And on the Eighth Day: Hopes and Fears over The Obama Foreign Policy

Whatever else is said about Barack Obama, you cannot accuse him of being slow off the mark. A day after the Inauguration, he issued the order closing the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and CIA “black sites” and ending torture by American agencies. Two days later, he revoked the Reagan directive banning funding for any organisation carrying out abortions overseas. On 26 January, he ordered a new approach to emissions and global warming, as the State Department appointed Todd Stern to oversee policy on climate change.



Last Monday, Obama launched his “reach-out” to the Islamic world with a televised interview, his first with any channel, with Al Arabiya. Two envoys, George Mitchell for the Middle East and Richard Holbrooke for Afghanistan and Pakistan, have been appointed; Mitchell is already in the region searching for diplomatic settlements. All of this has occurred even as the Administration was pushing for approval of its economic stimulus package and engaging in fierce inter-agency debates over Iraq and Afghanistan.

The media, rightly but ritually, hailed Obama's symbolic renunciation of his predecessor George W. Bush. Much more substantial was this Administration's attention to methods. The American global image would not be projected and its position assured, as in the Dubya years, through military strength; instead, the US would lsucceed through a recognition of and adherence to international cooperation, a projection of tolerance, and a desire to listen. While the term “smart power”, developed over the last two years in anticipation of this Administration, is already in danger of overuse, it is the right expression for the Obama approach.

Yet, even in Obama's more than symbolic announcement, there were seeds of trouble for that “smart power”. The President had hoped to order the immediate, or at least the near-future, shutdown of Camp X-Ray, but he was stymied by political opposition as well as legal complications. The interview with Al Arabiya was a substitute for Obama's hope of a major foreign policy speech in an Arab capital in the first weeks of his Administrat. The Holbrooke appointment was modified when New Delhi made clear it would not receive a “Pakistan-India” envoy; Mitchell's scope for success has already been constrained by the background of Gaza.

Little of this was within Obama's power to rectify; it would have been Messianic indeed if he could have prevailed immediately, given the domestic and international context. The President may have received a quick lesson, however, in the bureaucratic challenges that face even the most determined and persuasive leader.

Already some officials in the Pentagon have tried to block Obama initiatives. They tried to spun against the plan to close Guantanamo Bay, before and after the Inauguration, with the claims that released detainees had returned to Al Qa'eda and terrorism. That attempt was undermined by the shallowness of the claims, which were only substantiated in two cases, and the unexpected offense that it caused Saudi Arabia, who felt that its programme for rehabilitation of former insurgents had been insulted. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates finally and firmed quashed the mini-coup by declaring on Wednesday that he fully supported Obama's plans.

On other key issues, however, the President faces tougher, higher-ranking, and more persistent opposition. Within a day of Obama's first meeting on Iraq, Pentagon sources were letting the media know their doubts on a 16-month timetable for withdrawal. And, after this Wednesday's meeting, General Raymond Odierno, in charge of US forces in Iraq, publicly warned against a quick transition to the Iraqi military and security forces. This not-too-subtle rebuke of the President has been backed by the outgoing US Ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, and I suspect by the key military figure, head of US Central Command General David Petraeus.

The future US strategy in Afghanistan also appears to be caught up in a battle within the Administration, with a lack of resolution on the increase in the American military presence (much,much more on that in a moment). And even on Iran, where Obama appears to be making a overture on engagement with Tehran, it's not clear that he will get backing for a near-future initiatives. White House officials leaked Obama's draft letter to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to a British newspaper, but State Department officials added that such a letter would not be sent until a “full review” of the US strategy with Iran had been completed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

Still, all of these might be minor irritants, given the impact both of Obama's symbolic steps and of other quieter but important steps. For example, after the outright Bush Administration hostility to any Latin American Government that did not have the proper economic or political stance, Obama's State Department immediately recognised the victory of President Evo Morales in a referendum on the Bolivian constitution, and there are signs that the President will soon be engaging with Havana's leaders with a view to opening up a US-Cuban relationship. In Europe, Obama's phone call with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev was quickly followed by Moscow's announcement that, in return for a more productive US stance on missile defence (i.e., Washington wasn't going to roll out the system in Eastern Europe), Russia would not deploy missiles on the Polish border. There are even signals of an advance in the Middle East through a new US-Syrian relationship, although this is probably contingent on some recogntion or acceptance of Hamas by Washington.

So why am I even more concerned about the Obama foreign-policy path than I was a week ago, when I wrote of my conflicted reaction to the Inauguration? Let me introduce to the two elephants in this room, one which he inherited and one which he seems to have purchased.

Unless there is an unexpected outcome from George Mitchell's tour of the Middle East, Obama's goodwill toward the Arab and Islamic worlds could quickly dissipate over Gaza. The military conflict may be over, but the bitterness over the deaths of more than 1300 Gazans, most of them civilians, is not going away. And because President-elect Obama said next-to-nothing while the Israeli attack was ongoing, the burden of expectation upon President Obama to do something beyond an Al Arabiya interview is even greater.

Whether the Bush Administration directly supported Israel's attempt to overthrow Hamas and put the Palestinian Authority in Gaza or whether it was drawn along by Tel Aviv's initiative, the cold political reality is that this failed. Indeed, the operation --- again in political, not military, terms --- backfired. Hamas' position has been strengthened, while the Palestinian Authority now looks weak and may even be in trouble in its base of the West Bank.

And there are wider re-configurations. Egypt, which supported the Israeli attempt, is now having to recover some modicum of authority in the Arab world while Syria, which openly supported Hamas, has been bolstered. (Those getting into detail may note not only the emerging alliance between Damascus, Turkey, and Iran but also that Syria has sent an Ambassador to Beirut, effectively signalling a new Syrian-Lebanese relationship.)

Put bluntly, the Obama Administration --- with its belated approach to Gaza and its consequences --- is entering a situation which it does not control and, indeed, which it cannot lead. The US Government may pretend that it can pursue a political and diplomatic resolution by talking to only two of the three central actors, working with Israel and the Palestinian Authority but not Hamas, but that is no longer an approach recognised by most in the region and beyond. (In a separate post later today, I'll note a signal that even Washington's European allies are bowing to the existence of Hamas.)

The Israel-Palestine-Gaza situation is not my foremost concern, however. As significant, in symbolic and political terms, as that conflict might be for Washington's position in the Middle East and beyond, it will be a sideshow if the President and his advisors march towards disaster in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

On Wednesday, the New York Times had the red-flag story. White House staffers leaked the essence of the Obama plan: increase US troop levels in Afghanistan, leave nation-building to “the Europeans”, and drop Afghan President Hamid Karzai if he had any objections. On the same day, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told Congressional committees that the US would continue its bombing of targets in northwest Pakistan. (Not a surprise, since the first strikes of the Obama era had already taken place , killing 19 people, most of them civilians.)

So much for “smart power”. Leave aside, for the moment, that the rationale for the approach to Afghanistan --- Gates saying that the US had to defeat “Al Qa'eda” --- is either a diversion or a flight for reality, since the major challenge in the country (and indeed in Pakistan) is from local insurgents. Consider the consequences.

What happens to Obama's symbolic goodwill in not only the Islamic world but worlds beyond when an increase in US forces and US operations leads to an increase in civilian deaths, when America walks away from economic and social projects as it concentrates on the projection of force, when there are more detainees pushed into Camp Bagram (which already has more than twice as many “residents” and worse conditions than Guantanamo Bay)? What happens to “smart power” when Obama's pledge to listen and grasp the unclenched fist is replaced with a far more forceful, clenched American fist? And what has happened to supposed US respect for freedom and democracy when Washington not only carries out unilateral operations in Pakistan but threatens to topple an Afghan leader who it put into power in 2001/2?

This approach towards Afghanistan/Pakistan will crack even the bedrock of US-European relations. In Britain, America's closest ally in this venture, politicians, diplomats, and military commanders are close-to-openly horrified at the US takeover and direction of this Afghan strategy and at the consequences in Pakistan of the US bombings and missile strikes. Put bluntly, “Europe” isn't going to step up to nation-build throughout Afghanistan as a mere support for American's military-first strategy. And when it doesn't, Obama and advisors will have a choice: will they then criticise European allies to the point of risking NATO --- at least in “out-of-area” operations --- or will it accept a limit to their actions?

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the lack of agreement in the Obama Administration so far on a defined number of US troops means the President might not be in accord with the approach unveiled in the New York Times. Maybe the Administration will pursue an integrated political strategy, talking to groups inside Afghanistan (and, yes, that includes “moderate Taliban”) and to other countries with influence, such as Iran. Or maybe it won't do any of this, but Afghanistan won't be a disaster, or at least a symbolic disaster --- as with Iraq from 2003 --- spilling over into all areas of US foreign policy.

Sitting here amidst the grey rain of Dublin and the morning-after recognition that “expert thought” in the US, whatever that means, doesn't see the dangers in Afghanistan and Pakistan that I've laid out, I desperately hope to be wrong.

Because, if the world was made in six days, parts of it can be unmade in the next six months.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (28 January)

Earlier Updates: Obama on Top of the World (27 January)
Latest Post: The Other Shoe Drops: Obama Prepares for War in Afghanistan

6 p.m. The Guardian of London: "President Barack Obama's administration is considering sending a letter to Iran aimed at unfreezing US-Iranian relations and opening the way for face-to-face talks." The letter would be in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's letter of congratulations to Obama on 6 November.

2:20 p.m. We've updated this morning's story on the Obama strategy for Afghanistan.

2:02 p.m. Reports that President Obama will visit Canada on 19 February.

2 p.m. The Dennis Ross saga, which has given us nightmares, continues. He still has not been officially named as the State Department envoy on Iranian matters but "United Against Nuclear Iran", the pressure group which includes as members Ross and State's envoy to Afghanistan/Pakistan Richard Holbrooke, either has outdated info or gives the game away:

United Against Nuclear Iran thanks Ambassadors Holbrooke and Ross for their commitment, service, and leadership and we congratulate them on their recent appointments to the Department of State.

1 p.m. Pick a Number, Any Number. A NATO spokesman claims that less than 100 Afghan civilians were killed in the organisation's military operations in 2008. That compares with an estimate in The New York Times of up to 4000 and by an Afghan human rights group, based on UN numbers, of almost 700.

11:30 a.m. On the Other Hand....Only two hours after we updated on Russia's cancellation of a deployment of missiles on the Polish border, thanks to the Obama Factor, another problem crops up:

NATO countries expressed concern on Wednesday about reports that Russia plans to set up bases in Russian-backed breakaway territories in Georgia, a NATO spokesman said.

The specific issue is Russia's announcement on Monday that it intends to build a naval base in Abkhazia, which was part of Georgia but which Russia recognised as "independent" after last August's Russian-Georgian war.

10:35 a.m. It's not all bad news in Afghanistan. The Taliban have praised, "Obama's move to close Guantanamo detention center is a positive step for peace and stability in the region and the world."

Unfortunately, the feel-good moment may be short-lived. The Taliban also insisted that, if the President wants "mutual respect" with Muslim communities, "He must completely withdraw all his forces from the two occupied Islamic countries (Afghanistan and Iraq), and to stop defending Israel against Islamic interests in the Middle East and the entire world." And, as for Afghanistan, Obama should not send additional US forces as "the use of force against the independent peoples of the world, has lost its effectiveness".

9:45 a.m. Score one diplomatic/victory for the Obama Factor.

An official from the Russian General Staff has told the Interfax news agency that Moscow will suspend deployment of missiles on the Polish border: "These plans have been suspended because the new US administration is not pushing ahead with the plans to deploy...the US missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic." The news follows a conversation between President Obama and Russian President Dmitri Medvedev on Monday.

There are other US-Russian exchanges to watch. The Russian Deputy Foreign Minister has told Iran that Moscow wants to broaden "political, trade, and economic cooperation". For the moment, however, the apparent rapprochement raises the question....

What exactly was the value of the Missile Defence pursued by the Bush Administration so relentlessly over the last eight years?

7:30 a.m. Is this for show for real? Pakistan's Foreign Ministry, contradicting the testimony of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates yesterday,  say they have no agreement with the Obama Administration allowing US missile strikes on Pakistani territory: ""There is no understanding between Pakistan and the United States on Predator attacks."

Of course, it could be the case that the American arrangement is with the Pakistani military and intelligence services, bypassing the Foreign Ministry. Alternatively, the Pakistani Government is trying to hold to the public line of "independence" while private accepting US operations.

6 a.m. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has given a challenging but cautious response to President Obama's suggestion of engagement. Speaking at an election rally in western Iran, Ahmadinejad said:

We welcome change but on condition that change is fundamental and on the right track. When they say "we want to make changes', change can happen in two ways. First is a fundamental and effective change ... The second ... is a change of tactics."

Ahmadinejad, clearly picking up on Obama's campaign slogan of "change", added, "[The US] should apologise to the Iranian nation and try to make up for their dark background and the crimes they have committed against the Iranian nation."

This is a significant rhetorical position that has been taken up by Iranian leaders in the past. Indeed, I suspect US policymakers will immediately think that at the end of the Clinton Administration, they made such an apology, albeit belatedly, for the 1953 US-backed coup. It should also be noted that this is a campaign speech, with Ahmadinejad staking out his foreign-policy position to the Iranian electorate.

This said, Ahmadinejad gave an important signal in a reference to Washington stifling Iran's economic development since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. Decoded, this may be indicating to Obama: if you want to engage, the US has to make a commitment --- possibly even in advance of negotiations --- to ease existing sanctions on Tehran.

3:50 a.m. Glimpse the Future. Just to highlight our top post this morning on Afghanistan and the problems of the Obama strategy: "American officers distributed $40,000 on Tuesday to relatives of 15 people killed Jan. 19 in a United States raid."

The US military wasn't exactly generous in its apology, holding to the claim that a "militant commander" died along with 14 civilians. While a colonel told villages, "If there was collateral damage, I’m very sorry about that,” a US military lawyers made clear that "he payments were not an admission that innocents had been killed".

3:30 a.m. We've just posted a separate entry highlighting the apparent White House strategy in Afghanistan: ramp up the military effort, leave nation-building to others, and ditch Afghan President Hamid Karzai if necessary.

Morning Update (1:45 a.m. Washington time): It looks the campaign, pursued by some in the Pentagon, to undermine the Obama plan to close Guantanamo Bay within a year has been checked. The New York Times and CNN began running a "backlash" story yesterday that the Saudi programme for rehabilitation of terrorists was actually very, very good with only nine participants, out of hundreds, returning to their evil ways. The significance? The original spin was that two ex-Gitmo detainees who had rejoined Yemeni terrorist cells may have gone through the Saudi programme.

Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, testifying to Congressional committees, gave full support to the closure plan: ""I believe that if we did not have a deadline, we could kick that can down the road endlessly."

Send the Envoy: Obama, Iran, and Diplomatic Symbolism

As we have noted all week, including yesterday, we have major concerns --- if Barack Obama is seeking to engage Iran, as he stated in his Al Arabiya interview interview --- about the naming of Dennis Ross as an envoy.

Ross still hasn't been confirmed, but John Tirman of the Center for International Studies at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has an excellent, well-sourced article on AlterNet which reflects our worries. Like us, he is wary Ross's close association with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which advocates a hard line with Tehran. Tirman also notes that Richard Holbrooke, named as Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, headed an ad hoc group called United Against a Nuclear Iran.



Will Obama Stack His Middle East Team with Neoconservative Ideologues?
JOHN TIRMAN

None of President Obama's foreign policy actions will matter more than how he approaches Iran. Most other big challenges -- Russia, China, trade policy, development, human rights -- will continue the trajectory of previous American policies, with some variations.

But Iran poses a set of dynamic challenges. In one way or another, it touches upon all the turmoil of the region, it is at the center of oil and gas production and pricing, its leadership connects with political Islam the world over, and it has strengthening ties to Russia, India, China and Japan.

Obama has pledged, as recently as last Jan. 11, to "engage" with Iran in a respectful way, which is certainly a change, at least in tone. But "engagement" is a malleable concept.  At this early stage of the Obama era, it's important to understand who might shape that engagement, who has responsibility for Iran in the State Department and how those people perceive the future contours of the U.S.-Iran relationship.

And on that score, if the Washington rumor mill is correct, we are in for another dose of "get tough" diplomacy.  As Hillary Rodham Clinton said in her confirmation hearings to be Secretary of State, they intend to approach Iran's nuclear-development program "through diplomacy, through the use of sanctions, through creating better coalitions with countries that we believe also have a big stake in preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear weapon power, to try to prevent this from occurring."

The core of that list and her statement that "all options are on the table" -- code for a military attack on Iran -- is coercion. It won't work, if by "work" we mean to make Iran bend to our will. It hasn't worked for three decades. And such a continuation of coercive policies could create even more dissonance in the relationship than at any time in the 30 years since the Islamic revolution.

The gloom that is descending over many critics of Bush's catastrophic foreign policy stems from Obama's appointments and the indiscernible "change" agenda that such choices convey. Foreign policy has always been a tightly held portfolio, with few outside the small club of specialists chosen for major posts. But even within this small demographic, there are very sharp differences of skill, temperament and ideology. Once Clinton was named as secretary of state, it was certain that many of those who served in her husband's administration would be returning to government. But even that cohort, which was not particularly successful, had a wide range of temperaments and inclinations, from highly professional diplomats to craven political hacks and neoconservative ideologues.

Particularly upsetting to growing numbers of policy analysts, former diplomats and liberal activists are the widespread rumors of who would take on the ultrasensitive posts managing affairs in the Middle East, the Persian Gulf and South Asia.

According to these reports, Dennis Ross would become a special envoy whose portfolio includes Iran, and possibly the entire region; Richard Holbrooke would take the special envoy slot for Afghanistan, Pakistan and India; and Richard Haass would take on the Israeli-Palestinian issue.

Just after the inauguration, Holbrooke was announced for his rumored slot, and former Sen. George Mitchell, D-Maine, was given the job of addressing the Israeli-Palestinian imbroglio. By the end of the inauguration week, there was no official word on Ross. Holbrooke, Ross and Mitchell have been affiliated with groups that are overtly hostile to Iran, and it is that record of belligerence that has many who hope for a change of course wary.

Since 2001, Ross, the tirelessly unsuccessful Mideast negotiator under George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, has been employed by the Israeli-backed Washington Institute for Near East Policy, the policy arm of American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a key component of the Israel lobby in the United States.  (WINEP was founded by Martin Indyk, another Clinton-era diplomat who may play a role in the Obama government.)  Holbrooke, former U.N. envoy under Clinton, headed an ad hoc group called United Against a Nuclear Iran, which advocates military action against Iran if U.S.-defined terms are not met; Ross belongs to that group, and to a so-called Bipartisan Policy Center, which similarly advocates an extremely militant stance toward Iran.  (Mitchell is one of four co-chairs of the latter group.) All of these organizations are populated by neocons and reflect what could charitably be called a "Cheney-plus" strategic vision.

(Now, as it happens, the rumors about Ross in particular may not come to pass. It seems that the main source of this rumor was WINEP itself, publicizing a "memo" to its board extolling Ross' pending appointment as an über envoy. This, picked up by uncritical bloggers and repeated in the mainstream press, has now become the conventional wisdom. But reliable sources high in the transition apparatus insisted just before the inauguration that Ross had not been chosen as a special envoy. The ploy, if that's what it is, recalls the "we make the reality" bravura of Bush/Cheney operatives.)

The revelation in the New York Times on Jan. 11 that Israel sought U.S. permission last year to use Iraqi airspace to attack Iran's nuclear facilities certainly underscores the significance of these appointments, should they come to pass. Israel is again pursuing an unacceptably aggressive policy toward Palestinians, and the fact that they are ready and willing to go to war with Iran renders the U.S. alliance with Israel all the more problematic. (WINEP and like-minded polemicists are attempting to link Hamas to Iran far more closely than is warranted.)

What better time to bring on a team of Iran bashers to represent the new American president? As Roger Cohen, the New York Times columnist, put it so directly just prior to the inauguration, noting the return of the old guard and the lack of ethnic diversity: "Enlightenment will require a fresher, broader Mideast team than Obama is contemplating."

The problem is not Ross or Holbrooke per se, but the general attitude of punitive action that they and their associates favor when it comes to Iran, the Palestinians and others who are thought to be adversaries of U.S. or Israeli interests. Consider, for example, a task force Ross co-convened a year ago at WINEP on the "future of U.S.-Israel relations." Its report was mainly about Iran and how Israel and the U.S. have nearly identical interests and should act in concert.

It recommended bringing Israel in as a full partner in "initiatives involving the U.N. Security Council and U.S.-E.U., U.S.-Arab," and other forums; an agreed approach to Hamas; a common effort to "confront Iran" and to emphasize new sanctions against Iran, other coercive options, preventive military action and coordinated U.S.-Israeli diplomatic engagement. The task force was meeting with Israelis over a period of time that encompassed Israel's request for permission from Bush to bomb Iran and has been accompanied by other WINEP analyses recommending the same militant actions.

These recommendations, which would in effect cede U.S. policy in the region to an Israeli veto, were signed by Susan Rice, Obama's U.N. envoy; Anthony Lake, his leading foreign policy adviser during the campaign; and Tom Donilon, the new deputy national security adviser. Holbrooke's ad hoc group includes Gary Samore, reported to be heading for a top post on the White House national security staff.

Obama has said that he provides the vision and his minions carry out his policies. That's a naïve view of the policy process. The president -- any president -- is dependent on information from his advisers, and policy options are almost always developed outside the Oval Office. Particularly with the focus this president must bring to economic issues, foreign policy will be shaped in these crucial early stages by others. Obama, with good instincts but little actual experience with foreign policy, will be at a troubling disadvantage -- particularly with hardened policy mavens of like mind, supported by Congress and the mainstream news media, telling him that the change we need in U.S. policy toward Iran should be toward more sanctions, more covert ops, more military intimidation and possibly even "preventive military action."  It is notable, too, that in 30 years since the Islamic revolution in Iran, coercion has been the core of U.S. policy, with exceptionally poor results by any measure.

As one would expect, Tehran is already taking note and circling the wagons. Obama's "carrots and sticks" statement just after the election, and his refusal to respond to an open letter from his counterpart in Tehran, were unnecessary slights. On the other hand, Iran's restraint with respect to the Gaza crisis may be a welcoming signal. But by deputizing people who have stated repeatedly that Iran must be handled roughly and who advocate for a pre-eminent role for Israel in the making of American policy, Obama is running a huge risk -- strengthening precisely those elements in Iran who are least amenable to a better relationship.  Crucially, it could even affect the outcome of Iran's presidential election in June.

The most puzzling aspect of all this -- apart from the nearly total lack of attention in the news media -- is that there are so many talented scholars, diplomats and policy wonks to choose from, and as Cohen noted in his column, some are of Arab or Iranian descent.

The U.S.-Iran relationship has been fraught with missed opportunities, intentional slights and outright aggression, and its complexity is legion. Success demands a manager at the State Department who is capable of great care, experience, independence and equanimity, with equally skilled diplomats at other relevant posts. Such fresh appointments might send just the right signal of change that Obama promised, to the region and to the rest of the world.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (26 January)

Earlier Updates and Links to Posts: Obama on Top of the World (25 January)

5 p.m. We're off for some downtime. Back in the morning with overnight updates, including the latest of Obama envoy George Mitchell's first trip to the Middle East.

3:30 p.m. Barack, We Have a Problem. Our news this morning (2:45 a.m. and 6 a.m.) was on the emerging "third country" solution for Guantanamo ex-detainees. The meeting of the 27 European Union foreign ministers, however, has failed to agree a unified approach. The French-led proposal to take up to 60 detainees has been blocked or undermined by Germany, Austria, and the Netherlands.

The cheekiest excuse of all came from British Foreign Minister David Miliban who said that, as Britain had taken back nine of its citizens and three of its permanent residents, it had already made its "significant contribution".



3:15 p.m. Here's a New Crisis for You. Well, not that new, for anyone paying attention, but one that the Obama Administration can't welcome. Islamic insurgents in Somalia have raided the Parliament building in Baidoa and paraded five lawmakers through the streets. The remainder of the Parliamentarians, meeting in the neighbouring country of Djibouti, are effectively stranded. As one said, "We have nowhere to return to."

The insurgents' takeover in Baidoa occurred only hours after Ethiopian troops completed their withdrawal from the country.

2:55 p.m. Sticking to the Script. The US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said today that she looked forward to "vigorous diplomacy that includes direct diplomacy with Iran". This follows the line put out on the Obama White House website --- what we're awaiting is a sign of how the Administration will approach Tehran.

1:45 p.m. Further to our report (5:05 a.m.) of the removal of the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran (Mujahedin-e-Khalq) off the European Union's list of terrorist organisations:

Iran has criticised the decision as an "irresponsible move". The European response, anticipated by our readers in the Comments section on this thread, is that European courts left no alternative. The EU's head of foreign policy, Javier Solana, said, "What we are doing today is abiding by the decision of the court. There is nothing we can do about the decision."

The PMOI/MKO's political branch, however, is treating the decision as legal and political vindication and is planning its next activities. Marjam Rajavi, leader of the National Council of Resistance of Iran, called the removal from the terrorist list "a crushing defeat to Europe's policy of appeasement". A spokesman said the group would now seek to have its funds unfrozen, claiming the NCRI had $9 million in France and tens of millions in other European states.

11:30 a.m. The State Department Twitterers are offering updates from the Department press briefing. Good News: unlike the Bushmen, who saw any expression of local independence as a threat to Washington's control, Department spokesman has welcomed the outcome of Bolivia's constitutional referendum.

The Not-so-Good (Technical) News: We excitedly clinked on the link, expecting Wood's briefing or a detailed statement of the new Latin American policy and got...a map of Bolivia.

Bless.

10:30 a.m. Oh, No. Last week we reported, when George Mitchell and Richard Holbrooke were named as Obama envoys, that US foreign policy and the world had dodged a bullet because Dennis Ross had unexpectedly not been unveiled as envoy on Iranian matters.

We celebrated too soon. According to the Foreign Policy blog "The Cable", "State Department sources...[say] that former Middle East peace negotiator Dennis Ross has indeed been tapped as the U.S. envoy to Iran, with the possible title 'ambassador at large'."

If Ross is indeed named, we'll roll out the reasons why this could lead to a disastrous US approach towards Tehran. For now, have a look at Ross' November 2008 opinion piece that insists, despite US intelligence estimates that say otherwise, "Iran has continued to pursue nuclear weapons", and suggests tougher sanctions, "Hitting the [Iranian] economy more directly would force the mullahs to make a choice."

10 a.m. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is expected to name Todd Stern as "climate change envoy" today.

Stern was a staff member in the Bill Clinton White House, coordinating the Initiative on Global Climate Change from 1997 to 1999 before becoming an advisor to the US Treasury. He is now senior partner in a law firm and a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress, focusing on climate change and environmental issues.

6:45 a.m. Pressure to the Left of Me, Pressure to the Right. Last week it became clear that some in the US military, as well as the US ambassador in Iraq, are digging in their heels on the Obama plan to withdraw combat troops from Iraq within 16 months.

Today Obama is getting a nudge from the other side. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, facing provincial elections, is declaring that that the withdrawal "will be accelerated and occur before the date set in the [Status of Forces] agreement" between the US and Iraq. That agreement, passed in December, promises the withdrawal of US troops by the end of 2011.

6 a.m. Following up our early update (2:45 a.m.) on the "third country" solution for Guantanamo Bay detainees, there is a potentially major meeting in Brussels today. European Union foreign ministers are discussing the proposal to take in the released prisoners. Javier Solana, the EU Secretary-General, suggested, "This is an American problem and they have to solve it but we'll be ready to help if necessary... I think the answer of the EU will be yes."

The number of up to 60 detainees to be accepted by Europe, floated by the French this weekend, may match up to the 50 to 60 "hard cases" identified by the US. These are detainees who face possible human rights abuses if they are returned to home countries.

5:05 a.m. One Man's Terrorist is Another's.....The European Union has taken the People's Mujahideen Organisation of Iran, also known as the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MKO), off a list of banned terrorist groups.

MKO was formed in the 1960s as a "leftist" opposition group against the rule of the Shah of Iran but, after the 1979 Islamic Revolution, it broke with the new Government. MKO, from bases in France and then Iraq, began a sustained campaign of bombings, sabotage, and assassinations against Iranian targets during the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s, and operations have continued since then.

In 2003, there was a split in the US Government between those who wanted to use the group against Iran and those who wanted to curb its activities. MKO remained in Iraq, although its members were disarmed and guards were posted on its bases. Last week, the Iraqi Government asked MKO members to leave the country "voluntarily".

5 a.m. Two US military aircraft have crashed in northern Iraq, killing four soldiers.

3:45 a.m. In a major victory for President Evo Morales, Bolivia's new constitution has been approved in a referendum with a "Yes" vote of more than 60 percent.

3:30 a.m. Pakistani insurgents blew up a school this morning in the Swat Valley in the northwest of the country, the 183rd destroyed in six months. Cleric Maulana Fazlullah has presented a list, published in local newspapers, of 50 Government officials ordered to appear before him or face death. A bicycle bomb planted near a women's hostel killed five people.

2:45 a.m. It's becoming clear that the Obama strategy for closing Guantanamo Bay rests upon getting third countries to take detainees. Vice President Joe Biden, in the headline interview on the Sunday talk shows, said, "We won't release people inside the United States. They're either going to be tried in courts, in military courts, or sent back to their own country."

There are major legal difficulties with the courts option, since the Bush Administration's chaotic and tortuous handling of detainees means that evidence may have been perverted beyond repair. So it's over to Europe: Portugal last month said it would consider taking some ex-detainees, and Switzerland followed last week. Ireland has said that it would accept some released prisoners, if it was part of a "European" solution. And that in turn points to reports that France is preparing such an initiative for the European Union.

1:45 a.m. Juan Cole, despite an over-sensational headline ("Obama's Vitenam?"), has an excellent overview of Afghanistan, Pakistan, and the likely Obama strategy in Salon.

Overnight Update (1 a.m. Washington time): Two days after US missile strikes in Afghanistan killed 22 "militants" and/or civilians, The New York Times highlights an earlier attack that killed between 22 and 32 people, quoting from survivors:

The American military declared the nighttime raid this month a success, saying it killed 32 people, all Taliban insurgents — the fruit of an emphasis on intelligence-driven use of Special Operations forces.

But the two young men who lay wincing in a hospital ward here told a different story a few days later, one backed up by the pro-American provincial governor and a central government delegation. They agreed that 13 civilians had been killed and 9 wounded when American commandos broke down doors and unleashed dogs without warning on Jan. 7 in the hunt for a known insurgent.

It appears that today's headline Obama orders will take on former President George W. Bush and climate change. White House officials indicate that the moves will be domestic, including steps "to raise fuel efficiency standards and grant states authority to limit greenhouse gas emissions from cars".

There is no indication yet that President Obama will launch a post-Kyoto process on climate change, nor of how he will reverse the Bush Administration's isolation from international discussions.

Obama on Top of the World: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (24 January)

Earlier Updates and Links to Stories: The Latest in US Foreign Policy (23 January)
Latest Post: Coming Next in Iran
Latest Post: Track Barack with the Obamameter

1:35 p.m. After a long and busy week, we're taking the night off. We'll be back in the morning with all the overnight developments fit to notice.

12:50 p.m. According to the German magazine Der Spiegel, France has drafted a plan for European countries to take 60 detainees from the Guantanamo Bay facility. The French Government has refused to comment on the report.

12:40 p.m. In Independent but Not-Quite-Independent Iraq, US troops have killed a couple and wounded their daughter in a raid on  the house of a former Iraqi Army officer in Kirkuk.

A US military spokesman claimed the incident occurred in a joint operation with Iraqi forces, but an Iraqi police general said no Iraqi troops were present.

11:15 a.m. India Snubs Barack and Hillary. Here's one we missed. All week we were identifying Richard Holbrooke as President Obama's special envoy for Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India. In fact, when the appointment was announced on Thursday, India had fallen off the title.

It wasn't an omission. According to a US official, "When the Indian government learned Holbrooke was going to do [Pakistan]-India, they swung into action and lobbied to have India excluded from his purview. And they succeeded. Holbrooke's account officially does not include India."

Daniel Markey of the Council on Foreign Relations offers an explanation for Delhi's resistance: "They [India] are the big fish [in the region]. They don't want to be grouped with the 'problem children' in the region, on Kashmir, on nuclear issues." Moreover, another US official added, "The Indians do not like Holbrooke because he has been very good on Pakistan... and has a very good feel for the place."



11 a.m. Hey, Barack, Look Over Here! United Press International reports:

North Korea's state-run Korean Central News Agency said that a special U.S. Department of Defense investigations committee "recently made public a report designating (North Korea) as a nuclear weapons state."

The news service said the Defense Department report said that North Korea not only has "several nuclear weapons but a missile system capable of delivering them."

At the same time, North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il is reportedly telling Chinese hosts, "The North Korean side will commit itself to the denuclearization of the North Korean peninsula, and hopes to co-exist peacefully with other involved parties."

9:45 a.m. Best Friends Forever Alert. Russian President Dmitri Medvedev made a big show on Friday of co-operation with the new Obama Administration, pointing to his country's permission for US transit of supplies to Afghanistan and offering to work with international efforts against drug-trafficking and terrorism in that country.

It's a low-cost, low-risk strategy for Moscow. There is no great inconvenience giving Washington an alternative to its now-closed Khyber Pass route, and reduced drug production in Afghanistan could ease the flow of illegal narcotics into Russia. And Medvedev can even chide the now-departed Bush Administration, ""Let's hope the new U.S. administration will be more successful than the previous one in dealing with the Afghan settlement."

Russia can do so because it knows full well that, if Obama's military-first approach in Afghanistan fails, it won't be the Soviet Union of the 1980s but the US of the 21st century that takes the fall.

8:30 a.m. A quick tip of the hat to our little-brother site, The State of the United States, which continues to offer some of the most provocative and incisive analysis of US politics: "I'm sure all of us will see Obama's promises carried out soon; people are going to have to be patient. I ask, what is Obama going to promise next? An end to the death penalty?"

6:20 a.m. A suicide car bomb aimed at African Union peacekeepers in Mogadishu, Somalia, has killed 15.

6:05 a.m. More (conflicting) details on the US attack in eastern Afghanistan overnight. The American military is still claiming that 15 militants, including a woman, were killed. Afghan official and a village elder say 21 or 22 civilians died. The elder added, "Their bodies are on the ground. If you (Afghan government) do not believe us, you have helicopters and you should come to the area and see that these are civilians."

5:20 a.m. A revealing pair of sentences in a New York Times summary of yesterday's US missile strikes on Pakistan, which killed at least 20 people:

The downside: "American officials in Washington said there were no immediate signs that the strikes on Friday had killed any senior Qaeda leaders."

The upside: "They said the attacks had dispelled for the moment any notion that Mr. Obama would rein in the Predator attacks."

Soon after the attacks, Obama convened his first National Security Council meeting devoted specifically to Pakistan and Afghanistan. We're searching for details of the discussions.

5:10 a.m. Completely helpful, non-sensational lead sentence in New York Times story on releasing detainees from Guantanamo Bay:

Is Khalid Sheikh Muhammed coming to a prison near you?

5 a.m. Five policeman have been killed and 13 people wounded in a suicide bomb attack northwest of Baghdad.

4:10 a.m. Interesting revelations in the Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz. Obama envoy George Mitchell will arrive in the Middle East before 10 February. Meanwhile, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has gone on the offensive and set out Israel's preconditions in any negotiations, telling US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that Israel will "not open the Gaza crossings without progress toward the release of kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit". (cross-posted from Israel-Palestine-Gaza Updates)

3:40 a.m. US officials claim 15 "militants" killed in American raid; villagers report civilians among dead.

Morning update (3 a.m. Washington time): CNN reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reached out to allies by phoning "a slew of leaders since taking office on Thursday". OK, that's great. One question....

What's a slew?

Within 15 minutes, a reader responds by noting that "slew" is the past tense of "slay" and worries that the alliance may have something to do with killing.

For the record, the foreign leaders mentioned by the State Department were "Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, as well as Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Jordan's King Abdullah and the foreign ministers of Egypt and Saudi Arabia".