[Peace-discuss] Just Foreign Policy News, November 20, 2006

[Robert Naiman]

Just Foreign Policy News
November 20, 2006

No War with Iran: Petition
Nearly 3700 people have signed the Peace Action/Just Foreign Policy
petition through Just Foreign Policy's website. (More than 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:
The addition of new equipment has increased the quality of our podcast.
http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/podcasts/podcast_howto.html

Summary:
U.S./Top News
The Bush Administration intends to defy any Congressional restrictions
on making war on Iran or trying to overthrow the Iranian government,
suggests an article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker. Hersh cites
the fears of some analysts that the appointment of Robert Gates and
the release of the Iraq Study Group report may not herald the shift in
policy on Iran that many have been hoping for. Hersh notes that the
Administration's planning for a military attack on Iran has been
hampered by a CIA assessment challenging the White House's assumptions
about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A.
found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear-weapons
program.

We must bomb Iran, writes Joshua Muravchik of the American Enterprise
Institute in the Los Angeles Times. Muravchik advocates for a bombing
campaign that might last "a couple of weeks" on "a large fraction" of
1,500 targets. Muravchik says this would not end, but would delay,
Iran's alleged weapons program. To purchase such delay, Muravchik is
willing to accept "inflamed global anti-Americanism" and "retaliation
in Iraq or by terrorism."

Video of the physical abuse of an Iranian-American student by UCLA
police has been posted on the Internet. The video clearly shows the
use of a taser on the young man although he is already in handcuffs.

The Pentagon's review of how to improve the situation in Iraq is
likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in
U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and
advising of Iraqi forces, the Washington Post reports. Under the plan,
the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a
long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000
troops. The plan could backfire if Iraqis suspect it is a way for the
US to "moonwalk" like Michael Jackson out of Iraq, the Post reports.

Syria's foreign minister Sunday pledged cooperation in stemming
sectarian violence in Iraq, the Washington Post reports. He called on
the US to set a timetable for withdrawing US troops. He said that
Syria was doing all it could to control the border, and noted that the
US also has problems controlling its border with Mexico.

Henry Kissinger said Sunday he no longer believed a military victory
was possible in the conflict, the Financial Times reports. Meanwhile,
Senator McCain suggested on ABC's This Week that he would consider
calling for American troops to leave Iraq if the White House did not
agree to send additional forces. McCain said US troops were "fighting
and dying for a failed policy."

Incoming Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said Democrats would do
everything they can to stop George Bush sending more troops to Iraq,
the Guardian reported Friday, following up a report that Bush was
planning "one last push" that would require more troops.

Rep. Dennis Kucinich wants to cut off funding for the Iraq war, the
Cleveland Plain Dealer reports, saying it's the only way to assure a
pullout soon.

Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has dropped
to the lowest level ever, AP reported Friday.

Iran
The EU urged the International Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation
governing board not to assist Iran with its Arak heavy water reactor
project, Reuters reports. But developing nations say rejecting Iran's
request would set a politicized precedent for withholding technical
aid from them to peaceful atomic energy programs. Diplomats said the
most likely outcome was a compromise to defer decision pending
guidance from the Security Council, while approving other aid requests
submitted by Iran seen as less problematic.

A hard-line cleric who opposes all dialogue with the West is a leading
contender to become Iran's next supreme spiritual leader, the London
Sunday Telegraph reports.

Iraq
U.S. tank fire killed scores of civilians in Ramadi last week,
according to Iraqis interviewed by Inter Press Service.

The trial of Saddam Hussein, in which he was sentenced to death, was
marred by flaws so serious that they undermined the trial's fairness
and called into question the verdict, says Human Rights Watch. The
Washington Post says this is the "first significant challenge" to the
trial, an odd assertion. See, for example, CBS/AP, "Debate Rages Over
Saddam Trial, Int'l Jurists: Iraqi-Led Tribunal Could Be A Travesty Of
Justice," Dec. 16, 2003.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/12/15/iraq/main588752.shtml?cmp=EM8706

Palestine
In a remarkable display of bravery and popular initiative,
Palestinians stopped Israel from destroying the home of two militants
by surrounding it with a human shield. Hundreds of neighbours
surrounded the home of Mohammed Baroud and climbed on its roof after
he received a call from the Israeli army informing him he had 30
minutes to vacate his home before it was destroyed by missiles, the
Guardian reports. The Israeli airforce called off its strike because
of the risk of killing a large number of civilians.

Lebanon
The leader of Hezbollah urged his well-organized followers to prepare
for mass protests aimed at toppling the U.S.-backed government of
Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, the Washington Post reports. Many in
Lebanon see the struggle as a proxy battle involving the US, Israel,
Syria and Iran.

Venezuela
A poll released by Reuters suggests 57.8% of Venezuelans support Hugo
Chavez' re-election on December 3rd. Zulia governor Manuel Rosales is
second with 26.9 %. In 2000, Chavez was elected with 59.5 % of the
vote.

Contents:
U.S./Top News
1) The Next Act: Is a damaged Administration less likely to attack
Iran, or more?
Seymour M. Hersh, New Yorker, Issue of 2006-11-27; Posted 2006-11-20
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/061127fa_fact
If the Democrats won on November 7th, the Vice-President said, that
victory would not stop the Administration from pursuing a military
option with Iran. The White House would put "shorteners" on any
legislative restrictions, Cheney said, and thus stop Congress from
getting in its way. The White House's concern was that future
legislation would prohibit it from financing operations targeted at
overthrowing or destabilizing the Iranian government, to keep it from
getting the bomb. "They're afraid that Congress is going to vote a
binding resolution to stop a hit on Iran, à la Nicaragua in the Contra
war," a former senior intelligence official said.

"Iraq is the disaster we have to get rid of, and Iran is the disaster
we have to avoid," Joseph Cirincione, vice-president for national
security at the Center for American Progress, said. "Gates will be in
favor of talking to Iran and listening to the advice of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, but the neoconservatives are still there"-in the
White House-"and still believe that chaos would be a small price for
getting rid of the threat. The danger is that Gates could be the new
Colin Powell-the one who opposes the policy but ends up briefing the
Congress and publicly supporting it."

"Cheney knew this was coming. Dropping Rummy after the election looked
like a conciliatory move-'You're right, Democrats. We got a new guy
and we're looking at all the options. Nothing is ruled out.' " But the
conciliatory gesture would not be accompanied by a significant change
in policy; instead, the White House saw Gates as someone who would
have the credibility to help it stay the course on Iran and Iraq.
Gates would also be an asset before Congress. If the Administration
needed to make the case that Iran's weapons program posed an imminent
threat, Gates would be a better advocate than someone who had been
associated with the flawed intelligence about Iraq. The former
official said, "He's not the guy who told us there were weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq, and he'll be taken seriously by Congress."

The Democratic victories this month led to a surge of calls for the
Administration to begin direct talks with Iran, in part to get its
help in settling the conflict in Iraq. British Prime Minister Tony
Blair broke ranks with President Bush after the election and declared
that Iran should be offered "a clear strategic choice" that could
include a "new partnership" with the West. But many in the White House
and the Pentagon insist that getting tough with Iran is the only way
to salvage Iraq. "It's a classic case of 'failure forward,'" a
Pentagon consultant said. "They believe that by tipping over Iran they
would recover their losses in Iraq-like doubling your bet. It would be
an attempt to revive the concept of spreading democracy in the Middle
East by creating one new model state."

The main Middle East expert on the Vice-President's staff is David
Wurmser, a neoconservative who was a strident advocate for the
invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein. Like many in
Washington, Wurmser "believes that, so far, there's been no price tag
on Iran for its nuclear efforts and for its continuing agitation and
intervention inside Iraq," the consultant said. But, unlike those in
the Administration who are calling for limited strikes, Wurmser and
others in Cheney's office "want to end the regime," the consultant
said. "They argue that there can be no settlement of the Iraq war
without regime change in Iran."

The Administration's planning for a military attack on Iran was made
far more complicated earlier this fall by a highly classified draft
assessment by the C.I.A. challenging the White House's assumptions
about how close Iran might be to building a nuclear bomb. The C.I.A.
found no conclusive evidence, as yet, of a secret Iranian
nuclear-weapons program running parallel to the civilian operations
that Iran has declared to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

The C.I.A.'s analysis, which has been circulated to other agencies for
comment, was based on technical intelligence collected by overhead
satellites, and on other empirical evidence, such as measurements of
the radioactivity of water samples and smoke plumes from factories and
power plants. Additional data have been gathered, intelligence sources
told me, by high-tech (and highly classified) radioactivity-detection
devices that clandestine American and Israeli agents placed near
suspected nuclear-weapons facilities inside Iran in the past year or
so. No significant amounts of radioactivity were found.

A current senior intelligence official confirmed the existence of the
C.I.A. analysis, and told me that the White House had been hostile to
it. The White House's dismissal of the C.I.A. findings on Iran is
widely known in the intelligence community. Cheney and his aides
discounted the assessment, the former senior intelligence official
said. "They're not looking for a smoking gun," the official added,
referring to specific intelligence about Iranian nuclear planning.
"They're looking for the degree of comfort level they think they need
to accomplish the mission." The Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency
also challenged the C.I.A.'s analysis. "The D.I.A. is fighting the
agency's conclusions, and disputing its approach," the former senior
intelligence official said. Bush and Cheney, he added, can try to
prevent the C.I.A. assessment from being incorporated into a
forthcoming National Intelligence Estimate on Iranian nuclear
capabilities, "but they can't stop the agency from putting it out for
comment inside the intelligence community." The C.I.A. assessment
warned the White House that it would be a mistake to conclude that the
failure to find a secret nuclear-weapons program in Iran merely meant
that the Iranians had done a good job of hiding it. The former senior
intelligence official noted that at the height of the Cold War the
Soviets were equally skilled at deception and misdirection, yet the
American intelligence community was readily able to unravel the
details of their long-range-missile and nuclear-weapons programs. But
some in the White House, including in Cheney's office, had made just
such an assumption-that "the lack of evidence means they must have
it," the former official said.

2) Bomb Iran
Diplomacy is doing nothing to stop the Iranian nuclear threat; a show
of force is the only answer.
Joshua Muravchik, American Enterprise Institute, Los Angeles Times, November 19
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,1681154.story?coll=la-opinion-center
We must bomb Iran. It has been four years since that country's secret
nuclear program was brought to light, and the path of diplomacy and
sanctions has led nowhere. First, we agreed to our allies' requests
that we offer Tehran a string of concessions, which it spurned. Then,
Britain, France and Germany wanted to impose a batch of extremely weak
sanctions. For instance, Iranians known to be involved in nuclear
activities would have been barred from foreign travel - except for
humanitarian or religious reasons - and outside countries would have
been required to refrain from aiding some, but not all, Iranian
nuclear projects.

But even this was too much for the U.N. Security Council. Russia
promptly announced that these sanctions were much too strong. "We
cannot support measures … aimed at isolating Iran," declared Foreign
Minister Lavrov. It is now clear that neither Moscow nor Beijing will
ever agree to tough sanctions. What's more, even if they were to do
so, it would not stop Iran, which is a country on a mission. So if
sanctions won't work, what's left? The overthrow of the current
Iranian regime might offer a silver bullet, but with hard-liners
firmly in the saddle in Tehran, any such prospect seems even more
remote today than it did a decade ago, when students were
demonstrating and reformers were ascendant. Meanwhile, the completion
of Iran's bomb grows nearer every day.

Our options therefore are narrowed to two: We can prepare to live with
a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it. Former ABC
newsman Ted Koppel argues for the former, saying that "if Iran is
bound and determined to have nuclear weapons, let it." We should rely,
he says, on the threat of retaliation to keep Iran from using its
bomb. Similarly, Newsweek International Editor Fareed Zakaria points
out that we have succeeded in deterring other hostile nuclear states,
such as the Soviet Union and China.
[…]
The only way to forestall these frightening developments is by the use
of force. Not by invading Iran as we did Iraq, but by an air campaign
against Tehran's nuclear facilities. We have considerable information
about these facilities; by some estimates they comprise about 1,500
targets. If we hit a large fraction of them in a bombing campaign that
might last from a few days to a couple of weeks, we would inflict
severe damage. This would not end Iran's weapons program, but it would
certainly delay it.

What should be the timing of such an attack? If we did it next year,
that would give time for U.N. diplomacy to further reveal its
bankruptcy yet would come before Iran will have a bomb in hand (and
also before our own presidential campaign). In time, if Tehran
persisted, we might have to do it again.

Can President Bush take such action after being humiliated in the
congressional elections and with the Iraq war having grown so
unpopular? Bush has said that history's judgment on his conduct of the
war against terror is more important than the polls. If Ahmadinejad
gets his finger on a nuclear trigger, everything Bush has done will be
rendered hollow. We will be a lot less safe than we were when Bush
took office. Finally, wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame
global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by
terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the
alternative is worse.

4) Video of UCLA Police Abuse of Iranian-American Student Posted on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5g7zlJx9u2E
Video of the abuse of an Iranian-American student by UCLA police has
been posted on the Internet. One can see in the video the police
assaulting the student when he is already handcuffed.

5) Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading To Iraq Exit
Thomas E. Ricks, Washington Post, Monday, November 20, 2006; A01
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901249.html
The Pentagon's closely guarded review of how to improve the situation
in Iraq has outlined three basic options: Send in more troops, shrink
the force but stay longer, or pull out, according to senior defense
officials. Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and
"Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a
combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a
long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi
forces, the officials said.

The military's study, commissioned by Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman
Gen. Peter Pace, comes at a time when escalating violence is causing
Iraq policy to be reconsidered by both the White House and the
congressionally chartered, bipartisan Iraq Study Group. Pace's effort
will feed into the White House review, but military officials have
made it clear they are operating independently.

The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first
option with the second one - "Go Long" - and calls for cutting the
U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training
and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining
favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about
140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short
period, the officials said.

The purpose of the temporary but notable increase, they said, would be
twofold: To do as much as possible to curtail sectarian violence, and
also to signal to the Iraqi government and public that the shift to a
"Go Long" option that aims to eventually cut the U.S. presence is not
a disguised form of withdrawal.

Even so, there is concern that such a radical shift in the U.S.
posture in Iraq could further damage the standing of its government,
which U.S. officials worry is already shaky. Under the hybrid plan,
the short increase in U.S. troop levels would be followed by a
long-term plan to radically cut the presence, perhaps to 60,000
troops.

That combination plan, which one defense official called "Go Big but
Short While Transitioning to Go Long," could backfire if Iraqis
suspect it is really a way for the US to moonwalk out of Iraq - that
is, to imitate singer Michael Jackson's trademark move of appearing to
move forward while actually sliding backward. "If we commit to that
concept, we have to accept upfront that it might result in the
opposite of what we want," the official said.

6) Syria Vows To Help Quell Violence In Iraq
Rare Visit by Foreign Minister Comes on Day of Deadly Blasts; 56 Bodies Found
Nancy Trejos, Washington Post, Monday, November 20, 2006; A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900109.html
Syria's foreign minister, in a rare visit to Baghdad by a Syrian
official, on Sunday pledged cooperation in stemming the sectarian
violence that threatens Iraq, even as scores of people were killed or
found dead across the country.

The Iraqi and U.S. governments have accused Syria of contributing to
the violence by allowing fighters to cross into Iraq to join the
insurgency. Foreign Minister Waleed al-Muallem's visit, the first by
such a high-ranking Syrian official since the U.S.-led invasion in
2003, was seen as a step toward smoothing those relations. But he also
called on the Bush administration to set a timetable for withdrawing
troops.

Some prominent U.S. officials say that engaging in talks with
adversaries such as Syria and Iran is key to curbing the violence. The
Iraq Study Group is expected to recommend such action in its report,
set to come out next month. U.S. officials have resisted talks with
Iran because they believe the Tehran government has fomented tension
in Iraq and because they are worried about its growing influence in
the region.

U.S. officials also say Syria's borders have become an entry point
into Iraq for Sunni Arab insurgents. Muallem denied that assertion.
"We are making all efforts to secure the borders, but that does not
come from one side only," he said. "America has not been able to stamp
out its borders with Mexico, so they started to build a wall between
them, and that tells us how it is difficult to control the borders."

7) Victory in Iraq impossible, says Kissinger
Steve Negus, & Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Financial Times, November 20 2006
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/c2daddb2-7822-11db-be09-0000779e2340.html
Henry Kissinger, the former US secretary of state who has advised the
Bush administration on the war in Iraq, on Sunday said he no longer
believed a military victory was possible in the conflict. "If you mean
by clear military victory an Iraqi government that can be established
and whose writ runs across the whole country, that gets the civil war
under control and sectarian violence under control . . . I don't
believe that is possible," Kissinger told BBC television.

His dire assessment of the war, and view that the US should engage
Iraq's neighbours in seeking a diplomatic solution, reinforced calls
by Democratic lawmakers in Washington for the White House to speak to
Iran and Syria to help stem the tide of violence in Iraq. Kissinger's
remarks came as Walid Muallem, Syria's foreign minister, became the
most senior Syrian politician to visit Baghdad since the US-led
invasion. Muallem said violence in Iraq would be reduced if a
timetable was set for the withdrawal of US forces.

But interviews with senior lawmakers on US talk shows on Sunday
underscored the wide divide that exists not only on the question of
whether engaging Syria and Iran would be fruitful, but whether the
White House needed to boost US troop deployment in the short term or
begin the process of bringing troops home.

Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, suggested on ABC's This
Week that he would consider calling for American troops to leave Iraq
if the White House did not agree to send additional forces to secure
the country – a proposition President George W. Bush has previously
rejected. McCain said US troops were "fighting and dying for a failed
policy", but added that he would "exhaust every possibility" to fix
the situation before calling for troops to abandon Iraq, because the
consequences of losing the war were "severe".

Another senator, Democrat Carl Levin, who will take on the
chairmanship of the armed services committee, countered on CNN's Late
Edition that he supported a phased withdrawal of troops to put a
"pressure point on the neighbours who do not want Iraq to
disintegrate".u

8) Democrats Vow to Stand in the Way of Sending More Troops
Julian Borger, Guardian, Friday, November 17, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1117-02.htm
The new majority leader in the US Senate, Harry Reid, said yesterday
the Democrats would do everything they can to stop George Bush sending
more troops to Iraq. Reid believed the president would not be able to
find 20,000 US reinforcements for "one last push" in Iraq, a plan
reported in the Guardian yesterday, because the armed forces were
already stretched too thin. "I'd rather doubt he'd do that, because we
don't have the troops," said Reid. "We don't have a single
non-deployed army unit that is battle ready."

There is, however, little the new Democrat majority could do to stop
the administration if it was determined to send more Americans into
the fray in a final attempt to crush the insurgency and curb sectarian
violence. Democrat leaders, fearful of being seen to betray American
soldiers, have said they will not cut off war funding. Short of that,
their power would be to pass resolutions and protest. "We are not
going to back off this," Reid said. "We are going to do everything we
can to let people know that if Bush was to go in this direction, we're
going to speak out loudly. The whole situation in Iraq is breaking
down, and the president has to realise that."

The Democrats have interpreted their election victory as a popular
vote for a change of course in Iraq. After the election the president
said he was open to new ideas and invited Reid and his deputy, Dick
Durbin, to the White House, but Reid said it did not appear that the
invitation augured an openness to a fresh approach. "He, in talking
about Iraq, didn't give Senator Durbin and I a lot of hope he has a
willingness to change," he said.

9) No More Money for Iraq War, Kucinich Says
Stephen Koff, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Friday, November 17, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1117-07.htm
Rep. Dennis Kucinich, the former presidential peace candidate whose
opposition to the Iraq war is now practically mainstream, wants to cut
off future funding for the war. It's the only way to assure a pullout
soon, he says.

The Cleveland Democrat, appearing Wednesday on Democracy Now and
Thursday on Fox News, says he will push that message in Congress and
try to get a majority of his colleagues to agree. He would leave
current funding in place but refuse the next Bush administration
request for more money for the war, which could come by spring. Money
already in the pipeline would cover the pullout, he told The Plain
Dealer. Meantime, the US could begin discussions with the UN and Arab
nations including Syria and Iran about an international "peace force"
to take over.

American dissatisfaction with the war is widespread. Kucinich's calls
for a pullout this rapidly, however, may be in the minority of even
his own party. Harry Reid, the Senate Democratic leader, said
Wednesday in a press breakfast, "Democrats are united in our feeling
that we must redeploy. Does that mean pull out immediately? Of course
it doesn't." Rather, Reid said, "we have to have more
counterinsurgency, we must do better force protection, and of course
we've got to have better trainers. . . . We also have to do something
to revitalize reconstruction."

To Kucinich, that would only mean more lost American and Iraqi lives.
"It's inevitable that we're going to get out of Iraq," he said. "This
isn't a question of if, but of when."

10) US Support for Bush's Iraq Policy Hits New Low
Associated Press, Friday, November 17, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1117-03.htm
Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq has dropped
to the lowest level ever, increasing the pressure on the commander in
chief to find a way out after nearly four years of war. The latest
Associated Press-Ipsos poll found just 31 percent approval on his
handling of Iraq, days after voters registered their displeasure at
the polls by defeating Republicans across the board and handing
control of Congress to the Democrats. The previous low in AP-Ipsos
polling was 33 percent in both June and August.

Erosion of support for Bush's Iraq policy was most pronounced among
conservatives and Republican men - critical supporters who propelled
Bush to the White House and a second term in 2004. A month ago,
approval of the president on the issue certain to define his
presidency was 36 percent.

Iran
11) EU Opposes Atomic Aid for Iran at Tense IAEA Meet
Reuters, November 20, 2006, Filed at 11:15 a.m. ET
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-nuclear-iran-iaea.html
The European Union urged a politically charged meeting of the U.N.
nuclear agency on Monday to deny Iran's request for help with a
facility that could yield plutonium for atom bombs. The International
Atomic Energy Agency's 35-nation governing board has repeatedly asked
Iran not to pursue the Arak heavy water reactor project. Tehran has
vowed to complete it and applied for IAEA expertise to ensure it meets
safety standards.

Although IAEA approval of such requests is usually routine, Western
board members say the Arak case must be rejected given Iran's record
of evading IAEA non-proliferation inspections and its defiance of U.N.
demands to stop enriching uranium.

"We cannot support providing technical assistance to a heavy water
research reactor project that ... would in future produce significant
quantities of plutonium and involve a significant (nuclear)
proliferation risk," Finnish envoy Kirsti Helena Kauppi, speaking on
behalf of the EU, told the IAEA board. "This would not be consistent
with resolutions of the board and the (U.N.) Security Council," she
said. The US also opposes IAEA assistance for Iran on Arak but has
allowed the EU to take the lead on the issue at this week's board
meeting.

But developing nations say rejecting Iran's request for help would set
a politicized precedent for withholding technical aid from them to
peaceful atomic energy programs. Diplomats said the most likely
outcome was a compromise to defer a decision pending guidance from the
Security Council, where world powers are deliberating sanctions on
Iran but are split over how tough they should be. "Deferral is the
most likely option as it would help avoid alienating developing
nations on the board and buy time to see what the Security Council
will do to resolve this battle elsewhere," a senior IAEA diplomat told
Reuters Monday.

Diplomats said most board members wanted to avoid a divisive vote that
Iran was sure to lose and blame on Western bullying. They said a deal
was being considered under which the board would shelve the Arak item
while approving seven other aid requests submitted by Iran seen as
less problematic. They include developing radiation therapy for
medical ends, help in commissioning a Russian-built nuclear reactor
not deemed a proliferation risk, and regulatory aspects of nuclear
energy.

12) Extremist Vying To Become Top Ayatollah
Colin Freeman, London Sunday Telegraph, November 20, 2006
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20061119-111823-3650r.htm
A hard-line cleric who opposes all dialogue with the West is a leading
contender to become Iran's next supreme spiritual leader. In a move
that would push the country even further into the diplomatic
wilderness, Ayatollah Mohammad Taghi Mesbah-Yazdi, who publicly backs
the use of suicide bombers against Israel, is campaigning to succeed
Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini as the head of the Islamic state.

Considered an extremist even by fellow mullahs, he was a fringe figure
in Iran's theocracy until last year's election of President Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, a fellow fundamentalist who views him as his ideological
mentor. He is known to many Iranians as "Professor Crocodile" because
of a notorious cartoon that depicted him weeping false tears over the
imprisoning of a reformist journalist. Ayatollah Mesbah-Yazdi and his
supporters will attempt to tighten the fundamentalists' political
stranglehold next month, by standing in elections for the Assembly of
Experts, an 86-strong group of theologians that would be responsible
for nominating a replacement for Ayatollah Khamenei, whose health is
rumored to be failing.

Opposing them will be a coalition of moderate conservatives led by
Hashemi Rafsanjani, a former president, and members of the
increasingly marginalized reformist movement, who have formed an
alliance to prevent what both groups fear is a drift toward political
extremism.

Iraq
13) Iraqi Locals Accuse U.S. of Massacre in Ramadi
Dahr Jamail & Ali al-Fadhily, Inter Press Service, Friday, November 17, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1117-06.htm
U.S. military tank fire killed scores of civilians in Ramadi, capital
of Al-Anbar province, late Monday night, according to witnesses and
doctors. Anger and frustration were evident at the hospitals and
during the funerals in the following days. Iraqi doctors and witnesses
at the scene of the attack said U.S. tanks killed 35 civilians when
they shelled several homes in the Al-Dhubat area of the city. Ramadi,
located 110 km west of Baghdad, has been beset with sporadic but
intense violence between occupation forces and insurgents for several
months.

On Tuesday, hundreds of people carried the 35 coffins of the dead to a
graveyard in a funeral procession which closely resembled an angry
demonstration. "We heard the bombing and we thought it was the usual
fighting between resistance fighters and the Americans, but we soon
realised it was bombing by large cannons," Haji Jassim explained to
IPS at the burial. "We weren't allowed by the Americans to reach the
destroyed houses to try to rescue those who were buried, so certainly
many of them bled to death."

14) Report: Flaws In Hussein Trial Impair Verdict
Sudarsan Raghavan, Washington Post, Monday, November 20, 2006; A14
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111901071.html
The trial of former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein, in which he was
sentenced this month to death by hanging, was marred by flaws so
serious that they undermined the trial's fairness and called into
question the verdict, an international human rights watchdog group
said in a report to be released Monday. From the outset, the Iraqi
High Tribunal's independence and perceived impartiality was weakened
by actions of the Iraqi government, Human Rights Watch said in the
analysis of the trial, which condemned Hussein and seven co-defendants
for the torture and execution of 148 people in the hamlet of Dujail
more than two decades ago.

The report, based on courtroom observations and dozens of interviews
with judges, prosecutors and defense lawyers, is the first significant
challenge to what the Iraqi government and its U.S. patrons assert was
a fair, if messy, trial. The report asserts that there was failure to
disclose key evidence to Hussein's attorneys and that there were
violations of basic rights of the defendants to confront witnesses.
The chief judge's outbursts in court undermined his impartiality, it
said. There were also gaps in the evidence that weakened the
prosecution's case and "put in doubt whether all the elements of the
crimes charged were established," the report said.

"The tribunal squandered an important opportunity to deliver credible
justice to the people of Iraq," Nehal Bhuta, the report's author, said
in a statement. "And its imposition of the death penalty after an
unfair trial is indefensible."

Palestine
15) Palestinians Use Human Shield to Halt Israeli Air Strike on Militants' Homes
Hundreds of neighbours join first successful action
Air force calls off missile attack to protect civilians
Conal Urquhart, Guardian, Monday, November 20, 2006
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1120-03.htm
Palestinians yesterday stopped Israel from destroying the home of two
militants by surrounding it with a human shield. In the first incident
of its kind, hundreds of neighbours surrounded the home of Mohammed
Baroud and climbed on its roof after he received a call from the
Israeli army informing him he had 30 minutes to vacate his home before
it was destroyed by missiles. The Israeli airforce called off its
strike because of the risk of killing a large number of civilians.

It is the first time Palestinians have thwarted an Israeli air strike
in this way. Israel has developed a strategy of telephoning its
targets to ensure that nobody is inside when the homes are struck.
Residents are given about half an hour to gather some clothes and
escape. Neighbours are also contacted if the explosion is likely to be
big enough to endanger them.

Dozens of homes have been blown up on suspicion that they are the site
for a smuggling tunnel or arms cache. It is likely that Israel will
have to find a new way of destroying homes as yesterday's protest
began to be copied elsewhere. Nizar Rayan, a Hamas member who led the
Jabalya protest, said Palestinians would continue to rush into every
house to be threatened by bombardment. "We will pay with our lives to
protect the houses of the fighters so they can resist the enemy
assured that their homes are being protected," he said.

The home of Baroud, a member of the Popular Resistance Committees in
Beit Lahiya was the first to be saved. Mosques and Palestinian
television sent out appeals and protesters gathered outside, chanting
"Death to Israel. Death to America," and "We prefer martyrdom to
surrender." Two hours later Israel warned Mohammed Nawajeh, a member
of Hamas, that his house would be targeted and the same process
occurred. Both men are accused by Israel of involvement in firing
rockets at Israel.

There was a sense of euphoria in Gaza that people had managed to stand
up to the Israeli airforce but Israel proved its military muscle later
yesterday when an aircraft fired a missile at a car in Gaza City,
wounding nine, including two Hamas militants. Four were children, aged
five, 13, 14 and 16, who suffered shrapnel injuries, hospital
officials told Associated Press. Later an elderly man died of his
wounds, they added.

The military said the air strike target was a vehicle carrying senior
members of the Hamas rocket-launching operation. Palestinians often
avoid peaceful protest against Israel because they fear the army will
treat them as if they were armed. However, during Israel's occupation
of Beit Hanoun this month, a group of women managed to create a
diversion to allow gunmen to flee a mosque, where they had been
surrounded.

Israel has been under added pressure to avoid killing civilians after
19 Palestinians were killed by shells in Beit Hanoun.

Ismail Haniyeh, the Palestinian prime minister, visited Baroud's home
to offer his support to the protest yesterday. "We are so proud of
this national stand. It's the first step toward protecting our homes,
the homes of our children," he said. "This strategy was decided by our
people. [It] was decided by our leaders, who were here from all the
factions ... and so long as this strategy is in the interest of our
people we support this strategy."

Lebanon
16) Hezbollah Threatens Protests to Topple Lebanese Government
Anthony Shadid, Washington Post, Monday, November 20, 2006; A11
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/19/AR2006111900442.html
In a deepening crisis that has paralyzed Lebanese politics, the leader
of Hezbollah urged his well-organized followers to prepare for mass
protests aimed at toppling the U.S.-backed government of Prime
Minister Fouad Siniora. The order by Hasan Nasrallah, given in a
speech Saturday that was broadcast Sunday, was the latest in a test of
wills between Hezbollah and a government that Nasrallah dismissed as
more representative of the U.S. ambassador than Siniora.

More than a simple political standoff in an always fractious country,
many see the escalating struggle as perhaps the most decisive in
Lebanon in a generation. It may determine which forces guide the
country for years ahead: the coalition around Siniora that draws its
strength from the country's Sunni Muslims, Druze and some Christians
and has aligned itself with the US and Europe, or Hezbollah's Shiite
Muslim constituency, backed by Iran and Syria, and its Christian
allies represented by a former Lebanese general.

As is common here, many see the struggle as a proxy battle involving
the US, Israel, Syria and Iran.  The crisis erupted in full force
after two ministers from Hezbollah, three other Shiites and an allied
politician resigned from Siniora's cabinet on Nov. 11 after talks
broke down on granting Hezbollah and its allies greater
representation, a move that would effectively give Hezbollah veto
power over government decisions.

In the speech, Nasrallah said the government faced two choices: either
resign in favor of what he called a national unity government that
would give a far greater voice to Hezbollah and its allies, or hold
early parliamentary elections. If neither demand is met, he said, the
movement would resort to demonstrations until "the illegitimate,
unconstitutional government" fell. Nasrallah stressed that the
protests, perhaps lasting days or even weeks, would remain peaceful.
"We will not allow any clash," he said.

Venezuela
17) Venezuela's Chávez Remains in First Place
Angus Reid Global Monitor : Polls & Research, November 18, 2006
http://www.angus-reid.com/polls/index.cfm/fuseaction/viewItem/itemID/13839
Hugo Chávez could win next month's presidential election in Venezuela,
according to a poll by Veneopsa and the Centre for Political and
Social Studies (CEPS) released by Reuters. 57.8 per cent of
respondents would vote for the incumbent head of state. Zulia governor
Manuel Rosales of A New Time (UNT) is second with 26.9 per cent, while
15.3 per cent would either vote for other contenders, or remain
undecided.

Chávez has been in office since February 1999. In July 2000, he was
elected to a six-year term with 59.5 per cent of all cast ballots. In
August 2004, Chávez won a referendum on his tenure with 59 per cent of
the vote.

-
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.