Pro-Israel Group Slams Rice Meeting With Syrian FM
By Julie Stahl
CNSNews.com Jerusalem Bureau Chief
May 03, 2007
Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - In a move criticized by a pro-Israel U.S. organization, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with her Syrian counterpart on Thursday, possibly signaling a shift in Bush administration policy towards a country designated by the State Department as a sponsor of terror.
Rice met with Foreign Minister Walid Muallem on the sidelines of a two-day conference in Egypt intended to discuss the future of Iraq. It's the first meeting between such senior American and Syrian officials in several years.
The U.S. has maintained a policy of economic and political isolation toward Syria since it withdrew its ambassador from Damascus in February 2005 following reports alleging Syrian involvement in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, who opposed Syrian domination of his country.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) recently challenged that policy when she met with Syrian President Bashar Assad in Damascus. Other U.S. lawmakers have traveled to Syria in recent times, but Pelosi was the most senior to do so.
President Bush last December rejected a recommendation by the bipartisan Iraq Study Group - co-chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former U.S. Congressman Lee Hamilton - to engage Syria and Iran as part of the plan to bring calm to Iraq.
Experts said at the time that Syria and Iran would extract a price from the U.S. for their cooperation in Iraq, with some predicting that Syria would demand that the international community back off in its pursuit of the Hariri assassins. An international investigation has implicated senior Syrian officials in the killing.
Analysts also said the U.S. would likely push Israel to return the strategic Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War - another Baker-Hamilton recommendation.
"We think this is a serious mistake," Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America, said of the U.S.-Syria meeting.
"When the U.S. meets with an official of a state on the U.S. list of terrorist countries, we simply legitimize their terrorist actions and send the message that we are not holding them strongly accountable for their actions," Klein told Cybercast News Service by telephone.
Until the Syrians close down the 10 terrorist groups with offices in Damascus and stop facilitating the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hizballah, the U.S. should be "isolating them and not embracing them," said Klein.
Among the groups hosted by Syria are the Palestinian factions Hamas and Islamic Jihad, responsible for the deaths and injuries of hundreds of Israelis - and some Americans - in suicide bombings and terrorist attacks since 1994.
In 2003, Syrian President Bashar Assad flatly refused a U.S. request to shut down the headquarters of Palestinian terrorist organizations in Damascus. Assad said they were merely public relations offices.
Klein called the meeting between Rice and Muallem "especially troubling" in light of the fact that the Bush administration sharply condemned the Pelosi-Assad meeting last month. "It makes a mockery of the criticism," he said.
Klein said the meeting made no sense, but he speculated that Washington may be hoping to deflect anti-American criticism in the Muslim world by meeting with a senior Syrian official.
Klein said he worried that the meeting may signal the beginning of a new U.S. push on Israel to surrender the Golan Heights.
The Republican Jewish Coalition, which was highly critical of Pelosi's visit to Damascus and launched an ad campaign against it, said Thursday it would not comment on the Rice-Muallem meeting.
The pro-Israel lobby AIPAC also had no immediate comment on the meeting.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said ahead of the meeting that it would focus "exclusively on issues related to Iraq." The U.S. accuses Syria of allowing insurgents to cross its border into Iraq to fight allied troops.
An Israeli government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said there was no "direct correlation" between the Rice-Muallem meeting and Israel.
"This has nothing to do with us," she said. "The Americans have a serious problem in Iraq. They have to find a policy that works in Iraq."
Rice also spoke with Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, although McCormack played down the encounter: "They said hello, that's about it."
The meeting on Iraq opened Thursday in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, with a plea from Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki for countries to forgive his country's debt to facilitate its reconstruction program.
Iraqi foreign debts are estimated at some $50 billion, according to reports. The Paris Club of lender nations has already written off another $100 billion.
Earlier al-Maliki was quoted as telling Rice that "a rapprochement" needed to take place between the U.S. and regional players, especially Syria and Iran, in order to solve the issue of Iraq.
"All of us here today are bound to the future of Iraq. What happens in Iraq has profound consequences which will affect each and every one of us," Rice said in a speech at the conference.
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Syria. Show all posts
Friday, May 4, 2007
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Syria is not a U.S. enemy
International Intelligence - Analysis
Published: April 11, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Analysis
By CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI International Editor
WASHINGTON, April 11, 2007 (UPI) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has come under heavy fire on a number of fronts over her trip to Damascus and her meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad -- an enemy of the United States, according to the Bush administration. But Syria insists it is no foe.
One of the many presidential candidates, Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, intensified his criticism of the Democratic House speaker for defying the White House ban on visiting Syria.
"The speaker of the House helped dignify a state sponsor of terror," Romney said in prepared remarks at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. "At this time of war, her action stands as one of the most partisan, divisive and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade."
Syria is considered a rogue state by the United States, which asserts the Syrians support terrorist groups. The Syrians see it differently. Those terrorist groups the United States accuses the Syrian leadership of supporting are seen as liberation movements by the Syrians.
So was Pelosi wrong in defying the White House and bringing President Assad out of his political isolation where President Bush wanted to see him linger? Republicans -- some of them at least -- believe she was wrong.
But if we look to history as a guide, the House speaker is more than right in talking to the "enemy." There are numerous precedents of the United States or its allies talking to groups or countries with which they were at war.
Even during the darkest days of the Cold War when relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were at their chilliest, Washington and Moscow had installed a "red phone" between the two capitals to allow quick and easy access between the leaders of the free world and those of what President Reagan once called the "evil empire." The red phone was installed in case of urgent need for the leaders to communicate and to avoid having a crisis grow into a reason for a major confrontation.
During the Algerian quest for independence from France in the 1960s, Paris held secret talks with members of the National Liberation Front, or the FLN as it was known by its French acronym. And these talks were going on while the FLN was setting bombs and attacking and killing French troops as well as civilians in Algeria.
In Vietnam, during the conflict in Southeast Asia, U.S. officials had engaged in talks not only with the North Vietnamese, but with the Vietcong, too.
And in Iraq today, U.S. officials have at multiple times engaged Sunni insurgents in negotiations, all while these same rebels continue to fight the Americans.
By visiting Syria, Pelosi has not really done anything new in the world of politics. What is new is that in the past when such talks took place it was usually with the approval of the entire government. In Pelosi's case, she undertook this initiative on her own, stepping into what has traditionally been State Department or White House turf.
Still, there is a fundamental difference between the above-mentioned examples and Syria. "Contrary to what any one is saying, Syria is not an enemy of the United States," Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Mustapha, told United Press International.
"We can work together on many issues," said the ambassador, adding that it was time to "engage to address the issues."
The ambassador, who was in Damascus during Pelosi's visit, said, "The discussions (between Pelosi and Assad) were very serious."
While Pelosi does not have the power to directly change the administration's policies, she can help influence future policy.
Mustapha told UPI that Syria agreed to continue to cooperate with the House speaker. He said the Syrian government told Pelosi to "go back and tell the (Bush) administration" that Syria wanted to cooperate with Washington.
But, said the Syrian diplomat, "This administration does not want to listen." Given that no progress is likely to be made during the remainder of the Bush administration, the Syrian ambassador said, "Please let us prepare for the future."
By that he means pave the way for better relations with the next administration.
"We are not trying to score points," said the Syrian diplomat, noting that Washington's current policy is not leading to Syria being isolated. Rather, "It is the Bush administration that is being isolated."
"It's time for this administration to reconsider its policy toward Syria," said Mustapha. But the chances of that happening are rather slim.
(e-mail: claude@upi.com)
Published: April 11, 2007 at 2:31 PM
Analysis
By CLAUDE SALHANI
UPI International Editor
WASHINGTON, April 11, 2007 (UPI) -- U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has come under heavy fire on a number of fronts over her trip to Damascus and her meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad -- an enemy of the United States, according to the Bush administration. But Syria insists it is no foe.
One of the many presidential candidates, Republican hopeful Mitt Romney, intensified his criticism of the Democratic House speaker for defying the White House ban on visiting Syria.
"The speaker of the House helped dignify a state sponsor of terror," Romney said in prepared remarks at the George H.W. Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. "At this time of war, her action stands as one of the most partisan, divisive and ill-considered of any national leader in this decade."
Syria is considered a rogue state by the United States, which asserts the Syrians support terrorist groups. The Syrians see it differently. Those terrorist groups the United States accuses the Syrian leadership of supporting are seen as liberation movements by the Syrians.
So was Pelosi wrong in defying the White House and bringing President Assad out of his political isolation where President Bush wanted to see him linger? Republicans -- some of them at least -- believe she was wrong.
But if we look to history as a guide, the House speaker is more than right in talking to the "enemy." There are numerous precedents of the United States or its allies talking to groups or countries with which they were at war.
Even during the darkest days of the Cold War when relations between the United States and the Soviet Union were at their chilliest, Washington and Moscow had installed a "red phone" between the two capitals to allow quick and easy access between the leaders of the free world and those of what President Reagan once called the "evil empire." The red phone was installed in case of urgent need for the leaders to communicate and to avoid having a crisis grow into a reason for a major confrontation.
During the Algerian quest for independence from France in the 1960s, Paris held secret talks with members of the National Liberation Front, or the FLN as it was known by its French acronym. And these talks were going on while the FLN was setting bombs and attacking and killing French troops as well as civilians in Algeria.
In Vietnam, during the conflict in Southeast Asia, U.S. officials had engaged in talks not only with the North Vietnamese, but with the Vietcong, too.
And in Iraq today, U.S. officials have at multiple times engaged Sunni insurgents in negotiations, all while these same rebels continue to fight the Americans.
By visiting Syria, Pelosi has not really done anything new in the world of politics. What is new is that in the past when such talks took place it was usually with the approval of the entire government. In Pelosi's case, she undertook this initiative on her own, stepping into what has traditionally been State Department or White House turf.
Still, there is a fundamental difference between the above-mentioned examples and Syria. "Contrary to what any one is saying, Syria is not an enemy of the United States," Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Mustapha, told United Press International.
"We can work together on many issues," said the ambassador, adding that it was time to "engage to address the issues."
The ambassador, who was in Damascus during Pelosi's visit, said, "The discussions (between Pelosi and Assad) were very serious."
While Pelosi does not have the power to directly change the administration's policies, she can help influence future policy.
Mustapha told UPI that Syria agreed to continue to cooperate with the House speaker. He said the Syrian government told Pelosi to "go back and tell the (Bush) administration" that Syria wanted to cooperate with Washington.
But, said the Syrian diplomat, "This administration does not want to listen." Given that no progress is likely to be made during the remainder of the Bush administration, the Syrian ambassador said, "Please let us prepare for the future."
By that he means pave the way for better relations with the next administration.
"We are not trying to score points," said the Syrian diplomat, noting that Washington's current policy is not leading to Syria being isolated. Rather, "It is the Bush administration that is being isolated."
"It's time for this administration to reconsider its policy toward Syria," said Mustapha. But the chances of that happening are rather slim.
(e-mail: claude@upi.com)
Night bus from Baghdad
Apr 13, 2007
THE ROVING EYE
By Pepe Escobar
ATTANF, on the Syria-Iraq border - The road from Damascus to the border is pure Desolation Row. Scattered nomad shepherds search rare, precious grasslands for their flocks. An incoming rickety Nissan bus from Iraq passes by, loaded with goods but carrying only four people. A pair of rusty Soviet-era missiles are transported by a slow military truck - to be positioned at the border in a face-off with the Americans?
There are three major crossing points from Syria to Iraq: al-Yarubiye in the northeast, al-Bukamal, and Attanf. Attanf, the village, consists of three bombed-out houses. The border itself is just a customs and immigration post. The arrival of a stranger provokes quite a commotion - as in a Sergio Leone western.
In typical police-state style, everyone in the dingy immigration control room is afraid to talk. No one speaks a single word of any foreign language. An Iraqi doctor, a woman, fleeing hell in Baghdad and about to become the newest refugee in Syria, is brought in a hurry to mediate. No one will talk without an express authorization from "Damascus" - this remote, wrathful entity beyond human understanding.
The Iraqi refugees are quite straightforward, though. Yes, there are only American soldiers on the other side, 7 kilometers of no-man's land away, a true measure of Iraq's "sovereignty". Yes, they may hold cars and trucks coming from Syria for many hours, sometimes even a day, before letting them through. Yes, they look for young men who may be potential jihadis. Yes, the road is dangerous, but not as dangerous as Amman-Baghdad and Inch'Allah.
The White House and the State Department insist Syria allows and/or encourages jihadis to cross its border into Iraq - going as far as stating that 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq have crossed from Syria. They seem to ignore Colonel William Crowe, the Pentagon official in charge of all those Americans on the Iraqi side of the border, who has said, on the record, that there is "no large influx of foreign fighters".
Moreover, "Damascus" has repeatedly confirmed that most of the 724km-long border has been fitted with barbed wire and reinforced sand barriers - and no fewer than 1,500 potential jihadis have been captured or deported.
But the fact is that any enterprising jihadi with geographical positioning and minimal tribal connections could cross this border at will. In theory, "Damascus", from President Bashar al-Assad on down, is interested in combating smuggling and jihadi traffic. The devil is in the details - how the Syrian police/military hierarchy actually deals with the problem.
For starters, Syrian business is in the hands of a powerful Sunni oligarchy. Its members will obviously be tempted to lend a hand to their Sunni muqawama (resistance) brothers in the east. Syrian military forces at wasteland border points - as in Attanf - consist of no more than a few bored men with rifles. Corruption is the norm. Evading surveillance is a matter of walking a few kilometers in the desert.
Historically, Iran, Iraq and Syria were united by the Silk Road. Attanf, for instance, is not very far from fabled Palmyra. The interaction has never ceased. Nowadays we may be seeing a new Silk Road pipeline - not only of men, ideas and commerce but also of weapons. Whatever comes from Iran has to pass through Iraq and Syria to reach Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Palestine (Hamas). Same for Sunni solidarity with Iraq, expressed through men, ideas, commerce or weapons from either Lebanon or Syria.
Accusing Syria of being a suicide-bomber factory is nonsense. The majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis, and they cross from US ally Saudi Arabia. Syria, since the fall of Baghdad four years ago, may have witnessed an inflation of Islamists, nationalists and former Ba'ath supporters of Saddam Hussein.
For the Syrian government, having its own Islamists crossing the border to fight the Americans in Iraq has always sounded like a good idea: a way of sweeping a problem under someone else's carpet. But to imply that Syria has become a sanctuary of Islamic fundamentalists and radical Ba'athists at the same time is also nonsense.
Those who made it
Not many jihadis take the night bus to Baghdad, but thousands of Iraqi families do take the night bus from Baghdad. Middle-class Iraqi Sunnis who have made it across the Syria-Iraq border tend to establish themselves in such areas as "Little Fallujah". For lower-middle-class Iraqi Shi'ites, the favored area is around the spectacular, Persian-style Sayyida Zaynab shrine, in southeast Damascus, with its turquoise arabesques and glittering geometrical mirrors. Inside, pilgrims from Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia mingle with mullahs and hojjatoleslam, praying for hours or just meditating. There's always a whiff of perfume in the air.
But outside, everything revolves around the war in Iraq. In a small shop owned by the Damistani family from Bahrain, in front of the renamed, derelict Iraqi Square, facing a huge street banner which would be prime Pentagon target practice (both Assads, father Hafez and son Bashar, alongside Hezbollah's Sheikh Nasrallah), a loquacious girl and a burly man come to grips with the Iraqi side of the road.
"Commandos abduct people," she says. "It happens sometimes," he adds. "The Americans can stop our buses for one or two days," she tries to prevail; "No, they stop the bus only at the border, and then in front of Abu Ghraib," he mumbles. They sell bus tickets to Baghdad. A one-way ticket costs 900 Syrian pounds (roughly US$18). In the "busy" season - ie, last summer - it was 1,500 pounds. The lone bus departs at 9pm and, depending on the collective good karma, arrives the next day at 5pm. The same trip in a GMC truck would cost at least $50 per person.
At the end of 2005, well before the "surge", traveling was "safe". Now it's "not safe". A glance at the log says it all: there's only one registered passenger for tonight's bus. Virtually all passengers are Iraqis - unwilling returnees because they ran out of money. There is also the odd Iranian, trying to make his dangerous way to Najaf. Every passenger coming from Baghdad, they say, arrives petrified with fear but thanking Allah for having escaped in one piece.
The neighborhood around Sayyida Zaynab is lower-proletarian poor - far from the dusty glitz of Little Fallujah. As many as 60,000 Iraqis are now residents. At Al Kazimiyah shop, Imad, formerly a math teacher in Baghdad, has practically given up on selling bus tickets. His salary is $100 a month, but he has been spending $300 on his family of four since he arrived six months ago.
He confirms that thousands of families are running out of money, and will have to go back. He is hoping for "Baghdad to get better" so they can go home, but he harbors no illusions. His wife's brother has a British passport. He has entered a visa application for England. But he would be more than happy to relocate anywhere in the world.
Outside on the dusty road a man is wailing. He is actually speaking, but not on camera, to a Syrian TV crew. He thanks President Bashar for his hospitality toward all Iraqis, and he blames all Iraq's problems on "Amrika, Israel and the Mossad" - not before stressing there was never any problem in Iraq between Sunnis and Shi'ites.
Nearby, in an improvised bakery - basically a stone oven - a man with a disconcerting smile is producing sublime bread with capsicum. He arrived in the neighborhood just before the "surge", with his whole family. The baker of Baghdad actually has a degree in "technology studies". But what matters is that he survived Baghdad, and that night bus from Baghdad - so his smiles of joy had to be imprinted in the daily little miracle of baking the perfect bread.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.
THE ROVING EYE
By Pepe Escobar
ATTANF, on the Syria-Iraq border - The road from Damascus to the border is pure Desolation Row. Scattered nomad shepherds search rare, precious grasslands for their flocks. An incoming rickety Nissan bus from Iraq passes by, loaded with goods but carrying only four people. A pair of rusty Soviet-era missiles are transported by a slow military truck - to be positioned at the border in a face-off with the Americans?
There are three major crossing points from Syria to Iraq: al-Yarubiye in the northeast, al-Bukamal, and Attanf. Attanf, the village, consists of three bombed-out houses. The border itself is just a customs and immigration post. The arrival of a stranger provokes quite a commotion - as in a Sergio Leone western.
In typical police-state style, everyone in the dingy immigration control room is afraid to talk. No one speaks a single word of any foreign language. An Iraqi doctor, a woman, fleeing hell in Baghdad and about to become the newest refugee in Syria, is brought in a hurry to mediate. No one will talk without an express authorization from "Damascus" - this remote, wrathful entity beyond human understanding.
The Iraqi refugees are quite straightforward, though. Yes, there are only American soldiers on the other side, 7 kilometers of no-man's land away, a true measure of Iraq's "sovereignty". Yes, they may hold cars and trucks coming from Syria for many hours, sometimes even a day, before letting them through. Yes, they look for young men who may be potential jihadis. Yes, the road is dangerous, but not as dangerous as Amman-Baghdad and Inch'Allah.
The White House and the State Department insist Syria allows and/or encourages jihadis to cross its border into Iraq - going as far as stating that 90% of the suicide bombers in Iraq have crossed from Syria. They seem to ignore Colonel William Crowe, the Pentagon official in charge of all those Americans on the Iraqi side of the border, who has said, on the record, that there is "no large influx of foreign fighters".
Moreover, "Damascus" has repeatedly confirmed that most of the 724km-long border has been fitted with barbed wire and reinforced sand barriers - and no fewer than 1,500 potential jihadis have been captured or deported.
But the fact is that any enterprising jihadi with geographical positioning and minimal tribal connections could cross this border at will. In theory, "Damascus", from President Bashar al-Assad on down, is interested in combating smuggling and jihadi traffic. The devil is in the details - how the Syrian police/military hierarchy actually deals with the problem.
For starters, Syrian business is in the hands of a powerful Sunni oligarchy. Its members will obviously be tempted to lend a hand to their Sunni muqawama (resistance) brothers in the east. Syrian military forces at wasteland border points - as in Attanf - consist of no more than a few bored men with rifles. Corruption is the norm. Evading surveillance is a matter of walking a few kilometers in the desert.
Historically, Iran, Iraq and Syria were united by the Silk Road. Attanf, for instance, is not very far from fabled Palmyra. The interaction has never ceased. Nowadays we may be seeing a new Silk Road pipeline - not only of men, ideas and commerce but also of weapons. Whatever comes from Iran has to pass through Iraq and Syria to reach Lebanon (Hezbollah) and Palestine (Hamas). Same for Sunni solidarity with Iraq, expressed through men, ideas, commerce or weapons from either Lebanon or Syria.
Accusing Syria of being a suicide-bomber factory is nonsense. The majority of suicide bombers in Iraq are Saudis, and they cross from US ally Saudi Arabia. Syria, since the fall of Baghdad four years ago, may have witnessed an inflation of Islamists, nationalists and former Ba'ath supporters of Saddam Hussein.
For the Syrian government, having its own Islamists crossing the border to fight the Americans in Iraq has always sounded like a good idea: a way of sweeping a problem under someone else's carpet. But to imply that Syria has become a sanctuary of Islamic fundamentalists and radical Ba'athists at the same time is also nonsense.
Those who made it
Not many jihadis take the night bus to Baghdad, but thousands of Iraqi families do take the night bus from Baghdad. Middle-class Iraqi Sunnis who have made it across the Syria-Iraq border tend to establish themselves in such areas as "Little Fallujah". For lower-middle-class Iraqi Shi'ites, the favored area is around the spectacular, Persian-style Sayyida Zaynab shrine, in southeast Damascus, with its turquoise arabesques and glittering geometrical mirrors. Inside, pilgrims from Iran, Afghanistan and Central Asia mingle with mullahs and hojjatoleslam, praying for hours or just meditating. There's always a whiff of perfume in the air.
But outside, everything revolves around the war in Iraq. In a small shop owned by the Damistani family from Bahrain, in front of the renamed, derelict Iraqi Square, facing a huge street banner which would be prime Pentagon target practice (both Assads, father Hafez and son Bashar, alongside Hezbollah's Sheikh Nasrallah), a loquacious girl and a burly man come to grips with the Iraqi side of the road.
"Commandos abduct people," she says. "It happens sometimes," he adds. "The Americans can stop our buses for one or two days," she tries to prevail; "No, they stop the bus only at the border, and then in front of Abu Ghraib," he mumbles. They sell bus tickets to Baghdad. A one-way ticket costs 900 Syrian pounds (roughly US$18). In the "busy" season - ie, last summer - it was 1,500 pounds. The lone bus departs at 9pm and, depending on the collective good karma, arrives the next day at 5pm. The same trip in a GMC truck would cost at least $50 per person.
At the end of 2005, well before the "surge", traveling was "safe". Now it's "not safe". A glance at the log says it all: there's only one registered passenger for tonight's bus. Virtually all passengers are Iraqis - unwilling returnees because they ran out of money. There is also the odd Iranian, trying to make his dangerous way to Najaf. Every passenger coming from Baghdad, they say, arrives petrified with fear but thanking Allah for having escaped in one piece.
The neighborhood around Sayyida Zaynab is lower-proletarian poor - far from the dusty glitz of Little Fallujah. As many as 60,000 Iraqis are now residents. At Al Kazimiyah shop, Imad, formerly a math teacher in Baghdad, has practically given up on selling bus tickets. His salary is $100 a month, but he has been spending $300 on his family of four since he arrived six months ago.
He confirms that thousands of families are running out of money, and will have to go back. He is hoping for "Baghdad to get better" so they can go home, but he harbors no illusions. His wife's brother has a British passport. He has entered a visa application for England. But he would be more than happy to relocate anywhere in the world.
Outside on the dusty road a man is wailing. He is actually speaking, but not on camera, to a Syrian TV crew. He thanks President Bashar for his hospitality toward all Iraqis, and he blames all Iraq's problems on "Amrika, Israel and the Mossad" - not before stressing there was never any problem in Iraq between Sunnis and Shi'ites.
Nearby, in an improvised bakery - basically a stone oven - a man with a disconcerting smile is producing sublime bread with capsicum. He arrived in the neighborhood just before the "surge", with his whole family. The baker of Baghdad actually has a degree in "technology studies". But what matters is that he survived Baghdad, and that night bus from Baghdad - so his smiles of joy had to be imprinted in the daily little miracle of baking the perfect bread.
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007). He may be reached at pepeasia@yahoo.com.
Copyright 2007 Asia Times Online Ltd.
Evidence Emerging Of Cheney-Led Smear Campaign Against Pelosi Over Syria Trip
Before Nancy Pelosi left Israel to travel to Syria earlier this month, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s spokeswoman Miri Eisin said “Pelosi is conveying that Israel is willing to talk if they (Syria) would openly take steps to stop supporting terrorism.” Pelosi delivered as requested, and this week received a thank you call from Olmert. So why then did the Israeli Prime Minister originally issue a statement of “clarification” about Pelosi’s message which became the basis for right-wing attacks against her?
The evidence of White House involvement behind the Israeli Prime Minister’s statement has been growing this past week. Middle East analysts have suggested Bush deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abramsobvious the White House is desperate to find some phony criticism of the speaker’s trip, even though it was a bipartisan trip,’ said Rep. Tom Lantos (D-CA), a Holocaust survivor who is considered the Democrat closest to the pro-Israel lobby. ‘I have nothing but contempt and disdain for the attempt to undermine this trip.’” — a close ally of Dick Cheney — may have been coordinating the attempts to undermine Pelosi’s trip. “‘It’s
Rep. Henry Waxman suggested that the White House’s coordinated attempts to smear Pelosi were part of an effort to undermine her on Iraq:
Waxman said the administration is focused on building a case against the Democrats in preparation for a showdown over the Iraq War funding bill. The more they can paint Democrats as weak and irresponsible, the more likely the Democrats will knuckle under and let the president continue the war unchecked. It’s been known to happen.
So Cheney trashes the reputation of men like Lantos and Waxman (who, by the way, has doggedly pursued waste and mismanagement in Iraq by Halliburton, the company that made Cheney rich), and it’s politics as usual.
This is not unchartered territory for Cheney. He has become famous for kneecapping people with whom he disagrees, even individuals within the administration. Middle East experts recalled Cheney’s involvement in a similar situation last year:
Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked Olmert into a 48-hour cease-fire during the war with Hezbollah to allow humanitarian relief, but within hours Israeli planes were bombing again, to Rice’s surprise and anger. Olmert had received a call, apparently from Cheney’s office, telling him to ignore Rice.
The Cheney campaign against Pelosi hasn’t let up. This week, the Washington Post editorial board — which has helped drive the Pelosi smear campaign from the beginning — published an attack piece from Liz Cheney, the daughter of the Vice President.
Filed under: Administration, International Relations
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Syria's Already Seated At The Table
NORTON MEZVINSKY
April 5 2007
The Bush administration is making a big mistake by continuing to refuse to have direct talks with the government of Syria, one of the most important players in the current complicated and costly Middle East tragedy.
Syria is in a critically important position to help improve the present situation in Iraq, to begin a constructive process to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to help Lebanon regain stability. Those three points are in the best interest of the United States and its allies in the area, chief among them Israel.
On March 16, I had a two-hour conversation with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus. It confirmed my belief that the Bush administration should immediately agree to engage in direct discussions with the government of Syria. Further, President Bush should accept President Assad's recent offer to meet and talk with no pre-conditions.
Numerous members of Congress and the recently dissolved Baker Commission have recommended such talks, focusing on such major topics as Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Lebanon r. Indeed, some members of Congress have recently traveled to Damascus and have discussed these points with President Assad. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the most recent member to have done so.
President Bush, however, continues to refuse to engage in discussion with the Assad government until and unless Syria meets certain conditions and demands made by both Israel and the United States. Bush publicly places Syria on the verge of the "Axis of Evil" and refers to it as a state that supports terrorism. The March 10 meeting in Baghdad, at which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appeared together with Syrian, Iranian and Iraqi officials, was limited to a narrow discussion of the Syrian-Iraqi border and concluded quickly with no positive result.
At the one and only meeting between Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, and a White House official, one of President Bush's closest advisers, Elliot Abrams, said the administration saw no good reason to "reward" Syria by opening discussions.
The Bush administration's position is incorrect. It eliminates any possibility of acquiring advice and help from Syria. First of all, President Assad and others in his government know a great deal about Iraq, its people and its culture. As President Assad emphasized in his conversation with me, an unstable Iraq poses a major problem for Syria. Almost 11/2 million Iraqis, for example, have legally come into Syria from Iraq during the past two years, and an estimated half-million have come illegally. Most of them are destitute.
The Syrians are not terrorizing Iraq; they are worried about a terrorized Iraq troubling their country. Assad and his government believe they, if given the chance, could give constructive advice to the United States about what to do in Iraq.
In addition to Iraq, President Assad discussed at length with me his nation's difficulties with Israel and the present predicament in Lebanon. He explained the value of Syria's maintaining ongoing relations with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. He carefully and repeatedly pointed out that trouble and chaos in countries bordering Syria and in the area are extremely problematic for Syria.
His sophisticated grasp of the issues and his rational analyses were impressive. His sincerity seemed authentic. He spoke with great respect about the former President Bush, who allegedly understood Syria's real concerns. Assad expressed the wish that the current President Bush would become more like his father.
President Assad believes that the United States could play an important role in helping to resolve peacefully the conflicts and problems in the Middle East. From his perspective, the present American approaches are unfortunately not only wrong but dangerous. Realizing that he and President Bush may disagree with each other on certain points, Assad, nevertheless, wants to have the opportunity to discuss them with Bush frankly and to offer some suggestions. Additionally, he wants to explore improving United States-Syrian relations. President Assad is willing to begin discussions with no pre-conditions. President Bush should agree to do the same.
There is nothing to lose and perhaps much to gain.
Norton Mezvinsky, Ph.D., is a CSU professor of history at Central Connecticut State University and is an expert on contemporary Middle East affairs.
April 5 2007
The Bush administration is making a big mistake by continuing to refuse to have direct talks with the government of Syria, one of the most important players in the current complicated and costly Middle East tragedy.
Syria is in a critically important position to help improve the present situation in Iraq, to begin a constructive process to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and to help Lebanon regain stability. Those three points are in the best interest of the United States and its allies in the area, chief among them Israel.
On March 16, I had a two-hour conversation with Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad in Damascus. It confirmed my belief that the Bush administration should immediately agree to engage in direct discussions with the government of Syria. Further, President Bush should accept President Assad's recent offer to meet and talk with no pre-conditions.
Numerous members of Congress and the recently dissolved Baker Commission have recommended such talks, focusing on such major topics as Iraq, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and Lebanon r. Indeed, some members of Congress have recently traveled to Damascus and have discussed these points with President Assad. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is the most recent member to have done so.
President Bush, however, continues to refuse to engage in discussion with the Assad government until and unless Syria meets certain conditions and demands made by both Israel and the United States. Bush publicly places Syria on the verge of the "Axis of Evil" and refers to it as a state that supports terrorism. The March 10 meeting in Baghdad, at which Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice appeared together with Syrian, Iranian and Iraqi officials, was limited to a narrow discussion of the Syrian-Iraqi border and concluded quickly with no positive result.
At the one and only meeting between Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the United States, and a White House official, one of President Bush's closest advisers, Elliot Abrams, said the administration saw no good reason to "reward" Syria by opening discussions.
The Bush administration's position is incorrect. It eliminates any possibility of acquiring advice and help from Syria. First of all, President Assad and others in his government know a great deal about Iraq, its people and its culture. As President Assad emphasized in his conversation with me, an unstable Iraq poses a major problem for Syria. Almost 11/2 million Iraqis, for example, have legally come into Syria from Iraq during the past two years, and an estimated half-million have come illegally. Most of them are destitute.
The Syrians are not terrorizing Iraq; they are worried about a terrorized Iraq troubling their country. Assad and his government believe they, if given the chance, could give constructive advice to the United States about what to do in Iraq.
In addition to Iraq, President Assad discussed at length with me his nation's difficulties with Israel and the present predicament in Lebanon. He explained the value of Syria's maintaining ongoing relations with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. He carefully and repeatedly pointed out that trouble and chaos in countries bordering Syria and in the area are extremely problematic for Syria.
His sophisticated grasp of the issues and his rational analyses were impressive. His sincerity seemed authentic. He spoke with great respect about the former President Bush, who allegedly understood Syria's real concerns. Assad expressed the wish that the current President Bush would become more like his father.
President Assad believes that the United States could play an important role in helping to resolve peacefully the conflicts and problems in the Middle East. From his perspective, the present American approaches are unfortunately not only wrong but dangerous. Realizing that he and President Bush may disagree with each other on certain points, Assad, nevertheless, wants to have the opportunity to discuss them with Bush frankly and to offer some suggestions. Additionally, he wants to explore improving United States-Syrian relations. President Assad is willing to begin discussions with no pre-conditions. President Bush should agree to do the same.
There is nothing to lose and perhaps much to gain.
Norton Mezvinsky, Ph.D., is a CSU professor of history at Central Connecticut State University and is an expert on contemporary Middle East affairs.
Copyright 2007, Hartford Courant
Syria, Elliot Abrams, and the Contras All Over Again
POLITICS:
Elliott Abrams and Déjà Vu All Over Again
Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Apr 9 (IPS) - It has an all too familiar ring to it.
A crisis area -- in this case, the Middle East -- finds itself in desperate need of a peace process capable of tamping down the forces of violence and destabilisation which the United States itself has played a central role in unleashing.
Regional efforts at diplomacy -- in this case, led by Saudi Arabia -- gain some momentum but are frustrated by die-hard hawks in a U.S. administration. While increasingly on the defensive both at home and abroad, they are determined to carry through their strategy of isolating and destabilising a hostile target -- in this case, Syria -- despite its oft-repeated eagerness to engage Washington and its regional allies.
Sensing an increasingly dangerous impasse, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives -- in this case, Nancy Pelosi, backed by a growing bipartisan consensus that the administration's intransigeance will further reduce already-waning U.S. influence in the region -- tries to encourage regional peace efforts by engaging the target directly.
But, worried that her quest might actually gain momentum, administration hawks -- in this case, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and Vice President Dick Cheney -- accuse the speaker of undermining the president and, working through obliging editorial writers at the Washington Post, among other sympathetic media, including, of course, the Wall Street Journal, attack her for "substitut(ing) her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president."
If that scenario sounds familiar, your foreign policy memory dates back at least to 1987, when, despite intensified regional peace-making efforts for which Costa Rican President Oscar Arias won that year's Nobel Peace Prize, the Ronald Reagan administration was persisting in its efforts to isolate and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.
It was then-House Speaker Jim Wright who, with the quiet encouragement of Republican realists, notably Reagan's White House chief of staff, Howard Baker, Secretary of State George Shultz and his special Central America envoy, Philip Habib, sought to promote Arias' plan.
Like today's Republican realists on the Iraq Study Group (ISG), who have urged the Bush administration to engage rather than continue to isolate Syria, they understood that popular and Congressional support for a "regime change" policy in Nicaragua was not sustainable and Washington should seek a regional settlement on the most favourable terms available.
But Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for Inter-American Affairs, worked assiduously with fellow hard-liners in the White House and the Pentagon -- just as he works today with Cheney's office -- to torpedo both the Arias plan and Wright's efforts to advance it throughout the latter half of 1987.
As Abrams' assistant at the time, the future neo-conservative heavy thinker, Robert Kagan, put it later, "Arias, more than any other Latin leader single-handedly undid U.S. policy in Nicaragua." And when he won the Nobel Prize, "all us of who thought it was important to get aid for the contras reacted with disgust, unbridled disgust."
As part of their strategy, hard-liners led by Abrams rejected appeals by Nicaragua for high-level talks, thus forcing Habib to resign by late summer and insisting -- as they now do with Syria -- that direct negotiations would serve only to legitimate Sandinistas and demoralise the contras.
In November 1987, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega came to Washington with a proposal for a ceasefire with the contras. After the administration refused to receive him, Wright, seeing an opportunity to jump-start a stalled peace process, attended a meeting at the Vatican Embassy here at which Ortega asked his main domestic foe, Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, to mediate between the Sandinista government and the contras.
Wright's participation in the talks was seized by Abrams as the launching pad for a public -- if barely concealed -- attack on the speaker. Interviewed by the Post under the guise of an unnamed "senior administration official," Abrams charged Wright with engaging in "guerrilla theater" and "an unbelievable melodrama" that had dealt a "serious setback" to the administration's policy.
"This was not forward movement; this was screwing up the process," the "senior official" complained to the Post which, as in its criticism Friday of Pelosi's meeting with Assad, obligingly followed up with its own editorial, entitled "What is Jim Wright Doing?", charging the speaker with having acted "as though the actual conduct of diplomacy in this delicate passage were his responsibility."
The Journal's neo-conservative editorial writers swiftly joined in, accusing Wright of a "compulsion for running off-the-shelf foreign-policy operations," just as last week they charged Pelosi and Democrats of seeking "to conduct their own independent diplomacy".
Within just a few months of his meeting with Ortega, however, the Democratic-led Congress rejected Reagan's request to fund the contras, a step which Abrams incorrectly predicted at the time would result in "the dissolution of Central America".
According to Roy Gutman's aptly named 1988 book about Reagan's Central America policy, "Banana Diplomacy", Washington soon found itself "at the margins of the region's diplomacy".
Unlike his high-public profile as assistant secretary 20 years ago, Abrams, who now presides over Middle East policy at the National Security Council, is today far more discreet, no doubt in part because his conviction in 1991 for lying to Congress about his role in the Iran-contra scandal has made him an easy target for Democrats.
"He's very careful about not leaving fingerprints," one State Department official told IPS earlier this year.
But there is little doubt among Middle East analysts here that Abrams is playing a lead role in White House efforts to discredit Pelosi for meeting with Assad, just as he did with Wright for meeting Ortega in 1987.
And just as he worked with Reagan hard-liners to undermine the Arias Plan 20 years ago, so he appears to be doing what he can to undermine recent efforts by Saudi King Abdullah to initiate an Arab-Israeli peace process and, for that matter, by Republican realists, and even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to push it forward.
Elliott Abrams and Déjà Vu All Over Again
Analysis by Jim Lobe
WASHINGTON, Apr 9 (IPS) - It has an all too familiar ring to it.
A crisis area -- in this case, the Middle East -- finds itself in desperate need of a peace process capable of tamping down the forces of violence and destabilisation which the United States itself has played a central role in unleashing.
Regional efforts at diplomacy -- in this case, led by Saudi Arabia -- gain some momentum but are frustrated by die-hard hawks in a U.S. administration. While increasingly on the defensive both at home and abroad, they are determined to carry through their strategy of isolating and destabilising a hostile target -- in this case, Syria -- despite its oft-repeated eagerness to engage Washington and its regional allies.
Sensing an increasingly dangerous impasse, the Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives -- in this case, Nancy Pelosi, backed by a growing bipartisan consensus that the administration's intransigeance will further reduce already-waning U.S. influence in the region -- tries to encourage regional peace efforts by engaging the target directly.
But, worried that her quest might actually gain momentum, administration hawks -- in this case, led by Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams and Vice President Dick Cheney -- accuse the speaker of undermining the president and, working through obliging editorial writers at the Washington Post, among other sympathetic media, including, of course, the Wall Street Journal, attack her for "substitut(ing) her own foreign policy for that of a sitting Republican president."
If that scenario sounds familiar, your foreign policy memory dates back at least to 1987, when, despite intensified regional peace-making efforts for which Costa Rican President Oscar Arias won that year's Nobel Peace Prize, the Ronald Reagan administration was persisting in its efforts to isolate and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.
It was then-House Speaker Jim Wright who, with the quiet encouragement of Republican realists, notably Reagan's White House chief of staff, Howard Baker, Secretary of State George Shultz and his special Central America envoy, Philip Habib, sought to promote Arias' plan.
Like today's Republican realists on the Iraq Study Group (ISG), who have urged the Bush administration to engage rather than continue to isolate Syria, they understood that popular and Congressional support for a "regime change" policy in Nicaragua was not sustainable and Washington should seek a regional settlement on the most favourable terms available.
But Abrams, then assistant secretary of state for Inter-American Affairs, worked assiduously with fellow hard-liners in the White House and the Pentagon -- just as he works today with Cheney's office -- to torpedo both the Arias plan and Wright's efforts to advance it throughout the latter half of 1987.
As Abrams' assistant at the time, the future neo-conservative heavy thinker, Robert Kagan, put it later, "Arias, more than any other Latin leader single-handedly undid U.S. policy in Nicaragua." And when he won the Nobel Prize, "all us of who thought it was important to get aid for the contras reacted with disgust, unbridled disgust."
As part of their strategy, hard-liners led by Abrams rejected appeals by Nicaragua for high-level talks, thus forcing Habib to resign by late summer and insisting -- as they now do with Syria -- that direct negotiations would serve only to legitimate Sandinistas and demoralise the contras.
In November 1987, Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega came to Washington with a proposal for a ceasefire with the contras. After the administration refused to receive him, Wright, seeing an opportunity to jump-start a stalled peace process, attended a meeting at the Vatican Embassy here at which Ortega asked his main domestic foe, Cardinal Miguel Obando y Bravo, to mediate between the Sandinista government and the contras.
Wright's participation in the talks was seized by Abrams as the launching pad for a public -- if barely concealed -- attack on the speaker. Interviewed by the Post under the guise of an unnamed "senior administration official," Abrams charged Wright with engaging in "guerrilla theater" and "an unbelievable melodrama" that had dealt a "serious setback" to the administration's policy.
"This was not forward movement; this was screwing up the process," the "senior official" complained to the Post which, as in its criticism Friday of Pelosi's meeting with Assad, obligingly followed up with its own editorial, entitled "What is Jim Wright Doing?", charging the speaker with having acted "as though the actual conduct of diplomacy in this delicate passage were his responsibility."
The Journal's neo-conservative editorial writers swiftly joined in, accusing Wright of a "compulsion for running off-the-shelf foreign-policy operations," just as last week they charged Pelosi and Democrats of seeking "to conduct their own independent diplomacy".
Within just a few months of his meeting with Ortega, however, the Democratic-led Congress rejected Reagan's request to fund the contras, a step which Abrams incorrectly predicted at the time would result in "the dissolution of Central America".
According to Roy Gutman's aptly named 1988 book about Reagan's Central America policy, "Banana Diplomacy", Washington soon found itself "at the margins of the region's diplomacy".
Unlike his high-public profile as assistant secretary 20 years ago, Abrams, who now presides over Middle East policy at the National Security Council, is today far more discreet, no doubt in part because his conviction in 1991 for lying to Congress about his role in the Iran-contra scandal has made him an easy target for Democrats.
"He's very careful about not leaving fingerprints," one State Department official told IPS earlier this year.
But there is little doubt among Middle East analysts here that Abrams is playing a lead role in White House efforts to discredit Pelosi for meeting with Assad, just as he did with Wright for meeting Ortega in 1987.
And just as he worked with Reagan hard-liners to undermine the Arias Plan 20 years ago, so he appears to be doing what he can to undermine recent efforts by Saudi King Abdullah to initiate an Arab-Israeli peace process and, for that matter, by Republican realists, and even Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to push it forward.
Monday, April 9, 2007
Sweet Little Lies: PAUL KRUGMAN
THE COMPLETE ARTICLE
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
THE NEW YORK TIMES
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Sweet Little Lies
By PAUL KRUGMANPublished: April 9, 2007
Before 9/11, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.
Four years into a war fought to eliminate a nonexistent threat, we all have renewed appreciation for the power of the Big Lie: people tend to believe false official claims about big issues, because they can’t picture their leaders being dishonest about such things.
But there’s another political lesson I don’t think has sunk in: the power of the Little Lie — the small accusation invented out of thin air, followed by another, and another, and another. Little Lies aren’t meant to have staying power. Instead, they create a sort of background hum, a sense that the person facing all these accusations must have done something wrong.
For a long time, basically from 9/11 until the last remnants of President Bush’s credibility drowned in New Orleans, the Bush administration was able to go big on its deceptions. Most people found it inconceivable that an American president would, for example, assert without evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were allies. Mr. Bush won the 2004 election because a quorum of voters still couldn’t believe he would grossly mislead them on matters of national security.
Before 9/11, however, the right-wing noise machine mainly relied on little lies. And now it has returned to its roots.
Saturday, April 7, 2007
President Carter: Bush Ordered Me Not to Go to Damascus
Scott Horton
PUBLISHED April 6, 2007
PUBLISHED April 6, 2007
More evidence of the White House's partisan manipulation of relations with Syria emerged yesterday, as President Jimmy Carter told a gathering in New York about his recent request to visit Syrian President Assad. The former president stated:
“I have known President Bashar al-Assad since he was a college student, and I thought it might be helpful if I went and urged him to support the peace process in the Middle East. But for the only time in my life as a former president, I was ordered by the White House not to go.”
The White House has had no criticism of three Republican Congressmen who are currently also visiting Syria. Indeed, one of them – Rep. Darrell Issa of California - sharply criticized President Bush after emerging from his meeting with Assad, something which Pelosi carefully avoided.
Attacks on Pelosi have also now regularly featured photographs of her wearing a headscarf, coupled with suggestions that she is engaged in "appeasement" of Islamic extremists. Joe Conason assesses the attacks in a column at Salon.com this morning. He states:
As for the headscarf, which Pelosi wore while visiting a mosque and a marketplace, there could be no conceivable reason to vilify this natural gesture of respect -- except to excite religious and ethnic bigotry. Women have been covering their heads upon entering certain places for hundreds of years, and so have men for that matter. Nobody complains when an American politician puts on a yarmulke in a synagogue or an American woman covers her bare arms in a cathedral, and nobody should.
No, the war against Pelosi is a rear-guard assault by the White House against moderates and liberals in both political parties who understand that the failed Bush policies have jeopardized American interests and hurt the Mideast peace process. What Wolf and Pelosi have in common is their endorsement of the Iraq Study Group's proposals, which emphasize regional diplomacy, including direct talks with both Syria and Iran. Indeed, it was Wolf who first approached James Baker about undertaking the Iraq report, and who sponsored the legislation that paid for the group's work.
The malice behind these attacks leaves the clear impression that the "war party" is still at the helm in the White House, and that military confrontation with Syria is still given a priority ahead of talking. This belies the president's muddled statements about pursuing a dialogue with Syria.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Putting the Iran Crisis in Context: Noam Chomsky
Tomgram: Noam Chomsky on "the Iran Effect"
On Tuesday, meeting with the press in the White House Rose Garden, the President responded to a question about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's visit to Syria this way: "[P]hoto opportunities and/or meetings with President Assad lead the Assad government to believe they're part of the mainstream of the international community, when, in fact, they're a state sponsor of terror." There should, he added to the assembled reporters, be no meetings with state sponsors of terror.
That night, Brian Ross of ABC News reported that, since 2005, the U.S. has "encouraged and advised" Jundullah, a Pakistani tribal "militant group," led by a former Taliban fighter and "drug smuggler," which has been launching guerrilla raids into Baluchi areas of Iran. These incursions involve kidnappings and terror bombings, as well as the murder (recorded on video) of Iranian prisoners. According to Ross, "U.S. officials say the U.S. relationship with Jundullah is arranged so that the U.S. provides no funding to the group, which would require an official presidential order or 'finding' as well as congressional oversight." Given past history, it would be surprising if the group doing the encouraging and advising wasn't the Central Intelligence Agency, which has a long, sordid record in the region. (New Yorker investigative journalist Seymour Hersh has been reporting since 2005 on a Bush administration campaign to destabilize the Iranian regime, heighten separatist sentiments in that country, and prepare for a possible full-scale air attack on Iranian nuclear and other facilities.)
The President also spoke of the Iranian capture of British sailors in disputed waters two weeks ago. He claimed that their "seizure… is indefensible by the Iranians." Oddly enough, perhaps as part of secret negotiations over the British sailors, who were dramatically freed by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Wednesday, an Iranian diplomat in Iraq was also mysteriously freed. Eight weeks ago, he had been kidnapped off the streets of Baghdad by uniformed men of unknown provenance. Reporting on his sudden release, Alissa J. Rubin of the New York Times offered this little explanation of the kidnapping: "Although [Iraqi foreign minister, Hoshyar] Zebari was uncertain who kidnapped the man, others familiar with the case said they believe those responsible work for the Iraqi Intelligence Service, which is affiliated with the Central Intelligence Agency." The CIA, of course, has a sordid history in Baghdad as well, including running car-bombing operations in the Iraqi capital back in Saddam Hussein's day.
And don't forget the botched Bush administration attempt to capture two high Iranian security officials and the actual kidnapping of five Iranian diplomats-cum-Revolutionary-Guards in Irbil in Iraqi Kurdistan over two months ago -- they disappeared into the black hole of an American prison system in Iraq that now holds perhaps 17,000 Iraqis (as well as those Iranians) and is still growing. As Juan Cole has pointed out, most such acts, and the rhetoric that goes with them, represent so many favors to "an unpopular and isolated Iranian government attempting to rally support and strengthen itself."
In addition, just this week, the aircraft carrier USS Nimitz and other ships in its battle group left San Diego for the Persian Gulf. Two carrier battle groups are already there, promising an almost unprecedented show of strength. As the ship left port, U.S. military officials explained the mission of the carriers in the Gulf this way: They are intended to demonstrate U.S. "resolve to build regional security and bring long-term stability to the region."
And stability in the region, it seems, means promoting instability in Iran by any means possible. So, the President's Global War on Terror also turns out to be the Global War of Terror. No one has dealt with the way "state sponsorship of terror" works, when it comes to our own country, more strikingly than Noam Chomsky, who considers the larger Iranian crisis below. His latest book, Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy, is just out in paperback and couldn't be more to the point at the present moment. Right now, if the U.S. isn't already a failing state, it's certainly a flailing one. Tom
What If Iran Had Invaded Mexico?
Putting the Iran Crisis in Context
By Noam ChomskyUnsurprisingly, George W. Bush's announcement of a "surge" in Iraq came despite the firm opposition to any such move of Americans and the even stronger opposition of the (thoroughly irrelevant) Iraqis. It was accompanied by ominous official leaks and statements -- from Washington and Baghdad -- about how Iranian intervention in Iraq was aimed at disrupting our mission to gain victory, an aim which is (by definition) noble. What then followed was a solemn debate about whether serial numbers on advanced roadside bombs (IEDs) were really traceable to Iran; and, if so, to that country's Revolutionary Guards or to some even higher authority.
This "debate" is a typical illustration of a primary principle of sophisticated propaganda. In crude and brutal societies, the Party Line is publicly proclaimed and must be obeyed -- or else. What you actually believe is your own business and of far less concern. In societies where the state has lost the capacity to control by force, the Party Line is simply presupposed; then, vigorous debate is encouraged within the limits imposed by unstated doctrinal orthodoxy. The cruder of the two systems leads, naturally enough, to disbelief; the sophisticated variant gives an impression of openness and freedom, and so far more effectively serves to instill the Party Line. It becomes beyond question, beyond thought itself, like the air we breathe.
The debate over Iranian interference in Iraq proceeds without ridicule on the assumption that the United States owns the world. We did not, for example, engage in a similar debate in the 1980s about whether the U.S. was interfering in Soviet-occupied Afghanistan, and I doubt that Pravda, probably recognizing the absurdity of the situation, sank to outrage about that fact (which American officials and our media, in any case, made no effort to conceal). Perhaps the official Nazi press also featured solemn debates about whether the Allies were interfering in sovereign Vichy France, though if so, sane people would then have collapsed in ridicule.
In this case, however, even ridicule -- notably absent -- would not suffice, because the charges against Iran are part of a drumbeat of pronouncements meant to mobilize support for escalation in Iraq and for an attack on Iran, the "source of the problem." The world is aghast at the possibility. Even in neighboring Sunni states, no friends of Iran, majorities, when asked, favor a nuclear-armed Iran over any military action against that country. From what limited information we have, it appears that significant parts of the U.S. military and intelligence communities are opposed to such an attack, along with almost the entire world, even more so than when the Bush administration and Tony Blair's Britain invaded Iraq, defying enormous popular opposition worldwide.
"The Iran Effect"
The results of an attack on Iran could be horrendous. After all, according to a recent study of "the Iraq effect" by terrorism specialists Peter Bergen and Paul Cruickshank, using government and Rand Corporation data, the Iraq invasion has already led to a seven-fold increase in terror. The "Iran effect" would probably be far more severe and long-lasting. British military historian Corelli Barnett speaks for many when he warns that "an attack on Iran would effectively launch World War III."
What are the plans of the increasingly desperate clique that narrowly holds political power in the U.S.? We cannot know. Such state planning is, of course, kept secret in the interests of "security." Review of the declassified record reveals that there is considerable merit in that claim -- though only if we understand "security" to mean the security of the Bush administration against their domestic enemy, the population in whose name they act.
Even if the White House clique is not planning war, naval deployments, support for secessionist movements and acts of terror within Iran, and other provocations could easily lead to an accidental war. Congressional resolutions would not provide much of a barrier. They invariably permit "national security" exemptions, opening holes wide enough for the several aircraft-carrier battle groups soon to be in the Persian Gulf to pass through -- as long as an unscrupulous leadership issues proclamations of doom (as Condoleezza Rice did with those "mushroom clouds" over American cities back in 2002). And the concocting of the sorts of incidents that "justify" such attacks is a familiar practice. Even the worst monsters feel the need for such justification and adopt the device: Hitler's defense of innocent Germany from the "wild terror" of the Poles in 1939, after they had rejected his wise and generous proposals for peace, is but one example.
The most effective barrier to a White House decision to launch a war is the kind of organized popular opposition that frightened the political-military leadership enough in 1968 that they were reluctant to send more troops to Vietnam -- fearing, we learned from the Pentagon Papers, that they might need them for civil-disorder control.
Doubtless Iran's government merits harsh condemnation, including for its recent actions that have inflamed the crisis. It is, however, useful to ask how we would act if Iran had invaded and occupied Canada and Mexico and was arresting U.S. government representatives there on the grounds that they were resisting the Iranian occupation (called "liberation," of course). Imagine as well that Iran was deploying massive naval forces in the Caribbean and issuing credible threats to launch a wave of attacks against a vast range of sites -- nuclear and otherwise -- in the United States, if the U.S. government did not immediately terminate all its nuclear energy programs (and, naturally, dismantle all its nuclear weapons). Suppose that all of this happened after Iran had overthrown the government of the U.S. and installed a vicious tyrant (as the US did to Iran in 1953), then later supported a Russian invasion of the U.S. that killed millions of people (just as the U.S. supported Saddam Hussein's invasion of Iran in 1980, killing hundreds of thousands of Iranians, a figure comparable to millions of Americans). Would we watch quietly?
It is easy to understand an observation by one of Israel's leading military historians, Martin van Creveld. After the U.S. invaded Iraq, knowing it to be defenseless, he noted, "Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy."
Surely no sane person wants Iran (or any nation) to develop nuclear weapons. A reasonable resolution of the present crisis would permit Iran to develop nuclear energy, in accord with its rights under the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but not nuclear weapons. Is that outcome feasible? It would be, given one condition: that the U.S. and Iran were functioning democratic societies in which public opinion had a significant impact on public policy.
As it happens, this solution has overwhelming support among Iranians and Americans, who generally are in agreement on nuclear issues. The Iranian-American consensus includes the complete elimination of nuclear weapons everywhere (82% of Americans); if that cannot yet be achieved because of elite opposition, then at least a "nuclear-weapons-free zone in the Middle East that would include both Islamic countries and Israel" (71% of Americans). Seventy-five percent of Americans prefer building better relations with Iran to threats of force. In brief, if public opinion were to have a significant influence on state policy in the U.S. and Iran, resolution of the crisis might be at hand, along with much more far-reaching solutions to the global nuclear conundrum.
Promoting Democracy -- at Home
These facts suggest a possible way to prevent the current crisis from exploding, perhaps even into some version of World War III. That awesome threat might be averted by pursuing a familiar proposal: democracy promotion -- this time at home, where it is badly needed. Democracy promotion at home is certainly feasible and, although we cannot carry out such a project directly in Iran, we could act to improve the prospects of the courageous reformers and oppositionists who are seeking to achieve just that. Among such figures who are, or should be, well-known, would be Saeed Hajjarian, Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, and Akbar Ganji, as well as those who, as usual, remain nameless, among them labor activists about whom we hear very little; those who publish the Iranian Workers Bulletin may be a case in point.
We can best improve the prospects for democracy promotion in Iran by sharply reversing state policy here so that it reflects popular opinion. That would entail ceasing to make the regular threats that are a gift to Iranian hardliners. These are bitterly condemned by Iranians truly concerned with democracy promotion (unlike those "supporters" who flaunt democracy slogans in the West and are lauded as grand "idealists" despite their clear record of visceral hatred for democracy).
Democracy promotion in the United States could have far broader consequences. In Iraq, for instance, a firm timetable for withdrawal would be initiated at once, or very soon, in accord with the will of the overwhelming majority of Iraqis and a significant majority of Americans. Federal budget priorities would be virtually reversed. Where spending is rising, as in military supplemental bills to conduct the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, it would sharply decline. Where spending is steady or declining (health, education, job training, the promotion of energy conservation and renewable energy sources, veterans benefits, funding for the UN and UN peacekeeping operations, and so on), it would sharply increase. Bush's tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000 a year would be immediately rescinded.
The U.S. would have adopted a national health-care system long ago, rejecting the privatized system that sports twice the per-capita costs found in similar societies and some of the worst outcomes in the industrial world. It would have rejected what is widely regarded by those who pay attention as a "fiscal train wreck" in-the-making. The U.S. would have ratified the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions and undertaken still stronger measures to protect the environment. It would allow the UN to take the lead in international crises, including in Iraq. After all, according to opinion polls, since shortly after the 2003 invasion, a large majority of Americans have wanted the UN to take charge of political transformation, economic reconstruction, and civil order in that land.
If public opinion mattered, the U.S. would accept UN Charter restrictions on the use of force, contrary to a bipartisan consensus that this country, alone, has the right to resort to violence in response to potential threats, real or imagined, including threats to our access to markets and resources. The U.S. (along with others) would abandon the Security Council veto and accept majority opinion even when in opposition to it. The UN would be allowed to regulate arms sales; while the U.S. would cut back on such sales and urge other countries to do so, which would be a major contribution to reducing large-scale violence in the world. Terror would be dealt with through diplomatic and economic measures, not force, in accord with the judgment of most specialists on the topic but again in diametric opposition to present-day policy.
Furthermore, if public opinion influenced policy, the U.S. would have diplomatic relations with Cuba, benefiting the people of both countries (and, incidentally, U.S. agribusiness, energy corporations, and others), instead of standing virtually alone in the world in imposing an embargo (joined only by Israel, the Republic of Palau, and the Marshall Islands). Washington would join the broad international consensus on a two-state settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict, which (with Israel) it has blocked for 30 years -- with scattered and temporary exceptions -- and which it still blocks in word, and more importantly in deed, despite fraudulent claims of its commitment to diplomacy. The U.S. would also equalize aid to Israel and Palestine, cutting off aid to either party that rejected the international consensus.
Evidence on these matters is reviewed in my book Failed States as well as in The Foreign Policy Disconnect by Benjamin Page (with Marshall Bouton), which also provides extensive evidence that public opinion on foreign (and probably domestic) policy issues tends to be coherent and consistent over long periods. Studies of public opinion have to be regarded with caution, but they are certainly highly suggestive.
Democracy promotion at home, while no panacea, would be a useful step towards helping our own country become a "responsible stakeholder" in the international order (to adopt the term used for adversaries), instead of being an object of fear and dislike throughout much of the world. Apart from being a value in itself, functioning democracy at home holds real promise for dealing constructively with many current problems, international and domestic, including those that literally threaten the survival of our species.
Noam Chomsky is the author of Failed States: The Abuse of Power and the Assault on Democracy (Metropolitan Books), just published in paperback, among many other works.
Republican lawmaker meets Syria's Assad
1 hour, 22 minutes ago
President Bashar al-Assad met a Republican member of the U.S. Congress on Thursday, a day after Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) ended a visit to Syria that was criticized by the White House.
The official news agency said the meeting between Assad and Darrell Issa (news, bio, voting record), a member of the House Committee on Intelligence, discussed ways to improve relations between Washington and Damascus.
"It is difficult to isolate Syria which is pivotal to finding solutions to all issues in the region," the Syrian agency quoted Assad as saying. Issa, who is of Lebanese dissent, also met Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Moualem.
More than a dozen U.S. lawmakers have visited Damascus in the last four months and met Assad after the Iraq Study Group recommended to Republican President George W. Bush engaging with Damascus and Iran to help stabilize Iraq.
Pelosi urged Assad on Wednesday to end alleged Syrian support to rebels in Iraq and to use its influence with the Palestinian group Hamas.
Pelosi said holding a dialogue with the secular Syrian leader, whom the Bush administration has been trying to isolate, was in the U.S. interests.
The United States imposed sanctions on Syria in 2004, mainly for its support for Lebanon's Hezbollah and Hamas. Syria says the two groups are legitimate movements with broad domestic support resisting Israeli occupation.
Relations between Damascus and Washington further worsened after the 2005 assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik al-Hariri in Beirut. A United Nations inquiry implicated Lebanese and Syrian security officials in the assassination.
Damascus denies involvement.
Pelosi's Misguided Middle East Visit
Dr. Marcy Newman, Electronic Lebanon, 5 April 2007
This week U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi concluded her visit to the Middle East in Damascus, Syria, to which President George W. Bush's response was that her visit "sends mixed messages." While Pelosi's delegation to the region should be met with applause for refusing to participate in isolating Syria, her visit to Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria should be met with a great deal of caution.
Twice in the last month Pelosi delivered a speech -- of more or less the same message -- before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference and before the Israeli Knesset. In these speeches, she unequivocally stated: "When Israel is threatened, America's interests in the region are threatened. America's commitment to Israel's security needs is unshakable." Statements such as this have made Pelosi, along with her traveling companion Congressman Tom Lantos, one of the top ten recipients of AIPAC donations. She received a standing ovation for these sentiments in the Knesset where she linked the U.S. and Israel's "common cause": " a safe and secure Israel living in peace with her neighbors."
Perhaps Pelosi genuinely wants to secure peace in the region. If this were the case, however, we would have seen some indication of balance in her fact-finding mission. While in Israel, Pelosi discussed her visits with the families of Israeli soldiers taken last summer in Gaza and Lebanon, naming them and relaying stories about them. Not once was a Palestinian or Lebanese killed or wounded in Israel's wars dignified with any such humanizing gesture. Instead Pelosi focused entirely on Hezbollah's violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 for failing to disarm. Not once did she mention Israel's almost daily violation of that same resolution with military jets invading Lebanese airspace or recent military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, she failed to mention Israel's continued occupation of Shaaba Farms and Ghajar, which are also violations of 1701; nor did she engage with serious discussions of the occupation of the Golan Heights or the Palestinian Territories with leaders in the region.
If Pelosi, Lantos, and the other congressional leaders traveling in their delegation wanted to understand what peace means to all parties they could have spent their time in Lebanon meeting with victims of Israel's war and she could have toured the areas of the country destroyed by Israel. She could have visited with Lebanese families affected by American-made cluster bombs. Such meetings could have helped Pelosi to respond to a report on her desk from the State Department, which states Israel may have violated legal agreements made with the U.S. in the 1970s when it dropped between 2.6 and 4 million American-made cluster munitions on Lebanon last summer in the last 72 hours of the war after the cease fire agreement had been brokered. The report explores Israel's violation of the Arms Export Control Act, which stipulates that American-manufactured weapons must only be used in self-defense, in an open area against two or more invading armies, and never used against civilians.
As Speaker of the House it is Pelosi's job (along with Senator Majority Leader Joseph Biden) to review this report and if the violations are corroborated, which evidence from organizations like Human Rights Watch already substantiated, Israel could be sanctioned. Indeed, in response to Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last summer, Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch reported, "we've never seen use of cluster munitions that was so extensive and dangerous to civilians ... The issue is not whether Israel used the American cluster munitions lawfully, but what the US is going to do about it." As Speaker, Pelosi can and should do something about it. After all, there is a precedent: Ronald Reagan imposed a six-year ban on the sale of munitions to Israel in 1982 after Congress investigated Israel's use of cluster bombs against civilians.
For all the talk about "peace" before AIPAC and the Knesset, if Pelosi were actually invested in regional peace she could begin by holding Israel accountable for its violations of the Arms Export Control Act by sanctioning Israel. But this option seems rather unlikely given her congressional voting record. For instance, last summer she voted for her colleague Lantos' resolution in Congress (HR 921), entitled "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes." That bill, which overwhelmingly passed (410-8), led to "other purposes," namely selling $120 million of oil to re-fuel Israel's American-made fighter jets that bombed and killed civilians in Lebanon as well as an expedited delivery of 1,300 M26 artillery rockets for Israel to use in its war on Lebanon.
If Pelosi's delegation to the Middle East is seriously interested in creating "peace" here, it should begin at home. She should respond to the report on her desk and make the decision to sanction Israel. Moreover, Pelosi and Lantos should both draft legislation that does not focus exclusively on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran for their weapons if only because the U.S. itself provides Israel with extensive military support and political cover. The burden should be shifted to Israel as the occupying power of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Further, Pelosi would do well to join her colleagues in the Senate who drafted the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S 594) and support the effort of forty other nations who have banned cluster munitions.
Dr. Marcy Newman is a Visiting Professor at the Center for American Studies and Research at the American University of Beirut and a Fellow at the Initiative for Middle East Policy Dialogue.
Related Links
BY TOPIC: Opposition Demonstrations in Lebanon (1 December 2006-) BY TOPIC: Israel attacks Lebanon (12 July 2006-) Live from Lebanon Diaries, by day Lebanon for Beginners Must-see video: From Beirut to ... those who love us Beirut: Before & After Multimedia Maps & Satellite Imagery Lebanon Updates - Minute by minute developments and maps Electronic Lebanon quick links: Opinion/Editorial | Live from Lebanon Diaries | Human Rights & Development | Action & Activism
 |
| U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (right) at AIPAC's annual policy conference. (AIPAC) |
This week U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi concluded her visit to the Middle East in Damascus, Syria, to which President George W. Bush's response was that her visit "sends mixed messages." While Pelosi's delegation to the region should be met with applause for refusing to participate in isolating Syria, her visit to Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria should be met with a great deal of caution.
Twice in the last month Pelosi delivered a speech -- of more or less the same message -- before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) annual policy conference and before the Israeli Knesset. In these speeches, she unequivocally stated: "When Israel is threatened, America's interests in the region are threatened. America's commitment to Israel's security needs is unshakable." Statements such as this have made Pelosi, along with her traveling companion Congressman Tom Lantos, one of the top ten recipients of AIPAC donations. She received a standing ovation for these sentiments in the Knesset where she linked the U.S. and Israel's "common cause": " a safe and secure Israel living in peace with her neighbors."
Perhaps Pelosi genuinely wants to secure peace in the region. If this were the case, however, we would have seen some indication of balance in her fact-finding mission. While in Israel, Pelosi discussed her visits with the families of Israeli soldiers taken last summer in Gaza and Lebanon, naming them and relaying stories about them. Not once was a Palestinian or Lebanese killed or wounded in Israel's wars dignified with any such humanizing gesture. Instead Pelosi focused entirely on Hezbollah's violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1701 for failing to disarm. Not once did she mention Israel's almost daily violation of that same resolution with military jets invading Lebanese airspace or recent military incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Moreover, she failed to mention Israel's continued occupation of Shaaba Farms and Ghajar, which are also violations of 1701; nor did she engage with serious discussions of the occupation of the Golan Heights or the Palestinian Territories with leaders in the region.
If Pelosi, Lantos, and the other congressional leaders traveling in their delegation wanted to understand what peace means to all parties they could have spent their time in Lebanon meeting with victims of Israel's war and she could have toured the areas of the country destroyed by Israel. She could have visited with Lebanese families affected by American-made cluster bombs. Such meetings could have helped Pelosi to respond to a report on her desk from the State Department, which states Israel may have violated legal agreements made with the U.S. in the 1970s when it dropped between 2.6 and 4 million American-made cluster munitions on Lebanon last summer in the last 72 hours of the war after the cease fire agreement had been brokered. The report explores Israel's violation of the Arms Export Control Act, which stipulates that American-manufactured weapons must only be used in self-defense, in an open area against two or more invading armies, and never used against civilians.
As Speaker of the House it is Pelosi's job (along with Senator Majority Leader Joseph Biden) to review this report and if the violations are corroborated, which evidence from organizations like Human Rights Watch already substantiated, Israel could be sanctioned. Indeed, in response to Israel's use of American-made cluster bombs in Lebanon last summer, Steve Goose of Human Rights Watch reported, "we've never seen use of cluster munitions that was so extensive and dangerous to civilians ... The issue is not whether Israel used the American cluster munitions lawfully, but what the US is going to do about it." As Speaker, Pelosi can and should do something about it. After all, there is a precedent: Ronald Reagan imposed a six-year ban on the sale of munitions to Israel in 1982 after Congress investigated Israel's use of cluster bombs against civilians.
For all the talk about "peace" before AIPAC and the Knesset, if Pelosi were actually invested in regional peace she could begin by holding Israel accountable for its violations of the Arms Export Control Act by sanctioning Israel. But this option seems rather unlikely given her congressional voting record. For instance, last summer she voted for her colleague Lantos' resolution in Congress (HR 921), entitled "Condemning the recent attacks against the State of Israel, holding terrorists and their state-sponsors accountable for such attacks, supporting Israel's right to defend itself, and for other purposes." That bill, which overwhelmingly passed (410-8), led to "other purposes," namely selling $120 million of oil to re-fuel Israel's American-made fighter jets that bombed and killed civilians in Lebanon as well as an expedited delivery of 1,300 M26 artillery rockets for Israel to use in its war on Lebanon.
If Pelosi's delegation to the Middle East is seriously interested in creating "peace" here, it should begin at home. She should respond to the report on her desk and make the decision to sanction Israel. Moreover, Pelosi and Lantos should both draft legislation that does not focus exclusively on Syria, Lebanon, and Iran for their weapons if only because the U.S. itself provides Israel with extensive military support and political cover. The burden should be shifted to Israel as the occupying power of Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine. Further, Pelosi would do well to join her colleagues in the Senate who drafted the Cluster Munitions Civilian Protection Act of 2007 (S 594) and support the effort of forty other nations who have banned cluster munitions.
Dr. Marcy Newman is a Visiting Professor at the Center for American Studies and Research at the American University of Beirut and a Fellow at the Initiative for Middle East Policy Dialogue.
Related Links
PMO: Pelosi did not give Assad any message from Israel
Last update - 07:27 05/04/2007
By Yoav Stern and Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service and News Agencies
The Prime Minister's Office has strongly denied that Israel relayed a message to Syria, accepting its calls to renew peace negotiations.
The bureau responded to questions raised Wednesday by a statement made by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, following a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Pelosi said she had relayed a message from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to the effect that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.
The Prime Minister's Office was quick to issue a denial, stating that "what was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change in Israel's policy, as it has been presented to international parties involved in the matter."
In a special statement of clarification, the bureau stressed that Olmert had told Pelosi that Israel continued to regard Syria as "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."
According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."
The same sources explained that the decision to issue a statement of denial stemmed from questions from Israeli and foreign press regarding a change in Israel's official stance on negotiations with Syria.
The California Democrat, who headed a bipartisan delegation on a tour of the region, including Syria, had come under strong criticism from U.S. President George W. Bush. Bush considers any high-level contacts with Syria as undermining the pressure on Damascus to cease support for terrorism and as undermining Lebanese sovereignty.
Pelosi's visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.
The Prime Minister's Office said: "We have not intervened in the internal debate in the United States and we did not harm anyone. We simply announced what had taken place in the meeting [Olmert-Pelosi] on the basis of notes that are identical to those Pelosi has."
Pelosi met with Assad on Wednesday and said that the Syrian leader was willing to resume peace talks with Israel.
"We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said.
The House speaker also said that she and other members of her congressional delegation raised with Assad their concern about militants crossing from Syria into Iraq, as well as the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah and Hamas.
The speaker said the delegation conveyed to Assad the importance of Syria's role with Hamas in promoting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
She did not reveal how Assad responded to the delegation's message on Hamas and Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, Syrian sources on Wednesday expressed their uncertainty that Olmert's statements were credible.
Syrian Information Minister, Muhsen Bilal, told reporters in Damascus on Wednesday that Israel needs to prove its seriousness in peace.
"If Israel is really interested in renewing negotiations for peace, it must declare this in a clear manner," Bilal said.
By Yoav Stern and Amiram Barkat, Haaretz Correspondents, Haaretz Service and News Agencies
The Prime Minister's Office has strongly denied that Israel relayed a message to Syria, accepting its calls to renew peace negotiations.
The bureau responded to questions raised Wednesday by a statement made by U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, following a meeting with Syrian President Bashar Assad. Pelosi said she had relayed a message from Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, to the effect that Israel was ready for peace talks with Syria.
The Prime Minister's Office was quick to issue a denial, stating that "what was discussed with the House speaker did not include any change in Israel's policy, as it has been presented to international parties involved in the matter."
In a special statement of clarification, the bureau stressed that Olmert had told Pelosi that Israel continued to regard Syria as "part of the axis of evil and a party encouraging terrorism in the entire Middle East."
According to sources at the Prime Minister's Office, "Pelosi took part of the things that were said in the meeting, and used what suited her."
The same sources explained that the decision to issue a statement of denial stemmed from questions from Israeli and foreign press regarding a change in Israel's official stance on negotiations with Syria.
The California Democrat, who headed a bipartisan delegation on a tour of the region, including Syria, had come under strong criticism from U.S. President George W. Bush. Bush considers any high-level contacts with Syria as undermining the pressure on Damascus to cease support for terrorism and as undermining Lebanese sovereignty.
Pelosi's visit to Syria was the latest challenge to the White House by congressional Democrats, who are taking a more assertive role in influencing policy in the Middle East and the Iraq war.
The Prime Minister's Office said: "We have not intervened in the internal debate in the United States and we did not harm anyone. We simply announced what had taken place in the meeting [Olmert-Pelosi] on the basis of notes that are identical to those Pelosi has."
Pelosi met with Assad on Wednesday and said that the Syrian leader was willing to resume peace talks with Israel.
"We were very pleased with the assurances we received from the president that he was ready to resume the peace process. He's ready to engage in negotiations for peace with Israel," Pelosi said.
The House speaker also said that she and other members of her congressional delegation raised with Assad their concern about militants crossing from Syria into Iraq, as well as the Israeli soldiers kidnapped by Hezbollah and Hamas.
The speaker said the delegation conveyed to Assad the importance of Syria's role with Hamas in promoting peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis.
She did not reveal how Assad responded to the delegation's message on Hamas and Hezbollah.
Meanwhile, Syrian sources on Wednesday expressed their uncertainty that Olmert's statements were credible.
Syrian Information Minister, Muhsen Bilal, told reporters in Damascus on Wednesday that Israel needs to prove its seriousness in peace.
"If Israel is really interested in renewing negotiations for peace, it must declare this in a clear manner," Bilal said.
Wednesday, April 4, 2007
Syria played role in resolving U.K.-Iran dispute, officials say
AP 2 hours, 3 minutes ago
Syria: We helped in Iran-Britain dispute
Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, two government officials said Wednesday.
"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.
He said Syria had been asked "to help positively in the issue of British" crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.
He did not elaborate.
Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue" between Britain and Iran.
Al-Moallem, who also did not give any details on the Syrian mediation, spoke at Damascus international airport before the departure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) for Saudi Arabia.
A Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said Iran's decision to release the Britons was "right," and that Syria "sees it as an example of the positive results for adopting dialogue and diplomacy among states."
Syria has long been the Arab country with the closest ties to Iran, a non-Arab state. The two have moved toward each other as they were shunned by the United States and the European Union for their alleged interference in Iraq and Lebanon, and their support of Palestinian militant groups regarded as terrorist in the West.
Syria: We helped in Iran-Britain dispute
Syria played a key role in resolving the standoff over the 15 British sailors and marines held by Iran, two government officials said Wednesday.
"Syrian efforts and the Iranian willingness culminated with the release of the British sailors," said Information Minister Mohsen Bilal.
He said Syria had been asked "to help positively in the issue of British" crew members since their March 23 seizure by Iran in the Persian Gulf.
He did not elaborate.
Foreign Minister Walid al-Moallem told reporters that "Syria exercised a sort of quiet diplomacy to solve this problem and encourage dialogue" between Britain and Iran.
Al-Moallem, who also did not give any details on the Syrian mediation, spoke at Damascus international airport before the departure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record) for Saudi Arabia.
A Foreign Ministry official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to talk to the media, said Iran's decision to release the Britons was "right," and that Syria "sees it as an example of the positive results for adopting dialogue and diplomacy among states."
Syria has long been the Arab country with the closest ties to Iran, a non-Arab state. The two have moved toward each other as they were shunned by the United States and the European Union for their alleged interference in Iraq and Lebanon, and their support of Palestinian militant groups regarded as terrorist in the West.
Monday, April 2, 2007
Israel pits US against Iran, then ducks when the SH*T hits the fan
As usual, israelis get US to do their dirty work while they avoid casualties by keeping a low profile.
When will Americans learn that it doesn't 'pay' to be a zionist hitman?
Israel’s chief of military intelligence warned on Sunday that Hezbollah, Syria and Iran were preparing for a possible attack on Teheran by Israel’s main ally the United States as early as this summer.Amos Yadlin told the weekly cabinet meeting that Israel’s three principal foes were steeling their defences because they feared a US attack on Iran, a senior official who attended the meeting told AFP.
‘Their preparation is defensive ahead of war,’ the official quoted Yadlin as saying on condition of anonymity. ‘They fear a war initiated by the Americans because they understand that there might be an attack against Iran over the summer, but not by Israel.’
Although Yadlin insisted Israel had no intention of becoming embroiled in such a conflict, he warned that any moves by the Jewish state could be wrongly interpreted by its neighbours as a sign of hostile intent.
‘If the Americans launch an offensive in Iran, Hezbollah and Syria will think the move had been coordinated with Israel and would expect Israel to strike them too,’ another government official at the meeting told AFP.
Yadlin said he feared a repeat of 1967 when sabre-rattling, brinkmanship and miscalculations upset a fragile calm and plunged the region into war.
‘We might again find ourselves in a war no one wanted,’ Yadlin told ministers.
What Chutzpah!
Zionists have been DEMANDING war for over four years, yet when everyone around them is dead and buried they will deny they ever wanted it.
‘Israel must be prepared and make sure its steps will not lead to any miscalculation on the other side.’‘Israel is closely following developments on this front out of a concern that the three players might misinterpret certain steps taken by Israel,’ Yadlin was quoted as saying.
Unbelievable.
israelis never cease to amaze me with their treachery and their cowardice as they meticulously plan to sit it out, while Americans and Iranians duke it out.
Yadlin said Hezbollah was abiding by a UN-brokered ceasefire in southern Lebanon, but alleged the Shia militants were busily rearming north of the Litani river -- out of the jurisdiction of UN peacekeepers.* * * ‘Hezbollah has no intention of getting into a second round of conflict,’ Yadlin was quoted as saying. ‘But it is busy rebuilding its forces and has accelerated those efforts for fear of a summer attack.’
On Saturday, Iran’s joint chief of staff warned Arab states neighbouring Israel against what he called a ‘Zionist suicide attack’ this year.
‘The Zionists plan to carry out a suicide plot in the summer,’ the semi-official Fars news agency quoted Major General Hassan Firouzabadi as saying.
He predicted that an Israeli attack would start from Lebanon and Syria and proceed to Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
It will begin in May when the third US aircraft carrier is scheduled to arrive in the Gulf.
We have very little time to stop them.
Posted in Submitted by qrswave on Mon, 2007-04-02 00:48. qrswave's blog
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Bush: Democratic delgation to Syria bad, Republican one good
Editor's note: I am moving to post at the secondary blog(also see new articles below).
---
White House Official Criticizes Pelosi Visit to Syria (Update1)
---
White House Official Criticizes Pelosi Visit to Syria (Update1)
By Laura Litvan and Brendan Murray
March 30 (Bloomberg) -- A White House spokeswoman denounced a plan by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to visit officials in Syria as part of a trip to the Middle East.
Pelosi's outreach to a state sponsor of terrorism is a ``really bad idea,'' White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said at a briefing in Washington. ``Someone should take a step back and think about the message that it sends and the message that it sends to our allies.''
Perino's remarks come as a group of Republican lawmakers has embarked on their own trip to Syria. Michael Lowry, a spokesman for Representative Robert Aderholt, said that the Alabama lawmaker will visit Syria as part of a Republican delegation led by Representative Frank Wolf, a Virginia Republican. Wolf is the top Republican on the House appropriations subcommittee that funds the State Department.
Perino wasn't available to comment about that trip.
Pelosi's office today announced that she will visit Israel and address the Israeli Knesset on Sunday, and late today confirmed the planned stop in Syria as part of the trip with five other lawmakers. Her spokesman, Brendan Daly, said that the Iraq Study Group led by former Secretary of State James Baker last year recommended that the Bush administration hold talks with Syria and Iran without conditions to help stabilize Iraq.
``As recommended by the Iraq Study Group, a bipartisan delegation led by Speaker Pelosi intends to discuss a wide range of security issues affecting the United States and the Middle East with representatives of governments in the region, including Syria,'' Daly said in a prepared statement.
Perino said it was unclear whether anyone in the Bush administration has been in contact with Pelosi about her travel plans.
Others on Trip
Former Secretary of State Colin Powell went to Syria in the spring of 2003, but top-level officials have generally shunned visits there. Pelosi, who made history in January when she was elected the first woman to serve as House Speaker, also traveled to Iraq and other Middle East countries that month as part of a congressional delegation.
Pelosi's trip to the Middle East this time includes five other lawmakers, including House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Tom Lantos, a California Democrat. One Republican, Representative David Hobson of Ohio, is also on the trip.
Baghdad Conference
Earlier this month, the U.S. attended a conference on Iraq that Syria and Iran joined. The meeting marked the first time that the U.S. has sat in Baghdad with representatives of Syria and Iran to discuss Iraq's future.
The U.S. has refused to conduct direct talks with Syria and Iran about Iraq's security, saying those governments are fomenting sectarian violence there and aiding attacks on U.S. troops. The U.S. has blamed Syria for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri, and accuses it of being a state sponsor of terrorism.
The Bush administration also says Syria is backing Hezbollah, the anti-Israel Islamic political movement and militia in Lebanon. Hezbollah is listed by the State Department as a terrorist organization.
To contact the reporter on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net and Brendan Murray in Washington at brmurray@bloomberg.net
Last Updated: March 30, 2007 17:25 EDTU.S. steps up campaign against Syrian government
| Posted on Fri, Mar. 30, 2007 |  |
| |
| MIDEAST McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - The Bush administration has launched a campaign to isolate and embarrass Syrian President Bashar Assad, using parliamentary elections in late April as a lever, according to State Department officials and Syrian exiles.
The campaign, which some officials fear is aimed at destabilizing Syria, has been in the works for months.
It involves escalating attacks on Syria's human rights record, which is generally regarded as abysmal, as well as White House-approved support for Syrian bloggers and election monitors inside and outside the country to highlight the nation's lack of freedom, the officials and others said.
The State Department in recent weeks has issued a series of rhetorical broadsides against Syria, using language harsher than that usually reserved for U.S. adversaries. On Friday, the administration criticized a planned visit there by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif..
"It's the new Cuba - no language is too tough," said one of the officials, who like others insisted on anonymity to discuss internal government planning.
The campaign appears to fly in the face of the recommendations last December of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, which urged President Bush to engage diplomatically with Syria to stabilize Iraq and address the Arab-Israeli conflict. The White House largely ignored that recommendation, agreeing only to talk with Syria about Iraqi refugees and to attend a Baghdad conference where envoys from Iran and Syria were present.
Some officials who are aware of the campaign say they fear its real aim is to weaken or even overthrow Assad and to ensure that he can't thwart the creation of an international tribunal to investigate the February 2005 assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. A U.N. report has implicated Syrian and Lebanese officials in the murder.
The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush's global democracy agenda.
The plan's defenders say the effort to support democracy and speak out against repression in Syria is no different from similar U.S. efforts aimed at governments in Cuba, Iran, Zimbabwe and elsewhere.
The parliamentary elections scheduled for April 22 appear certain to be rigged, according to experts on Syria and critics of Assad's authoritarian regime.
Almost three-quarters of the seats in parliament are set aside for members of the Ba'ath Party, which has ruled Syria since a 1963 coup, and its allies. New campaign spending rules appear designed to undercut the few truly independent candidates.
"Our objective is to have real elections in Syria. . . . It's important to get that kind of message across and, number two, to expose what's happening in Syria," said Najib Ghadbian, who's affiliated with the National Salvation Front, a loose coalition of mostly exiled Syrian government opponents. The group gets no U.S. funding, he said.
Joshua Landis, a University of Oklahoma assistant professor who studies Syria, agreed that the election outcome isn't in doubt, but said U.S. pressure will have little impact. "The problem is, America's such a discredited bully pulpit for this kind of thing," he said.
Indeed, U.S. efforts to isolate Syria received a setback at this week's Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi leadership, which has ostracized Assad since the Hariri assassination, appeared to welcome him back into the fold.
Ahmed Salkini, a Syrian embassy spokesman, said, "There is nothing not free" about the upcoming elections, and he called U.S. criticisms hypocritical in light of alleged U.S. rights abuses at the Guantanamo prison.
McClatchy Newspapers is withholding some details about Syrian groups and individuals involved in monitoring the April elections because their followers could face arrest in Syria.
But a classified government document that surfaced in December proposed a covert election-monitoring effort that would be funded by a State Department-run democracy promotion program known as the Middle East Partnership Initiative. MEPI has set aside $5 million for activities aimed at Syria.
U.S. officials confirmed the existence of the document, which was first reported by Time magazine.
The document identified the U.S. government-funded International Republican Institute as a potential partner in the effort. An IRI spokeswoman declined comment this week.
At least some elements of the plan appear to have gone forward.
Several Internet sites have been created to monitor and discuss the April elections, which are to be followed in May by a referendum on Assad's rule. One, largely in Arabic, is www.transparentsyria.com.
As McClatchy Newspapers first reported last year, the Bush administration also has orchestrated meetings of Syrian opposition figures under the auspices of the Aspen Institute's Berlin offices. White House officials have met with representatives of the National Salvation Front, a broad umbrella group that includes Islamists from the Muslim Brotherhood and former Syrian Vice President Abdul Halim Khaddam.
In Washington, meanwhile, the State Department's verbal attacks on Syria have gotten harsher.
On March 8, in what several officials said was an opening volley, State Department spokesman Sean McCormack issued a statement urging Assad to allow full media coverage of the elections and permit independent monitors. "The United States is deeply concerned that the Syrian regime will again fail its people by not holding free and fair elections," he said.
On Thursday, McCormack issued another statement, expressing concern over two imprisoned human rights activists in Syria, Anwar al-Bunni and Kamal al-Labwani. Al-Labwani was arrested in November 2005 after returning from a trip that included a meeting with a top White House adviser. | |
Full written confession published in advance of the crimes
Saturday, March 31, 2007
Another current and rather obvious mistake based entirely on faulty models of understanding is that the dispute over the British sailors captured in Iranian waters is part of an Anglo-American plan to provoke an attack on Iran. Nonsense! If the analysts can get their minds off their stupidities and their heads out of their asses about the inevitability of an attack, and, for once, look at the facts (I’m getting tired of being the only one who does so), it is glaringly apparent that the London response is completely ad-libbed. B-liar is getting pounded by the Iranian propaganda, and the British lies aren’t even close to believable. Don’t you think it obvious that a real calculated provocation would have with it a pre-planned media war against the Iranians? The fact that the British are obviously making this up as they go along – and not too well, I might add – proves that London, at least, was not part of a conspiracy. There are two options left: 1) it was a mistake (the captain’s negligence); or 2) some cowboy local commander, working on his own agenda, decided to cross the line (both literally and figuratively). B-liar now manages the complete trifecta, looking stupid, weak, and lying, all at the same time. This was no plan.
As I’ve said all along, the ‘Clean Break’ document (Realm=Empire) is the blueprint for the Zionist Plan for the Middle East (note my comments on the real role of oil), and the neocons, weakened but certainly still dangerous, continue to follow it to the letter. The ‘Iran talk’ from the Israeli right (aped by their employees in the United States), now fading, was just a distraction to divert attention from the Lebanon debacle (Iran is hardly mentioned in the ‘Clean Break’ document). Despite recent American diplomatic contact, Syria, as always, is back on the agenda:
“The Bush administration has launched a campaign to isolate and embarrass Syrian President Bashar Assad, using parliamentary elections in late April as a lever, according to State Department officials and Syrian exiles.
The campaign, which some officials fear is aimed at destabilizing Syria, has been in the works for months.
It involves escalating attacks on Syria's human rights record, which is generally regarded as abysmal, as well as White House-approved support for Syrian bloggers and election monitors inside and outside the country to highlight the nation's lack of freedom, the officials and others said.
The State Department in recent weeks has issued a series of rhetorical broadsides against Syria, using language harsher than that usually reserved for U.S. adversaries. On Friday, the administration criticized a planned visit there by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif..
‘It's the new Cuba - no language is too tough,’ said one of the officials, who like others insisted on anonymity to discuss internal government planning.”
and (my emphasis in red blood dripping from his fangs):
“The officials say the campaign bears the imprint of Elliott Abrams, a conservative White House aide in charge of pushing Bush's global democracy agenda.”
The first parts of the Plan are to break up Iraq, break up Lebanon, and attack Syria. If you get confused by Iran talk, you’ll miss what they are really up to. The Plan hasn’t been going all that well. Iraq isn’t breaking up, Israel was defeated in Lebanon, the Americans didn’t take the bait last summer and attack Syria (representing the awakening of the American Establishment to the fact their government was being run by traitors like Abrams), the Saudis have belatedly woken up to the fact that Israel is not their friend and the Americans are out of control, and the current Zionist attack on Syria has had the unwanted effect of reconciling Syria with the Saudis:
“Indeed, U.S. efforts to isolate Syria received a setback at this week's Arab summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
The Saudi leadership, which has ostracized Assad since the Hariri assassination, appeared to welcome him back into the fold.”
Despite all these setbacks, the Washington neocons know only one thing, and continue to follow the Plan religiously.
I find it amazing that Americans still continue to resist the idea that their government is under the control of Zionist traitors, particularly given that the ‘Clean Break’ document, being obsessively followed by the people who wrote it like Perle, Wurmser, and Feith (note in particular the actions of Feith in creating a complex system of lie creation and dissemination which led directly to the attack on Iraq he advocated, but that Israel could not possibly have done, in the ‘Clean Break’ document!), constitutes one of those extreme rarities in conspiracy theory, a full written confession of the complete details of the conspiracy, a document which is still being followed in Washington by the actual conspirators who wrote it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)