Iran's China Option

Iran's China Option By: Roger Cohen

(NSI News Source Info) TEHRAN - February 9, 2009: What Iran fears most is a Gorbachev figure, somebody from within the regime who in the name of compromise with the West ends up selling out the revolution and destroying its edifice of power. The jostling for influence ahead of the June 12 presidential election - the world's most important vote since America's - must be viewed through this prism. The core debate is: Can Iran manage a Chinese-style reform where its 30-year-old Islamic hierarchy endures through change, or does opening to the United States equal Soviet-style crash and burn? The "Death to America" chants at religious rallies, often twinned with a punchy "Death to Israel," seem answer enough. The regime prefers and will stick to the game it knows. But Iran is rarely what it seems. It goes out of its way to mask its sophistication. The other day, Jahangir Amirhosseini, a veteran lawyer once imprisoned by the mullahs, told me, "To create trust, deception is necessary." He was serious. What he meant was politics is about artful gambits. The United States has favored the sledgehammer. This has proved a lousy instrument. Iranian ascendancy has coincided with American difficulty. Under President Obama, U.S. policy toward Iran should be rooted in convincing Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, that the price of engagement is not extinction. Herein resides the key to the Persian theocracy over which Khamenei presides. But his rule is less than absolute. An opaque man, Khamenei is the largest minority shareholder (albeit one with God-given preferred stock) in a system where repression and hard-won freedoms vie, as do authoritarianism and democracy. Which brings us to the critical June election and former President Mohammad Khatami, the reformist politician once viewed as Iran's Gorbachev-in-waiting. He wasn't. His 1997-2005 presidency left many Iranians disappointed. At the breach, Khatami retreated. Student protests against the clerical establishment in 1999 and 2003 died before they gained traction. Still, liberalizing economic reform and dialogue were as much the Khatami hallmark as bombast and mismanagement have been that of his successor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. As tumbling oil compounds the cost of Ahmadinejad's crony-rewarding profligacy, and Iranians wonder where on earth (or beyond) the billions went, rumors of a Khatami candidacy swirl. One day Khatami has told clerics in Qom he's running. The next Khamenei has "advised" him to stay out. On the third, noblesse oblige, he's back. His former interior minister, Mostafa Tajzadeh, told me unequivocally Khatami will be a candidate. That must be America's working assumption. No such doubts surround the candidacy of the incumbent, Ahmadinejad. He is the favorite. His unlikely success in projecting Iran as the voice of the world's disinherited, his fast-forwarding of the nuclear program and his popular touch have all impressed Khamenei. But the wasteful impetuosity that has made Ahmadinejad the Unidentified Flying Object of Iranian and global politics has also given the guardian of the revolution - and millions of voters - pause. One theory holds that Ahmadinejad would favor Iranian Glasnost in response to Obama because he believes it's not Iranian theocracy that would collapse, but America! True, the president could be justified in detecting signs of capitalism following communism onto history's trash heap. But I'm not convinced. No, the West's strong interest lies in avoiding a second Ahmadinejad term. Given that Ahmadinejad thrives on confrontation, this is not what Obama should dish out. Vice President Joseph Biden's patronizing tone this weekend in Munich - "Continue down your current course and there will be pressure and isolation" - was exactly wrong. Tajzadeh told me: "Bush did a lot of damage to the reform movement. We would welcome an immediate calming of the atmosphere from Obama, with the military option set aside." When I asked Kazem Jalali, the spokesman for the parliamentary national security committee, what America should do, he shot back, "Stop looking down from a domineering viewpoint." Before the election, Obama must declare that the United States does not seek Iranian regime change. He should take steps to demonstrate that America is seeking an "honest broker" role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to supplant George W. Bush's Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy. Such measures would help Khatami, or perhaps a conservative pragmatist like Tehran's mayor, Mohammad Baqer Ghalibaf, by undermining Ahmadinejad's tirades. A moderate president would not solve the nuclear issue - Khamenei tends to be intransigent - but would help. I wish Obama could visit the splendid British ambassador's residence here to view the table-setting for the dinner on Nov. 30, 1943, (Churchill's 69th birthday) of the British prime minister, Roosevelt and Stalin. As every Iranian knows, not one Iranian was among the dozen or so officials at the table reviewing the fate of a war-torn world.

The Islamic Revolution, at 30, has independence at its core. The satellite launch, like the nuclear program, is about national pride, a subject Americans should understand. To open the system, without overthrowing it, which must be the U.S. aim, requires ingenious indulgence of that pride rather than finger-wagging. The time for change young Iranians can believe in is well before June 12.

Taliban Warns U.S. About Afghan Troop Surge

Taliban Warns U.S. About Afghan Troop Surge

(NSI News Source Info) February 1, 2009: The Taliban has warned Barack Obama, the new US president, that his plans to send more troops to Afghanistan will lead to more bloodshed. In remarks broadcast on Al Jazeera on Saturday, Mullah Mohamad Rasul, a Taliban leader, said that fighters of the group were ready to take on the US troops. "Just as they are bringing more troops, so too the Taliban will have more troops," Rasul, a former governor of Nimruz province, told Al Jazeera. "During the Bush administration the suicide bombers were registering individually, but now they are coming in groups. The whole nation is ready for the fight," he said, referring to the administration of George Bush, Obama's predecessor. (Above Photo: Mullah Mohamad Rasul) "Every year our military power gets stronger and stronger and our forces are getting bigger and bigger and we are heading towards success," Rasul said. Obama campaigned for the US presidency on a promise to redeploy US troops and resources to Afghanistan from Iraq. The US has 36,000 troops in Afghanistan and the White House is expected to announce up to three new brigade-size deployments as early as next week to help meet a long-standing request for additional forces from field commanders. The plan would mean sending as many as 30,000 extra troops in the next 12 to 18 months. New strategy Oxfam, the international aid agency, has urged Obama to look beyond purely military solutions for Afghanistan, calling on the president to develop a new plan for US operations in the country. "With spreading insecurity and civilians facing critical needs, there must be a comprehensive new strategy which will avert a major crisis," Raymond Offenheiser, Oxfam America's president, said. The relief group said it had sent a memo to Obama, who took office on January 20, raising its concerns that "events have reached a critical juncture in Afghanistan". Oxfam said "conditions could deteriorate further unless the United States takes a lead in addressing failures in governance, aid and reconstruction, and protecting civilians". The US is the biggest provider of both money and troops on which the Afghan government depends to fight the Taliban and rebuild the country. But security has massively deteriorated following an upsurge in violence. Civilian deaths caused by international military operations have also stoked anger among Afghans. In this picture released exclusively to Reuters on January 31, 2009, Taliban militants pose with their weapons for pictures in an undisclosed location in Afghanistan January 30, 2009. Picture taken January 30, 2009. Oxfam estimates that about 800 civilians died last year in operations carried out by international and Afghan government forces. Security force Meanwhile, Mohammad Hanif Atmar, Afghanistan's interior minister, announced on Saturday plans to establish a special force to boost security in areas worst hit by Taliban violence. The paramilitary-style force, to be funded by the US government, is to operate under the command of the interior ministry, the department responsible for the country's police force. "Considering the special situation in the country we've decided to ... create public protection forces with a special security mission within the interior ministry frame," Atmar said. Their tasks will include protecting communities, schools, other government installations and highways.

'Obama Gave Green Light To Pakistan Attacks'

'Obama Gave Green Light To Pakistan Attacks'

Author: Global Research

(NSI News Source Info) January 27, 2009: US commanders say they had consulted President Barack Obama before launching recent drone attacks on Pakistan's tribal belt near the Afghan border.

"Four days after assuming the presidency, he (Obama) was consulted by US commanders before they launched the two attacks," Guardian said Sunday.

The report comes after 22 people were killed in two separate US missile strikes on the Waziristan region bordering Afghanistan, on Friday. The attacks were the first since President Barack Obama took office Tuesday.

Pakistani tribesmen show pieces of a missile in a house damaged by a suspected U.S. missile strike in Zharki village, near Miran Shah, the main town of Pakistan's tribal area along Afghanistan border, Saturday, Jan. 24, 2009. Suspected U.S. missiles killed 18 people on the Pakistan side of the Afghan border, security officials said Friday, the first attacks on the al-Qaida stronghold since President Barack Obama took office.

Obama has said that he is prepared to bomb inside Pakistan if he gets relevant intelligence about the whereabouts of al-Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden.

Obama earlier hinted at increased operations in Pakistan, saying he thought George W. Bush had made a mistake in switching to Iraq before completing the job against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Meanwhile Pakistan's foreign ministry said Saturday that it had told US that the attacks by unmanned aircraft were of its 'great concern'. "We maintain that these attacks are counterproductive and should be discontinued," it said in a statement. President Obama has not commented on the missile strikes. However, he has made the war in Afghanistan and the intertwined fight with al-Qaeda in Pakistan a foreign policy priority.

Obama has emphasized that Pakistan and Afghanistan are the central front in the US so-called war against terrorism. "Afghanistan and Pakistan are the central front in the America's war against terrorism and the deteriorating situation in the region poses a grave threat to the global security. It's an international challenge of the highest order. That's why we are pursuing a careful review of our policy," Obama said on Thursday.

The tribal regions along the shared border between Pakistan and Afghanistan have become a safe haven for militants after a US-led invasion in late 2001 toppled Taliban in Afghanistan and sent insurgents to border areas with Pakistan.

The US and its western allies have accused Pakistan of 'not doing enough' to prevent attacks on supply routes as well as cross-border operations carried out by insurgents against foreign troops in Afghanistan. Pentagon has used the allegation as a pretext to launch drone attacks on Pakistan's tribal regions -- a move that has increased tension between Islamabad and Washington and has triggered anti-American sentiments among the Pakistani people.

Over 500 people -- suspected militants as well as civilians -- have been killed in such attacks, which started under the Bush administration.

Pakistan says that the drone attacks undermine the country's sovereignty and trigger public anger.

Barack Obama Meets With 4 U.S. Presidents

Barack Obama Meets With 4 U.S. Presidents (NSI News Source Info) WASHINGTON – January 8, 2009: Confronting a grim economy and a Middle East on fire, Barack Obama turned Wednesday to perhaps the only people on the planet who understand what he's in for: the four living members of the U.S. presidents' club. In an image bound to go down in history, every living U.S. president came together at the White House on Wednesday to hash over the world's challenges with the president-elect. There they stood, shoulder-to-shoulder in the Oval Office: George H.W. Bush, Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter. President-elect Barack Obama is welcomed by President George W. Bush for a meeting at the White House in Washington, Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2009, with former presidents, from left, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. "This is an extraordinary gathering," Obama said, looking plenty at ease in the humbling office that will soon be his. "All the gentlemen here understand both the pressures and possibilities of this office," Obama said. "And for me to have the opportunity to get advice, good counsel and fellowship with these individuals is extraordinary. And I'm very grateful to all of them." Bush, blistered without mercy by Obama during the campaign season, played the role of gracious host. "All of us who have served in this office understand that the office transcends the individual," Bush said as Obama nodded in thanks. "And we wish you all the very best. And so does the country." It was a moment of statesmanship that tends to happen when presidents get together, no matter how bitter their previous rivalries. In a photo opportunity that lasted less than two minutes, Carter, Clinton and the senior Bush smiled but said nothing. They deferred to the nation's incoming and outgoing leaders. Earlier, Bush and Obama met privately in the Oval Office in a chat expected to cover events of the day, mainly the troubled economy and Middle East. The two have shown solidarity since Obama's win in November, with one previous Oval Office sit-down and at least a few phone calls in recent weeks. All sides were determined to say as little as possible about what was discussed. Presidents — new, old, incoming — like to keep their conversations private. Without offering any specifics, Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs said all the presidents "had helpful advice on managing the office as well as thoughts on the critical issues facing the country right now. The president-elect is anxious to stay in touch with all of them in the coming years." From the White House, press secretary Dana Perino said the discussion was "wide-ranging" but declined to comment further. Before the gathering, she had said she could not imagine the leaders would meet without discussing the Middle East, where conflict rages in Gaza, or the economy, which is sinking. The White House would not even say what the men ate, allowing only that they ordered off the menu of the White House mess, as Bush does all the time. Intentionally or not, Bush opened the media moment in a curious way, suggesting that he was already out the door. "I want to thank the president-elect for joining the ex-presidents for lunch," said Bush, who is in fact still the president until Jan. 20. "One message that I have, and I think we all share, is that we want you to succeed," Bush added, a beaming Clinton at his other side. "Whether we're Democrat or Republican, we care deeply about this country." White House aides tried to usher the media out of the Oval Office when Bush stopped speaking. The lighting for the event even went dark. But sometimes, there is more than one president at a time. Obama spoke up on his own, the lights went back on, and the cameras kept rolling. "I just want to thank the president for hosting us," Obama said. When a reporter asked Obama what he could learn from the mistakes of the four presidents surrounding him, he smiled and said he planned to learn from their successes. The get-together was Obama's idea, and Bush liked it. The lunch lasted about 90 minutes, held in a small dining room off the Oval Office. Carter, Clinton and the two Bush presidents were last together at the Washington funeral service of President Gerald Ford in 2007. And presidents have gathered at other occasions over the years. But not since October 1981 — 27 years ago — had all of the living presidents gathered at the White House.