Israel-Palestine: "Proximity Talks" and US Vice President Biden

Here's the background: last Friday, US Mideast Special Envoy George Mitchell's deputy, David Hale, said Israeli-Palestinian understandings since the Annapolis talks would not be binding.

Following the approval of two conditions (the outlines of a border deal with Israel and a complete Israeli settlement construction freeze) by the Palestinian Liberation Organization executive committee, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Monday that he hoped for direct negotiations in the near future, but reiterated that any permanent settlement would require recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and a long-term guarantee of Israel's security.

Thus, the clear difference between two disputants' mentalities: on one hand, Ramallah is considering indirect talks as a basis to be consolidated in order to move to the next round of direct talks; on the other hand, West Jerusalem sees indirect talks as a way to block preconditions.

In the midst of Defense Minister Ehud Barak's permission for the construction of 112 housing units in the settlement of Beitar Ilit, despite the construction freeze in the West Bank settlements, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden arrived Israel on Tuesday while Mitchell moved to Ramallah for further talks.

Biden, on early Tuesday, met President Shimon Peres. He said that the agreed resumption of Israeli-Palestinian talks provided a "moment of real opportunity" for peace and added:

The interests of both the Palestinians and the Israeli people, if everyone would just step back and take a deep breath, are actually very much more in line than they are in opposition.

Then, Biden talked to PM Netanyahu. He said that "historic peace will require both sides to make historically bold commitments" and gave the golden statement:

There is no space between the United States and Israel when it comes to Israel's security.

When it came to the Iranian issue, Biden said: "We're determined to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and we're working with many countries around the world to convince Tehran to meet its international obligations and cease and desist." President Peres harshly targeted Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. He stated that Ahmadinejad must face "total" international isolation and added:

A person like Ahmadinejad, who calls openly to destroy the state of Israel, cannot be a full member of the United Nations.

A man who calls for acts of terror, and who hangs people in the street ... he should be placed in his proper definition. He cannot go around almost like a cultural hero.

Ahmadinejad has to be isolated and not be welcomed in the capitals of the world.

The Latest from Iran (9 March): Political Acts

1500 GMT: But Mahmoud, What If No One's Home? Here's a better story than the Khatami rumour....

On Monday President Ahmadinejad was totally disrespected when Afghan President Hamid Karzai who told Mahmoud to stay home (US Secretary of Defense Robert Gates was suddenly in town, and Americans and Iranians at the same time in Kabul just wouldn't do). So Iranian state media carried the story that Ahmadinejad's office had not said "Monday" but "this week". The meeting with Karzai would now be on Wednesday.

Which would be fine except Karzai's people are reportedly saying that the Afghan President will be in Pakistan on Wednesday.

So what's up? Is it a three-way get-together in Islamabad or will Ahmadinejad's office have to clarify "not this week, next week".

Iran Analysis: Corruption Within the Government?
Latest Iran Video: Hillary Clinton’s Message to Iranian Women (8 March)
Iran: A Journalist Writes Her Detained Husband and “Mr Interrogator”
Video: General Petraeus on Iran and Iraq (7 March
The Latest from Iran (8 March): Foreign Affairs

1445 GMT: Khatami Watch. Yes, we have read the rumours that former President Mohammad Khatami has been barred from leaving Iran. The source is Fars News, so status remains at rumour or disinformation --- Khatami's camp have denied the report.



1430 GMT: Human Rights Front. Student activists Abdollah Momeni and Majid Tavakoli, are this year's recipients of the Homo Homini Award, awarded annually by the Czech-based People in Need "in recognition of a dedication to the promotion of human rights, democracy, and nonviolent solutions to political conflicts".

Momeni was released this week on $800,000 bail after more than six months in jail, including reportedly about 100 days in solitary confinement. Iranian He has received a six-year jail sentence, which is being appealed.

Tavakoli was arrested at the 7 December National Student Day demonstrations. The regime attempted to humiliate him by disseminating photographs of him dressed in hijab.

1230 GMT: Dangerous Papers (cont.). An Iranian activist reports the press board's warning was handed out to the reformist publication Bahar for carrying an article about the mysterious changing colours of the Iranian flag.

1210 GMT: Newsflash! Even Football Can Be Dangerous. Mehr News Agency reports that Iran's press supervisory board has warned 17 publications over alleged breaches of media regulations.

Mohammad Ali Ramin, the Deputy Minister of Culture who has been widely criticised for his hard line against the media, said the publications were "not committed to journalistic duties, breached media regulations, printed superficial materials, and propagated materialism".

The leading reformist daily, Bahar (Spring), is accused of having published "rumours and lies".

The other 16 journals warned were: Nasl Emrouz, Banu Shargi, Ayne Zendegi, Payamavar, Sepidar, Pishkhan, Zendegi Irani, Medad Rangi, Zendegi Edeal, Ruiesh, Kohenoor, Tohid, Rahe Zendegi, Sinamaye Emrouz, Chelcheragh, and Football.

1150 GMT: The Nuclear Deal. For the second day in a row, Iran's Foreign Ministry has signalled that the "third-party enrichment" option --- which resurfaced during Ali Larijani's recent trip to Japan --- is still alive. Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast said Tuesday that Iran's "priority is to obtain fuel" for a Tehran medical research reactor.

Mehmanparast assured, "If the [International Atomic Energy] Agency suggests a country in possession of the 20-percent enriched fuel, we are ready to buy [the fuel]. Besides, if there are countries ready for a swap which will fulfill our conditions, we are ready; otherwise, we will produce the fuel [ourselves]."

1135 GMT: Women's Day (cont.). The association of Iranian female journalists, RUZA, has issued a declaration stating that release of imprisoned women is its first goal.

Zahra Rahnavard, the wife of Mir Hossein Mousavi, met women's organisations yesterday, commemorating Neda and other victims of post-election conflict.

1130 GMT: One to Watch? There has been an increase in tensions between Azerbaijan and Iran, with protests in front of the Azeri Embassy in Tabriz and the burning of the Azeri flag. Good relations between Azerbaijan and Israel have been mentioned as a possible cause.

1120 GMT: Keeping the Universities in Line. Is the regime getting nervous about renewed public resistance at the universities? First, Minister of Higher Education Kamran Daneshjoo issued a warning to "deviant professors". Now Revolutionary Guard commander Rahim Savafi has declared that the universities are "empty" of elites faithful to the Supreme Leader and Constitution.

0930 GMT: Still Protesting. While university demonstrations have been muted since December, that does not mean that dissent has been quelled. A group of Tehran University students has put out the message: "If 'their' power relies on their guns, ours is that we are countless."

0920 GMT: Today's Media Head-for-the-Hills Moment. The New York Times is back to its red alert over Iran's nuclear programme, this time with a lengthy piece on the country's uranium enrichment process.

To be fair to reporter William Broad, his article is mainly an overview of both the possibilities and the limitations of Iran's nuclear programme. However, whoever wrote the headline missed the subtleties and/or preferred Panic Mode, "For Iran, Enriching Uranium Only Gets Easier".

0915 GMT: Here's some political theatre for you. The head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, has made a dramatic intervention with his claim of high-level embezzlement and corruption within the Government. Mr Verde has an analysis.

0820 GMT: Catching Up With the Political Poses and Other News.

Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani has hurled the label of "thugocracy", used by US General David Petraeus in a Sunday interview, back at the "goons" of the American Government: "It is understandable that they hate people with the knowledge of the region joining us today, so they use offensive words."

Juan Cole has an interesting analysis of President Ahmadinejad's declaration that the US Government created the "lie" of 9-11 to support its international plans, going farther into Ahmadinejad's religious beliefs:

Not only is Ahmadinejad the Iranian equivalent of a truther, he is also the mirror image of the Christian Zionists. That brand of evangelicals in the US believes that the establishment of Israel throughout geographical Palestine, i.e. the complete annexation of the West Bank and perhaps the expulsion of its Palestinian residents, will hasten the return of Christ.

Ahmadinejad holds the opposite. It is in his view the collapse of what he calls the Zionist regime and the emergence of a state for all Palestinians, whether Jewish, Christian or Muslim, that will provoke the Promised One to come. In Shiite Islam, the promised one is the return of the 12th Imam, Muhammad al-Mahdi, the lineal descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

Iran Analysis: Corruption Within the Government?

Mr Verde writes for EA:

On Saturday, EA noted a speech by the head of Iran's judiciary, Sadegh Larijani, claiming saying that fraud and corruption had been uncovered inside the Government (your 1945 GMT update on 7 March).

Keep your eyes on this story: it may be far more than a passing update.

Larijani's declaration was followed up by the reformist Parleman News, which headlined, “Presence of a senior government official at the top of the major multi-billion embezzlement network”.



Parleman claimed new information about Larijani's reference to an embezzlement case in a government business. The fraud, amounts to millions of dollars, involves a high-ranking government official, the manager of an insurance company, government managers, and other government employees.

The website says that there are efforts in progress to gain the consent of a superior to force the high-ranking official to resign.

It also says that billions of toomans were embezzled in order to be spent on some projects and some people.

Interpretation?

Parleman News is not an ordinary website. It belongs to the reformist Imam Khomeini Line party. Of course, that means the website has a political agenda in running its article, but the reformist party may have  access to important information that is not yet public.

The closing paragraph is interesting when it mentions the funds being" spent on certain projects". That suggests the money was stolen by officials from the official Government use to spend on their own causes.

The hot rumour going around is that the high-ranking official is First Vice President Mohammad-Reza Rahimi. This specific story follows months of chatter, some passed on by members of Parliament, that there are embezzlement cases against Rahimi and also that his university degree is fake.

None of this has been confirmed, but if the Rahimi angle turns out to be true. t could cause President Ahmadinejad some problems. If he concedes and allow Rahimi to resign and stand trial, this will damage his public standing amongst his supporters. However, if he resists the pressures for Rahimi to reign, in he could end up paying a heavy behind-the-scenes price, especially in his contest with a "conservative opposition" within the establishment.

Afghanistan: Getting the Real Point Of The Marja "Offensive"

Gareth Porter has an excellent piece up on Inter Press Service, "Fiction of Marja as City Was U.S. Information War," in which he breaks down the media disinformation campaign on the size of Marja:

Marja is not a city or even a real town, but either a few clusters of farmers' homes or a large agricultural area covering much of the southern Helmand River Valley.

"It's not urban at all," an official of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), who asked not to be identified, admitted to IPS Sunday. He called Marja a "rural community".

"It's a collection of village farms, with typical family compounds," said the official, adding that the homes are reasonably prosperous by Afghan standards.

Porter is right on, and you should read the whole thing for an idea on exactly how these disinformation campaigns are spread, but I'm afraid in the case of Marja, we might be missing the point. We're complaining that Marja is only an excuse for a propaganda victory while at the same time complaining that the victory won't be worth anything because it's not a city.

As Woody Allen said on a much different topic, "This food is terrible, and such small portions!"



This shouldn't be news to anyone, but Afghans live in rural communities. We're supposedly there to protect Afghans from the Taliban after all. Rajiv Chandrasekaran described the strategy last year in the Washington Post:

The U.S. strategy here is predicated on the belief that a majority of people in Helmand do not favor the Taliban, which enforces a strict brand of Islam that includes an-eye-for-an-eye justice and strict limits on personal behavior. Instead, U.S. officials believe, residents would rather have the Afghan government in control, but they have been cowed into supporting the Taliban because there was nobody to protect them.

Great, so if the plan is to protect Afghans from the Taliban, then you'll want to go where Afghans actually live, right? That would be in "a collection of village farms, with typical family compounds," just like the anonymous ISAF official told IPS.

Big cities like Kabul and Herat don't speak for the entirety of all Afghans, so focusing all of our attention on the major urban centers doesn't do anything to extend the legitimacy and credibility of the government, much less provide security from the Taliban. President Karzai's derisive nickname as the "Mayor of Kabul" was one small indicator of just how well the strategy of focusing on city centers, at the cost of conceding rural territory to the Taliban, was working. That is, not working at all. We also can't discount the effect concentrating on cities had on the Taliban propaganda narrative of western-occupied Kabul (or Islamabad) oppressing the mostly-rural Pashtuns.

In this case, Marja being a small farming community might actually be a positive step. So, ISAF finally went to the population, but are they protecting them? From Military.com:

At least 35 civilians have been killed in the operation, according to the Afghan human rights commission. Spokesman Nader Nadery said insurgent bombs killed more than 10 people, while NATO rocket fire killed at least 14.

Not only are we failing to protect the civilians from the Taliban, but we seem to have killed more Afghans than the militants themselves. Perhaps the Afghans will show their legendary patience, and accept that the government had to massacre 14 of their friends and relatives with rockets in order to have a more peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan. Will they side with Karzai? From the same article above:

"Are you against me or with me?" Karzai asked the elders. "Are you going to support me?"

The men all raised their hands and shouted: "We are with you. We support you."

But...

[Tribal Elders] complained - sometimes shouting - about corruption among former Afghan government officials. They lamented how schools in Marjah were turned into military posts by international forces. They said shops were looted during the offensive, and alleged that innocent civilians were detained by international forces.

But they still said they said they support Karzai, right?

Mohammad Naeem Khan, in his early 30s, said his loyalty is to whoever will provide for him.

"If the Taliban tap me on the shoulder, I will be with them, and if the government taps me on my shoulder I will be with them," Khan said.

So we wind up with the exact same bloody stalemate we've had since about 2002. They'll side with the government, except for when they side with the Taliban. That's not a victory, propaganda or otherwise.

The problem is not the size of Marja, it could be a teeming industrial metropolis of millions, it still wouldn't matter as long as we continue using military force and propping up a corrupt, illegitimate government. Until we have a strategy that doesn't involve violently imposing our pet gangsters' will on the Afghan people, we'll have a hard time even distinguishing ourselves from the Taliban, much less convincing the citizens to take our side against them.

Had enough? Become a fan of the Rethink Afghanistan campaign on Facebook and join our fight to bring the Afghanistan war to an end.

Josh Mull is the Afghanistan Blogging Fellow for The Seminal and Brave New Foundation. You can read his work on The Seminal or at Rethink Afghanistan.

Iraq: So What Do the Elections Mean (So Far)?

As we noted yesterday, the Sunday vote in Iraq now gives way to party propaganda and behind-the-scenes haggling and power plays, although a lot of the manoeuvres will be reshaped by the preliminary outcome when it is announced later this week.



Yesterday Iraq's electoral commission reported that 62.4 percent of eligible voters had cast ballots, with rates of 50 to 80 percent across the provinces. Still too early to tell where the outcome is heading, amidst conflicting (and self-serving) claims from the parties.

On Monday, Marc Lynch offered this sharp, incisive reading, which I think holds for the post-election period as well as for the vote. This line jumped out at me --- "[A] headline of the Iraqi election campaign has to be the overwhelmingly nationalist tone of all major politicians and the marginal American role in the process":

Iraq's election day went off remarkably well.



Despite some scattered and tragic violence, there was nothing like the kind of devastating violence threatened by a few insurgent groups and only scattered reports of problems in the electoral process. The de-Baathification shenanigans of Chalabi and al-Lami did some long-lasting damage to the credibility of state institutions and the rule of law, but not enough to cripple the elections. The relatively calm election day was overseen, it's worth emphasizing, by Iraqi security forces and not by U.S. troops -- something which I was often informed, over the last year, couldn't possibly happen. It did. This is simply excellent news, and a credit to the emerging capability of the Iraqi state. So now that election day is past, what now?

First, don't rush to speculate on who won or what it means. All the Iraqi lists are loudly claiming victory, but the truth is that no official (or even unofficial) results yet seem to exist. The anecdotal evidence still points to the pre-election speculation -- [current Prime Minister Nuri] Maliki on top, [Ayad] Allawi a strong second, the ISCI/Sadrist Shi'a list fading -- but it's only anecdotal. It does make a difference who comes out on top, and who becomes Prime Minister - Maliki and Allawi, for instance, would have very different styles, as would Chalabi or some such. But at the same time, there's almost certainly going to be a coalition of some kind (fully inclusive or otherwise) and the differences probably won't be as stark as some people expect.

Everybody has been predicting that the post-election coalition maneuvering will be long and painful, and could create the kind of security and political vaccuum which caused so many problems in the first half of 2006. I suspect that this is wrong. Iraqis learned from that experience, and they've been spending the last half-year gaming out coalition scenarios. I think that we'll see some intense political jockeying, with escalating warnings of disaster which lead to some worried op-eds about how the U.S. must get involved to resolve the conflict. And then it will resolve itself, likely within a month. I could be wrong -- lord knows, Iraq is hard to predict -- but that's my sense. Check back in a month and we'll see.

The other main headline of the Iraqi election campaign has to be the overwhelmingly nationalist tone of all major politicians and the marginal American role in the process. The election campaign (as opposed to the results, which we still don't know) showed clearly that Iraqis are determined to seize control of their own future and make their own decisions. The U.S. ability to intervene productively has dramatically receded, as the Obama administration wisely recognizes. The election produced nothing to change the U.S. drawdown schedule, and offered little sign that Iraqis are eager to revise the SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] or ask the U.S. to keep troops longer. Iraq is in Iraqi hands, and the Obama administration is right both to pay close attention and to resist the incessant calls to "do more." This doesn't mean ignoring Iraq -- the truth is, the Obama administration has been paying a lot more attention to Iraq than the media has over the last year. It means moving to develop a normal, constructive strategic relationship with the new Iraqi government, with the main point of contact the Embassy and the private sector rather than the military, and adhering in every way possible to the SOFA and to the drawdown timeline.

Follow the Middle East Channel for a lot of analysis of the Iraqi election in the coming days!