Kouchner: 'France is not ruling out a military strike on Iran'

In HAARETZ, here

"...In an interview with Haaretz, Kouchner, who along with French President Nicolas Sarkozy is leading the European hard-liners against Iran, described the crisis over Iran's nuclear program "as extremely serious," adding that France "will never compromise on Israel's security."

British govt' faces row with Bush over 'substantial' financial support to Tehran

From the Sunday Times, here

"...The money (GBP 290 Millions) was offered by the Export Credits Guarantee Department (ECGD) to support British firms exporting to Iran, mainly to the country’s petrochemical industry.

Many of the loans were being negotiated while British ministers were threatening sanctions against Iran for creating a nuclear enrichment facility to make atomic weapons..."

The IAEA's "real views" on the Iranian Nuclear Program

Via SicSemperTyrannis, Col. Lang writes:

"Remember how the bush-cheney cabal was quite critical of this agreement with iran and has declared that even iran's full compliance with this agreement won't suffice. that seems to be the reason that we have seen so much el-baradei bashing recently. Iran IS cooperating with the iaea as requested, and the info that iran has/is providing IS consistant with the iaea findings. in short, a positive report which also makes no mention of any nuclear weapons programs or any such stuff. four points to keep in mind with the report:

1. 1. IRAN IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH NPT
   2. 'UNDECLARED ACTIVITIES' AND THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOL -- the iaea has found NO EVIDENCE of a nuclear weapons program, the iaea can't say that iran's nuclear activities are exclusively peaceful since the iaea can't verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities in iran. the report requests that iran once again implement the additional protocol. keep in mind:
      1. the iaea doesn't veirty the absence of undeclared nuclear activities for any nation unless they have signed and ratified the additional protocol. according to the iaea there are currently 40 other nations for which the iaea can't similary verify the absence of undeclared nuclear activities. i.e. egypt (which rice recently lauded as a 'model' nuclear program) have refused to even sign the additional protocol, unlike iran.
      2. iran voluntarily implemented the additional protocol by allowing more stringent inspections for 2 years during the course of the paris agreement negotiations with the eu3 (even though iran wasn't legally obligated to do so) -- and still no evidence of nuclear weapons was found in iran. the 'stuff' the bush-cheney cabal a.k.a. admin. has given the iaea of 'secret' iranian nuclear facilities had been BOGUS [ see: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/02/25/MNGGKOAR681.DTL&feed=rss.news ]. iran has stopped providing that additional level of cooperation and stopped voluntarily implementing the additional protocol when THE EU TRIED TO CHEAT IRAN in the the paris agreement negotiations. iran has repeatedly stated its willingness to ratify and implement the additional protocol once its nuclear rights are recognized.
      3. issues resolved -- the issue of iran's experiments with plutonium has been resolved. this particular isn't mentioned in the nov 07 report. but the modalities agreement of aug 07 stated that such had been resolved.
      4. outstanding issues -- traces of highly enriched uranium where were found in iran, but to date iran's statements about those 'traces' have been verified by the iaea to be accurate [ http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082201447_pf.html ] the traces in question were attributable to contamination from imported centrifuge parts. iran doesn't have the capacity to make highly enriched uranium, it barely manages to make low level uranium.
      5. no suspension of enrichment. iran's enrichment process is fully monitored by the iaea and determined fully legal on iran's part." Jim Herring

Lebanon is Hanging by a Thread: 'Diplomatic Pleasantries Have Been Discarded'

From CounterPunch, here

"... the most significant international sponsor--the US--has thus far blocked any agreement that denies the realization of its own principle goal in Lebanon, namely disarming the Resistance and accomplishing what Israel could not do by force during its July 2006 invasion..."

Mohamad Shattah: "The Siniora Government will hold the reins of Power when Pres. Lahoud leaves Office"

Very Prophetic!

America and Israel are 'secretly' drawing up plans to deal with Iran

From the Sunday Telegraph, here

"The more they looked at the intelligence and the information they had, the more pessimistic they have become about what could be achieved on the operational front by military action," said Dan Goure, a Pentagon adviser. "Military strikes might only set the programme back a couple of years, but the current thinking is that it is just not worth the risks." A political rethink has also begun in Israel, where security policy is linked to its status - never publicly admitted - as the region's only nuclear state.

U.S. 'Secretly' Aids Pakistan in Guarding Nuclear Arms

In the NYTimes, here

The New York Times has known details of the secret program for more than three years, based on interviews with a range of American officials and nuclear experts, some of whom were concerned that Pakistan’s arsenal remained vulnerable. The newspaper agreed to delay publication of the article after considering a request from the Bush administration, which argued that premature disclosure could hurt the effort to secure the weapons.

Since then, some elements of the program have been discussed in the Pakistani news media and in a presentation late last year by the leader of Pakistan’s nuclear safety effort, Lt. Gen. Khalid Kidwai, who acknowledged receiving “international” help as he sought to assure Washington that all of the holes in Pakistan’s nuclear security infrastructure had been sealed.

The Times told the administration last week that it was reopening its examination of the program in light of those disclosures and the current instability in Pakistan. Early this week, the White House withdrew its request that publication be withheld, though it was unwilling to discuss details of the program.

As we inch closer to Primaries, IRAQ will share the stage with a worsening situation in Afghanistan, Pakistan ...etc.

Via Matt Yglesias a PEW research paper, here and here

Syria (and Saudi Arabia) will come to Annapolis

From Y News, here

State Department Iraq ‘Weenies’ Do Have a Point

From CQ's Jeff Stein, via War&Piece, , here

"Wrecked physically and mentally from terrorist attacks or duty in combat zones, State Department employees from senior diplomats on down to foreign aid workers say they have too often had to fend for themselves when they were hurt.

“The idea of being killed or injured is real,” says Frank Pressley, who was badly wounded during a terrorist attack on the U.S. embassy in Nairobi in 1998, “and if you are injured, you had better believe that you will be forgotten by the very employer that asked and needed your help.”

Abbas settles for the return Home of 20,000 Palestinians, and offers Olmert an end to the "Dispute"

Yes, nothing is wrong with your monitor: The return of 20,000 Palestinians, From Al Hayat, here

Georges Corm: "C’est une erreur grave de continuer de considérer qu’il existe encore une civilisation musulmane"

George Corm, interviewed by Geostrategie, here

Army Desertion Rate Highest Since 1980

From the Huffington Post, here

Brookings: "Fatah al Islam was not a mechanical creation of Syrian intelligence"

Apparently this Brookings paper is only available via SyriaComment, here

Seven conclusions and observations can be drawn from the battle of Nahr al Bared that could shed light on al Qaeda and the global war on terror:

1- Despite Fatah al Islam’s Islamist appeal and repeated calls for support throughout its battle with the Lebanese army, not one major salafist jihadist group in Lebanon headed its call. Osbat al Ansar, Jund al Sham (who have now re-merged with Osbat al Ansar), the Qarun group, the Arqoub group, and the Majdal Anjar group remained fairly silent and distanced themselves from the battle. For these groups and others, the battle that Fatah al Islam was waging was the wrong one. The jihadist compass, according to these groups’ leaders, was to be set South (against Israel) not North. This experience solidifies the authors’ earlier conclusion put forth in a study entitled "Securing Lebanon from the Threat of Salafist Jihadism" in which they argued that salafist jihadist entities in Lebanon are not united under a single umbrella or organization, instead they have dissimilar agendas and are relatively small and clandestine semi-autonomous entities with informal organizational structures. Each is more concerned about its own survival than about waging an offensive jihad against "infidels."

2- The battle against Fatah al Islam underscores the argument (also made in the above-mentioned study) that the salafist jihadist phenomenon in Lebanon is not purely a Palestinian phenomenon. Lebanese make a sizable part of the salafist jihadist movement in Lebanon, as evidenced by the high number of Lebanese cells operating in Tripoli, Akkar and al Koura.

3- Fatah al Islam was not a mechanical creation of Syrian intelligence. While Syria did not prevent large transfers of Arab fighters from Iraq to Lebanon, via Syrian territories, it did not play a major role in arming or financing Fatah al Islam.

4- Fatah al Islam could not have survived or accomplished any of its initial or later goals if it had not benefited from the large influx of Arab fighters from Iraq and from the financial support of al Qaeda in Saudi Arabia. In that sense, Fatah al Islam, as Kenneth Pollack and Daniel Byman – authors of "Things Fall Apart" – would most probably argue today, is a result of the Iraq conflict.

5- It is very interesting to note that throughout the battle, neither Osama bin Laden nor Ayman al Zawahiri issued a statement supporting Fatah al Islam or endorsing its insurgency. This raises a number of important questions: does al Qaeda only support winners? Why did al Zawahiri praise the attack against UNIFIL on June 24, 2007 but remain silent on Fatah al Islam? Is it because al Qaeda’s senior leadership is more inclined to support terrorist acts as opposed to reckless jihadist enterprises?

6- UNIFIL, as argued in an earlier study by the authors entitled "Al Qaeda’s Terrorist Threat to UNIFIL", remains highly vulnerable to terrorist attacks. The international force is still working with a major handicap: lack of good intelligence and force protection measures.

7- The failure of the jihadist project of Fatah al Islam raises a critical point on terrorist organizational structures. Fatah al Islam morphed from a hierarchical group to a network of semi-autonomous cells. To what extent did that transformation contribute to its ultimate downfall? What does organizational structure say about the effectiveness and survivability of a terrorist enterprise?

(...)

"Get used to the Iranian bomb & give back to Syria the control of Lebanon"

Aluf Benn in HAARETZ, here

"With regard to Syria, the situation is completely different. Israel wants "to distance it from Iran" through a dialogue, and assesses that the time is ripe because of Syria's weakness and isolation. But Israel is not eager to withdraw from all of the Golan Heights. The Israelis proposed a deal of "Iran in place of Lebanon": Syria would forgo its alliance with Tehran, would be given control in Beirut with the agreement of the Americans, and would disarm Hezbollah."

"The Americans were angry - you don't care who rules Lebanon but we do, they said to the Israelis."

On "The Big Question of Iraq", Amatzia Baram, Tom Ricks & ... others

Via Pat Lang, here

Pat,

Between 1920 and 1924 the Shi'is of Iraq spilled a lot of blood in fighting the British. Their leading clerics under the leadership of Grand Ayat Allah Shirazi called for jihad and even after the collapse of the armed revolt in October 1920 they continued to object ferociously to any cooperation with the Brits. They were eventually exiled to India as a result. In June 1921 the Brits brought the Sunni Emir Faisal from the Hejaz and in August they anointed him as King of Iraq. They made up their minds: they turned to the Sunni community for cooperation. The latter, albeit with some exceptions, were pragmatic enough to accept the balance of power and act accordingly.

Iraq became Sunni dominated all the way to 2003. One of the ironies of history is that in the 1930s the Shi'i religious leadership turned a number of times to the Brits to protect them against the discrimination and oppression of the Sunni-led state. In the mid-1930s they even asked the Brits to abolish the formal independent status of Iraq and re-impose a fully-fledged British Mandate. But of no avail.

At least one Shi'i leader today is warning his community that the same scenario may be repeated if the Shi'i community does not know how to work with the US. But both the Shi'i leadership and grassroots are adamant on keeping the Sunnis out in the cold. At long last the US commanders found a common language with many Sunni tribal shaykhs and warlords and support them. It is quite possible to my mind that if the Shi'i leaders, between Maliki and Sistani, don't show more flexibility and civil courage and if Muqtada does not cease his marauding mischief the Shi'is will lose Iraq again. It may not become a Sunni-led centralized state as it was before 2003, but it will descend into chaos and the Shi'i parts (and maybe Baghdad too) will come under Iranian hegemony. This is something most Shi'i Arabs are far from enthusiastic about.

Amatzia Baram

Haifa University"

AQ's 'Shipment' of 100 Kgs of Cyanide divided between Lebanon & Iraq, intended for the 'assassination' of Hassan Nasrallah & others

In AsSafir (Arabic) here

Peres relays to Turkey "secret" info on Iran

From Yediot Aharonoth, here

"... Sources on the delegation explained that the information was aimed at persuading Turkey to change its political stances on Iran. Currently, the volume of trade between the two countries stands at billions of dollars annually, and the two also share common problems of terror by Kurdish rebels."

Tough homecoming for Lebanon's refugees

Blanford in the CSM, here

DoD blogger-roundtable adopts the rhetoric of the Sunni "regimes & minions"

Abou Muqawama (Andrew Exum) asks a very good question (a first on this side of the Atlantic) "When a U.S. spokesperson uses the phrase "Persian influence," does he mean Iranian influence? Is he talking about the role Iranians actively play in Iraq? Or is he unconsciously internalizing a phrase Sunni Arabs in Iraq use to describe not just the Iranians but Shia Iraqi Arabs -- who comprise a plurality of Iraq's population but are often not considered by Sunni Arab Iraqis to be real Iraqis?"

We have often heard the Jordanians, Egyptians, Saudis & Walid Jumblat refer to the Shia's in general as the "Persians, Majoos ..." The answer is that this is a premeditated effort and not an "unconscious" mistake.

Read the "DoD-Blogger RT" here

U.S. Intelligence & Rice: Iran Possesses Trillions Of Potentially Dangerous Atoms

From the Onion with zest, here

'Some' of Emile Lahoud's choices

From Al Jazeera (Arabic), here

Lang on Israeli manipulation of World opinion & the "Imminent" Iranian nuclear threat

Col. Lang , here

Several key questions arise because of that expressed Israeli belief:

- What are the actual time lines of the putative Iranian nuclear and missile programs? The basic question is; "How long until the Iranians could have a sufficient force of DELIVERABLE nuclear weapons?" The Israelis talk about Iranian nuclear weapons in 2009. Do they really mean that or are they talking about an experimental detonation?

- Do the Iranians really possess the industrial capacity to manufacture miniaturized nuclear weapons and to "mate" them to ballistic missiles?

- Are the Iranians "rational actors" in making strategic decisions or are they driven by messianic religious impulses?

- Is Israel's principal concern fear of an actual Iranian strike at some time in the future or is the main worry the loss of strategic influence and "clout" that would follow upon the possession of such weapons by the Iranians?

These are the kinds of question that should be considered. Instead, the world is subjected to propaganda and information operations designed to push public opinion toward another war.

Debate on whether to invite Syria to Annapolis or not leaves "a lot of blood on the floor"

Josh Landis, here

"...This battle between neocons (Cheney's people) and realists (the State Dept.), which has been raging ever since Washington placed Syria in diplomatic quarantine, was won by the realists. Syria is being invited to Maryland.

The big question is under what terms. Will Syria find the invitation interesting enough to say, "Yes?"

US stategy in Iraq: After Abou Abed ... now "cash"!

Nancy Youssef in McClatchy's, here

"...But everyone agrees that a major bombing, the assassination of a key figure or a sudden drought of money could break the deal. And it raises questions of what role the central government will have in Iraq. If residents reject that government, can Iraq stay together? Or will the state become a series of fiefdoms run by unelected leaders backed by the United States?..."

Hamas "fighting like an Army" is good news for the IDF?

This is basically what Gideon Levy is saying in Haaretz, here

"...But the news the soldiers brought is also encouraging on several other levels. According to their descriptions, a Palestinian Defense Force has emerged. Instead of a rabble of armed gangs, an orderly army is coalescing that is prepared to defend its land..."

"The Middle East's Nuclear Dark Age"

Via WarandPiece, an essay by Barry Rubin at GLORIA Ctr. here and further reading on Israeli thinking, here

"...First, Iran is not about to obtain nuclear weapons, certainly not ones that it could use. That dreadful outcome is still several years away...

Second, neither Israel nor the United States is about to attack Iran... it is hard militarily to carry out such an attack, it is politically dangerous, and can lead to very serious consequences. An attack is something better to avoid, if possible. And it is certainly too early for such a high-risk, potentially high-cost venture..."

Fmr. Chief of Mossad Halevy: 'The US & Israel should look for ways to establish a creative dialogue with Iran & Syria'

Via Kevin Drum,former Chief of Mossad, Efraim Halevy suggests that Israel should stop its jeremiads that Iran poses an existential threat to the Jewish state. The rhetoric is wrong, he contends, and it gets in the way of finding a peaceful solution to the Iranian nuclear problem, ... .The gist of his message is that rather than constantly ratcheting up the rhetoric of confrontation, the United States and Israel should be looking for ways to establish a creative dialogue" with Iran & Syria. here

Libby: 'Precise' location of Iraq's WMDs: LEBANON

"In the middle of the night in Baghdad, Vice President Cheney's chief of staff, Scooter Libby, was calling from Washington with precise geographic coordinates to guide searchers to Iraq's hidden WMDs. The supposed hiding place was in Lebanon."

"...Drogin's book arrives, serendipitously, as some Washington voices, many of them familiar, are reprising a familiar theme -- Iran's nuclear program is near a fruition that justifies preventive military action. Whether or not these voices should be heeded, Drogin's book explains one reason they will not be..."

Read more on Drogin's book in George Will's "review", here in the WaPo.

Lang on "Tom Friedman, David Brooks and the Church of the 'What's Happening Now!'"

Pat Lang at SicSemperTyrannis, here

"...Tom Friedman is hard at work in this column (as usual) at convincing humanity of its homogeneous future. He desperately wants to see mankind in this way and hopes and hopes that the sense of separateness that prevails in so many people across the world is going to disappear soon. One wonders if he is thinking of ALL groups that way. This egregiously utopian view of the future places him squarely in the Jacobin neocon "camp."

"YANKEE, GO HOME"

Rashid Al Khalidi in the WaPo, here

"...Our political leaders must recognize that force does not solve the problem of terrorism. The real terrorists -- those blowing up civilians in marketplaces and office towers, as opposed to Iraqis resisting U.S. occupation -- can be dealt with only by means far more subtle than military might. Dealing effectively with this elusive enemy requires patience and a far more precise, carefully targeted and politically sophisticated toolkit than the mighty bludgeon of the U.S. armed forces..."

Meet 'Abu Abed': the US's new ally against al-Qaida

Via the WashingtonNote, here

"... Abu Abed, a member of the insurgent Islamic Army, has recently become the commander of the US-sponsored "Ameriya Knights". He is one of the new breed of Sunni warlords who are being paid by the US to fight al-Qaida in Iraq. The Americans call their new allies Concerned Citizens..."

"...The Americans lost hope with an Iraqi government that is both sectarian and dominated by militias, so they are paying for locals to fight al-Qaida. It will create a series of warlords..."

'NIE' on Iran held up for more than a year in effort to force 'spooks' to remove dissenting judgments

G Porter, In the AsiaTimes, here

"The aim is to make the document (completed a year ago) more supportive of Vice President Dick Cheney's militarily aggressive policy toward Iran, according to accounts provided by participants in the NIE process to two former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officers."

Iran Policy Counterattack

In the American Prospect, here

"....Massachusetts Rep. John Tierney and Virginia Sen. Jim Webb have emerged as early leaders. With a few exceptions, their efforts have drawn tepid support from their colleagues, in both parties. But Tierney points to hopeful signs of a groundswell -- and sources say influential Democratic donors have begun demanding that party leaders match Bush’s saber rattling with an equally vocal chorus of caution..."

"...Webb sent a letter to President Bush emphasizing his belief "that offensive military action should not be taken against Iran without the express consent of Congress." It was signed by 29 other members. But 60 votes would be needed ..."

SYRIA:Options and Implications for Lebanon and The Region

(the full) HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS US SENATE ONE here

Bolton turns Bush critic

From UPI, here

Murmur: The US did away with elections with a "simple majority" quorum

A while back, Stalwart Minister of Works and Head of the Tripolitan Bloc, Mohamad Safadi "shocked" the Lebanese political landscape and his allies (so we were led to believe) in the M14 Movement, when he declared that his bloc would not "partake" in the cannibalization of the Constitution by quorum of a simple majority in the House. People speculated (and speculated some more) as to the reasons of such a dramatic turn of events. It was ultimately thought that Safadi (by birth, a Constitutional "Expert") had a calling, ... a sudden political/moral awakening ...

Our 'take': On background, Safadi could have not acted, except at the behest (putting it gently) of the United States and his regional patron, Saudi Arabia, to seal the question of election by a simple majority, allowing the tractions of Lebanese Politics to fill the "temps perdu." Today, Saad Hariri stood up to put that question "out of its misery" once and for all, allowing the interpretation that this is a "great M14 sacrifice" towards the "gran' bargain."

The truth of the matter is, the US has no Iron Clad fixation over elections: In case of a "void", Siniora will do just fine!

Whisper: The US' Lebanon "Dark Horse"

A "close circuit" dinner saw the anointment of the Banker-Head of the Maronite League, Joseph Torbay, as the US's Presidential "Dark Horse", when & should a compromise materialize. Present at the Dinner were, besides the US Ambassador Jeffrey Feltman and Joseph Torbay, Marwan Hamadeh and "host"... Fuad Siniora!

Rice in Lebanon: "Hard to Digest"

Thanks to MK, and via the Century Foundation, read here

"...But having supplanted the Syrians as the dominant foreign power in Lebanese politics, the Bush administration is at risk of overplaying its own hand today. It alienated some of the most dedicated democratic reformers in Lebanese politics when it cobbled together an anti-Iranian majority in parliament from traditional political satrapies. It offended many Lebanese by its Dulles-like compulsion to see the region in strictly binary terms—and by simple-mindedly working to align Christians and Sunnis against Shiites attracted to Hizbollah..."

"...Yet most Lebanese are convinced that, as Daoud Khairallah, an analyst of the country’s byzantine politics, now at Georgetown University, wrote in Beirut’s Daily Star last week, Hizbollah’s disarmament “is more likely to be achieved by efforts of internal parties perceived as trusted friends and respected nationalists than by politically discredited adversaries.”

The United States’ new backyard

Alain Gresh in Le Monde Diplo., here

"...Lebanon is a fragile entity that depends upon a subtle sectarian alchemy. By deciding to support one side against the other, the US and France made any internal resolution more difficult. Lebanon has become a battleground where the West and its allies can confront Iran and Syria. And any compromise, however necessary, is in danger of being perceived as a victory for the “forces of evil”.

David Welsh: 'Gen. Aoun could be added to the "list" of those working to undermine Siniora's government'

In a statement to the House Foreign Relations Committee, Asst. Sec. of State David Welsh did not exclude adding the Leader of the Free Patriotic Movement to the list of those who work to undermine the Siniora government, hence the list of those who work to undermine the "US National security."

Lebanon's militias rearm before vote

From the CSM, here

State Department "effectively kills" a program to disburse millions of dollars to Iran's liberal opposition

From the NYSun, here

"..... predicted the $20 million devoted to supporting the activities inside the Islamic Republic would be relegated to what he called "safe initiatives" such as student exchange programs, and not the more daring projects he and his deputy, David Denehy, funded, such as training for Web site operators to evade Internet censorship, political polling, and training ........"

"...The decision .......comes as American diplomats are exploring more meetings in Baghdad with Iranian envoys..."

'The Iranian Challenge'

In agreement with Flynt Leverett on the need for a "comprehensive" grand deal between Iran & the US, a Good essay by Trita Parsi who wrote this in the Nation , here:

"...These negotiations cannot be limited to Iraq or to the nuclear issue alone. The problems between the United States and Iran go well beyond these two issues. There is an underlying geopolitical imbalance that must be addressed. The previous order in the region has crumbled as a result of America's defeat of the Taliban and its subsequent failure to establish a coherent order in Iraq. Even if the nuclear issue and the Iraq calamity were to be resolved, the context that has given meaning to these problems to begin with--the collapse of the previous order and the absence of an all-inclusive security arrangement--will remain unresolved. Any agreement with Iran that does not address this fundamental issue is doomed to be short-lived..."

Review: Khalil Gibran's "Collected Works"

Via Arts&LettersDaily, read here

Flynt Leverett: 'All or Nothing: The Case for a U.S.-Iranian "Grand Bargain"

Via the WashingtonNote, Leverett's Statement to the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs Committee on Government Oversight and ReformU.S. House of Representatives November 7, 2007.

Read Here

A letter from Iran: "Don't preempt"

This letter was in (of all places) the Jerusalem Post, here

"...My prediction is that any preemptive military action by Israel or America will result in a blowback effect which would be many magnitudes greater than the initial onslaught.

Attacking Iran would be the equivalent of a 1,000 9/11s for the Iranian people.

An attack would also postpone democracy in Iran for decades, and would probably result in a military regime coming to power. And most likely that military regime would have very wide support from the Iranian people, much more so than the current regime..."

Patriarche Sfeir refuses to 'arbitrate' Lebanese Presidential election

Le patriarche maronite libanais refuse d'arbitrer l'élection présidentielle

LE MONDE 07.11.07 15h12 • Mis à jour le 07.11.07 15h12

BEYROUTH CORRESPONDANTE

e cardinal Nasrallah Sfeir, patriarche de la communauté maronite (catholique) libanaise, n'en demandait pas tant. A l'approche de la date limite du 23 novembre à minuit pour l'élection par le Parlement d'un nouveau président de la République, c'est sur lui que convergent toutes les sollicitudes, pour pallier les divisions profondes qui séparent les dirigeants politiques, y compris au sein de sa communauté.

Le patriarche s'entend demander presque de toutes parts de choisir lui-même le présidentiable, que le Parlement ne ferait qu'adouber, ou pour le moins de dresser une liste de personnalités dignes à ses yeux d'accéder à la fonction. Manière pour les politiques de se défausser de leurs responsabilités nationales, sous le double prétexte que c'est à la communauté maronite que revient de droit la présidence de la République et qu'il faut, en la matière, redonner à cette communauté le statut de primus inter pares longtemps nié par les diktats de l'ancien tuteur syrien.

Mgr Sfeir a maintes fois déclaré qu'il n'entendait pas se substituer au Parlement et qu'il ne désignerait personne parmi ou hors de la bonne douzaine de présidentiables déclarés ou présumés. Il a réaffirmé cette position, mardi 6 novembre, selon plusieurs de ses visiteurs. Sur un ton dépité, il s'était interrogé un jour : "Tiendrait-on compte d'une liste (de présidentiables) si je la dressais ?"

Il faisait implicitement allusion au revers essuyé en 1988, lorsque Damas n'avait tenu aucun compte d'une telle liste, qu'il avait pourtant été prié de dresser. Il n'a pas non plus oublié deux autres échecs, en 1995 et en 2004...

Le patriarche continue aujourd'hui d'opposer son refus à tout amendement constitutionnel, face à ceux qui évoquent à nouveau une telle modification pour permettre l'accession à la présidence du commandant en chef de l'armée, le général Michel Sleiman. Son refus est également justifié par son aversion, elle aussi traditionnelle, au pouvoir des militaires. Sauf si, a-t-il dit un jour, il s'agit de "sauver le pays" du naufrage...

Le futur président, ne doit "pas avoir à rougir de son passé". Il doit avoir "fait ses preuves dans l'arène politique", être armé "de courage et d'un sens du sacrifice". Il doit aussi être "capable de dire "non" lorsque l'intérêt national l'exige", être fort d'un bagage intellectuel honorable et être enfin réputé avoir "les mains propres".

A l'heure où la majorité et l'opposition continuent de polémiquer sur le quorum de députés requis pour l'élection présidentielle (l'opposition menace de boycotter le scrutin si aucun accord ne se dégage autour d'une personnalité consensuelle), le cardinal Sfeir et les évêques ont rappelé les parlementaires à leur devoir : boycotter le scrutin revient à boycotter la patrie, ont-ils prévenu. L'idéal, à leurs yeux, serait que les députés fassent leur choix entre plusieurs candidats, comme cela aurait été le cas dans toute république parlementaire.

Compte tenu de l'acuité de la crise, Mgr Sfeir affirme jusqu'à présent souhaiter un président consensuel. Les chances de voir ce souhait devenir réalité semblent très minces, à une vingtaine de jours de la fin du mandat de l'actuel chef de l'Etat.

Lebanon: Privatisation Comes Calling

From Oxford Business Group, here

Pakistan Crisis Divides Ranks on the Right

Eli Lake, in the NYSun, here and Steve Clemons, here

"...The Pakistan dilemma for conservatives pits the competing aims of short-term allies in the war against Islamic supremacists (Osama bin Laden is believed to reside in the northwest provinces of Pakistan) and the long term goal of spreading liberal democratic systems in the largely autocratic Muslim world. It is dividing both intellectuals and Republican presidential candidate..."

A Witches’ Brew? Evaluating Iran’s Uranium-Enrichment Progress

A detailed Report, from ArmsControlAssociation, here

"Two options for military attacks are often discussed. One involves air attacks against sites affiliated with Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle, in particular those near Arak, Isfahan, and Natanz. The other involves launching a wider aerial attack across Iran targeting actual and suspected nuclear facilities, as well as military command and control, missile production and storage sites, and retaliatory capabilities...

"At all costs, the false promise of military strikes should be avoided. They could plunge the Middle East and the United States into a far worse war and make an Iranian bomb a certainty. —David Albright and Jacqueline Shire."

US 'to release' Iranians in Iraq

From the BBC, here

FBI Hoped to Follow "Falafel Trail" to Sunnis in Washington & Iranian Terrorists Here

Watch what you're eating! From CQ/Homeland Security edition, via War&Piece, here

"The idea was that a spike in, say, falafel sales, combined with other data, would lead to Iranian secret agents. A similar project was aimed at Sunni Arabs in the Washington, D.C., area..."

"... The brainchild of top FBI counterterrorism officials Phil Mudd and Willie T. Hulon, according to well-informed sources, the project didn’t last long. It was torpedoed by the head of the FBI’s criminal investigations division, Michael A. Mason, who argued that putting somebody on a terrorist list for what they ate was ridiculous — and possibly illegal..."

"...Hezbollah and Hamas (also backed by Syria) have kept mostly to their own backyards, with the notable exception of a 1994 bombing of a Buenos Aires synagogue, which was traced to Tehran. While fiery calls for launching attacks inside the United States remains a guaranteed applause line in Iran’s mosques, so far cooler heads have prevailed..."

Read more...

White House guided military to develop Nuclear Strike Plans against "rogue states"

From MoJo, here.

Hezbollah Maneuvers held near Lebanese-Israeli border in 'response to enemy'

From Haaretz here, and Al Akhbar here. Siniora (a military expert) denies these reports, but acknowledges simple "simulation" ...

"Giuliani is one dangerous man: it's George Bush with brains"

Michael Tomasky writes in the Guardian, here

"... But none of this will stop Giuliani. He will say and do anything he feels he needs to say and do to get power..."

Lebanon's ruling coalition remains on the sidelines of its own crisis

From the Daily Star, here

"... The unbiased observer will note the hypocrisy in Damascus being warned not to meddle by - of all parties - Washington and Paris, but the March 14 camp will see the gesture as clear evidence that two of the world's most influential powers are actively engaged in the Lebanese crisis..."

"...All the while, March 14 has been a study in inaction. Apart from a stream of invective from some its more irascible members, the coalition has produced nothing in the way of concrete and realistic suggestions as to how the crisis might be resolved. Worse, it has made no effort to reassure the opposition ..."

Lang: "Rice is merely preparing the ground for the final destruction of her reputation at Annapolis"

Pat Lang, at SicSemperTyrannis, here

"The United States has far more serious problems in the Levant than the pursuit of this chimera. The real "long pole in the tent" is the Israeli nuclear "force de frappe" and the circumstances under which Israel might feel compelled to use it with or without American knowledge or agreement.

The Syrian air strike farce is not re-assuring in this matter. It is increasingly clear that the target was insignificant and that the motivation for the attack is buried in the collective Israeli psychology of insecurity, siege and unwillingness to rely on anyone else (including the US) for anything."

"If America wants to help stabilize Pakistan, Bush and Rice have an opportunity to "shock the market" and deliver on Palestine"

Steve Clemons here and VOA, here

Exactly!

"I can envision a scenario in which, sometime next year, the intelligence community is against a war, telling the White House it doesn't know enough; the military is against it, saying that they're bogged down in Iraq; the State Department is against it, saying that there won't be any allies for a war with Iran; and the political people tell the White House that Congress won't support it--and still, the president and the vice president decide to go to war anyway." Philip Gordon, (Brookings) at the Middle East Institute Conference, Tuesday October 30, 2007.

US official: "I don't think that anyone right today thinks they're working on a bomb"

From McClatchy's, here

"There is no smoking-gun proof of work on a nuclear weapon,..." said Mark Fitzpatrick of the London-based International Institute of Strategic Studies, a former deputy assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation controls..."

Rice rejects any compromise in Lebanon

Both in the Daily Star, Condi's remarks on Lebanon as she rejects any compromise, here and a timely assessment of the US's role, by David Khairallah, here

'Shadow of the gun looms over Lebanon crisis'

Tom Perry for Reuters via SyriaComment, here

"Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon"

Via SyriaComment, a book review of sorts of Rougier's book, here, "Everyday Jihad: The Rise of Militant Islam among Palestinians in Lebanon" (excerpts)

Nur al-Cubicle has this to say about the new book everyone is talking about. I have ordered it.

"... It is inconceivable that the "Jihadists" of Nahr el-Bared were in any way sponsored by the Syrians. Indeed, both Nahr el-Bared and Aïn el-Héloué were special Syrian preserves where the Syrians attempted with some success to discredit the PLO and Fatah.

Unlike the others, these two camps were allowed "construction materials and equipment" and portraits of Assad and his father replaced those of Arafat in the souks. The Syrians also launched several anti-Jihadist intelligence initiatives to keep tabs on the SCORES of Palestinians who had gone to Peshawar/Afghanistan and come back. Those camps are, effectively, Peshawar West.

The departure of the Syrians took the lid off the boiling pot. Jumblatt, who rages about Syrian responsibility for the Jihadist mini-uprising is obviously lying...

Also, ... Rafik Hariri was in big trouble with the Islamic community at large for passing a number of laws restricting who could elect the mufti of Lebanon (from hundreds to a handful of persons). He also hanged three young men for the assassination of an Ahbash figure (the Islamic charity run by Syrian intelligence but _forbidden_ in Syria) much to the displeasure, again, of the Lebanese Islamic community..."

"The Consequences of $100 Oil"

Simon Henderson writes at WINEP, here

Bandar: "You only had to ask, and we would've helped you prevent 9/11"

Bandar talks to Al Arabiya and here via CNN.

"The comments by Prince Bandar bin Sultan are similar to the remarks this week by Saudi King Abdullah that suggested Britain could have prevented the July 2005 train bombings in London if it had heeded warnings from Riyadh."

"Curveball" revealed!

Read & Watch, here

After Hagel, 30 Senators voice concern with Administration bellicose rhetoric on Iran

Laura Rosen writes in MoJo, here and here and from the HuffingtonPost, here

"We are writing to express serious concern with the provocative statements and actions stemming from your administration with respect to possible U.S. military action in Iran," the letter states. "These comments are counterproductive and undermine efforts to resolve tensions with Iran through diplomacy."

"We wish to emphasize that no congressional authority exists for unilateral military action against Iran," it continues..

Among the thirty members who signed, Senators James Webb, John Kerry, Robert Byrd, Dick Durbin, Hillary Rodham Clinton, Chris Dodd, Patrick Leahy, Dianne Feinstein, Herb Kohl, Byron Dorgin, Jack Reed, Max Baucus, Debbie Stabenow, Claire McCaskill, Daniel Ikaka, Barbara Boxer, Daniel Akaka, Tom Harkin, Thomas Carper (D-DE), Amy Klobuchar, Jay Rockefeller, Robert Casey, Maria Cantwell, Patty Murray, Sheldon Whitehouse ..."

"Lebanon's militant Hezbollah forging new ties, in attempt to counter Al Qaeda"

Via SyriaComment, in the SanFranciscoChronicle, here

"...Former Lebanese Brig. Gen. Amin Hotait, an expert on Hezbollah, says the nonsectarian strategy began after Hezbollah declared a "divine victory" over Israel in a monthlong war in July 2006. Since then, its fighters have increased by several thousand, the analysts say...

"...Hotait says Hezbollah has since re-established the Lebanese Brigades for Resisting Occupation, which had been scrapped in 1999 and whose ranks included Shiite and Sunni Muslims, Druze and Christians....

"...Moreover, Hezbollah is arming and training a Sunni militia group inside the Ain al-Hilweh Palestinian refugee camp near the southern port of Sidon, ostensibly to counter al Qaeda fighters. It is the largest of a dozen Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon, with an estimated 75,000 residents....

"...Ansar Allah members say they will monitor and expel foreign fighters to prevent a repeat of the devastating summer conflict between the Sunni al Qaeda-inspired militants of Fatah Islam - many of whom were Saudi extremists - and the Lebanese army in the northern Nahr al-Bared refugee camp. The three-month-long conflict was the worst internal violence since the end of Lebanon's 1975-1990 civil war. The fighting destroyed much of the camp and killed 168 soldiers, more than 200 militants and 47 civilians...."

'Iran simmers as a hot US political potato'

Jim Lobe in the AsiaTimes, here

"...In addition to the harsher rhetoric, Congressional analysts noticed the insertion of an US$88 million request in the $200 billion 2007 supplemental defense bill to modify B-2 Stealth bombers so that they can drop a "Massive Ordnance Penetrator", a conventional "bunker-busting" bomb designed to destroy targets that are buried deep underground, in response to "an urgent operational need from theater commanders".

The other Democratic candidates have assailed her (Clinton) vote, claiming that it could be used by the administration to justify a cross-border attack on IRGC bases that could precipitate a larger conflict....
While he (Hagel) has been far more outspoken than his Republican colleagues, his views are believed to reflect those of a number of other senior party lawmakers, including the top Republicans on the Senate Foreign Relations and Armed Services Committees, Dick Lugar and John Warner, respectively. Lugar and Warner were the only Republicans present to vote against the Lieberman-Kyl resolution that was supported by Clinton...

His views are also believed to reflect those of Gates and most of the Pentagon's top brass, even including the new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen..."

Al Jazeera: 'US fighter jets took part in Syria raid'

From Al Jazeera, here

Did Blackwater sneak silencers into Iraq ... and ELSEWHERE in the Middle East?

An eye opener, here

Washington Institute's 'take' on Lebanese Presidential 'matters'

Exactly 'what's expected' as David Shenker becomes an "expert on the Lebanese constitution", here

Per Article 73, however, the legislature will automatically be called to session on November 15, obviating the quorum requirement and setting the stage for elections by an absolute majority.

Petraeus Personally Introduces Disgraced Ahmed Chalabi To U.S. Troops In Iraq

From ThinkProgress, here

US Diplomats to STATE: "Hell No, We Won't Go!"

From the WaPo here.

"...Yesterday's internal dissension came amid rising public doubts about diplomatic progress in Iraq and congressional inquiries into the department's spending on the embassy and its management of private security contractors. Some participants asked how diplomacy could be practiced when the embassy itself, inside the fortified Green Zone, is under frequent fire and officials can travel outside only under heavy guard..."

Liban: "Qui étaient les djihadistes du Fatah al-lslam ?"

From Le Nouvel Observateur, the re throttling of a well known story, here

"...Ce qui l'avait intrigué, Khaled s'en souvient encore, c'est l'accent bizarre des braqueurs. «Ils imitaient le parler palestinien, raconte-t-il. Les Palestiniens, nous vivons avec eux depuis 1948. Je connais parfaitement leur dialecte. Pour moi, c'était des gens du Golfe ou des Saoudiens.»
Qui sont les membres du Fatah ai-Islam ? Des électrons libres ? Des membres locaux de la mouvance Ben Laden ? Un groupe armé manipulé par Damas ? Ou par Saad Hariri, comme beaucoup l'affirment au Liban ? Les protagonistes d'une histoire à tiroirs «à la libanaise» ? «La vérité, dit un politicien chrétien bien informé, c'est un peu tout celaen même temps. N'oubliez pas, ici, c'est le Moyen-Orient.»

Abou Jandal était-il gênant ? A-t-il été éliminé, comme l'affirment les islamistes, sur ordre du Premier ministre Fouad Siniora, ancien homme de confiance de Rafic Hariri, dont dépend directement la gendarmerie ? Ce qui est sûr, c'est qu'Abou Jandal n'était pas, en mai 2007, un inconnu des services de sécurité libanais. Pour avoir participé en 2000 aux combats entre les islamistes et l'armée libanaise dans les montagnes escarpées de Sir al-Dinniyé, à 50 kilomètres au nord-est de Tripoli, il avait été condamné, avec 21 autres islamistes, à dix ans de détention et emprisonné. Curieusement, il a été amnistié après la mort de Rafic Hariri par la nouvelle majorité parlementaire. A la demande de Saad Hariri."

"Private Note" from Hagel to Bush Calls For "Direct, Unconditional, Comprehensive Talks with Iran"

Steve Clemons has a copy of a "private" letter from Sen. Chuck Hagel to Bush (and cc. to Rice, Gates & Hadley), and apparently CENTCOM's Adm. Fallon got a copy, most probably through Sec. Gates and has sice "communicated" with Hagel

October 17, 2007

The President

The White House

Washington, DC 20500

Dear Mr. President:

I write to urge you to consider pursuing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

In the last two years, the United States has worked closely with the permanent members of the UN Security Council, Germany, Japan, and other key states as well as the UN Secretary General and the Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency to pursue a diplomatic strategy regarding Iran's nuclear program. I have supported your efforts. Maintaining a cohesive and united international front remains one of our most effective levers on Iran.

In the last year, you have also authorized our Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, to hold bilateral talks with Iranian officials regarding the situation in Iraq. I have also supported this effort. Although Iran has continued dangerous actions in Iraq, this channel for dialogue is important.

I am increasingly concerned, however, that this diplomatic strategy is stalling. There are growing differences with our international partners. Concerns remain that the United States' actual objectives is regime change in Iran, not a change in Iran's behavior. Prospects for further action in the UN Security Council have grown dim, and we appear increasingly reliant on a single-track effort to expand financial pressure on Iran outside of the UN Security Council. Iran's actions, both on its nuclear program and in Iraq, are unchanged. Iran's leaders appear increasingly confident in their positions vis-a-vis the United States.

Unless there is a strategic shift, I believe we will find ourselves in a dangerous and increasingly isolated position in the coming months. I do not see how the collective actions that we are now taking will produce the results that we seek. If this continues, our ability to sustain a united international front will weaken as countries grow uncertain over our motives and unwilling to risk open confrontation with Iran, and we are left with fewer and fewer policy options.

Now is the time for the United States to active consider when and how to offer direct, unconditional, and comprehensive talks with Iran. The offer should be made even as we continue to work with our allies on financial pressure, in the UN Security Council on a third sanctions resolution, and in the region to support those Middle East countries who share our concerns with Iran. The November report by IAEA Director General ElBaradei to the IAEA Board of Governors could provide an opportunity to advance the offer of bilateral talks.

An approach such as this would strengthen our ability across the board to deal with Iran. Our friends and allies would be more confident to stand with us if we seek to increase pressure, including tougher sanctions on Iran. It could create a historic new dynamic in US-Iran relations, in part forcing the Iranians to react to the possibility of better relations with the West. We should be prepared that any dialogue process with Iran will take time, and we should continue all efforts, as you have, to engage Iran from a position of strength.

We should not wait to consider the option of bilateral talks until all other diplomatic options are exhausted. At that point, it could well be too late.

I urge you to consider pursing direct, unconditional and comprehensive talks with the Government of Iran.

Thank you for considering my views.

Best wishes.

Sincerely,

Chuck Hagel.

United States Senator

STATE Official : "Hariri will be Prime Misister, but not necessarily a Good Prime Minister"

Excerpts from the Middle East Policy Survey:

"... US officials bristle at the lack of cooperation fromSaudi Arabia. Although the Saudis have recently agreed to openan embassy in Baghdad, not only do they refuse to help the Maliki government, they are not even willing to assist in US efforts to woo tribal leaders in Anbar province, say well-placed USofficials. "The Saudis have their heads in the sand," dead panned one State Department official this week. [According to one well informed source, Saudi King Abdullah refuses to evendiscuss Iraq with US officials]..."

"... Few expect the United Nations Security Council to even takeup a third resolution this year. With International Atomic Energy Chief (IAEA) Mohammed el-Baradei due to report to the council in mid November, few see the politically adept el-Baradei providing any impetus for stronger actions. Top US officials are convinced that el-Baradei has concluded that it is too late to stop Iran's nuclear enrichment program. And empowered by his correct assessment of Iraq's pre-war weapons program (as well as the Nobel Prize his organization received for getting it right), el-Baradei is a formidable opponent for the Administration..."

"... Even the designation of Iran's "al Quds" military organization as "terrorist" has brought unforeseen problems. With al-Quds operating its own fleet of power boats and the like,British and US commanders with responsibility for patrollingPersian Gulf waters fear that new "rules of engagement" could lead to military confrontation. In fact, a number of analysts believe that the only way the US and Iran could wind up in a major military engagement is as a result of al-Quds actions..."

"... Annapolis "would be just a `photo op' without the Saudis." Some Administrationanalysts expect, in the end, the Saudis will come, although theyfear their representative will be a lower level official thanForeign Minister, Prince Saud. Still, as one cynicalAdministration insider said last week, "The time couldn't bebetter for the Arabs to try to help us work things out. Afterall what better time than between two wars?"

"... US policy towards Lebanonconstitutes a glaring exception to the well thought outapproaches to the major three Middle East issues. This casualattitude was most recently on display with the visit toWashington earlier this month by Saad Hariri,... On his visit here, Hariri, seen by Washington (and apparently himself) as a future Prime Minister["He will be Prime Minister," says one State Department official. "Not necessarily a good Prime Minister."] was lavishly praised by the President and other top Administration officials. But in subsequent weeks, it has become apparent that while the Administration is prepared to offer generous vocal support, it is not willing to back up its rhetoric with action. As one veteran diplomat put it last week, in a cynical twist on former Secretary of State Powell's famous line about American responsibility for Iraq after the invasion, "If you break Lebanon, it's broken."

"The View from a Divided Palestine"

Highlights from that event, here

"Basically" says Matt Yglesis, "from Mustafa Barghouti's perspective, the Israeli side side has basically lost interest in achieving a final-status agreement. They basically see themselves as having nothing to lose from the status quo continuing more-or-less indefinitely, though obviously if some kind of Palestinian quisling leadership emerges that's willing to accept less than what was offered at Camp David were to emerge, they would listen to those guys. But basically the Israeli's feel no urgency about this."

Larry Johnson on the "reasons" for Intelligence failures

From TPM, here

"...A dissent is shorthand for a different point of view. For example, I could say “Iraq is trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger”. While INR would write, “No, Iraq is not trying to buy uranium yellowcake from Niger and cannot process the yellowcake currently in its possession”. This ensures the policymaker will understand there may be a dispute about particular matters. If there is not dispute then they have a reasonable expectation that they are reading a consensus view of the intelligence community

That is not the case today and has not been the case for at least 8 years. I still have not been able to determine who instituted this change–was it Woolsey, Deustch, or Tenet? Don’t know, but it was a damn stupid change. Analysts at CIA, DIA, and INR are now free to write articles that are disseminated throughout the intelligence community without having to coordinate with each other and get clearance on their pieces. And you wonder why we have intelligence failures? This is a contributing factor..."

'Immunity" routinely offered by STATE to Contractors slaughtering Iraqis

Via TPM from AP, here

"Plan B (for 'bombs') after Iran fantasy fails"

Gareth Porter writes in the AsiaTimes, here

"...In a September 2007 interview with the London Telegraph, after he had left Cheney's office, Wurmser confirmed his belief that regime change in Syria - by force, if necessary - would directly affect the stability of the Tehran regime. If Iran were seen to be unable to do anything to prevent the overthrow of the regime in Syria, he suggested, it would seriously undermine the Islamic regime's prestige at home...
Former Central Intelligence Agency analyst Reuel Marc Gerecht of the American Enterprise Institute - writing under the pseudonym Edward Shirley - had been more aggressive than anyone else in arguing that Iraq's Shi'ites, liberated by US military power, would help subvert the Iranian regime. But in April 2006, he called, in a Weekly Standard article, for continued bombing of Iran's nuclear sites until the Iranians stopped rebuilding them...."

'Du chaos irakien à l’escalade contre l’Iran'

Alain Gresh in Le MondeDiplomatique, here

"...La fragmentation irakienne va-t-elle s’étendre à l’Iran ? Cette politique n’est pas sans susciter de surprenantes contorsions. Ainsi, alors que le Parti des travailleurs du Kurdistan (PKK) turc est inscrit sur la liste des organisations terroristes, une délégation du Parti pour une vie libre au Kurdistan (Pejak) – organisation sœur du PKK en Iran –, conduite par son leader Rahman Haj-Ahmadi, était reçue à Washington en août 2007"

"... A l’automne 2006, au terme de quatre années passées comme ambassadeur d’Israël à Washington, M. Dani Ayalon était interrogé pour savoir si un président aussi impopulaire pouvait prendre une telle décision : « Oui, je le crois. Vous devez connaître l’homme. J’étais privilégié et je le considère comme un ami personnel. Les gens qui le connaissent savent qu’il est très déterminé. Il est sûr de la suprématie morale des démocraties sur les dictatures. (...) Pour lui, les ayatollahs avec des bombes nucléaires, c’est une combinaison intolérable qui menace l’ordre du monde, c’est pour cela qu’il ne laissera pas cela arriver ."

Zogby Poll: 52% of Americans Support U.S. Military Strike Against Iran

A Poll by ZogbyInternational shows that despite Bush's 25% approval rate, ... Americans remain "vulnerable" to Big Media ... , here

An attempt to scuttle US-North Korea talks or "a New Intelligence Failure?"

From NEWSWEEK, here

"...Republicans and Democrats came away with opposing conclusions. According to a former administration official, Republican legislators began agitating for a halt, or at least an interruption, in ongoing U.S. disarmament talks with North Korea. But House Foreign Affairs chairman Tom Lantos told NEWSWEEK that even after the briefing, he remains "fully in favor of pursuing ongoing diplomatic discussions with North Korea." Lantos said he also favors closer relations with both Pyongyang and Damascus..."

"This is the Shi'ite moment"

In the AsiaTimes, by "Spengler", here

"...The use of force against Iran without doubt will make the Iraqi mess completely unmanageable. It will have spillover effects in Turkey, where the electoral majority that supported the Islamists in this year's elections will rise in outrage against the United States and Israel. It may reignite the war between Israel and Hezbollah..."

The Iran 'blame game'

Michael Hirsh in NEWSWEEK, here

"...But the new U.S. sanctions represent a lurch toward unilateralism that some European officials now fear could be "a repeat of 2002"—in other words, the run-up to the invasion of Iraq..

"... both sides—the United States and Iran—have staked out extreme positions, and it is difficult to see how there can be a negotiated solution...

The Bush administration seems singularly uninterested in truly bargaining—that is to say, compromising, which is what real negotiation is about—with a regime it wants to see replaced. That is why it refuses to discuss all outstanding issues at once—nukes, Iraq, Tehran's support of Hizbullah and Hamas, Israel and the Palestinians—which is what Iran would prefer. Instead the administration pretends that it can hold ambassadorial-level talks with Iran over Iraq in one place (Baghdad), and back European-led talks in another place (over the nuclear issue), while the president and his top aides demonize Tehran in every speech they give..."

With friends like America, Lebanon doesn't need any more enemies

DailyStar editorial, here

"President George W.Bush and other US leaders like to trumpet their determination to spread democracy, their sympathy with Lebanon, and their support of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora's government. But these and other pronouncements have translated into little or no concrete action. Whenever Lebanon's interests clash with those of Israel, the latter receives America's backing on multiple levels - even when its actions trample both the rights of other nations and the principle of collective security."

Lang: "I have regretfully come to the conclusion that Cheney just does not like our present form of government"

"There (in the ME), diplomacy is, in fact, usually not the Hegelian bargaining that we imagine. No, it is actually the process of arranging the terms of a surrender. That is surely the "diplomacy" that we are offering the Iranians.

When Cheney or his spiritual clone talk of diplomacy you can be fairly sure that something other than a compromise solution is envisioned.

Chalabi back in action in Iraq

From McClatchy's, here

"That the U.S. and Iraqi officials are again turning to Chalabi, this time to restore life to Baghdad neighborhoods, speaks to his resiliency in this nascent government. It's also, some say, his latest effort to promote himself as a true national advocate for everyday Iraqis."

Dowd on Cheney & Iran

In the NYTimes, here
"...CHENEY: If Admiral Mullen wants to be Admiral Sullen, that’s his business. I’m not going to be a defeatist or question the courage of our fighting men...."

Ray Close on the Israeli Sept. 6 Air Raid on Syria

From Josh Landis, Ray Close's "comments", here

"...As an aside: I hope the rumors are false that the Jordanians, Egyptians and Saudis all approved of the Israeli raid when they were (allegedly) briefed in advance (possibly by Dick Cheney in person, without the knowledge of Condi Rice and Bob Gates) that it was coming. How foolish it would have been for any Arab government to approve such an Israeli action, because they should all know from sad experience that sooner or later the secret would leak out, to their acute distress...

"...One cannot minimize the fact that American collusion with Israel in such an offensive act would be a disastrous blow to our relationships with our few remaining Arab friends. We got away with that many years ago at the time of the Israeli attack on the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak (which, we should be reminded, the United States officially condemned as illegal at the time), but today it's a different Middle East, and we have no reserve of goodwill capital to fall back on. How would the Egyptian, Jordanian and Saudi governments, for example, explain and justify such action today by its so-called US ally?..."

Jerusalem is the third rail of Israeli politics: 'Few are willing to touch it, and those who do often get burned'

From McClatchy's, here

'The Moment Has Come to Get Rid of Saddam'

Via Greg Djerejian, Mark Danner writes for the NY Review of Books, here

"Aznar: The only thing that worries me about you is your optimism.

Bush: I am an optimist, because I believe that I'm right. I'm at peace with myself. It's up to us to face a serious threat to peace...

Aznar: In reality, the biggest success would be to win the game without firing a single shot while going into Baghdad.

Bush: For me it would be the perfect solution. I don't want the war. I know what wars are like. I know the destruction and the death that comes with them. I am the one who has to comfort the mothers and the widows of the dead. Of course, for us that would be the best solution. Besides, it would save us $50 billion.

Does "Loving" Lebanon Mean Never Having to Say You're Sorry?

Franklin Lamb, author of the "Welch Club or Who's Fighting In North Lebanon", writes here in Counterpunch, as "Jeffrey Feltman Moves On".

"...Feltman acquired Indyk's support to be Israel's man in Lebanon during the year (2000-2001) they worked together in Israel. Feltman was Ambassador Indyk's Special Assistant.

One aspect is the above noted 'strategic alliance' complete with "forward power projecting military bases" widely believed to be planned for Lebanon

The "strategic alliance" project, is confirmed by more than one high-ranking American official in Washington and is being studied in the State Department, the Senate Armed Services Committee and Intelligence Committee Chaired by Bush Administration critic Patrick Leahy.

Feltman failed and the US lost Lebanon, for at least the foreseeable future, for a number of reasons including Bush administration support for Israel's continuing occupation of Palestine and intensification of human rights violations there and the US aggression in Iraq...."

Republicans and Top Dems Missing at Arab American Leadership Summit

Steve Clemons has this rapporteur summary and critique, here

"Police Judiciere" search archives of Chirac's electoral shenanigans

LE MONDE 26.10.07 10h56 • Mis à jour le 26.10.07 11h54

es enquêteurs de la police judiciaire parisienne, saisis d'une demande de la juge d'instruction Xavière Simeoni, ont effectué mercredi 24 octobre une perquisition au centre des archives contemporaines de Fontainebleau, où la commission nationale des comptes de campagne et des financements politiques (CNCCFP) stocke ses documents. Ils s'intéressaient plus précisément, dans le cadre de l'affaire Euralair, compagnie aérienne tombée en faillite, aux archives liées aux campagnes présidentielles menées par Jacques Chirac.

L'ancien président de la République et sa femme sont suspectés, selon plusieurs témoignages recueillis dans le dossier judiciaire, d'avoir bénéficié de vols gratuits, ce qui pourrait constituer une infraction. Les enquêteurs cherchaient donc à vérifier si ces vols figuraient dans les comptes des campagnes de M. Chirac.

L'avocat de Jacques Chirac, Me Jean Veil, a assuré au Monde, vendredi 26 octobre, qu'il existe "dans les comptes de la campagne présidentielle de Jacques Chirac en 1995, les factures émises par Euralair relatives à des vols d'avions".

"Si ces factures figurent dans les comptes de campagne, a indiqué Me Veil, c'est donc qu'elles ont été réglées. Il est dommage que la juge d'instruction saisie du dossier ne nous les ait pas demandées par voie de réquisition, nous les lui aurions fait parvenir".
Une information judiciaire a été ouverte par le parquet de Paris, le 20 septembre 2006. L'ancien PDG d'Euralair, Alexandre Couvelaire, présenté comme un proche de Jacques Chirac, a depuis été mis en examen pour plusieurs chefs, dont "abus de biens sociaux, banqueroute, publication de comptes sociaux inexacts, trafic d'influence actif et passif et recel".
La juge Simeoni a été saisie après trois années d'une enquête préliminaire lancée à la suite de la plainte d'un ancien salarié de la compagnie. Cette plainte vise notamment M. Couvelaire.

OMELETTE AUX CÈPES

Les policiers de la brigade financière se sont déjà rendus en Corrèze, sur les terres de Mme Chirac, en novembre 2005 (Le Monde du 25 novembre 2005). Ils avaient tenté de vérifier si MmeChirac avait bien bénéficié de voyages gratuits et si ces déplacements avaient un lien avec ses fonctions de conseillère générale.

Malgré les graves difficultés financières de sa compagnie, M. Couvelaire aurait permis à MmeChirac de bénéficier de six vols gratuits, de juin 1998 à avril 1999, pour une valeur totale de 41121 euros.
Selon un listing remis aux policiers en 2004, l'épouse du chef de l'Etat se serait, par exemple, rendue à Brive, le 8 juillet 1998, à bord d'un jet privé de la compagnie, pour assister à la confection de la plus grande omelette aux cèpes du monde.

Lors de sa garde à vue, M. Couvelaire avait assuré que ces vols représentaient une pratique commerciale courante, et s'était refusé à livrer les noms des bénéficiaires.

Eveything Israel wants you to know about its secret airstrike

Philip Giraldi writes in the American Conservative, via SyriaComment, here

"..........Official silence—narrated by a compliant press taking uncorroborated dictation—is cementing a public impression........................"