June 30, 2007 12:15
With 18 Months To Go, Will Bush Hit Iran?
Will President Bush, perhaps on the advice of Dick Cheney, order a military strike on Iran before he leaves office in 18 months? Interviews with two former administration officials this week give some insights.
Strictly speaking, the Bush team has frequently said that no option for dealing with Iran's nuclear program is off the table. It's highly improbable, however, that the U.S. would launch an all-out war against Iran in the next year or so. Apart from the question of its merits or demerits, Bush could muster very little domestic or international support for such a move, and the U.S. military is already too stretched in Iraq to take on what would be an even larger task than the toppling of Saddam Hussein. Barring a terrorist incident on the scale of 9/11 and laid unambiguously at Tehran's doorstep, it's hard to imagine Bush trying to muster a military effort to oust the mullahs from power.
What about a quick attack, with air strikes and Cruise missiles, with the limited objective of obliterating Iran's nuclear program but not overthrowing the Islamic regime? That's harder to discount. I've been thinking about this since May, when I blogged about Cheney's recent tour of the Middle East. Speaking to troops on the USS John C. Stennis, he effectively warned Iran that it faced a military strike if it did not dismantle its nuclear program. "With two carrier strike groups in the Gulf, we're sending clear messages to friends and adversaries alike," Cheney said. "We'll stand with our friends in opposing extremism and strategic threats. And we'll stand with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region."
In an interview with Larry King on CNN, former Secretary of State Colin Powell provided some insights--including about Cheney's role-- into how the Bush administration went to war in Iraq over Powell's preference to settle the dispute with Saddam at the U.N.
As Cheney was pushing for war, Powell says he convinced Bush to go to the U.N. instead. Powell is being wishy-washy when he says that ultimately it was Saddam's fault that he "missed the opportunity to avoid war." But Powell, whose wife Alma was also on the program, made no objection when King quoted Alma saying she thought "Colin has been callously used to promote a war she wished has never happened." "That is true," Alma told King. "I still feel that way." Earlier in the interview, Powell provided some thoughts on Cheney's influence in the administration's pecking order. Powell registered no objection when King quoted Republican wise man Brent Scowcroft saying "this is a Dick Cheney I don't know"; then Powell commented, "Mr. Cheney has strong views on issues. And, as you would expect, he presses those strong views...Sometimes he went directly to the president and the rest of us weren't aware of--of what advice he was giving, and sometimes I would do that, as well. It was not a system where we routinely exposed all points of view." Powell concluded, "But the bottom line is that the president is the one who decides what advice he wishes to accept and act on and what advice he doesn't feel he should act on."
This would be history if Cheney were not still in office, presumably giving Bush advice on how to "prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region." We don't know precisely what advice Cheney is giving, but some blunt remarks by one of Cheney's former allies inside the administration, John Bolton, may not be far off the point. In an interview with the Jerusalem Post this week, Bolton, who for six years had key responsibility for the Iran issue as an under secretary of state and U.N. ambassador, openly promoted military options to halt Iran's nuclear program.
The essential point of Bolton's argument is that the United States has run out of options: "The current approach of the Europeans and the Americans is not just doomed to failure, but dangerous. Dealing with [the Iranians] just gives them what they want, which is more time...We have fiddled away four years, in which Europe tried to persuade Iran to give up voluntarily. Iran in those four years mastered uranium conversion from solid to gas and now enrichment to weapons grade... We lost four years to feckless European diplomacy."
Because "diplomacy and sanctions have failed," Bolton argued, "we have to look at: 1) overthrowing the regime and getting in a new one that won't pursue nuclear weapons; 2) a last-resort use of force." Bolton believes "the regime is more susceptible to overthrow from within than people think," but said it "may take more time than we have."
Bolton strongly disagreed with the Bush administration's current approach and said it was one of the reasons he quit his U.N. post six months ago. He hastened to emphasize that this approach was that of the State Department, and that Secretary of State Condeleezza Rice--i.e., not Cheney-- "is overwhelmingly predominant in foreign policy" nowadays.
That doesn't mean Bolton is not pushing for tougher action--"I am pushing the U.S. very hard, from the outside"--and its reasonable to assume that Cheney is, too, from the inside.
There's an interesting piece in the latest Weekly Standard by Israeli scholar Meyrav Wurmser that is worth noting in this context. She makes a case that last summer's Hizballah war with Israel, and this summer's wars in Lebanon and Gaza, form part of a "renewed regional offensive against the United States and Israel" by Iran and Syria. She argues that they have been emboldened by American and Israeli setbacks in the Middle East and by the Bush administration's decision to reverse policy and "naively" begin talking to Damascus and Tehran--showing itself "not consistently willing to confront its enemies." The upshot, Wurmser argues, is that logically Iran and Syria will now "initiate another conflict with Israel," hoping "another Israeli defeat will further damage U.S. interests and deepen America's image as a country in retreat." Wurmser ends by calling for a "broad strategic vision," adding, and "toughness is necessary, but it will remain ineffective without a purpose and a plan."
What that new "strategic vision" and "plan" should be, she doesn't spell out. But her ideas are certain to get a hearing in Cheney's office, given that her husband, David, is one of Cheney's national security advisors and a policymaker fond of strategic visions and plans. In 1996, he famously drafted a document advocating the overthrow of Saddam. The policy paper, known as "A Clean Break--a New Strategy for Securing the Realm," advised then-incoming Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to work with the U.S. based on a "shared philosophy of peace through strength"--disregarding "land-for-peace" agreements with Arabs, launching military strikes on Syria, encouraging Palestinian challenges to Arafat's leadership and "removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right."
Much of what David Wurmser advocated was later adopted as policy after 9/11 by the Bush administration--before joining Cheney's office, Wurmser worked with Bolton at the State Department--albeit with unsatisfactory results thus far. Yet there is no indication that Cheney has repudiated the "peace through strength" approach to the Middle East's problems.
The real question is whether Cheney now agrees with Bolton that diplomacy and sanctions have failed with Iran and that the U.S. has run out of options other than a "last-resort use of force." Given the stakes as Cheney sees them, will he be content risking that America's next president proves to be "feckless" and "naive"?
Cheney's 2002 speech making the administration's case for the invasion of Iraq could logically be extended to the challenge that Iran presents today. "Should all his ambitions be realized, the implications would be enormous for the Middle East, for the United States, and for the peace of the world," Cheney argued. "Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail."
"The elected leaders of this country have a responsibility to consider all of the available options," Cheney went on. "What we must not do in the face of a mortal threat is give in to wishful thinking or willful blindness. We will not simply look away, hope for the best, and leave the matter for some future administration to resolve. As President Bush has said, time is not on our side."
"The risks of inaction are far greater than the risk of action," Cheney argued. "The entire world must know that we will take whatever action is necessary to defend our freedom and our security."
For what it's worth, Cheney's speech included an approving reference to an Israeli military strike on Iraq in 1981 that destroyed Saddam's known nuclear program--a nuclear reactor in Osirak. Israel's attack was publicly condemned at the time and even the Reagan administration suspended some arms deliveries to Israel afterwards. Cheney noted that due to the Israeli bombing, "Saddam's nuclear ambitions suffered a severe setback." Dealing Iran's program such a setback is probably the maximum Cheney can wish for now.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
June 29, 2007 10:09
Gaza's Certified Torturer
It was quiet by the time I reached Gaza. The shooting had ended. The only thing I had to worry about were mosquitoes buzzing into my hotel room through a bullet-hole in the glass window.
The fighting centered around two Fatah strongholds, the Preventive Security Compound, and a modern building known as “The Ship”, the intelligence wing of forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas. When Hamas took command of The Ship, they removed crates of documents that they said conclusively proved that their Fatah rivals were working with the Israelis and the CIA against the Palestinians. Well, so far, the only thing that’s surfaced are sex tapes that the intelligence service had allegedly taken of their own Fatah officials frolicking with hookers. It was to be used as blackmail, or as a souvenir of wild nights in Gaza. Who knows?
So we moved on to the Preventive Security compound, an array of low buildings surrounded by a huge wall, in the center of Gaza. Our Hamas guard took us first to the dungeon, the most dreaded place in Gaza. Our guide pointed to a hook in the corridor’s ceiling. “They would hang people from that and beat them, so everyone in the cells could hear the screams and think… ‘I’m next’”. The cell walls were scratched with graffiti, lovingly rendered pictures of guns and grenades, as if they could be magically conjured up by the inmates to take revenge against their jailers. There were a few hearts, one poem to a mother and a line: “They have shamed us, burnt our bodies. I am alone with my cup of tears.”
I asked the guard what sort of tortures they practiced, and he told me things that are best not repeated in a family blog.
Afterwards, I went upstairs to the interrogators’ offices. The floor was awash with papers. One caught my eye. It was a certificate, issued by the United Nations Office of Human Rights to Lt Maghrebi. Apparently, the good lieutenant had learnt everything the UN had to teach him about the decent treatment of prisoners -–and then he went down to the dungeon and did the complete opposite. I came away thoroughly depressed. Do any of these fine humanitarian efforts by the UN and other agencies make a difference? I’m not so sure, anymore. And, after what happened in Abu Ghraib, I’m not so sure we’re all that fundamentally different from the Lt Maghrebis of Gaza.
by Tim McGirk/Gaza
June 28, 2007 7:44
Iran's "Petrol Revolution"
If the Bush administration wants to foment a velvet revolution against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, maybe it should step aside and let Iranian motorists do the job themselves.
Outraged over gasoline rationing and its sudden implementation this week, Iranian protesters set fire to petrol stations--some reports put the number of attacks at 19 so far-- and otherwise grumbled as they endured long lines at the pump in the 95 F heat. The police had to stand by to keep order as the government banned the media from publicizing the unrest. Some protesters shouted "Death to Ahmadinejad" in what amounted to the worst public violence since his election exactly two years ago this week. In a TV interview, Ahmadinejad's deputy petroleum minister, while saying the rationing program was proceeding "perfectly," admitted that he had been stuck in the ensuing traffic chaos himself for an hour and a half.
The White House has always placed far too much emphasis on Ahmadinnejad's radical rhetoric, ignoring the fact that 1) the supreme leader, not the president, is the real ruler in Iran, and 2) Ahmadinejad faces major political challenges even from Iranian hard-liners, and his popular support, though impressive at times, is shaky. Iran's ruling elite has long criticized Ahmadinejad for playing petty politics with other Iranian politicians, interfering in religious matters in Qom, pushing polices that spiked inflation and using militant rhetoric against Israel that has helped unite the West against Iran's nuclear program.
By implementing gasoline rationing this week, Ahmadinejad's government lit a fuse of popular anger that will not be easy to extinguish. His own political future is at stake, given that one of Ahmadinejad's campaign promises was to put Iran's oil wealth on the table of every Iranian. By limiting the amount of petrol motorists can purchase every month, his government instead is cutting into the economic livelihoods and social patterns of millions of Iranians. Even before the rationing began, Iranians were furious over a 25% increase in the price of gasoline.
From an economic point of view, the rationing makes some sense. The government-subsidized pump price in Iran must be the lowest in the world and that has to change. But considering that Iran is a major petroleum producer, the fact that it needs to ration gasoline underscores how the country's political isolation--thanks to radical policies like those promoted by Ahmadinejad--has prevented sustainable development of Iran's exploration and refining industries. As this dawns on more and more Iranians, don't be surprised if Ahmadinejad starts singing a different tune.
--By Scott MacLeod/Cairo
June 26, 2007 11:31
Three Cheers for Tony
Arab diplomats aren't showing much enthusiasm or expectation over the appointment of Tony Blair as envoy of the so-called Quartet on the Middle East--that's a working partnership formed in 2002 of the U.S., Russia, the European Union and the United Nations to get Israelis and Palestinians to make peace. (Read about its mission here.)
Tony is politically toxic in the Arab world--not only for having helped Bush invade Iraq, but also for all his empty promises to help redirect Western focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some Arab dips dub Blair "Tony Bush." I guess that's better than "the poodle." They see the appointment as a political favor, Bush giving the unemployed Tony something to do. Anyway, the "road map" that the Quartet sought to implement obviously hasn't led anywhere. It was supposed to produce a final peace agreement by 2005. At this point, Israeli and Palestinian leaders are just barely on speaking terms.
Yet, Blair’s involvement could turn out to be a tremendous boost for the peace process, if not immediately during Bush’s final year and a half in office, then in setting the agenda for the next U.S. administration.
Blair has a good record as a mediator, and not only with the Northern Ireland dispute. Blair personally deserves the lion’s share of credit for brokering the deal that ended Gadhafi’s involvement in terrorism and WMD development and led to Libya’s international political rehabilitation. It was Blair’s office that first took seriously Gadhafi’s feelers and persuaded the Bush administration to get involved in following them up.
In bringing Gadhafi in from the cold, Blair showed a willingness to put realism over idealism, which may be an essential element in banging Israeli and Palestinian heads together and bringing about necessary compromises. Many observers feel that Washington’s pro-Israel tilt has become part of the problem in settling the dispute, especially during the Bush administration, whereas British officials have historically brought a more balanced approach to diplomacy.
Blair also seems to have a genuine personal interest in seeing peace achieved in the Middle East, in contrast with Bush, who has been far more focused on fighting terrorism and talking about democracy. That could inject a new dynamic in the peace process; a balanced approach pushed by Blair could in turn strengthen the hand of pro-peace advocates inside the U.S. administration. And Blair will have the ear of Bush himself. “I think Condi is crazy if she thinks Tony is not going to poach on her exclusive management of negotiations,” says a Western diplomat with long experience in the region. “Assuming he is somewhat successful, I think this will raise the pressure on Israel. If nothing else, it gives the process a shot in the arm and is a net plus.”
I'm hearing that Blair's role may in fact be relatively limited: instead of grand peacemaking, he'll just quietly work to restore international aid to the Palestinians and help rebuild Palestinian governing institutions. That would be a regrettably limited use of Blair's skills, but such a high-profile envoy, whatever his assignment, will help to underscore the urgency of resolving this destructive dispute once and for all.
--By Scott MacLeod/Sharm el-Sheikh
June 26, 2007 3:24
Cynicism in Sharm el-Sheikh
My quick read of Monday's four-way, Arab-Israeli summit is that the Arabs, at least, aren't feeling that they got what they wanted or needed from Israel.
Arab states used the meeting to showcase that President Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of Fatah, remains the legitimate leader of the Palestinians notwithstanding Hamas's 2006 parliamentary election victory and the fundamentalist group's armed takeover of the Gaza Strip this month. They came to Sharm el-Sheikh insisting that Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert do his part, too. They wanted to see some immediate Israeli gestures to show that Fatah rather than Hamas can not only deal with the Israelis but get results. And they wanted Olmert to make a commitment, with the immediate gestures being a sign of good intentions, to resume final-status negotiations that Israel broke off six years ago after the Palestinians launched another uprising against the occupation.
Olmert did in fact announce that Israel would begin releasing a good portion of the $700 million in withheld tax revenues that Abbas insists Israel owes the Palestinian Authority. Olmert also said he'd seek cabinet approval for the release of 250 Palestinian prisoners who don't have Jewish blood on their hands. That is an important concession, given that Olmert previously suggested that Israel would not free Palestinians while Hamas continues to hold corporal Gilad Shalit. Shalit was abducted from an outpost a year ago and Hamas released an audio tape recorded by their prisoner on Monday just before the summit was underway. Finally, Olmert said he saw "a chance" for peace" and "do not intend to let this opportunity pass us by."
It all sounded good, one senior Arab diplomat agreed afterwards, but Olmert and Abbas have reached understandings in the past that fizzled out in the implementation. "It wasn't negative," the diplomat told me. "But let's wait and see what's going to happen. God knows whether it will get implemented or not."
Olmert's words indicated that he truly wanted to lend Abbas a hand now that he has ditched Hamas from the national unity government. But as in the past, Arab diplomats said, he seemed to be tying Israeli gestures to Abbas's progress in cracking down on Palestinian violence. If that is the case, the parties are likely to become locked in the vicious circle again, with Israel saying it can't talk peace while the Palestinians use violence, and the Palestinians using violence in the belief Israel is not sincere about peace. One gesture Olmert notably did not make was easing up on Israeli military checkpoints in the West Bank, to Palestinians a constant, grueling reminder of Israel's occupation.
The cynicism was thick among Arab diplomats I met on the sidelines throughout the day. They see Abbas as a weak leader who can scarcely control his own political group much less Hamas. They see Hamas as an immature group that is essentially doing Iran's bidding. They see Olmert as weak and gutless, too timid to pursue the compromise with the Palestinians that he has demonstrated he understands is a historical necessity for Israel. And they see Bush--who was absent from the gathering-- as a deer who is frozen in the headlights once again-- stunned by Hamas's brazen coup in Gaza, not sure how to pursue the comprehensive settlement for a Palestinian state that he professes to be a cornerstone of American Middle East policy. (Arabs aren't the only ones blaming Bush's failures. Israeli journalist Akiva Eldar's column in Haaretz Monday was titled "With friends like these..." and declared: "It is difficult to think of an American president who has caused more damage to Israeli interests than the president who is considered one of the friendliest to Israel of all time. No leader has done more than Bush - by commission as well as omission - to destroy the Palestinian Authority under Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas."
The Arabs are a bit sanctimonious about the Arab peace initiative, but these days they are not above self-criticism when it comes to their dilemma in getting Olmert and/or Bush more enthusiastic about it. When I asked one of them what the Arabs should do now, he replied simply and honestly: "I don't know."
-By Scott MacLeod/Sharm el-Sheikh
June 25, 2007 5:12
Summer War in Lebanon: the Sequel
If you don't believe that the Syrian regime is causing the chaos in Lebanon, at least you have to admire its knack for predicting it. Syrian officials correctly estimated that the formation of an international tribunal to prosecute anyone discovered to be behind serial assassinations in Lebanon--many Lebanese blame the Syrian regime--would only lead to more instability in the country. As the U.N. moved toward establishing the tribunal earlier this month, a mysterious Islamic extremist faction called Fatah al-Islam launched a violent uprising against Lebanese authorities at a Palestinian refugee camp in northern Lebanon. Two weeks ago, Walid Eido, another anti-Syrian MP, became the latest victim in the serial assassinations, blown apart by a bomb as he left a seaside sporting club with his son.
Perhaps the most interesting and dangerous act of violence came Sunday with the car-bomb attack in southern Lebanon that has killed at least six United Nations peacekeeping soldiers, which I learned about as I arrived in Sharm el-Sheikh to cover Monday's four-way summit on the Israeli-Palestinian crisis.
That's one of the worst terrorist attacks directed against the blue helmets since they first arrived in Lebanon in 1978 in the wake of Israel's first invasion of southern Lebanon. The brazen murder of the peacekeepers suggests that it is more than an effort to derail the U.N. tribunal or take revenge for the move to establish it.
In fact, we are seeing a continuation of the war for control of Lebanon--broadly pitting Syria and its Lebanese allies against Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and pro-independence groups that are supported by the U.S.-- that many believe led to the 2005 killing of the most prominent victim of the serial assassinations, former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.
Hariri may have been killed, according to a U.N. probe and the testimony of his colleagues, because he decided to oppose the Syrian regime's determination to maintain its tight grip on Lebanese affairs by forcing the Lebanese parliament to extend the presidential term of its ally, former army commander Emile Lahoud. The Hariri assassination backfired in that case, given how it produced a mass independence uprising that compelled Syrian military forces to withdraw from Lebanon after nearly 30 years. The Hariri camp believes that Syria has been trying to reassert its influence ever since, through more assassinations, the Hizballah-led war with Israel last summer, an abortive move to stage a street revolt against Sinora's government and more recent explosions of violence such as the Fatah al-Islam uprising. The Syrian message to Lebanon and the world, in this view: Damascus can help keep Lebanon calm if given the nod to do so; or, otherwise, it can help keep Lebanon in perpetual chaos.
One reason that this is turning out to be Lebanon's third-consecutive hot summer is that the presidential election timetable once again is playing into the struggle. Maneuvering has begun in the race in which parliament must elect a new Lebanese president by the end of 2007. A pro-Syrian figure will help Damascus keeps its influence in Lebanon, whereas an anti-Syrian figure will give the pro-independence movement control over the presidency and the prime ministry, the two most important levers of state power.
The attack on the peacekeepers thus may hold several warnings. The first is that the pro-Syrian factions are capable of triggering a serious international crisis in Lebanon if they don't get their way. This has practical as well as symbolic value: although Hizballah claimed a "divine victory" in the summer '06 war, the cease-fire agreement created an expanded U.N. force in southern Lebanon that deprives Hizballah of its former freedom of movement there. If the peacekeepers get caught up in terrorist attacks, pressure from their home countries for a pullout will increase. Another warning may be that the pro-Syrian forces are capable of sewing chaos throughout the country simultaneously, as with the Fatah al-Islam fighting in the far north, the Eido killing in Beirut and the peacekeeper killings in the far south. Or in other words, if the pro-independence factions insist on taking over the presidency, the new president will struggle to govern a country that is ungovernable.
It remains to be proved in court that Damascus is pulling all these strings, but there is little doubt that the Syrian regime is intensely keen on quashing the U.N. tribunal as well as putting another ally into Lebanon's presidency. As one of Syria's close allies told me in Beirut earlier this month: "If you really want to support stability in Lebanon, look seriously at factors that can increase stability and not add to instability. Everybody recognizes the role of Syria in the neighborhood."
--By Scott MacLeod/Sharm el-Sheikh
June 22, 2007 11:24
Time Out Beirut
Last night, the Lebanese government declared victory in it's month-long battle against Fatah al Islam, an Al Qaeda inspired militant group that staged an uprising in the Nahr al Bared Palestinian refugee camp in north Lebanon. I'm sorry I won't be here to cover this story for you: I'm off today for a week to see my family in New York. However, in the interest of self-presevation, the delay may work in my favor: the Lebanese army says that it may take a while for them to clear the camp of mines and booby traps, and are urging the camp's residents not to return yet.
Hopefully, there will begin to be some answers in the coming days to all the questions that have surrounded this strange and disastrous event. How was Fatah al Islam able to last for so long against the Lebanese army? How were they able to stockpile so many weapons and so much ammunition? What happened to the Palestinian civilians stuck inside the camp during the siege? And where is Shaker Al Absi, the leader of Fatah al Islam, who remains at large?
--Andrew Lee Butters/Rafik Hariri Airport
June 22, 2007 4:06
Dennis Ross's Mythology (6)
Six years of diplomatic neglect has given the Bush administration what it should have expected: instead of peace or at least some sign of progress, we have the pro-peace Palestinian leader of the Fatah group desperate to hold on to power against the challenge of the rejectionist, fundamentalist Hamas group, which won the parliamentary elections in 2006 and now has taken over Gaza by force of arms. The Bush team is stunned, reacting to events because it failed to use American influence to shape them.
An example of what is wrong with U.S. thinking on the Middle East is the latest Op-Ed, in the Wall Street Journal on Monday, of Dennis Ross, the U.S.’s Middle East envoy between 1989-2000. In his favor, Ross has consistently criticized the Bush administration’s policy of neglect of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ross’s problem is that he is obsessed with controlling the process of making peace, at the expense of using American leadership to promote and achieve a vision of actual peace.
In his Op-Ed, Ross reveals that all things considered, rather than pushing for a comprehensive peace between Israelis and Palestinians, he would have been wiser to have limited his aims to working “intensively to create the conditions for peacemaking” for the post-Yasser Arafat era. The reason, he says, is that Arafat, then the Palestinian leader, proved incapable of making “concessions on the existential issues of Jerusalem, refugees and borders.”
Now, Ross says, Condi Rice should likewise abandon her efforts to pursue a comprehensive peace. Ross’s reason this time is that the rise of Hamas has produced a Palestinian identity crisis, discouraging Israel from making compromises with a people whose future leadership and orientation is in question. Instead of the U.S. articulating a vision for what a final peace deal should look like, Ross would have the State Department get involved in Palestinian factional politics on the side of Fatah—bolstering Fatah against Hamas by freeing up international aid for Fatah-controlled institutions and getting Israel to loosen up its security clampdown on Fatah-controlled areas.
The United States, the justly proud free republic that produced the likes of Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Lincoln, should get into the detestable business of backing one corrupt Palestinian faction against another? Without doubt, there are no easy answers. But interfering in Palestinian politics is not America’s business and is very unlikely to produce the desired results. Curious is Ross’s sudden interest in bolstering Fatah--can he be unaware that it was the failure of his own mediation, the failure to help Palestinians achieve their self-determination, which helped discredit Fatah and fuel the rise of Hamas in the first place? Ross may self-servingly blame Arafat for everything that went sour, but no Palestinian would have accepted the deal he was offered—and unlike Israel and the U.S., Arafat was willing to continue negotiations until a solution could be found. Instead of more negotiations, and perhaps peace, we got Hamas.
All the donar money in the world will not help Fatah if it can’t deliver true independence for the long-suffering Palestinians. Ross’s thinking—and the State Department’s—should focus on the big picture: Hamas, which scarcely existed when Ross began his Middle East shuttle missions back in the 1980s, will become irrelevant if the Fatah leadership succeeds in negotiating an end to Israel’s occupation. Fatah will become irrelevant if it doesn’t.
Ross’s Op-Ed has some ideas on how Fatah, Egypt and Jordan should cooperate with Israel to combat Hamas terrorism. But after more than four decades of Palestinian violence in the name of national self-determination, it seems that political action rather than police action is what is urgently required. I would love rather to hear Ross’s ideas on what the U.S. and Israel should do to promote Fatah’s goals of Palestinian self-determination or, in Ross's words, to make "the West Bank... a model of success to show Palestinians and others in the region that moderates deliver and Islamists do not." That is the kind of bolstering Fatah could really use.
It has been said that with the U.S. invasion of Iraq, America has become a Middle East country. Well, let’s not become another petty Middle East faction, angling with this group against that one, for some short-term advantage. That would, among other things, dishonor the lives of the 3,500 plus American soldiers who have died in Iraq in the belief they were on a mission to bring freedom and justice to this part of the world.
--By Scott MacLeod
June 21, 2007 11:16
Swimming in Gaza
Palestinians are in a weird, jurisdictional twilight zone. In Gaza and in the West Bank, you have two governments pretending that the other doesn’t exist.
So in Gaza, you have a bizarre situation. Cops were warned by President Mahmoud Abbas --who presides over the West Bank and who will have money rolling in from the Bush Administration and the Europeans-- that if they want to collect their salaries, they’d better stay home. And if they dare to show up at the police station, or God forbid, try to catch some thieves, they’ll lose their jobs.
Ordinarily, this would be a boon to Gaza’s crooks. But right now, everybody is obeying Gaza’s new rulers, the Islamic militants Hamas, who chased off Abbas’ men last week Hamas is short-handed; they’re still rounding up weapons and hunting down fugitive Fatah commanders who must now be deeply regretting having ripped out the beards of the religious Hamas guys (and more unspeakable things) when Fatah was running the show in Gaza. Hamas’ Wanted List has 85 names on it, and understandably, anyone linked to the Fatah security forces is laying low.
Busy hunting down their enemies, Hamas has passed off the job of directing traffic to youths from the mosques and Islamic University, who have appeared at cross-roads in green baseball caps and day-glow lime colored vests. It’s a job that will soon become obsolete; since Israel has barricaded supplies from entering the new Hamas state of Gaza, there’s only enough gasoline to last for six more days.
Naturally, Gazanas are worried about this Israeli blockade. An IV drip of humanitarian aid from the UN will be allowed in, but that’s just enough to keep Gaza’s 1.4 million from starving. It’s no wonder that the first thing Gazans did after Fatah’s defeat was to hit the shops, buying up food and candles for the grim days ahead. Then, thousands of families hit the beach to celebrate the first time in months that nobody was trying to kill each other. If you can’t eat or work, might as well go swimming.
--by Tim McGirk/Gaza
June 20, 2007 5:07
Will Lebanon Become A Failed State?
There's been so much bad news in Lebanon in the short time I was away, I hardly know where to start.
Last Wednesday, a bomb killed Walid Eido, an anti-Syrian member of parliament, along with his son and four other people. This was no amateur job: the assassination took place along the one narrow alley that leads to the seaside club where Eido had been relaxing moments before his death. A perfect place for a hit. Suspicion falls naturally on Syria.
If that attack wasn't ugly enough, a presenter for a television station belonging to pro-Syrian speaker of parliament Nabih Berri was heard on air gloating over Eido's death while she thought her microphone was off. "Why did it take them so long to kill him?" she said. She then named another MP whom she predicted will be next to die. "I'm counting them off."
She isn't the only one counting MPs. Eido's death, and the assassination of another anti-Syrian MP in November, reduced the parliamentary majority of Prime Minster Fouad Siniora to just five seats. Anti-Syrian politicians are now practically living in hiding, worried that Syria and its allies are trying to take down the government one political assassination at a time.
So Siniora's government has called for by-elections to be held on August 5th to fill the empty seats (which are in safe, pro-government districts.) But in order to do that, they need the approval of President Emile Lahoud, Syrian's main man in Lebanon, and also approval by parliament. But Speaker Berri, also a key pro-Syrian opposition leader, has refused to allow parliament to meet for about the last seven months. If Siniora and his allies go ahead with the by-election, there's a good chance that Lahoud will call his own cabinet, and Lebanon will have two governments.
Meanwhile, even with one government, Lebanon is having trouble holding itself together. On Sunday, Palestinian guerillas fired two Katyusha rockets into Israel, provoking the inevitable response, in the form of a quick artillery barrage against southern Lebanon. Now UNFIL reports that on Tuesday, two Israel jets violated Lebanese airspace, and the terms of the cease-fire that ended last summers war. Israel accuses Hizballah of violating the cease-fire by rearming its rocket arsenal and rebuilding its bunker system in South Lebanon.
And to top it all off, the Lebanese army is still facing stiff resistance from Fatah Islam, the radical militant group holed up in the Nahr al Bared Palestinian refugee camp outside Tripoli. So far 141 people, including 74 soldiers, have been killed in the month-log battle.
As a result, the Lebanese tourism economy is floundering. Arrivals to Beirut's airport were down 33 percent in May from a year ago, and planes are arriving half empty now, the beginning of the all-important summer season. The country is already about $40 billion in debt from the cost of rebuilding itself after the end of the 15-year Civil War in 1990, and last summer's war with Israel.
How much more of this can Lebanon take?
--Andrew Lee Butters/Beirut
June 18, 2007 10:37
Hope for Western Sahara?
With conflicts raging in Iraq, Gaza and Tripoli, we have to feel heartened that somebody in the Arab world is sitting down to resolve a dispute peacefully. The Greentree Estate in Manhasset, Long Island, is a good distance from Morocco and a bit farther still from the Western Sahara. But representatives of the Moroccan government and the Polisario Front started U.N.-sponsored talks there today aimed at resolving the dispute over "Africa's last colony." Nigeria and Cameroon signed a peace deal at Greentree a year ago, so perhaps Western Sahara will get lucky, too.
Both sides deserve some credit for heeding the U.N. call to resume negotiations on the issue after a seven-year lapse. On April 11, King Mohammed VI's government had unveiled what it termed a "historic initiative" aimed at giving the Western Sahara a measure of autonomy. It appeared to rule out full independence as demanded by the Polisario, however. We may discover soon whether the negotiations are serious or merely a tactical ploy to show good faith to the international community, which is becoming fed up with the stalemate.
To see why, check out two new reports issued last week by the International Crisis Group, Western Sahara: The Cost of the Conflict, and Western Sahara: Out of the Impasse.
--By Scott MacLeod
June 18, 2007 10:16
Christians in Kurdistan
St. Joseph's Church, Ainkawa
Ainkawa, a Christian town in Iraqi Kurdistan on the outskirts of Erbil, is filling quickly with Christians fleeing the violence of Arab-controlled Iraq. There are roughly 10,000 displaced Iraqi Christians in Ainkawa, a town of about 25,000 people. Real estate prices are soaring, houses are packed with extra familiy members and friends, and the town is probably the only place in Iraq where new churches are actually being built rather than bombed. Many of the new residents of Ainkawa say that it is only a matter of time before Christian life in Iraq outside Kurdistan is effectively eradicated.
When TIME photographer Newsha Tavakolian and I visited one of these newly built churches for Sunday evening service yesterday, she bumped into an old friend, Hanni, who had been her driver in Baghdad for a month at the beginning of the war. Newhsa had strong memories of Hanni -- who saved her life at least once -- but lost touch after she left Baghdad for the last time. Hani, his wife and six children fled Baghdad a few months ago after Mulism militants burned down their house. "He had such hope for the new Iraq," said Newsha.
Newsha (second from left) with Hanni and his family
--Andrew Lee Butters/Ainkawa
June 17, 2007 7:16
Abbas Strikes Back in West Bank
These days, if you’re a militant of Hamas in the West Bank, the only safe place to be is inside an Israeli jail. And many Hamas are indeed locked up. Parliamentarians, mayors and city councilmen were rounded up by the Israelis months ago. Being behind bars may be their salvation.
Since Hamas’ rout in Gaza of forces loyal to President Mahmoud Abbas, the president’s balaclava-clad gunmen have gone on a vengeful spree of kidnapping and arrests in the West Bank, where they are far stronger than Hamas. A Hamas spokesman said Fatah militants had carried out more than 250 attacks against Hamas during the last three days, a stark contrast to Gaza, where Hamas, once its enemy was defeated, issued an amnesty for all Fatah militia, even the 10 senior most commanders who, unlike many other high-ranking Fatah officials, had not manage to escape.
Those Hamas supporters not already in Israeli jails have gone underground, and more purges are expected now that Abbas on Sunday formed a new cabinet headed by Prime Minister Salam Fayyad. Abbas also outlawed all of Hamas forces.
That won’t matter in Gaza, where Abbas’ edict is unenforceable, but it will in the West Bank. In the past few days, Gunmen belonging to Abbas’ Fatah movement killed one Hamas militant in Nablus, burned down offices, TV stations and charity homes run by the Islamic militants.
The Bush Administration said that after the swearing-in of Fayyad, the U.S, would lift its 15-month long embargo of aid to the West Bank, and other major European donors are expected to follow suit. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, now in Washington, is also expected to make concessions, such as an unfreezing of millions of dollars in tax revenues for Palestinians and lifting roadblocks inside the occupied West Bank, all aimed at strengthening Abbas’ emergency government.
Because Gaza is under Hamas rule, it will be excluded from the lifting of sanctions. The rationale is that this exclusion will be used as a weapon to choke Hamas, considered by Israel and the U.S. to be a terrorist organization. But Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants face a worsening crisis, victims of the international embargo on Hamas. Relief agencies warn that food stocks are running low in Gaza, and the United Nations is currently negotiating with Israel to re-open its borders with Gaza to allow in humanitarian aid.
Meanwhile, from Gaza, the former Prime Minister Ismael Haniyeh declared that Abbas’ new government was “illegal”. Gaza sources told Time that Haniyeh is busy trying to free BBC correspondent Alan Johnston, who is believed to be captive of the Dagmash criminal family that was under the protection of elements within Fatah movement. But with that protection stripped away, the criminal family has been given an ultimatum that it either surrender Johnston within hours or face “dire consequences”.
Securing Johnston’s release is of vital importance to Hamas, since the militants want to show they can deliver on their promise of bringing justice and security to Gaza, where criminal gangs –some with ties to Fatah—took advantage of the feud between the two Palestinian militant groups. The release of the foreign correspondent is Hamas’ first step in that direction.
--by Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
June 16, 2007 4:09
Mountain Meeting with the PKK
The last Kurdish government checkpoint before PKK territory
The PKK, a radical Kurdish group fighting a civil war with Turkey, controls what is probably one of the most beautiful valleys in northern Iraq -- filled with golden pastures and hardwood groves just one giant rocky ridge line away from Iran -- where they have military and ideological training camps. On Thursday, I drove there with a few of my colleagues for a meeting with one of the PKK's top political officials, who came down out of the hills in a white four-by-four filled with bodyguards, some of whom had Che Guevera stickers on their Kalishnikovs, and met us at a base camp they maintain for receiving visitors.
Interviewing an ideologue is never easy. In fact, what we got from the PKK man was more like a repetitive lecture on how Turkey's oppresses it's Kurdish minority, complete with a lengthy and confusing historical comparison between Turkey and fascist Spain in the 1970's. When I asked for his title within the organization, he replied, "We're not an organization, we're a system." He then spent five minutes outlining various military and political structures and committees. I tried again: "So are you one of the leaders of the system?"
However, we did get some useable material from the interview, despite the fact that we only managed to get in maybe five full questions during the rambling hour an a half session. THe PKK still maintains that they have given up their demands for a separate Turkish state, and are open for dialogue as a means of settling the Kurdish question democratically and peacefully. The deadly clashes that occur in Turkey are the result not of planned PKK attacks, but are caused by Turkish army search and destroy missions against PKK partisans inside Turkey, he said. The whole idea that the Turkish army could finish the PKK by staging military operations inside Iraq is laughable, he said, because most of the fighters are inside Turkey.
Unfortunately, they wouldn't let us see their camps and operations for ourselves, despite the fact that a I'd spent a week with them two years ago. At that time, I'd visited one camp where they train male PKK soldiers and civilian activists how not to be sexist. (Half of the PKK's soldiers are women). I'm afraid the course -- called "Killing the Man" -- didn't work on me. I spent much of the trip thinking that Kurdish guerilla girls look very chic in revolutionary fatigues.
This time there would be no guerillas girls for me. Turkish spies had infiltrated the area, they said. Some of the spies were posing as journalists to assassinate the leadership and put cyanide in the soldiers' food. As a precaution, the PKK had disbanded all their camps, and never spent more than one night in the same place, they said.
I tried thinking of a way to reassure them that we weren't spies. "Last time I was here, did Tomahawk cruise missiles hit the camps after I left?" I told him that no one in America knew or cared much abut the PKK until now, when it looks like their presence in the mountains of Iraq could spark a mini-war between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. Now was their chance to get their side of the story out, I said, along with all the other, "This is a historical moment, you need the media," lines. But all was for naught. If radical guerillas stuck in the mountains had good media advisors, perhaps they wouldn't be be radical guerillas stuck in the mountains.
A PKK activist whom I met in 2004 at a feminist training camp in the mountains. Her nom de guerre is Tecusin, which means "Struggle" in Kurdish.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Erbil
June 15, 2007 12:07
Kurdish Wedding
On our way back from the mountains visiting the PKK , it seemed as if every park was filled with picnickers or wedding parties. Here the bride and groom take shelter from the scorching sun. More tomorrow about the PKK -- the Kurdish radicals fighting Turkey.
-ALB
June 13, 2007 7:30
Butt Check in Kurdistan
Here's something I'd never seen before today: a cigarette checkpoint at the gatehouse to the Ministry of Pershmerga in Erbil. By now we've all gotten used to turning in our mobile phones when entering secure locations, since electronics can be used either to hide explosives or to detonate them. But perhaps the Kurds take the health of their peshmerga fighters just as seriously as terrorism. In which case, this would be another sign of how Iraqi Kurdistan is outpacing the rest of Iraq, since I'm guessing they're not worrying about second-hand smoke in Baghdad.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Erbil
June 13, 2007 7:06
Hizballah at the Moulin Rouge?
I apologize for missing the significance this bit of news last week: France invited all sides of Lebanon's political crisis to Paris for talks. Few Lebanese will turn down a junket to Paris (and in fact, all the parties agreed this was a good idea) but the chances that this will resolve the more than six month stalemate are pretty slim. So I left it at that.
But the ever-vigilant Jerusalem Post yesterday picked up what the Franco-Lebo-confab means for Israel: President Nicholas Sarkozy has invited Hizballah to France! Merde!
There goes Israeli hopes that France would follow America's lead and classify Hizballah as a terrorist organization. And it's a further sign that the Pro-American French President is charting his own course on Middle Eastern affairs, despite the fact that Lebanon was perhaps the one subject of agreement between America and France since... hmm... World War Two?
The French Foreign Ministry reminded the Jerusalem Post that France continues to support the disarmament of Hizballah. But they reason that the only way to maintain stability in Lebanon is to include Hizballah in a political solution. After all, they are are the largest political partying representing Lebanon's largest sect, Shia Muslims.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Erbil
June 12, 2007 8:36
Dead Quiet in Kurdistan
Much as I respect the need for intellectual property laws, I'm not sure I could handle reporting in Kurdistan were it not for $2 pirated DVD's imported from Malaysia. There isn't much else to do here in Erbil at night, especially when all my Kurdish friends are married. It's hot, and dusty and I've been waiting for the past few days for the green-light from the PKK -- the Kurdish militants at war with Turkey -- to go visit them at their camps up in the mountains here in Iraqi Kurdistan. So my options are either drinking alone or Spider Man 3 shot in shaky-cam.
But the enervating boredom can be misleading. There's a lot on slow boil here in Kurdistan, as elsewhere in the region. Just going out to a Turkish restaurant for lunch yesterday afforded little glimpses of the larger disorder. At the table next to mine, three Kurdish businessmen openly discussed committing fraud with an Arab official from Kirkuk, who, over the course of the meal, successfully negotiated a fee hike from $10,000 to $15,000 for his services in robbing their country. "Now you're working for us," said one Kurd, with the inevitable backslap.
Meanwhile, my waiter -- a twenty-something with a chiseled frame he didn't get from serving donner kebab -- whispered to me that he's a Turkish Kurd fighter with the PKK. "We not afraid to die, like you Americans," he said as he waved at the flies gathering on my salad. "As soon as they need me, I'll be back in the mountains."
And when my driver and I stopped off at a car wash on the way back at the hotel, several of the towel-boys were Arab refugees from Baghdad, with the usual horror stories about executed family members.
Moreover, the summer doldrums that have settled over Erbil are themselves disquieting. When I was here in March, the whole city had a gold rush feel that had boosters talking about Iraqi Kurdistan becoming the next Dubai and which made finding a hotel room and a parking place difficult. But it's clear that business is down everywhere -- scarred off by the recent bombings and the border conflict with Turkey. Kurdish officials are doing their best to downplay the tensions, "What can Turkey do?" But Kurdistan is surrounded by so much conflict, that it can't afford any more. The "Other Iraq" is still Iraq, and the barbarians are still waiting at the gates.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Erbil
June 11, 2007 8:09
Israeli Supermarkets to Outlaw Pork
The pig is not the most popular farm animal in the Holy Land. You won’t find him in the Bible Zoo and only God knows how the pig made it onto Noah’s Ark. Here in Israel, religious Muslims and Jews abhor the animal and it’s against the law to raise pigs on this so-called sacred earth.
So why was I seeing Jerusalem delicatessen counters brimming with bacon, pork chops and pate of wild boar?
“There’s a loophole,” explained one Israeli friend. “Pigs aren’t supposed to be raised on holy soil, and the soil of Israel is holy –so they build pig farms on planks, raised a few feet above the ground. That way no law is broken.”
But even the farms with pigs trotting the boards like bad dancers could face closure. A Russian born Jewish billionaire named Arcady Gaydamak just bought a controlling share of Tiv Taam, one of the country’s biggest supermarket chains and purveyors of pork. He made it clear that selling pork “offends Jewish tradition”, and he plans on banning its sale. The first polls show that secular Israelis, who are in the majority, think this is going too far. But Gaydamak is said to be planning a run as mayor of Jerusalem, a city where ultra-orthodox families are 20% of the population and growing. The ultra-orthodox Jews are only too happy about Gaydamak’s intention to banish the pig.
Gaydamak is an enigmatic figure –the French would like to talk to him about certain arms sales in Africa— but he is emerging as a populist leader. He bought a football club. He's youngish and dapper with a flair for theatrics. He recently erected a tent city in a Tel Aviv park for Israelis who wanted to move out of range of rockets fired by Palestinian militants in Gaza.
But with the pig becoming thin on holy ground, adventurous Israeli carnivores may have to experiment with other, more kosher, exotic beasts.
Alas, it won’t be the giraffe. An Israeli friend told me that rabbis have ruled that giraffes are kosher, but religious scholars can’t agree on where to make the cut along the giraffe’s elegantly long neck.
--by Tim McGirk/Jerusalem
June 10, 2007 10:36
In Love With A Car Called Monica
Think the Middle East is nothing but a seething cauldron of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism? Well, consider this: exhaustive research shows that the woman who best represents the ideal of feminine beauty according to Iraqi men is none other than one-time White House intern and Jewish American Princess par excellence, Monica Lewinsky.
Admittedly, some of my interview subjects were surprised to learn that Miss Lewinsky is a member of the Tribe. And other, more modern Middle Eastern countries are starting to adopt Western beauty standards along with eating disorders and nose jobs. But Monica still manages to evoke the full-figured raven-haired village girl who since time immemorial has frustrated male imagination in the Land of Two Rivers.
The adoration of the Monica is such that here in Iraqi Kurditsan, the girl who flashed her thong in the Oval Office has a car named after her. And not just any car: the Toyota Land Cruiser, four-by-four of choice for the region's military, political and business elite.
The Land Cruiser became known as the Monica in Kurdistan apparently because Kurds like their cars like they like their women: big and beautiful. I've heard less polite explanations for why the nickname stuck, something to do with treating their cars like they treat their women. Anyway, you're no one in Erbil if you're not at the wheel of a white Monica.
But Monicas are starting to pick up an unsavory reputation. Average Kurds are becoming resentful of their leaders who since the liberation of Iraq have become inexplicably flush with cash. Fleets of government-owned gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles remind drivers of more modest cars that politicians don’t have to wait in long lines at gas stations to get fuel at the subsidized price.
Driving a Monica is also a power statement: either you are the law, or you are above the law. A Monica with tinted windows and no license plate is signature secret police style. "If I see a Monica in my review mirror, I pull to the side of the road," says one friend. Today, I watched the driver of an armor plated Monica cause a serious traffic accident then pull out a pistol and threaten the injured driver of the other car.
So far this class-animus hasn’t blown back against the United States, which both supports the Kurdish leadership and is home to Miss Lewsinsky. But it would be a shame if America starts losing hearts and minds in Kurdistan – one of the last parts of the worlds where we are really popular – all because of a car. But if worst comes to worst, perhaps we can just blame the Japanese.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Erbil
June 9, 2007 5:39
RE: Show Me the Money
CJ Harwood writes:
Understand this: Provoking Iran to arrest dual nationals, boat crews crowding/crossing the line-- This assists the GWBush&Co goal to demonize Iran. Easy to understand.
This is a concern for some Iranian reformists. Ones I spoke to this week point out that Bush's Iran democracy program is effectively serving the interests of hard-liners in both Washington and Tehran by increasing rather than decreasing tensions between the two countries.
Some of them believe, rightly or not, that this may have been an intended rather than unintended consequence of the policy--to provoke an Iranian reaction that would further prove that the Iranian regime isn't one that we should do business with.
--By Scott MacLeod/Boston
June 9, 2007 12:10
Back to Kurdistan
I startled quite a few people rushing around Beirut yesterday to organize my return to Iraqi Kurdistan. In a tense city under threat from a bombing campaign, a hasty departure by an American -- an American journalist, no less -- smacks of a rat leaving a sinking ship. People think I must know something bad is about to happen.
The truth is I had been hoping to spend most of June in Lebanon, enjoying the best part of the summer season and repairing relationships -- strained by travel and war and politics -- with Lebanese friends. But there's not a whole lot of healing going on in Beirut these days. I've never felt so much apprehension or seen so much extra security. I was searched four times on my flight out of Rafik Hariri airport, which was practically empty.
Not that Kurdistan is going to be a cakewalk. It's still the safest part of Iraq, but chaos is creeping in. Last month, a big car bomb went off right next to the Interior Ministry -- the first major terrorist attack in almost two years, and a sign that Islamic militancy may be making a comeback. And now the Turkish army is massing at the northern border, threatening to stage operations inside Iraq against the PKK, a radical Kurdish separatist group that has camps high up in the mountains. No one here in Erbil seems worried about this -- the border is at least a two hour drive, and no one expects the Turks to do much. But it's really not a good sign of things to come. The security vacuum in in Arab Iraq is starting to suck in the whole neighborhood.
--Andrew Lee Butters/Erbil