Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, who served in the CIA, the National Security Council and the State Department during the Clinton and Bush administrations, declare on their website that Syrian President Bashar Assad told them two weeks ago that the U.S. policy in the Middle East has been wrong for the past decade and has created a vacuum that improved the regional strategic standing for Iran, Syria, and Turkey.
Israel does not want peace with Syria. Let’s take off all the masks we’ve been hiding behind and tell the truth for a change. Let’s admit that there’s no formula that suits us, except the ludicrous “peace for peace.” Let’s admit it to ourselves, at least, that we do not want to leave the Golan Heights, no matter what. Forget about all the palaver, all the mediations, all the efforts. Read the rest of this entry »
Indirect Israel-Palestine Dialogue: On Wednesday, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, found political cover to enter into an indirect dialogue with Israel, as 14 ministers of the Arab League agreed in Cairo that the PA should engage in indirect negotiations with Israel for a preliminary four-month period. The Arab ministers also mentioned that no progress will be possible without a complete settlement freeze, indicating that the four months will be an assessment process.
“Despite the lack of conviction in the seriousness of the Israeli side, the committee sees that it would give the indirect talks the chance as a last attempt and to facilitate the US role,” said Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa.
On 6 January, we reported that the Netanyahu government had concerns over Washington’s sale of about $6 billion of arms to four “moderate” Arab states (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates) and Washington. We asked whether the Israelis were pursuing the complaint to argue the argument that the regional balance of power would collapse because of the arms shipments, regardless of how “moderate” the Arabs states are.
The background to the current manoeuvres lies in Israel’s concerns over a $20 billion arms deal between Saudi Arabia and the George W. Bush Administration. On that occasion, Tel Aviv used its concerns as leverage to receive advanced F-35 fighter jets and to limit American arms sales to Lebanon amidst the re-emergence of Hezbollah. So far, no arms deal with Israel have been signed under Obama, and there is the issue of shipment of higher-tech arms under the 2007 Memorandum of Understanding, which promised $30 billion to Tel Aviv over the following 10 years. Read the rest of this entry »
Tom Englehardt, writing at TomDispatch, goes beyond the headline “30,000 extra troops” of President Obama’s recent announcement to detail the extent of the US escalation and long-term commitment — despite Obama’s initial declaration of a “beginning to the end” of the military presence in July 2011 — to the intervention in Afghanistan (N.B.: All links in original article):
In his Afghan “surge” speech at West Point last week, President Obama offered Americans some specifics to back up his new “way forward in Afghanistan.” He spoke of the “additional 30,000 U.S. troops” he was sending into that country over the next six months. He brought up the “roughly $30 billion” it would cost us to get them there and support them for a year. And finally, he spoke of beginning to bring them home by July 2011. Those were striking enough numbers, even if larger and, in terms of time, longer than many in the Democratic Party would have cared for. Nonetheless, they don’t faintly cover just how fully the president has committed us to an expanding war and just how wide it is likely to become.
Despite the seeming specificity of the speech, it gave little sense of just how big and how expensive this surge will be. In fact, what is being portrayed in the media as the surge of November 2009 is but a modest part of an ongoing expansion of the U.S. war effort in many areas. Looked at another way, the media’s focus on the president’s speech as the crucial moment of decision, and on those 30,000 new troops as the crucial piece of information, has distorted what’s actually underway. Read the rest of this entry »
Apparently a former Vice President spoke last night and said he kept the world safe and the current President doesn’t. Sort of like my Dad saying each time we meet, “You know in my day 1) there was no crime 2) kids knew their place 3) music was much better.”
On Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu criticized the endorsement by the United Nations Human Rights Council of the Goldstone Report, which claimed both Israel and Hamas had committed war crimes during the Gaza War in December-January. Netanyahu warned the Israeli nation to be prepared for a protracted struggle. Declaring “the delegitimization [of Israel] must be delegitimized”, he added, “The UN has returned to the dark days during which it equated Zionism with racism.”
Netanyahu’s statement is in line with his Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman’s leaked memorandum calling for a “zero-tolerance” policy for anti-Semitic expression around the world. But does the Prime Minister also back Lieberman’s strategy of a move from “lone dependence” on Washington to the “neglected” parts of the world?
The was the only Security Council member that voted against the Goldstone resolution in the UNHRC. Yet Ha’aretz correspondent Aluf Benn believes the Obama Administration will use the diplomatic arena to get more Israeli concessions on the expansion of settlements:
Operation Cast Lead in Gaza was perceived in Israel as a shining victory. Rocket fire from Gaza was brought to a halt almost completely. The Israel Defense Forces emerged from its failure during the Second Lebanon War and deployed ground forces with few casualties. “The world” let the operation continue and did not impose a cease-fire. A wonderful war. Read the rest of this entry »
At the start of the year we closely tracked the political battle between the White House and military commanders, notably General David Petraeus, over the deployment of additional US troops to Afghanistan. This was nominally resolved at the end of March by a “compromise” agreement (even though the military got almost all of the troop request) in which Obama announced a new strategy of military measures supporting non-military measures to build up the country.
The situation was not resolved, either inside Washington or in Afghanistan, and we are back in another cycle of reports, spin, and power moves over another escalation in the US military commitment. One curious absentee, however, is Petraeus, who has not been far from media-shy in the past. Tom Englehardt digs beneath the surface for the story:
How Top Generals May Trap Obama in a Losing War
Front and center in the debate over the Afghan War these days are General Stanley “Stan” McChrystal, Afghan war commander, whose “classified, pre-decisional” and devastating report — almost eight years and at least $220 billion later, the war is a complete disaster — was conveniently, not to say suspiciously, leaked to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post by we-know-not-who at a particularly embarrassing moment for Barack Obama; Admiral Michael “Mike” Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who has been increasingly vocal about a “deteriorating” war and the need for more American boots on the ground; and the president himself, who blitzed every TV show in sight last Sunday and Monday for his health reform program, but spent significant time expressing doubts about sending more American troops to Afghanistan. (“I’m not interested in just being in Afghanistan for the sake of being in Afghanistan… or sending a message that America is here for the duration.”)
On the other hand, here’s someone you haven’t seen front and center for a while: General David Petraeus. Read the rest of this entry »
JOHN KING: Mr. Secretary, thank you for joining us.
We learned as the week came to an end about a new underground secret Iranian nuclear bunker, and the president described it this way. “The size and configuration of this facility is inconsistent with a peaceful program.”
Tell us more about what we know, and do you have any doubt Iran was using this facility or planned to use this facility to develop nuclear weapons?
GATES: We’ve been watching the construction of this facility for quite some time, and one of the reasons that we waited to make it public was to ensure that our conclusions about its purpose were right. Read the rest of this entry »
Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett, who served in the CIA, the National Security Council and the State Department during the Clinton and Bush administrations, declare on their website that Syrian President Bashar Assad told them two weeks ago that the U.S. policy in the Middle East has been wrong for the past decade and has created a vacuum that improved the regional strategic standing for Iran, Syria, and Turkey.
Tom Englehardt, 
On Friday, 
At the start of the year we closely tracked the political battle between the White House and military commanders, notably General David Petraeus, over the deployment of additional US troops to Afghanistan. This was nominally resolved at the end of March by a “compromise” agreement (even though the military got almost all of the troop request) in which Obama announced a new strategy of military measures supporting non-military measures to build up the country.
Robert Gates on CNN’s “State of the Union”
Entries (RSS)