SPECIAL SERIES: Is a U.S.-Iran Deal on the Middle East Possible?

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Gareth Porter*

TEHRAN, Dec 15 (IPS) – Would a negotiated agreement between Iran and the Barack Obama administration be feasible if Obama sent the right signals? The answer one gets from Iranian officials and think tank analysts is, ”Yes, but…”

The Iranian national security establishment has long salivated over the prospect of an agreement with Washington. But there’s a big difference between Iranian and U.S. ideas of what such an accord would look like.

Washington is fixated on what it would take to get Iran to agree to stop enriching uranium. On the other hand, Iranians interviewed here indicate that an agreement would only be possible if it represented a fundamental change in the U.S.-Iran relationship.
Iranian officials and analysts see the problem of U.S.-Iranian relations as a seamless web of issues on which agreement must be reached as a whole. And in addition to the bilateral issues of normal diplomatic and economic relations, they see a new U.S.-Iranian understanding on the Middle East as essential.
Read more

Popularity: 91% [?]

US-IRAQ: Immunity Recedes for Private Contractors

Global Intelligence News / IPS

William Fisher

NEW YORK, Dec 5 (IPS) – The virtually total impunity from prosecution accorded to private contractors in Iraq may be coming to an end.

Under the new Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) approved by the Iraqi government last week, U.S. contractors will be subject to Iraqi law for the first time. Moreover, some observers believe that Iraq may be able to hold them legally accountable for offences allegedly committed even before the SOFA was approved.

And, at the other end of the U.S-Iraq equation, after months of seeming inactivity — marked by continuing doubts about whether the U.S. even has legal jurisdiction over the contractors — the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) may soon bring charges against three to six contractor-employed security guards for their involvement in the shooting of 17 Iraqi civilians in Baghdad in September 2007.
Read more

Popularity: 96% [?]

The ‘Other’, Older Palestinian Coup D’etat

Global Intelligence News

By Nicola Nasser*

Failing to substantiate for the President of the autonomous Palestinian Authority (PA), Mahmoud Abbas, a credible “legal” basis to extend his term from the Basic Law, which is the constitutional terms of reference that govern the rotation of power and the renewal of the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the PA, Abbas in his capacity as the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) convened the rubber stamping Fatah –dominated Central Council (CC) of the PLO in the West Bank city of Ramallah to elect him also President of the State of Palestine on November 23.

The move could have been the last “constitutional” resort to extend his term as PA president before it expires on January 9 next year in order to secure himself as the supreme “legitimate” authority on Palestinian decision –making in the context of the “make – or – break” bloody wrangling with the rival Hamas on the leadership of the Palestinian national movement.
Read more

Popularity: 44% [?]

US-MIDEAST: Regional Players Key to Salvaging Peace Process

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Ali Gharib

WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (IPS) – One of the biggest foreign policy challenges facing the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama will be reinvigorating what looks like a completely stalled Palestinian-Israeli peace process.

Repeated failures in the struggle for peace make clear that a change in direction is needed. And many observers think that taking advantage of the Arab Peace Initiative put forward by the Arab League in 2002 is just the ticket to jumpstarting the process.

A push by Pres. George W. Bush in the final year of his two-term presidency yielded the Annapolis process which, though having made minimal procedural gains and bringing in regional players, largely ignored the existing Arab proposal spearheaded by then-Crown Prince and now King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia.

The Annapolis track ended up failing to meet its own goals of having an agreement signed by the end of Bush’s time in office.
Read more

Popularity: 36% [?]

U.S.: Obama Urged to Quickly Engage Iran, Syria

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Jim Lobe*

WASHINGTON, Dec 2 (IPS) – The incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama should move quickly to engage Iran without preconditions and to promote an Israeli-Syrian peace accord, according to two veteran Middle East experts whose views are likely to have influence over Obama’s just-announced foreign policy team.

Obama should also ”make a serious effort from the outset to promote progress between Israel and the Palestinians,” propose its own solutions to the parties ”sooner rather than later”, and enlist the active support of the Arab League in its success, according to Richard Haass and Martin Indyk, senior Middle East aides under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, respectively.

They also called for Obama to consider providing nuclear guarantees and enhanced anti-ballistic missile defence capabilities to Israel if negotiations to curb Iran’s nuclear programme fail or do not achieve quick success in order to dissuade the Jewish state from attacking Tehran’s nuclear facilities on its own. Such an umbrella could also extend to Washington’s Arab allies in part to prevent a regional arms race.
Read more

Popularity: 29% [?]

Will Israel attack Iran?

Global Intelligence News
This article was originally published on opendemocracy.net under a Creative Commons license. Read the article in its original form.

Paul Rogers

The eight-week window before the new United States president takes office is causing high nervousness among those wondering about Tel Aviv’s intentions vis-à-vis Tehran, says Paul Rogers

27 – 11 – 2008

The discussion in the last few years about a possible United States assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities has often been accompanied by the coda that if Washington refrained from targeting this member of the “axis of evil” proclaimed by George W Bush in January 2002, then Israel might – with or without American collusion or forewarning – act on its own account. Several columns in this series have examined the possible circumstances and consequences of an Israeli attack, including the likelihood of involvement of the US itself after expected Iranian retaliation (see, for example, “Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point” [13 March 2008] and “Iran, Israel, and the risk of war” [24 July 2008]).

Now, the interregnum in Washington before the inauguration of Barack Obama on 20 January 2009 is coinciding with a fresh round of nervous speculation about Israeli plans and intentions. Two recent reports widely circulated in the Israeli press serve as a reminder of the continuing risk of a conflict involving Iran. The first was that Iran had on 12 November conducted another test of a medium-range ballistic missile capable of hitting targets right across the region (see “Amid nuclear tensions, Iran says it successfully launched rocket“, Ha’aretz 26 November 2008); the second was that Iran claimed on 26 November now to have installed 5,000 uranium-enrichment centrifuges. 

Much is being made of Iran’s new missiles, both in Israel and the United States. Uzi Rubin – the founder of the Israel Missile Defense Association (Imda) – argues in a leading US defence journal that the new Iranian Sajeel/Ashura missile is far more advanced than any previous type (see Uzi Rubin, “Iran’s Game-changer“, Defense News, 24 November 2008). Most Iranian surface-to-surface missiles have been based on North Korean technology, especially the No Dong series of missiles, which themselves use technology based on the Soviet Scud missiles of the 1950s.  

Rubin, however, claims that the Sajeel/Ashura “is a brand-new missile, an original design more advanced than anything available to the North Koreans themselves.”  This may be rather over the top, but it does appear that the new missile is a relatively advanced two-stage solid-fuel system, which would certainly be a generation ahead of the liquid-fuelled No Dong (see Lauren Gelfand & Alon Ben-David, “New missile marks ’significant leap’ for Iran capabilities“, Jane’s Information Group, 14 November 2008).

To add to the sense of unease in Israel, the Israeli defence minister Ehud Barak told the Knesset on 24 November that Hizbollah now has 42,000 missiles, three times the total available at the time of the July-August 2006 war. Most of these are short-range unguided Katyusha-type rockets; but others have a range sufficient to reach all the significant populated centres in Israel as far south as Beersheba in the Negev desert (see “Hezbollah missile stock ‘tripled’“, BBC News, 24 November 2008).

A time of choice

None of this, of itself, means that Israel is preparing for a military attack on Iran. But there are dangers and these need to be put in context. The overwhelming view in security circles in Israel is that a nuclear-armed Iran is completely unacceptable, either now or in the long term (see “Israel won’t allow a nuclear Iran“, Jerusalem Post, 29 August 2008). In this perspective, Israel’s regional nuclear dominance is essential for its security for as long into the future as can be foreseen. A nuclear-armed Iran is out of the question in its own terms, but also because it might also set in motion a regional proliferation of nuclear capabilities involving Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and ultimately even Syria.  This might be over a twenty-to-thirty-year timescale but that is not long in terms of Israeli security thinking.

Furthermore, for the more immediate future, Israeli military planners can point to the potential for a rapid Iranian “break-out” from its current civil nuclear-power ambitions. There are a number of western analysts – usually but not always of a hawkish disposition – who claim that Iran will shortly have enough low-enriched uranium to be able to run it through the centrifuge cascades. They would further enrich it to the point where there might be enough weapons-grade material for a single crude “gun-type” uranium-based bomb (see William J Broad & David E Sanger, “Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon“, New York Times, 19 November 2008).   

Whether Iran has the technology to actually produce such a device is unclear, and there have been reports that Iran’s supplies of uranium ore are so contaminated with heavy metals that the resultant bomb would not work. No one can really be sure; in any case, producing a nuclear arsenal that could serve any kind of military purpose could still take years and there is no indication that Iran intends to take this path. From the Israeli perspective, though, the possession by Iran of even one “inefficient” device would be an act of huge political symbolism, both in terms of domestic Israeli concern and its perception of its military status across the region.   

In one sense, none of these short-term developments matter as much as the real concerns among Israeli military strategists. This is that the Iranians do not seek to develop nuclear weapons in the coming years. Instead they work hard to develop their civil nuclear infrastructure – building more nuclear power stations (six more are planned after Bushehr), as well as research reactors and enrichment plants (see “Russia and Iran: crisis of the west, rise of the rest“, 21 August 2008). All the time, they would be acquiring comprehensive nuclear expertise that could allow them to develop nuclear weapons at any time of their choosing over the next decade.

An Israeli nightmare

There is a further political context for this kind of worst-case scenario, one that combines developments in Iran and the United States (see Trita Parsi, “The Iran-Israel cold war“, 28 October 2005). Over the past couple of years, power has become more and more concentrated in Tehran in the hands of the elderly supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For all his populist anti-Zionist rhetoric, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is little more than a puppet, but he is presiding over a deteriorating economy that combines 30+% inflation with a budgetary crisis, the latter worsened by the recent halving of oil prices to around $50 per barrel (”The party’s over”, Economist, 20 November 2008). He faces an election in June 2009 and it is by no means certain that Khamenei will back him; Khamenei might prefer another “principalist” who would help distance the supreme leader from the current problems.

This is becoming more and more necessary since, as one current analysis puts it: “the Islamic Republic is facing an urban, educated, healthy and informed population, but has yet to deliver political liberalisation to accommodate prevailing societal realities, while economic difficulties threaten living standards” (see “Republic Enemy: US policy and Iranian elections”, Jane’s Intelligence Review, 13 November 2008 [subscription only])

If Ahmadinejad is dumped and if a Barack Obama administration is willing to engage with Khamenei, then many things become possible (see Mehdi Khalaji, “Problem with Engaging Iran’s Supreme Leader“, RealClearPolitics, 13 November 2008). They could include a continuation of nuclear developments under really strict International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) supervision; serious diplomatic talks; and an easing of sanctions leading in turn to the ability to import badly needed oil technologies (see Jan De Pauw, “Iran, the United States and Europe: the nuclear complex“, 5 December 2007). The result could be something of an economic turnaround that would preserve the religious principalists under Khamenei and reduce the threat of a reformist comeback (see Nasrin Alavi, “Iranians’ interrupted freedom“, 8 October 2008).

For Israel’s strategists this is getting close to a nightmare scenario: a rearmed Hizbollah and an easing of US-Iranian relations while all along (at any time between around 2014 and 2040) the Iranians increase their ability to “go nuclear” at short notice.

A crucial timescale

This, again, does not make an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities imminent, but two further things have to be factored in. The first is that the Israeli Defence Forces, with all their supposed power, were efffectively humbled by Hizbollah in southern Lebanon in mid-2006 (see “Lebanon: the war after the war“, 11 October 2006). There is, as a consequence, a deep-seated desire to regain their status, both within Israel and across the region. An attack on Iran coupled with an overwhelming response to any Hizbollah action would do just that.

The second aspect is that an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would not be comprehensive in its impact since Israel simply does not have sufficient air power. The intention, instead, would be to incite an Iranian military reaction directed not just at Israel but at US forces in the region, especially in Iraq. That would bring the United States into the war, which really would result in serious damage to Iran’s military capabilities, including its nuclear programme.

This is where the Barack Obama changeover is so significant. The George W Bush-Dick Cheney axis would be well-nigh certain to order just such a massive air power response. An Obama administration, on the other hand, might be just too canny to fall into the trap (see Karim Sadjadpour, “U.S. Engagement with Iran: A How To Guide“, Middle East Progress, 25 November 2008). It would recognise that US forces are so stretched in the region that a massive military response to Iranian attacks will pull the United States into a third war in the region.

This is why the current timescale is so crucial, specifically the next eight weeks through to Barack Obama’s inauguration. It also explains the deep unease in the upper echelons of several western European governments, amid a sincere hope that those eight weeks pass without incident.

This article is published by Paul Rogers, Global Intelligence News, and openDemocracy.net under a Creative Commons licence. You may republish it free of charge with attribution for non-commercial purposes following these guidelines.

About the author:

 In addition to his weekly openDemocracy column, Paul Rogers writes an international security monthly briefing for the Oxford Research Group; for details, click here

Paul Rogers’s most recent book is Why We’re Losing the War on Terror (Polity, 2007) – an analysis of the strategic misjudgments of the post-9/11 era and why a new security paradigm is needed

Image of the Natanz nuclear facility in Iran
Author: Hamed Saber
Wikimedia Commons.
Image of Ahmadiejad
Wikimedia Commons – Public Domain Image

 

Popularity: 35% [?]

Middle East Concerns About India – Pakistan Tensions

Global Intelligence News
Read the Article as Originally Published on Middle East Analyst

By: Meir Javedanfar

30/11/2008

The recent terrorist attacks in India should be viewed with major concern in the Middle East. After the weekend’s events, its a question of when, not if India retaliates against Pakistan.

However such an attack will force Islamabad to pull its forces away from the Afghani border, thus enabling Al Qaeda to expand its operations in Afghanistan.

Furthermore, tensions between India and Pakistan will mean that Barack Obama will have to focus his efforts there, as soon as he enters office, or even before. This could reduce US involvement and focus on the Iranian nuclear program, the situation in Iraq and the Israeli Palestinian peace process. In all cases, conservative, anti-peace parties could make use of the reduced US focus to expand their activities.

There is also the economic angle. There are hundreds of thousands of Pakistanis living abroad, due to troubles at home. These troubles could send them fleeing in larger numbers, thus putting more strain on the economies of Middle Eastern countries, especially those belonging to the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council.

Iran in particular has much to worry when it comes to its economy. It was placing much hope on the peace pipeline running through Pakistan and India. It was hoping that through the sale of gas to these two energy hungry giants, it could increase its income and political leverage in the region. With relations between India and Pakistan worsening, this now seems much less likely.

The current crisis between India and Pakistan is not just a test for Barack Obama. Its a challenge for the entire international community, including the Middle East. Despite the difficulties ahead, Middle Eastern countries, especially those who have leverage over Pakistan, should try to contain the current situation by pressuring Islamabad to curb the activities of terrorists on its soil. Saudi Arabia could lead the region in this case. Having emerged as the recent rescuer to Pakistan’s financial crisis, it could use its leverage over Islamabad. After Washington, Riyadh is the second biggest door opener in corridors of power in Pakistan. This could be put into good use.

The current crisis can also be viewed as the first test for global multilateral diplomacy as a tool to resolve crisis in the post Bush era. The international community should try not to fail.

© Copyright 2008 Meir Javedanfar – Middle East Analyst. All rights reserved.

Popularity: 31% [?]

POLITICS-US: JFK Episode Suggests Obama’s Iraq Plan at Risk

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Analysis by Gareth Porter*

WASHINGTON, Nov 27 (IPS) – The decision by President-elect Barack Obama to keep Robert M. Gates on as defence secretary has touched off a debate over whether Obama can pursue his commitment to rapid withdrawal from Iraq even though Gates has defended George W. Bush’s surge policy and opposed Obama’s 16-month timetable for withdrawal.

Obama did not explicitly address Iraq at a press conference Wednesday, saying only that he would ”provide a vision” on foreign policy and ”make sure that my team is implementing” it. The appointments, which will be formally announced Monday, are expected to include Gates and Gen. James Jones as national security advisor, who has also been critical of Obama’s withdrawal timetable.

But the one historical precedent of a president seeking to get an unwilling military to go along with a presidential troop withdrawal plan suggests that Obama will be unable to implement his plan for Iraq without the defence secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff fully on board.
Read more

Popularity: 20% [?]

US-IRAQ: Kurds Anxious Over Security Pact

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Analysis by Mohammed A. Salih

COLUMBIA, Missouri, Nov 27 (IPS) – Kurds are divided over a security pact between Iraq and the U.S., approved by a large majority in the Iraqi Parliament Thursday, in what appears to be a potential heavy blow to their major gains since the U.S.-led invasion of the country in 2003.

Despite the international media’s portrayal of unequivocal unified Kurdish support for the deal, there is an increasing realisation within formal and informal Kurdish circles that the Kurds are dooming themselves by approving the deal.

During a meeting with U.S. President George W. Bush last month, Iraqi Kurdistan President Massoud Barzani described the pact as being ”in the interest of the Iraqi government — it’s in the interest of this country, and we have been and we will continue to support it and support its ratification.”
Read more

Popularity: 17% [?]

TRADE: Report Sees Bonanza for U.S., Iran if Sanctions Scrapped

Global Intelligence News / IPS

Abid Aslam

WASHINGTON, Nov 24 (IPS) – Think of it as a stimulus package without deficit spending: Were the United States to normalise trade relations with Iran and were the Islamic Republic to liberalise its economy, Washington could cut its fuel costs and add tens of billions of dollars to its economy, say U.S. exporters.

Such moves could lower world oil prices by as much as 10 percent, the National Foreign Trade Council (NFTC) says in a report aimed at the incoming administration of President-elect Barack Obama.

Obama, who is to take office in January, has signaled willingness to explore new approaches to his country’s long standoff with Iran. During his election campaign, opponents lambasted Obama for favouring appeasement at a time when Washington seeks to tighten the screws on Tehran for its alleged support of terrorism and nuclear ambitions.
Read more

Popularity: 27% [?]

Next Page »