Video & Transcript: Clinton-Netanyahu Press Briefing (31 October)

Israel: Gideon Levy’s Plea “Washington, Stop Sucking Up to Tel Aviv”
Israel-Palestine: Criticism Mounts over Clinton Trip
Clinton’s Trip: Desperately Seeking Israeli Concessions

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Saturday's press briefing by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dY7OhBiM-d4[/youtube]

MODERATOR: Good evening, and we welcome Secretary of State Clinton. We shall start with a few words, and then we’ll take two questions from each side. Prime Minister, please.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: It’s my pleasure to welcome Secretary of State of the United States Hillary Clinton to Jerusalem. Welcome, Hillary. You are a great friend and a great champion of peace. I think that we owe a vote of thanks to you, to George Mitchell, to your staffs, and of course, to President Obama and the entire Obama Administration for the tireless efforts to re-launch the peace process – the peace process between us and the Palestinians, and between us and the Arab world – following the President’s vision of a regional peace.

We are eager to advance on both. We think that the place to resolve outstanding issues and differences of opinion is around a negotiating table. We think we should sit around that negotiating table right away. We’re prepared to start peace talks immediately. I think what we should do on the path to peace is to simply get on it and get with it. So I’m sure we’ll discuss these things and other things in the spirit of friendship between us and you, between Israel and the United States. Welcome to Jerusalem.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Thank you so much, Prime Minister. It is a great personal pleasure for me to be back in Jerusalem and a great honor to be here as Secretary of State once again. And I look forward to our discussion, and I appreciate the very positive words about the need to get back into a negotiation that would be in the best interests of Israel and Israel’s security, as well as create a state for the Palestinian people. Both President Obama and I are committed to a comprehensive peace agreement because we do believe that it holds out the best promise for the security and future of Israel, and for the aspirations of the Palestinians.

So I’m looking forward to our discussion tonight. I know you’re someone who is indefatigable, so even though we’re starting our meeting so late, I have no doubt that it will be intense and cover a lot of ground. And I’m very much eager to begin those discussions.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, do you think both sides should re-launch the peace process without any preconditions?

SECRETARY CLINTON: I want to see both sides begin as soon as possible in negotiations. We have worked – and of course, Senator Mitchell has worked tirelessly – in setting forth what are the approaches that each side wishes to pursue in order to get into those negotiations, so I’m not going to express my opinion as to whether or not there should be conditions. The important thing, as the prime minister just said, is to get into the negotiations. I gave the same message today when I met with President Abbas.

We know that negotiations often take positions that then have to be worked through once the actual process starts. I think the best way to determine the way forward is, as the prime minister said, get on the path.

MODERATOR: Mark.

QUESTION: Mark Landler, New York Times. Madame Secretary, when you were here in March on the first visit, you issued a strong statement condemning the demolition of housing units in East Jerusalem. Yet, that demolition has continued unabated, and indeed, a few days ago, the mayor of the city of Jerusalem issued a new order for demolition. How would you characterize this policy today?

For the prime minister, sir, there’s been increasing tension, as you know, around – surrounding the Temple Mount, some civil unrest in the streets. Every time the peace process has lagged, often matters have been settled through violence. Are you worried that we are heading into that phase?

And then a last question, if I may. (Laughter.)

SECRETARY CLINTON: That’s the New York Times, for you. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Dr. Abdullah’s aides in Kabul have confirmed that he’s not going to take part in the runoff. Are you concerned that a Karzai government elected without the benefit of a runoff, given all the fraud in
the first round, will be lacking in legitimacy?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, let me say I have nothing to add to my statement in March. I continue to stand by what I said then.

With respect to Afghanistan and Dr. Abdullah’s decision, I think that it is his decision to make. Whatever went into that determination is obviously his choice. But I do not think it affects the legitimacy. There have been other situations in our own country as well as around the world where, in a runoff election, one of the parties decides, for whatever reason, that they are not going to go on. I do not think that that in any way affects the legitimacy. And I would just add that when President Karzai accepted the second round without knowing what the consequences and outcome would be, that bestowed legitimacy from that moment forward, and Dr. Abdullah’s decision does not in any way take away from that.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: I’m concerned with the attempts to create provocations around the issue of the Temple Mount. There are parties who are trying to do that. I assure you that the Government of Israel is not one of them. There are also extraordinary falsifications. My staff decided to have a meeting, a free evening, a few weeks ago. They decided to have it in the Old City. In the David City there’s a little restaurant there. They said, “Could you come for dessert,” because I worked long hours. I said, “Sure, I’ll see what I can do. I don’t promise, but we’ll make the arrangements.”

Our security people went there. Within an hour, Palestinian news agencies carried the story that Netanyahu was coming to the Old City to burrow a new tunnel under the Temple Mount. So help me God, this became an issue of great consequence. There were rumors that the violence would break out, exactly as you said. Now, this is entirely false. I give that as one example. There are daily examples of this and daily actions by militants, particularly the militant Islamic radicals who are trying to stir up trouble on the Temple Mount.

We are going to continue our efforts to keep Jerusalem safe, open, quiet, accessible to all three great faiths – Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. And the city is now very robust. It’s got a lot of tourism, as you see in the entire area. And the best way to see what is happening there is to go for yourself. Go take a look. You’ll see. And you’ll see our actual policy in place. We want a peaceful Jerusalem without provocations on the Temple Mount or anywhere else.

QUESTION: Madame Secretary, you went to Abu Dhabi, and I believe you came up with not much from Abu Mazen, who is actually presenting Israel and the United States with lots of no’s. Also, United States is encountering many no’s from Iran. At the moment, it doesn't look like some arrangement is being made at the moment. What is your reaction to what – receiving the no’s from the Arab world? And the same question, please, to Prime Minister Netanyahu.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, first of all, I believe that strategic patience is a necessary part of my job, and I view the conversations that we had this morning with President Abbas and his team as being very constructive and useful in continuing the move toward engagement that leads to negotiations. So if Senator Mitchell and I appear to be patient and persistent, it’s because we are. We think it’s worth being both.

With respect to Iran, there is not yet a final decision with respect to the Tehran research reactor. The important matter that I would underscore is the unity among the P-5+1, which includes not only the United States but the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia, China, and also the EU, in putting forth and in staying firm with this. The world is united in a view that Iran should not have or acquire nuclear weapons capacity. And our view is that we are willing to work toward creative outcomes like shipping out the low-enriched uranium to be reprocessed outside of Iran. But we’re not going to wait forever. Patience does have, finally, its limits. And it is time for Iran to fulfill its obligations and responsibilities to the international community, and accepting this deal would be a good beginning.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: You asked two questions, one on Iran and the other on the peace process. On Iran, I want to express our appreciation for the very clear stance adopted by President Obama that has united, as Secretary Clinton has just said, an international consensus that Iran must cease its efforts to become a nuclear military power. I think the fact that there has been unity that has not been seen for a long time on this position is something very valuable, very important. And I think it’s important not only for Israel, I think it’s important for the Middle East, for our region, for the peace of the world. So I want to commend the efforts of you and President Obama and the Western and other leaders have taken here to – on this issue that I think is central to the future of the world, to the future of peace.

As far as the question about the peace process is concerned, look, first let me, before you talk about the no’s, talk about the yes. And I want to put rhetoric aside and talk about facts. It’s a fact that since my government took office, we dismantled hundreds of earth blocks, checkpoints, facilitated movement in the Allenby Bridge, and eliminated a lot of bureaucratic hurdles to daily life and economic activity in the Palestinian Authority’s areas. And as a result, there’s been a Palestinian economic boom. That is a fact.

The second fact is that I gave a speech at Bar Ilan University in which I said that Israel will accept the vision of two states for two peoples, a demilitarized Palestinian state that recognizes the Jewish state of Israel. It wasn’t easy to do, but we did it. That is a fact.

The third fact is that we’ve been talking earnestly, openly, and transparently to the American Administration, and we’ve talked about measures that we can take to facilitate further the launching – the re-launching of the peace process. That is a fact.

The simple fact is this: We are willing to engage in peace talks immediately without preconditions. The other fact is that, unfortunately, the other side is not. It is asking and piling on preconditions that it never put on in the 16 years that we’ve had that the peace process since the annunciation of the Oslo Accords.

There have not been these preconditions. It’s a change of Palestinian policy, and I hope they change back to the right thing, which is to get into the negotiating tent. We’re eager and sincere in our desire to reach an agreement to end this conflict. I happen to think that we’re able to do this, contrary to all the pessimists around us. But the only way we can get to an agreement is to begin negotiating, and that is something that we are prepared to do. That is a fact.

MODERATOR: Finally, Joe Klein from Time Magazine. Yes.

QUESTION: I’m tempted to ask why is this night different from all other nights --

SECRETARY CLINTON: Do you want us to burst into song? (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Yes. For 40 years, we’ve seen American secretaries of state and Israeli prime ministers in a similar situation. Despite the prime minister’s optimism, the talks are stalled. The prospect of talks is stalled. And while you’ve said yes without preconditions to talks, so many of your – you’ve said no to a settlement freeze. And I wonder whether that would be open to negotiation.

And Madame Secretary, is the Obama Administration still in favor of a
total freeze? And if not, what’s plan b?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Joe, the specific question you asked about the settlements also has to be fully factual. The fact of the matter is that we – I said we would not build new settlements, not expropriate land for addition for the existing settlements, and that we were prepared to adopt a policy of restraint on the existing settlements, but also one that would still enable normal life for the residents who are living there.

Now, there has not been in the last 16 years – not 40 years but 16 years, since the beginning of the peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians – any demand every put not on restraint, but on any limitation on settlement activity as a precondition for entering negotiations. This is a new thing. Now, it’s true that you can take a new thing and you can repeat it ad nauseum for a few weeks and a few months, and it becomes something that is obvious and has been there all the time. It’s not been there all the time.

QUESTION: It was there in the first Bush Administration, right?

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: No, there has not been a precondition for entering or continuing with the peace process between us and the Palestinians. There’s not been a demand coming from the Palestinians that said we will not negotiate with you unless you freeze all activity – something that is problematic in so many ways, judicial and in other ways. I won’t get into that. But this is a new demand. It’s a change of policy, the Palestinian policy. And it doesn't do much for peace. It doesn't work to advance negotiations. It actually – this uses a pretext, or at least does something as an obstacle that prevents the reestablishment of negotiations.

Now, mind you, the issue of settlements, the issue of territories, the issue of borders – these will be engaged in the negotiations, and they’ll have to be resolved for a peace agreement to be achieved. But you can’t resolve it in advance of the negotiations, and you certainly shouldn’t pile it on as a precondition.

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I would add just for context that what the prime minister is saying is historically accurate. There has never been a precondition. It’s always been an issue within the negotiations. What the prime minister has offered in specifics of a restraint on the policy of settlements, which he has just described – no new starts, for example – is unprecedented in the context of the prior two negotiations. It’s also the fact that for 40 years, presidents of both parties have questioned the legitimacy of settlements.

But I think that where we are right now is to try to get into the negotiations. The prime minister will be able to present his government’s proposal about what they are doing regarding settlements, which I think when fully explained will be seen as being not only unprecedented but in response to many of the concerns that have been expressed. There are always demands made in any negotiation that are not going to be fully realized. I mean, negotiation, by its very definition, is a process of trying to meet the other’s needs while protecting your core interests. And on settlements, there’s never been a precondition, there’s never been such an offer from any Israeli government. And we hope that we’ll be able to move in to the negotiations where all the issues that President Obama mentioned in his speech at the United Nations will be on the table for the parties to begin to resolve.

PRIME MINISTER NETANYAHU: Thank you very much.

Latest from Iran (1 November): Is This the Opposition's Moment?

NEW Video: Sharif University Protest (1 November)
NEW Video Flashback: Ahmadinejad v. The Giant Flying Bug
NEW Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
NEW Video: The Mothers of Martyrs March (31 October)
Iran: Mousavi Statement for 13 Aban Demonstrations (31 October)
Video: Tonight's “Allahu Akhbars” at Sharif University (30-31 October)
The Latest from Iran (31 October): Karroubi to March on 13 Aban

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

2100 GMT: A Hold-Up of the Telecommunications Privatisation? Mehr News reports that Iran's General Inspection Organization has said uncertainties remain in the purchase of the Telecommunications Company of Iran (TCI), submitting its report to a Parliamentary committee for further investigation.

Three Iranian firms, part of a consortium named Etemad Mobin Development, bought 50 percent plus one share of the company for $7.8 billion on 20 September. There are claims that the Revolutionary Guard is a hidden partner in the consortium.

2050 GMT: Mr Smith adds to the news (1530 GMT) that Mehdi Karroubi restated his claims of election fraud in a meeting today. Karroubi was actually meeting the leadership of Daftar-Tahkim-Vahdat, the student organisation who supported him in the Presidential campaign and whose leaders, Ahmad Zeidabadi and Abdollah Momeni, are currently in jail.

2030 GMT: More on Hengameh Shahidi. After some uncertainty this afternoon over her announced release on $90,000 bail, the Karroubi advisor was able to leave after more than 120 days in detention, including 50 in solitary confinement. There are reports that she has been transferred to hospital following her hunger strike last week.

We have been identifying Shahidi as a lawyer. Mr Smith checks in to correct us: she is a prominent journalist and war correspondent.

1550 GMT: "Other" Larijani Jumps In on Nuclear Issue. Sadegh Larijani, head of Iran's judiciary and brother of Speaker of the Parliament Ali Larijani, has jumped into the discussion on the nuclear negotiations, declaring that they were not beneficial to Iran.

That's a pretty blatant political move, given that uranium enrichment isn't exactly a judicial responsibility. So is this now a Larijani axis against President Ahmadinejad on the issue of "engagement" with the West?

1540 GMT: Crackdown? The Western media are excited over a statement from Iran's deputy head of police Ahmad Reza Radan, "The police will act against any illegal gathering on the 13th of Aban." Even Britain's Sky News, which rarely notes internal Iran developments, hails this as a "Top Story".

We're playing wait-and-see. It was inevitable that the police would react to this week's 13 Aban declarations with law-and-order warnings. More significant will be any threats from Government leaders or the Revolutionary Guard.

1530 GMT: Mehdi Karroubi, speaking to the Central Council of University Alumni, claimed that votes were "rationed" in the Presidential election. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was allocated 25 million votes while Karroubi was allowed only 330,000.

1505 GMT: Iranian Labor News Agency is reporting that Karroubi advisor and lawyer Hengameh Shahidi, who has been on hunger strike in Evin Prison, has been released on $90,000 bail. Iranian activists are saying, however, that Shahidi has not appeared in front of the prison, where her family is waiting.

1500 GMT: Reformist political activist Behzad Nabavi has appeared in court today. After requesting an open trial, Nabavi, suffering from ill health throughout his four-month detention, was transferred to hospital.
.
1450 GMT: And the Protest Videos Keep Coming. We've posted the latest, from Sharif University latest.

1425 GMT: Grand Ayatollah Sane'i has issued a statement inviting people to participate in rallies on 13 Aban (4 November). Sane'i warned that tyrants and autocrats should well know that the Iranian nation, by its strong resistance and by participation in the events of 13 Aban, will unveil and neutralise hidden and secret plans made against the rights and interests of the people.

1415 GMT: According to Iranian Labor News Agency, the head of  Friday Prayers Committee, Seyed Reza Taghavi, has declared that Hashemi Rafsanjani will not be leading Tehran's prayers in the near-future.

1200 GMT: The Coordination Council of the Reform Front has issued a statement inviting all people to demonstrate on 13 Aban (4 November). The Council condemned the post-election trials and heavy sentences imposed on protesters and expressed deep regrets and sorrow of “examples of promoting organised violence”, such as the assaults against Mehdi Karoubi and Alireza Beheshti at the Tehran Media Fair.

1135 GMT: Video Flashback. To honour President Ahmadinejad's defiance of his "mosquito" enemies, we have posted the video of his 6 July post-election speech, during which he battled a Giant Flying Bug.
1115 GMT: Ahmadinejad v. The Mosquito. Unsurprisingly, Western media are buzzing about the President's statement this morning, "While enemies have used all their capacities ... the Iranian nation is standing powerfully and they are like a mosquito."

No one, unfortunately, is interpreting what exactly mosquito-swatting means. Go beyond the metaphor, and Ahmadinejad is maintaining his strategy --- set out in his speech on Thursday --- of continuing talks by framing them as Western concessions to Iran's strength: "Given the negative record of Western powers, the Iranian government ... looks at the talks with no trust. But realities dictate to them to interact with the Iranian nation."

0945 GMT: State Media Endorses Khatami?

Really. Press TV gives a full and positive description of former president Mohammad Khatami's Saturday statement to reformist university groups (see yesterday's updates). The headline is "We Will Remain Critical of Power" from Khatami's assertion, “We will continue to stay critical of the current power trend, of course within the framework of a movement that supports Islam, the Islamic Republic and the [1979] Revolution.”

How can Press TV embrace the opposition leader? First, it emphasises that Khatami is calling for criticism within the system. Then it takes the sting out of Khatami's targeted criticism of "some deviations which must be set right with.. religious and Revolutionary principles", never mentioning that this is directed at the current Government. So Press TV can endorse Khatami's assurance that the Reformist movement denounces violence “by all means”, while ignoring the specific meaning of his declaration that "certain other parties endorse it as the basis of their thoughts and actions".

0900 GMT: Islamic Republic News Agency reports that the Russian Ambassador to Iran is continuing to press Tehran to accept the third-party enrichment deal for its uranium stock.

Does this state media report indicate the Ahmadinejad Government is still keeping the door open for talks? And, if so, how far?

0810 GMT: Profiles of the Day. Homy Lafayette writes about Mehdi Karroubi's advisor, journalist, and women's rights activist Hengameh Shahidi, who is on hunger strike in Evin Prison. Shahidi has been detained since 30 June.

And Borzou Daragahi of the Los Angeles Times picks up Wednesday's story of the maths student, Mahmoud Vahidnia, who challenged the Supreme Leader.

0800 GMT: A very good day for the Green opposition yesterday. Mir Hossein Mousavi took over the news cycle with his statement anticipating the protests of 13 Aban (4 November), and then Mehdi Karroubi announced that he would be joining marchers at Amir Kabir University on Wednesday. Meanwhile, amidst the in-house fighting over the nuclear talks with the "West", there was little of note from the regime.

A quiet morning so far, so we've posted other signals of the opposition momentum. There is video of the Saturday gathering in Tehran's Laleh Park of the mothers of those killed and detained, and we have the latest examples of the videos promoting the 13 Aban marches.

Latest Iran Video: Sharif and Khaje Nasir Universities Protest (1 November)

Video Flashback: Ahmadinejad v. The Giant Flying Bug
Iran: More 13 Aban Videos
Video: The Mothers of Martyrs March (31 October)
Iran: Mousavi Statement for 13 Aban Demonstrations (31 October)
Video: Tonight’s “Allahu Akhbars” at Sharif University (30-31 October)

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Sharif University, Tehran

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLlC9ahVUrQ[/youtube]

Khaje Nasir University, Tehran (3 videos)

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lAQm1R8Ea0[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l02sWAJQ9dk[/youtube] [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ue_Aeo0K8vI[/youtube]

Emergency Analysis: Josh Shahryar on Afghanistan's Political Turmoil

Afghanistan: Abdullah Withdraws, US Political Plan Collapses
Understanding “Mr Obama’s Wars”: Five Essential Analyses on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Enduring America correspondent Josh Shahryar explains the latest political developments in Afghanistan and assesses their significance:

Dr. Abdullah Abdullah announced today that he would not be participating in the upcoming Nov. 7 run-off against Hamid Karzai. The decision comes at a time when both Afghans and the West are waiting patiently for a new government so both political factions can develop a much-needed plan to urgently deal with the rising tide of insecurity in the country. However, Abdullah’s decision to back out may just plunge Afghanistan into chaos.

Abdullah’s decision is rooted in two main issues. The first was the retention of Azizullah Lodin as head of the Independent Election Commission. A Karzai appointee, Lodin is seen by Abdullah’s camp and a large portion of the population as being heavily biased in favor of the President. Under his leadership, the 20 August election was so rigged that, after weeks of scrutiny and debate, a Karzai first-round victory had to be converted into a run-off. So it is no surprise that Abdullah wants Lodin and several other officials out.

Afghanistan’s electorate is very unevenly distributed on a very rugged and often inaccessible terrain. Difficulties are compounded because security is at its worst since the US-led invasion in 2001. Under these circumstances, it would be almost impossible for elections to be free and fair with or without Lodin. His presence, however, will make matters even worse.

The other, equally important issue for Abdullah was a change in Afghanistan’s constitution in order to create the post of Prime Minister, with Abdullah or one of his key supporters could be appointed to that position. This is often kept under wraps by the media and its euphemism "a power-sharing deal".

The negotiations are caught up in ethnic politics. Karzai belongs to the Pashtun ethnic group to which most of the Taliban also belong. Abdullah gets most of his support from the Tajik, the second-largest ethnic group. Together, Pashtuns and Tajiks make up more than three-quarters of Afghanistan’s population.

Since the constitution was drafted, the main point of contention between the two ethnic factions has been over strong presidential government. As Pashtuns make up 40 percent of Afghanistan's population, versus the Tajiks' 30 percent, % of the population, a Pashtun President is almost guaranteed.

This would be balanced if a Parliament-appointed prime minister was established.
Even though Pashtuns make up a larger share of the population, they are more widely dispersed across the country. This dilutes their political power, as Pashtuns almost always receive a smaller percentage of seats in the Parliament compared to their numerical supremacy than they would if they weren’t as widely distributed. This gap was evident in Afghanistan’s first Parliament, elected in 2005, where a Tajik narrowly beat a Pashtun to become the Speaker.

Under these circumstances, Karzai’s insistence upon not sacking Lodin is both naïve and politically disastrous. However, Abdullah’s insistence upon forcing a constitutional change before an election is equally naïve. Hours before Abdullah’s announcement, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton noted that the legitimacy of the election would not be questioned because of Abdullah’s departure. This is a clear signal to Abdullah that, in the next week before the run-off, there simply is not enough time or patience left for the West to sit down with Karzai and persuade him to meet Abdullah’s demands.

However, Abdullah represents a large segment of the Afghan population. His departure from the election is surely going to rouse their discontent with not just Karzai but also the US. This is dangerous for Washington: most of Karzai’s support comes from areas that are hostile towards the US but Abdullah is backed by regions that are for the most part pro-US. If the situation is not handled delicately by the West, it risks losing the support of the majority of Afghanistan’s population and plunging the relatively safer areas into insecurity as well.

A compromise solution is urgently needed to solve this crisis. If Karzai were to meet half of Abdullah’s demands and postpone the other half for after the election, chaos might be averted. Removing Lodin and other officials from their posts would make the elections more acceptable to the populace. This in turn would give both Karzai and Abdullah enough leverage to change the constitution.

Under the current circumstances, even though Abdullah has refrained from asking his supporters to boycott the election or come out to streets, the situation remains critical. The West might have to step in once again to salvage the peace.

Afghanistan: Abdullah Withdraws, US Political Plan Collapses

Emergency Analysis: Josh Shahryar on Afghanistan's Political Turmoil
Understanding “Mr Obama’s Wars”: Five Essential Analyses on Afghanistan and Pakistan

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Confused by the political developments in Afghanistan as challenger Abdullah Abdullah pulls out of a runoff against President Hamid Karzai? All you have to do is go back and check Enduring America's four-sentence guide from mid-October to elections, fraud, and politics:

1. Karzai accepts runoff. Check.

OK, no problem there. Karzai --- who may or may not have rigged a first-round election in which almost 30 percent of his votes were thrown out, who may or may not be presiding over a Government better known for corruption rather than financial management, whose brother may or may not be a) rich from said corruption b) tied into Afghan drug money c) a CIA agent --- has been been playing nice since he was told by US officials to go through a second-round show of democracy.

2. US declares satisfaction. President Obama to reporters, “President Karzai, as well as the other candidates have shown that they have the interests of the Afghan people at heart.” Check. Still OK there, Washington has made it known that, whatever happens, there will be a run-off to give legitimacy to a Karzai Government.

3. Closest challenger Abdullah Abdullah accepts runoff. Check. Oops! Looks like the plan just came unstuck because....

4. Coalition government with both Karzai and Abdullah to be formed. Wait for it — it will come soon after the 7 November run-off. Double Oops! The two Afghan political figures could not come to a resolution of their political issues and differences. This was always going to be the tricky part as, even with a prominent position, Abdullah would be playing second fiddle to Karzai.

5. US then declares troop escalation. Could be a pre-Christmas present for all of us. Hold that present, folks. President Obama, who has been delaying a decision on troop levels until the new Afghan Government could be declared, now has his problems compounded. He's not very happy with a military boost amidst political turmoil but, given the accusations of "ditherer" from a loud minority in the US who define success as more American soldiers, he will be under intense pressure.