Sarah Palin in 2012... maybe?

Here's an interesting development. I first heard about this from a blogger who believes this signifies Sarah Palin's intention to run for President in 2012. There isn't a whole lot of information on the site, so I'm hoping to tap the collective intelligence of Enduring America's readers and hear some thoughts on this.

SarahPAC's website is here, and some brief FAQs are here (where despite the logo, there's sadly no answer to the main question: "Is Alaska really that big?")

[via Apsies]

The Linking of Clenched Fists: Israel, Gaza, and Iran

Enduring America is proud to welcome our new blogger Ali Yenidunya. In this first entry, Ali juxtaposes the proposed blockade on arms to Gaza with the notion of a US engagement of Iran.

As the "unilateral ceasefires" continue in Gaza, the consequences pose more tensions than resolutions. While the Israeli Right under Benjamin Netanyahu has benefited in electoral terms, trying to capitalise on public support for the war, Israel has not achieved its objectives. Hamas could not be entirely destroyed; at least one-fifth of the tunnels are still useable; and Tehran is increasing its influence in Gaza by funding Hamas to rebuild Gaza City and the surrounding area.



Israel also faces the nightmare of the possibility of Iranian ships providing arms to Palestinians, as with the shipment of explosivees, rockets and arms to Palestinians in the Iranian cargo ship The Kharine A in 2002. Thus both Israeli and American naval forces are on alert, even against two Iranian destroyers sent to the Gulf of Aden on the pretext of fighting Somalian piracy.

With the intersection of Israel, Gaza, and Iran, it looks like clenched fists are not likely to be shaken before long-term, thorny negotiation processes. In the midst of the crisis in the Middle East, it is not realistic to expect Tehran to open its arms wide towards "Western values" unless the Iranian government can get some concessions from the Obama Administration.

Video and Transcript of Barack Obama's Interview with Al-Arabiya Television

Analysis: Obama's First "Reach-Out" to the Muslim World

This is the best-quality video of the interview available, although it is only a portion of the discussion. Part 1 and Part 2 of the full interview, albeit in lower quality and with an annoying advertisement at the start, are available on YouTube.

[youtube]http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=yKETOw2_jMY[/youtube]



Q: Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens – as the history of peace making shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away. And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals.



And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues --and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. From there we will formulate a specific response.

Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table.

And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress.

Q: You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia --

Q: Right.

THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage --

Q: Absolutely.

THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace.

I do think that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These things are interrelated. And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress.

Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side.

And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs.

Q: I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me – one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because – mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories.

Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it -- within the first Obama administration?

THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous, that allows freedom of movement for its people, that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.

And, look, I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress.

But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.

Q: Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter) If you have anything further, that would be great. How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.

THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.

Q: It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: It's only a religious text.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy.

THE PRESIDENT: Right.

Q: How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous.

Q: They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --

Q: I know, I know.

THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them.

In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.

Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries.

Q: The largest one.

THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams.

And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task.

But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. And I think that what you will see over the next several years is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well.

Q: Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.

Q: Afghanistan?

THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace, we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now.

We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.

And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.

Q: President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of --

THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name.

And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down.

But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.

Q: Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?

THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team --

MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter)

Q: Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?

THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.

Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful.

But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.

Q: Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just --

MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife.

Q: Sir, I really appreciate it.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.

Q: Thanks a lot.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.

Q: Thank you.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.

Update: Obama's Challenge? Curbing the Pentagon

A hat tip to our colleague Giles Scott-Smith, who wrote for us on 29 November: "The possibilities for improving the US standing in the world are equally great.. ..To make the changes required, however, Obama faces his challenge: curbing the Pentagon."

Scott-Smith's prediction was already being fulfilled this week in tussles from Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay. However, his wider point --- that the Department of Defense is trying to seize some control of "information", US economic assistance, and even diplomacy --- is backed up in a New York Times editorial by Gary Schaub, an assistant professor at the Air War College. This is Schaub's opening declaration:

GEN. DAVID PETRAEUS, not Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will shape American engagement with the Middle East for years to come. While Mrs. Clinton prepares to put together the State Department, the military is already reconsidering American policy in critical regions. The politically savvy General Petraeus has both a plan and the resources to see it through.

Schaub identifies the mission of Petraeus' Central Command not only "to provide security" but to "help nations in the region govern effectively [and] build their economies" and "to communicate America’s foreign policy intentions clearly". Rather than support the lead of other agencies who normally carry out these duties, military commands should co-opt civilian employees to implement their plans.

Of course, one could suggest this is Schaub's personal wild ride in How to Make US Foreign Policy, rather than the intentions of Petraeus or Secretary of Defense Robert Gates. It is a bit discomforting, however, especially as the nightmare of Pentagon-State Department battles in the Dubya years and amidst some evidence of the military's unease with Obama, to see this splashed across The New York Times.

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.