Early Bird summary
Wednesday’s Early Bird leads with a story from the New York Times (echoed by most other major U.S. dailies) reporting that President Obama has ordered the first combat deployments of his presidency, saying yesterday that he had authorized an additional 17,000 U.S. troops "to stabilize a deteriorating situation" in Afghanistan.The new deployments, to begin in May, will increase the U.S. force in Afghanistan by nearly 50 percent, bringing it to 55,000 by mid-summer, along with 32,000 non-U.S. NATO troops. In a statement issued by the White House, Obama said that "urgent attention and swift action" were required because "the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda . . . threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border."
The London Daily Telegraph reports that British forces have seized heroin worth pounds 50 million and killed at least 20 Taliban fighters in a daring raid that dealt a significant blow to the insurgents in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.In an operation that involved weeks of detailed planning, a force of 700 troops from the Royal Marines, Special Boat Service and Army swooped on a Taliban drug factory and arms stronghold in the Upper Sangin Valley in Helmand province. Snipers hidden in hilltop positions and Warrior armoured vehicles sealed off escape routes as two waves of commandos and special forces in helicopters swept in.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Pakistan's leaders have publicly denounced U.S. missile strikes as an attack on the country's sovereignty, but privately Pakistani military and intelligence officers are aiding these attacks and have given significant support to recent U.S. missions, say officials from both countries.American unmanned Predator aircraft have killed scores of Islamic militants in Pakistan in more than 30 missile strikes since August, provoking outrage in the South Asian nation. Two in the past four days have killed more than 50 suspected militants. Yet, with the Taliban pushing deeper into the country, Pakistan's civilian and military leaders, while publicly condemning the attacks, have come to see the strikes as effective and are passing on intelligence that has helped recent missions, say officials from both countries.
The Associated Press reports that NATO warned Tuesday that a truce between the Pakistani government and Taliban militants in a restive region near the Afghan border risked giving the extremists a “safe haven.” The truce effectively ceded the Swat Valley to the Taliban and ended Pakistan’s military effort to defeat them there. Meanwhile, in a related story, the London Daily Telegraph reports that American officials have privately backed Pakistan's "Sharia law for peace'' deal with Taliban militants in the Swat Valley despite publicly criticising it as a "negative development''.Under the deal, Sharia will be introduced in the Malakhand and Kohistan districts of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province if Taliban militants end their armed campaign in the Swat Valley.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that Turkey is likely to play a prominent role as the US begins to remove thousands of tons of equipment and supplies from Iraq over the next year or so. The American military has been quietly shipping construction materials, food, fuel, and other nonlethal items into Iraq through Turkey using a two-lane commercial border crossing known as the Habur Gate in southeastern Turkey. But as the US considers its options for pulling out of Iraq – and the pace of that redeployment – the route through Turkey may play a conspicuous part, defense officials say.
Having signed into law nearly $800 billion in new spending, President Obama will now be under pressure to identify at least some budget cuts — and the Pentagon may be particularly vulnerable, according to the New York Times.Mr. Obama is set to release his first budget proposal on Feb. 26. After years in which military budgets have soared to record levels, Pentagon officials are already preparing at a minimum to pare back, with a particular eye to slashing weapons programs that have suffered significant cost overruns.Some Democrats are pressing for much broader cuts in military spending, with Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Democratic chairman of the Financial Services Committee, having called for a 25 percent reduction in the Pentagon budget.
The New York Times also reports that the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of former President Bush’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.
The Washington Times carries a story that says flag-draped caskets of fallen troops should not be turned into yet another photo op.Both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Tuesday condemned a proposal to lift restrictions that now prevent the press from photographing caskets as they arrive home from wars overseas.
Finally, the Washington Post reports that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration will make "a concerted effort" to restore the image of the United States in the Islamic world and will seek to "enlist the help of Muslims around the world against the extremists."Clinton, who on Wednesday will travel to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, told students at Tokyo University that "this is one of the central security challenges we face -- as to how to better communicate in a way that gets through the rhetoric and through the demagogy and is heard by people who can make judgments about what we stand for and who we truly are."
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: The whole world is crashing. That's essentially the message of the Washington Post's lead story that takes a look at how markets plunged around the world yesterday amidst signs that are making it seem increasingly clear that no one is going to survive the economic crisis unscathed. (Slate Magazine)
2. Afghanistan hails ‘new U.S. ties’: Afghan President Hamid Karzai is turning a new page in relations with the US, his spokesman has said. (BBC)
3. Clerics urge new jihad over Gaza: At a weekend meeting in Istanbul, 200 religious scholars and clerics met senior Hamas officials to plot a new jihad centred on Gaza. (BBC)
4. Syria urges better ties with U.S.: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has urged the US in a newspaper interview to engage in talks with Damascus and restore full diplomatic ties. (BBC)
5. Think again: Talking with Iran: With a new president in the White House and a celebrated reformist shaking up Tehran, the time seems ripe for a diplomatic breakthrough 30 years in the waiting. But when it comes to dealing with the Islamic Republic, be forewarned: Washington's usual go-slow approach is doomed to fail. (Foreign Policy)
Leading newspaper headlines
The whole world is crashing. That's essentially the message of the Washington Post's lead story that takes a look at how markets plunged around the world yesterday amidst signs that are making it seem increasingly clear that no one is going to survive the economic crisis unscathed. The economies in Japan, Britain, and Germany are all falling at a rate not seen in decades. And emerging economies "are contracting at a pace few had predicted just months ago." The Dow Jones industrial average plunged nearly 300 points, and closed just a fraction of a point above its November low.
The Los Angeles Times and New York Times lead with, while the Wall Street Journal banners, General Motors and Chrylser reporting that they need an additional $21.6 billion in government loans to avoid collapsing. In the restructuring plans that they submitted to the Treasury Department yesterday, the auto giants outlined a series of steps to reduce costs, including cutting 50,000 jobs worldwide, closing plants, and dropping brands. USA Today leads with news that some airline passengers will be screened by body scanning machines starting today. The experimental program begins in one airport, and several others will join in the next two months. The scanners essentially look through a passenger's clothing to find things that might be hidden and wouldn't be picked up by a metal detector, such as plastic explosives.
Obama signed the stimulus package yesterday, but that did little to calm investors who were confronted with a spate of grim economic data from countries that many had predicted would help the world climb out of the recession. Even the dire predictions from a few months ago are starting to look optimistic. "Manufacturing, construction, financial services, non-financial, retail—wherever you look, you see a complete collapse in demand," one economist tells the Post. "It really is like the floor has come out of confidence in global economic demand."
The WSJ takes a front-page look at how European markets were particularly affected by increased fears of a "full-blown economic crash in Eastern Europe." Shares of Western banks that do business in the area were particularly affected as some are beginning to warn that Eastern Europe could soon see a collapse on the same scale as the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. Until recently, Eastern Europe was experiencing huge growth and was seen as a mecca for investors, but "the region's fortunes have abruptly reversed," declares the WSJ. One group says it expects a mere $30 billion to flow into emerging European economies in 2009, a huge decline from the $254 billion in 2008.
Considering that GM and Chrysler have already received $17.4 billion in government loans, yesterday's requests would increase the total cost of bailing out the automakers to a whopping $39 billion. And, of course, there are no guarantees that either company won't come back for billions more in the future. The NYT notes that the Obama administration now has "two options, neither of them appealing." It can either continue to prop up the companies, or simply deny their request, which would likely force two of Detroit's Big Three to file for bankruptcy protection, and company officials made sure to emphasize that, in the long run, that would be far more costly for taxpayers.
Specifically, GM said it would cut 47,000 jobs worldwide this year and close five North American plants in addition to the closures it had already announced. The company will also begin to focus on just four of its brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick. GM says that if it receives government help it could return to profitability within 24 months but probably would run out of money by March without more taxpayer cash. Chrysler, which increased its total request to $9 billion, said it would cut 3,000 more jobs this year and stop producing the PT Cruiser, Dodge Durango, and Chrysler Aspen models.
The LAT says that, overall, industry analysts "were skeptical" that the plans presented would be enough to save the automakers, particularly considering the current conditions in the market. The WP notes some lawmakers are "expressing skepticism" about providing more money to the automakers. The WSJ suggests that while the GM plan was widely seen as a step in the right direction, Chrysler's left a lot to be desired. Chrysler's plan to cut production capacity by 100,000 vehicles amounts to "a modest reduction for a company that has several more plants than it needs," notes the Journal. There is mounting opposition on Capitol Hill to sinking more taxpayer cash into Chrysler until Cerberus Capital Management, its majority owner, invests some more of its own money into the automaker.
In its inside pages, the NYT takes a look at GM's brand-cutting, a painful move for a company that often prided itself in having "a car for every purse and purpose." GM now says it will focus on four brands, but some experts contend even that is two too many. "A volume brand and a premium brand can get the job done. Toyota has proven that," said the editor of Edmunds.com. "Cadillac, Chevy, done." In another inside piece, the NYT notes that by not naming a "car czar" Obama has put himself in that position. If the Obama administration decides it wants to bail out the automakers, it means that the administration officials, and ultimately the president, will have to be involved in detailed discussions into issues such as workforces, brands, and healthcare, all while "the auto industry—like the financial industry—will essentially be run from inside the Treasury."
All the papers front, and the WSJ leads its world-wide newsbox with, Obama's first major deployment of combat troops. The president authorized an additional 17,000 soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan. The move will increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by nearly 50 percent. By mid-summer there should be around 55,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan working alongside 32,000 NATO troops. There have been hints that Obama will send even more troops to Afghanistan, but that won't happen until a full strategy review is completed in about six weeks.
Another day brings yet another explanation from Illinois Sen. Roland Burris about his contacts with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich before he was appointed to Obama's old Senate seat. Burris now says that he did, in fact, try to raise some money for Blagojevich at the same time as he was seeking the appointment to the Senate but was unsuccessful. For those keeping track at home, the WP notes that this was "Burris's fifth version" of events. The Senate Ethics Committee and an Illinois prosecutor have launched investigations. The WP's editorial page says this whole thing is getting tiring. "Burris's story has more twists than the Chicago El," says the Post. "The people of Illinois have suffered enough. Mr. Burris should resign."
In yet another disturbing story about the special immigration-enforcement units that were set up after Sept. 11 to catch dangerous illegal immigrants, the Post takes a look at a raid that took place in Jan. 2007 that detained 24 Latino men. After being admonished for failing to meet their quota for arrests, a team descended on a 7-Eleven in Maryland and just started detaining people, many of whom were in the country illegally but most were not fugitives. One, in fact, had just stopped by to get coffee on the way to the hospital to visit his wife and child.
The WSJ takes an interesting look at the confusion surrounding the executive-pay restrictions that were inserted into the economic stimulus package and could end up affecting more people than previously believed. The law essentially restricts the compensation of the 25 highest-paid people in a company that receives bailout money. But if the company identifies the 25 people it intends to pay the most this year and restricts their pay, they would no longer be the highest paid people and 25 new people would fall into that category. So does that mean their pay would have to be restricted as well? Alternatively, if it's done based on compensation received in 2008, those whose pay is restricted wouldn't be the highest paid in 2009. It could all result in a "weird game of leapfrog," as an executive-compensation attorney puts it.
The NYT and WSJ front news that the Securities and Exchange Commission charged R. Allen Stanford with a "massive ongoing fraud" involving $8 billion in certificates of deposit. According to the SEC, Stanford International Bank, which is based in Antigua, and other companies that Stanford controlled lured investors into buying the CDs by promising "improbable, if not impossible" returns that were far higher than other banks. Although he claimed there was lots of oversight, it turns out that the investments were reviewed by only two people. The NYT notes that regulators are "likely to face tough questions" because Stanford's activities have been raising red flags since 1998. Interestingly enough, the charges are the result of an inquiry opened in Oct. 2006 that the SEC apparently paused until late last year "at the request of another federal agency," reports the NYT.
Top of the Document
Afghanistan hails 'new US ties'
The Afghan president has been highly critical of civilian casualties
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is turning a new page in relations with the US, his spokesman has said.
The comments came as US President Barack Obama authorised up to 17,000 more US troops for Afghanistan.
Mr Obama has been critical of Mr Karzai and the phone call to inform him of the troop increase was believed to be the first since his inauguration.
Meanwhile, the US says it is checking claims that six women and two children died in an airstrike in Herat province.
Major review
"Mr Obama spoke with the president about various issues including steps for improving security in the region, equipment and training of the national army, further strengthening of bilateral relations, and the increase of forces was also discussed," Afghan presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada said.
"We have opened a new page."
Mr Obama said the 17,000 extra US troops had been due to go to Iraq but were being redirected to "meet urgent security needs".
I recognise the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops
US President Barack Obama
Concern over civilian casualties
Nosedive in relations
"Afghan defence ministry spokesman Mohammad Ishaq Payman told the AFP news agency that the move was a "positive development".
"But we have our own conditions. We want these troops to be deployed in areas where they could play a positive role in suppressing terrorists," he said.
"We want them to be deployed along the border, in eastern, south-eastern and southern parts of the country."
It is the first major military decision by the Obama administration, and comes amid a major review of US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The additional troops are to be sent before warmer weather brings an expected increase in fighting in Afghanistan, US defence officials said.
They will be made up of 8,000 marines, and 4,000 army soldiers, plus another 5,000 support staff. They will serve in the south.
'Losing patience'
Relations between the US and Afghanistan have recently hit an all-time low, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Kabul says.
Well-placed leaks, briefs and snubs raised the prospect that Washington could move its support away from Mr Karzai in this year's presidential poll.
Mr Karzai in turn has become increasingly vociferous in his criticism of American military tactics and of the rise in civilian casualties in particular.
He has repeatedly warned that his people are losing patience over the continuing casualties.
On Tuesday, the UN said that 2,118 civilians were killed in the conflict in 2008 - an increase of 39% from 2007.
Militants were to blame for 55% of the deaths, while US, Nato and Afghan forces were responsible for 39%, the UN said.
In the latest incident, the US says it is investigating reports that civilians died in an airstrike in the Gozara district of Herat province.
The US says it killed 15 militants, including a leader named Ghulam Yahya Akbari.
Police in the area say that six women and two children were among the dead, along with five men who were also civilians living in tents in the remote countryside.
A US military spokesman told Associated Press news agency that Gen Michael Ryan had travelled to Gozara district on Wednesday "to see what the situation is".
The news agency says it has photographs from the strike site in Herat which show the body of a young boy in a white shroud. Afghan men can be seen digging about 12 graves alongside dead sheep and destroyed tents.
Top of the Document
Clerics urge new jihad over Gaza
Turkey witnesses some of the most passionate demonstrations in support of Gaza
At a weekend meeting in Istanbul, 200 religious scholars and clerics met senior Hamas officials to plot a new jihad centred on Gaza.
The BBC's Bill Law was the only Western journalist at the meeting.
In a hall crowded with conservative Sunni Muslim sheikhs and scholars, in a hotel close to Istanbul's Ataturk Airport speaker after speaker called for jihad against Israel in support of Hamas.
The choice of Turkey was significant. Arab hardliners were keen to put aside historic differences with the Turks.
As one organiser put it: "During the past 100 years relations have been strained but Palestine has brought us together."
Many delegates spoke appreciatively of the protest by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who stormed out of a Davos debate on Gaza two weeks ago.
Gaza gives us power, it solves our differences... Palestine is a legitimate theatre of operations for jihad
Mohsen al-Awajy, Saudi religious scholar
The conference, dubbed the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign, also gave impetus to Sunni clerics concerned about the growing power of Hezbollah, the Shia movement backed by Iran, which rose to international prominence in its own war with Israel in 2006.
"Gaza is a gift," the Saudi religious scholar Mohsen al-Awajy told me. He and other delegates repeatedly referred to the Gaza war as "a victory".
"Gaza," he continued, "gives us power, it solves our differences. We are all now in a unified front against Zionism."
In closed meetings after sessions delegates focussed on the creation of a "third Jihadist front" - the first two being Afghanistan and Iraq. The intensity of the Israeli attack had "awakened all Muslims," Mr Awajy claimed.
"Palestine is a legitimate theatre of operations for jihad (holy war)," he added.
Road to liberation
Mohammed Nazzal, a senior Hamas leader based in Damascus, challenged Arab governments to "open their borders and allow the fighters to come."
Delegates from all over the Middle East, and from Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia applauded as he stabbed the air with a raised finger and declared: "There will be no agreement with Israel... only weapons will bring respect."
Gaza has opened a gulf between Arab people and their regimes, clerics say
Mr Nazzal told his audience: "Don't worry about casualties."
The 23 days of bombardment of Gaza, in which some 1,300 people, many of them civilians and nearly 300 of them children, are believed to have died, was "just the beginning" of the struggle, Mr Nazzal said.
To laughter in the audience, another speaker noted that twice as many babies were born as children were killed during the war.
Every death, I was told, was a martyrdom on the road to liberation.
For the hardline sheikhs, it was an opportunity to underline what they see as the growing gulf between Arab regimes who are hesitant to back Hamas and the people of the region who, they say, embrace Hamas as heroes fighting against overwhelming odds.
More importantly, this conference represented something of a coup for Hamas. They were promised weapons, money and fighters.
The question remains whether such rhetoric can or will be translated into action. Israel keeps a tight blockade on the Gaza Strip, where Hamas exercises de facto control, and Israel's other borders are also heavily guarded.
But at the very least this statement of intent from Sunni hardliners poses new challenges, not just to the Israelis and to Western efforts to broker a peace deal but to Arab regimes as well.
Top of the Document
Syria urges better ties with US
Mr Assad says his country is a "player" in the Middle East
President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has urged the US in a newspaper interview to engage in talks with Damascus and restore full diplomatic ties.
He told the UK's Guardian newspaper the signs coming from the Obama administration had been "positive".
But he said there had not yet been a definite change of policy from the US.
Former President George W Bush largely shunned Syria, in protest at its support for militant groups such as Hezbollah and its friendship with Iran.
But in his interview, Mr Assad said his country was vital to finding a solution to the conflicts in the Middle East.
"We are a player in the region. If you want to talk about peace, you can't advance without Syria," he told the Guardian.
Israel criticism
After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has seen a flurry of visits in recent months by leaders including French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
And Mr Assad said he was confident the Americans were also keen to engage in talks.
"We have the impression that this administration will be different and we have seen the signals. But we have to wait for the reality and the results."
John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate committee on foreign relations, is heading a US delegation to Damascus later this week - a move Mr Assad described as "important".
But he added: "We are still in the period of gestures and signals. There is nothing real yet."
On the possibility of improved relations with Israel following recent elections there, he said: "Betting on the Israeli government is a waste of time."
But he said he expected peace talks between Israel and Syria to resume "in the end".
Top of the Document
Think Again: Talking with Iran
By Hillary Mann Leverett
Page 1 of 2
Posted February 2009
With a new president in the White House and a celebrated reformist shaking up Tehran, the time seems ripe for a diplomatic breakthrough 30 years in the waiting. But when it comes to dealing with the Islamic Republic, be forewarned: Washington's usual go-slow approach is doomed to fail.
"The United States Should Wait to Engage Iran Until Ahmadinejad Is Gone"
Wrong. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the problem, and his rival Mohammad Khatami is not (necessarily) the solution. For many years, U.S. administrations have thought that, if they just waited long enough, Iranian politics would produce a leader that Washington would like dealing with. When I served as director for Iran and Afghanistan affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2003, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice dismissed then President Khatami as a potential diplomatic partner for the United States. Indeed, the erstwhile Sovietologist compared Khatami to Mikhail Gorbachev, arguing that by engaging Khatami, the United States would risk missing the opportunity to find the Islamic Republic's Boris Yeltsin.
Now, of course, after nearly four years of Ahmadinejad, the United States can hardly wait for Khatami to come back. Moreover, during Ahmadinejad's presidency, many in Washington have come to view Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a moderating influence -- this, of course, being the same ayatollah who, during Khatami's presidency, was widely criticized in the West as an authoritarian cleric thwarting the clear preference of the Iranian public for liberal reform.
Focusing on individual Iranian politicians misses an important reality: The Islamic Republic of Iran actually has a system of government, with multiple and competing power centers.
On foreign policy in particular, the system makes decisions by consensus. No president -- no matter how reformist or conservative in orientation -- will be able to force through significant changes in Iranian foreign policy without the acquiescence of other power centers, most notably the supreme leader.
This is why the breathless discussion of whether Washington should reach out to Tehran, be it with a letter from President Barack Obama or some sort of formal diplomatic proposal in advance of Iran's presidential election in June, is so misguided. The United States should make diplomatic proposals to Iran on their merits, recognizing that the Iranian power structure as a whole will be processing and responding to those proposals. Trying to game the Iranian political system in the hopes of ultimately finding a pliable Iranian interlocutor not only won't work; it will only confirm the worst suspicions in Tehran that the United States will never be willing to accept the Islamic Republic as Iran's legitimate political order.
"The Iranian Government Is Too Divided to 'Deliver' in Any Serious Negotiation"
Wrong again. This is a pearl of conventional wisdom dispensed by so-called American "experts" on Iran -- but only by those who have never negotiated with, nor perhaps even talked with, actual Iranian officials. The assertion is completely contradicted by several episodes of U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic, going back more than 20 years. I myself participated in one of these episodes, negotiating with Iran over Afghanistan and al Qaeda for almost two years from 2001 to 2003 on behalf of the U.S. government.
During these talks, I saw firsthand how Iranian diplomats can negotiate productively, deliver on specific commitments they have made, and make concessions and calculate trade-offs across a range of issues to enhance their country's overall strategic position. My Iranian interlocutors were the three most senior officials responsible for the Islamic Republic's policy toward Afghanistan. They were knowledgeable, serious, and credible in their representations. If the United States is now sincere about diplomatic engagement with Tehran, there is no reason to expect that the Iranians tapped to meet with Obama's representatives -- regardless of who occupies the president's office in Tehran -- would be any less knowledgeable, serious, and credible.
"Iran Is an Immature, Ideological State That Cannot Think About Its National Interest"
No. It is commonly asserted in Washington that, if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would use them to carry out alleged threats by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders to "wipe Israel off the map." These threats would be carried out without any regard to the consequences that would befall Iran; according to this perspective, the Islamic Republic aspires to become history's first "suicide nation."
The reality of Iran's national security strategy is far different. Candid conversations with Iranian officials confirm what long observation of Iranian policies strongly suggests: Iran pursues an "asymmetric" national security strategy, aimed at generating for the Islamic Republic the same security that conventional military capabilities, allies, and strategic depth -- all things that Iran does not have -- provide for other countries. This strategy includes developing unconventional military capabilities, including at least a nuclear weapons "option" as a last-ditch deterrent.
This strategy is not going to change as a result of Iran's upcoming presidential election. The Islamic Republic established its asymmetric national security strategy before Khatami was first elected in 1997. It was Iran's national security strategy during both terms of Khatami's presidency. It has remained Iran's national security strategy under Ahmadinejad. Perhaps something beyond individual personalities is at work here. If the United States and its allies want to stop Iran from going all the way to overt nuclear weaponization, they need to be prepared to address the Islamic Republic's most fundamental security concerns -- not to demonize individual Iranian politicians as latter-day Hitlers bent on a second Holocaust.
"Iran's Support for Terrorism Confirms Its Irredeemably Aggressive and Malign Ambitions"
Hardly. Here, too, Iranian policy needs to be understood in the context of the Islamic Republic's asymmetric national security strategy. Proxy actors -- political, paramilitary, and terrorist -- in neighboring states and elsewhere give Tehran tools to ensure that those states will not be used as anti-Iranian platforms, providing the Islamic Republic a measure of strategic depth it otherwise lacks. This element of Iran's national security strategy encompasses not only groups identified by Washington as terrorist organizations but also Iraqi and Afghan political parties and their associated militias.
Most problematic, the (willful?) failure of U.S. foreign-policy elites to understand the calculations motivating Iran's actions toward its proxy allies has profoundly distorted discussion in the United States and elsewhere of alleged Iranian ties to al Qaeda. Indeed, this failure has cost the United States opportunities to enlist the Islamic Republic as a potentially formidable partner in the fight against terrorism.
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Tehran detained literally hundreds of suspected al Qaeda operatives seeking to flee Afghanistan into Iran. Iran repatriated at least 200 of these individuals to the then new government of Hamid Karzai, to Saudi Arabia, and to other countries. The Iranian government documented these actions to the United Nations and the United States in February 2002, including providing copies of each repatriated individual's passport.
But Iran could not repatriate all of the individuals it detained. For example, the Islamic Republic has no diplomatic relations with Egypt, and Iranian diplomats told my colleagues and me that Tehran was not able to send al Qaeda operatives of Egyptian origin back to Egypt. Regrettably, instead of working to establish a framework within which Tehran could have made al Qaeda operatives detained in Iran available to the United States or some international body -- as our Iranian interlocutors requested -- the Bush administration insisted that Iran detain and deport all al Qaeda figures the United States believed might be in Iran, without any assistance from or reciprocal understandings with the United States. (This was meant to be a "test" of Iranian intentions.)
Later, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration told the Iranians that the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) -- an Iraqi-based Iranian opposition group that the United States had for years identified as a terrorist organization -- would be targeted as an extension of Saddam Hussein's military apparatus. However, in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the Pentagon granted the MEK special protected status, raising concerns in Tehran that Washington wanted to use the MEK as part of a campaign to bring down the Islamic Republic. Only at that point did the Iranians begin to view the al Qaeda operatives in its custody as a potential bargaining chip to use with Washington regarding the MEK.
Then, in response to the Bush administration's unconditional demands that Tehran turn over al Qaeda operatives the United States believed to be on Iranian soil, the Iranians offered a deal -- to exchange al Qaeda figures they had detained for MEK cadres in Iraq. To facilitate such an exchange, the Iranians offered to release all low- and mid-level MEK figures; to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to monitor the treatment of any high-level MEK figures detained in Iran; and to forego application of the death penalty to any high-level MEK figures found guilty of crimes by Iranian courts. In the end, it was the Bush administration, not Iran, that rebuffed a deal that would have given the United States access to important al Qaeda operatives -- including, possibly, Saad bin Laden, Osama's son.
"Diplomacy Should Focus on One or a Few Issues Where the Two Countries' Interests Overlap"
No. This bit of conventional wisdom -- reminiscent of comedian Dana Carvey's imitation of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush (not too much, not too fast, "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture") -- is also wrong. From my own experience, it is clear that trying to proceed incrementally with Tehran is doomed to fail. Our talks over Afghanistan were productive but structurally flawed: Because there was no comprehensive, strategic framework for dealing with the Iranians, unrelated issues could and did undermine otherwise productive negotiations.
If Obama is serious about diplomatic engagement with Iran, he needs to establish a comprehensive strategic framework for U.S.-Iranian diplomacy at the outset, rather than waiting in vain for some measure of "trust" to be established. Moreover, that framework needs to explicitly posit strategic realignment between Washington and Tehran as the talks' end goal. Without this, the Iranians will never believe that the United States is truly prepared to live with the Islamic Republic as Iran's legitimate government. They will continue to act in ways that they think are critical to defending their vital interests, but that Washington sees as unacceptably provocative. Unless the Unites States breaks this vicious cycle, already bad U.S.-Iranian relations will continue to deteriorate, and the United States and the Islamic Republic will be drawn ever closer to the point of conflict, even with the Obama administration's professed interest in diplomatic engagement.
U.S. President George W. Bush explicitly rejected repeated Iranian overtures to discuss the two countries' differences in an atmosphere of "mutual respect." Although Obama has improved U.S. rhetoric with his repeated use of the phrase, "mutual respect," he has yet to tackle the real challenge of "changing the mind-set" (his words from the campaign) of U.S. policymakers with regard to Iran and other daunting challenges in the Middle East. As the diplomatic dance between Washington and Iran quickens, we'll soon know if he is willing and able to pull off this far more difficult feat.
Hillary Mann Leverett, who served as director for Iran and Persian Gulf affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, is chairman of Stratega, a political risk consultancy.
Top of the Document
Wednesday’s Early Bird leads with a story from the New York Times (echoed by most other major U.S. dailies) reporting that President Obama has ordered the first combat deployments of his presidency, saying yesterday that he had authorized an additional 17,000 U.S. troops "to stabilize a deteriorating situation" in Afghanistan.The new deployments, to begin in May, will increase the U.S. force in Afghanistan by nearly 50 percent, bringing it to 55,000 by mid-summer, along with 32,000 non-U.S. NATO troops. In a statement issued by the White House, Obama said that "urgent attention and swift action" were required because "the Taliban is resurgent in Afghanistan and al-Qaeda . . . threatens America from its safe-haven along the Pakistani border."
The London Daily Telegraph reports that British forces have seized heroin worth pounds 50 million and killed at least 20 Taliban fighters in a daring raid that dealt a significant blow to the insurgents in Afghanistan, the Ministry of Defence said yesterday.In an operation that involved weeks of detailed planning, a force of 700 troops from the Royal Marines, Special Boat Service and Army swooped on a Taliban drug factory and arms stronghold in the Upper Sangin Valley in Helmand province. Snipers hidden in hilltop positions and Warrior armoured vehicles sealed off escape routes as two waves of commandos and special forces in helicopters swept in.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Pakistan's leaders have publicly denounced U.S. missile strikes as an attack on the country's sovereignty, but privately Pakistani military and intelligence officers are aiding these attacks and have given significant support to recent U.S. missions, say officials from both countries.American unmanned Predator aircraft have killed scores of Islamic militants in Pakistan in more than 30 missile strikes since August, provoking outrage in the South Asian nation. Two in the past four days have killed more than 50 suspected militants. Yet, with the Taliban pushing deeper into the country, Pakistan's civilian and military leaders, while publicly condemning the attacks, have come to see the strikes as effective and are passing on intelligence that has helped recent missions, say officials from both countries.
The Associated Press reports that NATO warned Tuesday that a truce between the Pakistani government and Taliban militants in a restive region near the Afghan border risked giving the extremists a “safe haven.” The truce effectively ceded the Swat Valley to the Taliban and ended Pakistan’s military effort to defeat them there. Meanwhile, in a related story, the London Daily Telegraph reports that American officials have privately backed Pakistan's "Sharia law for peace'' deal with Taliban militants in the Swat Valley despite publicly criticising it as a "negative development''.Under the deal, Sharia will be introduced in the Malakhand and Kohistan districts of Pakistan's North West Frontier Province if Taliban militants end their armed campaign in the Swat Valley.
The Christian Science Monitor reports that Turkey is likely to play a prominent role as the US begins to remove thousands of tons of equipment and supplies from Iraq over the next year or so. The American military has been quietly shipping construction materials, food, fuel, and other nonlethal items into Iraq through Turkey using a two-lane commercial border crossing known as the Habur Gate in southeastern Turkey. But as the US considers its options for pulling out of Iraq – and the pace of that redeployment – the route through Turkey may play a conspicuous part, defense officials say.
Having signed into law nearly $800 billion in new spending, President Obama will now be under pressure to identify at least some budget cuts — and the Pentagon may be particularly vulnerable, according to the New York Times.Mr. Obama is set to release his first budget proposal on Feb. 26. After years in which military budgets have soared to record levels, Pentagon officials are already preparing at a minimum to pare back, with a particular eye to slashing weapons programs that have suffered significant cost overruns.Some Democrats are pressing for much broader cuts in military spending, with Representative Barney Frank of Massachusetts, the Democratic chairman of the Financial Services Committee, having called for a 25 percent reduction in the Pentagon budget.
The New York Times also reports that the Obama administration is quietly signaling continued support for other major elements of former President Bush’s approach to fighting Al Qaeda.In little-noticed confirmation testimony recently, Obama nominees endorsed continuing the C.I.A.’s program of transferring prisoners to other countries without legal rights, and indefinitely detaining terrorism suspects without trials even if they were arrested far from a war zone.
The Washington Times carries a story that says flag-draped caskets of fallen troops should not be turned into yet another photo op.Both the American Legion and the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Tuesday condemned a proposal to lift restrictions that now prevent the press from photographing caskets as they arrive home from wars overseas.
Finally, the Washington Post reports that Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Tuesday that the Obama administration will make "a concerted effort" to restore the image of the United States in the Islamic world and will seek to "enlist the help of Muslims around the world against the extremists."Clinton, who on Wednesday will travel to Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim country, told students at Tokyo University that "this is one of the central security challenges we face -- as to how to better communicate in a way that gets through the rhetoric and through the demagogy and is heard by people who can make judgments about what we stand for and who we truly are."
Media summary
1. Leading newspaper headlines: The whole world is crashing. That's essentially the message of the Washington Post's lead story that takes a look at how markets plunged around the world yesterday amidst signs that are making it seem increasingly clear that no one is going to survive the economic crisis unscathed. (Slate Magazine)
2. Afghanistan hails ‘new U.S. ties’: Afghan President Hamid Karzai is turning a new page in relations with the US, his spokesman has said. (BBC)
3. Clerics urge new jihad over Gaza: At a weekend meeting in Istanbul, 200 religious scholars and clerics met senior Hamas officials to plot a new jihad centred on Gaza. (BBC)
4. Syria urges better ties with U.S.: President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has urged the US in a newspaper interview to engage in talks with Damascus and restore full diplomatic ties. (BBC)
5. Think again: Talking with Iran: With a new president in the White House and a celebrated reformist shaking up Tehran, the time seems ripe for a diplomatic breakthrough 30 years in the waiting. But when it comes to dealing with the Islamic Republic, be forewarned: Washington's usual go-slow approach is doomed to fail. (Foreign Policy)
Leading newspaper headlines
The whole world is crashing. That's essentially the message of the Washington Post's lead story that takes a look at how markets plunged around the world yesterday amidst signs that are making it seem increasingly clear that no one is going to survive the economic crisis unscathed. The economies in Japan, Britain, and Germany are all falling at a rate not seen in decades. And emerging economies "are contracting at a pace few had predicted just months ago." The Dow Jones industrial average plunged nearly 300 points, and closed just a fraction of a point above its November low.
The Los Angeles Times and New York Times lead with, while the Wall Street Journal banners, General Motors and Chrylser reporting that they need an additional $21.6 billion in government loans to avoid collapsing. In the restructuring plans that they submitted to the Treasury Department yesterday, the auto giants outlined a series of steps to reduce costs, including cutting 50,000 jobs worldwide, closing plants, and dropping brands. USA Today leads with news that some airline passengers will be screened by body scanning machines starting today. The experimental program begins in one airport, and several others will join in the next two months. The scanners essentially look through a passenger's clothing to find things that might be hidden and wouldn't be picked up by a metal detector, such as plastic explosives.
Obama signed the stimulus package yesterday, but that did little to calm investors who were confronted with a spate of grim economic data from countries that many had predicted would help the world climb out of the recession. Even the dire predictions from a few months ago are starting to look optimistic. "Manufacturing, construction, financial services, non-financial, retail—wherever you look, you see a complete collapse in demand," one economist tells the Post. "It really is like the floor has come out of confidence in global economic demand."
The WSJ takes a front-page look at how European markets were particularly affected by increased fears of a "full-blown economic crash in Eastern Europe." Shares of Western banks that do business in the area were particularly affected as some are beginning to warn that Eastern Europe could soon see a collapse on the same scale as the Asian crisis of the late 1990s. Until recently, Eastern Europe was experiencing huge growth and was seen as a mecca for investors, but "the region's fortunes have abruptly reversed," declares the WSJ. One group says it expects a mere $30 billion to flow into emerging European economies in 2009, a huge decline from the $254 billion in 2008.
Considering that GM and Chrysler have already received $17.4 billion in government loans, yesterday's requests would increase the total cost of bailing out the automakers to a whopping $39 billion. And, of course, there are no guarantees that either company won't come back for billions more in the future. The NYT notes that the Obama administration now has "two options, neither of them appealing." It can either continue to prop up the companies, or simply deny their request, which would likely force two of Detroit's Big Three to file for bankruptcy protection, and company officials made sure to emphasize that, in the long run, that would be far more costly for taxpayers.
Specifically, GM said it would cut 47,000 jobs worldwide this year and close five North American plants in addition to the closures it had already announced. The company will also begin to focus on just four of its brands: Chevrolet, Cadillac, GMC, and Buick. GM says that if it receives government help it could return to profitability within 24 months but probably would run out of money by March without more taxpayer cash. Chrysler, which increased its total request to $9 billion, said it would cut 3,000 more jobs this year and stop producing the PT Cruiser, Dodge Durango, and Chrysler Aspen models.
The LAT says that, overall, industry analysts "were skeptical" that the plans presented would be enough to save the automakers, particularly considering the current conditions in the market. The WP notes some lawmakers are "expressing skepticism" about providing more money to the automakers. The WSJ suggests that while the GM plan was widely seen as a step in the right direction, Chrysler's left a lot to be desired. Chrysler's plan to cut production capacity by 100,000 vehicles amounts to "a modest reduction for a company that has several more plants than it needs," notes the Journal. There is mounting opposition on Capitol Hill to sinking more taxpayer cash into Chrysler until Cerberus Capital Management, its majority owner, invests some more of its own money into the automaker.
In its inside pages, the NYT takes a look at GM's brand-cutting, a painful move for a company that often prided itself in having "a car for every purse and purpose." GM now says it will focus on four brands, but some experts contend even that is two too many. "A volume brand and a premium brand can get the job done. Toyota has proven that," said the editor of Edmunds.com. "Cadillac, Chevy, done." In another inside piece, the NYT notes that by not naming a "car czar" Obama has put himself in that position. If the Obama administration decides it wants to bail out the automakers, it means that the administration officials, and ultimately the president, will have to be involved in detailed discussions into issues such as workforces, brands, and healthcare, all while "the auto industry—like the financial industry—will essentially be run from inside the Treasury."
All the papers front, and the WSJ leads its world-wide newsbox with, Obama's first major deployment of combat troops. The president authorized an additional 17,000 soldiers and Marines for Afghanistan. The move will increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by nearly 50 percent. By mid-summer there should be around 55,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan working alongside 32,000 NATO troops. There have been hints that Obama will send even more troops to Afghanistan, but that won't happen until a full strategy review is completed in about six weeks.
Another day brings yet another explanation from Illinois Sen. Roland Burris about his contacts with former Gov. Rod Blagojevich before he was appointed to Obama's old Senate seat. Burris now says that he did, in fact, try to raise some money for Blagojevich at the same time as he was seeking the appointment to the Senate but was unsuccessful. For those keeping track at home, the WP notes that this was "Burris's fifth version" of events. The Senate Ethics Committee and an Illinois prosecutor have launched investigations. The WP's editorial page says this whole thing is getting tiring. "Burris's story has more twists than the Chicago El," says the Post. "The people of Illinois have suffered enough. Mr. Burris should resign."
In yet another disturbing story about the special immigration-enforcement units that were set up after Sept. 11 to catch dangerous illegal immigrants, the Post takes a look at a raid that took place in Jan. 2007 that detained 24 Latino men. After being admonished for failing to meet their quota for arrests, a team descended on a 7-Eleven in Maryland and just started detaining people, many of whom were in the country illegally but most were not fugitives. One, in fact, had just stopped by to get coffee on the way to the hospital to visit his wife and child.
The WSJ takes an interesting look at the confusion surrounding the executive-pay restrictions that were inserted into the economic stimulus package and could end up affecting more people than previously believed. The law essentially restricts the compensation of the 25 highest-paid people in a company that receives bailout money. But if the company identifies the 25 people it intends to pay the most this year and restricts their pay, they would no longer be the highest paid people and 25 new people would fall into that category. So does that mean their pay would have to be restricted as well? Alternatively, if it's done based on compensation received in 2008, those whose pay is restricted wouldn't be the highest paid in 2009. It could all result in a "weird game of leapfrog," as an executive-compensation attorney puts it.
The NYT and WSJ front news that the Securities and Exchange Commission charged R. Allen Stanford with a "massive ongoing fraud" involving $8 billion in certificates of deposit. According to the SEC, Stanford International Bank, which is based in Antigua, and other companies that Stanford controlled lured investors into buying the CDs by promising "improbable, if not impossible" returns that were far higher than other banks. Although he claimed there was lots of oversight, it turns out that the investments were reviewed by only two people. The NYT notes that regulators are "likely to face tough questions" because Stanford's activities have been raising red flags since 1998. Interestingly enough, the charges are the result of an inquiry opened in Oct. 2006 that the SEC apparently paused until late last year "at the request of another federal agency," reports the NYT.
Top of the Document
Afghanistan hails 'new US ties'
The Afghan president has been highly critical of civilian casualties
Afghan President Hamid Karzai is turning a new page in relations with the US, his spokesman has said.
The comments came as US President Barack Obama authorised up to 17,000 more US troops for Afghanistan.
Mr Obama has been critical of Mr Karzai and the phone call to inform him of the troop increase was believed to be the first since his inauguration.
Meanwhile, the US says it is checking claims that six women and two children died in an airstrike in Herat province.
Major review
"Mr Obama spoke with the president about various issues including steps for improving security in the region, equipment and training of the national army, further strengthening of bilateral relations, and the increase of forces was also discussed," Afghan presidential spokesman Humayun Hamidzada said.
"We have opened a new page."
Mr Obama said the 17,000 extra US troops had been due to go to Iraq but were being redirected to "meet urgent security needs".
I recognise the extraordinary strain that this deployment places on our troops
US President Barack Obama
Concern over civilian casualties
Nosedive in relations
"Afghan defence ministry spokesman Mohammad Ishaq Payman told the AFP news agency that the move was a "positive development".
"But we have our own conditions. We want these troops to be deployed in areas where they could play a positive role in suppressing terrorists," he said.
"We want them to be deployed along the border, in eastern, south-eastern and southern parts of the country."
It is the first major military decision by the Obama administration, and comes amid a major review of US policy in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The additional troops are to be sent before warmer weather brings an expected increase in fighting in Afghanistan, US defence officials said.
They will be made up of 8,000 marines, and 4,000 army soldiers, plus another 5,000 support staff. They will serve in the south.
'Losing patience'
Relations between the US and Afghanistan have recently hit an all-time low, the BBC's Ian Pannell in Kabul says.
Well-placed leaks, briefs and snubs raised the prospect that Washington could move its support away from Mr Karzai in this year's presidential poll.
Mr Karzai in turn has become increasingly vociferous in his criticism of American military tactics and of the rise in civilian casualties in particular.
He has repeatedly warned that his people are losing patience over the continuing casualties.
On Tuesday, the UN said that 2,118 civilians were killed in the conflict in 2008 - an increase of 39% from 2007.
Militants were to blame for 55% of the deaths, while US, Nato and Afghan forces were responsible for 39%, the UN said.
In the latest incident, the US says it is investigating reports that civilians died in an airstrike in the Gozara district of Herat province.
The US says it killed 15 militants, including a leader named Ghulam Yahya Akbari.
Police in the area say that six women and two children were among the dead, along with five men who were also civilians living in tents in the remote countryside.
A US military spokesman told Associated Press news agency that Gen Michael Ryan had travelled to Gozara district on Wednesday "to see what the situation is".
The news agency says it has photographs from the strike site in Herat which show the body of a young boy in a white shroud. Afghan men can be seen digging about 12 graves alongside dead sheep and destroyed tents.
Top of the Document
Clerics urge new jihad over Gaza
Turkey witnesses some of the most passionate demonstrations in support of Gaza
At a weekend meeting in Istanbul, 200 religious scholars and clerics met senior Hamas officials to plot a new jihad centred on Gaza.
The BBC's Bill Law was the only Western journalist at the meeting.
In a hall crowded with conservative Sunni Muslim sheikhs and scholars, in a hotel close to Istanbul's Ataturk Airport speaker after speaker called for jihad against Israel in support of Hamas.
The choice of Turkey was significant. Arab hardliners were keen to put aside historic differences with the Turks.
As one organiser put it: "During the past 100 years relations have been strained but Palestine has brought us together."
Many delegates spoke appreciatively of the protest by Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who stormed out of a Davos debate on Gaza two weeks ago.
Gaza gives us power, it solves our differences... Palestine is a legitimate theatre of operations for jihad
Mohsen al-Awajy, Saudi religious scholar
The conference, dubbed the Global Anti-Aggression Campaign, also gave impetus to Sunni clerics concerned about the growing power of Hezbollah, the Shia movement backed by Iran, which rose to international prominence in its own war with Israel in 2006.
"Gaza is a gift," the Saudi religious scholar Mohsen al-Awajy told me. He and other delegates repeatedly referred to the Gaza war as "a victory".
"Gaza," he continued, "gives us power, it solves our differences. We are all now in a unified front against Zionism."
In closed meetings after sessions delegates focussed on the creation of a "third Jihadist front" - the first two being Afghanistan and Iraq. The intensity of the Israeli attack had "awakened all Muslims," Mr Awajy claimed.
"Palestine is a legitimate theatre of operations for jihad (holy war)," he added.
Road to liberation
Mohammed Nazzal, a senior Hamas leader based in Damascus, challenged Arab governments to "open their borders and allow the fighters to come."
Delegates from all over the Middle East, and from Somalia, Sudan, Pakistan and Indonesia applauded as he stabbed the air with a raised finger and declared: "There will be no agreement with Israel... only weapons will bring respect."
Gaza has opened a gulf between Arab people and their regimes, clerics say
Mr Nazzal told his audience: "Don't worry about casualties."
The 23 days of bombardment of Gaza, in which some 1,300 people, many of them civilians and nearly 300 of them children, are believed to have died, was "just the beginning" of the struggle, Mr Nazzal said.
To laughter in the audience, another speaker noted that twice as many babies were born as children were killed during the war.
Every death, I was told, was a martyrdom on the road to liberation.
For the hardline sheikhs, it was an opportunity to underline what they see as the growing gulf between Arab regimes who are hesitant to back Hamas and the people of the region who, they say, embrace Hamas as heroes fighting against overwhelming odds.
More importantly, this conference represented something of a coup for Hamas. They were promised weapons, money and fighters.
The question remains whether such rhetoric can or will be translated into action. Israel keeps a tight blockade on the Gaza Strip, where Hamas exercises de facto control, and Israel's other borders are also heavily guarded.
But at the very least this statement of intent from Sunni hardliners poses new challenges, not just to the Israelis and to Western efforts to broker a peace deal but to Arab regimes as well.
Top of the Document
Syria urges better ties with US
Mr Assad says his country is a "player" in the Middle East
President Bashar al-Assad of Syria has urged the US in a newspaper interview to engage in talks with Damascus and restore full diplomatic ties.
He told the UK's Guardian newspaper the signs coming from the Obama administration had been "positive".
But he said there had not yet been a definite change of policy from the US.
Former President George W Bush largely shunned Syria, in protest at its support for militant groups such as Hezbollah and its friendship with Iran.
But in his interview, Mr Assad said his country was vital to finding a solution to the conflicts in the Middle East.
"We are a player in the region. If you want to talk about peace, you can't advance without Syria," he told the Guardian.
Israel criticism
After years of diplomatic isolation, Damascus has seen a flurry of visits in recent months by leaders including French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
And Mr Assad said he was confident the Americans were also keen to engage in talks.
"We have the impression that this administration will be different and we have seen the signals. But we have to wait for the reality and the results."
John Kerry, chairman of the US Senate committee on foreign relations, is heading a US delegation to Damascus later this week - a move Mr Assad described as "important".
But he added: "We are still in the period of gestures and signals. There is nothing real yet."
On the possibility of improved relations with Israel following recent elections there, he said: "Betting on the Israeli government is a waste of time."
But he said he expected peace talks between Israel and Syria to resume "in the end".
Top of the Document
Think Again: Talking with Iran
By Hillary Mann Leverett
Page 1 of 2
Posted February 2009
With a new president in the White House and a celebrated reformist shaking up Tehran, the time seems ripe for a diplomatic breakthrough 30 years in the waiting. But when it comes to dealing with the Islamic Republic, be forewarned: Washington's usual go-slow approach is doomed to fail.
"The United States Should Wait to Engage Iran Until Ahmadinejad Is Gone"
Wrong. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not the problem, and his rival Mohammad Khatami is not (necessarily) the solution. For many years, U.S. administrations have thought that, if they just waited long enough, Iranian politics would produce a leader that Washington would like dealing with. When I served as director for Iran and Afghanistan affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2003, national security advisor Condoleezza Rice dismissed then President Khatami as a potential diplomatic partner for the United States. Indeed, the erstwhile Sovietologist compared Khatami to Mikhail Gorbachev, arguing that by engaging Khatami, the United States would risk missing the opportunity to find the Islamic Republic's Boris Yeltsin.
Now, of course, after nearly four years of Ahmadinejad, the United States can hardly wait for Khatami to come back. Moreover, during Ahmadinejad's presidency, many in Washington have come to view Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as a moderating influence -- this, of course, being the same ayatollah who, during Khatami's presidency, was widely criticized in the West as an authoritarian cleric thwarting the clear preference of the Iranian public for liberal reform.
Focusing on individual Iranian politicians misses an important reality: The Islamic Republic of Iran actually has a system of government, with multiple and competing power centers.
On foreign policy in particular, the system makes decisions by consensus. No president -- no matter how reformist or conservative in orientation -- will be able to force through significant changes in Iranian foreign policy without the acquiescence of other power centers, most notably the supreme leader.
This is why the breathless discussion of whether Washington should reach out to Tehran, be it with a letter from President Barack Obama or some sort of formal diplomatic proposal in advance of Iran's presidential election in June, is so misguided. The United States should make diplomatic proposals to Iran on their merits, recognizing that the Iranian power structure as a whole will be processing and responding to those proposals. Trying to game the Iranian political system in the hopes of ultimately finding a pliable Iranian interlocutor not only won't work; it will only confirm the worst suspicions in Tehran that the United States will never be willing to accept the Islamic Republic as Iran's legitimate political order.
"The Iranian Government Is Too Divided to 'Deliver' in Any Serious Negotiation"
Wrong again. This is a pearl of conventional wisdom dispensed by so-called American "experts" on Iran -- but only by those who have never negotiated with, nor perhaps even talked with, actual Iranian officials. The assertion is completely contradicted by several episodes of U.S. engagement with the Islamic Republic, going back more than 20 years. I myself participated in one of these episodes, negotiating with Iran over Afghanistan and al Qaeda for almost two years from 2001 to 2003 on behalf of the U.S. government.
During these talks, I saw firsthand how Iranian diplomats can negotiate productively, deliver on specific commitments they have made, and make concessions and calculate trade-offs across a range of issues to enhance their country's overall strategic position. My Iranian interlocutors were the three most senior officials responsible for the Islamic Republic's policy toward Afghanistan. They were knowledgeable, serious, and credible in their representations. If the United States is now sincere about diplomatic engagement with Tehran, there is no reason to expect that the Iranians tapped to meet with Obama's representatives -- regardless of who occupies the president's office in Tehran -- would be any less knowledgeable, serious, and credible.
"Iran Is an Immature, Ideological State That Cannot Think About Its National Interest"
No. It is commonly asserted in Washington that, if Iran were to obtain nuclear weapons, it would use them to carry out alleged threats by Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders to "wipe Israel off the map." These threats would be carried out without any regard to the consequences that would befall Iran; according to this perspective, the Islamic Republic aspires to become history's first "suicide nation."
The reality of Iran's national security strategy is far different. Candid conversations with Iranian officials confirm what long observation of Iranian policies strongly suggests: Iran pursues an "asymmetric" national security strategy, aimed at generating for the Islamic Republic the same security that conventional military capabilities, allies, and strategic depth -- all things that Iran does not have -- provide for other countries. This strategy includes developing unconventional military capabilities, including at least a nuclear weapons "option" as a last-ditch deterrent.
This strategy is not going to change as a result of Iran's upcoming presidential election. The Islamic Republic established its asymmetric national security strategy before Khatami was first elected in 1997. It was Iran's national security strategy during both terms of Khatami's presidency. It has remained Iran's national security strategy under Ahmadinejad. Perhaps something beyond individual personalities is at work here. If the United States and its allies want to stop Iran from going all the way to overt nuclear weaponization, they need to be prepared to address the Islamic Republic's most fundamental security concerns -- not to demonize individual Iranian politicians as latter-day Hitlers bent on a second Holocaust.
"Iran's Support for Terrorism Confirms Its Irredeemably Aggressive and Malign Ambitions"
Hardly. Here, too, Iranian policy needs to be understood in the context of the Islamic Republic's asymmetric national security strategy. Proxy actors -- political, paramilitary, and terrorist -- in neighboring states and elsewhere give Tehran tools to ensure that those states will not be used as anti-Iranian platforms, providing the Islamic Republic a measure of strategic depth it otherwise lacks. This element of Iran's national security strategy encompasses not only groups identified by Washington as terrorist organizations but also Iraqi and Afghan political parties and their associated militias.
Most problematic, the (willful?) failure of U.S. foreign-policy elites to understand the calculations motivating Iran's actions toward its proxy allies has profoundly distorted discussion in the United States and elsewhere of alleged Iranian ties to al Qaeda. Indeed, this failure has cost the United States opportunities to enlist the Islamic Republic as a potentially formidable partner in the fight against terrorism.
In the wake of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Tehran detained literally hundreds of suspected al Qaeda operatives seeking to flee Afghanistan into Iran. Iran repatriated at least 200 of these individuals to the then new government of Hamid Karzai, to Saudi Arabia, and to other countries. The Iranian government documented these actions to the United Nations and the United States in February 2002, including providing copies of each repatriated individual's passport.
But Iran could not repatriate all of the individuals it detained. For example, the Islamic Republic has no diplomatic relations with Egypt, and Iranian diplomats told my colleagues and me that Tehran was not able to send al Qaeda operatives of Egyptian origin back to Egypt. Regrettably, instead of working to establish a framework within which Tehran could have made al Qaeda operatives detained in Iran available to the United States or some international body -- as our Iranian interlocutors requested -- the Bush administration insisted that Iran detain and deport all al Qaeda figures the United States believed might be in Iran, without any assistance from or reciprocal understandings with the United States. (This was meant to be a "test" of Iranian intentions.)
Later, in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, the Bush administration told the Iranians that the Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) -- an Iraqi-based Iranian opposition group that the United States had for years identified as a terrorist organization -- would be targeted as an extension of Saddam Hussein's military apparatus. However, in the immediate aftermath of the invasion, the Pentagon granted the MEK special protected status, raising concerns in Tehran that Washington wanted to use the MEK as part of a campaign to bring down the Islamic Republic. Only at that point did the Iranians begin to view the al Qaeda operatives in its custody as a potential bargaining chip to use with Washington regarding the MEK.
Then, in response to the Bush administration's unconditional demands that Tehran turn over al Qaeda operatives the United States believed to be on Iranian soil, the Iranians offered a deal -- to exchange al Qaeda figures they had detained for MEK cadres in Iraq. To facilitate such an exchange, the Iranians offered to release all low- and mid-level MEK figures; to allow the International Committee of the Red Cross to monitor the treatment of any high-level MEK figures detained in Iran; and to forego application of the death penalty to any high-level MEK figures found guilty of crimes by Iranian courts. In the end, it was the Bush administration, not Iran, that rebuffed a deal that would have given the United States access to important al Qaeda operatives -- including, possibly, Saad bin Laden, Osama's son.
"Diplomacy Should Focus on One or a Few Issues Where the Two Countries' Interests Overlap"
No. This bit of conventional wisdom -- reminiscent of comedian Dana Carvey's imitation of former U.S. President George H.W. Bush (not too much, not too fast, "wouldn't be prudent at this juncture") -- is also wrong. From my own experience, it is clear that trying to proceed incrementally with Tehran is doomed to fail. Our talks over Afghanistan were productive but structurally flawed: Because there was no comprehensive, strategic framework for dealing with the Iranians, unrelated issues could and did undermine otherwise productive negotiations.
If Obama is serious about diplomatic engagement with Iran, he needs to establish a comprehensive strategic framework for U.S.-Iranian diplomacy at the outset, rather than waiting in vain for some measure of "trust" to be established. Moreover, that framework needs to explicitly posit strategic realignment between Washington and Tehran as the talks' end goal. Without this, the Iranians will never believe that the United States is truly prepared to live with the Islamic Republic as Iran's legitimate government. They will continue to act in ways that they think are critical to defending their vital interests, but that Washington sees as unacceptably provocative. Unless the Unites States breaks this vicious cycle, already bad U.S.-Iranian relations will continue to deteriorate, and the United States and the Islamic Republic will be drawn ever closer to the point of conflict, even with the Obama administration's professed interest in diplomatic engagement.
U.S. President George W. Bush explicitly rejected repeated Iranian overtures to discuss the two countries' differences in an atmosphere of "mutual respect." Although Obama has improved U.S. rhetoric with his repeated use of the phrase, "mutual respect," he has yet to tackle the real challenge of "changing the mind-set" (his words from the campaign) of U.S. policymakers with regard to Iran and other daunting challenges in the Middle East. As the diplomatic dance between Washington and Iran quickens, we'll soon know if he is willing and able to pull off this far more difficult feat.
Hillary Mann Leverett, who served as director for Iran and Persian Gulf affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, is chairman of Stratega, a political risk consultancy.
Top of the Document
No comments:
Post a Comment