TM Connect


Use "My TM" for log in & register.

Taylor Marsh has been writing on line since 1996, with the archives provided here a representation of that work.

Tag Archives | human rights

With Backdrop of Rampant Rape in Congo, Clinton Snaps

By on 11 August 2009

–bumped–

“To avoid getting raped, after 6 p.m., women are not allowed to go out of the house,” said Maria Bitondo, who said she was among three women attacked by a soldier last month. “With the soldiers here, no woman is safe to go out and walk. We do not even go to the bathroom at night.” On Monday, a coalition of 88 aid groups called the operation, which is supported by the United Nations, “a human tragedy” and urged Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, who is to visit eastern Congo on Tuesday, to push for better civilian protection. Clinton has vowed to make the prevention of sexual violence a priority in Congo, where the United States pays about a quarter of the cost of U.N. peacekeeping efforts. – Congo’s Rape Epidemic Worsens During U.S.-Backed Military Operation

It’s the You talkin’ to me?, secretary of state edition.

Secretary Clinton, continuing her Africa trip, was not amused when the translation came across from a questioner asking her to respond on what her husband would think about Chinese financial contracts in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, it seems the translation was screwed up and the questioner was asking Clinton about Obama, not her husband.

As you can see in the video, Clinton was ticked off at being asked what a male leader thought, especially when her purpose in this region is to draw a bull’s eye on the rape and torture of women in the Congo.

The United States Secretary of State obviously didn’t appreciate the misogyny, which is rampant in the Congo and other African nations, born out by the questioner expecting her to “channel” a male. Assistant Secretary P.J. Crowley responded.

“The Secretary of State is going to Goma Tuesday, to draw attention to the plight of women who are victims of rape as a weapon of war” in Congo, he said. “She did react to what she heard,” Crowley explained. Even if the interpreter mixed up the translation, he said, “you can’t separate the question from the setting.”

As the Washington Post story quoted at the top reports, Congolese President Joseph Kabila has declared “zero tolerance” regarding sexual assaults and violence against women, but so far it’s just words.

There can be no doubt that Clinton came off harsh in this setting. A little righteous indignation from the most powerful female persona on the planet was in order, especially considering women in the Congo are in danger most of the hours of their waking and sleeping lives.

CNN reports that after the event Clinton and the questioner “seemed to have reached an understanding,” according to Crowley.

But seriously, you cannot bring basic human rights to women in places like the Congo if the men there don’t wake up to the respect women deserve, highlighting how far we have to go if not even the U.S. secretary of state is treated with respect.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Open Season

By on 04 August 2009

“We’ve addressed these rumors before. They are nothing more than typical Washington parlor games. It’s disappointing that while we are focused on reviving the economy and fighting two wars, others spend their time pointing fingers in an attempt to promote their own status.” – White House Deputy Chief of Staff Jim Messina, via Wall Street Journal

Photobucket

Whether the Wall Street Journal has a solid story amidst the wild-eyed, anonymously sourced writing that breathlessly offers that the Administration is “holding discussions that could result in White House counsel Gregory Craig leaving his post,” is unknowable right now. The White House, the only source on record for the piece, is having none of it, with Emanuel’s office quick to swat it down.

What isn’t really in question is that Greg Craig has not served his President well.

The state secrets issue is a problematic stance, but it’s hardly shocking once Obama became part of the Presidents’ Club. And the idea of closing Gitmo isn’t an issue either, even though The Weekly Standard wants to make it one. Gitmo has to be closed, though no one is doubting that doing it won’t be easy. If it were we’d have done it already. Besides, keeping Gitmo open is untenable in an Obama presidency. But the real tipping point for Greg Craig was when he put Pres. Obama in a place where he had to reverse himself on releasing detainee photos, in a flip flop that revealed horrific legal advice that exposed the President to his adversaries, while it was clear that the timing of the release would coincide to Obama hitting Cairo just as the photos were to be released. It was a White House amateur hour moment, likely delivered, at least in part, through bad advice from Craig.

When you couple this with DADT, which is clearly under the national security umbrella, which Craig seems to partially hold up, the decision to not have the President issue an executive order (as Truman did on desegregating the military), but instead let legislation snake through at a snail’s pace, while pictures of a hunky fighter jock about to be kicked out of the Air Force blast across the country, clearly presents Obama look like a man who doesn’t deliver on promises. When you have Air Force Lt. Col. Victor Fehrenbach, who is about to be discharged even after heroic service, saying that explicitly, well, it’s a direct hit no commander in chief takes lightly from a vaunted military man who also has the backing of military groups across the country.

FISA is yet another issue where Greg Craig’s excuses for Obama remain incredulous to this day. But it was foreshadowing of the bad advice to come. From 2008:

“This was a deliberative process, and not something that was shooting from the hip,” Mr. Craig said. “Obviously, there was an element of what’s possible here. But he concluded that with FISA expiring, that it was better to get a compromise than letting the law expire.”

Greg Craig may or may not lose his job, but so far, he’s not done the President much good.

It may not be fair to judge it like this, but it just seems like this WSJ piece is part of the shotgun blast coverage Pres. Obama is now getting since his poll numbers started to soften and he’s made himself vulnerable over the horrific mismanagement on health care messaging, which culminated in the botched press conference that led to the “beer summit” that took Obama further off message on health care. While Republicans dug in and down, continuing their well funded grass roots campaign in the void, with nothing short of well financed and well organized mobs bombarding legislators in their home districts, which will continue throughout the recess.

Greg Sargent asks the bottom line question: Is Obama’s Vaunted Political Operation Getting Outworked By Tea-Baggers?

Going after Craig is just a side show for the real battle, which is to take down Obama by scuttling health care. So Republicans are hitting the President wherever they can. It’s open season on all things Obama.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Pres. Bill Clinton in North Korea

By on 03 August 2009

–updated–

TM UPDATE 4.4 @ 10:10: Nobody commands more respect around the globe than former President Bill Clinton, especially in North Korea. This is being proven out by the developing story that the North Koreans reportedly contacted the relatives of the girls to tell them they’d surrender the journalists to Bill Clinton, something that’s been in the works for weeks. MSNBC was the first to report this part of the story. Politico’s Mike Allen has more. The White House gave their blessing, but from what is known now, was not involved in any way in actually facilitating WJC going. That was specifically on request from the North Koreans, at least as we know now. It’s a “solely private mission,” says the White House:

“While this solely private mission to secure the release of two Americans is on the ground, we will have no comment. We do not want to jeopardize the success of former President Clinton’s mission.”

To add, it does set the stage for an interesting moment of potential opportunity, so the mind reels at what else could possibly be discussed, however informally that would be.

________original post below_________

Scott Snyder, a North Korea expert for the nonprofit Asia Foundation, said Clinton’s standing as a world statesman carried weight with Pyongyang. “The North Koreans have a lot of nostalgia for the end of the Clinton administration,” he said. – LA Times

Photobucket

According to multiple media sources, former President Bill Clinton has landed in North Korea to try to negotiate a way out of journalists Euna Lee and Laura Ling imprisonment. Neither the White House or State is commenting.

From the Washington Post:

Former president Bill Clinton landed in North Korea on Tuesday, North Korean state radio reported, on an apparent mission to negotiate the release of two American journalists who have been sentenced to 12 years of hard labor.

South Korea’s Yonhap News Agency and China’s official New China News Agency also reported that Clinton had arrived at an airport in Pyongyang, the North Korean capital, on a flight from the United States. …

Let’s hope the Big Dog can get this done. I’m sure Al Gore, for whom the women were working when they were arrested, knows the situation is in very good hands. Though no one and I mean no one is talking.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Beware Mission Creep in Afghanistan

By on 31 July 2009
Photobucket
Bagram

It’s edging towards being official. Having supported Obama’s initial Afghanistan policy, it’s becoming abundantly clear that we’re edging closer to no man’s land on policy:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is preparing a new strategy that calls for major changes in the way U.S. and other NATO troops there operate, a vast increase in the size of Afghan security forces and an intensified military effort to root out corruption among local government officials, according to several people familiar with the contents of an assessment report that outlines his approach to the war.

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who took charge of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan last month, appears inclined to request an increase in American troops to implement the new strategy, which aims to use more unconventional methods to combat the growing Taliban insurgency, according to members of an advisory group he convened to work on the assessment. Such a request could receive a chilly reception at the White House, where some members of President Obama’s national security team have expressed reluctance about authorizing any more deployments. …

Let’s hope the “chilly reception at the White House” includes a definitive no to go along with it. That is unless McChrystal can make a conclusive case, including other strategy shifts currently happening in Afghanistan.

The article above follows the one yesterday on drones being retasked to hit Taliban, not al Qaeda, which is yet another shift in strategy since McChrystal came aboard. (Also see Peter Bergen’s June piece on drones, which he says have served a purpose in FATA.)

Barbara Starr on the McChrystal’s likely coming request, which will be made after the Afghan war review that’s due around August 14th, during the congressional recess:

The top U.S. commander in Afghanistan is expected to ask the Obama administration for additional troops and equipment, according to a senior U.S. military official familiar with Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s thinking. Gen. Stanley McChrystal’s report on the war’s status will be delivered in August, the source says.

The request will be for troops and equipment for conducting intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, as well as more assets to deal with roadside bombs and explosives, said the official, who declined to be identified because McChrystal’s request has not been formally transmitted to the Pentagon.

Gates has signaled he’s open to an increase, but no one in the Administration has given signs about the ongoing mission in Afghanistan.

One of Obama’s primary reasons for expanding U.S. troop pressence at the beginning of his presidency was the goal of keeping Afghanistan from becoming a failed state. It seems clear that is no longer a danger, with Taliban forces and their influences becoming the greater challenge, especially with corruption running rampant across Afghanistan.

Recently, there was also an article about the U.S. getting involved with Afghanistan prison reform, but not just American-led prisons such as Bagram, which is seen as “tougher and more spartan” than Gitmo, creating a situation ready to explode. Karen J. Greenberg, author of “Least Worst Place: Guantanamo’s First 100 Days,” said at a book forum I attended at New America Foundation, that what she was hearing about Bagram was worse than anything coming out of Gitmo. Inmate conditions horrific, which is now no secret: The prisoners have fewer privileges and virtually no access to lawyers or the judicial process. Many are still held communally in big cages.

A sweeping United States military review calls for overhauling the troubled American-run prison here as well as the entire Afghan jail and judicial systems, a reaction to worries that abuses and militant recruiting within the prisons are helping to strengthen the Taliban.

So, what’s our current purpose and mission in Afghanistan? I knew what it was before. I don’t now.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Iran, Obama – Clinton Tag Team Brits on Torture, and other world happenings

By on 30 July 2009

Police in Iran have crashed the mourning of Neda. The CNN piece here reports almost 3,000 mourners, plus Mousavi and Zahra Rahnavard, his wife, were present as well.

The Guardian has a provocative article about Secretary Clinton allegedly “indicating,” which in the Guardian title is judged as “threatening”, Britain about disclosing any CIA torture evidence regarding Binyam Mohamed. He was released in February 2009, with his lawyers now trying to get evidence believed currently held by the British government that Mohamed was tortured while in U.S. custody.

The court has heard how the Foreign Office and Miliband have solicited US help in keeping the CIA material secret. Today, it heard how Miliband met Clinton in Washington on 12 May this year.

In a written statement proposing a gagging order, Miliband told the court that she “indicated” that the disclosure of CIA evidence “would affect intelligence sharing”. Pressed repeatedly by the judges on the claim yesterday, Karen Steyn, Miliband’s counsel, insisted that Clinton was indeed saying that if the seven-paragraph summary of CIA material was disclosed, the US would “reassess” its intelligence relationship with the UK, a move that “would put lives at risk”.

Glenn Greenwald writes that if Britain discloses the “seven paragraph summary” the U.S. would “cut-off intelligence-sharing” with the Brits. Considering our century old relationship on intelligence matters, I find it very hard to believe that we’d sever our intelligence sharing, especially given the fact that Britain is in a much better place to monitor extremist elements that could harm U.S. interests than we are. However, the U.S. is in the driver’s seat in this relationship, make no mistake about it, with Pres. Obama adamantly clear about the unreleased photos. Additionally, Binyam Mohamed’s alleged torture at Gitmo seems hard to dispute considering the reports. Glenn does make a very good point, the bold below being the central issue in this story: New statements from the British Foreign Secretary yesterday — claiming that Hillary Clinton personally re-iterated those threats in a May meeting — highlight how extreme is this joint American/British effort to cover-up proof of Mohamed’s torture. The closing paragraph from this document from April, which admittedly I hadn’t read, makes that clear, obliterating any doubt I may have initially entertained:

.. …In the circumstances now prevailing, the balance is served by maintaining the redaction of the paragraphs from our first judgment. In short, whatever views may be held as to the continuing threat made by the Government of the United States to prevent a short summary of the treatment of BM being put into the public domain by this court, it would not, in all the circumstances we have set out and in the light of the action taken, be in the public interest to expose the United Kingdom to what the Foreign Secretary still considers to be the real risk of the loss of intelligence so vital to the safety of our day to day life. If the information in the redacted paragraphs which we consider so important to the rule of law, free speech and democratic accountability is to be put into the public domain, it must now be for the United States Government to consider changing its position or itself putting that information into the public domain.

Stunning once it sinks in.

Through Clinton, Obama is proving his point and what he expects out of our British allies. Miliband, someone I’ve watched in action, is a modern diplomat and leader looking at higher office (in my judgment), so the prospect that he’d interpret Clinton’s shot across Britain’s bow as a “threat” and say so through his attorney seems like a distancing mechanism to me, especially if you believe as I do that all secrets surrounding Bush-Cheney policy on torture will eventually be revealed. Obama’s obsession with looking backwards evidently has Sect. Clinton complicit in delivering language that demands covering up what they had nothing to with implementing. That said, I seriously doubt Clinton would do any differently if the positions were reversed, which is thrust of what Glenn is saying by pointing the finger at Clinton.

An interview with Eric Holder focuses on the “home grown” terrorism threat.

“I mean, that’s one of the things that’s particularly troubling: This whole notion of radicalization of Americans,” Holder told ABC News during an interview in his SUV as his motorcade brought him from home to work. “Leaving this country and going to different parts of the world and then coming back, all, again, in aim of doing harm to the American people, is a great concern.”

I’m not doubting the Attorney General, but I’d say we have a graver threat. The radicalization of right wing America who is being scared to death that Pres. Obama is threatening their lives. This furor is coming via racial motivation, for sure, but also from a socialist scare that goes back to the early 20th century when Democrats began being demonized, with the right picking up that frenzy again today, made more dangerous because Obama is African American. The across state lines concealed carry push, which recently failed in the Senate but not by as much as it should, is representative of the fear being stoked across the country.

Tony Blair is being summoned in his country’s Iraq war inquiry.

Hold on for this next one. China reports 13 million abortions per year.

Human trafficking is big business.

More than one million people, the majority of them women and children, are smuggled across international borders to work in near slavery every year, the US state department says.

And to end on a happy note, children in Gaza seek to win the world’s kite flying record. Visualizing a sky of brightly flying colors.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Israelis Unglued Over Obama Policies

By on 28 July 2009

–updated below–

Coming after Netanyahu calling Emanuel and Axelrod both “self-hating Jews,” the latest salvo from another prominent Israeli is not as insulting, but certainly as obtuse. Ignoring that Pres. Obama has already met with PM Netanyahu, Mr. Benn’s argument today sounds alarmingly like a spoiled brat having a tantrum.

So far, Israelis have embraced Mr. Netanyahu’s message. A Jerusalem Post poll of Israeli Jews last month indicated that only 6 percent of those surveyed considered the Obama administration to be pro-Israel, while 50 percent said that its policies are more pro-Palestinian than pro-Israeli. Less scientifically: Israeli rightists have — in columns, articles and public statements — taken to calling the president by his middle name, Hussein, as proof of his pro-Arab tendencies.

Photobucket

“More pro-Palestinian than pro-Israel” because Pres. Obama has put a condition of no new settlements in Israel. To give you an idea how outlandish the Netanyahu response has been to Obama’s U.S. policy, look no further than his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who demanded a photo of a prominent Palestinian leader sitting with Hitler be distributed to embassies after the latest clash over another settlement. Allan Dershowitz, as if on cue, used the opportunity to take to a new slanderous low, even for him. A little coordinated incitement, Allan? What Matt Duss wrote.

Now comes Aluf Benn, the editor at large of Haaretz, whose op-ed in the New York Times today illustrates just how counterproductive U.S. policy has been in the Middle East throughout the Bush-Cheney years. Mr. Benn is opining and moaning about Obama not personally talking to Israel. It matters not to the Israelis that Obama met with Netanyahu, or how many envoys have been in their country. They want Obama to change what he’s said and speak to them directly to tell them so. Given the breadth and lack of common ground revolving around the settlement issue, it’s a good thing he has not.

What went wrong? Several explanations come to mind.

First, in the 16 rosy years of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Israelis became spoiled by unfettered presidential attention. Memories of State Department “Arabists” leading American policy in the Middle East were erased. The White House coordinated its policy with Jerusalem, and stayed out of the way when Israel embarked on controversial military offensives in Lebanon and Gaza. This approach infuriated America’s Arab and European allies, which blamed Washington for one-sidedness — something they were willing to forgive of Bill Clinton but not of George W. Bush.

Mr. Obama came to office determined to repair America’s broken alliances in Europe and the Middle East. One way to do this — to prove that he was the opposite of his predecessor — was to place some distance between Israel and himself.

To say that we “stayed out of the way” when Israel laid waste to parts of Lebanon in 2006 is a joke. Bush rushed weapons to Israel’s side. This disastrous war also infuriated many Americans (myself included, writing about it extensively), but also including Jewish Americans, which brings me to another point from Benn’s op-ed.

Third, Mr. Obama seems to have confused American Jews with Israelis.

On the contrary. Israelis like Mr. Benn seem to have confused Obama’s job with doing whatever Israelis want, even when his own constituents support his current policy. Mr. Benn obviously believes in the theory of continuing to do the same thing through policies that haven’t worked hoping for a different result.

It’s called madness.

Mr. Obama’s stop at Buchenwald and his strong rejection of Holocaust denial, immediately after his Cairo speech, appealed to American Jews but fell flat in Israel. Here we are taught that Zionist determination and struggle — not guilt over the Holocaust — brought Jews a homeland. Mr. Obama’s speech, which linked Israel’s existence to the Jewish tragedy, infuriated many Israelis who sensed its closeness to the narrative of enemies like Mahmoud Ahmedinejad.

I mean, really. But if you think that’s bad…

Fourth, as far as most Israelis are concerned, Mr. Obama has made a mistake in focusing on a settlement freeze. For starters, mainstream Israelis rarely have anything to do with the settlements; many have no idea where they are, even when they’re a half-hour’s drive from Tel Aviv.

More important: in the past decade, repeated peace negotiations and diplomatic statements have indicated that larger, closer-to-home settlements (the “settlement blocs”) will remain in Israeli hands under any two-state solution. Why, then, insist on a total freeze everywhere? And why deny with such force — as the administration did — the existence of previous understandings between the United States and Israel over limited settlement construction? There is simply too much evidence proving that such an understanding existed. To Israelis, the claim undermined Mr. Obama’s credibility — and strengthened Mr. Netanyahu’s position.

Inside Israel, Netanyahu’s position may be stronger than before. If Obama’s credibility inside Israel has been “undermined,” it’s because people like Mr. Benn refuse to see the Palestinian side of this story. That’s what’s been wrong with the push for “peace,” what we call equilibrium around here, for a very long time. No one has been willing to stand in the middle and look both ways.

There are two sides to the story on a two-state solution. Settlements are a line in the sand that Obama has drawn, which has broad support, though not in Israel. Obama’s already talked to Netanyahu when he was in Washington, laying this out. The ball is actually in your court, Mr. Benn.

UPDATE: Obama officials respond to Benn’s article via Jeffrey Goldberg. The Administration’s responses are dead on and illustrate just how petulant Benn and other Israelis in that camp are being. Obama will at some point talk to Israel, of which no one should doubt. But the groundwork being laid by his envoys is also providing him invaluable information on where he can go and what he should focus on and how it should be said.

These two senior officials — sorry, those were the ground rules — made the plausible argument that the Cairo speech was, in fact, directed at Israelis as much as it was directed at Arabs. “The President went before a Cairo audience in a speech co-sponsored by Al-Azhar with Muslim Brotherhood members in the audience and spoke of America’s strong, unshakable support for Israel,” one of the officials said. “He could have gone to a million different venues to say this, but he went to Cairo, and it wasn’t exactly an applause line. Isn’t it more important to say this to the Muslim world than it is to say it to an audience of Israelis or American Jews?”

These two officials pointed out something that I forgot about the speech, which is that it contained strong condemnations of the cynical Arab ploy to use the Palestinian issue as a diversion (in other words, to keep the focus of unhappy Arabs on Israel and not on the weaknesses of their own anti-democratic, corrupt governments), and of course it contained an unequivocal denunciation of terrorism committed in the name of resistance.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Health Care a Symbol of Worse to Come if Obama Fails

By on 22 July 2009

This gives me no pleasure to say, but the reality is ripe to manifest. Don’t think for a minute that the health care debate playing out hasn’t already become a model for how Obama’s adversaries will take on his other policy prescriptions. Go back to Rush Limbaugh’s “I hope Obama fails.” This has always been the rallying cry, propped up by the excuse that they’re simply talking about his policy prescriptions. Right now, health care is the model. If Republicans succeed in scuttling reform or making the final bill something that is unworkable, they will replicate this campaign for everything else they want to defeat.

So, it’s unfortunate that here we go again with secrets surrounding health care reform, a prime reason “Hillarycare” went south. It’s as if Obama is taking George W. Bush’s philosophy of ignoring all things Clinton by pretending there aren’t lessons to learn from WJC’s two-term presidency.

That Obama thinks channeling on health care what Dick Cheney did on his energy meetings is a good thing should remind everyone of what happens when ambitious politicians become members of the Presidents Club.

Invoking an argument used by President George W. Bush, the Obama administration has turned down a request from a watchdog group for a list of health industry executives who have visited the White House to discuss the massive healthcare overhaul.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington sent a letter to the Secret Service asking about visits from 18 executives representing health insurers, drug makers, doctors and other players in the debate. The group wants the material in order to gauge the influence of those executives in crafting a new healthcare policy.

…A White House spokesman, Ben LaBolt, said, “We are reviewing our policy on access to visitor logs and related litigation.”

As a candidate, President Obama vowed that in devising a healthcare bill he would invite in TV cameras — specifically C-SPAN — so that Americans could have a window into negotiations that normally play out behind closed doors.

Josh Orton reminds us what candidate Obama did to Hillary Clinton during the primaries over transparency.

During one of the recent Democratic debates, Obama, criticizing the secrecy of Clinton’s 1993 effort to reform healthcare, talked about how he would open up the entire process — “Not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN …”

Obama’s hypocrisy is choking.

My friend Peter Daou comes at this another way in Obama’s Presidency Will NOT Be Defined By Health Reform (The “Waterloo” Myth). Peter goes on to cite important policy issues that matter as much as health care, on which he is correct. But Peter misses the larger point.

Whether its secret meetings with health care industry honchos, or the missteps on marketing health care out of the White House, the debate on universal health care has the potential to become THE symbol of the Obama presidency. And not in a good way.

Pres. Obama came in with record approval numbers here and across the world. His outreach to the world, but particularly the Muslim world, has been greeted with unanimous praise and hope. But at a time when the American people, in a large plurality, have weighed in that they want universal health care, Obama has allowed the naysayers to hijack, not only the debate, but the positive impact of national health care, even when the numbers began strongly on his side. Slowly, we’ve seen these numbers erode. Why? Because the White House naively thought their bipartisan call would be greeted warmly and that Barack Obama would become the political exception to the rule of national politics.

So, the health care debate could become a symbol of Barack Obama’s presidency and how even the mighty can fall, if the opposition, including some in his own party, come at him hard enough.

Then all those things Peter cites, civil liberties and detainee treatment, gay rights, stopping environmental degradation, re-examining our Afghan policy, etc., will not mean a thing. Because they’ll all be seen through the prism of being able to outwit Obama on health care, so the “I hope Obama fails” of stopping Obama’s policy changes will be set.

What worries me the most is as goes health care, so may go Middle East progress. Because this onslaught that seems to be working, with Obama playing into his adversaries hands through his secret meeting hypocrisy, will embolden the Netanyahu settlement builders and the AIPAC crowd. Inspiring them to oppose Obama just like the anti health care reform zealots are doing now, thinking if one “Waterloo” can manifest when the people want what was defeated, scuttling Obama’s Middle East agenda will be easy.

The “Waterloo myth,” as Peter cites, isn’t a myth at all right now. The symbol has been hoisted. It all depends what happens on health care. Unfortunately, even if Obama succeeds, the seeds have been planted that his health care reform isn’t the best prescription, which means Obama’s health care reform could become the rallying cry for 2010 and beyond.

If that’s not defining Obama’s presidency by health care reform, I don’t know what is.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Silence Over Saudi Abuse A Western Priority

By on 21 July 2009
Photobucket

A woman is threatened with death, but the UK won’t openly acknowledge the claims for asylum, because after all we wouldn’t want to openly criticize the House of Saud.

What kind of rubbish is this? The human rights abuse kind.

A Saudi Arabian princess who had an illegitimate child with a British man has secretly been granted asylum in this country after she claimed she would face the death penalty if she were forced to return home. The young woman, who has been granted anonymity by the courts, won her claim for refugee status after telling a judge that her adulterous affair made her liable to death by stoning.

Her case is one of a small number of claims for asylum brought by citizens of Saudi Arabia which are not openly acknowledged by either government. British diplomats believe that to do so would in effect be to highlight the persecution of women in Saudi Arabia, which would be viewed as open criticism of the House of Saud and lead to embarrassing publicity for both governments.

This has particular significance for me, because every time I point to these types of things, American friends of the Saudis respond by saying King Abdullah is doing more for women than any other Saudi in his position has done.

It’s important to point out that perhaps, even as we maintain our important relationship with the Saudis, who are critical to any movement between Israel and the Palestinians, we should not hide our criticism of real issues where women are concerned. The barbarism of the Saudis shouldn’t be excused, nor should the West shy away from telling it like it is for fear the House of Saud won’t like it.

The other side of the coin is who is always waiting in the wings if King Abdullah acts too moderate, appearing to act against Islam. That’s his problem, not ours. …and before you say it could become our problem if the House of Saud fell, I don’t believe for one moment we’d let that happen.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Proof of Life in Increasingly Deadly Afghanistan

By on 20 July 2009

–updated–

“After the Iraq experience, nobody is prepared to have a long slog where it is not apparent we are making headway,” Gates said in an interview. “The troops are tired; the American people are pretty tired.” – SecDef Gates on Afghanistan, LA Times

This video and its contents plays right into what SecDef Gates talked about recently, with the recent death toll in Iraq the deadliest, which is evidenced by the hostage video here.

“We are attempting to do everything we can to locate him and free him,” Clinton said. “It’s just outrageous. It’s a real sign of desperation and criminal behavior on the part of terrorist groups.” – ABC News

The captured soldier who is being held hostage by the Taliban is Pfc. Bowe Bergdahl, 23. According to reports, he’s a member of 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, based at Fort Richardson, Alaska.

There is a much longer video available at LiveLeak. One of the things said by Bergdahl in the longer version, who obviously is being forced to say what his captors want delivered, is that American citizens have the power to insist our government bring soldiers home from Afghanistan where we don’t belong. The implication is obvious. This video is dated July 14th, but Bergdahl was captured on July 3.

“To my fellow Americans who have loved ones over here, who know what it’s like to miss them, you have the power to make our government bring them home,” he said. “Please, please bring us home so that we can be back where we belong and not over here, wasting our time and our lives and our precious life that we could be using back in our own country. Please bring us home. It is America and American people who have that power.”

Bergdahl reportedly went missing around the eastern Paktika province near the border with Pakistan, which is a Taliban stronghold. The hope, according to the AP, was for the Taliban to smuggled him across the border into Pakistan, but U.S. missile strikes made that move too dangerous.

It is incredibly infuriating to see a U.S. soldier held in this matter. A humiliating spectacle that forces him to regurgitate Taliban propaganda.

“I’m glad to see he appears unharmed, but again, this is a Taliban propaganda video. They are exploiting the soldier in violation of international law.” – spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker

Read full story · Comments are closed

Rafsanjani At Friday Prayers

By on 17 July 2009

We’ve been waiting for this moment, with Reuters reporting that Rafsanjani was close to outspoken against what’s been happening Iran, while calling for “unity,” which unfolded at prayers today.

In apparent defiance of Iran’s supreme leader, a powerful cleric declared his country in crisis after a disputed poll, and tens of thousands of protesters used Friday prayers to stage the biggest show of dissent for weeks.

Clashes erupted later in central Tehran between police and followers of opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi, who still contests the election result that showed hardline President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad had been re-elected by a wide margin.

“Police fired tear gas and beat supporters of Mousavi in Keshavarz Boulevard,” a witness said, adding that protesters were carrying hundreds of green banners — Mousavi’s campaign color — and chanting ‘Ahmadinejad, resign, resign’.”

Over at Passport, Blake Hounshell has a different analysis, believing that Rafsanjani drove a middle ground.

If Reuters is correct, I’d say we’re well beyond any middle road where Rafsanjani and the Iranian reformer rebels are concerned.

Rafsanjani’s remarks posed a clear challenge to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has upheld the election result and accused foreign powers of fomenting the unrest.

… Rafsanjani also demanded the immediate release of people detained in the unrest and called for press curbs to be relaxed. Some of his own relatives, including his daughter Faezeh, were arrested briefly for joining pro-Mousavi rallies.

“It is not necessary for us to have a number of people in prisons … we should allow them to return to their families,” he said, in an emotional tone. “It is not necessary to pressure media. We should allow them to work freely within the law.”

… Rafsanjani’s robust stance appeared to set him on collision course with Khamenei, who has overtly backed Ahmadinejad in a departure from the supreme leader’s accepted role as a lofty clerical arbiter above the political fray.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Clinton to Iran: Engagement Won’t Be There Forever

By on 15 July 2009

“…smart power counsels that we lead with diplomacy, even in the case of adversaries or nations with whom we disagree. We cannot be afraid or unwilling to engage. Yet some suggest that this is a sign of weakness or naiveté – or acquiescence to these countries’ repression of their own people. That is wrong. The President and I believe that refusing to talk to countries rarely punishes them. And as long as engagement might advance our interests and our values, it is unwise to take it off the table. …” – Secretary Clinton

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations today, Secretary Clinton hit many points, but it remains to be seen whether this will be considered a “major speech” as it was billed. However, we do now know she intends to travel to Pakistan in the fall.

“Success in Afghanistan also requires close cooperation from neighboring Pakistan, which I will visit this fall. … “We and our allies fight in Afghanistan because the Taliban protects al Qaeda and depends on it for support,” she added. “To eliminate al Qaeda, we must also fight the Taliban.” (Reuters)

Regarding Afghanistan, as an aside, it’s worrying where the Administration seems to be considering moving on this front. Clinton’s talk about fighting the Taliban to “eliminate al Qaeda” is aggressive rhetoric that will please many, but it’s hardly a practical end goal. We built them up, starting way back in the Reagan era, and they’ll be there long after we’re gone. If that phrase sounds familiar, well, it should. As new calls come from commanders to further expand our military position in that country, it’s making me extremely nervous. I was on board with Obama’s initial strategy, but you can move me to “not convinced in the least” on the latest rumblings.

However, Clinton did deliver the muscular promise to Obama’s engagement dialogue (this image says it all), just in case anyone gets the wrong idea.

“And to these foes and would-be foes, let me say: You should know that our focus on diplomacy and development is not an alternative to our national security arsenal. You should never see America’s willingness to talk as a sign of weakness to be exploited. We will not hesitate to defend our friends and ourselves vigorously when necessary with the world’s strongest military. This is not an option we seek. Nor is it a threat; it is a promise to the American people.”

Clinton’s speech today had one particularly striking section emphasizing the importance of the role of women and girls in economics going forward. (It’s not in the prepared notes, but was shown on Andrea Mitchell’s MSNBC show.) It was powerful insistence about the role women must play in the world today and a reminder we must stay vigilant to manifest what women offer to countries around the world. In the same breath she also spoke of poverty’s cost to women and girls.

On Iran, Clinton’s message, speaking for the Administration, was unmistakable.

“We watched the energy of Iran’s election with great admiration, only to be appalled by the manner in which the government used violence to quell the voices of the Iranian people, then tried to hide its actions by arresting foreign nationals, expelling journalists, and cutting off access to technology. As we … have made clear, these actions are deplorable and unacceptable. …

Iran can become a constructive actor in the region if it stops threatening its neighbors and supporting terrorism. It can assume a responsible position in the international community if it fulfills its obligations on human rights. The choice is clear. We remain ready to engage with Iran, but the time for action is now. The opportunity will not remain open indefinitely.”

The Administration’s priorities were set out:

• “In approaching our foreign policy priorities, we have to deal with the urgent, the important, and the long-term all at once. But… we must have priorities:”

- “reverse the spread of nuclear weapons, prevent their use, and build a world free of their threat;”

- “isolate and defeat terrorists and counter violent extremists while reaching out to Muslims around the world;”

- “encourage and facilitate the efforts of all parties to pursue a comprehensive peace in the Middle East;”

- “pursue global economic recovery and growth – by strengthening our own economy, advancing a robust development agenda, expanding trade that is free and fair, and boosting investment that creates decent jobs;”

- “combat climate change, increase energy security, and lay the foundation for a prosperous clean-energy future;”

- “support and encourage democratic governments that protect the rights of and deliver results for their people;”

- “and stand up for human rights everywhere.”

The State Department made sure Clinton’s speech today was billed as “major.” But I agree with Glenn Kessler that Clinton’s “major” speech sounded very similar in tone and reach to Clinton’s confirmation hearings.

“…we have the right strategy, the right priorities, the right policies. We have the right President. And we have the American people, diverse, committed, involved and open to the future.”

Read full story · Comments are closed

Doodling Liz Cheney’s Name

By on 13 July 2009
Photobucket

The Weekly Standard’s Michael Goldfard is very excited today. After reading the Washington Times piece that Liz Cheney might run for office (something that was telegraphed a long time ago), he’s taken to writing Ms. Cheney’s name on paper like a high school girl dreaming of becoming a Mrs: Should it be Senator Cheney or President Cheney?

The daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney said Monday that running for political office is on her horizon.

“It’s something I very well may do,” said Elizabeth “Liz” Cheney…

Oh, and did you know Ms. Cheney “has held two State Department appointments”?

The PR piece in the Times no doubt has some conservatives dreaming of a smarter version of Sarah Palin. At least Liz has credentials, even if her father gave her a step up for which he really can’t be blamed, because after all she is a lawyer and anyone listening to her can see she’s no dummy, though channeling her father on torture policy isn’t exactly the smartest move.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Iranians Speak Out on 10th Anniversary of Student Repression

By on 11 July 2009

–bumped–
(Originally dated 7.9.09, 2:15 p.m.)

On July 9, 1999, known as the 18th of Tir in the Iranian calendar, 200 students protested the closing of a reformist newspaper, Salaam, which supported moderate President Mohammed Khatami. Hard-line activists entered dormitories in Tehran University, broke windows, set fires and attacked the students.

On a conference call put together by the Huffington Post, leading Iranians spoke about what is happening in Iran and how the regime has cracked down on the movement unraveling their power. Mohsen Makhmalbaf (spokesperson for the Mir-Hossein Moussavi’s campaign abroad), Fatemeh Haghighatjoo (former Iranian parliamentarian) and Hamid Dabashi (Columbia University professor) were the participants.

Listening to history, as they also commemorate July 9th anniversary, my extemporaneous notes of the call are below. It was recorded, so if I get the audio/link, I’ll post it as well.

Speaking in Farsi, Fatemeh Haghighatjoo said “the reformist press” in Iran has played a critical part in what is happening today in Iran. For publishing an article, Salaam, the leading reformist Iranian newspaper was “illegally closed down.”

FROM CNN WIRE: Iranian pro-government Basij militia members dispersed crowds of protesters in Tehran Thursday — sometimes with force — according to a journalist on the scene.

The demonstration is taking place on the 10th anniversary of a student uprising that, at the time, posed the biggest threat to the Islamic regime since its inception in 1979.

An estimated 2,000 to 3,000 people crowded the streets and headed toward Tehran University, the site of the 1999 student uprising. Several protesters were hit on the arms and backs by the Basij, the journalist reported. The militia tried to convince one man, whose face was bleeding, to get into an ambulance but he refused.

The student dormitory that was attacked is the first to receive such action since the 1979 revolution in Iran.

Students were attacked “while sleeping” by police “and plain clothes men.” One student was killed that night.

These attacks on the student dormitories in Tehran, but also in an outlying town, ignited protests. Within days, these demonstrations were “repressed.”

The students were attacked because they “were an important pillar in the reform movement.”

Instead of an investigation into the dormitory repression, the lawyer of the students was prosecuted, as were students.

Mohsen Makhmalbaf, also in Farsi… Student has always been synonymous with “intellectual” and “well informed.” In Iranian society, students a leaders of reform movements.

The anniversary of the 9th of July has two significances. One is to commemorate the students who have been killed and tortured. Also, it’s an excuse for “strengthening the green movement.” Until “we have a dictatorship,” it is “dangerous” for the government. Anniversaries are utilized to bring out and commemorate repression.

Compared green movement to Ghandi’s, the purpose of which is a non-violent protest. The courage of the protesters, calling students “pioneers,” allows “people to regain their courage and solidarity.” They “are united in what they seek.” After the elections, the millions that participated in the rallies demonstrates to protesters that they are not alone. “Don’t be afraid. Don’t be afraid. You are not alone.” This chant has a deep meaning for Iranians, a response that the government had tried to instill fear and that they were alone.

Hamid Dabashi, in English… When we say “student movement,” it is not limited to students. Only 10% of those applying and desiring to attend the universities are expected. So, this is actually a “student led movement.” It also goes beyond the July 9th anniversary, as the green movement has shown. What’s happening today goes into the leading seminaries and progressive clerics, in religious and constitutional terms, are joining. “We need to place the student movement in a larger context… into civil rights…” Peaceful demonstrations, as stated in the constitution, is not against Islam, is legal. Hundreds, perhaps thousands of intellectuals and newspaper, have been arrested and tortured. Leaders like Mousavi and Khatami cannot communicated with their followers. “These people are risking their lives” against a “very heavy security apparatus.”

Technical difficulties on the call got in the way of reporters on the call asking questions, but the conversation continued. I did email one in, hoping for a response, but didn’t get one, though I was emailed in response they’d try to get an answer for me on the validity and accuracy of the story in the Guardian about Khamenei’s son. I’ll post it if it comes.

McClatchy asked about Mousavi and if he participated in today’s demonstrations. Response: Mousavi is in a difficult position. “He doesn’t have a microphone in his face, so to speak.” His website and other outlets are under watch and there is “heavy propaganda” going against him right now in Iran. “What we believe can take this movement forward is a self populated ‘human chain,’ stretching all through the city.” Mousavi anticipated this reaction, which is why he announced “every Iranian must be a commander and a follower for this movement.” If Mousavi is imprisoned, or “we lose him as a leader,” we are prepared to keep going; thinking of him as “just one” of many involved. “Every Iranian inside Iran is a campaign headquarters.” One of the speakers, I’ll find out which one, just answered that he gave a speech in the European parliament that they not recognize Ahmadinejad as legitimate president. “It’s a dictatorship threatening the Iranian people with flogging” and worse. They also asked that corporations supplying the Iranian regime be punished. Do not accept the propaganda, especially when the regime blames other powers and “foreign peoples. … We do need everybody’s help, international organizations…”

Speakers continued… If the U.S. and other nations do not help the Iranian people and empower them, the despotism inside Iran, but also the nuclear threat will become worse. (The nuclear issue being raised after McClatchy’s question was asked.) The only mistake the international community is making is giving Khamenei time to finalize their nuclear program, which by the time the act it will be too late.

I believe it was Hamid Dabashi, who next mentioned Obama saying there is no difference between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad. Then that means “there is no different between Obama and Bush.” In explanation, invoked Ahmadinejad and Hitler. Iranian people can’t ask Obama or Mandella to lead them; they have to go to the leaders from which they have to choose. A little later, the speaker, who is an Iranian filmmaker, mentioned that world renowned Iranian cinema was founded and supported during Mousavi’s premiership. He made films critical of Mousavi, but unlike what’s happening now, they weren’t censored.

“This movement in Iran is comparable to the civil rights movement in the United States.” Then compared the non-violence aspect to Martin Luther King, but that there are many leaders of the movement in Iran, which is a spontaneous uprising, including those that are now in the prisons. One of the “greatest” movements in the region. As to nuclear technology, “it is our inalienable right” to produce nuclear technology, in line with NPT. Iranians are “perfectly capable of leading our own movement.” Sanctions would hurt the protesters in the streets. No talk of regime change. Any threat of military strikes will hurt the green movement.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama – Congressional – CIA War Breaks Out

By on 09 July 2009

In a June 26 letter to Mr. Panetta discussing his testimony, Democrats said that the agency had “misled members” of Congress for eight years about the classified matters, which the letter did not disclose. “This is similar to other deceptions of which we are aware from other recent periods,” said the letter, made public late Wednesday by Representative Rush D. Holt, Democrat of New Jersey, one of the signers. – Democrats Say C.I.A. Deceived Congress for Years

You really have to go back to Panetta’s May 15th statement to CIA employees to understand what’s unraveling right now. It begins:

There is a long tradition in Washington of making political hay out of our business. It predates my service with this great institution, and it will be around long after I’m gone.

CQ reported this week that House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Reyes wrote to Rep. Hoekstra (the Republican leader on the Committee) that the CIA indeed “affirmatively lied to” Congress during briefing sessions.

“These notifications have led me to conclude this committee has been misled, has not been provided full and complete notifications, and (in at least one occasion) was affirmatively lied to,” Reyes wrote.

The letter pictured above requests CIA Director Panetta to “publicly correct” his May 15th statement, given his subsequent June 26th letter. He has declined.

Speaker Pelosi has been in a running battle over intelligence briefings for months, with her critics believing this is all about providing her cover.

As for the Intelligence Authorization Bill, President Obama has issued his first veto warning if the bill includes an expansion of congressional participants in classified briefings that goes beyond the “Gang of Eight,” to include entire members of the intelligence committees.

The bottom line is that Panetta evidently told congressional leaders on June 26th, however obliquely and without pointing a direct finger at George Tenet or the Bush-Cheney administration, that Congress had indeed been misled. But if you read Panettas May 15th statement, that it is “not our policy or practice to mislead Congress, That is against our laws and our values…” The difference between what was done during the tenure of another director and under a different Administration, doesn’t negate CIA policy and practice, according to Panetta. He also states in that statement that leaders were “briefed truthfully” on Abu Zubaydah. This directly refutes Speaker Pelosi, but doesn’t go any further to include other briefings referenced in the June 26th letter, which Reyes and others are insisting Panetta make official.

As for briefing a larger number of congressional people on sensitive covert and national security actions, Obama is right to keep control of who is briefed and how many. I still don’t understand why a provision isn’t written in that members who are briefed can be permitted through statute to seek official legal counsel that has a further channel to find remedy, if what they’re hearing in those briefings alarms them.

The reality is that Panetta has to protect the integrity of the Agency. If he sells out, so to speak, a prior director or employees for following orders, how much trust will he have with his people?

Another reality is that Obama can’t allow sensitive national security information to be in the hands of a wide group of congressional representatives, especially in the partisan atmosphere of Capitol Hill, where not everyone is a grown up and partisan politics takes precedence.

But making clear what Bush-Cheney allowed the CIA to do with briefings to Congress, which is mislead them directly or by omission, is important and goes well beyond any cover people are saying it offers Pelosi. It sets the record straight on what we already know happened through Cheney’s bullying of Agency analysts. It’s been reported, congressional Democrats simply now want it made official.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Syria’s al-Assad Moves Against ‘Honor Killings’

By on 03 July 2009

On this Independence Day weekend, we here at TM.com acknowledge the decree of President Bashar al-Assad as a small step forward for women in the Middle East.

Syria has scrapped a law limiting the length of sentences handed down to men convicted of killing female relatives they suspect of having illicit sex.

Women’s groups had long demanded that Article 548 be scrapped, arguing it decriminalised “honour” killings.

Much more is required, starting with a ban and severe punishment for “honor killings,” but we have to start somewhere. Acknowledging movement serves a greater purpose. Women of the world are watching.

The subject also gives me another reason to tout the video of a film about an Iranian woman who represents inconvenient wives who, in some parts of the world, have no independence at all.

As for al-Assad’s invitation to Obama to visit Syria, I would like to see the first shuttle move made by Secretary Clinton. She could acknowledge al-Assad’s decree, while paving the way for a larger dialogue. Long past time we engaged the Syrians.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Yosemite Bolton Still Spinning Israeli Strike

By on 02 July 2009

“We see how coverage has gone down since Michael Jackson died.” – Trita Parsi

Photobucket

Before the conversation today with Trita Parsi on Iran, the small group assembled couldn’t resist talking about John Bolton’s op-ed on Iran in the Washington Post today. It starts with a stunning premise, as the headline reveals: Time for an Israeli Strike? Seriously, since it’s coming from Yosemite Bolton, why the question mark?

Iran’s nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not.

The call with Trita Parsi from the National Iranian American Council was wide ranging. Here are some notes about what’s going on in Iran (see Iran 101 for the basics).

“This is not a one trick pony,” especially with Khatami referring to what happened as a coup d’état. “This movement has not ended,” just because you don’t see people in the streets. Much smarter to regroup and think of “alternative ways to manifest their dissent,” because there’s a “killing off” of demonstrators.

Ahmadinejad and Khatamei have lost “a significant amount of legitimacy” with the people.

Mousavi camp and supporters concerned about Obama engagement if it comes “soon,” with Ahmadinejad seen less and less on the international scene the goal, as it will help the cause of the “green wave.” Ahmadinejad’s cancellation of the African summit is good news.

Obama has helped through his anti Bush rhetoric, by not talking about regime change. He’s reduced the threat level, extended a hand, as well as talked about “mutual respect” that “did reduce if not eliminate” the hardliners effectiveness inside Iran. Obama also helped inspire dissenters to come to the surface. “What he has done has been very positive,” said Parsi.

Anyone who has followed Iran or knows anything about the history knows that women have always played an important role in Iranian society. I asked about how Ahmadinejad and Khamenei were going to deal with the women rising up, particularly with the very visible leadership role of Zahra Rahnavard, Mousavi’s wife, leading the way. Trita emphasized that women have always had a strong role in Iranian society, but it was now fully visible this time. No answer as to how the regime will deal with it. The rise of women in the Middle East, but particularly how they will impact the leadership in Islamic countries, remains unknowable, with change inevitable.

Ahmadinejad trying to “decapitate” the opposition at this time, with many stuck in house arrest or arrested. When they can’t imprison people, they attack through character assassination.

As for the regime’s response post election?

“It was not particularly well planned. … .. … They did not expect people to rise up in this manner. … The dust has yet to settle.” – Trita Parsi

Read full story · Comments are closed

Let Ahmadinejad ‘Fret and Sweat’

By on 02 July 2009

That’s Roger Cohen’s prescription now on Iran, after what we’ve seen the last weeks.

The slow arc of moral justice is fine but Iran is gripped by the fierce urgency of now. Obama, the realist on whom idealism is projected, is obliged to make a course correction.

I say all this with a heavy heart. Non-communication between America and Iran is bad for both countries and the world. It complicates and undermines every U.S. objective from Gaza to Afghanistan. It’s dangerous and it’s unnecessary.

I’ve argued strongly for engagement with Iran as a game-changer. America renewed relations with the Soviet Union at the time of the Great Terror and China at the time of the Cultural Revolution. Operation Jackboot has not, as yet at least, involved mass killings.

But the Iran of today is not the Iran of three weeks ago; it is in volatile flux from without and within. Its Robespierres are running amok. Obama must do nothing to suggest business as usual. Let Ahmadinejad, he of the bipolar mood swings, fret and sweat. Let him writhe in the turbid puddle of his self-proclaimed “justice” and “ethics.”

That’s not what realists do; engagement is. The tricky part is the timing.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Iran 101

By on 30 June 2009

How does Iran work?

Let’s just say it’s as top down as it gets. Flow charts are here and here. Below is the Iran narrative as I see it.

Max Blumenthal sees Iran through the prism of Palestine.

Photobucket
via Stephen M. Walt

So, if you want to know what any revolution is up against, here’s the heavy lift Iranians have to face. If the people are to take back the power it won’t come through peace.

The Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei, regardless of his lackluster religious creds, is where the recent crackdown originates. Roger Cohen mentioned a “crushing” of the Iranian protests recently, which means the Iranian Revolutionary Guards, through the paramilitary thugs called the Basij malitia, are getting the okay to unleash their fury. The Basij militia’s leader is reportedly an ally of Ahmadinejad, which isn’t all that surprising given what we’ve seen play out. Khamenei is the IRG’s “commander in chief,” so to speak.

So it flows nicely for the Supreme Leader that it is the Iranian Revolutionary Guard that is next in power, even as they have close ties with Iran’s president. The flow chart Bill Marsh did over the weekend number the IRG as “perhaps” 120,000 strong. But even though Khamenei is in charge, one of the reasons Ahmadinejad is so secure is his close ties to the IRG. You can bet Khamenei knows this and won’t overstep, as it wouldn’t be all that outrageous to think the IRG could step in if Khamenei weakens significantly. Unlikely, but not out of the question. The Quds Force is an elite branch of the IRG, which has been reported in the news during the Iraq war. They operate exclusively outside Iran.

The Supreme Leader also has control through appointing the Guardian Council, which is headed by Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, who is in Ahmadinejad’s corner. It’s comprised of 6 clerics and 6 jurists. They have blocked all females from their ranks. Also appointed is the head of the judiciary, whose name is Ayatollah Mahmoud Hashemi Shahrudi (and very close to the SL), and other council members, with the GC controlling elections, who can run in these elections, as well as having the last say on anything the Parliament passes. Their current speaker is Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator. If the GC doesn’t like a law they simply block it. Bill Marsh calls the Guardian Council “the regime’s gatekeeper,” as they have the power to obliterate all reform ideas that incubate in the Parliament or anywhere else. The GC also approves candidates for Parliament, which basically is a toothless chamber, because it has no power over the SL, with the GC also having ultimate power over any decisions made.

The SL also has control over the president and can even kick him out of office. However, don’t forget the IRG, which can be moved to act on behalf of the president. Since the “green wave,” Ahmadinejad is now completely dependent on Khamenei, so any independence once imbued in the Iranian presidency is now a formality. However, the president has the power to put his people throughout the government, but also into the Iranian media. Another way to control the message and know who’s not toeing the line.

The Expediency Council is headed by former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, but is appointed by the SL. Rafsanjani intervenes between GC and Parliament disputes, but also aids the SL when asked.

Finally, the all important Assembly of Experts, who chooses but also can remove the Supreme Leader. It is headed by Rafsanjani, who backed Mousavi and is adamantly opposed to Ahmadinejad, who defeated him for president in 2005.

Fouad Ajami, who analyzed Iran from the neoconservative perspective, thinks Obama has to choose between the regime and the people on the street.

But if you look at the Iranian hierarchy and where the power is entrenched there’s really no choice at all, at least right now.

Only the Iranians can change this fact and it won’t come in the short-term and it won’t come without mayhem, death and destruction. That is, unless the people get help from inside the Iranian structure, peeling away power from Khamenei, which would weaken Ahmadinejad that could bring down the regime. But never forget the Revolutionary Guard, where Ahmadinejad has strong allies. It’s a long, likely bloody, road to “freedom.” Remembering that we are talking about the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Read full story · Comments are closed

News Around the World

By on 28 June 2009

–updated–

An eerie stillness has settled over this normally frenetic city. … “People are depressed, and they feel they have been lied to, robbed of their rights and now are being insulted,” said Nassim, a 56-year-old hairdresser. “It is not just a lie; it’s a huge one. And it doesn’t end.” – In Tehran, a Mood of Melancholy Descends

Photobucket

Iran remains in limbo, with people facing a regime that offers no out, no way forward, only more walking into the past. As the regime crushes all dissent, they’ve created much bigger problems for themselves than citizen protests, as the Guardian lays out:

The power struggle inside Iran appears to be moving from the streets into the heart of the regime itself this weekend amid reports that Ayatollah Hashemi Rafsanjani is plotting to undermine the power of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Rafsanjani’s manoeuvres against Khamenei come as tensions between the speaker of the parliament, Ali Larijani, and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad also appeared to be coming to a head.

One very disturbing development is that @persiankiwi has gone silent. Her/his tweets have been instrumental in this fight. Sullivan notices it as well. Nico Pitney has much more.

Another potentially history changing story comes from the Middle East in the voices of the women. It’s inspiring, but more importantly, it’s a potential crack in the dynamics, a new way forward if it’s supported and protected. Obviously, that’s a big if.

… “This is our time, women’s time,” said Khoulod Al Fahed, a Saudi businesswoman and blogger. “It is the time for women to speak up and demand the rights that have been stolen from us in the name of religion and culture.”

Middle Eastern women have long played active roles in the struggle for democracy and human rights. In recent months, women have won small yet unprecedented victories. In Kuwait, four female lawmakers were elected to parliament last month, the first time women have won seats in the nation’s legislature. In Egypt, election law was recently changed to give women a quota of 64 parliamentary seats. Palestinian women have launched protests to free prisoners held by Israel, while Egyptian women have organized labor and pro-democracy strikes in recent years.

Iran’s making the thugocracies sweat:

Out of fear that history might repeat itself, the authoritarian governments of China, Cuba and Burma have been selectively censoring the news this month of Iranian crowds braving government militias on the streets of Tehran to demand democratic reforms.

Between 1988 and 1990, amid a lesser global economic slump, pro-democracy protests that appeared to inspire and energize one another broke out in Eastern Europe, Burma, China and elsewhere. Not all evolved into full-fledged revolutions, but communist regimes fell in a broad swath of countries, and the global balance of power shifted.

Jose Maria Aznar weighs in very critically on Obama regarding Iran.

Delayed public displays of indignation may be good for internal political consumption. But the consequences of Western inaction have already materialized. Watching videos of innocent Iranians being brutalized, it’s hard to defend silence.

In Afghanistan, a new U.S. policy on opium.

At home, the climate bill inches forward, with a push from Pres. Obama, as well as this from Al Gore:

The American Clean Energy Security (ACES) Act is one of the most important pieces of legislation Congress will ever pass. This comprehensive legislation will make meaningful reductions in global warming pollution, spur investment in clean energy technology, create jobs and reduce our reliance on foreign oil.

The next step is passage of this legislation by the Senate to help restore America’s leadership in the world and begin, at long last, to put in place a truly global solution to the climate crisis.

We are at an extraordinary moment, with an historic opportunity to confront one of the world’s most serious challenges. Our actions now will be remembered by this generation and all those to follow – in our own nation and others around the world.

CQ Politics has the party vote breakdown. Rep. Boehner was reduced to ineloquence.

Included in the news unfolding around the world is the drama of Michael Jackson’s death, which continues to play out. The doctor, who has retained counsel, which is prudent in a case like this, is getting some scrutiny.

With Jackson’s death Thursday at age 50, investigators have turned their attention to a new figure in his life, cardiologist Conrad Murray of Las Vegas, whom Jackson called his personal physician. Murray was in Jackson’s rented mansion at the time he collapsed from an apparent heart attack.

People can argue with each other about what news isn’t getting covered, but the truth is that many people care more about this story than anything else. The magnitude of MJ’s passing has rippled across the world, shocking many who just didn’t get what he meant to so many, but also the impact of his stratospheric talent, which is bringing a flood of sales to the Jackson estate.

In honor of Stonewall, Frank Rich has written a piece that I’ll let you judge for yourself. Rich long ago lost me.

UPDATE: Military coup in Honduras.

Read full story · Comments are closed

Obama’s Michael Jackson Friday Detainee Dump

By on 26 June 2009

–updated–

Calculating that the world is riveted on all things Michael Jackson, which is true, Pres. Obama evidently is hoping this leak will slide underneath the media mat this late on a Friday. The Washington Post and ProPublica report:

The Obama administration, fearing a battle with Congress that could stall plans to close Guantanamo, has drafted an executive order that would reassert presidential authority to incarcerate terrorism suspects indefinitely, according to three senior government officials with knowledge of White House deliberations.

Such an order would embrace claims by former president George W. Bush that certain people can be detained without trial for long periods under the laws of war. Obama advisers are concerned that bypassing Congress could place the president on weaker footing before the courts and anger key supporters, the officials said.

And speaking of Jackson’s passing, the White House press corp passed up yet another opportunity to do their jobs. Seriously, if news is the news, then why would the entire press corp sit muzzled when there’s a chance to ask the President of the United States about the passing of arguably the biggest pop icon in U.S. history? Even Reagan acknowledged MJ. But today’s traditional press evidently thinks that asking Obama about a pop culture earthquake is beneath them even if it absolutely is news. So instead, we hear what Obama thought through his press secretary, because the mainstream media was waiting for a written statement from Obama. Hearing MTV tonight quote Gibbs saying what Obama thought, instead of hearing from the President himself about Jackson, was ridiculous. I’m sure Chancellor Merkel would have withstood it if the press asked the President about his feelings on Jackson, especially given his global stature. Want to bet a few German citizens feel the same way?

Besides, in what news agency editorial office is the passing of the man who changed pop culture forever not news, especially given the Elvis type doctors’ care that lingers over his death? Never mind that Obama grew up during the Jackson era and is, you know, African American, too.

So, Mr. President, yes we’re looking at Jackson’s life and celebrating his genius, but just in case you thought we weren’t paying attention, we most definitely are.

Read full story · Comments are closed