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.
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).
UPDATE 1050 GMT: Another useful analysis, this time from Juan Cole. Cole first offers a detailed background with his “breakout” thesis on Iran’s nuclear programme:
Tehran genuinely does not want to actually construct and detonate a nuclear device….But having a rapid breakout capability — being able to make a bomb in short order if it is felt absolutely necessary to forestall a foreign attack — has a deterrent effect. So Iran would have the advantages of deterrence without the disadvantages of a bomb if it could get to the rapid breakout stage.
Cole’s immediate reading of the current position is hit-and-miss: he’s on shaky ground with his analysis that the Revolutionary Guard has vetoed the Supreme Leader’s acceptance of an enrichment deal (I don’t think anyone except Ayatollah Khamenei knows what he will do), but Cole is invaluable in reading the non-Iranian politics: don’t expect BRIC (Brazil-Russia-India-China) to accept a move towards harsh economic measures agianst Tehran.
And Cole’s conclusion hits the bull’s-eye:
Bottom line: Friday’s vote was likely symbolic and a signal to Iran from the international community that there is discomfort with its secretiveness and lack of transparency, and that many are suspicious of its motives. In China’s case, it may have been a warning against actions that could harm the Middle Kingdom’s burgeoning economy. What it likely was not was a harbinger of tougher international sanctions against Tehran or a sign that BRIC is softening on that issue
UPDATE 0950 GMT: A ray of journalistic light — Sharwine Narwani offers an excellent analysis, “Eleventh-hour CPR On Iran Nuclear Talks”: “Our core problem is not with Iran’s enrichment program or it’s recently revealed Fordow nuclear plant buried under a mountainside. The central issue clogging up our hotlines is that we do not trust Iran. And they do not trust us.”
Looking once more at yesterday’s International Atomic Energy Agency resolution on Iran’s nuclear programme, it is a most impressive two-card trick by the US Government.
Impressive initially because the first trick is on the media. So far, every major journalist whom I’ve read or listened to has been taken in by the magician’s display of a united “hard line” against Tehran. CNN headlines, “U.N. watchdog urges suspension of Iran nuclear facility”, never realising that the 2nd enrichment facility at Fordoo is now just a distraction. The New York Times, in print and in podcast, follows the same sleight-of-hand, adding the flourish that the “sharp rebuke that bore added weight because it was endorsed by Russia and China”.
Editor’s Note: Josh Mull send this in on Thursday night, 15 hours after the bombing in front of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. We were caught up with other stories, and we also wanted to see if developments supported his theory. An hour ago, this emerged: “Afghan Ambassador to the US, Said T Jawad has claimed Pakistan’s spy agency ISI was behind the suicide bomb blast at the Indian Embassy in Kabul on Thursday, which claimed 12 lives and injured over 80 people. Jawad said that there is enough evidence at the ground level to suggest that ISI was behind the attack.”
Could Pakistani intelligence be linked to this attack? First we have some clues on the operational capability of the perpetrators: “The assailant in a car managed to enter the neighbourhood despite stringent security arrangements put in place. The 500-metre road stretch has been barricaded for a year in the wake of a deadly suicide assault on the Indian Embassy.”
The campaign provoked criticism for “reducing” a terrorist activity to a comparison with a natural disaster. So WWF Brazil and DDB, the Brazilian ad agency that designed the campaign, have acknowledged that “the comparison should have never been made”. The joint statement says:
In no way was it done in bad faith or with disrespect to American suffering. WWF Brazil and DDB Brasil acknowledge that such an ad should never have been made, approved or published.
So is it unacceptable, at any time, to make a comparison with 9/11? Does it stand as a unique moment, because of the loss suffered on that day and/or the connection of that loss with “terrorism”?
A footnote from an interested observer: in the years after 9/11, I would offer the point that the 1984 Union Carbide chemical disaster at Bhopal in India had killed more people but had received far less attention as an example of the criminal taking of life. — WSL
Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, returned from a trip to those countries to give a press briefing on Wednesday. There is a lot here on a changing US approach to fighting the wars in the region through a combination of military and non-military measures. As The Cable notes incisively, Holbrooke effectively announced that the Bush Administration policy of destroying Afghanistan’s poppy production has been scrapped. The bigger question remains, however: can Holbrooke really overtake the perception of a military-first approach by Washington?
AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: Thank you. I’ll be happy to take your questions. Just identify yourself, please.
QUESTION: Dan Dombey, Financial Times. Following the funding commitments that the U.S. and its partners received for the Afghan national security forces expansion at the NATO summit, how well are you –
AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: What were the what commitments?
QUESTION: Funding commitments for the Afghan national –
AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: From who?
QUESTION: I – well, you had, I think, a couple of hundred million from Germany.
AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: You’re talking about new commitments?
QUESTION: The commitment for – to fund the expansion of the forces. I thought Germany made –
AMBASSADOR HOLBROOKE: I didn’t go to Europe to get more commitments. We – an expansion of the armed services and police of Afghanistan is obviously necessary. That’s hardly a secret. But my job on this trip wasn’t to go around getting new commitments. Read the rest of this entry »
The headlines may be on the crises and difficulties of engagement from Iran to the Middle East to North Korea, but the Obama Administration is pressing ahead, as an equal or greater priority, with engagement with India and China. Hillary Clinton’s visit to Delhi last week and her co-written editorial with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner in The Wall Street Journal, “A New Strategic and Economic Dialogue with China”, was followed by President Obama’s address on Monday to the first US-China Strategic and Economic Dialogue:
Israel may be India’s second-largest arms supplier after Russia, but she is feeling a bit of pressure from Washington. According to the Jerusalem Post, the Pentagon forced Israel Aerospace Industries to back out of a joint partnership with a Swedish company, Saab, to compete in a multi-billion dollar tender, developing a new model of the Swedish-made Gripen fighter jet and selling 120 to the Indian Air Force.
Boeing and Lockheed Martin, the two largest US defense contractors, are also competing for the Indian deal. Beyond the commerical consideration, however, Washington does not want to transfer Western technology, integrated in the new Gripens, to India.
American pressure is also a response to the alliance of interests between the Israeli and Russian militaries, symbolised by the despatch of unmanned aerial vehicles to Moscow. And there is always the issue of leverage on Tel Aviv to offer more concessions in talks with Palestinian representatives.
President Barack Obama, at his press conference after the end of the G8 Summit in L’Aquila, Italy, focused on the environment, global economy, and international security. As for Iran, he reiterated the deep concern of the international community over the extreme violence against demonstrations and stated that the door for negotiation is open to Tehran until September, when the G20 Summit will be held in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in the US.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. Please, everybody have a seat. I apologize for being a little bit late. Good afternoon.
We have just concluded the final session of what has been a highly productive summit here in L’Aquila. And before I discuss what we’ve achieved these past three days, I’d like to take a moment to express my thanks to Prime Minister Berlusconi, his staff, the people of Italy for their extraordinary hospitality and hard work in setting up this summit. And particularly I want to thank the people of L’Aquila for welcoming us to your home at this difficult time. We’ve seen how you’ve come together and taken care of each other, and we’ve been moved by your courage and your resilience and your kindness. Read the rest of this entry »
Juan Cole is scathing about the most recent political effort by the Obama Administration in Pakistan:
UPDATE 1110 GMT: Cole also has posted 
Editor’s Note: Josh Mull send this in on Thursday night, 15 hours after the bombing in front of the Indian Embassy in Kabul. We were caught up with other stories, and we also wanted to see if developments supported his theory. An hour ago,
Richard Holbrooke, President Obama’s special envoy on Afghanistan and Pakistan, returned from a trip to those countries to give a press briefing on Wednesday. There is a lot here on a changing US approach to fighting the wars in the region through a combination of military and non-military measures. 
Israel may be India’s second-largest arms supplier after Russia, but she is feeling a bit of pressure from Washington. According to 
Entries (RSS)