Shirvin Zeinalzadeh: The Possibilities of US-Iran Talks

On Friday, Scott Lucas wrote of "Iran's Pride" in the speech of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on the country's nuclear program. No surprise to the trained eye here: rallying around the flag is of great importance to any Iranian politician involved in forthcoming elections, and vagueness of Ahmadinejad's announcement was designed to create a media circus around the incumbent President.

Beyond the electoral short-term, the Iranian nuclear program should be compared to a ’slow boat to self-independence’. It is a long and expensive journey, but it will get there in the end.

Yet, beyond that obvious statement, there is a key element forgotten by the international community and sceptics of the Iranian program, one to consider alongside the statement issued by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, ‘It would benefit the Iranians, in our view, if they cooperated with the international community.' The view and constant rhetoric of the Iranian government is that Iran IS abiding by such rules, rules set by the Non-Proliferation Treaty to which Iran became a signatory in 1969.

The key with diplomacy at this level is communication. Iran and the US have failed to seize upon clear opportunities to talk face-to-face on this issue. After 30 years of mistrust since the creation of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iranians may ask why their scepticism of Washington should change. Each time Iran has tried to reconcile with the West, for example in negotiations with the European Union 3 of Britain, France, and Germany, the US that has undermined any progress, for example, rejecting the admission of Iran to the World Trade Organization.

Tables have now started to turn, however, with ‘corridor diplomacy’ taking place on issues concerning Iran's border states of Iraq and Afghanistan. The common ground for Tehran and Washington is that Iran can assist with the rebuilding of Iraq, bringing regional security, support the American eradication of the Taliban.

In time, diplomatic corridors become negotiating rooms where bilateral talks can begin. However, this requires time and patience. Instead of looking at this like a business negotiation, where no deal is considered a success until both parties have signed the dotted line, one should consider in diplomacy that the mere fact of US-Iran talks is a victory.

The truth about Iran's supposed pursuit of nuclear weapons is that if Tehran obtained and used them, it would be the end of the country. If it obtained the weapons and did not use them, it will open the door to either 1) a strike by other countries to cripple Iran's military capability or 2) a ‘horizontal proliferation’ in which all states in the region become nuclear powers, causing a very uncomfortable global security dilemma.

This summer should reveal these truths and the possibilities in US-Iran discussions. Change has occurred in the US with the Obama willingness to extend the hand of diplomacy; now the question is whether Iran will accept it. If President Ahmadinejad remains in office after the elections, that acceptance might not come, in which case the issue will be how long US patience will last. If Ahmadinejad fails, however, it will be a question of how much time it takes for the Iranians to start direct talks.

Don’t Blink: Obama Administration Funds the Civil War in Palestine

Related Post: Gaza War - How the US Re-Armed Israel

On April 9, President Obama sent his 2009 supplemental budget request for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan to Congress. Predictably, most of the media coverage was simply carried over and adapted from the previous battle over funding for the military.

For example, some attention has centered upon the stiff opposition to Secretary of Defense Gates' decision not to order additional F-22 fighters. While this discussion is important, particularly on the usefulness of F-22 fighter planes in Iraq, there was something else in this supplemental budget that seems to have escaped notice.

We find this on page 6:

$0.8 billion to support the Palestinian people, strengthen the Palestinian Authority, and provide humanitarian assistance for the crisis in Gaza.

Even compared to the $85 billion plus total of the supplemental budget, $800 million for Palestine is nothing to sneeze at. And assuming you stop reading here, almost a billion dollars to “support the Palestinian people” actually sounds like a pretty good idea. But that’s not the entirety of it. The money is broken down into several sections scattered throughout the budget.

A section called “Migration and Refugee Assistance” has $150 million, including:

$25 million for assistance to Palestinian refugees in Lebanon and $125 million to support emergency humanitarian needs in Gaza and the West Bank

Then we have a massive chunk of money in the “Economic Support Fund” section:

$556 million for West Bank/Gaza including $200 million for budget support to the Palestinian Authority; $93 million for institutional capacity building, and investments in education and social services in the West Bank; $12 million for humanitarian assistance in the West Bank; $60 million to promote West Bank economic growth; $30 million to support governance and rule of law in the West Bank; $95 million to support programs in Gaza to improve basic human needs, support economic recovery, create jobs, and restore some humanitarian essential services; $61 million for immediate humanitarian and food relief to Gazans through well-established international organizations; $5 million for contractor and locally engaged staff, program oversight, and related security and other support costs

And finally, hidden away in the “International Narcotics Control and Law Enforcement” section, we find this gem:

$109 million to train and equip Palestinian security forces and to enhance security along the Gaza border [emphasis added]

What’s missing? There’s no mention of Hamas. That’s because:

This provision prohibits the use of Supplemental funds for assistance to Hamas, Hamas-controlled entities, or any power-sharing government of which Hamas is a member. Assistance may be provided to a power-sharing government acceptable to the United States if the President certifies to the standards in section 620K(b)(1)(A) and (B) of the Foreign Assistance Act. It is expected that such a power-sharing government would speak authoritatively for the entire Palestinian Authority government, including its ministries, agencies and instrumentalities. This provision also would allow the President to utilize the waiver authority provided in the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006 for the purposes provided. [emphasis added]

Got that? Let’s break it down.

First off, note that only a slice of the money is even allocated to the Gaza Strip, under the control of the democratically elected Hamas government, while the majority goes to the West Bank, held in the iron grip of Fatah’s Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority. While the Palestinian Authority, like Hamas, was also democratically elected, their electoral mandate expired long ago, and by the time this money reaches them, their term limits will be ancient history. The idea of any democratic government existing in the midst of Fatah’s repressive police state is a highly dubious proposition, but contrasted with the internationally certified elections that brought Hamas to power in the Gaza Strip, the notion of democracy in the West Bank is simply laughable.

Second, the budget essentially nullifies any diplomatic efforts being carried out between the leadership of Hamas and Fatah. Perversely, it does this by ensuring that any diplomatic arrangement would have to be absurdly unacceptable to both parties. Either Hamas accepts a “power-sharing” deal in which they have no power at all over the Fatah “government, including its ministries, agencies and instrumentalities”, or Fatah agrees to share power with Hamas at the price of losing $815 million a year in US funding, not to mention whatever the International Community is paying them.

Mahmoud Abbas, President of Palestinian Authority, with Ramadan Shallah, Secretary General of Islamic Jihad

Finally, this funding ensures that there will continue to be violent confrontations in the Gaza Strip. Where does $109 million worth of paramilitary training go in Gaza if it can’t go to Hamas? It goes to Fatah, or more specifically, to their military wing. That would be the Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades, an internationally designated terrorist group responsible for at least 130 Israeli deaths, and that’s just counting the suicide bombings.

The Al-Aqsa brigades are also known to collaborate with the Palestinian Islamic Jihad. They are the group fond of lobbing Qassam rockets at schoolchildren in southern Israel. So not only will this money provoke conflict between Hamas and these freshly equipped and trained Fatah militants, but these resources will undoubtedly be used in acts of terrorism against Israel, and we know how Israel usually responds to these things in Gaza.

There you have it: for the low price of $815 million, American tax-payers have propped up an oppressive dictatorship, intensified a Palestinian civil war, enabled acts of terrorism against Israeli civilians, and provided the excuses Israel needs to further pummel the Palestinian population.

And all this tucked away in a supplemental budget. No, not even the regular US government budget, this is the extra money they spend just on fighting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But hey, at least they’re not talking to Hamas. Those guys are terrorists.

Exclusive: A Turkish "Vacation", a US Envoy, and an Israel-Syria Settlement

What could Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's vacation and the Obama strategy on the Middle East have in common?

Quite a lot.

Erdogan, after an intense workload from a showdown with Israel to success in Turkish elections, has decided that a three-day holiday in Hataywith his family is what the doctor has ordered.

That is, if Erdogan's doctor had a second degree in Politics. The two cities where the Prime Minister is relaxing, Antalya and Balikesir, were lost to opposition parties, as was Hatay, the only city with a coast on the Mediterranean.

And maybe that doctor's third degree is in Middle Eastern Politics. Hatay isn't exactly the top choice for a VIP holiday; instead, Erdogan may have noticed that the city is on the Syrian border.

However, where Hatay has been the site of Turkish-Syrian disputes in the past, today it may be the pretext for Erdogan to meet new friends in Damascus. For months up to December 2008, the Turkish Prime Minister was working with Syrian President Bashir al-Assad to arrange direct Israel-Syria talks. And, while the Gaza War was a pretty serious inconvenience to those plans, Assad's recent meeting with US envoys and signals from Damascus indicate that Syria is ready to enter negotiations with Tel Aviv.

Which is where the US, or to be precise, Obama envoy George Mitchell enters the picture. Mitchell is not one to take holidays, but it just so happens he will be arriving in the Middle East on Monday. His first stop? A visit with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Mitchell faces a tough task getting Netanyahu to agree, at least in the short-term, to talks on a two-state solution with Palestine. Pushing the Israeli Prime Minister towards discussions with the existing state of Syria would be a most welcome alternative.

A five-star vacation? Not exactly. Five-star diplomacy? Definitely.

Iran's Pride: Ahmadinejad Speech on Nuclear Programme

Related Post: Extract from Ahmadinejad Speech, Delegate Walkout at Durban Conference

A day after the Obama Administration announced that its officials would join Iran and other countries in direct talks, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke on National Nuclear Technology Day. Would this stop the American approach before it really started?

No.



Ahmadinejad, speaking from the historic city of Isfahan, highlighted the progress at the Bushehr plant with "the packaging of fuel and making the fuel ready to be put inside the reactor". The second achievement was the testing of two new types of centrifuges with a capacity "several times greater" than Iran's existing equipment.

The statement didn't announce, as some expected, that Bushehr was already operational. Ahmadinejad's reference on new centrifuges was too vague to prompt any shift in current intellligence estimates. Most importantly, there was nothing in the speech to indicate a move in Iran's programme toward military, rather than civilian, uses of nuclear energy.

So US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the new American position was unaltered, ""We do not attribute any particular meaning with respect to the range of issues that we are looking to address with the Iranians from this particular statement." Translation? Those issues, from Afghanistan to Iraq to other Middle Eastern discussions, are too important to be set aside for confrontation over Iran's nuclear plans. Instead, Clinton continued:

It would benefit the Iranians, in our view, if they cooperated with the international community, if they abided by a set of obligations and expectations that effect them and by which we believe they are bound -- and we are going continue to insist on that.

So the US-Iran engagement, while not exactly love and bliss, continues.

Muammer Qaddafi and the "Assassination Plot" against Barack Obama

Although it was emphasised that the President was not in an immediate danger, the Secret Service in Washington stated on Monday that a man who was plotted to kill Barack Obama had been arrested by the Turkish National Police two days before the President came to Turkey. According to the Saudi newspaper Al Watan, the suspect of Syrian descent confessed that he wanted to stab Obama with a knife.

In response to reports that the man in custody was carrying a press card of Al Jazeera,  the network's bureau chief in Ankara, Yucef al-Sharif, stated that the suspect had almost certainly forged the card as the Turkish security services knew everyone who worked in Al-Jazeera’s Ankara office.

So up to now, this plot seemed to be simply that of an extreme individual, just as it had with  four people were arrested in August 2008 on suspicion that they wanted to harm Obama. However, we may now have word that the assassination attempt is a new and ‘deep’ point of view to ‘shed light into Obama’s inauspiciousness’.

The source? Libya’s Muammer Qaddafi.

He said  that “Obama is a flicker of hope in the middle of the imperialist darkness,” so he feared that the President, whose “political discourse has been reasonable so far, breaking with the arrogance that was prevalent in statements by former US presidents”, could be assassinated.  Qaddafi points to the shootings of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King as historical examples.

Could it be that a Libya that gave up its clandestine weapons of mass destruction programs, put an end to its missile threat to  US bases in the Mediterranean, and paid compensation to the families of the Lockerbie victims  --- and who, in return, succeeded in getting US and international sanctions lifted --- is guarding against intensifying criticism of its ‘undemocratic’ regime?

Or is Qaddafi just being a concerned citizen of the world?