The Latest from Iran (29 January): Sideshows and Main Events

2320 GMT: The Committee of Human Rights Reporters has issued a statement on recent allegations against its members, many of whom are detained:

The civil society’s endurance depends on acceptance and realization of modern norms and principles. When a ruling establishment with an outdated legal system tries to impose itself politically and ideologically on a modern society, the result will be widespread protests.

2315 GMT: Correction of the Day. Although it was not widely noted, there were 40th Day memorial ceremonies for Grand Ayatollah Montazeri in Qom.

2310 GMT: Diversion of the Day. From Press TV:

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's top aide said Friday Tehran is concerned about the direction of the US administration after President Barack Obama delivered his first State of the Union address.

"We have concerns Obama will not be successful in bring change to US policies," Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, the senior aide to President Ahmadinejad and his chief of staff, said.

With respect, Esfandiar, I don't think President Obama is your biggest concern right now.

NEW Iran Patriotism Special: Wiping the Green From The Flag
Iran Document: Karroubi Maintains the Pressure (28 January)
Iran Document: Resignation Letter of Diplomat in Japan “Join the People”
Iran Document/Analysis: Karroubi’s Statement on the Political Situation (27 January)
Iran Analysis: Leadership in the Green Movement
The Latest from Iran (28 January): Trouble Brewing

2300 GMT: Yawn. Well, we started the day with a sanctions sideshow (see 0650 GMT), so I guess it is fitting to close with one. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, speaking in Paris:

China will be under a lot of pressure to recognize the destabilizing impact that a nuclear-armed Iran would have in the [Persian] Gulf, from which they receive a significant percentage of their own supplies....We understand that right now it seems counterproductive to [China] to sanction a country from which you get so much of the natural resources your growing economy needs....[But China] needs to think about the longer-term implications.

1. The White House is not even at the point of agreeing a sanctions package with the US Congress, let alone countries with far different agendas.
2. China is not going to agree tough sanctions in the UN Security Council. Really. Clinton is blowing smoke.
3. About the only outcome of this will be Press TV running a story on bad America threatening good Iran Government.


2250 GMT: Back after a break (Up In The Air is fantastic --- there, I've said it) to find that the reformist Islamic Iran Participation Front has written an open letter to Iran's head of judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, putting a series of questions over the executions of Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Ramanipour.

1820 GMT: We've moved our item on the regime's apparent removal of Green from Iran's flag to a separate entry.

1755 GMT: Today's Pot-Kettle-Black Moment. Just came across a discussion on Press TV of a bill, passed in the US House of Representatives, threatening to block "anti-US" television channels.

Don't get me wrong: this is an incredibly stupid measure, although as Professor William Beeman, the most reflective of the three guests notes, it is a symbolic declaration unlikely to become law. However, I have to note that at no point do the words "Internet filtering", "expulsion/imprisonment of journalists", "jamming of satellite signals" (say, of Voice of America Persian or BBC Persian) come up in the conversation, which also includes a Dr Franklin Lamb and a Dr Seyed Mohammad Marandi.

1750 GMT: The Judiciary v. Ahmadinejad. At insideIRAN, Arash Aramesh has a useful summary of the suspension of the publication Hemmat by Iran's judiciary. The twist is that Hemmat, which ran into trouble for running an attack piece against Hashemi Rafsanjani, is a supporter of the Ahmadinejad Government. No surprise then that the President reportedly declared:

I am not very happy with some of the Judiciary’s actions. Someone published a paper and you shut it down. It is the job of a jury to order the closure of publications. We do not agree with such actions and believe that these actions show a spirit of dictatorship.

However, Aramesh does not connect the Hemmat story to the imprisonment of Mohammad Jafar Behdad (see 1230 GMT), an official in the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, for four months.

1725 GMT: The Latest from Gohardasht Prison. Peyke Iran reports that 300 Ashura detainees are under severe pressure by Ministry of Intelligence agents, demanding confessions of "mohareb" (war against God), in sections controlled by the Revolutionary Guard.

1700 GMT: The International Committee for Human Rights in Iran has started a new blog. Current posts consider the Zamani/Rahmanipour executions and "Members of Committee of Human Rights Reporters Under Pressure to Make Forced Confessions".

1600 GMT: The Strategy of Deaths. Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has offered details on the regime's handling of executions: having put to death two pre-election detainees to death yesterday, the Government has handed down five more sentences on five people arrested on Ashura (27 December). The sentences are currently being appealed.

Doulatabadi's declaration complements a recent announcement that by Iran Prosecutor General Gholamhosein Mohseni Ejei that at least three Ashura Day detainees will be executed. Ejei also said four more pre-election prisoners had been sentenced to death. (Added to Thursday's executions, Doulatabadi and Ejei's numbers match up to the "eleven" death sentences announced by Iranian state media yesterday.)

1410 GMT: Man, 1) Ayatollah Jannati is in a really bad mood after being verbally slapped by Mehdi Karroubi; 2) the Government is scared of the forthcoming demonstrations on 22 Bahman (11 February); 3) both. The Los Angeles Times offers translated extracts from Jannati's Friday Prayers address (see 1155 GMT) in Tehran:

The prophet Muhammad signed non-aggression pacts with three Jewish tribes. The Jews failed to meet their commitments, and God ordered their massacre (by Imam Ali, the 3rd Imam Shia, despite his reputation for compassion)....When it comes to suppressing the enemy, divine compassion and leniency have no meaning.

The judiciary is tasked with dealing with the detained rioters. I know you well, judiciary officials! You came forward sincerely and accepted this responsibility. You are revolutionary and committed to the Supreme Leader. For God's sake, stand firm as you already did with your quick execution of these two convicts....

God ordered the prophet Muhammad to brutally slay hypocrites and ill-intentioned people who stuck to their convictions. Koran insistently orders such deaths. May God not forgive anyone showing leniency toward the corrupt on earth.

1230 GMT: An Ahmadinejad Official in Jail. Mohammad Jafar Behdad, head of internal media at the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance, has been sentenced to 4 months in prison. Behdad, a former head of the Islamic Republic News Agency, was convicted of disregarding judiciary warnings against provocative publications. His newspaper Hemmat had been suspended for a feature on "Hashemi [Rafsanjani] and his band of brothers".

1220 GMT: Verbal Skirmishes. Retired Revolutionary Guard General Ali Asgari, a former minister in the Khatami Government, has declared that Hashemi Rafsanjani must remain by the side of the Supreme Leader and denounced Rafsanjani's verbal attacker, Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, as a radical who defends a backward Islam.

On the regime side, Iran's police chief Esmail Ahmadi-Moghaddam has announced that "some of the elite are against the regime and with the enemy". At the same time, he appears to have held out a hand to Mir Hossein Mousavi, saying he "was deceived" by these wrong-doers.

1210 GMT: The "Real" Karroubi Interview. Fars News, whose distorted report on Mehdi Karroubi's views inadvertently moved Karroubi's challenge to the Ahmadinejad Government centre-stage, makes another clumsy intervention today.

Selecting extracts from Karroubi's interview with Britain's Financial Times and quoting them out of context, Fars declares that Karroubi has "100%" backed the Supreme Leader and denounced protesters.

Yeah, right.

1155 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Summary. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the head of the Guardian Council, had the podium today. Given that Mehdi Karroubi knocked him about a bit yesterday, Jannati was probably not in the most conciliatory of moods as he said:

Weakness in the face of events such as the "irreverence" of demonstrations on Ashura will undermine the regime. Ayatollah [Sadegh] Larijani, be a man, get tough, bring in some protesters. (Hey, but it was pretty cool that you executed those two guys yesterday to please God.)

1140 GMT: A very slow day, both for sideshows and main events. During the lull, this comment from a reader to Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, reacting to the Zamani/Rahmanipour executions, is striking:

You see the strategy is an obvious one: start with the people who are the weakest links, some obscure monarchist group and not directly related to the reformist/Mousavi's camp or the greens, that way it would make it harder politically for [Mir Hossein] Mousavi or [Mehdi] Karoubi to defend them. Then they will advance. This is, in their mind, also the best way to send a message about Feb 11th that if you are arrested on that day, you could be executed. The combination of desperation and cruelty.

0750 GMT: Remembering Montazeri. Video of the bazaar at Najafabad, the birthplace of Grand Ayatollah Montazeri, was empty on Thursday to mark the passing of the cleric in late December. Memorials for the "40th Day" of Montazeri's death were planned for both yesterday and today.)

0650 GMT: There are a number of obstacles to clear this morning before getting to the important developments. Foremost amongst these is last night's news that the US Senate, the upper house of the Congress, has approved tougher sanctions against Iran. The focus is on petroleum, denying loans and other assistance from American financial institutions to companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its oil-refining capacity. The penalties would extend to companies that build oil and gas pipelines in Iran and provide tankers to move Iran’s petroleum. The measure also prohibits the United States Government from buying goods from foreign companies that do business in Iran’s energy sector.

Even if sanctions are central to a resolution of Iran's political crisis, as opposed to their place in the manoeuvres over Iran's nuclear programme --- personally, I don't think they are --- there is a lot of bureaucratic road to cover before they are in place. The Senate has to agree its version of the bill with the House of Representatives. More importantly (and The New York Times story ignores this point), the Obama Administration so far has opposed the petroleum measures because they are unlikely to be effective. The White House and State Department prefer "targeted" sanctions, aimed especially at economic interests of bodies like the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps.

Then there is the Washington sideshow of Very Important People battering each other in the guise of offering the Very Best US Policy on Iran. The Washington Post announces the boxing match between Richard Haass, formerly of the State Department and now head of the Council for Foreign Relations, and the Flynt/Hillary Leverett duo, formerly of State and the National Security Council. The punches are entirely predictable --- Haass, while proclaiming himself a "realist", has joined the chorus of US experts singing of "regime change", while the Leveretts are staunchly defending the legitimacy of the Iran Government --- and pretty much swatting air when it comes to the complexities of the Iranian situation. (But Haass was best man at the Leveretts' wedding, which turns a marginal story into a "quirky" one.)

So where are the significant stories? Well, there is yesterday's execution of two detainees, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, who were jailed in April 2009 for endangering Iran's national security. In one sense, this is another sideshow. Obviously, neither Zamani and Rahmanipour were involved in post-election protest and the "monarchist" group to which they allegedly belonged is not significant in the Green movement.

However, the regime was far from subtle in linking the hangings of the two men to the demonstrations of Ashura (27 December), and that linkage --- inadvertently --- displays its fear of the forthcoming marches on 22 Bahman/11 February, the anniversary of the 1979 Revolution. What's more, by promising the executions of nine more detainees if everyone didn't just shut up and go away, the Government made a risky commitment. Either it goes ahead with the executions, making more martyrs for the protests, or it backs down.

And then there is The Week of Mehdi Karroubi, with the cleric launching another broadside against President Ahmadinejad and his allies yesterday. Some media continue to be led astray by confusion over Karroubi's loud and emerging strategy --- The New York Times, for example, mis-reads Karroubi's latest statement as "conciliatory remarks...shifting the blame for the violent postelection crackdown away from Ayatollah Khamenei".

They are not. Karroubi is both giving the Supreme Leader (or "Mr Khamenei", as he was labelled on Monday) a chance and setting him a test: do what you are supposed to do under our Constitution and Islamic Republic, Supreme Leader, and make your President accountable for injustices and abuses.

Enjoy all the sideshows, folks, but in this political circus, that's your centre-ring main event.

A Gut Reaction to Obama's "State of The Union" & Foreign Policy: Ignoring the Kids in the Backseat

My kids are no longer kids: my son is 13 and my daughter is 10 going on 18. But, as I am driving, it still happens. First, a sharp one-liner, then a squeal, and a quick escalation to a scuffle and "Dad!". I just keep my eyes on the road, trying not to notice.

Well, President Obama has given his annual set-piece speech, the Washington pundits have pronounced, and already everyone "in the know" are rubbing hands over the forthcoming showdowns between the White House and Congress over domestic issues. And all the while I'm thinking about this speech....

When it comes to the US beyond Capitol Hill and its borders, President Obama just tried to ignore the kids in the backseat.

Video & Transcript: President Obama’s State of the Union Address (27 January)

That's far from a shocking response. Obama's immediate road ahead, for his future and that of the US, is the economy and health care. Having bailed out a leaking ship last year, the Administration now has to show progress on employment; otherwise, the Republicans, even though it was their eight years in the White House that set up the debacle and even though they have put forth no alternatives for the way out of recession, can just keep hammering away at White House failure. As for health care, what should be the overriding issue --- an expensive, inefficient US system will continue to leave millions of Americans unprotected --- is being replaced by the politics of display: the Obama Administration needs a bill, no matter how watered down, just to show that it is not captive to the blows of the Republican minority in Congress.

Not surprising then that the President only devoted eight out of 60+ minutes to affairs beyond the US. What is more significant, of course, is what was in those eight minutes.


Speaking to his front-seat passangers --- Congressmen and "fellow Americans" --- the President returned to the rhetoric of his Inaugural:

Let’s put aside the schoolyard taunts about who is tough. Let’s reject the false choice between protecting our people and upholding our values. Let’s leave behind the fear and division and do what it takes to defend our nation and forge a more hopeful future — for America and the world.

Going back to lofty words is not necessarily a bad thing, and Obama should be commended, given past White House-whipped-up hysteria about "security", for trying to damp down the culture of fear, for example, over the recent incident of the failed Christmas Day explosion on a US-bound flight.

But for the kids in the backseat --- the squabbles over US involvement in the world from Central Asia to the Middle East to Africa to Latin America --- Obama had nothing beyond the stock phrases of a Dad trying not to notice:

We have prohibited torture and strengthened partnerships....Hundreds of al-Qaida’s fighters and affiliates, including many senior leaders, have been captured or killed — far more than in 2008....In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces....We are responsibly leaving Iraq to its people....

We are also confronting perhaps the greatest danger to the American people — the threat of nuclear weapons....We are working through the G-20 to sustain a lasting global recovery. We are working with Muslim communities around the world to promote science, education and innovation. We have gone from a bystander to a leader in the fight against climate change. We are helping developing countries to feed themselves and continuing the fight against HIV/AIDS....

America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.

For some in the front seat, the litany was enough. Robert Dreyfuss of The Nation declared, "It was a pleasure to listen to a State of the Union address, especially after eight years of his predecessor's alarmist warnings and warlike thundering, in which war, terrorism, and 'rogue states' went almost unmentioned."

By the benchmark of avoiding the foreign policy pile-ups of 2001-2009, there's something to say for Eyes on the Road and Leave the Kids Alone. But, if Obama is serious about his declaration, "Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals," he better take a look over his shoulder.

It's all too easy to rip away the screen of the rhetoric. Obama may have "prohibited torture" through his Executive Order, but the promise to close Guantanamo Bay --- unmentioned in the speech --- is gone, and there are much bigger US detention facilities in Afghanistan holding uncharged prisoners who may or may not be going through "enhanced interrogation". "Hundreds of al-Qaida’s fighters and affiliates" killed also means, in bombings and drone attacks, hundreds of civilians killed, with the consequences for public attitudes towards US interventions in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

The declaration about fighting corruption in Afghanistan, after last summer's failed symbol of the Presidential election, is now a sentence without significance, and Obama did not even bother to make a reference to non-military projects in the country. And "responsibly leaving" Iraq? Well, the political and economic conflicts have been left to the Iraqis --- which is preferable to the Bushian approach --- but it is far from clear what 100,000+ US troops are now doing as bystanders.

Yes, all too easy to identify the thin and getting thinner rhetoric overlaying the complexities and tensions in American "interventions". What was really disappointing for me, however, is that Obama did not even bother to offer the squabbling kids some words of substance.

There is a virtue, under this Administration, that Bush-era fist-shaking has been replaced by "engagement". In Latin America, no more quick-fix solutions like the attempted 2002 coup in Venezuela but recognition of governments, even if their interests do not coincide with those of Washington. (For the moment, I'm treating Honduras as a serious but exceptional complication.) In Africa, the military-first approach of AFRICOM and rather empty posturing over issues such as Sudan has been replaced by diplomacy. And while it was a bit rich for Obama to claim "leadership" on climate change, at least the US hasn't loudly picked up its toys and gone home, as was the case over the last eight years.

But "engagement" has got to have meaning beyond rhetoric and has got to have significance in the tough cases. Months after Obama's Ankara and Cairo speech, and despite his attempted cover of "working with Muslim communities", I am pretty sure that those in the backseat will have noted no reference to Israel and Palestine, or even the Middle East. Obama's Iran references, in light of the internal developments in and beyond Tehran, appeared obsolete (the same old engagement/sanctions declaration in a nuclear-first policy) and fleeting (a mention of "an Iranian woman" standing in for any engagement with how the US backs "rights" in a difficult case).

And of course, Obama can say "values, values, values", but "values" sit uneasily alongside the military-first approach in the symbolic centrepieces of Afghanistan and Pakistan. They don't stand in for a political approach that is based on more than putting in more troops and pretending that the issues at the centre of the Afghanistan and Pakistan Governments will just vanish, even if we really don't like Mr Karzai or Mr Zardari.

I'm sorry to be snippy. Dads have it tough at the best of time. But even a well-intentioned father has to got to recognise that, at some point, squabbles have got to be confronted with more than a reassurance that "Dad/America Knows/Means Best". Especially when the US was not a part of these squabbles but has been very much a central actor in them --- and, with its failures of engagement and its recourse to the harder side of US power --- and is still much part of the argument.

The Latest from Iran (28 January): Trouble Brewing

2045 GMT: Taking the Green Out of Iran. I don't want to say the Government is in any way threatened by the Green movement, but somebody has apparently decided that, when President Ahmadinejad is speaking, the Iranian flag no longer has to be Red, White, and Green:



1630 GMT: Activist Ehsan Hushmand and 4 Kurdish students have been freed on bail.

1620 GMT: All is Well. Really. Ahmad Khatami may have tried to put out the message that Hashemi Rafsanjani and the pro-Ahmadinejad Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi have reconciled, but both Rah-e-Sabz and BBC Persian are claiming that Khatami has been pressing Rafsanjani not to publish his letter of grievance over Yazdi's allegations of Rafsanjani's irresponsibility and ambiguity.

1610 GMT: At Tehran Bureau, Setareh Sabety posts a poem reflecting on the executions of two "monarchists" (see 0940 GMT), "They Did Not Hang My Son Today".

1605 GMT: Where's Mahmoud? So how does President Ahmadinejad respond to the growing today? Well, with this declaration to officials in Tehran: “They (imperialist powers) seek to dominate energy resources of the Middle East....But the Iranian nation and other nations will not allow them to be successful."

1600 GMT: Let Mehdi Make This Perfectly Clear. We can no longer keep up with Mehdi Karroubi as he hammers home his attack against the Ahmadinejad Government. We have posted his latest interview, this one with Saham News.

1530 GMT: The Dead and Detained. The Guardian of London has updated its list of those killed and arrested in the post-election crisis. There are now 1259 people, arranged alphabetically by first name.

1525 GMT: All is Well Alert. Ayatollah Ahmad Khatami wants everyone to know that Hashemi Rafsanjani and Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi, who only a few days ago slammed Rafsanjani's ambiguity, have made up and are now very good friends.

NEW Iran Document: Karroubi Maintains the Pressure (28 January)
NEW Iran Document: Resignation Letter of Diplomat in Japan “Join the People”
NEW Iran Document/Analysis: Karroubi’s Statement on the Political Situation (27 January)
NEW Iran Analysis: Leadership in the Green Movement
NEW Latest Iran Video: When Karroubi Met Fars (25 January)
NEW Iran & Karroubi: Why This is “Much Ado About Something”
The Latest from Iran (27 January): Battle Renewed

Beyond our smile, the possible significance: Government supporters are signalling to Rafsanjani that they will reduce the pressure on his family if he joins forces with them.

1520 GMT: We have posted the English translation of the resignation letter of an Iranian diplomat in Japan, asking his colleagues to "Join the People".

1000 GMT: Obama's State of the Union --- Nukes Trumps Rights. We'll have full analysis tomorrow of President Obama's speech (video and transcript in separate entry). Let's just say now that anyone expecting a boost or even a thumbs-up to the Iranian opposition will be disappointed.

Obama made only two references to Iran, and the primary one was to support his two-prong approach of engagement/sanctions on the nuclear issue:

These diplomatic efforts have...strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of these weapons....That is why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences.

Later in the speech was this fleeting reference:

We stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan, we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran, and we advocate for the young man denied a job by corruption in Guinea. For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity.

0940 GMT: The Executions. The Iranian Students News Agency identifies the two demonstrators killed this morning, for "mohareb" (war against God), as Mohammad Reza Ali-Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour. Both had been detained before the elections as members of an outlawed monarchist group, and both had been put on television in a special Press TV documentary in August to "confess" (see separate EA video).

However, what is unsubtle is the further twisting of the two cases to fit the more recent show of resistance to the regime. The Tehran Prosecutor's office declared:

Following the riots and anti-revolutionary measures in recent months, particularly on the day of Ashura, a Tehran Islamic Revolutionary Court branch considered the cases of a number of accused and handed down death sentences against 11 of those. The sentences against two of these people... were carried out today at dawn and the accused were hanged.

The sentences for the other nine of the accused in recent months' riots are at the appeal stage... upon confirmation, measures will be undertaken to implement the sentences.

0925 GMT: As I make my way back from Dublin, two important pieces on EA:

We've posted extracts from Mehdi Karroubi's lengthy interview with the Financial Times of London, adding a snap analysis. The discussion seems to clarify Karroubi's position after this week's drama: he wants Ahmadinejad out and, while adhering to the Islamic system, he wants the Supreme Leader to be the man to defend the Constitution by pushing the President off the political cliff.

Alongside this, and indeed offering a contrast, is a guest analysis from Elham Gheytanchi on "Leadership and the Green Movement": "The Green Movement...has avoided centralized leadership and instead has mobilized ordinary people beyond what was previously thought possible."

0740 GMT: Britain's Sky News is reporting, from Iranian state media, that two Ashura demonstrators have been executed.

0700 GMT: A gentler --- if that is a word which can ever be applied to Iran's post-election crisis --- news day on Wednesday. There were no high-profile statements, and none of the drama of the Karroubi declaration of Monday.

Still, there were rumblings, most of which brought further bad omens for President Ahmadinejad.

There are reports that the Number One Target of both the "conservative" and "reformist" opposition, former Tehran Prosecutor General Saeed
Mortazavi, will not take up his position as head of the President's unit to combat smuggling. That brings Mortazavi one step closer to taking the public responsibility for the detainee abuses, especially at Kahrizak Prison. And the other primary target of the anti-Ahmadinejad forces, advisor Esfandiar Rahim-Mashai, was attacked in the newspaper Mardomsalari.

On the economic front, Ahmadinejad's subsidy reduction proposal is beginning to run into trouble with Parliament. Three days into the 10-day period to comment on the President's Development Plan, legislators forced the Government to withdraw "income bracketing" for the subsidy cuts.

And another foreign firm, a US chemical company, has declared that it is ending any involvement in Iran.

There was a piece of good news for the opposition, with journalist Mehdi Hosseinzadeh released after more than 7 months in detention. However, Persian2English posts on the "catastrophic situation" in Section 350 of Evin Prison.

Pakistan: US "Public Relations Disaster" in Gates Mission

Juan Cole is scathing about the most recent political effort by the Obama Administration in Pakistan:

Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates's trip to Pakistan this weekend has in many ways been a public relations disaster, and I think it is fair to say that he came away empty-handed with regard to his chief policy goals in Islamabad. Getting Pakistan right is key to President Barack Obama's policy of escalating the Afghanistan War, and judging by Gates's visit to Islamabad, Obama is in worse shape on the AfPak front than he is even in Massachusetts [after the unexpected Republican victory in the US Senate vote]. Since he has bet so heavily on Afghanistan and Pakistan, this rocky road could be momentous for his presidency.

In one of a series of gaffes, he seemed to admit in a television interview that the private security firm, Blackwater, was active in Pakistan.

The Pakistani public has a widespread resentment against US incursions against the country's sovereignty (64% say the US is a danger to the country's stability). But it also has a sort of paranoid obsession with Blackwater, which they suspect of covert operations to disrupt security in the country (i.e. they blame Blackwater for bombings that Americans see as the work of the Taliban). Thus, Gates's statement produced a media frenzy. (Jeremy Scahill has alleged in The Nation that Blackwater is in fact in Pakistan in a support role to CIA drone attacks in the country's mountainous Northwest on Taliban and al-Qaeda targets).


Dawn, a relatively pro-Western English daily, quoted the exchange, saying Gates was asked by the interviewer on a private television station,

' “And I want to talk, of course, about another issue that has come up again and again about the private security companies that have been operating in Iraq, in Afghanistan and now in Pakistan. . . Xe International, formerly known as Blackwater and Dyncorp. Under what rules are they operating here in Pakistan?”

Gates replied,

' “Well, they’re operating as individual companies here in Pakistan, in Afghanistan and in Iraq because there are theatres of war involving the United States.”

The Urdu press concluded that he had admitted Blackwater is active on Pakistani soil, while noting denials from the US embassy in Islamabad that that was what Gates had meant. The News, the mainstream English-language sister of Jang, was also insistent that Gates had let the cat out of the bag.

Gates had one strike against him, since he came to Pakistan from India. Moreover while in New Delhi he clearly was a traveling salesman for the US war materiel industries, who would like to pick up some of the $60 billion India is planning to spend on weapons in the next few years. During the Cold War, the US had mainly supplied Pakistan's military, and had been lukewarm to India, which Washington felt tilted toward Moscow. The current shift of US strategy to wooing India to offset growing Chinese power in Asia is taken by some Pakistanis as a demotion.

Then, he encouraged a greater Indian role in Afghanistan, including, according to the Times of London, possibly in training Afghan police. Pakistan considers Afghanistan its sphere of influence and the last thing it wants is a role for Indian security forces in training (and perhaps shaping the loyalty) of Afghan police. Germany is currently in charge of the police training program, but India is afraid that in the next few years NATO will depart, and that Pakistan will then redeploy its Taliban allies to capture the country for Islamabad's purposes. India is also concerned about significant Chinese investments, as in a big copper mine, in Afghanistan. So New Delhi is considering the police training mission.

In addition, Gates had praised Indian restraint in the face of the fall, 2008 attack on Mumbai (Bombay) by the Pakistani terrorist organization, the Lashkar-i Tayyiba [Army of the Good]. He warned the Pakistani leadership that India's forbearance could not be taken for granted the next time. That is a fair point, but it is not the sort of thing you say publicly on your way to Islamabad from Delhi if you want to be received as an honest broker. Pakistanis feel that India has inflicted many provocations on them, too, not least of which was the Indian security forces' often brutal repression in Muslim-majority Kashmir, where thousands have died since 1989 in a separatist movement with which Pakistanis deeply sympathize. (Pakistani guerrilla groups also did routinely slip into Indian Kashmir in support of local separatists).

Prominent members of the Pakistani Senate denounced Gates for setting up Pakistan as a sort of patsy and hostage to communal violence in India, and of fomenting a Washington-New Delhi 'conspiracy' against Islamabad. What if some Indian terrorist group carried out an attack in India? wasn't Gates giving New Delhi carte blanche, they asked, to blame Pakistan for it even in the absence of any evidence, and then to launch a war of aggression on Pakistan with the incident as a pretext?

The Los Angeles Times said that "Gates, on the first day of a visit here, urged government officials to build on their offensives against militants . . ."

In fact, Gates was careful not to over-emphasize such demands, but there was a general public perception that he was doing so. The editorials in Urdu newspapers on Jan. 23, which the USG Open Source Center analyzed, complained bitterly about this further demand. Express sniffed that the US should establish security in Afghanistan and then everything would settle down in Pakistan's northwest. Khabrain rather cleverly pointed out that Pakistan has concentrated on limited territory in fighting its Taliban, which is wiser than the US policy of opening several fronts at once and getting bogged down.

Jang, which is mildly anti-American, said,

Describing Robert Gates' pro-Indian statements irresponsible, the editorial says: "It is believed that the political and military leaderships of Pakistan, with one voice, have made it clear to Gates and the titanic-size delegation accompanying him that in the present circumstances, it is not possible for Pakistan to accede to the persistent US demands of 'do more' and to further expand military operations in the tribal areas, because Pakistan not only has to secure the areas that it has taken control of from the militants but also has to strengthen and stabilize its position there."

Then the Pakistani military spokesman came out and flatly told Gates that the Swat and South Waziristan campaigns were it for now. The BBC reports, 'Maj Gen Abbas, head of public relations for the Pakistan army, told the BBC: "We are not going to conduct any major new operations against the militants over the next 12 months. . . The Pakistan army is overstretched and it is not in a position to open any new fronts. Obviously, we will continue our present operations in Waziristan and Swat." '

To be fair, the Pakistani military committed tens of thousands of troops to these two campaigns, in Swat and South Waziristan, and is in fact attempting to garrison the captured areas so as to prevent the return of the Pakistani Taliban. In the past two years, the Pakistani army has lost over 2,000 soldiers in such fighting against Taliban in the Northwest, a little less than half the troops the US lost in its 6-year Iraq War.

The Pakistani military campaigns of the past year, however, have not targeted those radical groups most active in cross-border raids into Afghanistan-- the Quetta Shura of Mullah Omar's Old Taliban, the Haqqani Network of Siraj Haqqani in North Waziristan, or whatever cells exist in Pakistan of the largely Afghanistan-based Hizb-i Islami (Islamic Party) of Gulbadin Hikmatyar. Washington worries that the effectiveness of its own troop escalation in Afghanistan will be blunted if these three continue to have havens on the Pakistani side of the Durand Line. And, Pakistani Prime Minister Yusuf Raza Gilani worries that the US offensive in Afghanistan will push thousands radicals over the border into Pakistan, further destabilizing the country's northwest.

Gates made a clumsy attempt to mollify Pakistani public opinion over the very unpopular US drone strikes on suspected al-Qaeda and Taliban cells in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) of Pakistan, by offering the Pakistani military 12 unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or drones of its own. But the Pakistani military pointed out that the outdated RQ-7 Shadow UAV's on offer were unarmed and merely for aerial reconnaissance, and maintained that Pakistan's arsenal already contained such drones.

Gates addressed the Pakistani cadets at the National Defense University, attempting to emphasize that he wanted more of these future officers to study in the US, and that Pakistan is in the driver's seat with regard to the anti-Taliban counter-insurgency campaign. Its message was largely missed in the civilian Urdu press.

Does it matter? One sometimes see Americans dismiss Pakistan as "small" or "unimportant." Think again. Pakistan is the world's sixth-largest country by population (170 million),just after Brazil (200 million). It is as big as California, Oregon and Washington state rolled together. Pakistan's 550,000-man military is among the best-trained and best-equipped in the global South. Pakistan has within it a middle class with a Western-style education and way of life (automobiles, access to internet and international media) of some 37 million-- roughly 5 million families. (Pakistan has over 5 million automobiles now and is an emerging auto producer and market, with auto production at 16 percent of its manufaturing sector). If we go by local purchasing power, it is the world's 27th largest economy. It is a nuclear power with a sophisticated if small scientific establishment, and produced a Nobelist in physics.

Gates went to Pakistan to emphasize to Islamabad that the US was not again going to abandon it and Afghanistan, as it had in the past. Pakistan, he wanted to say, is now a very long-term ally of Washington. He hoped for cooperation against the Haqqani, Taliban and Hizb-i Islami guerrillas. He wanted to allay conspiracy theories about US mercenary armies crawling over Pakistan, occasionally blowing things up (and then blaming the explosions on Pakistanis) in order to destabilize the country and manipulate its policies.

The message his mission inadvertently sent was that the US is now increasingly tilting to India and wants to put it in charge of Afghanistan security; that Pakistan is isolated; that he is pressuring Pakistan to take on further counter-insurgency operations against Taliban in the Northwest, which the country flatly lacks the resources to do; and that Pakistani conspiracy theories about Blackwater were perfectly correct and he had admitted it.

In baseball terms, Gates struck out. In cricket terms, Gates was out in the most embarrassing way a batsman can be out, that is, leg before wicket.

Missile Defense: The "New" US Plan on the Poland-Russia Border

New EA correspondent Cigdem Billur reports on some quiet but important missile manoeuvres in Eastern Europe:

Last year, the Obama Administration declared with great publicity that it was abandoning US plans for bases for Missile Defense in Eastern Europe. The "Star Wars" response of a satellite defense system would be replaced by a mobile system pointing towards Iran from the Persian Gulf.

Beyond the headlines, however, Washington is still planning a visible show of "defense" which concerns not Tehran but Moscow. Polish media are reporting that the US is placing a battery of Patriot missiles only 100 kilometres from the Russian border. Polish officials confirmed that the missiles will be deployed in the city of Morag, near Russia’s critical region Kaliningrad.

The Patriot system, of course, is not for high-level defense against incoming missiles. Its most famous use was the protection of Israel and Saudi Arabia from Iraqi Scud missiles in the 1990-91 Gulf War.

It remains to be seen, however, if Russia will make the distinction. Before the Obama withdrawal of the Missile Defense scheme, President Dmitri Medvedev had suggested that Russia would place Iskander (SS-26) tactical missiles on the Polish border near Kaliningrad. The step was never implemented, but could it be resurrected as a response to the Patriots?