Transcript: General Petraeus on Afghanistan, Pakistan, & Other US Conflicts (21 February)

The head of US Central Command, General David Petraeus, appeared on NBC Television's Meet the Press, first to walk viewers through the US interventions in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Iraq and then to take a tour around other issues from Iran to Guantanamo Bay to the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy on gays and lesbians in the military.



In contrast to previous appearances, when Petraeus was fighting his own President to get his version of US foreign and military policy, this was a stay-the-course interview behind agreed approaches. The message on Afghanistan was long-haul effort to win. On Pakistan, it was supporting Pakistani forces to vanquish the Taliban. He spoke in generalities about maintaining pressure on Iran, and beyond his main agenda, on the tricky issues like Guantanamo Bay and "enhanced interrogation" (torture), he evaded any definitive statements.

MR. DAVID GREGORY: General David Petraeus joins us live from U.S. Central Command in Tampa, Florida.

General, welcome to MEET THE PRESS.

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS: Thanks, David. Good to be with you.


MR. GREGORY: Let's talk about Afghanistan. This NATO-U.S. offensive in southern Afghanistan is entering its second week with reports of resistance from the Taliban that our forces are facing. How formidable are the Taliban forces that we're confronting now?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, they're formidable. They're a bit disjointed at this point in time. The way the operation was conducted leaped over some of them. But there's tough fighting going on, without question.

If I could, David, in fact, I'd like to put this into context, because this is just the initial operation of what will be a 12- to 18-month campaign, as General McChrystal and his team have mapped it out. We've spent the last year getting the inputs right in Afghanistan, getting the structures and organizations necessary for a comprehensive civil-military campaign, putting the best leaders we can find in charge of those, helping with the development of the concepts, the counterinsurgency guidance General McChrystal has issued and so forth. And then now, with President Obama's policy announcement in December at West Point, the resourcing of that effort with the additional 30,000 forces that have now begun flowing, about 5,400 on the ground already, the additional civilians, the additional money, the additional authorization of Afghan security forces. So the inputs, we think, now are about right, and now we're starting to see the first of the output. And the Marja operation is the initial salvo, the initial operation in that overall campaign.

MR. GREGORY: The fight is going to be tough. As you have said, there are questions about how long the U.S. will be there in the fight, whether the Afghan army is capable enough to take over that fight. What should Americans expect as there's more engagement, as there's more fighting, in terms of U.S. losses?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, David, the same as in the surge in Iraq. When we go on the offensive, when we take away sanctuaries and safe havens from the Taliban and the other extremist elements that we and our Afghan and coalition partners are fighting in that country, they're going to fight back. And we're seeing that in Marja. We will see that in other areas. But we are going after them across the spectrum. We have more of our special, special operations forces going in on the ground, and you've seen the results, you've heard some of the initial results of that with more Afghan shadow governors, the Taliban shadow governors being captured, more of the high value targets being taken down. Then, through the spectrum of providing additional security for the people, supporting additional training of Afghan security forces, as I mentioned, 100,000 more of those over the course of the next year and a half or so. And then also, out on the local defense and even the reintegration of reconcilables effort that will be pursued and is being pursued with the Afghan government.

MR. GREGORY: But U.S. losses, significant?

GEN. PETRAEUS: They'll be tough. They were tough in Iraq. Look, I am--I have repeatedly said that these types of efforts are hard, and they're hard all the time. I don't use words like "optimist" or "pessimist," I use realist. And the reality is that it's hard. But we're there for a very, very important reason, and we can't forget that, David. We're in Afghanistan to ensure that it cannot once again be a sanctuary for the kind of attacks that were carried out on 9/11, which were planned initially in Kandahar, first training done in eastern Afghanistan before the attackers moved to Hamburg and then onto U.S. flight schools.

MR. GREGORY: As the offensive is taking place in southern Afghanistan, a major development in Pakistan, in neighboring Pakistan, as U.S. and Pakistani authorities captured a major Taliban figure, Abdul Baradar. What are you learning from him now that he's in custody?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, David, if I could, what we've learned, actually, in working with our Pakistani partners, who have done some very impressive work over the course of the last 10 months in particular, is that it's sometimes not best to talk a great deal about intelligence operations. And that's what I'll do here this morning.

What I will say is, again, I'd like to put this into context as well. Some 10 months or so ago, the Pakistani people, their political leaders, including major opposition figures and even the clerics, all recognized the threat posed to the very writ of governance of Pakistan. They saw this as the most pressing existential threat to their country, and they supported the Pakistani army and Frontier Corps as it went into Swat and the Malakand division of the northwest frontier province and then expanded its operations into the federally administered tribal areas. They've made some significant gains. They know they can't just clear and leave. They have to clear, hold, build and, over time, transition to local security forces. That's indeed what they're endeavoring to do. They are carrying out this fight. This is their fight against extremists internal to their country, threatening Pakistan, not them fighting our war on terror.

MR. GREGORY: Can I ask it a slightly different way, if you don't want to talk about what specifically is being learned? Presuming that both U.S. forces and Pakistani officials are doing the interrogation, do you wish you had the interrogation methods that were available to you during the Bush administration to get intelligence from a figure like this?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I have always been on the record, in fact, since 2003, with the concept of living our values. And I think that whenever we have, perhaps, taken expedient measures, they have turned around and bitten us in the backside. We decided early on in the 101st Airborne Division we're just going to--look, we just said we'd decide to obey the Geneva Convention, to, to move forward with that. That has, I think, stood elements in good stead. We have worked very hard over the years, indeed, to ensure that elements like the International Committee of the Red Cross and others who see the conduct of our detainee operations and so forth approve of them. Because in the cases where that is not true, we end up paying a price for it ultimately. Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are nonbiodegradables. They don't go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick in the Central Command area of responsibility. Beyond that, frankly, we have found that the use of the interrogation methods in the Army Field Manual that was given, the force of law by Congress, that that works. And...

MR. GREGORY: Well...

GEN. PETRAEUS: And that is our experience...

MR. GREGORY: In terms of recruitment threats...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...in, in the years that we have implemented it.

MR. GREGORY: In terms of recruitment threats, do you consider the prison at Guantanamo Bay in the same way? Do you consider it to be related, or do you think, in other words, should it be closed, or do you believe it was short-sighted to set a deadline certain for its closure?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I've been on the record on that for well over a year as well, saying that it should be closed. But it should be done in a responsible manner. So I'm not seized with the issue that it won't be done by a certain date. In fact, I think it is--it's very prudent to ensure that, as we move forward with that, wherever the remaining detainees are relocated and so forth, whatever jurisdiction is used in legal cases and so forth, is really thought through and done in a very pragmatic and sensible manner.

MR. GREGORY: One more question about--on the subject of terrorism. You often say when it comes to politics, you like to go around the minefield rather than go through it. But this is a question, really, related to your experience and your expertise. In the past couple of weeks, there's been a big debate about what kind of threat al-Qaeda poses directly to the United States. Vice President Biden considers another 9/11 type attack unlikely. Former Vice President Cheney, who you served under as well, said that he disagrees with that, that 9/11 is indeed possible again, this time using a nuclear or biological weapon. Again, appealing to your expertise, where do you come down on that question? What is the specific threat that al-Qaeda poses now?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, let me just express how we assess al-Qaeda in the Central Command area of responsibility, which happens to be where the bulk of al-Qaeda is located; although, certainly, the network extends beyond our area. And our assessment is that over the course of the last year or so, al-Qaeda has been diminished in that area, that Saudi Arabia and the other Arabian Peninsula countries have continued to make gains with the exception, obvious exception of Yemen--we can talk more about that if you want--that the, the progress has continued against al-Qaeda in Iraq, although, again, there are certainly remaining threats there. And we see those periodically shown in the form of horrific, barbaric attacks. There's been progress against al-Qaeda's senior leadership in the federally-administered tribal areas as well. So, as a general assessment, again, diminished. But, having said that, al-Qaeda is a flexible, adaptable--it may be barbaric, it may believe in extremist ideology, as it does, but this is a thinking, adaptive enemy, and we must maintain pressure on it everywhere.

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: It is a network, and it takes a network to keep the pressure on a network. And that is, indeed, what we're endeavoring to do.

MR. GREGORY: But, general, my question is do you think they want to pull off another 9/11 or smaller bore attacks?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well I think al-Qaeda is assessing to pull off any kind of attack. I mean, you saw the Abdulmutallab attempt on--the, the would-be Detroit bomber. Again, this is an enemy that is looking for any opportunity to attack our partners and, indeed, our homeland, and we have to keep that in mind. There's no question about its desire to continue to attack our country and our allies.

MR. GREGORY: Let me ask you about Iran. International inspectors think that, in fact, that country is moving toward production of an actual nuclear warhead. How close is that regime to going nuclear?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well it's--it is certainly a ways off, and we'll probably hear more on that from the International Atomic Energy Agency when it meets here in the, in the next week or so. It has clearly--its new director has expressed his concern about the activities. There's no question that some of those activities have advanced during that time. There's also a new National Intelligence Estimate being developed by our intelligence community in the United States. We have over the course of the last year, of course, pursued the engagement track. I think that no one at the end of this time can say that the United States and the rest of the world has--have not given Iran every opportunity to resolve the issues diplomatically. That puts us on a solid foundation now to go on what is termed the "pressure track." And that's the course in which we're embarked now. The U.N. Security Council countries, of course, expressing their concern. Russia now even piling on with that. We'll have to see where that goes and whether that can, indeed, send the kind of signal to Iran about the very serious concerns that the countries in the region and, indeed, the entire world have about Iran's activities in the nuclear program and in its continued arming, funding, training, equipping and directing of proxy extremist elements that still carry out attacks...

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...in Iraq, albeit on a much limited basis, but still do that there, and also pose security challenges in southern Lebanon, Gaza, and elsewhere.

MR. GREGORY: But over the span of now two administrations so much has not worked in terms of the pressure option on Iran. Can a single country, be it the United States or Israel, deter Iran from going nuclear without a military strike?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, again, I think we have to embark on the pressure track next, but certainly they're, needless to say--you know, I was asked a couple of Sundays ago on another show, "Well, tell me, General, about your plans to take down Iran's nuclear program." And the way I answered was to, to note that it is the job of combatant commanders to consider the what-ifs, to be prepared for contingency plans. I'm not saying this in a provocative way. I'm merely saying that we have responsibilities, the American people and our commander-in-chief and so forth expect us to think those through and to be prepared for the what-ifs. And we try not to be irresponsible in that regard.

MR. GREGORY: In our remaining moments, I want to cover a couple of other areas. Iraq: Of all the countries within Central Command that you oversee, 20, would you consider Iraq to be the most democratic?

GEN. PETRAEUS: It's interesting. I've actually posed that question to think-tankers and others, and I think it actually may be. Now, we hope that that is sustained through the elections and beyond 7 March. Right now it--I don't think there's any question right now that the Iraqi government, however imperfect--and this is "Iraqracy" at work, not necessarily Western democracy. But this is a government that is representative of all of the people, it is responsive to the people, it, its leaders know they are facing the electorate on 7 March. There's a fierce campaign, there's high political drama that's gone on. Some of it is of concern in, in a substantial way to elements to the Iraqi population and leadership. But we hope that this will move through, that the elections will be, as were the provincial elections in January 2009, deemed free and fair by the United Nations, which is very much supportive of this effort, needless to say; and that, indeed, the process of selecting the next prime minister, the next government and the other leadership will be a smooth one. Although, frankly, we expect that it is going to take some time. And, again, we do expect that there's going to be considerable drama and emotion that accompanies it, and it will be a period of months, at the very least, before that second election, if you will, the election of 7 March, which selects the parliament, the council of representatives; and they then will do the wheeling and dealing and the maneuvering to select the next prime minister and the key ministers and president.

MR. GREGORY: General, with the, the military engaged in two wars, with a country fighting terrorism in other forms as well, is this an appropriate time for the military to revisit the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, there's a process at work here now, David, and I, and I think that it is a very sound and good process. The secretary and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs announced, when they were testifying, the creation of a review be headed by General Carter Hamm, U.S. Army four-star, and DOD General Counsel Jay Johnson. I don't think this has gotten enough prominence frankly. It is very important to this overall process. It will provide a rigorous analysis of the views of the force on the possible change. It will suggest the policies that could be used to implement a change if it, if it does come to that, so that it could be as uneventful as it was, say, in the U.K. or the Israeli militaries or, indeed, in our own CIA and FBI. And then it will assess the effects, the possible effects on readiness, recruiting and retention.

MR. GREGORY: What do you say?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Very important for that process to move forward. We'll hear from the chiefs, the Joint Chiefs on this I think, probably their personal assessments and personal views in the course of the next week or so...

MR. GREGORY: But...

GEN. PETRAEUS: ...when they're on Capitol Hill. And then the geographic combatant commanders, the other combatant commanders and I, will have our turn on Capitol Hill in a few weeks.

MR. GREGORY: But what, but what, what do you say, General? Should gays and lesbians be able to serve openly in the military?

GEN. PETRAEUS: Well, I'll provide that, again, on Capitol Hill if, if asked at that time. I, I know you'd like to make some news here this morning. I support what our secretary and, and chairman have embarked on here. I will--I'm fully participating in that process. And I think it's very important, again, that these issues be handled and discussed and addressed by this review that will be so important in informing decisions as we move forward.

MR. GREGORY: Do you think soldiers on the ground in the field care one way or the other if their comrades in arms are gay or lesbian?

GEN. PETRAEUS: I'm not sure that they do. We'll see. Again, that's why this review panel. You know, all we have are, are personal soundings to go on, and I've certainly done some of that myself. I mean, you've heard General Powell, who was the chairman when the policy was implemented, had a big hand in that, who said that, yes indeed, the earth has revolved around the sun a number of times since that period 15 months ago. And you've heard a variety of anecdotal input. We have experienced, certainly, in the CIA and the FBI, I know. I served in fact in combat with individuals who were gay and who were lesbian in combat situations and, frankly, you know, over time you said, "Hey, how's, how's this guy's shooting?" Or "How is her analysis," or what have you. So--but we'll see. Again, that's the importance of this review that will be conducted by General Hamm and also by the DOD general counsel. I think it is hugely important that we have the answers from the questions that they'll be asking in a very methodical way, something we've not done before because of the emotion and the sensitivity of this issue.

MR. GREGORY: All right, we'll leave it there. General Petraeus, thank you very much this morning.

GEN. PETRAEUS: Great to be with you, David. Thanks again.

The Latest from Iran (19 February): Finding the Real Stories

2100 GMT: Human Rights Front. The Iran Human Rights Documentation Center has issued a statement challenging Iran's presentation on Monday at the UN Human Rights Commission: "United Nations human rights experts must immediately investigate Iran’s prisons, including allegations of rape, torture, and the detention of people for peacefully exercising their rights to freedoms of expression and assembly."

NEW Iran & the “Non-Bomb”: The Real Story on Tehran’s Nuclear Programme
NEW Iran Book Update: No More Good Reads in Tehran
NEW Iran: Are The Banks Failing?
Iran Document: Today’s Mousavi-Karroubi Meeting (18 February)
Iran Analysis: The “Now What” Moment (Farhi)
Iran: Getting to the Point on Detentions & Human Rights (Sadr)
Iran: Another Rethink on Green Opposition (Ansari)
Latest on Iran (18 February): Watching on Many Fronts

1910 GMT: And A Prisoner Released. Javad Askarian, an aide to Mehdi Karroubi, was released yesterday after a week in detention.

According to Saham News The veteran of the Iran-Iraq war had been sent to Evin prison on 10 February after being summoned by the intelligence ministry for providing “some explanations.”


1905 GMT: Another Political Prisoner. Iranian authorities have sentenced student activist Morteza Samiari to six years in prison. Samiari, an executive member of Iran’s national student union, was arrested because he received an open and official invitation to meet with representatives of a European Parliamentary Committee in Tehran.

1900 GMT: Your Friday Prayer Summary. Hardman Ahmad Khatami taking charge in Tehran today, and he is ready to gloat. Apparently "rioters" did not even bother to show up on 22 Bahman, disappointing the international media (you know, the reporters who were bused directly from the press centre to Azadi Square and back, not stopping and not Passing Go on the way) who wanted to relay “disturbances and clashes” rather than reflect the “epic” support of people for the Islamic Republic.

1740 GMT: Moscow's Slapdown. It's news that Russia has demanded "clear explanations" from Tehran about its nuclear programme. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said:

We are very alarmed and we cannot accept this, that Iran is refusing to cooperate with the IAEA. For about 20 years, the Iranian leadership carried out its clandestine nuclear program without reporting it to the IAEA. I I do not understand why there was such secrecy.

But it's even more news that Iranian state media is highlighting the apparent division between Tehran and Moscow.

1600 GMT: BloggingHeads. As it's a slowish afternoon, I've been listening to this discussion between Steve Clemons of the New America Foundation and former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum about Iran. These are two of the most prominent analytic voices in Washington.

Striking to hear, therefore, the issue of whether Iran should be treated with respect and dignity reduced to "this is a country whose top three exports are pistachios, carpets, and saffron...aside from oil and gas, so it doesn't have a lot of claim to respect". And troubling to ask, after all 36 minutes....

How much knowledge of events inside Iran emerges in this discussion?



1500 GMT: We Pause for Levity. OK, this may not be serious news coverage, but it's Friday afternoon and I am already smiling at the breathless declaration, "Iran's Navy on Friday took the delivery of the first indigenously designed and developed guided missile destroyer Jamaran in the presence of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei."

Then the photo comes in. I think only two words will suffice: Caption Competition:



1350 GMT: Political Prisoner Update. Radio Zamaneh summarises last night's releases: Omid Mehregan, author, translator, and journalist released after two weeks; Ardavan Tarakemeh, film student and cinema critic, on $30,000 bail, after more than three weeks; Orouj Ali-Mohammadi, former governor of Tabriz; Safoura Tofangchi (her two daughters and husband are still detained); Mohammad Dardkeshan, a political activist with ties to the late Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, after two months.

1315 GMT: The Supreme Leader Says "No Nukes". Ayatollah Khamenei on the draft IAEA report: "Iran will not get emotional in its response to these nonsensical statements, because we have often said that our religious tenets and beliefs consider these kinds of weapons of mass destruction to be symbols of genocide and are, therefore, forbidden and considered to be haram (religiously banned). This is why we do not believe in atomic bombs and weapons and do not seek them."

1245 GMT: Well, Here's a Nuclear Surprise. Not. Iran's envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, called the IAEA's draft report "baseless". He said the cited documents were "fabricated and thus do not have any validity".

1240 GMT: The Rise of Rahim-Mashai. Yet another role for President Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai (see 0815 GMT): he has been appointed the President's deputy with full authority for "Rahyan-e Nour", the caravan trips to the battlegrounds of Khuzestan in southwestern Iran.

1100 GMT: A new Green website, Mardomkhabar, has been launched.

1055 GMT: The authorities are still jittery about a show by the opposition. Tehran police chief Ahmad Reza Radan has warned that those arrested during the celebration of Chaharshanbe Souri ("Fire Festival") will not be freed until the end of Iran's New Year celebrations.

1045 GMT: Economy Watch. Khabar Online has recycled the attack of MP Mus al-Reza Servati on the President's budget --- the Parliament would question Ahmadinejad over "irregularities", but is prevented from doing so by political considerations --- by reprinting the interview in English.

Khabar is also featuring an article, "Experts are warning on a drop in the oil production of the country," even as Iran's Oil Ministry is seeking a 25 percent increase by 2015.

0938 GMT: Iran's Nuclear Spin. Press TV is portraying the International Atomic Energy Agency report as "two-sided", verifying "the non-diversion of declared nuclear material" but "call[ing] on Iran to further discuss and cooperate on alleged issues".

0930 GMT: Punishing the Cleric. Kalemeh claims that Molana Abdol-Hamid, the Sunni Friday Prayer leader in Zahedan in eastern Iran has been prevented from leaving the country.

In his Friday Prayer address last week Abdol-Hamid described the Islamic Republic as a system that gives equal freedom to both pro- and anti-Government groups and allows voices of opposition to be heard: “The people of Iran brought the Revolution to victory to achieve its goals and now they demand the reviewing and realization of those goals.”

0925 GMT: Political Prisoner Update. Reporters and Humanright Activists in Iran reports that Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafar Dolatabadi has personally handed down a 16-count indictment to Bahareh Hedayat during an interrogation session at Evin Prison. Charges include spreading propaganda against the regime, taking part in post-election events, talking to foreign media organizations, insulting the Supreme Leader, insulting the President, and conspiring to act against national security.

0820 GMT: It is reported that the prominent German insurers "Münchner Rück" and "Allianz Versicherung" (the largest insurance firm in Europe) are pulling out of Iran because of the political situation.

0815 GMT: Another Office for Rahim-Mashai. President Ahmadinejad's Chief of Staff, Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, may be widely disliked, but he continues to pile up the honours of office. The latest title is chief of pilgrimage and culture of Razavi Province, whose capital is the important religious city of Mashhad.

0810 GMT: Economy Watch. The leading reformist MP Nasrullah Torabi has criticised the flaws and the deceptive figures in the Ahmadinejad budget, claiming it is based on an estimate of 12-15% inflation rather than the true figure of 20-25% and that the development budget is only 20% of the total expenditure rather than the declared 35%.

0740 GMT: Friday is likely to be a Distraction Day. The "Western" media are likely to be possessed and obsessed by the nuclear story, running the Iran Imminent Threat headlines. They will do that even though the real story is that Tehran is nowhere close to nuclear weapons capability. How do we know? Well, because the Obama Administration said so on Thursday --- see our separate analysis as well as the draft of the International Atomic Energy report.

In Iran, the regime will maintain its post-22 Bahman strategy, declaring that all is now well while condemning foreign instigation of a supposedly marginal protest. Friday Prayers in Tehran will be one venue for the display.

We'll be looking elsewhere, however. The meeting between Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi (see separate document) was a big signal yesterday that the opposition is re-assessing and preparing for its next surge. Theirmessage from the two men was "Be Patient. We're Working on This"; we'll be looking for reactions.

And of course the "establishment" challenge to President Ahmadinejad continues to pick up momentum. Economy Watch today has a piece assessing the state of Iran's banking sector.

We also report this morning from the  Cultural Front: it appears that the Iranian Government is blocking the booklovers' social site Goodreads as a threat to the regime.

Iran & the "Non-Bomb": The Real Story on Tehran's Nuclear Programme

The dominant narrative in the "Western" media today will be "Iran Is Working on a Bomb", based on the recycling (but not necessarily close reading) of the draft report from the International Atomic Energy Agency.

There is a twist, however, in the tale. Some folks in the US Government are trying to re-direct the story. Reuters, which was the first agency to run the Bomb Threat headline, now reports:

Senior Obama administration officials said on Thursday they were struck by the number of significant technical problems Iran appears to be encountering on the road to a nuclear weapon.

The U.S. officials, briefing reporters on a new International Atomic Energy Agency report, said Tehran is showing more evidence of trying to move toward a nuclear weapons capability but may be running out of uranium.

Iran’s Nukes: The Latest IAEA Report (18 February)

"The fact that they have increased the level of non-cooperation indicates to me that unless we can mount the international pressure to stop it, this program is heading more and more in the direction of seeking a weapons capability," one official said.

It may take Iran longer to build a weapon because of the technical problems, the official said, "but the pattern of behavior is one that I think is very disturbing."

Interpretation? The Obama Administration's drive will be to "keep the lid" on Iran by holding out for an uranium swap deal with tight international controls and supervision, by pushing directed sanctions against essential equipment for Iran's programme, and by limiting Tehran's access to uranium.

That's the real story here, not the extrapolations and mis-interpretations of an IAEA report which actually said little new. Iran is not on the verge of The Bomb:

The [Administration] official said Iran seems to be "at least several years" away from accumulating sufficient quantities of 20 percent enriched uranium that would be necessary for converting into bomb-grade material. Uranium enrichment of 90 percent or more is needed for a weapon.

Israel, Hamas, and Russia: Who is in Bed with the Bear?

In June 2009, we noted that the Netanyahu Government was trying to use the Kremlin as leverage against the pressure of the Obama Administration as it manoeuvred over the peace process with Palestine and other Arab states. And we added that Israeli officials might want to remember that the multipolar works in more than one direction: Moscow had just welcomed Palestinian Authority representatives as part of its interest in the Middle East developments.

After eight months, Moscow has found more space for its initiative, welcoming Hamas's Khaled Meshal on Monday. Amidst the inability of the Obama Administration to make headway on the peace process, Kremlin has remembered and upheld one of the actors "forgotten" by Washington and the European Union.

Middle East Inside Line: Hamas in Russia, Iran FM on “Crazy Israel”, Palestine Talks

On the one hand, this tells  the Israelis that Russia's relationship with Palestinian factions cannot be broken easily and, on the other hand, it sends a signal to Washington that Moscow's can influence the course of the process in the region. Israeli officials could not summon Moscow's Ambassador "on a lower chair" but had to send a letter of protest asking Moscow to clarify its intentions.

The Kremlin said that Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was the highest-level official Meshal would meet. Its ambassador assured Israel that the visit did not signal a swing in Moscow's policy toward Hamas, and he said that Lavrov would reiterate its stance that the Islamist movement must abide by conditions to recognize Israel, give up violence, and honor past peace accords.

Meanwhile, Meshal declared:

I don't see any prospects on the Palestinian, the Syrian or any other track of the Middle East process because the Israeli leadership is a leadership of war, aggression and occupation.

It's enough that Moscow tells the world that Hamas is a movement of freedom fighters, not a terrorist group.

Palestine Document: Abbas Interview "I Will Not Back Down From Demands"

On Sunday, in an interview with Der Spiegel, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, expressed his disappointment with the Obama Administration, saying that Barack Obama has changed the route of the negotiations by dropping demands for a freeze on Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Abbas said that there was hope for an agreement with Ehud Olmert, but the Israeli Prime Minister had to leave the office earlier due to corruption accusations. Another complication, implied by Abbas, was that Hamas had rejected a Palestinian reconciliation agreement with Abbas' party, Fatah, because of Iran.

Palestine Special: All Along Israel’s West Bank Watchtower

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the whole world is waiting for you to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for talks. When is this finally going to happen?

ABBAS: That depends on Israel. We Palestinians have always said that we are willing to negotiate, but only if Israel stops settlement construction completely and recognizes the 1967 borders.



SPIEGEL: Why are you standing in the way of talks by setting these preconditions?

ABBAS: They aren't preconditions, but steps that are overdue after the first phase of the international roadmap for peace. Unlike Israel, we have met our obligations: We have recognized Israel's right to exist, and we are combating violent Palestinian groups. The Americans, the Europeans and even the Israelis have acknowledged this.

SPIEGEL: At least Netanyahu has ordered a 10-month freeze on settlements, something no other Israeli prime minister has done. Wouldn't it be your turn now to take a step in his direction?

ABBAS: It isn't a real moratorium, because a few thousand housing units are still being built in the West Bank, and Jerusalem is completely exempted from the settlement freeze.

SPIEGEL: You negotiated with Netanyahu's predecessor, Ehud Olmert, even though settlement construction was continuing without restrictions at the time. Aren't you applying a double standard here?

ABBAS: In a way, yes. But I have asked Olmert to freeze settlement construction every time we met. Besides, Barack Obama was elected president of the United States in the interim. In his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo, he called for a complete freeze on settlements. When the American president does this, I cannot accept anything less.

SPIEGEL: But now Obama is only talking about Israeli "restraint" in building settlements. At his request, you even agreed to a symbolic handshake with Netanyahu in New York.

ABBAS: I was initially very optimistic after Obama won the election. His Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, kept coming to us and promised to urge the Israelis to stop settlement construction completely. Mitchell said that the negotiations would only resume after a moratorium. The American government suddenly backed away from this position in September.

SPIEGEL: Are you saying that it's the Americans' fault that things aren't progressing?

ABBAS: Naturally, I'm not pleased with the Americans' change of course. But I will not back down.

SPIEGEL: What do you expect from Obama?

ABBAS: I still hope that he will revive the peace process. At least he has to convince the Israelis to announce a complete freeze on construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem for a few months.

SPIEGEL: Apparently the pressure Obama has exerted on Israel until now hasn't been very effective.

ABBAS: It isn't my job to tell the Americans how to deal with Israel. But they have options. They are, after all, the most powerful country in the world. Obama said that a Palestinian state constitutes a vital American interest. The president is under an obligation to apply all of his energy to achieving peace and the vision of a Palestinian state.

SPIEGEL: Could it be that the real reason for the current standstill is that you don't trust Netanyahu?

ABBAS: What he has said so far, at any rate, leads me to question whether he really wants a solution. He has not expressly accepted the two-state solution.

SPIEGEL: In a speech at Bar-Ilan University in June 2009, Netanyahu said: "If the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state, we are ready to agree to a real peace agreement, a demilitarized Palestinian state side by side with the Jewish state."

ABBAS: You see, he's the one who is setting preconditions. He declares Jerusalem as the "undivided and eternal capital of the State of Israel." He refuses to discuss the question of Palestinian refugees. And he insists that we accept Israel in advance as a Jewish state.

SPIEGEL: But the principle of the two-state solution must mean that the one state is for the Palestinians and the other is for the Jews. Why do you have a problem with recognizing Israel as a Jewish state?

ABBAS: We recognized the State of Israel within the 1967 borders. Whether it defines itself as a Jewish state, a Hebrew state or a Zionist state is its business. As far as I'm concerned, it can call itself what it pleases. But he cannot force me to agree with this definition.

SPIEGEL: Israel wouldn't be Israel without a Jewish majority.

ABBAS: It is a fact that the majority of the citizens of the State of Israel are Jews. But it isn't within my power to define Israel's character.

SPIEGEL: But with such remarks, you create the suspicion among Israelis that you actually hope to eventually overcome this Jewish majority, particularly when you continue to insist that all Palestinians expelled in 1948 have the right of return.

ABBAS: I understand these concerns. Today, there are 5 million Palestinian refugees. I'm not saying that they all have to return, but we need a fair solution. United Nations Resolution 194 ...

SPIEGEL: ... of Dec. 11, 1948 ...

ABBAS: ... states that those who relinquish their right of return must receive appropriate financial compensation for doing so. In other words, the solution has been on the table for 60 years, so what's the problem?

SPIEGEL: Netanyahu's predecessor Ehud Olmert made you the best offer: The establishment of a Palestinian state on far more than 90 percent of the West Bank, a division of Jerusalem and the return of a few thousand refugees to Israel. Why did you reject it?

ABBAS: I didn't reject it. Olmert resigned from office because of his personal problems.

SPIEGEL: You waited too long. If you had accepted, most Israelis would probably have been willing to ignore the corruption charges against Olmert. Former Israeli Foreign Minister Abba Eban once said that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity ...

ABBAS: ... to miss an opportunity. Yes, I'm familiar with the quote. But we did seize the opportunity when Olmert was in office. We negotiated very seriously with him. We exchanged maps showing the locations of the borders. Then he left office. His successor Tzipi Livni lost the subsequent election. So where is the opportunity that we missed?

SPIEGEL: If you had accepted Olmert's offer early enough, it would have strengthened those who support the peace process. Instead, you now have to make do with Messrs. Netanyahu and Lieberman.

ABBAS: That's right. We were in a race against time to reach a solution. But I wasn't the one who thwarted an agreement. Olmert resigned from office shortly before the finish line.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, the Palestinian camp is deeply divided. Your Fatah movement was unable to prevent Hamas's violent takeover in the Gaza Strip in 2007. How do you intend to guarantee that the same thing won't happen in the West Bank?

ABBAS: We have complete control over the security apparatus in the West Bank. The situation is 100 percent stabile. We will not allow the same thing to happen in the West Bank that happened in Gaza.

SPIEGEL: As long as Hamas controls Gaza, Israel will never agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state.

ABBAS: We spent two-and-a-half years conducting a dialogue sponsored by Egypt to seek reconciliation. It culminated in a document that we, representing Fatah, signed on Oct. 15, 2009. To this day, Hamas refuses to sign this document.

SPIEGEL: How can reconciliation be possible between the secular outlook of your Fatah movement and the Islamist worldview of Hamas?

ABBAS: We are a people with different religious and political sentiments. Some are extremely religious, some are strictly secular and others are moderate. But we have been accustomed to living together for the past 60 years. All of these movements exist within the PLO.

SPIEGEL: Would Marwan Barghuti, the hero of the second Intifada, who is imprisoned in Israel, be someone who could bring about reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas?

ABBAS: Marwan Barghuti is part of the leadership of Fatah. He is a member of the central committee of our movement. If he were released, it would be very advantageous for us. But not even Barghuti will be able to bring about reconciliation on his own. There is an external reason why Hamas isn't signing the document.

SPIEGEL: You are referring to Iran.

ABBAS: That's what you said.

SPIEGEL: Mr. President, you have announced that you will not run again for the office of president of the Autonomous Authority. Is this an admission that you will no longer be able to make the Palestinian dream of a sovereign state a reality?

ABBAS: That's absolutely correct. The road to a political solution is blocked. For that reason, I see no purpose in remaining president of the Autonomous Authority. And I also have a warning for the world: Do not drive the Palestinians to the point of total hopelessness.