[Peace-discuss] Just Foreign Policy News, November 16, 2006

[Robert Naiman]

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.