…We are going to have to take a new approach. And I’ve outlined my belief that engagement is the place to start. That the international community is going to be taking cues from us in how we want to approach Iran.

And I think that sending a signal that we respect the aspirations of the Iranian people, but that we also have certain expectations in terms of how a international actor behaves…

…Well, I think a new emphasis on respect and a new emphasis on being willing to talk, but also a clarity about what our bottom lines are. And we are in preparations for that. We anticipate that we’re going to have to move swiftly in that area.

This is a blessing and a relief to so many Americans who voted for a decisive break with Bush’s disastrous policies of bellicosity and threats.

On a related matter, the AP has reported that Dennis Ross is likely to be named the special Mideast envoy possibly supervising Iran and Israel-Palestine matters.  There are many in the progressive community who are concerned with this development because Ross comes directly out of the Aipac environment.  During and after Camp David in the Clinton administration he placed full blame for its failure at Arafat’s feet and refused to blame either Clinton or Barak as other witnesses to the events did.

While I share concerns about Ross, I’m trying not to let them exercise me for two reasons: first the statement above.  Obama has given a clear view of his agenda and it will Ross’ job to implement his boss’ views.  It will NOT be Ross’ job to implement his own views.  Second, I heard Rob Malley interviewed on Friday on To the Point and he said that Ross’ appointment didn’t concern him because he didn’t see Ross as a freelancer, but as a team player.  I trust Rob Malley’s instincts on these matters.

So while I have no great love for Ross, as long as he pursues Obama’s policy of engagement and negotiation over saber-rattling, I have no problem with him.

The big disappointment in the interview concerns Gaza.  Obama insists on keeping his eyes on the prize, which is an overall settlement of the conflict.  All that’s to the good.  The only problem is that the Gaza disaster could wreck any chances of getting to a comprehensive agreement in the near to medium-term due to the bitterness not only of Palestinians, but of all Muslims and Arabs. Here’s how he addressed the subject beginning with a defense of Israel’s attack:

I think a basic principle of any country is that they’ve got to protect their citizens. And so what I’ve said is that given the delicacy of the situation, the one area where the principle of one president at a time has to hold is when it comes to foreign policy.

We cannot have two administrations at the same time simultaneously sending signals in a volatile situation. But what I am doing right now is putting together the team so that on January 20th, starting on day one, we have the best possible people who are going to be immediately engaged in the Middle East peace process as a whole.

That are going to be engaging with all of the actors there. That will work to create a strategic approach that ensures that both Israelis and Palestinians can meet their aspirations.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But as you know, in much of the Arab world, your silence…has been interpreted as callousness. And we also had a viewer question on this, Marin Guerrero of Riverside, California, asks you: “Why is Obama remaining silent on the Gaza crisis when so many innocent people are being killed?”

OBAMA: Well, look, I have said — and I think I said this a couple of days back, that when you see civilians, whether Palestinian or Israeli, harmed, under hardship, it’s heartbreaking. And obviously what that does is it makes me much more determined to try to break a deadlock that has gone on for decades now.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But more broadly, will your policy in the Middle East, will it be building on the Bush policy or a clean break?

OBAMA: Well, you know, I think that if you look not just at the Bush administration, but also what happened under the Clinton administration, you are seeing the general outlines of an approach.

And I think that players in the region understand the compromises that are going to need to be made. But the politics of it are hard. And the reason it’s so important for the United States to be engaged and involved immediately, not waiting until the end of their term, is because working through the politics of this requires a third party that everybody has confidence, wants to see a fair and just outcome.

And I think that an Obama administration, if we do it right, can provide that…

So the best that Obama’s willing to give us is that the Israeli-Arab conflict will be a high priority from day one. But he refuses to tip his hand as to what even his most general philosophical outlook will be.  Personally, I think he’s rolling craps on this.  If his gamble pays off he can ride out the Gaza attack and get into the bigger picture of solving the Israel’s major conflicts with Syria, Lebanon and the Palestinians.  But if the gamble fails and the well is poisoned in the Arab world for months or more to come because of the heinousness and barbarity of Israel’s actions, then he won’t look so smart.

I think he’s missing an opportunity.  A statement that reflects sympathy for both parties while calling on Israel to ratchet down the violence and embrace an immediate ceasefire might also be a gamble.  But isn’t a gamble worthwhile when 900 Gazans have already died and the Arab world is clamoring for Israeli and U.S. blood?

Some details the Times reports were not as widely known but could probably be assumed, i.e. that the U.S. was engaging in a covert program to disrupt Iran’s nuclear activity.

Though elements of this passage are also known, they do connect the dots nicely in ways they haven’t quite been connected till now:

Last June, the Israelis conducted an exercise over the Mediterranean Sea that appeared to be a dry run for an attack on the enrichment plant at Natanz. When the exercise was analyzed at the Pentagon, officials concluded that the distances flown almost exactly equaled the distance between Israel and the Iranian nuclear site.

“This really spooked a lot of people,” one White House official said. White House officials discussed the possibility that the Israelis would fly over Iraq without American permission. In that case, would the American military be ordered to shoot them down? If the United States did not interfere to stop an Israeli attack, would the Bush administration be accused of being complicit in it?

Admiral Mullen, traveling to Israel in early July on a previously scheduled trip, questioned Israeli officials about their intentions. His Israeli counterpart, Lt. Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi, argued that an aerial attack could set Iran’s program back by two or three years, according to officials familiar with the exchange. The American estimates at the time were far more conservative.

But the big question as far as I’m concerned is why publish this now?  In one sense, the publication is timed to a book Sanger has written which will come out on Tuesday.  But in another sense, the article seems designed to take pressure off the Bush Administration regarding its effort to end the Gaza crisis.  If Bush can be made to look like a good guy for stopping Israel from bombing Iran, then maybe Americans will give him a break for letting Israel carry out a relatively harmless war on its own border with Gaza.  I don’t think anyone should be letting George Bush and Condi Rice off the hook.  Their conduct during this war has been disgraceful but totally in keeping with past lassitude.

Though Sanger does mention that Robert Gates warned Bush that a U.S. attack might create a regional war with disastrous consequences for U.S. standing and policy in the Muslim world, he does not bring any such analysis to bear in discussing the Israeli plans.  He merely states what Israel hoped to do.  It’d seem to me that if the U.S. was afraid of starting a war if it bombed Iran that Israel doing so would guarantee the possibility.  That should be worth a word or two I’d think.  But according to the article, the major concern raised by U.S. officials regarding an Israeli attack was that the U.S. might have to shoot down Israeli planes if they violated Iraqi air space.

It works as follows: Iranian agents (or businessmen) contact friends or allies in foreign countries. These friends / allies use a company in their country as a front to buy technology from the U.S. When they receive the products, they send it to their Iranian buddies who then use them in bombs and other weapons.

The above is an admitted simplification of quite a complex scheme:

While illegal trafficking in weapons technology has occurred for decades — most notably in the case of the nuclear smuggling ring operated by Pakistani scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan — the new documents suggest that recent trading is nearly all Internet-based and increasingly sophisticated.

Many of the schemes unknowingly involve U.S. companies that typically have no clue where their products are actually going, the records show.

“The schemes are so elaborate, even the most scrupulous companies can be deceived,” said David Albright, president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) and co-author of a forthcoming study of black markets for weapons components.

Albright said the deceptions can be even more elaborate when the target is nuclear technology. “That’s where the stakes are the highest,” he said. “If Iran is successful, it ends up not with an IED but with a nuclear weapon.”

Rare details about the illicit markets emerge in court records from the Justice Department’s investigation of Iran’s Dubai network, as well as in the ISIS study, which tracks four years of secret trading by Iranian and Pakistani front groups. The study includes copies of invoices and the contents of e-mails from companies looking to buy Western technology.

The good news is that the U.S. knows that Iran is doing this, and mostly how. The bad news is that this does not make it much easier to prevent Iran from purchasing goods it is not allowed to purchase.

It should be rather obvious that a lot of resources and manpower should be allocated to those intelligence officials and departments who deal with this problem. These weapons are used by terrorists in Iraq; American technology is killing American soldiers.

This too will be a major challenge for an Obama administration, albeit perhaps one he does not have a whole lot of direct influence on himself.

©2009 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

What is needed is a rational and concerted effort to broker a peace deal which maximizes justice, and which creates new realities on the ground that will help to sustain the peace once it is in place. And so, if you get a call, in the middle of the night, from President Obama, informing you that you have just been appointed U.S. Middle East Envoy; what would you do to bring peace to the Middle East? Here are a few suggestions. Perhaps you have something to add.

Gaza: Negotiate a ceasefire, and then a truce, between Israel and Hamas, on the basis of an Israeli pullout, accompanied by a cessation of missile and mortal fire by Hamas, to be monitored by U.N. observers. Suggest to Hamas to give up their military ambitions in exchange for: an easing of border restrictions, a lifting of an economic blockade, and an opportunity to partner with Fattah to provide a democratic government for the Palestinian people. If Hamas agrees, launch an international investment program for Gaza, with the purpose of: creating jobs, building infrastructure, growing the economy, and weakening the hold of extremist thinking. Along with the hope that comes from economic growth, launch a series of programs to sustain the hope: a more balanced and modern approach to education, a student exchange, a cultural exchange, an empowerment of women, an expanded Peace Corps presence, a media campaign, international conferences, etc.

West Bank: Continue to train Palestinian soldiers, so as to enable the duly elected government to defend itself from outside threats, including the threats posed by Hamas and other extremist factions. Encourage Fattah to reach a workable agreement with Hamas so that the two could work together to negotiate a comprehensive peace deal with Israel for the creation of a Palestinian state, along the lines of the understandings that have been reached between President Abbas and Foreign Minister Livny, and reminiscent of the deal offered by President Clinton and Prime Minister Ehud Barack to President Arafat in the year 2000. Continue to develop the four industrial zones in the West Bank, and launch an international effort to invest in good paying jobs, jobs which grow the economy, jobs which protect the environment, and jobs which help to neutralize extremist thinking. Work to inspire Palestinians with a Vision of Hope, and support that economic effort with Public Diplomacy Programs which are specifically designed to prop the vision up and to carry it forward. Use an Ideology of Common Sense to speak to Palestinians with common sense and with a sense of personal dignity.

Israel: Encourage Israel to embrace and enhance the possibility of peace, and to take positive action in that regard by: negotiating a truce with Hamas, allowing Hamas to partner with Fattah for the sake of democratic rule, helping Hamas to build infrastructure and to grow Gaza’s economy, and helping Fattah to do the same in the West Bank. Encourage Israel to negotiate a final status agreement, one that protects Israel’s security, but one that also allows Palestinians to achieve at least most of their political aspirations. To the extent possible, convince Israel to become actively involved in orchestrating the economic growth of the new fledgling state so that the ordinary Palestinian citizen is finally given a place at the table, a stake in his or her future.

Syria: Encourage Syria to negotiate peace with Israel on the basis of an Israeli pullout from the Golan Heights, along with a U.N. monitored military free zone in that area. Structure a series of economic and diplomatic incentives to lure Syria away from Iranian control, and to cause Syria to stop its support of terrorist organizations, and to stop interfering with internal Lebanese affairs.

Lebanon: Continue to bolster Lebanon’s democratically elected government. Try to steer Hezbollah away from military confrontation, in favor of a political role as part of a duly elected government. Use a Vision of Hope to empower the Lebanese people to embrace the possibility of peace among themselves, and with Israel.

Egypt: Encourage the international community to continue to invest to grow Egypt’s economy and to create good paying jobs. Support Egypt’s efforts to mediate regional disputes. Empower the man on the street with the notion that his life could get better, and use that hope to weaken the hold of extremist thinking. Push for warmer relations between Israel and Egypt on the basis of peace in Palestine, and on Israel’s efforts to help orchestrate an economic revitalization of the Middle East with her technological know-how and her economic drive.

Saudi Arabia: Give Saudi Arabia credit for proposing a comprehensive peace deal with Israel. Encourage Saudi Arabia to continue mustering Arab support in this regard. Encourage Saudi Arabia, in light of lower oil prices, and worldwide green demand, to diversify its investment portfolio by investing in green technology in Palestine, and throughout the Middle East. Use oil profits to create green profits, and use these profits to create even more good paying green jobs, jobs which will grow the economies, jobs which will protect the environment, and jobs which will weaken the strangle hold of extremist thinking. Use a growing economy, and the prospects for Middle East peace, to shift the thinking on the street from an extremist ideology to an ideology of common sense. Use the momentum of change to gear the educational system to a more modern and balanced approach, and to gear religious practice to be more in keeping with the more peaceful aspects of Islam.

Iran: Try to convince Iran that its nuclear ambitions are not in keeping with Iran’s best interests long term. Make the point that a nuclear Iran will be in the crosshairs of many a potent foe, and that the least bit of miscalculation could spell a doomsday scenario. Use diplomacy and economic incentives to convince Iran to give up its nuclear aspirations. As such, Iran could begin to play a vital role in pushing a comprehensive peace process forward, based on mutually shared economic and political interests. Iran could also cooperate by having Hezbollah and Hamas play political, as opposed to military roles. Iran would also be able to quell dissatisfaction from within by delivering to its people the promise of a better day.

With this much on your plate, you may think twice about taking the job. But don’t you agree that a chess game of this sort is what is called for, given current realities on the ground? Don’t we have to table at least some of the emotions and passions, for there to be even the slightest chance for peace? And do we have any choice but to try, even against all odds?

For more information, please visit our website www.sellingavisionofhope.org

U.S. President-elect Barack Obama's administration will offer Israel a "nuclear umbrella" against the threat of a nuclear attack by Iran, a well-placed American source said earlier this week. The source, who is close to the new administration, said the U.S. will declare that an attack on Israel by Tehran would result in a devastating U.S. nuclear response against Iran.

Here’s Rick’s FOX commentary:

Hannity: Ahmadinejad denies the Holocaust, wants to wipe Israel off the map, is seeking nuclear weapons…I think we need to take him out.

WARREN: Yes.

HANNITY: Am I advocating something dark, evil, or something righteous?

WARREN: Well, actually, the Bible says that evil cannot be negotiated with. It has to just be stopped. And I believe…

HANNITY: By force?

WARREN: Well, if necessary. In fact, that is the legitimate role of government. The Bible says that God puts government on earth to punish evildoers…

Maybe, Rick can claim that Sean drugged him before the interview and that he was undergoing some kind of Manchurian Candidate brainwashing experience that turned him into a Muslim-bashing automaton.  I’m sure he’ll some sort of cute explanation to get himself off the hook, IF he has the guts to show up.

I note that Juan Cole will be the other keynote speaker.  I don’t think Juan’s going to be so understanding of Rev. Rick in HIS remarks.  Juan, don’t let Rick off the hook.  Skewer him.

As the good senator points out, Iran has built tremendous nuclear facilities in recent years, which would enable it to produce a nuclear bomb as soon as early next year. Of course, it could very well be that the Iranians will wait with developing one until they can develop several, which would mean that ‘the world’ has a couple of years left to force them to give up on their nuclear ambitions.

Senator Kyl advocates a diplomatic approach to Iran: he believes that the country’s religious leadership can be brought on its knees by tough sanctions. Earlier sanctions have already succeeded in hurting the Iranian economy, Kyl rightfully notes, further sanctions could weaken it so much that the regime may fall.

This is certainly true.

The problem with Iran however, is one of time and priorities.

If the U.S. does not use force against Iran it could very well be that the Iranians will have nuclear weapons by, say, 2011 or 2012. Many fear that they will use these weapons against Israel and America, possibly even against Muslim enemies in the region. They also fear that Iran will give these weapons to terrorists who can then use them against a variety of targets, without offering the victims an opportunity to strike back against a particular country.

On the other hand, it is well known that the regime of the Mullahs has been weakened tremendously by, among other things, the economic sanctions. The Mullahs have lost support at home; the majority of young Iranians do not support the regime; this while Iran is a country with a young population. The economy has collapsed, and will continue its free fall in the coming years, especially if the West adopts more (far going) sanctions against the country formerly known as Persia.

Iranians in general are not happy with the hawkish foreign policy of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the country’s president, and know full well that he is only able to be so hawkish because he is supported by the country’s religious rulers. Without their support, Ahmadinejad would have to resign.

This means that the regime will fall. The question is not if, but when. Will it fall before the Mullahs develop nuclear weapons or not?

That is the country on people’s minds right now. The policy of the U.S. should be aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons by non-military means, while clandestinely supporting organizations, groups and individuals that want to overthrow the religious ruling class. At the same time, close attention should be paid to the Iranians’ nuclear program. If absolutely necessary to prevent them from developing weapons of mass destruction, using force could be a wise decision.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.

The team of Barack (Grandpa Was a Muslim) Obama, Hillary (I’m a Clinton) Clinton, and Rahm (Israel) Emanuel (that’s his real middle name! and he was a volunteer with the I.D.F. during the 1991 Gulf War!), with Joe Biden and Bill Clinton pitching in as necessary, would put the new Administration in an extremely powerful position to apply the kind of pressure that would give Israeli politicians the political cover they need to reach a settlement with the Palestinians. Everyone knows what the deal would look like, including Ehud Olmert. It’s a question of having the political strength and exerting the will to make it happen.

It’s a good possibility. Over on BBC blogs, Robin Lustig has even created some scenarios, which look plausible. To be honest, I think all this is a bit optimistic, with too many variables all over the place.

Obama’s priorities will roughly be in this order: economy, environment and healthcare. And frankly, given how fast the US economy is diving, I don’t blame him. Obama has also appointed heavy-hitters to deal with healthcare and the environment, ensuring they will move fast through Congress. He’ll want to get work done.

The only way FP will come is if it forces its way onto the table. This may depend on how Iran behaves. If it wants to talk, and Obama is in a strong position, then tension may ease across the Middle East and Obama could bang Israeli and Palestinians heads together. Otherwise, all the time will be taken up trying to deal with Iranian nuclear ambitions and a hawkish Russia, with Israel/Palestine condemned to the backburner. Which is why I’m not expecting much from Obama on foreign policy. If I was his position I would do the same. The environment, to me, is a far bigger priority than the Middle East - over the long term it will kill more people and there’s a lot of damage Bush has done.

How you feel about Clinton's appointment - assuming that it does come to pass - will depend on how legitimate you feel those criticisms were. Central among them was the charge that she showed bad judgement in supporting the Iraq war. That may well be so, but she had a lot of company in this. Many liberals, myself included, thought in 2003 that regime change was the lesser of two evils, only to change our minds when we saw the nature of the regime change we got. I would readily admit that was bad judgement on my part. Clinton refused to say that it was bad judgement on hers - this may, in fact, have been what cost her the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she was privy to special intelligence before the war which added support to Bush's arguments. But I find it hard to believe that she had any such excuse, given that she reportedly failed to thoroughly study the briefings given to her at the time.

Nonetheless, that is all in the past. What matters is what sort of Secretary of State she will be over the next four years. It is clear why many on the left are concerned about this. She has been decidedly hawkish on Iran, supporting the controversial Kyl-Lieberman amendment that classified that country's Quds Force as a terrorist organisation. She also has a reputation for pandering to the more extreme elements of the soi-disant 'pro-Israel vote' in the States - and since this voting block's favoured policies would actually harm Israel and the peace process, this is concerning.

However, this history may allow her to play the role of Nixon in China on these questions, providing Obama cover against those who would claim that his positions on these issues are too 'soft'. She and her husband have almost unparalleled knowledge and experience of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question in particular. There are already rumours that Obama has charged her with finding a solution to this, and given her substantial autonomy in doing so. If she can accomplish this, few will or should regret her selection.

From the Netherlands, Michael van der Galien writes that President-elect Obama seems to be moving towards the Center, rather staying on the Left.

“With about only 60 days left until inauguration day I am becoming increasingly hopeful that Barack Obama will govern like Bill Clinton did; as quite a centrist rather than a leftist Democrat.

Not only has Obama started to surround himself by (former) Clintonistas, which is a hopeful sign indeed, it seems likely that Hillary Clinton herself will become his Secretary of State.”

The Dutch blogger explains further, why Clinton would make a great choice for Secretary of State and comments on other moves the President-elect has made.

“Clinton is much more hawkish that Obama. She is a staunch supporter of Israel, supported the war in Iraq, and seems determined not to let Iran develop nuclear weapons. Obama seems a different kind of politician himself, but it is highly unlikely that Clinton would be willing to work for an administration which she would deem overly dovish.

Then there is Secretary of Defense Robert Gates; a true, old school Republican realist. President George W. Bush chose Gates as his SecDef after the horrendous and highly authoritarian Donald Rumsfeld resigned. Unlike his predecessor, Gates was able to communicate and work well with the State department, military leaders and foreign politicians such as Nouri al-Maliki. Gen. David Petraeus is often credited with turning the tide in Iraq but Gates’ role in the process should not be ignored; he too played a major role in bringing the different factions in the Middle Eastern country together.

As if that is not enough, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano (D) has been chosen to head the Department of Homeland Security. Napolitano is a Democrat, of course, but she does well with Independent and moderate voters. She is a hard worker and a pragmatist rather than an ideologue. When the illegal immigration problem became prominent Napolitano did not focus on the illegal immigrants themselves but on the institutions that allowed foreigners to move so easily into the U.S. illegally. Conservative immigration hawks may not like her too much, deeming her soft on illegal immigration, but the rest can certainly live with her.”

Meanwhile, Mary Newman in Palestine finds Hilary Clinton as a possibly becoming Secretary of State, “alarming.” Newman also quotes Harper’s Magazine Ken Silverstein on his five reasons why she wouldn’t be a good choice, including the Kissinger endorsement.

“of particular concern is point 5: who else endorses her? none other than the war criminal henry kissinger. to understand what i mean read christopher hitchens piece in harper’s called “the case against henry kissinger.” “

Newman ends her post with one suggestion for the soon-to-be-president.

“I think that obama should change his website from change.gov to same.gov.”

And, in neighboring Canada, blogger Strong Conservative, comments on the Rahm Emanuel choice.

“Obama is off and running in his post-election plans. He's announced that Rahm Emanuel will be his chief of staff. Despite promises of transcending party lines and working across the aisle, Emanuel signals a decisively partisan start. But don't take my word, take Paul Begala’s statement about Emanuel being “cross between a hemorrhoid and a toothache.” Despite this tough side, Emanuel was also a ballet dancer. I'm not kidding.

That said, Emanuel is a tough partisan cookie, and he might be twinkle toes in the dance studio, but he's not afraid to fight it out in the political forum. The GOP will certainly have their hands full.”

Ahmadinejad congratulated Obama, which was the first time since 1979 that an Iranian leader presented an official message of goodwill to America’s (new) leader.

The main reason for Iran’s merry reaction is Obama’s earlier promise that he would like to talk with Tehran without any preconditions. This would be a major change in U.S. policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.

In a message carried on official news agency Irna, Mr Ahmadinejad said: “I congratulate you on being able to attract the majority of votes of the participants of the election.”

“As you know the opportunities provided by the Almighty God, which can be used for elevation of nations, or God forbid, for their collapse, are transient,” the message continued.

“I hope you will prefer real public interests and justice to the never-ending demands of a selfish minority and seize the opportunity to serve people so that you will be remembered with high esteem.”

He continued: “Other nations also expect war-oriented policies, occupation, bullying, contempt of nations and imposing discriminatory policies on them to be replaced by the ones advocating justice, respect for human rights, friendship and non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs.

“They also want US intervention to be limited to its [own] borders, especially in the Middle East. It is highly expected to reverse the unfair attitude towards restoring the rights of the Palestinians, Iraqis and Afghans.

“The great nation of Iran welcomes basic and fair changes in US policies and conducts, especially in the region,” President Ahmadinejad said.

Whether the historic message will pay off for Iran remains to be seen. What is clear at this point in time, is that quite some regimes in the Middle East are very happy with Obama’s victory, because they expect Obama to be far more conciliatory than George W. Bush was and than John McCain would have been.

Of course this does not necessarily say anything about the policies Obama will pursue; it only tells us something about what Iran (and countries like it) think and / or hope Obama will do as president.

©2008 PoliGazette. All Rights Reserved.