The Baghdad Bombings: A Political Blast

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

The media are scrambling to get with grips with the double bombing in Baghdad on Sunday, targeting national and provincial ministries, that killed more than 150 people. As the BBC's flagship radio programme somewhat blithely admitted today, the incidents "refocused" world attention on the country.

We're going to take a couple of days before venturing a full analysis, but the one point we would make, unlikely to be highlighted in the press, is that the event exposes how peripheral the US has become to Iraq's development. For all the troops that remain in the country, despite having the largest embassy in the world, Washington now watches as political battles are played out through violence, back-room manoeuvres, and public criticisms. This was exposed by the timing of the bomb: it came as Iraqi politicians were to discuss the difficulties stalling next January's elections.

As usual, Juan Cole offers one of the most penetrating responses to tragedy and politics:

Two massive blasts shook central Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 136 people and wounding 500, and destroying three government ministry buildings, according to the Times of London's Oliver August reporting from Baghdad. It was the most destructive attack of 2009. August notes that the likely perpetrators were either Baathists from the old regime or Sunni Muslim extremists, both of whom want to stop a new, Shiite- and Kurdish- dominated status quo from settling upon Iraq.

AFP Arabic service says that the first car exploded at 10 am Baghdad time at a crowded intersection near the ministry of justice and the ministry of municipalities. The second was detonated ten minutes later on Salihiya St. in front of the Baghdad Province administrative office. Many dead bodies are suspected of still being beneath the rubble of the ministries of justice and public works buildings, which collapsed on the employees.

The ministries were protected by blast walls and the truck bombs could not get that close, but the explosives used were so ungodly powerful that they swept the blast walls away. I have no pretensions to forensics expertise, but that sounds like a clue to me; where are the guerrillas getting such remarkable high explosives?

The particular ministries that were struck may be significant, since Iraq operates on a spoils system and ministries tend to be dominated by political parties and ethnic groups. The Minister of Public Works is Riyadh Gharib, a prominent member of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq, which is close to the clerics in Tehran. Public Works as a ministry would thus have a lot of ISCI party members as employees and it is also a huge source of political patronage. Baathists or Sunni extremists would have every reason to hit it.

The Ministry of Justice had been less politicized, but from 2007 was in the control of the Shiite United Iraqi Alliance. The Minister of Justice from last February is Judge Dara Nur al-Din, an independent Kurd. He had been a member of the Interim Governing Council under Paul Bremer, for which some groups in Iraq may not have forgiven him. The ministry of justice also oversees court cases and executions, including of prominent Baathists, executions that Nur al-Din has defended, and which have angered the anti-government guerrillas.

Read rest of article....

Violence, Unis Closed, Corruption: It's Not Iran (Try Next Door)

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

Juan Cole brings the latest, with Al Jazeera video, on the power politics in Iraq:

Mortars were fired in Baghdad, killing 7, and three bombs went off in the Shiite holy city of Karbala, killing 4 and wounding 48. The bombings were near to holy Shiite shrines, which is extremely dangerous. The bombing of the golden dome at Samarra in February of 2006 set off a vicious Sunni-Shiite civil war that killed thousands each month. The shrine of Imam Husayn, the Prophet's martyred grandson, in Karbala is among the holiest sites of Shiite Islam.

Al-Zaman reports in Arabic that Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki has ordered the closing for one week of Mustansiriya University in downtown Baghdad and the banning of partisan political activity on campus. The moves alarmed the PM's critics, who worry that he is gradually abolishing the freedom of speech in the new Iraq and making himself a strongman.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE8vxv1zWSo[/youtube]

Mustansiriya's student government and administration has been dominated by the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI) and by the Sadr Movement, two Shiite religious parties that are rivals of the Islamic Mission (Da'wa) Party of PM al-Maliki. Although Western reporters for some odd reason want to depict Da'wa as more secular than the others, it is not. It is, however, less puritanical than the Sadrists and led by lay fundamentalists rather than by clerics, in contrast to ISCI. Since ISCI and the Sadrists are part of the National Iraqi Alliance coalition contesting the upcoming parliamentary elections, and Maliki's Da`wa is running against them on the Government of Laws slate, there is bad blood among the Shiite fundamentalist parties at the moment.

Mustansiriya U.'s president was Imad al-Husayni of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Then Minister of Higher Education Abd Dhiyab al-`Ujayli dismissed al-Husayni and appointed Taqi al-Musawi as university president. But al-Husayni refused to step down. So Mustansiriya U. limped along with two administrations that were constantly fighting with one another.

Read rest of article....

UPDATED Iran-US-Russia Deal on Enrichment, The Sequel

UPDATED Iran: The Washington-Tehran Deal on Enriched Uranium?

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



UPDATE 15 October 0835 GMT: Finally! An unnamed journalist picks up on the third-party enrichment story at yesterday's State Department briefing by Philip Crowley:

QUESTION: The meeting coming up, the technical talks in Vienna about the low-enriched uranium – who is the U.S. sending, and how far do you expect to get in those meetings? What’s the sort of agenda and hopes for an outcome?

MR. CROWLEY: Well, it’s – we haven’t decided. Those arrangements are still being worked as to what the representation will be....These are technical talks, really, to work through the practical issues of how to ship the fuel out of Iran, and then provide the fuel that – for this research reactor....

QUESTION: But your understanding is that the Iranians are going forward with this, you know, a hundred percent. [Are the talks] actually just about implementing it right now, or is [the meeting] about in theory how it would work?

MR. CROWLEY: ...This is a confidence-building measure. There is the research reactor. It’s running out of fuel. And we think there’s a mechanism that can be put in place so that we can see that the shipment out of some of the existing Iranian stocks and then fuel for this particular reactor provided. I mean, it really is about working through the technical aspects of this. And...we believe that the meeting will go forward on October 19, and we’re working through the appropriate representation.


UPDATE 15 October 0730 GMT: The Hole in the Middle. Michael Slackman of The New York Times has a good but ultimately curious article this morning. In "Some See Iran as Ready for Nuclear Deal", he quotes analysts such as Trita Parsi, Flynt Leverett, and Juan Cole, as well as past statements from top Iran officials, to build his case.

The curiosity? Slackman never mentions the "third-party enrichment" proposal that proves his point.


UPDATE 1855 GMT: If you're clued up on the real story, then this statement by Vladimir Putin, former President and now Prime Minister of Russia, makes sense: "There is no need to frighten the Iranians. There is a need to reach agreements; there is a need to search for compromises." Stay the course on the ongoing, quieter discussions on third-party enrichment and Iran's second enrichment facility near Qom.

If you're not clued, then you're the ideal receptive audience for Press TV's spin on Putin's statement --- The Russians Are With Us Against the "West" --- "Putin Warns against Intimidation".

The story so far: last weekend we picked up on a scoop by Glenn Kessler of The Washington Post that, for four months, the US had been developing a plan for "third-party enrichment" by Russia of 80 percent of Iran's stock of low-enriched uranium. The processed uranium, now at 20% enrichment, would be used in Iran's medical research facilities. The proposal was presented to Iran before the Geneva talks at the start of October, and Tehran has accepted it as a basis for discussions.

We noted that, as Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was in Moscow this week, the proposal was likely to be at the forefront of US-Russian talks on Iran. After all, the technical talks on enrichment between Iran and the 5+1 powers (US, UK, France, Russia, China, Germany) are next Monday. At the same time we wondered if the media, dazzled by the surface issue of sanctions, would take any notice.

Well, Clinton has had her meetings with Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and no one --- as far as we know --- figured out the real diplomatic game, as opposed to the diversionary one.

During the midst of Clinton's talks yesterday, news services were so at sea that they were blaring, almost at the same time,"Yes, the Russians Will Support Sanctions; No, the Russians Won't Support Sanctions", without giving a passing thought to enrichment.

Today is no better. The New York Times, still stuck on Lavrov's public posture that sanctions would be "counterproductive", headlines, "Russia Resists U.S. Position on Sanctions for Iran". The Guardian of London swallows the opposite PR line, "Clinton hails US-Russian co-operation on Iran", and the BBC, thrilled to get an interview with Clinton, nods its head as she declares, "Clinton: Russia Sees Iran Threat".

But the top prize for media dizziness goes to Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post, who clearly doesn't read the stories published in her story (or at least those by Glenn Kessler). She expends more than 500 words shouting, "Russia Not Budging On Iran Sanctions". Buried well within them is the single line, "Under heavy international pressure, the Islamic republic agreed to admit inspectors and send much of its uranium to Russia for enrichment," which --- to say the least --- is a hydrogen bomb's distance from the account Kessler gave of the US-Iran talks.

And it is not as if Clinton didn't offer a clue to the real story to anyone sharp enough to listen: "Iran has several obligations that it said it would fulfill. We believe it is important to pursue the diplomatic track and to do everything we can to make it successful."

What are those obligations? "[Iran will] fulfill its obligation on inspections, in fact, open up its entire system so that there can be no doubt about what they're doing, and comply with the agreement in principle to transfer out the low-enriched uranium."

At which point a journalist on his/her game would have said, "Secretary Clinton, can you confirm that the agreement in principle concerns the plan developed since June for Iran to transfer uranium to Russia, enriching it from 3.5 to 20 percent?"

Unfortunately, the journalist who was called on to ask the final question ignored that possibility in favour of the "Oh Yes, The Russians Will. Oh No, The Russians Won't" script:"It sounds like you did not get the commitment from the Russian side in terms of sanctions or other forms of pressure that could be brought to bear on Iran. Could you comment on that?"

And who was that journalist? Take a bow, Mary Beth Sheridan of The Washington Post.

Bombings and Politics: The Violent Semi-Peace in Iraq

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

Iraq continues to be the forgotten American war, as attention turns to Afghanistan and Pakistan, but the always-excellent Juan Cole looks at the latest events to assess the significance of bombings, arrests, and power politics before the next elections:

Liz Sly reports from Baghdad on the three bombings that shook Ramadi, capital of al-Anbar Province, to its core on Sunday and left at least 26 dead and a hundred wounded. The first two bombings occurred outside the Governor's mansion where delegates from the Shiite-dominated government of PM Nuri al-Maliki were meeting with Sunni tribal leaders of the Awakening Council, which had turned against Sunni Muslim radicals and cooperated with US forces. Al-Zaman writing in Arabic says that the second bomb was timed to go off just as rescue workers arrived to deal with the victims of the first one, though another official said there were only 7 minutes between the blasts. A suicide bomber hit the hospital, perhaps timing his attack with the arrival of victims of the first two, though al-Zaman says that he initially tried to bring a truck bomb close to the hospital and was stopped by alert guards. He then came to the hospital wearing a suicide belt bomb and killed two persons when he detonated his payload.

According to al-Sharq al-Awsat, Ali al-Hatim, the paramount tribal leader or sheikh of the Dulaim tribe traded accusations with Gen. Tariq al-Asal, the head of al-Anbar's police force, over who was responsible for the lax security that allowed the bombings. Sheikh Hatim accused Gen. al-Asal of bearing responsibility for the bombings, and demanded his resignation. He said he has been buttering up PM al-Maliki by joining the Awakening Council to the central government, but that the cost of this policy was borne by ordinary residents of al-Anbar. Gen. al-Asal in turn accused al-Anbar's tribal leaders of maintaining secret ties to militants and to Syria, and blamed the bombings on Sheikh Hatim. Al-Zaman maintains that violence is back in the Sunni Arab areas, and that the lessened death toll of 2007-2008 has now been reversed by and that deaths are back up in Sunni Iraq.

Meanwhile, in the northern Sunni Arab center of Mosul (pop. 1.8 mn.), Iraqi security forces have recently made dozens of arrests, according to al-Hayah [Life]. Those taken into custody include many shopkeepers, and Sunni Arabs are accusing the government of taking a shotgun approach, arbitrarily rounding up people on the bsis of profiling, etc. A demonstration was mounted against the arrests.

As Liz Sly points out, the renewed violence comes on the backdrop of wrangling over Iraq's upcoming elections. In fact, presumably al-Maliki was trying to get Arab-Americans to join in his command. There are so many US troops in Iraq (130,000 or so) because it is thought they will be needed to close down the country for the elections. But parliament has still not passed an electoral law. It is thus unknown whether Iraqis will vote for individual candidates or for a whole party list. Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani is lobbying for an open system.

As Sly says, the US withdrawal timetable is premised upon there being elections in January, which may or may not happen. Or may or may not go smoothly.

The US media and public have taken their eyes off this ball. But if Iraq's elections don't go well, there could still be a lot of violence ahead.

Iran's Nuclear Programme: Obama's Balance Wobbles

The Latest from Iran (3 October): Debating Mousavi’s Strategy
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Big Win for Tehran at Geneva Talks
Latest Iran Video: Nuclear Official Jalili on CNN (1 October)
Iran’s Nuclear Programme: Obama Remarks on Geneva Talks

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

It only took 24 hours for the Obama Administration, after the "substantial progress" of Thursday's Geneva talks on Iran's nuclear programme, to hit the choppy waters of Washington and Tehran politics.

On Friday morning, it was looking very good for the White House. Most of the US media were putting out the news of Iran's agreement to invite the International Atomic Energy Agency to inspect the Qom enrichment facility and to ship uranium to Russia to be enriched. They were adding the Administration's gloss that this was all made to a forceful American stance which had pushed the Iranians into concessions.

By Friday afternoon, the public-relations glue had come unstuck, as a State Department briefing turned into black comedy. (Watch the clip from the 8:44 mark.) The first wobble was over the "third-party enrichment" which had supposedly been established. Journalists challenged that Iranian officials were saying only that they had agreed to consider the proposal; the Department spokesman, unprepared for this information, could only warble about an "agreement in principle".

He came off even worse in the second exchange over Iran's invitation to inspect the Qom plant, after he said there was "no hard-and-fast deadline" for the inspections. Why then, journalists clamoured, had Barack Obama pointedly mentioned on Thursday night a "two-week deadline"? Caught between his opening line of flexibility and the inconvenience of the President's firm marker, the spokesman, umm, stammered.

This would all be good voyeuristic fun if it did not pont to the two larger problems for the Administration. The first is that the Iranian Government is not going to go gently into the diplomatic night playing its assigned role. Tehran, in our view, was already going to be conciliatory at the opening discussions in the hope of getting more discussions. It was not going to jump into any hard-and-fast deal.

The spin that the US Government "forced" Iran's concessions only adds to the dfficulty. Not wanting to appear to be forced into anything, Iranian officials "clarify" that firm measures have not been agreed but must be the subject of further talks, in this case, technical discussions in Vienna on 18 October and the next Iran meeting with the 5+1 powers, possibly at the end of this month.

The second and even greater challenge for the Obama Administration from within. There has always been a group of officials in the Executive who saw negotiations as a process that had to be endured before, with the Iranians inevitably breaking the talks and/or agreements, more pressure could be put on Tehran.

So, even as the "significantly positive" outcome of Geneva was being announced, they were tossing a bucket of red herrings to the media. There might be even more "secret" sites that Tehran had not declared. Iran still had enough uranium to make The Bomb. The Israelis were watching carefully. (Juan Cole points out how all these diversions made their way into Friday's New York Times.)

The loudest of these heckles was that, whatever happened at Geneva, The Iranians Weren't Really Serious. Yesterday morning The Wall Street Journal, which might as well declare that it is a propaganda sheet masquerading as news, declared in its opening paragraph, "Analysts cautioned that the Iranians merely may be seeking to defuse pressure for sanctions while continuing their nuclear program." (The two "analysts" were an Israeli reservist general and George W. Bush's "special envoy on nonproliferation issues".)

Lo and behold, this morning The New York Times headlines, "U.S. Wonders if Iran Is Playing for Time or Is Serious on Deal". Helene Cooper splashes about "administration officials" warning "the trick now for Mr. Obama...will be to avoid getting tripped up", which is actually only one "senior" official (Who is he/she? On the side of those pushing for a lasting agreement with the Iranians? On the side of those seeing no prospect of an agreement?) putting out the dampening comment, “That’s the big ‘if,’ isn’t it? Will they do it? No one wants to do a premature victory lap.”

Let's just put this basic comment out, already fearing that it will disappear in the media wash. The Iranian Government is playing this process "long". It is likely to allow an IAEA inspection of Qom, although even this will be subject to discussions on conditions, but other issues including third-party enrichment, will go into a set of committees. Any agreement will take months, rather than weeks, of contact.

From the start, the Obama Administration --- split between different factions --- have been locked into playing the process "short". A quick result had to be obtained, otherwise sanctions would have to be sought quickly. That is why all the fatuous talk of deadlines --- December? September? October? --- has loudly accompanied and even out-shouted the complexities of engagement.

The President has been unable to extricate himself from this unproductive dilemma. So once again, we will have a two-week cycle of domestic fury, even though the Administration has no stick to wield, before the technical talks in Vienna.