level of terrorist activity in the West Bank, a top officer warned on Thursday that the army fears that Hizbullah will activate terrorist cells and have them attack Israel.•

The Rafik B. Hariri Building

---

Georgetown University
Office of the President

July 9, 2009

Dear Members of the Georgetown University Community:

I am pleased to share some exciting news about the new home for the McDonough School of Business. Tomorrow we will announce that the new building will be named the Rafik B. Hariri Building.

The late Rafik B. Hariri served as Prime Minister of Lebanon from 1992 to 1998 and again from 2000 until 2004, working to bring peace and democracy to Lebanon. A committed philanthropist, Mr. Hariri was a dedicated friend to Georgetown and deeply devoted to advancing education around the world. Mr. Hariri was born into a modest family and as a young man trained to be a teacher before becoming a successful businessman in the construction industry. In 1979 Mr. Hariri founded the Hariri Foundation, which helps Lebanese students attend institutions of higher learning at home and abroad. As a Georgetown parent, Rafik Hariri was a generous supporter of the University and served on the MSB Parents' Council. Georgetown awarded him an honorary degree in 1996 in celebration of his work to advance education and opportunity for the underprivileged.

This $20 million naming gift through the Hariri Foundation was made possible by Saad Hariri (B'92), the newly designated Prime Minister of Lebanon and son of Rafik Hariri.

The Rafik B. Hariri Building is the newest named academic building on our Main Campus since the Royden B. Davis, S.J. Performing Arts Center was named in 2006. This 179,000-square-foot facility will enable the McDonough School of Business to solidify its position as one of the world's leading business schools. For the first time, our MSB community will be together under one roof — staff, faculty, undergraduates, and graduate students. This new home for the MSB features seminar, lecture, and conference rooms, a 400-seat auditorium, eight case rooms, and common areas for both undergraduate and graduate students.

I am deeply grateful for the remarkable generosity of the Hariri family, and for the dedication and vision of the many donors who have believed in this project and, through their contributions over the years, made this new facility possible. I very much look forward to a formal celebration of the Rafik B. Hariri Building with Dean George Daly and our community in September.

You have my very best wishes for a terrific summer.

Sincerely,

John J. DeGioia

Sarkozy: Israel strike on Iran would be catastrophe

Haaretz, here

'...A White House deputy national security adviser, Mike Froman, told reporters the G8 discussions had reflected "a collective impatience with Iran."...
The French president said Wednesday that major powers in the G8 would give negotiations with Iran a chance until September. .."

US military DIDN'T want to release Iranians held in Iraq

McClatchy's, here

"The U.S. military on Thursday reluctantly turned over to Iraq five Iranians it had accused of fomenting violence in Iraq. The Iraqi government promptly invited them to meet Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki and then released them to Iranian custody. U.S. spokesmen in Baghdad and Washington said the United States had no choice but to free the five men under the terms of last year's Status of Forces Agreement, which requires the United States eventually to transfer the more than 10,000 Iraqi and third-country detainees it now holds.

The United States claims that the five, detained in January 2007 in the northern city of Erbil, were in the Qods Force, and were arming and training anti-U.S. insurgents. It has not provided detailed evidence to back up that charge, asserting it would compromise secret intelligence methods, and never pressed formal charges. ...

Kelly acknowledged misgivings about the release, and its impact on U.S. military personnel in Iraq. "That is a big concern of ours, is the safety of American forces. And we . . . have of course made our concerns known to the Iraqi government," he said.

Kelly and other U.S. officials said the release did not involve a quid pro quo with Iran and was not a part of the Obama administration's attempts to engage that country's leaders.

Rather than re-arrest the five, the Iraqi government granted them a meeting with Maliki and then reportedly turned them over to Iran's embassy in Baghdad ...

Thursday's developments were further evidence of the shifting relationship between Iraq and the United States, which just over a week ago withdrew its remaining combat troops from Iraqi cities. In carrying out the forces agreement — and in negotiating it last year — Maliki has acted with increasing assertiveness, and sometimes in ways not in line with U.S. interests....."

Israeli know-how

De Borchgrave, in the Wash-Times, here

"... Today, Mr. Oren's new job is to ensure that little if any daylight passes between U.S. and Israeli positions on the perennial Palestinian-Israeli issue and on what most Israelis regard as the coming existential threat of Iran's nuclear weapons.

Clearly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his coalition government are determined to stand fast on Jewish settlements in the West Bank pending resolution of Iran's nuclear ambitions, either through sanctions-driven diplomacy or military action. President Obama faces a dire financial and economic situation for at least another year, and is not about to favor a third war after Iraq and Pakistan and Afghanistan. If bombing it is, Israel will be on its own.

A powerful U.S. ally came aboard Israel's existential-threat vessel when Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said this past weekend that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities. National Security Council sources said Mr. Obama was not too pleased with what many quickly interpreted as a White House green light.

If Israel should opt for unilateral action against Iran -- by air via Turkey or over Iraq and/or Saudi air space, and by sea with submarine-launched cruise missiles from the Gulf of Oman -- no leader in the Middle East, or anywhere else in the world, would believe this was organized and executed without at least a wink and a nod from the president of the United States. ....

A follow-up was equally telling. Would the United States stand in the way if the Israelis, viewing an Iranian nuclear bomb as a direct threat to the existence of the Jewish state, decided to attack Iran's nuclear facilities? "Look," Mr. Biden said again, "we cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do." This stretches credulity. ...

Most experts see Israel holding off unilateral military action against Iran six to nine more months. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen and National Security Adviser Gen. James L. Jones believe Israeli bombing raids against Iran would trigger a much wider conflict encompassing most of the Middle East -- and beyond. On "Face the Nation," Adm. Mullen simply said any strike against Iran could be "very destabilizing."

Adm. Mullen and the other chiefs are known from private conversations to feel that an Israeli strike, even with precision-guided ordnance, would produce heavy civilian casualties and silence Mr. Obama's voice of a new America in the Muslim world. Oil at $300 would be the least of it

Omar Suleiman & Gilad Sher meeting:"Long term truce with Hamas..."

Via the PULSE, here

Shimon Shiffer in Yedioth Ahronoth reports:

"Egypt supports Israel's position that once negotiations are renewed with the Palestinians, they need to undertake that in a final status arrangement they will declare an end of their demands from Israel," reads a classified report that was recently submitted to officials in Jerusalem.

The report was written by Attorney Gilad Scher in the wake of meetings he held with senior Egyptian intelligence officials, first and foremost Director of Egyptian Intelligence General Omar Suleiman.

The Egyptians say that the negotiations need to be conducted on the basis of the principle of two states for two peoples, and that in the end, Israel will withdraw to the 1967 lines with land swaps adjustments so as to allow for the major settlement blocs to remain under Israeli sovereignty.

On another issue, Suleiman admitted that the efforts to form a Palestinian national unity government have met with failure. He said it was his assessment that Hamas was not prepared to give Fatah any foothold in the Gaza Strip and, on the flip side, that Fatah was not prepared to offer Hamas any partnership in governing the West Bank. The message that Suleiman sought to convey to the leadership in Jerusalem was that he thought it was better for Israel to agree to a long-term truce agreement with the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip, noting that Egypt would continue to work to prevent arms smuggling into the Gaza Strip from the Sinai peninsula..."

'self-hating Jews'

Haaretz, here

"... However, instead of appearing at the press conference himself, he stayed in his office and sent his advisers. An atmosphere of permanent crisis has surrounded Netanyahu's bureau ever since he took office, so it was no surprise that the press conference also had an air of panic.

The five advisers - National Security Adviser Uzi Arad, cabinet secretary Zvi Hauser, director general of the Prime Minister's Office Eyal Gabai, political adviser Ron Dermer and Nir Hefetz, who heads the public relations desk - arrived at the meeting without a prearranged, uniform message. Over and over, they cut each other off.
Hauser tried to convince the press that Netanyahu's zigzagging on the issue of value-added tax was a deliberate ploy coordinated with the other coalition parties. Arad once again lambasted U.S. President Barack Obama's refusal to honor understandings reached with his predecessor, George W. Bush, on the issue of the settlements, but argued that coordination with Washington on Iran had actually improved. Dermer emphasized Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University, which he said won international plaudits. And Hefetz denied that there was any panic in Netanyahu's bureau, attributing the friction there to "work-related pressure."
But despite the unified front they tried to present, it is clear that all of Netanyahu's aides dislike each other: They are constantly badmouthing each other and blaming each other for leaks. Arad, for example, demanded that Hauser undergo a lie detector test and is now demanding the same of Hefetz. And the latter two say "it is impossible to work with" Arad.
Compounding the problem is an inexperienced bureau chief, Natan Eshel, and a former spokesman, Yossi Levy, who is still clinging to his office and refusing to give it up to his replacement, Hefetz - who, for his part, is kept out of half the discussions.
Netanyahu appears to be suffering from confusion and paranoia. He is convinced that the media are after him, that his aides are leaking information against him and that the American administration wants him out of office. Two months after his visit to Washington, he is still finding it difficult to communication normally with the White House. To appreciate the depth of his paranoia, it is enough to hear how he refers to Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, Obama's senior aides: as "self-hating Jews."
"He thought that his speech at Bar-Ilan would become mandatory reading at schools in the United States, and when he realized that Obama gave no such order, he went back to being frustrated," one of his associates said.
At a recent meeting with with Netanyahu, ostensibly about the understandings with the U.S. on the settlements, former prime minister Ehud Olmert was shocked to see the prime minister focusing mainly on the media. "Is this what he called me in for?" a source close to Olmert quoted him as saying.
Behind closed doors, Netanyahu's coalition partners - including Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman - have also expressed shock at his behavior. One senior minister told an aide that he is finding it very difficult to work with the premier. "He drives us mad," the minister said. "Every minute things change, and I am constantly busy doing maintenance on Netanyahu."

Sarkozy: Assad has 'kept commitments' on Lebanon

In the Daily Star, here

"French President Nicolas Sarkozy said on Wednesday that Syrian president Bashar Assad "kept the commitments" that he had promised France concerning Lebanon. Sarkozy was speaking to reporters in L'Aquilla, Italy at the opening of the G8 Summit. Following the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, French-Syrian ties deteriorated considerably. However, in 2008 ties were revived following a visit by Sarkozy, newly elected at the time, to Syria ..."

Early Retirement for Egyptian President Mubarak .....

Recently, news has begun to circulate that Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak will not complete his current presidential term. Media and Israeli intelligence officials have reported that although Mubarak is continuing to attend conferences and diplomatic visits, he appears worn-down and tired. Upon his early retirement, Mubarak will face the decision of either passing his rule down to his generally disliked son Gamal or holding early elections.

Jacky Hugi in Ma'ariv reports:

According to the position of these officials [Israeli intelligence], Mubarak has been going through a difficult period personally, since the death of his 12-year old grandson two months ago. In their opinion, the death of the grandson Mohammed, which was apparently caused by a stroke, greatly weakened the 81-year old president. Such a trauma, they believe, may lower Mubarak's spirits and encourage him to retire early from political life.
These officials say further that Mubarak has recently looked "very weak, his speech is slow and his public appearances look forced. He is functioning, and he appears in public, and today he is scheduled to leave for a diplomatic visit to Italy, but his situation is worrying. He is not the same Mubarak as in the past....... "It is highly unlikely that he will reach the end of his term," say Israeli officials.

Top Israeli officials believe that Mubarak will prefer to supervise the transfer of power to his son Gamal during his lifetime, in order to raise the son's chances of taking power. There are pockets of resistance to Gamal in Cairo, mainly in the security establishment, since he lacks a military past, as opposed to the three presidents of Egypt that have occupied the post. According to a likely scenario, the president will announce his retirement and declare early elections. The officials refuse to commit to an estimated date for the retirement of the Egyptian president, but assess that "this will happen in the foreseeable future."

The US 'Accomodates' Israel?

Via the PULSE, here

Maya Bengal in Ma'ariv:

Rather surprisingly, the Americans have agreed to allow Israel to construct some 2,500 housing units in the settlements. This is in complete contrast to statements relayed to Israel in recent months, since the new administration took office.

The agreement was secured after Defense Minister Ehud Barak was able to convince the Americans to allow Israel to continue and build those units
whose construction had already started. In other words, the Americans gave their consent to letting the construction continue of some 700 buildings, which amount to some 2,500 housing units.

Upon his return to Israel, the defense minister reported to the forum of six - which includes, besides himself, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and ministers Avigdor Lieberman, Dan Meridor, Benny Begin, Moshe (Bugi) Yaalon - on the results of the meeting.

In addition, an understanding was reached between Mitchell and Barak that if it was indeed decided to halt settlement construction in the West Bank, this would occur only in the framework of regional negotiations - in which both Syria and Lebanon would also take part.

The Americans have adopted the position that Israel should not be required to halt settlement construction as a precondition, but rather only when the peace process with the Arab countries and the Palestinian Authority gets on track.

A week from now, special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell will arrive once again in Israel and is expected to meet with Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu. Incidentally, sources close to the defense minister are now saying that the level of tension between Washington and Jerusalem has abated.

According to them, the Americans have worked to accommodate Israel and the atmosphere in now more constructive.

Makor Rishon-Hatzofe reports the reaction of the "forum of six" to the compromise:

Although the details of the meeting between the defense minister and special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell have yet to be made public, ministers of the "forum of six" expressed their disappointment yesterday as to the result of these talks, particularly Barak's lack of significant accomplishments.

The Defense Minister's Bureau rejected the criticism and said yesterday that "the minister's bureau does not tend to respond to reports emerging from classified forums. As for the matter itself, these statements are inaccurate."

Already now there is opposition in the forum to the course aimed at reaching a compromise on the issue of settlements being led by Barak.Such a course could lead to the evacuation of many outposts and to freezing construction in many settlements.
Leading the opposition to this policy are ministers Yaalon, Lieberman and Begin. Opposing them and siding with Barak are Intelligence Affairs Minister Dan Meridor and Netanyahu himself who has significantly changed his views by adopting the two-state principle.
It indeed appears that Barak intends to evacuate the 23 outposts within a short while.
Mitchell plans to begin his tour of Arab capitals soon and to meet with the leaders of the Palestinian Authority in an effort to reach understandings on matters on which Israel is insisting.
After this he is expected to meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu to present him with these and demand something in exchange from Israel.
This will apparently occur after the government's budget for next year is passed on July 15.

Shiite Clerical Establishment Supports Khamenei

WINEP, here

"....Although this support has been demonstrated through silence, the fact that most Shiite clerics have not intervened in the public debate over the election or the government's use of force against protesters has been particularly effective in strengthening Khamenei's position. ...

The ayatollahs in Qom and Isfahan who have criticized the recent presidential election are isolated, with no significant role in the clerical establishment; they lack both financial resources and religious popularity. ...

A small marginal group, the Association of Researchers and Teachers of Qom Seminary, is the only clerical group that has explicitly referred to the presidential election as illegitimate. The association was founded in 1998, and its central council consists of eighteen midranking clerics and one ayatollah. This group plays no role in the administration of the clerical establishment, and none of its members are considered to be sources of emulation. The association was originally created to support former president Muhammad Khatami, but its support has remained symbolic rather than practical. The group's secretary, the controversial Seyyed Hossein Moussavi Tabrizi, was involved in the execution of many of the regime's opponents and political prisoners while he was the general prosecutor of the Revolutionary Court during the first decade of Islamic Republic .....

The Shiite clerical establishment, which stretches across the Middle East, is highly unlikely to initiate any sort of opposition to Khamenei's authority. Various Shiite leaders may not be happy with the Iranian government's policies, but publicizing their differences might jeopardize the social, political, and financial advantages they now receive from Iran. For example, during his Friday sermon immediately after the Iranian election, Seyyed Mohammad Hossein Fazlallah, a prominent Shiite ayatollah in Lebanon, stated his support for the government's official result and voiced his admiration of the Iranian people for their participation in the election. In Iraq, al-Sistani kept silent about the election result and has not reacted to the postelection crisis. Both ayatollahs have offices in Qom and benefit from the support of the Iranian government.

Inside Iran, support for Khamenei, although mostly silent, is also evident. Morteza Moqtadai, the head of Center for Seminary Management, announced that the election result was approved by "God and the Hidden Imam," and stated that Khamenei's words are the "Hidden Imam's words; when he says there was no manipulation in the election, he should be heard as the ultimate arbiter."

Khamenei -- for the moment -- is in a strong position. The clerical establishment's prevailing silence, however, could eventually work against him. If the political tide begins to turn, the establishment could be rendered powerless and its support ineffective, leaving Khamenei and his followers in a vulnerable position. "

"...He's joined at the hip to the Israel lobby. This explains the staying power..."

Philip Weiss in Mondoweiss, here

"Today The Times publishes a slightly-negative review of Dennis Ross and David Makovsky's new book on the unending peace process in which reviewer Howard French employs an indirect style that leaves the impression that he wanted to denounce the authors but was afraid to come out and say so.

[The book's] greatest intellectual energy, however, is expended attacking the so-called realists, who believe, the authors say, that the United States has been “too close to Israel,” and for whom, in what sounds like another overreach, “it is largely inconceivable that Israel could have a case or that the Arabs and Palestinians might not be living up to their side of the bargain.”

The authors go on to denounce “the realist concept of external blueprints, of pressuring Israelis while offering inducements to the Palestinians,” as “strangely divorced from reality.”

The authors rely excessively for foils on John J. Mearsheimer, a political scientist at the University of Chicago, and Stephen M. Walt, a political scientist at Harvard, who wrote “The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy” (2007) and who are cited frequently. But with the warnings in “Myths, Illusions, and Peace” about pressuring Israel, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that the Obama administration’s initial moves in the Middle East would also fall under the authors’ realist banner.

For many readers another issue that will arise is one of balance. Mr. Ross has led a distinguished career that is all the more remarkable for his staying power in Washington during both Democratic and Republican administrations — as a high-level Middle Eastern troubleshooter, envoy and policymaker. (He was recently transferred to the National Security Council.) At virtually no point in this book, however, are Israeli actions depicted as problematic or troublesome.

Translation: He's joined at the hip to the Israel lobby. This explains the staying power.

The closest the authors come to this is a passage describing mounting Palestinian disbelief in the peace process, in which they write, “They saw Israeli obligations under Oslo flouted — prisoners not released, withdrawals not taking place as scheduled, and the status of the territory constantly being changed to Israeli advantage, in effect prejudging the negotiations and their purpose.”

Elsewhere, speaking of an increase in the Israeli settler population on the West Bank from about 5,000 around the time of the Camp David accords in 1977 to over 300,000 now, the authors employ a counterfactual, saying “things could have been different if the Arabs had chosen a more pragmatic course.”

Counterfactuals and relying on foils and the expense of intellectual energy and for many readers and falling under banners... Can you speak English? Or has the lobby got your tongue? "

American Pressure Reduced?

The PULSE, here

Since Defense Minister Ehud Barak's meeting with George Mitchell last week, media sources have continued to argue over whether tension between the US and Israel has diminished and whether the US and Israel are making progress towards a compromise on the settlement issue.

Shimon Shiffer, Orly Azulai, Itamar Eichner and Smadar Peri in Yedioth Ahronoth report:

The prime minister [Binyamin Netanyahu] has recently begun to speak skeptically about the American administration's chances of extracting from the Arab states good will gestures towards Israel, such as permission to use their airspace. He suspects that the Americans' plans are not viable and that they only want to "squabble" with him.

However, it would seem that the US administration is sticking firmly to its established plan...

One official who is close to the talks between Israel and special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell said that the United States would not accept Israel's demand that recognition of Israel as a Jewish state be a precondition for negotiations. Next week Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with Mitchell, who is expected to inform Netanyahu that the United States is going to be able to secure the consent of various Arab states to make advances towards normalization with Israel in the event that Israel first freezes settlement activity. ..

The defense minister promised that Israel would not allow any construction in the settlements that was not truly for natural growth purposes as long as he was defense minister, but Mitchell made it clear that the US administration wanted a comprehensive clamp on all construction in the settlements. ..

Next week Mitchell is slated to arrive for meetings in Israel and the Palestinian Authority. He will meet with Prime Minister Netanyahu and PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Mitchell will present Netanyahu with the principles of the comprehensive peace initiative that the United States is planning. The goal is to hold talks between Israel and Syria and Israel and Lebanon in tandem with the resumption of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Matti Tuchfeld, Lilach Shoval and Yuri Yalon in Israel Hayom write:

Israeli officials are pleased with the results of the meeting that was held between Defense Minister Ehud Barak and US special envoy to the Middle East George Mitchell.

"There's been a discernibly significant reduction in American pressure on Israel," said last night a political source. A joint statement that was issued by Barak and Mitchell noted that the parties reiterated their commitment to regional peace between Israel and the Palestinians, Syria and Lebanon.

One high-ranking political official said he believed that ultimately the two sides would reach a compromise that would involve an Israeli commitment not to expand the settlements temporarily, but would complete construction processes in places where plans already existed..."

"Settling Sons"

M Knight in JANE's, here

The Sons of Iraq are not yet being systematically targeted by the government, but they are growing fearful of such intimidation once U.S. forces withdraw from the country. Demobilization and reemployment of the Sons of Iraq is likely to be fairly rapid, with fighters receiving payment until they are found alternative employment. Although no near-term deterioration of security is likely to be caused by the Sons of Iraq, a subset of these fighters is considering long-term resistance to the Shiite-led federal government after the United States leaves Iraq.

(read the Pdf. Report in full, Jane's, here)

This press release was sent on behalf of the Saudi Embassy by Qorvis Communications to congressional hands last night:

Below please find a statement issued by the Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia.

CONTACT:
Royal Embassy of Saudi Arabia, Washington, DC

SAUDI ARABIA DENIES REPORTS REGARDING ISRAELI USE OF ITS
AIRSPACE

WASHINGTON, [July 6, 2009] - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia today issued the following statement in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia:

"The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia totally and categorically denies
accounts published by a British newspaper regarding contacts with Israel or permission to use Saudi airspace for any hostile activities. The Kingdom is greatly puzzled by the publication of this false information, which directly contradicts the established, firm and clear policies of the Saudi government regarding relations with the occupying government of Israel and the Kingdom's prohibition against the use of its territories or airspace for aggression against another nation."

حسن نصر الله زار دمشق بعيداً عن الإعلام والإعلان

في الجانب الأول، كانت جلسة المراجعة الأبرز قد جرت قبل مدة قصيرة، وجمعت الرئيس السوري بشار الأسد والأمين . العام لحزب الله السيد حسن نصر الله الذي زار دمشق بعيداً عن الإعلام والإعلان. وجرى خلال الاجتماع عرض تفاصيل كثيرة تخصّ ملف الانتخابات، لناحية ما الذي كان في مقدور قوى المعارضة القيام به ولم تفعله، وما الذي كان في مقدور سوريا القيام به ولم تفعله، ولناحية آلية العمل في المرحلة المقبلة.
ويبدو أن النقاش استخلص نتائج، من بينها أن قوى المعارضة لم تكن لديها متابعة تفصيلية لما يجري على الأرض، وأن مستوى التنسيق في ما بينها لم يكن على مستوى الحدث، وأن الخلافات التي قامت لناحية تقدير قوة الخصم أو تحديد الخطوات الواجب اتخاذها سبّبت تراجع الحوافز الضرورية لخوض معركة بكل المقاييس، كذلك جرى انتقاد بعض التركيبات والتحالفات التي يبدو أنها سببت هي الأخرى خسارة مواقع مهمة.

Israel's "biggest nightmare" is that one day the US "‘would say 'OK guys, take care of it,'"

Laura Rosen in the CABLE, here

"As White House and Office of the Vice President aides formed a united front against widespread media speculation about a change in policy signaled by Vice President Joseph Biden's statement on a Sunday news show that Israel is a "sovereign nation" that could "determine for itself" how to deal with threats from Iran, analysts said that Israel may be wary of any such green light in any case.

In e-mails and phone calls today, administration officials insisted that Biden's comments were neither a signal of any change in policy, nor any sort of freelancing. Asked if Biden's remarks might have been part of an intentional messaging campaign to step up pressure on Iran to negotiate over its nuclear program, officials gave an emphatic "no." But for all that, the remarks were widely seen both in Washington and abroad as a message intended less for Jerusalem than for Tehran.

Israel's "biggest nightmare" is that one day the U.S. government "‘would call it and say 'OK guys, take care of it,'" said Tel Aviv University Iran expert David Menashri in a call Monday arranged by the Israeli Policy Forum, a U.S. nonprofit organization that supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict...

"Some in the [Israeli] media are portraying [Biden's comments] as a 180-degree switch and as an indication that the administration is beginning to realize that 'engagement' may not work," said former Israeli Consul General to the United Nations Alon Pinkas. "That it is absolutely NOT a change, and if anything, it should be interpreted as a bad sign rather than a positive encouragement."

Biden's message "is the absolute worst-case scenario from Israel's policy-planning perspective," Pinkas elaborated. "'We will not prevent' means the U.S. will neither support nor encourage [Israeli attacks on Iran] or in other words, 'Do what you think is appropriate, but bear the consequences.'"

Although Israeli officials have expressed unending skepticism about the Obama administration's intentions to try to engage with Iran, and are often seen as chafing against Washington, Israel has conducted an intensive campaign over the past several years to make Iran's nuclear program an international rather than just an Israeli problem.

The reason, explains Georgetown University's Daniel Byman, is that Israel doesn't want to take on Iran by itself. "Militarily, this is a difficult operation," Byman said Monday, ..... It also requires superb intelligence that may be lacking."

"There was no intention to change the position, and nothing the vice president said in any way indicates a change in U.S. position," said a White House official of Biden's remarks Sunday. "What he said and what [chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Michael] Mullen said taken together reflect our position: Israel is a sovereign nation, Israel is an ally and Israel has a right to defend itself and other countries cannot dictate how it defends itself. That being said, it would not be helpful if Israel were to act against Iran." Any interpretation that Biden's remarks signaled a change in U.S. policy is "spin," he added.

Biden did, however, strike a different tone when answering a similar question back on April 7. Asked if he were concerned that Netanyahu might strike Iranian nuclear facilities, Biden told CNN: "I don't believe Prime Minister Netanyahu would do that. I think he would be ill advised to do that." How to account for the seeming discrepancy? "Any tonal difference is not intentional at all," the White House official said.

Did Biden coordinate with the White House to pressure Iran to respond to the still-outstanding offer of talks with Washington? Again, the answer from the White House was no.

Washington foreign-policy hands, however, were skeptical that the message was not quite deliberate.

"It's crazy to think the principal audience of this comment was in Jerusalem and not in Tehran," said Jon Alterman, director of Middle East Studies at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "The policy discussion [in Washington] is about changing Iranian behavior, not about fine-tuning Israeli actions that will change Iranian behavior. The focus is on Tehran. Now does this have an effect on Israel: sure. But I think the principal goal (if [Biden's statement] was intentional) is to diminish the comfort level that people in the Iranian leadership may have that their actions don't have consequences."

Deliberate or not, Biden's comments could increase the uncertainty in Tehran about U.S. intentions. "When the Iranians are confident the U.S. is going to sit on the Israelis, that creates one set of plans," Alterman continued. "And when they can't be sure of that," that creates another.

"There may be something to the effect that the White House planned Biden's comments on Iran yesterday, to keep the Iranians off balance and honest," one Hill foreign-policy aide said Monday. "What I found interesting was the juxtaposition of Biden's comments with those of Admiral Mullen, who continue to take the cautious perspective of the U.S. military that any preemptive strike would be destabilizing and not helpful to the cause of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan." Asked about Biden's comments during his own appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, Admiral Mullen cautioned that "any strike on Iran ... could be very destabilizing."

"Perhaps we'll let the Israelis do it".

Greg Djerejian in the Belgravia Dispatch, here

".... Permit me a brief personal vignette. On a flight a year or so back, I bumped into a former Cabinet member from a previous Administration (he will remain nameless, and I won't even mention his exact post or what Administration he served, suffice it to say a prominent man quite well known still). Discussing Iran briefly, he looked at me with his shrewd eyes and said (relying on memory and so probably slighly paraphrasing): "Perhaps we'll let the Israelis do it". The comment was revealing I thought for a couple reasons: 1) the notion that somehow we would 'authorize' the Israelis, as if they were our proxy to so delegate out the mission; and 2) perhaps less surprising, the fact he thought an extensive bombing campaign of Iran not a bad idea, essentially apparently just a dusting off of the Osirak precedent, I thought without sufficiently appreciating that this operation would be materially more challenging several times over, for many reasons, to include two hot wars on both sides of Iran with hundreds of thousands of American soldiers in the neighborhood.

This little anecdote leads me to a further thought, I think Biden was essentially just trying to refute "1" above, e.g. the sense that it's up to us, thus stressing Israel is a sovereign state that makes up her own mind about such things, so that perhaps he was purposefully distancing the U.S. some from a possible Israeli action, whether in scripted or unscripted manner I'm not sure (I'd probably guess the latter). Of course, how the region and world interpret his comments could be as more of a flashing greenish light, even if that wasn't the intent. Of course too, no one in the region would believe--even were it true (which would be highly unlikely)--that an Israeli action didn't enjoy tacit American support/approval, a variable that we should keep uppermost in our minds (among others) when dealing with the Israelis on this issue/dossier going forward..."

Iraqi Official: "Saudi Arabia is Behind Terrorist Attacks in Iraq"

MEMRI (oddly) here

"...The most forceful accusation against Saudi Arabia came from Hadi Al-Ameri, chairman of Iraq's parliamentary Security and Defense Committee, who accused Saudi Arabia of heading a group of countries in the region that opposed the U.S. withdrawal from Iraq's cities. Al-Almeri said that Saudi Arabia was responsible for the recent bombings in Iraq, and must take a stand against them. He added that the bombings had been financed from outside the country, and that the perpetrators were members of Al-Qaeda and the Iraqi Ba'th Party.

In the article mentioned above, Dr. 'Abd Al-Khaliq Hussein accused Saudi Arabia of promoting terrorism in Iraq: "Reliable reports have proven that 50% of all terrorists sent to Iraq, as well as most of those who carry out suicide attacks there, are from Saudi Arabia. As is well known, the Saudi regime is a police regime, [so that] no Saudi terrorist can enter Iraq without the authorization and blessing of the Saudi government."

The Aswat Al-Iraq website also held Saudi Arabia responsible for suicide terrorist attacks carried out in Iraq in years past: "According to reports published following violent operations [in Iraq], most of those Al-Qaeda [members] who carried out suicide attacks [there] are Saudis who crossed into Iraq from neighboring countries, with the aim of carrying out their missions in Iraqi cities. Likewise, Saudi clerics have issued fatwas permitting terrorist attacks in Iraq..."

Bush's Library (Oxymoron): "most treasured item: Saddam Hussein’s pistol”

Think Progress, here

"...Mark Langdale, the president of the George W. Bush Foundation, said the library would use items to highlight 25 of Mr. Bush’s presidential decisions. “The gun is an interesting artifact, and it tells you that the United States captured Saddam Hussein and disarmed him literally,” Mr. Langdale said. “How we fit that into the decision to go to war, we haven’t gotten to that point yet.”

so, ... is Netanyahu succeeding, in persuading the Americans?...

In the PULSE, here

"Vice President Biden's recent comments reaffirmed Israel's sovereignty in assessing national security threats as well as reflected the dwindling patience of the US in engaging Iran in dialogue.

Boaz Bismuth and Matti Tuchfeld in Israel Hayom:

Has US Vice President Joe Biden given Israel a green light to attack Iran? In an unusual statement, the US vice president said yesterday in an interview to ABC with respect to an Israeli strike against Iran that the US could not dictate to a sovereign nation what it could or could not do.

Officials in Jerusalem were not surprised by Biden's statements.

"There are secret understandings between Israel and the Obama administration as to the options that Israel has regarding Iran," said a political source in Jerusalem to Israel Hayom.

Sources in the Prime Minister's Bureau said yesterday that "the fact that Biden is talking about Israel's right to attack Iran, and at the same time fewer statements are being made on settlements, shows that Netanyahu is succeeding, slowly and determinedly, in persuading the Americans of the justice of his government's policy."....."

What's with Biden?

Lang in SST, here

"Is Biden warning the Iranians that US patience is coming to an end? That is the only way his statements make sense to me.

Only the truly egregious and ignorant think that an Israeli/Iranian air war would not involve the United States. The presence of US forces in the countries adjoining Iran ensures that such a war would affect the US profoundly. That being the case, it follows that Israel, as a junior partner of the US and recipient of a mountain of American money and material CAN NOT be given a free hand to start such a war without US consent.

The ridiculous Donny Deutsch fantasized today on "Morning Joe" (MSNBC) that Israel finishes it own wars... "Just turn them loose!" he raved. Another ignorant fool heard from.

Without large scale US operational and logistical assistance Israel can put a hundred planes over Natanz once, maybe twice in smaller numbers. It's a long way out there. Is the US going to give the Israelis overflight clearance for Iraq? What would our "good buddy" Maliki say about that? In Biden's words, Iraq is also a "sovereign country." What about Search Air Rescue support for aircraft that experience mechanical failure or battle damage? The US will let them recover on Iraqi air bases?

Either Joe Biden was a messenger or they need to find a big enough gag for him"

Saudi Arabia appoints new ambassador to Syria

AP, here

"A Saudi diplomat said Monday that the kingdom has appointed a new ambassador to Syria, the strongest sign yet of the solidifying reconciliation between the two rival Arab nations. ....

An official at the Syrian Foreign Ministry said Syria has approved the appointment of a Saudi ambassador, identifying the diplomat as Abdullah al-Eifan. The diplomat at the Saudi Embassy in Damascus said he would assume the post soon.

Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the appointment was not yet official, and gave no further details.

Al-Eifan's appointment is a strong indication that a much talked about summit meeting between the Saudi king and the Syrian president would be held in Damascus in the coming days or weeks.

Observers have suggested a summit in Damascus was unlikely before the king appoints his envoy to Syria. ..."

US sends Dodge Chargers to Lebanon ...

WT, here

"....each car includes a sophisticated police package with advanced transmission, brakes, lights and sirens....

The new vehicles would be used to help patrol the Palestinian refugee camp of Naher Barid, the base of an Al Qaida revolt in 2007. ISF played a minor role in the counter-insurgency operation in Naher Barid and refused to respond to the Hizbullah assault on offices and political parties linked to then-Prime Minister Fuad Siniora in May 2008. ..."

Biden: "US will not stand in Israel's way if Israel believes military action is necessary against Iran...."

WAPO, here

"Vice President Joe Biden says the U.S. will not stand in Israel's way if Israel believes military action is needed to eliminate Iran's nuclear threat.

Biden says the U.S. "cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do."

Israel considers Iran its most dangerous adversary and is wary of hard-line Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who just won a disputed re-election. He repeatedly has called for Israel to be wiped off the map.

Israel and the U.S. accuse Iran of seeking to develop weapons under the cover of a nuclear power program. Iran denies that.

Biden told ABC's "This Week" that Israel can determine for itself "what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."

Mossad’s director holds secret talks with Saudi officials to discuss "flying over the kingdom"?...

In the London Times, here

"...The reports were denied by Saudi officials.

“The Saudis have tacitly agreed to the Israeli air force flying through their airspace on a mission which is supposed to be in the common interests of both Israel and Saudi Arabia,” a diplomatic source said last week..."

... and, despite decline in immigration, Israel continues to 'import settlers'....

'The Palestinians ...'

Haaretz, here

Housing Minister Ariel Atias on Thursday warned against the spread of Arab population into various parts of Israel, saying that preventing this phenomenon was no less than a national responsibility. 

Haaretz, here

".... 5,000 immigrants from North America, France, Great Britain, South Africa and beyond ..... 

Absorption figures have been in steady decline since 2000. Last year, only 16,500 immigrants arrived in the country, the lowest number since the start of the massive immigration wave from the former Soviet Union in the 1990s. 

Eli Cohen, head of the Jewish Agency's department for immigration and absorption, cited the worldwide economic crisis as the primary motivator for the spike in immigration. "Israel is perceived as an island of stability compared with other places," he said"

Israeli submarine crosses Suez Canal with eye on Iran

AP, here

"An Israeli submarine crossed through the Suez Canal last month as a part of a military training exercise, defense officials said on Saturday. 

The move is believed to have been made as a warning to Iran of the Jewish state's capabilities and and to show that Israel and Egypt, are cooperating against a shared threat. The two countries share a peace agreement but have had cool relations for years. .....

Israel owns three dolphin-grade submarines, which can carry nuclear warheads. Israeli defense officials do not discuss the type of missiles that can be fired from the submarines, nor their range. ......

The Jerusalem Post reported this was the first time Israeli vessels had crossed the Egyptian canal since 2005...." 

US blocking new sanctions on Iran?

Haaretz, here

"... diplomatic sources in New York reported that American officials are working behind the scenes to prevent new sanctions from being imposed against Iran. 

U.S. officials claimed that a tough stance toward Iran could backfire, bringing about an opposite outcome to that desired by those who support such measures. 

The Obama administration, according to the diplomatic sources, has discarded the notion of direct talks with Iran. However, the United States is still interested in re-engaging Iran through the renewed discussion of its nuclear program through the five permanent United Nations Security Council members and Germany....

In addition to U.S. reluctance to enact fresh sanctions, G8 members Russia and China have been known to oppose any punitive steps against Tehran. .."

"Obama rhetoric can boost engagement strategy"

Excerpts from OXFAN:

SOS Hillary Clinton on June 28 said that President Barack Obama was taking the situation in Iran "a day at a time", carefully calibrating his diplomatic and policy responses. Obama has faced pressure from across the US political spectrum to direct more rhetorical firepower against Tehran. However, recent US experience in dealing with authoritarian governments suggests that such pressure requires careful calibration to be effective.... 

Cold War experience. The US experience in seeking to influence authoritarian regimes during the Cold War suggests that while critiques have merit, they are incomplete and flawed:

• Forceful rhetoric deployed injudiciously, without reference to the society in question and in the absence of engagement, is likely to be futile -- at best.
• However, strategic public communications that seek to hold an authoritarian government accountable to its own professed standards, accompanied by diplomatic engagement, can sometimes support US policy objectives.

The Reagan legend. The most powerful proponents of strong US verbal condemnations of authoritarian regimes, particularly on the Right, usually point to the example of former President Ronald Reagan:

• The 'evil empire'. ....verbal interventions supposedly helped precipitate the collapse of Moscow's influence, the fall of the Soviet Empire, and the end of the Cold War.
• Reagan in Berlin. Reagan's most celebrated rhetorical intervention, in this respect, came in a 1987 speech before the Brandenburg Gate,........ to "tear down this wall".....

However, the argument that Reagan, by resolutely confronting Moscow in rhetorical and military terms, was the primary agent of the fall of the Soviet Union, has significant problems. This is because it:

• is overly US-centric, underrates or ignores developments within Eastern Europe and, especially, the Soviet Union itself that had a more direct bearing on events;
• suggests that Soviet attempts to match Reagan's military spending brought about economic instability, forcing Moscow to undertake destabilising reforms (scholarship shows compellingly that even extreme economic distress does not necessarily prompt collapse of authoritarian regimes);
• underrates the ability of authoritarian regimes, such as the Soviets, to maintain their political grip by deploying massive coercive force (Moscow chose not to); and
• discounts the crucial role played by Gorbachev. ........ 

Obama's Iranian strategy. The administration has declared that it will continue its strategy of engagement with Iran, notwithstanding the regime's post-election repression. Indeed, Obama has long used Reagan's tough negotiations with the Soviets to justify his own approach. The president also seems to have taken Gates's advice, and sought to criticise the regime in terms not limited to a US or Western perspective. For example, he has frequently invoked "universal" or "global" norms in urging Tehran to tolerate dissent and eschew brutality. 

However, Iranian law and the expressed ideals of the 1979 revolution may give him further rhetorical ammunition:

• Article 27 of the Iranian constitution guarantees the right to freely hold "marches and public gatherings" as long as "arms are not carried" and the marchers observe "the fundamental principles of Islam".
• Reformist former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami yesterday described the presidential election as a "coup against the republicanism of the system"; opposition leader Mir Hossein Moussavi has levelled similar charges.

This suggests that Obama may have an opportunity to use the Islamic Republic's own founding documents as basis for future criticism of the regime's repressive tactics. Like the Helsinki accords, the disconnect between an authoritarian government's expressed ideas and its behaviour in practice gives the president an opening he could exploit to his advantage, in the context of an engagement policy. ..."

"No sign Iran seeks nuclear arms"

Reuters, here

"I don't see any evidence in IAEA official documents about this," Yukiya Amano told Reuters in his first direct comment onIran's atomic program since his election, when asked whether he believed Tehran was seeking nuclear weapons capability.

Amano got the strongest backing from Western states keen for the IAEA to toughen steps against the spread of nuclear arms. But his rise has worried developing nations who see the non-proliferation maxim being used as an excuse to deny them a fair share of nuclear know-how.

Iran has exploited such tensions, winning sympathy in the developing world, by arguing that to stop uranium enrichment as major world powers demand would violate its sovereignty, stunt its energy development and perpetuate inequality....

Amano told reporters he would do his utmost to implement IAEA safeguard agreements in Iran and Syria. He also said there was hope for future agency work in North Korea, which told IAEA inspectors to leave in April and which has since carried out a nuclear test. It fired four short-range missiles on Thursday...."

"Well, the guy was definitely a Zionist.. they're not subject to the laws the rest of us are."

Jeff Stein, in CQ, here

"In court documents filed last week, a sketchy tale surfaced suggesting that someone wanted Franklin, the former Pentagon analyst who had agreed to testify against two pro-Israel activists on charges of espionage, dead.

In a Tuesday, June 30 interview, Franklin and his attorney Plato Cacheris, the famed criminal defense lawyer, elaborated on the shadowy incident.

"Somebody approached Larry and suggested it would be good if Larry could disappear and fake a suicide," Cacheris said, "and this person would assist him in doing that.".........

A man approached him at work, he said. It was sometime after 2005, when he was charged with providing classified information to AIPAC employees Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, and their trial on espionage charges, which was repeatedly delayed by legal jousting over the past few years.....

"It was in West Virginia. I was parking cars at the time. He came to see me at the Charles Town Race Track. He said, 'Let's go to lunch and talk about raising money for my defense.' 

"I was going to go somewhere, and it was going to be arranged that I could occasionally meet my wife. It was supposed to be on a bridge."

In Israel?

"No," he said. "Florida."

Who was the man who approached him?

"Well, the guy was definitely a Zionist," Franklin said. "And he was a true believer. And like a lot of true believers, he's beyond good and evil. They're not subject to the laws the rest of us are." 

"A mother of 5, gets shot on her balcony.. No facebook groups .. ministers holding hands at press conferences, & no fear for Lebanon's image!"

Jamal at JP, here

"Three ministers took time off from their busy tourist  season schedule, after all one of these ministers promised the Lebanese 3 million visitors this summer, to address an issue that has thousands of citizens enraged in this country. The cancellation of  a French comedian's performances in Beiteddine has ruffled some elite feathers, as it should for where will this country be without the freedom of artistic expression. 

So what exactly happened, let's see. The dude was coming, so many people were enthused they added a second and then a third show... no problems there. General Security gave the OK even though it often prevents local acts from taking the stage, Visas are not an issue... Fine, then a TV reporter questions the dude's allegiances and thinks he's in bed with the Izzies.. Controversy, that's always good for business, free promotion... Dude cancels his trip.... Over 6000 activists join e-campaign against terrorisme intelectuel... 

I have to admire this stand against censorship although I'm having a hard time locating it. General Security is known to prevent shows or cut scenes from movies but that wasn't the case here and there were no threats made to the performer or the festivals. It was the  dude who cancelled his visit. On the Lebanese side, all that happened was that a reporter did not like the dude's alleged background...If the report is inaccurate then refute it but the reporter had no authority to and did not cancel the show... yet the ministers of Tourism, Press, and Culture felt that this reporter harmed Lebanon's image abroad. What will people say?!?!

Meanwhile Zeina Miri, 30 year old mother of 5, gets shot on her balcony. No facebook groups, no ministers holding hands at press conferences, and more importantly no fear for Lebanon's image." 

Gemayel: “If Lebanon wants to participate in a Saudi-Syrian summit, then it is preferable that it is held in Saudi Arabia,”

Kataeb's "Amine Gemayel told LBC on Thursday that, “Syria should take the initiative to demonstrate its good intentions in order to resolve pending issues between Beirut and Damascus.”

Gemayel called on the Syrian administration “to prove its good intentions through dismantling armed Palestinian bases and demarcating the border.” Gemayel added that they will be waiting for the STL’s verdict before entering into a serious relationship with Syria.

He also affirmed that the March 14 alliance is united and warned against attempts to interfere between its parties. He added that Lebanon’s sacrifices should not be “thrown away.”

“If Lebanon wants to participate in a Saudi-Syrian summit, then it is preferable that it is held in Saudi Arabia,” he said."

".. Dennis Ross was, to put it in straightforward lingo, dumped, fired, kicked the hell out ..."

'Harper' at SST, here

"Dennis Ross: Goodbye and Good riddance. After much fussing around, and consulting with a wide range of Washington types, I am now convinced that we can lift our glasses and toast Dennis Ross' departure from his desk outside the principal's office at the State Department. I am told, by several people, whose access to the corridors of power at Foggy Bottom are unasailable, that Ross was, to put it in straightforward lingo, dumped, fired, kicked the hell out. He did something that clearly crossed the line, and was working at cross-purposes to Secretary of State Clinton and special envoy Mitchell. Maybe he also crossed Richard Holbrooke. I hope to get more of the inside details soon, but for now, I am convinced by these sources, that Ross was dumped, and that it was the AIPAC/WINEP crowd that had to be somewhat appeased, by giving Ross a desk at the National Security Council, somewhat equivalent to a cell with a view at one of those old Soviet gulags.

I dismiss the spin tales coming out of Lobby and neocon quarters, that Ross was brought over to the White House to "teach them a thing or two" about how to deal with Iran, and that he is the darling of Tom Donalon, the number two under General Jones.

That is the good news portion of what I am hearing. Ross will not give up without a fight, and he will count on the AIPAC/WINEP crowd continuing to whimper that he must be given a prominent seat at the table. Look for him to try to muck around with the expected new NIE on Iran.

But that aside, I call all of your attention to the recent friction, developing between the White House and the Secretary of State. The most immediate manifestations of this rift are: 1. The White House insistence that Secretary Clinton drop her plans to bring her longtime advisor and friend, Sid Blumenthal into State, as a personal advisor to the Secretary. I am told that, while Denis McDonough was the purveyor of the message from the White House to Hillary, it was actually Rahm Emanuel who led the charge against Blumenthal, and, by extension, against Secretary Clinton. There is a sycophant problem at the White House. The fact that Hillary Clinton has been doing a very effective job, repairing some of the damage from eight years of Bush-Cheney "diplomacy-free foreign policy," is now rubbing some of the sycophants the wrong way--as if her success somewho undermines the credibility of the President.

I considered this a relatively secondary matter, reflecting the usual personality frictions, in an administration top-loaded with smart people. But when Clinton announced yesterday that she was not going to Moscow with the President for his face-to-face summit with Medvedev and Putin, I inquired further, and got a clear indication that there are ruffled egos at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, who reacted with some paranoia about the prospect of a Hillary partisan like Blumenthal taking a slot at State.

This is bad news all around. The President's economic team, led by Larry Summers, Tim Geithner, Peter Orszag, and Rahm Emanuel himself, is so biased in favor of bailing out the banks, that they have squandered $8 trillion in taxpayers money, and have done nothing about the ever-shrinking real economy. Just look at the job losses since January--3 million net jobs lost from the U.S. economy, with other really serious repercussions.

In this context, the national security team, Gen. Jones, Sec. Def. Gates, Hillary, and the two special envoys--Mitchell and Holbrooke--have been operating effectively, with a degree of collegiality and genuine coordination of effort, that serves the President very well. You can disagree with some of their policy decisions, but I don't think there is any dispute that this is a team of experienced and well-intentioned people. Thus, if there is any real effort, for petty realpolitiking reasons, to disrupt or diminish this team, that is going to be a further disaster. And that worries me far more than the whereabouts of Dennis Ross."

"... Mossad fell into the trap of siding with the Lebanese Christian Phalange and being drawn into the first Lebanon war.."

HAARETZ, here

"Military intelligence experts have been proven wrong and even disgraced, for example, because of their assessments prior to and following the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War. Their predictions, in briefings before the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, were undermined by the Iranians who initially did not collapse in the face of Saddam .........

the "Gulf curse" hit Meir Dagan, who recently had his tenure as director of the Mossad espionage service, extended to an eighth year - who made a belittling remark about the intensity and significance of the protests against the regime in Tehran.......

... A year and a half later Dagan was brought to Mossad and since then he has not stopped looking for trees at which to hurl his knife. He did not become powerful because of his assessment capabilities; sometimes he was proven right and sometimes he was mistaken. The main criteria for his job include the ability to gather information, to produce vital intelligence and to carry out operations. There is a worrying precedent, however. During Hofi's final year, Mossad fell into the trap of siding with the Lebanese Christian Phalange and being drawn into the first Lebanon war. Dagan's desire for an eighth year - as some think - because of his anticipation of developments connected with Iran, is a gamble that could end badly."

(yawn, yawn) "Time for an Israel Strike?"

Bolton, in the WaPo, here

"... Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not....

Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people. This was always true, but it has become even more important to make this case emphatically, when the gulf between the Islamic revolution of 1979 (IS BOLTON 'NOSTALGIC'?) and the citizens of Iran has never been clearer or wider. Military action against Iran's nuclear program and the ultimate goal of regime change can be worked together consistently.

Otherwise, be prepared for an Iran with nuclear weapons, which some, including Obama advisers, believe could be contained and deterred. That is not a hypothesis we should seek to test in the real world. The cost of error could be fatal."

“Saddam Hussein concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s "weaknesses & vulnerabilities" considered deal with the US!

National Security Archives, here  and the WAPO, here

"... Hussein’s fear of Iran, which he said he considered a greater threat than the United States, featured prominently in the discussion about weapons of mass destruction. … Hussein said he was convinced that Iran was trying to annex southern Iraq — which is largely Shiite. [...]

“The threat from Iran was the major factor as to why he did not allow the return of UN inspectors,” Piro wrote. “Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.”

Hussein replied that throughout history there had been conflicts between believers of Islam and political leaders. He said that “he was a believer in God but was not a zealot…that religion and government should not mix.” Hussein said that he had never met bin Laden and that the two of them “did not have the same belief or vision.”

When Piro noted that there were reasons why Hussein and al-Qaeda should have cooperated — they had the same enemies in the United States and Saudi Arabia — Hussein replied that the United States was not Iraq’s enemy, and that he simply opposed its policies..."

"... McChrystal will not get a lot more troops than his 70,000 odd ..."

Lang, in SST, here

NSC's (Jim) "Jones appears to be the "flavor of the week."  He was on the "Newshour" a few nights ago for a major interview.  Now he appears in this story by Woodward highlighting his role.  Some of this "attention" is defensive and intended to fend off "log-rolling" by the usual people seeking to cause his departure from the NSC.  He is suspected of insufficient devotion to Israel and so we have had stories planted here and there about a lack of warmth between him and the president, etc.  This is a bit of a corrective.

At the same time, Jones (in Woodward's story) gives firm guidance to the military chain of command in the matter of Afghanistan.  The message is clear.  Afghanistan will be an "economy of force" theater of operations.  McChrystal will not get a lot more troops than his 70,000 odd.   He is to concentrate on disruption of groups actually hostile to the US.  Obama (and Jones) do not want to reproduce Iraq/Vietnam in Afghanistan.  The wondrous wonderfulness of Counterinsurgency (COIN) as a panacea appeals greatly to today's officers.  Military officers are always looking to get promoted.   They climb onto any "bandwagon" rolling in the right direction.  Today the "bandwagon" has "COIN" painted on the side.  Tomorrow?  Who knows what fell beast of brooding is slouching toward the dawn of some new doctrinal "revolution."  While McChrystal is occupied with this limited task, an emphasis will be placed on economic development under the aegis of an international consortium of donors.  The theory is that property will reduce the attractiveness of Islamic zealotry.  Will it?  Perhaps..

In any event, I think that the policy in Afghanistan reiterated by Jones is the wisest available.  Will it be possible to resist the temptation to increase the size of the force there?  Perhaps.  The generals will make endless pleas for more people.  They always do."