Just Foreign Policy News November 16, 2006 No War with Iran: Petition More than 3600 people have signed the Peace Action/Just Foreign Policy petition through Just Foreign Policy's website. (Almost 20,000 have signed through Peace Action's website.) In the new Congress there will be a bipartisan effort to push the Bush Administration towards direct negotiations with Iran on all issues in dispute without preconditions. More signatures on the Peace Action/Just Foreign Policy petition will contribute to this effort. Please sign/circulate if you have yet to do so: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/involved/iranpetition.html
Just Foreign Policy News daily podcast: http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/podcasts/podcast_howto.html Summary: U.S./Top News Writing on his blog Informed Comment, Juan Cole suggests that the same arguments that Gen. Abizaid used to parry calls for more troops in Iraq could be deployed to argue for phased withdrawal. President George Bush has told senior advisers the US must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, the Guardian reports. Experts around the Middle East say civil war is already underway in Iraq and the real worry is the conflict will destroy the Iraqi state and draw in surrounding countries, the Washington Post reports. In a detailed article, Kim Murphy writes in the Los Angeles Times on the opinions of Iranian officials concerning the timing of US withdrawal from Iraq. While Iranian officials want the US to leave, it is suggested, they do not want the US to do so precipitously. One analyst suggests that Iran would be most happy if a solution was engineered by the U.S. and Iran in tandem, leading to a withdrawal of U.S. troops on the basis of "a shared success." Al-Qaeda's influence and numbers are rapidly growing in Afghanistan, the directors of the CIA and defense intelligence told Congress yesterday. The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said he had requested an increase in the number of U.S. military advisors in Iraq and had sent another 2,000-Marine unit into the country's restive western region, moves that will increase the number of American troops in Iraq, the Los Angeles Times reports. A debate is emerging inside the Bush administration, Laura Rozen writes in the Los Angeles Times: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and throw its lot in with the Shiites? Spain, France and Italy unveiled a five-point Middle East peace initiative Thursday, calling Israeli-Palestinian violence intolerable and saying that Europe must take a lead role in ending the conflict, AP reports. Iran The White House is under pressure to talk to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq, but mounting violence in Iraq and the Bush administration's political woes give the negotiating edge to Tehran and Damascus, the Washington Post reports. The Post reminds us that "Neither country has much sway over Iraq's Sunnis or the al-Qaeda branch in Iraq," something of an understatement in the case of Iran. Hopefully US officials will get the memo. It's more likely that Iran could help by pressing compromise on its Shiite political allies - who are also allied with the US - than by trying to influence Sunni insurgents, who generally hate Iran as much or more than they hate the US. The US and key European countries remain locked in fundamental disagreement with Russia about the scope of U.N. sanctions on Iran for refusing to end its uranium enrichment program, AP reports. Iran dismissed a U.N. report that inspectors found new traces of enriched uranium and plutonium at a nuclear waste facility, saying it had already explained that discovery, AP reports. A senior U.N. official cautioned against reading too much into the new findings, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities. The official said that while the uranium traces were enriched to a higher level than needed to generate power, they were below weapons-grade. Iraq The recent mass kidnapping from a Ministry of Higher Education building in Baghdad highlighted the plight of academics and an educational system besieged by sectarian tensions, lawlessness and government ineffectiveness, the Washington Post reports. Afghanistan The U.S. military is preparing for a longer commitment in Afghanistan, a general with U.S. Central Command said Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune reports. North Korea The Bush administration came under fierce attack yesterday from Democrats for its North Korea policy, with Tom Lantos, incoming chairman of the House International Relations Committee saying that change is "long overdue" and that the US should allow its chief nuclear arms negotiator to visit North Korea's capital, the Washington Post reports. Lantos has been criticized by anti-war groups as a hawk, but it is worth noting that he has been a vigorous advocate of the commonsense notion that the United States should talk to its adversaries. Contents: U.S./Top News 1) Abizaid's Arguments Against More Troops Are Arguments for Phased Withdrawal Juan Cole, Informed Comment, Thursday, November 16, 2006 http://www.juancole.com/2006/11/abizaid-opposes-withdrawal-increase-in.html Here's how I interpret the contretemps Wednesday between Gen. Abizaid and Senator McCain. McCain wants to send another division, about 20,000 US troops, to Iraq. Abizaid told him: 1) that would produce only a temporary improvement since the US doesn't have a spare division to send to Iraq for the long term and 2) Increased US troop levels are counterproductive because they remove the incentive for the Iraqi government and army to get their acts together and fight the guerrillas and militias effectively and 3) If Iraq is going to come back to better days, it will have to be primarily with Iraqi troops and 4) Iraqi troops are not now doing the job, so if more US troops are sent to Iraq it should be as trainers and units available for joint patrols, not as independent combat troops. I'd just like to point out that most of Abizaid's arguments could also be deployed for a phased withdrawal, which he opposed. Sen. Levin supports the phased withdrawal idea, and so do I. What if it isn't just an increased US presence that would remove the incentive for Iraqi leaders to compromise and/or fight effectively? What if *present* troop levels do that? I say, let's take out a division ASAP (20,000 men) and make it clear that we're never putting a division back in to replace it. Then let the Iraqis try to fill the resulting vacuum themselves. Give them armored vehicles, tanks, helicopter gunships, and a nice wood-panelled room where they can negotiate with one another. And then after a couple of months I would pull out another US division. Such a phased withdrawal is not guaranteed to succeed. It has a better chance of succeeding than the current policy. 2) US Plans Last Big Push in Iraq Strategy document calls for extra 20,000 troops, aid for Iraqi army and regional summit Simon Tisdall, Guardian, Thursday, November 16, 2006 http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1116-06.htm President George Bush has told senior advisers that the US and its allies must make "a last big push" to win the war in Iraq and that instead of beginning a troop withdrawal next year, he may increase US forces by up to 20,000 soldiers, according to sources familiar with the administration's internal deliberations. Bush's refusal to give ground, coming in the teeth of growing calls in the US and Britain for a radical rethink or a swift exit, is having a decisive impact on the policy review being conducted by the Iraq Study Group chaired by James Baker, sources said. Although the panel's work is not complete, its recommendations are expected to be built around a four-point "victory strategy" developed by Pentagon officials advising the group. The strategy, along with other related proposals, is being circulated in draft form and has been discussed in separate closed sessions with Baker and the vice-president Dick Cheney. Point one of the strategy calls for an increase rather than a decrease in overall US force levels inside Iraq, possibly by as many as 20,000 soldiers. This figure is far fewer than that called for by the Republican presidential hopeful, John McCain. But by raising troop levels, Bush will draw a line in the sand and defy Democratic pressure for a swift drawdown. The reinforcements will be used to secure Baghdad, scene of the worst sectarian and insurgent violence, and enable redeployments of US, coalition and Iraqi forces elsewhere in the country. Point two of the plan stresses the importance of regional cooperation to the successful rehabilitation of Iraq. This could involve the convening of an international conference of neighbouring countries or more direct diplomatic, financial and economic involvement of US allies such as Saudi Arabia and Kuwait. "The extent to which that [regional cooperation] will include talking to Iran and Syria is still up for debate," said Patrick Cronin, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. "Some quarters believe Syria in some ways could be helpful. There are more doubts about Iran but Iran holds more cards. Some think it's worth a try." Yesterday, a top state department official, David Satterfield, said America was prepared in principle to discuss with Iran its activities in Iraq. Point three focuses on reviving the national reconciliation process between Shia, Sunni and other ethnic and religious parties. According to the sources, creating a credible political framework will be portrayed as crucial in persuading Iraqis and neighbouring countries alike that Iraq can become a fully functional state. Initial post-invasion ideas about imposing western democratic standards will be set aside. And the report is expected to warn that de facto tripartite partition within a loose federal system would lead not to peaceful power-sharing but a large-scale humanitarian crisis. Lastly, the sources said the study group recommendations will include a call for increased resources to be allocated by Congress to support additional troop deployments and fund the training and equipment of expanded Iraqi army and police forces. It will also stress the need to counter corruption, improve local government and curtail the power of religious courts. "He [Bush] is in a state of denial about Iraq," a former senior administration official said. "Nobody else is any more. But he is. But he knows he's got less than a year, maybe six months, to make it work. If it fails, I expect the withdrawal process to begin next fall." The "last push" strategy is also intended to give Bush and the Republicans "political time and space" to recover from their election drubbing and prepare for the 2008 presidential campaign, the official said. "The Iraq Study Group buys time for the president to have one last go. If the Democrats are smart, they'll play along, and I think they will. But forget about bipartisanship. It's all about who's going to be in best shape to win the White House. 3) Sectarian Strife In Iraq Imperils Entire Region, Analysts Warn Ellen Knickmeyer, Washington Post, Thursday, November 16, 2006; A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501490.html While American commanders have suggested that civil war is possible in Iraq, many leaders, experts and ordinary people in Baghdad and around the Middle East say it is already underway, and that the real worry ahead is that the conflict will destroy the flimsy Iraqi state and draw in surrounding countries. Whether the U.S. military departs Iraq sooner or later, the US will be hard-pressed to leave behind a country that does not threaten U.S. interests and regional peace, according to U.S. and Arab analysts and political observers. "We're not talking about just a full-scale civil war. This would be a failed-state situation with fighting among various groups," growing into regional conflict, Joost Hiltermann, Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group, said. "The war will be over Iraq, over its dead body," Hiltermann said. "All indications point to a current state of civil war and the disintegration of the Iraqi state," Nawaf Obaid, an adjunct fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and an adviser to the Saudi government, said last week. As Iraq's neighbors grapple with the various ideas put forward for solving the country's problems, they uniformly shudder at one proposal: dividing Iraq into separate regions for Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds, and then speeding the withdrawal of U.S. forces. "To envision that you can divide Iraq into three parts is to envision ethnic cleansing on a massive scale, sectarian killing on a massive scale," Prince Turki al-Faisal, the Saudi ambassador to the US, said. "When the ethnic-religious break occurs in one country, it will not fail to occur elsewhere, too," Syrian President Bashar al-Assad told Germany's Der Spiegel. "It would be as it was at the end of the Soviet Union, only much worse. Large wars, small wars - no one will be able to get a grip on the consequences." 4) Iraq Pullout Talk Makes Iran Uneasy Although officially opposed to the American presence, the Islamic Republic fears the repercussions of a dangerously unstable neighbor. Kim Murphy, Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iran16nov16,0,7641580.story Iran has consistently opposed the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq, but new prospects of a stepped-up American withdrawal are prompting growing unease in the Islamic Republic, where many fear the repercussions of a dangerously unstable neighbor. Officially, Iran's policy remains flatly opposed to American troops in Iraq and characterizes them as a key contributor to the escalating violence. Iran's government says it wants the U.S. to withdraw at the earliest possible opportunity. But the U.S. elections this month that swept in a Democratic majority to Congress and subsequent talk of a phased pullout have touched off a discussion in Tehran about the outright anarchy that could result. On Tuesday night, Tehran's English-language news channel featured commentary from political scientist Pirouz Mojtahedzadeh, who called for the U.S. to remain in Iraq until it has established a strong, stable central government capable of providing adequate security. "The Americans can't simply withdraw from Iraq, leaving the mess as it is," Mojtahedzadeh said in a telephone interview. "Who's going to look for the safety of the Iraqis there? The Iranians can't do it. The Turks can't do it…. This is not a question of political rivalry between Iran and the West. It has to do with the fact that the society has to have a government structure in place." Analysts familiar with official thinking say there is growing support for views like Mojtahedzadeh's within Iran's professional foreign policy establishment, if not within the hard-line circles closest to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and a feeling that a drawn-out timetable for withdrawal would be preferable to a quick pullout. "They've not said it directly and openly as an official policy line, that they'd like the U.S. to stay, but I think there's a sense among the Iranians that they understand that the U.S. cannot just leave immediately," said Hadi Semati, an Iranian political analyst. "If you're talking about the officials and the foreign policy establishment, I think they're more these days cognizant and aware of the possible dangers and repercussions of civil war and the collapse of what is left of Iraqi governance on Iran. The fact [is] that if the bloodshed gets out of hand, they might at some point feel compelled to intervene to support their Shiite co-religionists against extremists and death squads and mass killings," Semati said. "At the same time, they don't want to be seen as the one that supports a U.S. occupation force. That's why they're conflicted," he said. An official Iranian source said Iran's position was unchanged and continued to urge a quick U.S. withdrawal. "We oppose the Western forces continuing the occupation there. As long as they are there, we think the violence in this situation will continue, and it does not help whatsoever the stability in the region," he said. Another official source echoed that view. "Why would the U.S. think that their rapid withdrawal would be rejected by Iran? Do they think their presence is a help? Iran thinks it is not," he said. "Some in the U.S. argue that Iran wants the U.S. to stay because it is a good target for Iran, and will every day face new problems there. But I think their presence also is a source of instability for the region, and Iran is rather a supporter of the Iraqi government and people and doesn't want to witness their daily pain." Still, Mojtahedzadeh, who also operates a think tank in London, said the fact that he was invited to argue against a rapid U.S. withdrawal on Iranian television suggested some level of official sanction of the view. "I think the official position is in agreement with this," he said. "It works very subtly, in ways that are not quite obvious. "But someone like me being on the record on Iranian radio and TV saying it's not wise to push the U.S. out of Iraq because the aggressor, according to international laws, has the duty of putting things back in place, this tells you everything," he said. Iranian analysts said senior officials would never vary from Iran's established line opposing U.S. intervention. And, they said, no one in Iran is in favor of a long-term U.S. presence in Iraq. There appears to be unanimity in the government that the upper Persian Gulf is Iran's domain and that there certainly should be no U.S. bases there. But on the issue of the timing of a withdrawal, there are various constituencies to whom Iran must speak, said Ali Ansari, a professor of Iranian studies in Britain. He said that although the official line of Ahmadinejad remains unchanged, "there's a strong class of bureaucratic thinkers, strategic thinkers in the Foreign Ministry, who think that actually it serves our interests better [if U.S. troops remain a bit longer]. Because let's face it, if the Americans leave, all this inside fighting in Iraq might turn on the Iranians. As long as the Americans are still there, they are acting as a lighting rod for that." The range of opinion also extends to hard-liners, analysts said, who oppose the occupation but relish seeing the U.S. bogged down and embarrassed in Iraq, and distracted from going after Iran's nuclear program. "There are some in the hard-liners who say while the Americans are there, they're within reach [of Iranian missiles] if we need to retaliate," Ansari said. Kaveh Afrasiabi, author of "After Khomeini: New Directions in Iran's Foreign Policy," said a rapid U.S. pullout would jeopardize the two "pillars" of Iranian policy on Iraq: Iraq's "national unity" and territorial integrity, goals that are shared with the U.S. That has prompted some to recognize the need for "a more nuanced foreign policy balancing act." In the end, Semati said, Iran would be most happy if a solution was engineered by the U.S. and Iran in tandem, leading to a withdrawal of U.S. troops on the basis of "a shared success." "They would like to see the U.S. succeed in stabilizing Iraq, but they would like to share in that success," he said. "They're the major player inside Iraq, they have lent their support to the Iraqi [democratic] transition, and they think the Americans have paid very little attention to their contribution," he said. 5) Taliban, Al-Qaeda Resurge In Afghanistan, CIA Says Dafna Linzer & Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Thursday, November 16, 2006; A22 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501622.html Al-Qaeda's influence and numbers are rapidly growing in Afghanistan, with fighters operating from new havens and mimicking techniques learned on the Iraqi battlefield for use against U.S. and allied troops, the directors of the CIA and defense intelligence told Congress yesterday. Five years after the US drove al-Qaeda and the Taliban from Afghanistan, Gen. Michael Hayden, director of the CIA, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that both groups are back, waging a "bloody insurgency" in the south and east of the country. U.S. support for the Kabul government of Hamid Karzai will be needed for "at least a decade" to ensure that the country does not fall again, he said. 6) Troop Levels In Iraq May Rise The Central Command head says he sent 2,000 Marines and requested more military advisors. Peter Spiegel, Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/iraq/complete/la-na-usiraq16nov16,1,6168814.story The commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East said Wednesday that he had requested an increase in the number of U.S. military advisors in Iraq and had sent another 2,000-Marine unit into the country's restive western region, moves that will increase the number of American troops in Iraq. In hearings on Capitol Hill, Army Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of U.S. Central Command, also forcefully resisted calls by Democrats for troop withdrawals, saying it would further increase sectarian violence. He defended plans for keeping troop levels at or slightly above the current 141,000 and said he remained optimistic that Iraq could become stable. But Abizaid, who unlike his civilian superiors has been shown considerable respect by lawmakers in the past, was repeatedly challenged Wednesday by Democrats and Republicans - on his conduct of the war and his candidness with congressional oversight committees. Abizaid was met with deep skepticism and doubt in the Senate, where even Republicans who have supported the war effort pointedly questioned his judgment on troop levels and his optimistic assessment of the capabilities of the Iraqi security forces. The criticism from such a broad spectrum of lawmakers - coming at the first Capitol Hill hearing on Iraq since Republicans were trounced in the midterm election and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld resigned - signaled a more active role by members of Congress in challenging the Bush administration about the war's conduct. Until now, Rumsfeld has been the primary lightning rod for congressional skeptics. But with Rumsfeld's pending departure and the Democratic takeover of Congress, top generals like Abizaid are likely to face a greater brunt of the criticism. "I must say that I come to this hearing with a great deal of skepticism, because prior to this hearing, there's been a great deal of obfuscation by the witnesses in front of this committee as to what the truth is," said Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), who has supported the war. 7) Unleash the Shiites? The U.S. may be forced to choose sides in Iraq's civil strife. Laura Rozen, Los Angeles Times, November 16, 2006 http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-oe-rozen16nov16,1,7872729.story As sectarian violence rises in Iraq and the White House comes under increasing pressure to revamp its strategy there, a debate is emerging inside the Bush administration: Should the U.S. abandon its efforts to act as a neutral referee in the ongoing civil war and, instead, throw its lot in with the Shiites? A U.S. tilt toward the Shiites is a risky strategy, one that could further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and that could backfire by driving its Sunni population into common cause with foreign jihadists and Al Qaeda cells. But elements of the administration, including some members of the intelligence community, believe that such a tilt could lead to stability more quickly than the current policy of trying to police the ongoing sectarian conflict evenhandedly, with little success and at great cost. This past Veterans Day weekend, according to my sources, almost the entire Bush national security team gathered for an unpublicized two-day meeting. The topic: Iraq. The purpose of the meeting was to come up with a consensus position on a new path forward. Among those attending were President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor Stephen Hadley, outgoing Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and National Intelligence Director John Negroponte. Numerous policy options were put forward at the meeting, which revolved around a strategy paper prepared by Hadley and drawn from his recent trip to Baghdad. One was the Shiite option. Participants were asked to consider whether the U.S. could really afford to keep fighting both the Sunni insurgency and Shiite militias - or whether it should instead focus its efforts on combating the Sunni insurgency exclusively, and even help empower the Shiites against the Sunnis. To do so would be a reversal of Washington's strategy over the last two years of trying to coax the Sunnis into the political process, an effort led by U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Zalmay Khalilzad. It also would discount some U.S. military commanders' concerns that the Al Mahdi army, a Shiite militia loyal to the radical cleric Muqtada Sadr, poses as great a threat to American interests as that presented by the Sunni insurgency centered in western Iraq's Al Anbar province. So what's the logic behind the idea of "unleashing the Shiites"? It's the path of least resistance, according to its supporters, and it could help accelerate one side actually winning Iraq's sectarian conflict, thereby shortening the conflict, while reducing some of the critical security concerns driving Shiites to mobilize their own militias in the first place. "As an alternative Plan B, it has the virtue of possibly being more militarily effective," said Thomas Donnelly, a military expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "When you are trying to police [a civil war], all you can do is contain it," said Monica Toft, a professor specializing in ethnic conflict at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. "Whereas if you're backing one side, there are not as many variables to control." But such a strategy brings with it significant dangers. Washington might pick the wrong leaders on the side it chooses to back. Should it, for instance, continue to back Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri Maliki, or tilt in favor of his Shiite rival, Abdelaziz Hakim, and his party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq? Either choice could lead to more intra-Shiite infighting and violence. Or the strategy could drive Iraq's Sunni tribes to align themselves more closely with Al Qaeda. And it seems certain to further alienate Iraq's Sunni neighbors and erstwhile U.S. allies such as Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Jordan - while strengthening Iran's hand in Iraq. Among the risks of an unleash-the-Shiites strategy is that if it were adopted, the White House would be unlikely to publicly acknowledge that such a choice had been made. Like so much else that has contributed to the U.S. difficulties in Iraq, it would be a decision taken in the dark, outside the realm of public debate. 8) Europeans Unveil Middle East Peace Plan Ciaran Giles, Associated Press, Thursday, November 16, 2006; 11:19 AM http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111600465.html Spain, France and Italy unveiled a five-point Middle East peace initiative Thursday, calling Israeli-Palestinian violence intolerable and saying that Europe must take a lead role in ending the conflict. Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero announced the plan at a summit with President Jacques Chirac of France. Italy is also on board, he said, and Spain hopes to win the endorsement of Britain and Germany and the broader European Union ahead of a December summit in Brussels. The plan has five components: an immediate cease-fire; formation of a national unity government by the Palestinians that can gain international recognition; a prisoner exchange _ including the Israeli soldiers whose kidnapping sparked the war in Lebanon and fighting in Gaza this summer; talks between Israel's prime minister; and the Palestinian president and an international mission in Gaza to monitor a cease-fire. "We cannot remain impassive in the face of the horror that continues to unfold before our eyes," Zapatero told a news conference in this coastal city near the border with France. The initiative largely overlaps with a package the Palestinians have offered to Israel. Zapatero, asked if the initiative did not first need the support of Israel and the US, said it made sense for the three largest contributors to the expanded U.N. force in Lebanon to assert themselves for peace. "Someone has to take the first move," he said. Iran 9) As Pressure For Talks Grows, Iran And Syria Gain Leverage Robin Wright, Washington Post, Thursday, November 16, 2006; A22 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501630.html The White House is under growing pressure to talk to Iran and Syria to help stabilize Iraq, but mounting violence in Iraq and the Bush administration's political woes give the negotiating edge to Tehran and Damascus and complicate any U.S. outreach, experts say. The idea of talks is widely expected to be on the list of proposals that will come out of the Iraq Study Group report next month, because co-chairman and former secretary of state James A. Baker III and other members back engaging enemies as well as allies. British Prime Minister Tony Blair this week endorsed talking with Tehran and Damascus, with caveats. The CIA director and the head of the Defense Intelligence Agency said yesterday that talks could help. And an array of experts has encouraged the administration to reach out to the countries that have meddled most in Iraq. But the Bush administration is already questioning the idea, and even supporters admit that full cooperation by both Iran and Syria may have little impact on the many-sided insurgency. Neither country has much sway over Iraq's Sunnis or the al-Qaeda branch in Iraq, as both [ie, both governments] are ruled by Shiites or Shiite offshoots. 10) Russia, U.S. Disagree on Iran Sanctions Associated Press, November 16, 2006, Filed at 6:41 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-UN-Iran-Nuclear.html After three weeks of talks, the US and key European countries remain locked in fundamental disagreement with Russia about the scope of U.N. sanctions that Iran should face for refusing to rein in its nuclear program. The Europeans and Americans want tough sanctions to punish Iran but Russia says it will agree only to limited measures targeting the nuclear program. Neither side is budging, setting the stage for lengthy negotiations and the possibility of no immediate action against Iran. U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Wednesday that there were still "wide gaps" after six rounds of closed-door talks between the Russians and Europeans. Russian Ambassador Vitaly Churkin echoed that view, saying that senior foreign ministry officials from the five veto-wielding U.N. Security Council members and Germany failed to bridge the differences during a telephone discussion Tuesday. He also said that there was "a rather intense exchange of opinion" at a Wednesday meeting of U.N. ambassadors. Russia and China, who have major commercial ties with Iran, have been publicly pushing for dialogue instead of U.N. punishment, despite the collapse last month of a European Union attempt to entice Iran into negotiations. Bolton said Russia must understand that "the fight against nuclear proliferation is more important than commercial contracts." The Europeans circulated a draft resolution late last month that would order all countries to ban the supply of materials and technology that could contribute to Iran's nuclear and missile programs. It would also impose a travel ban and asset freeze on companies, individuals and organizations involved in those programs. The draft would exempt a nuclear power plant being built by the Russians at Bushehr, Iran, but not the nuclear fuel needed for the reactor. Russia proposed major changes that would limit sanctions solely to measures that would keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. Russia would eliminate any travel ban, asset freeze, or mention of Bushehr. The U.S. has proposed amendments that would strengthen the measures proposed by Britain and France. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Iran's top nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani called last week in Moscow for a renewal of international talks with Iran, rather than sanctions. Lavrov said Moscow could help bridge the differences with the U.S. and Europeans. "After the discussions which we had with Larijani ... we believe that there is a chance for a negotiated outcome," Churkin said. 11) Iran Dismisses U.N. Report on Uranium Associated Press, November 16, 2006, Filed at 2:31 a.m. ET http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html Iran on Wednesday dismissed a U.N. report that inspectors found new traces of enriched uranium and plutonium at a nuclear waste facility, saying it had already explained that discovery. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted the West will gradually back down in its standoff with Iran and eventually accept its nuclear program. Ahmadinejad's comments came a day after an International Atomic Energy Agency report said its experts have found unexplained plutonium and highly enriched uranium traces in a nuclear waste facility in Iran. Both materials can be used in building a nuclear warhead, though one U.N. official said the uranium was not enriched to weapons-grade level. Alaeddin Boroujerdi, head of the parliamentary committee on National Security and Foreign Policy, called the report "an old story," and said, "Iran has submitted a comprehensive report on the issue to the IAEA. It will be convincing." Iran has said previous traces of enriched uranium found by inspectors came from equipment that it bought from abroad without knowing of the contamination. A senior U.N. official who was familiar with the report cautioned against reading too much into the new findings, saying Iran had explained both and they could plausibly be classified as byproducts of peaceful nuclear activities. The official said that while the uranium traces were enriched to a higher level than needed to generate power, they were below weapons-grade. The report, prepared for next week's meeting of the 35-nation IAEA, also faulted Tehran for not cooperating with the agency's attempts to investigate suspicious aspects of Iran's nuclear program that have led to fears it might be interested in developing nuclear arms. Iraq 12) In Iraqi Colleges, Fear For An Already Shrunken Realm Mass Kidnapping Seen Likely to Boost Educators' Exodus http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content//article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501002.html The emotions unleashed by one of the biggest mass kidnappings since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion reverberated across Iraq on Wednesday, splitting the cabinet along sectarian lines and spawning a heated dispute over how many men were abducted. But the most profound effect of what many Iraqis view as a national calamity was felt in university halls and campuses across Iraq. Here, the abductions highlighted the plight of academics and an educational system besieged by sectarian tensions, lawlessness and government ineffectiveness. "What happened in Baghdad yesterday was a catastrophe that could destroy the entire educational process," said Fikret Mahmoud Omar, an instructor at a technical college in the northern city of Kirkuk. "It shows that the process in Iraq is on the verge of collapse and confirms that terrorists and militias are the ones who are in control of events." Afghanistan 13) General Says U.S. Preparing For Longer Stay In Afghanistan James Janega, Chicago Tribune, November 15, 2006 http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0611150085nov15,1,1130173.story The U.S. military is preparing for a longer commitment in Afghanistan, a general with U.S. Central Command said Tuesday in Chicago, while stopping short of saying there is a political commitment to do so. Earlier, Army Maj. Gen. Michael Diamond, deputy director for logistics at CENTCOM, said the arrest of an insurgent lieutenant in Afghanistan early this month would force combatants there to switch tactics. Long-term preparations are topped by an upgraded airfield at the Bagram military base near the Afghan capital. It already has been used to resupply NATO forces but is not scheduled to be fully operational until January, he said. The U.S. previously entered into an agreement with Afghan President Hamid Karzai to establish a long-term presence on military bases but pointedly has not called them permanent. "We're looking at these as 'enduring bases,'" Diamond said. "If we pulled out of Afghanistan and Iraq, we're still going to need some bases there to do our . . . mission in that area." North Korea 14) Democrats Blast Bush Policy On N. Korea Glenn Kessler, Washington Post, Thursday, November 16, 2006; A21 http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/15/AR2006111501360.html The Bush administration came under fierce attack yesterday from Democrats for its North Korea policy, with the incoming chairman of the House International Relations Committee saying that change is "long overdue" and that the US should allow its chief nuclear arms negotiator to visit Pyongyang, North Korea's capital. Meanwhile, a group of experts returning from talks with top North Korean officials offered a pessimistic report on the prospects of reaching a deal when the long-stalled six-nation talks resume later this year. North Korean officials told the experts that they would take a much tougher stance when Pyongyang returns to the negotiating table, believing it is on "equal footing" with the US now that it has tested a nuclear weapon. Charles L. "Jack" Pritchard, a former top State Department negotiator on North Korea, said that country's officials seem more interested in returning to the talks to make short-term gains, such as relief from a U.S. campaign to end North Korean counterfeiting of U.S. dollars or to patch up a damaged relationship with China. "They're not in this to give up their nuclear weapons," said Pritchard, now president of the Korean Economic Institute. North Korea conducted its first nuclear test Oct. 9, after refusing to return to the talks for nearly a year. The U.N. Security Council quickly condemned the test and imposed sanctions, and on Oct. 31 Pyongyang announced that it would return to the talks after the US agreed to address its concerns about the financial crackdown. At a hearing yesterday on the administration's preparation for the talks, Rep. Tom Lantos (D-Calif.) faulted the administration's exclusive reliance on the six-nation negotiating framework, arguing that substantial bilateral contacts are necessary to reach any deal. China, Japan, Russia and South Korea also participate in the talks, a format that some experts have said is cumbersome for difficult negotiations. In the aftermath of the test, "it is now abundantly clear to the world that our current policies have failed," said Lantos, who will wield the gavel when the new Congress convenes in January. "I look forward to leading the efforts in Congress to keep North Korea on the front burner and to pushing the administration to resolve the feuds within its own ranks which have hobbled North Korea policy." Lantos charged that Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill has been undercut in his diplomacy by "hard-liners lodged in the office of the Vice President and the Defense Department." Hill had lobbied to travel to Pyongyang to meet with North Korean officials shortly after North Korea agreed in principle in September 2005 to dismantle its nuclear programs. But the trip never took place, and then the talks stalled over the Treasury Department action. -- Robert Naiman Just Foreign Policy www.justforeignpolicy.org Just Foreign Policy is a membership organization devoted to reforming U.S. foreign policy so it reflects the values and interests of the majority of Americans.
