Draft Gore 2008 PAC

THE DEBATE over whether or not to engage Syria is once again center stage this week as a Syrian delegation visits Washington for talks with American officials and academics. Syria's enthusiasm for engaging the next American administration offers the incoming president an opportunity to influence Syrian behavior. The next president would be ill advised to aim this silver bullet on an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty unlikely to be realized. Instead, the United States should aim at getting Syria to end its meddling in neighboring Lebanon and its support for Hezbollah militants.

President Bashar al-Assad is already positioning Syria toward a new administration. American forces have confirmed his cooperation along the Syria-Iraq border, and he is now engaging in indirect negotiations with Israel. He appears to be temporarily moderating his country's negative intervention in Lebanon's internal processes.

Engaging the United States inevitably risks new tension between Damascus and Tehran even without an American precondition of severing relations with Iran. Yet the Syrians seem eager to engage. While such engagement clearly offers mutual gains, it raises the question: What should America ask from Syria in their negotiations?

Many policy analysts argue that the "low-hanging fruit" is an Israeli-Syrian peace treaty. They recommend requiring Syria to actively pursue a peace treaty with Israel in return for full US engagement and resumption of full diplomatic relations. This strategy makes sense: a historic peace between Israel and Syria will significantly reduce the risk of a regional conflict and will destabilize the functions of Palestinian resistance movements headquartered in Damascus.

However, a look at the political dynamics in Israel reveals that such an agreement would not be imminent. The Israeli Parliament is considering a law that will require the government to bring any agreement pertaining to a withdrawal from the Golan Heights to a national referendum.

The issue of relinquishing the Golan Heights encounters three significant barriers. The first is a strong grass-roots lobby on behalf of Israel maintaining the Golan. The second is a lack of urgency in the Israeli public to resolve this dispute due to the absence of an occupied population in this area - significantly different from the approach to the West Bank. The third, and perhaps most important, is that the Israeli public views a withdrawal from the Golan as a significant security risk. Ingredients, no doubt, for nonagreement.

The Israeli prime minister, realizing he cannot pass a treaty in a national referendum, may avoid completing the negotiations - similar to Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 1999. Worse, there could be a treaty that fails to be ratified by the Israeli public. Either way, Syria will be able to circumvent blame, while gaining full relations with the United States.

Taking a broader look at Syrian interests might offer better opportunities for the United States. Syrian leaders have other items of higher priority on their agenda before a peace agreement with Israel. More important for them is regaining their dominance over Lebanon and breaking out of their international isolation through full engagement with the United States.

The United States should approach Assad with a different formula: Syria must choose between its top priorities. If Assad wants to pursue domination over Lebanon and his support for Hezbollah, he should find no friend in Washington. However, if he wants to engage the United States, he would need to end the weapons flow to Hezbollah, demarcate his borders with Lebanon, and establish full diplomatic relations with it - treating it as a fully sovereign state.

Negotiations will not be easy. The Syrians are not eager to "give up" their attempts at domination over Lebanon. But using the leverage of a US-Syrian relationship is the best way to achieve this American interest.

At the same time, the United States should make clear to both Syria and Israel that it will support negotiations and a peace treaty between the two countries. America should even be willing to back an agreement with resources and guarantees, if needed. But it must be made clear that negotiations and a resulting agreement are for Syria and Israel to pursue.

Michael Bergman is a Middle East analyst.

Can Lebanon's March 14 Reverse the Tide?
By David Schenker
July 23, 2008

This week, Lebanon's new national unity government is slated to announce its ministerial statement (bayan waziri), the policy document that will define Beirut's working parameters and agenda through the spring 2009 elections. For the pro-West majority March 14 coalition, the priority will be to incorporate into the statement a reference to UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1701, which prohibits weapons movement to Hizballah and expands government sovereignty throughout Lebanon. Hizballah, for its part, will look to maintain the legitimacy of "the resistance." Although March 14 still maintains a government majority, three years of hostility and self-inflicted wounds have left the ruling party dramatically weakened, making it unclear whether the coalition will be able to prevent Hizballah from consolidating further political gains…..

Relations with Syria
Another focus of the negotiations is the future disposition of Lebanese-Syrian relations. March 14 leaders state that that they seek "good relations between Syria and Lebanon as two independent countries." In the aftermath of Kuntar's release, March 14 officials have also argued that the statement should refer to the Lebanese "missing" who are presumed to be in Syria. According to Support of Lebanese in Detention and Exile (SOLIDE), 643 Lebanese have been imprisoned by Damascus since the 1970s. The Lebanese parliamentary committee charged with investigating these detainees believes ninety-one remain alive.

March 14 leaders have also been adamant in their demand that the Syrian-Lebanese border be demarcated. In addition, another March 14 leader, Walid Jumblatt, has stated that the Higher Syria-Lebanon Council — a Syrian tool to manipulate Lebanon's defense and foreign policies — be abolished and its agreements abrogated. Damascus and its ally Hizballah oppose these demands, however, so it is unlikely that these points will reach the final text.

National Dialogue — Again?
Reports this week suggest that the new ministerial statement could be released as early as today. Yesterday, however, Lebanese press reports pointed to snags in the talks over bilateral relations with Syria and the weapons of the "resistance." If March 14 and the Hizballah-led opposition do not find acceptable language in the coming days, the most contentious issues will be referred to a national dialogue chaired by President Suleiman. Given the precedent of ineffective Lebanese national dialogues, this "solution" promises to be a prescription for deferred conflict (see PolicyWatch #1089).

Regardless of the outcome of the ministerial statement, it will constitute at best only a temporary ceasefire in the battle between the March 14 coalition and the opposition. While the compromise nature of the document will ensure that no party is entirely satisfied, it will also leave critical questions about Lebanon's future unresolved. No doubt, many Lebanese will breathe a sigh of relief when the statement is published, and start to look forward to the parliamentary elections — and a new government — next spring. But given developments of recent months, a weak statement will offer little comfort for March 14 and its constituent groups. Instead of providing a respite, these groups will likely focus on preparing — arming and training — for the inevitable next round with Hizballah.

David Schenker is director of the Program on Arab Politics at The Washington Institute.

[Landis Commentary] It does seem as if the Syrian delegation that was to include Riad Daoudi, a member of the Foreign Affairs Ministry, was disappointed by the cold reception it was to receive from the Americans. The Americans have been adamant that the meeting would not signify any improvement in relations because State Department officials would meet with the Syrians only as private citizens and not as members of a government.

The Syrian press has been depicting this meeting as if Jerusalem had been liberated. I guess that was a mirage. Damascus is still high on the liberation of Paris.

I am off to hear the three at Brookings. I will see what I can report later. Best, Joshua

U.S. to meet three Syrians, but no warming in ties
July 22, 2008
Washington Post

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The State Department said on Tuesday a U.S. diplomat will meet three Syrians on a private visit to Washington but made clear this did not signal warmer ties or greater U.S. interest in Israeli-Syrian peace talks.

"We have an interest in reaching out to the Syrian people. However, we are going to continue to limit diplomatic engagement unless the Syrian government takes concrete actions to end its destabilizing tactics," State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos told reporters.

The United States accuses Syria of sponsoring terrorism, permitting foreign fighters to cross into Iraq, allowing arms to flow into Lebanon, hosting Palestinian militant groups and violating human rights.

Gallegos said a meeting would be arranged between a U.S. diplomat and the three Syrians, whose U.S. visit is sponsored by the Search for Common Ground nongovernmental group that promotes conflict resolution.

The spokesman declined to provide a date or time for the meeting or to say which U.S. diplomat would attend.

On Monday, the State Department had said U.S. Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, the top U.S. diplomat for the Middle East, was willing to meet the group.

However, a U.S. official who asked not to be named said Welch may not have returned from a Middle East trip in time to attend the meeting, which he said was tentatively set for Friday, and that someone else would likely meet the three.

Gallegos made clear that a meeting should not be seen as a token of renewed U.S. interest in Israeli-Syrian peace talks that are being sponsored by Turkey, saying that the U.S. focus was on "the Israeli-Palestinian track."

Syrian foreign ministry adviser Riad Daoudi, who has led the Syrian delegation in Turkish-sponsored indirect talks with Israel, is a member of Search for Common Ground's U.S.-Syria Working Group and was expected to visit Washington this week.

However, people familiar with the matter said he stayed behind in Damascus for consultations with Turkish officials.

The three Syrians who came to Washington were identified as Ahmad Samir al-Taqi, Samir Seifan and Sami Moubayed.

A Syrian embassy spokesman said Syria welcomed the visit but that the three did not represent the Syrian government, had no official positions and were visiting as private citizens.

Obama Shifts the Foreign Policy Debate

Sen. Barack Obama, on his first and likely only overseas trip as the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, has remade the campaign's foreign policy playing field, neatly sidestepping Republican charges that he has been naive and wrong on Iraq and moving to a broader, post-Iraq focus on Afg…

(By Karen DeYoung and Jonathan Weisman, The Washington Post)

Joyce Karam (Alhayat) was told that the Syrian delegation asked to meet with AIPAC.

My Salon column, , "Obama is saying the Wrong things about Afghanistan," , is now available online.

Excerpt:
' The governor of the North-West Frontier province, Owais Ghani, immediately spoke out against Obama, saying that the senator's remarks had the effect of undermining the new civilian government elected last February. Ghani warned that a U.S. incursion into the northwestern tribal areas would have "disastrous" consequences for the globe.

The governor underlined that a "war on terrorism" policy depended on popular support for it, and that such support was being leeched away by U.S. strikes on the Pakistan side of the border and by statements such as Obama's. A recent American attack mistakenly killed Pakistani troops who had been sent to fight the Pakistani Taliban at American insistence. The Pakistani public was furious. Ghani complained, "Candidate Obama gave these statements; I come out openly and say such statements undermine support, don't do it." '

Read the whole thing.

See also Barnett Rubin's recent essays on Afghanistan at ICGA.

And at the same site, don't miss Farideh Farhi's analysis of the Iranian negotiations with the US and Europe over its civilian nuclear research program.

It is not looking good for the holding of provincial elections in Iraq this year.

First the high electoral commission warned that if enabling legislation was not passed by the end of July, it would push them back from October to Dec. 22.

Now, the contentious issue of the province of Kirkuk may have delayed them further. Kirkuk has Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen. The Kurds wish to annex it to their Kurdistan Regional Government, seeing its oil wealth as potentially key to an independent Kurdish state in the future. The annexation is opposed by Arabs and most Turkmen. It is also opposed by Turkey.

Sunni speaker of the house, Mahmoud al-Mashhadani, authorized a secret vote on what to do about Kirkuk Province (also called Tamim). S


Courtesy al-Zaman

ome had argued that Kirkuk should vote like any other province. But the parliamentarians voting on Tuesday, according to the LAT's Ned Parker, passed a "provision" that "called for a committee to be set up to review the problems in Kirkuk and take interim steps until local elections are scheduled, including apportioning power in the provincial government equally among Kurds, Arabs and Turkmens."

The secret ballot had been opposed by the Kurdish MPs, who staged a walk-out, along with some Shiite allies. When this provision was passed, they warned of blood in the streets in Kirkuk. (Actually, that development would not reflect well on the Kurds, since they would be turning to violence over a measure passed by a majority of the quorum in an elected parliament.)

It is widely expected that President Jalal Talabani with use his power of veto against the bill.

Al-Hayat writes in Arabic that the Kurdistan Alliance with 58 seats in parliament has been a key pillar of support for the al-Maliki government. Were the Kurds to be deeply angered, they could pull out of his de facto coalition, leaving him much weakened. The tiff with the Kurds comes only days after the Sunni Arab Iraqi Accord Front finally rejoined the government.

Kirkuk sees regular political violence. On Tuesday, McClatchy reports, "On Monday night, a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Kirkuk city. Two policemen were killed( including the deputy of Irouba police station Colonel Khabat Aziz) and 5 others were injured."

Riad Daoudi has cancelled his visit to the US at the last minute. This is significant because he was the one Syrian official included on the agenda. The State Department said that it would meet with the three, but not in any official capacity only as private citizens. Sami Moubayed and Samir Taqi, the two other Syrians included in the original visit, are indeed civilians. Not so Daoudi.

Daoudi says that he needs to return to Ankara to pick up negotiations with Israel. 

I wrote earlier that it seemed that Syria was being snubbed, but I am told this is wrong. I have erased it.

Key Syria Official Cancels Trip To US

WASHINGTON (AFP)–A key official in a Syrian delegation scheduled to attend a private forum and possibly meet with U.S. officials in rare talks this week has canceled his trip, officials said Tuesday.

Riad Daoudi, Syrian lead negotiator with Israeli officials in Turkey and legal adviser to the Syrian foreign ministry, had been asked at the last minute to remain in Damascus for talks with a visiting Turkish delegation, sources said.

"Based on our information, Mr. Daoudi did not make the trip to Washington," Syrian embassy spokesman Ahmed Salkini told AFP. He didn't provide details.

But Ahmad Samir al-Taki, a consultant to the Syrian prime minister and director of the Orient Center for International Studies in Damascus, together with two others will attend the forum "Engaging Syria: new negotiations, old challenges" at Washington-based Brookings Institution on Wednesday.

Their visit is sponsored by Search for Common Ground, an international non- governmental organization, headquartered in Washington and Brussels, which had sought a meeting for them with the State Department.

State Department spokesman Gonzalo Gallegos had said on Monday that Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, the pointman for Middle East affairs, was prepared to meet with them.

Syria is on a U.S. blacklist of state sponsors of terrorism.

But Gallegos stressed that they weren't official talks, as the Syrian team was here in "private capacity."

Still, the proposed meeting comes in the wake of a tactical shift in President George W. Bush administration's Middle East dealings following the participation of the State Department's No. 3 official, William Burns, in talks in Geneva last week over Iran's nuclear program.

Obama’s High-Powered Ride to the Airport
By Jeff Zeleny

AMMAN, Jordan — The king drove the senator to the airport.
After dinner at His Majesty’s palace tonight, known here as Beit Al Urdan, Senator Barack Obama was headed to catch a plane to Israel. So King Abdullah got behind the wheel of his dark-gray Mercedes Benz 600 Series, Mr. Obama hopped in the passenger’s seat and they headed through the streets to Jordan/Queen Alia International Airport.
The motorcade — unlike the United States, which contained more Mercedes than mini-vans — created a bit of a stir when it arrived on the dark tarmac. Reporters and photographers stood watch as King Abdullah stepped out of his door first, followed by Mr. Obama.
The two stood at the steps of the plane, talking for several moments before saying their farewells.

King Abdullah, who had been in Aspen, Colo., made a special trip back to Amman to see Mr. Obama tonight. He was waiting at the door of his home when the senator arrived. (Queen Ranie was said to be on hand, but was not seen by reporters.)
“Thank you so much,” Mr. Obama said as the king pumped his hand. The two had briefly met once on Capitol Hill, but had never shared a one-one-one meeting.
“Let’s make a photo opportunity,” Mr. Abdullah said, re-enacting their handshakes and smiling broadly for the cameras.
And so they did, repeating the scene one more time a few hours later in the shadow of the newly-painted Obama campaign plane.

Obama: Israeli Strike Against Syria Last Year "Appropriate"
22 Jul 2008 03:32 pm

More from an exclusive preview of Katie Couric's interview with Barack Obama:

Couric: If they reject negotiating– if they reject negotiations, how likely do you think a preemptive military strike by Israel against Iran may be?

Obama: I– I will not hypothesize on that. I think– Israel has a right to defend itself. But I will not speculate on– the– the difficult judgment that they would have to make– in a whole host of possible scenarios.

Couric: This is not a speculative question then. Was it appropriate, in your view, for Israel to take out that suspected Syrian nuclear site last year?

Obama: Yes. I think that there was sufficient evidence that they were developing– a site using a nuclear– or using a– a blueprint that was similar to the North Korean model. There was some concern as to what the rationale for that site would be. And, again, ultimately, I think these are decisions that the Israelis have to make. But– you know, the Israelis live in a very tough neighborhood where– a lot of folks– publicly– proclaim Israel as an enemy and then act on those proclamations. And– I think that– you know, it– it's important for– for me not to– you know, engage in speculation on what steps they need to take. What I can do is to provide leadership– so that the United States government hopefully doesn't get us into a position where– those decisions are so difficult. That's why applying tough diplomacy, direct diplomacy, and tough sanctions– where necessary is so important.

And, as Obama lands in Tel Aviv, he admits to Couric that his AIPAC pronouncement about an "undivided" Jerusalem was "poorly phrased" but insists that he did not change his policy.

Gulfsands, Emerald Energy Start Pumping Oil in Syria (Update1)
2008-07-22 (New York)
by Maher Chmaytelli

July 22 (Bloomberg) — Gulfsands Petroleum Plc and Emerald Energy Plc, two British explorers, started pumping oil yesterday at their Syrian joint venture, which may provide the biggest boost to the Arab nation's output in 20 years.

 “The production of oil commenced at the Khurbet East Early Production Facility in Block 26'' in north-east Syria, according to a statement today from Gulfsands, operator of the concession. 

Gulfsands aims to pump 40,000 barrels a day in 18 months, increasing Syria's production by 10 percent, company spokesman Kenneth Judge said yesterday. The venture's output, which will start at 10,000 barrels a day, may boost the country's production the most since the late 1980s, Executive Director Mahdi Sajjad said in yesterday's Daily Telegraph. Gulfsands didn't estimate initial output from the first well, KHE-4, in today's statement.

Syria is stepping up exploration to check a decline in crude output, which has dropped to 360,000 barrels a day from a peak of 600,000 barrels a day in 1996, according to the government. Its reserves of 3.2 billion barrels are expected to last 10 years, according to the U.S. Energy Department. The two London-based explorers, which each hold a 50 percentstake in the venture, must share any oil produced with the Syrian government, Emerald said today in a separate statement, citing the terms of the concession agreement.

Shares Gain

lf sands announced last year the Khurbet East find in Block 26, Syria's largest exploration plot with an area of 8,250 square kilometers (3,185 square  iles). The discovery was brought on stream five months ahead of schedule, boosting the shares of Gulfsands and Emerald yesterday by as much as 6.7 percent and 17 percent respectively. 

“With production from Khurbet East having started well ahead of schedule, which will ramp up as we tie in additional wells, we look forward to further developing the other opportunities in Block 26 in what is a highly prospective and proven hydrocarbon system in Syria,'' Gulfsands Chairman Andrew
West said in the statement today.

First there was going to be a status of forces agreement between the US and Iraq, which would be ratified by the Iraqi parliament and would grant the US long-term bases. Private security guards and US troops would be immune from Iraqi law. US commanders would launch operations at will, would decide who a terrorist was, and would arrest and imprison Iraqis at will.

Then al-Maliki went to Iran for consultations. And Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani forbade a giveaway of Iraqi sovereignty. And the Sadrists began demonstrating every Friday. Then the US launched a unilateral operation in al-Maliki's home town and killed his cousin.

So the private contractors won't have legal immunity. And the agreement will be just for a year, not long-term. And it won't be ratified by the Iraqi parliament, so it is just a vague agreement between two executives. It won't stipulate long-term arrangements, but its interpretive context will be one in which the Iraqi leadership has expressed a desire for US troops to leave in 2010. It isn't clear if US troops will have legal immunity or whether they will have full freedom of action or whether they will be able to arrest and incarcerate Iraqis at will.

And now, it won't be signed by the deadline of July 31.

You have to wonder whether the Iraqis and the Americans in the end won't have to go back to the UN for a troop mandate again. The Iraqis want out from under the UN but don't want to recognize that the American presence detracts from their sovereignty. D'oh.

No provincial election law again on Monday. Maybe Tuesday. Maybe not.

The Iraqi legislative calendar is more like "Waiting for Godot" than it is like . . . a legislative calendar.

John McCain thinks that Iraq and Pakistan have a common border.




[Hat tip to Think Progress.]

Hey, everybody, ask McCain if he'll pull out US troops by 2010 if that is what the Iraqi government says it wants.

McCain keeps boasting about being "right" about the "surge" and saying Obama was "wrong."

Look, it is more important that McCain was consistently wrong. He was wrong about the desirability of going to war against Iraq. He was wrong about it being a cakewalk. He was wrong about there being WMD there. He was wrong about everything. And he was wrong about the troop escalation making things better. The casualty figures dropped in al-Anbar, where few extra US troops were ever sent. They dropped in Basra, from which the British withdrew. Something happened. Putting it all on 30,000 extra troops seems a stretch. And what about all the ethnic cleansing and displacing of persons that took place under the nose of the "surge?" McCain has been wrong about everything to do with Iraq. And he is boasting about his wisdom on it!

Guerrillas used a tractor bomb to kill 7 persons and wound 8 others in Diyala Province near Iran, where there is a lively contest for power among Shiites, Sunni Arabs and Kurds.

Reuters reports other recent political violence in Iraq:
' * MOSUL - A suicide car bomber killed two private security contractors serving as bodyguards to members of the Kurdish Democratic Party in an attack on their convoy in Mosul . . . The blast also wounded eight civilians nearby.

MOSUL - Gunmen killed two people when they opened fire on their vehicle in southeastern Mosul, police said.

MOSUL - Gunmen killed two brothers and their cousin in a drive-by shooting in northern Mosul on Sunday, police said. . . .

MOSUL - One body was found with gunshot wounds to the head in western Mosul, police said. . .

BAGHDAD - A parked car bomb killed one person and wounded four others on Sunday in Alawi district, central Baghdad, police said.

FALLUJA - Five people were wounded by two roadside bombs exploding within minutes of each other on different streets in central Falluja, 50 km (30 miles) west of Baghdad, police said.

(Compiled by Aws Qusay and Tim Cocks) '

[Landis comment] Jay Solomon et. al,'s article (copied below) is excellent. My only nit to pick with it is the choice of ending with Walid Jumblatt's quote, "Where was America when Hezbollah took over in May?" The implication is that America should have done something. Solomon lets this criticism hang in the air - as if Jumblatt is correct and the US really should have sent troops to Lebanon to fight Hizbullah. I am sure Solomon does not believe that America's military footprint in the region is too small, but the WSJ is a conservative, Bush supporting newspaper. To criticize the Bush administration - even by pointing out that its ally, Jumblatt, was being completely unrealistic would be to ask too much.

The real criticism to be made of Washington is not that it has used too little military force or that it has drawn too few lines in the sand. On the contrary, Washington should never have led Jumblatt and Hariri down the garden path to believe that they could rely on US troops to defeat Hizbullah and Lebanon's other opposition parties.  The US should have let Hariri, Jumblatt, and Siniora know early on that it could not defeat Hizbullah or overturn the Syrian regime on their behalf. Pumping them up in the false belief that the US would ride in with the cavalry was irresponsible and stupid. The March 14th forces were going to have to compromise sooner or later. Washington should not have been so naive as to think that brow beating, chest thumping, and moralizing by President Bush would magically make the most powerful forces in Lebanon cower in fear and disarm - especially not a militia like Hizbullah, which drove Israel out of Lebanon after 20 years of sacrifice and struggle and which stood up to Israel's full power in 2006 for over a month.

If anything, Solomon should have praised Hizbullah for its patience and sober restraint - normally an Israeli characteristic - for waiting 16 long months before pulling the plug on the March 14 forces. Instead, Solomon writes that "for nearly 16 months, Mr. Siniora's supporters refused to cave into demands by Hezbollah." Such praise only shows how far Washington has strayed from realism. As Bashar al-Asad said after the Doha agreement was signed, "The March 14 coalition could have signed the same agreement a year ago" and well they could have, without loss of life or the terrible economic price of letting the economy stagnate for 12 extra months. Instead, Siniora, Hariri, Geagea, Jumblatt and their American backers clung to a losing hand and refused to recognize the reality that was so clear once Israel had failed in 2006 to put a real dent into Hizbullah's power and supremacy in Lebanon. Hariri kept on repeating that Hizbullah and Lebanon's Christians led by Aoun intended to carry out a coup, but of course they did not. Quite the opposite, they wanted a compromise.

The reason they were so patient with the obstinate March 14 movement and the US was precisely because they did not want a coup. They did not want to use force to assert themselves. That is why they waited on Hariri and allies for so long. They waited until the Lebanese public were so fed up with political paralysis that they welcomed Hizbullah's move and the Doha agreement. They waited until Jumblatt made his fateful mistake and convinced Siniora to move against Hizbullah's security network, then in less than 12 hours Hizbullah and the Lebanese opposition pulled the plug on the March 14th government. They did not "take power" or carry out a "coup;" instead, they allowed Siniora to form a new government, giving the opposition the blocking third that they had insisted on for the better part of a year.

I am surprised that hard bitten Wall Street types who usually praise politicians and businessmen for knowing when to compromise are now siding with Jeronimo, or in Lebanon's case, Jumblatt. Does anyone really think that the US should have sent troops to Lebanon to keep Jumblatt from having to compromise with Nasrallah and Aoun?

(by the way - if anyone wants to know which Syrians are in town to meet with the State department, they are Daoudi, the lead negotiator with the Israelis in Ankara, Samir Taqi, the head of Syria's leading think tank, and Sami Moubayed, who needs no introduction to SC readers.)

Here is the WSJ article:

Mideast's Balance of Power Shifts Away From U.S.: Regional Players Bypass Washington In Brokering Deals
Wall Street Journal

A handful of Middle East nations and groups are pursuing talks that are dramatically shifting the region's balance of power in ways that could undercut U.S. interests.

The various diplomatic efforts come as the Bush administration moderates its policy of isolating the governments of Iran, Syria and their regional allies. The State Department's point man on the Middle East is scheduled to meet this week with a delegation of Syrian academics and lawyers that includes the top legal adviser to the Syrian government team involved in indirect talks with Israel, according to Syrian officials.

And over the weekend, the State Department's third-ranking official met with European diplomats and Iranian officials as part of talks to restart negotiations over Tehran's nuclear program.

The weekend contact — the highest-level exchange between the two sides in years — ended inconclusively Saturday. Tehran refused to commit to halting its uranium-enrichment program in exchange for a set of economic incentives it was offered. European Union foreign-policy chief Javier Solana said negotiators gave Tehran another two weeks to respond more concretely.

Still, the presence in Geneva of William Burns, the U.S. under-secretary of state for political affairs, marked a significant course change in Washington's dealings with Iran.

It comes as regional players — both friends and foes of Washington — begin to work together to solve their own problems and those of their neighbors. The talks have supplanted what was once a key role for Washington: regional power broker.

As President George W. Bush's term in office approaches its end, his administration's diplomatic heft has predictably diminished. Washington's missteps in Iraq and Afghanistan have also sapped the region's confidence in the administration's vision. "In many ways, the countries in the region are looking past the Bush administration and seeking their own answers to the region's problems" said Imad Moustapha, Damascus's ambassador to the U.S., in an interview.

A collection of peacemakers, some unlikely, has stepped into the breach. In May, Qatar successfully pushed a peace deal in Lebanon that saw Iranian-backed Hezbollah gain extensive new political powers at the expense of Beirut's Western-backed government. Last month, Egypt brokered a military truce between Israel and the Palestinian faction Hamas, an Iranian ally that last year violently overran the Gaza Strip.

Turkey is mediating indirect peace talks between Israel and Syria. Even impoverished Yemen is getting in on the act, pushing for reconciliation between Hamas and rival faction Fatah.

Through the negotiations, say diplomats and analysts, Israel and Arab governments are positioning themselves for a shift in American foreign policy, no matter who wins November elections.

Hammering that home, Sen. Barak Obama, the Democratic presidential nominee, is touring the Middle East this week. He has advocated stepped-up engagement with Iran and Syria.

"The U.S. administration is a lame duck, and regional players are working to serve their own interests," says Diaa Rashwan, a Cairo-based political analyst.

The State Department has denied that U.S. influence in the region is waning and said it welcomes the region's recent diplomatic efforts.

Israel, in particular, has seized the initiative from Washington. In recent weeks, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has moved to cut deals aimed at easing every national-security threat along Israel's borders, though Mr. Olmert may be too politically weak at home to see any of the deals through.

But his efforts come after Israel's once-unquestionable regional military superiority has been severely tested. In 2006, Hezbollah fighters bogged down a larger and more advanced Israeli army during a month-long battle in Lebanon. And Israeli military incursions into the Hamas-held Gaza Strip failed to dislodge rocket-firing militants.

In May, Israel said it was indirectly negotiating a peace deal with Syria, which, along with Iran, is a key supporter of both Hezbollah and Hamas. Last month, Israel agreed to a cease-fire with Hamas.

At the same time, Israel has sent much stronger signals than the U.S. about possible military intervention against Tehran. Last month, U.S. officials said Israel had conducted military exercises that appeared to be training for a possible attack against Iran.

U.S. officials are preparing a package of economic sanctions they hope they can push through the United Nations if Tehran fails to take up new talks on halting its nuclear program.

Perhaps no Middle East country has been the beneficiary of the region's diplomatic moves more than Syria. In March, U.S. allies Saudi Arabia and Egypt snubbed the country by refusing to send high-level representation to an Arab League summit in Damascus. The U.S. Treasury in February initiated a string of unilateral sanctions against some of Syrian President Bashar Assad's closest political and business allies. The U.S. and France, meanwhile, were closely working to limit Syria's political influence inside Lebanon.

Today, Syria has largely emerged from its diplomatic isolation. Mr. Assad was welcomed in Paris this month by President Nicolas Sarkozy. The two leaders talked about enhancing economic and strategic ties.

Damascus and Jerusalem are set to enter a second-round of Turkey-brokered talks to resolve their dispute over the Golan Heights this month. And many world leaders praised Syria's role in promoting a political pact for Lebanon in May.

Amid that backdrop, the State Department's point man on the Middle East, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch, is set to meet top Syrian academics and attorneys this week, according to Syrian officials. Mr. Welch's planned session is raising hopes Washington may more aggressively support the Damascus-Jerusalem peace track. The State Department didn't comment on the meetings.

Mr. Moustapha, Syria's ambassador, said the Bush administration's willingness to meet the Syrian delegation is a step in the right direction.

If Syria has gained the most from Washington's diplomatic absence, the West-backed government of Lebanese President Fuad Siniora appears to have lost out more than others.

In 2006, Israel launched a war in Lebanon, largely in response to the capture by Hezbollah of two Israeli army reservists in a cross-border raid.

The fighting ended inconclusively after 34 days, but Hezbollah's reputation for resistance against Israel soared. The Shiite political group — designated a terrorist organization by the U.S. — led a boycott of Mr. Siniora's coalition government.

For nearly 16 months, Mr. Siniora's supporters refused to cave into demands by Hezbollah for major concessions in a new government. When Mr. Siniora tried to crack down on the group in May the group took to the streets.

Qatar's emir stepped in. He pushed both sides to accept a deal that reinstalled Mr. Siniora as prime minister but also gave the Hezbollah-led opposition veto power.

"Where was America when Hezbollah took over in May?" complained Walid Jumblatt, the leader of the Lebanese Druze sect and an ally of the U.S.

–Mariam Fam in San'a, Yemen, and Margaret Coker in Abu Dhabi contributed to this article.

Write to Jay Solomon at jay.solomon@wsj.com,

Senator Barack Obama is in Iraq for consultations with American military commanders and Iraqi leaders.

Despite all the talk about Iraq being "calm," I'd like to point out that the month just before the last visit Barack Obama made to Iraq (he went in January, 2006), there were 537 civilian and ISF Iraqi casualties. In June of this year, 2008, there were 554 according to AP. These are official statistics gathered passively that probably only capture about 10 percent of the true toll.

That is, the Iraqi death toll is actually still worse now than the last time Obama was in Iraq! (See the bombings and shootings listed below for Sunday). The hype around last year's troop escalation obscures a simple fact: that Obama formed his views about the need for the US to leave Iraq at a time when its security situation was very similar to what it is now! Why a return to the bad situation in late 05 and early 06 should be greeted by the GOP as the veritable coming of the Messiah is beyond me. You have people like Joe Lieberman saying silly things like if it weren't for the troop escalation, Obama wouldn't be able to visit Iraq. Uh, he visited it before the troop escalation, just fine.

The troop escalation, which actually allowed the ethnic cleansing of the Sunnis of Baghdad and the expulsion of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis from the country, has largely been pushed as propaganda by the White House and the AEI. Here's an example of how their propaganda works. As is usual with news it does not like, the Bush administration attempted to muddy the waters this weekend regarding the interview of PM Nuri al-Maliki with Der Spiegel in which he expressed approval of Barack Obama's plan to get US troops out of Iraq within 16 months of next January. Al-Maliki told Der Spiegel in response to a question about how long US troops would be in his country,

'Maliki: As soon as possible, as far as we're concerned. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama talks about 16 months. That, we think, would be the right timeframe for a withdrawal, with the possibility of slight changes.

SPIEGEL: Is this an endorsement for the US presidential election in November? Does Obama, who has no military background, ultimately have a better understanding of Iraq than war hero John McCain?

Maliki: Those who operate on the premise of short time periods in Iraq today are being more realistic. Artificially prolonging the tenure of US troops in Iraq would cause problems. Of course, this is by no means an election endorsement. Who they choose as their president is the Americans' business. But it's the business of Iraqis to say what they want. '

Ali al-Dabbagh, who is usually described as al-Maliki's spokesman but actually seems to work for the CENTCOM or Pentagon Middle East command, was trotted out to make vague statements about Der Spiegel's having mistranslated or misinterpreted what al-Maliki said. This denial was issued through CENTCOM! When the original demand came from al-Maliki for a timetable for US withdrawal, it was al-Dabbagh who reinterpreted it as a 'time horizon.' Al-Dabbagh was contradicted by National Security Counsellor Muwaffaq al-Rubaie, who seems actually closer in this thinking to al-Maliki. My guess is that al-Dabbagh has been recruited by some agency in Washington, DC, to explain away al-Maliki's statements whenever they contradict Bush's.

Der Spiegel stood by its story. The text of Der Spiegel's statement is here. It turns out that the translator involved works for al-Maliki, not for Der Spiegel, and so presumably knew what the prime minister's words meant in Arabic. And for the piece de resistance, it turns out that Der Spiegel has an audiotape of the Arabic of the interview, which they leaked to The New York Times. Sabrina Tavernise and Jeff Zeleny write:

' But the interpreter for the interview works for Mr. Maliki’s office, not the magazine. . . The following is a direct translation from the Arabic of Mr. Maliki’s comments by The Times: “Obama’s remarks that — if he takes office — in 16 months he would withdraw the forces, we think that this period could increase or decrease a little, but that it could be suitable to end the presence of the forces in Iraq.” He continued: “Who wants to exit in a quicker way has a better assessment of the situation in Iraq.” '

But you see, it does not matter that al-Maliki actually said what he said. It does not matter that Der Spiegel can prove it. All that matters is that the Goebbelses around Bush and Cheney have managed to muddy the waters and produce doubt, taking the hard edge off the interview. Even AFP, the usually skeptical French wire service, asserted that al-Maliki had "denied" the accuracy of the Der Spiegel interview! Of course, al-Maliki has done no such thing. CENTCOM ventriloquising al-Dabbagh engaged in the denial, and a very vague one at that.

That is the way propaganda works, to obscure the truth and ensure it can be denied. Some wingnut even tried to pressure me to retract the little sentence I had written on the affair yesterday, on the grounds of "al-Dabbagh's" mendacious and ridiculous assertions. Our information system is so corrupt and easily manipulated that even a clumsy ploy can obscure the truth and bully the journalists.

Aljazeera International reports on the conflict between Obama and McCain on a timetable for US troop withdrawals from Iraq.



Over the weekend, the Sunni fundamentalist Iraqi Accord Front rejoined the al-Maliki government. It had left last summer over accusations that al-Maliki ignored Sunni sensitivities, refused to speak to his vice president, Tariq al-Hashimi, coddled Shiite militias that ethnically cleansed Sunnis, and kept tens of thousands of Sunnis in prison without charges or due process. As Xinhua notes, al-Hashimi's Iraqi Islamic Party, one of three components of the Iraqi Accord Front coalition of Sunni parties, will face great competition in the provincial elections from the US-created Awakening Councils, which are paid and armed by the US military.

Speaking of this fall's provincial elections, the country's elections commission announced Sunday that they might have to be postponed, given that Parliament has still not passed the enabling legislation. The election law is mired in debates over the mixed province of Kirkuk in the north, and whether it should hold provincial elections along with the other provinces. The province is claimed by the Kurdistan Regional Government, which wants to annex it, even though the Turkmen and Arab populations do not want to join semi-autonomous Kurdistan (where the state schools are no longer Arabophone).

Al-Zaman writing in Arabic says that the new date has been set as December 22. It is official: The provincial elections in Iraq will not occur in time to affect the US presidential race. E.g., if the Sadrists sweep to power in many Shiite provinces, that could have been a factor in the US polls. Not going to happen.

A new airport, funded in important part by Iran has opened at the Shiite holy city of Najaf. It will likely bring millions of pilgrims from Iran, Pakistan, India and elsewhere to the shrine of Imam Ali, the son-in-law and cousin of the Prophet Muhammad. American authorities worried about Iranians in Iraq may as well just lay back; with millions going in and out, tracking them is going to be rather difficult.



Catch Tomdispatch.com on professional warfighters and on the Pentagon's fuel consumption.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Sunday:
' Baghdad

An adhesive IED stuck to a civilian car detonated in Kem neighbourhood, Adhamiyah, northern Baghdad early Sunday killing the driver.

A roadside bomb exploded in Karrada, near al-Rahibat Hospital at 7.30 a.m. killing one civilian, injuring three.

A roadside bomb targeted a U.S. military convoy on Qanat Street in the direction of Qahira, northeast Baghdad at around 10.30 a.m. Sunday. No casualties were reported.

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Qahira, near al-Nidaa Mosque at noon injuring five people including two policemen.

A parked car bomb detonated in Damascus intersection, central Baghdad at 6 p.m. killing one civilian, injuring seven people including one policemen and one baby girl.

Three unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad today by Iraqi Police; one in Amil, one in Baladiyat and one in Hurriyah.

Gunmen threw a hand grenade at a car selling alcoholic beverages, parked on the Jadriyah Bridge at 9 p.m. injuring four civilians.

A roadside bomb exploded in al-Jaara in Madain, to the south east of Baghdad injuring three civilians including a little girl.

Diyala

A roadside bomb targeted a pick up truck in Wajihiyah district, 20 km to the east of Baquba at 6.45 p.m. killing two policemen in plain clothes.

Nineveh

A suicide car bomb targeted a site where trucks carrying construction materials for the U.S military stop at 4 p.m. killing two foreign private security contractors.

Gunmen in a speeding car open fire upon a group of civilians in al-Hadbaa neighbourhood, Mosul city at 6 p.m. killing three.

Gunmen in a speeding car open fire upon a civilian in Aden neighbourhood at 7.30 p.m. killing him on his doorstep.

One policeman killed by sniper fire in al-Masarif neighbourhood, Mosul city at around 7.30 p.m.

Anbar

Iraqi Army servicemen captured a suicide bomber targeting a checkpoint in central Ramadi. The suicide vest was defused and the suicide bomber detained.

Salahuddin

An American Special Force raided the residence of Khalaf Issa Turk in al-Asri neighbourhood, Baiji at dawn, Sunday and opened fire upon Husam Hamed Hmoud al-Qaissi, son of the Governor of Salahuddin Province while he was asleep in the guest room and also opened fire upon Auday Khalaf Issa al-Qaissi, his cousin killing them both, and detained two others without giving any explanation, said a security source in Salahuddin Province. The American military said its forces shot two armed men during a raid because they felt they had "hostile intent". The statement added that the forces also injured and captured an al-Qaida financer during the operation.

Kirkuk

A roadside bomb targeted a police patrol in Tayaran Square, central Kirkuk Sunday morning, injuring one policeman.

Basra

Basra Police found the body of a 24 year old female in Jazair neighbourhood, central Basra Sunday. She was shot four times.

I am headed off for three weeks of travel and vacation so I will not be posting regularly. I will count on Alex, QN, and Ehsani to entertain and enlighten 

The following profile of Syria's first lady, Asma al-Akhras, will become increasingly common. Asma has kept a low international profile until now - in part because Syrian officials have not been swanning around the West — but the Paris tour is a coming out party of sorts. It has  generated great interest and a number of profiles of Syria's beautiful first lady will come out soon. 

Syria's first lady is the more glamorous, modern face of the nation,
writes Jason Koutsoukis.

[Power couple … the Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad and his wife, Asma, in Paris. Photo: AP]

What would it take to distract the international paparazzi from France's first lady, Carla Bruni, at an international leaders' summit in Paris? The answer, quite simply, was Asma al-Assad…..

Abdullah al-Dardari is to embark on a two-day visit to France on Monday in efforts to boost bilateral economic cooperation. The trip was scheduled to "follow up the outcome of the successful visit" of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to France and his talks with French President Nicolas Sarkozy a week ago, said the official SANA news agency.

Dardari will hold talks with French officials, including ministers of economy, industry and employment, and the French President's General Secretary Claude Gueant, to discuss the future of economic and technical cooperation between the two countries, said SANA.

Talks will focus on bolstering cooperation in the field of transport, particularly in civil aviation, railroads and marine transport, as well as cooperation in the fields of energy, gas, petroleum and electricity. Cooperation in communications, the use of information technology to support economic and social development, and cooperation to support the process of economic and institutional reform and capability-building will also be discussed, SANA said.

In a recent press statement, Dardari revealed a more detailed plan in seeking cooperation with French companies during his stay in France, saying he would discuss with personnels of Airbus, a leading aircraft manufacturer, to complete a deal to buy 50 aircraft in the next twenty years. He said he is scheduled to hold talks with the world's fourth-largest oil and gas company Total to renew contract for oil production. Dardari will also seek to obtain the French government's support for these deals and a loan worth of 50 million euros, said informed Syrian sources.

Meanwhile, Dardari is due to endeavor to secure the signing of a partnership agreement between the European Union and Syria, which was initialed in late 2004 but long-stalled after the assassination of former Lebanese premier Rafik Hariri in 2005, said the sources. French President Sarkozy will pay a visit to Syria before mid-September, which would be prepared during Dardari's visit to Paris, said an Elysee statement last week. 

U.S. Talks With Iran Exemplify Bush's New Approaches
In a Matter of Days, Administration Announces Change of Tactics Toward Onetime 'Axis of Evil'
(By Dan Eggen, The Washington Post)

… Many Democrats view the developments as evidence that Bush is moving closer to military and diplomatic policies that their party's presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, has long advocated.

John R. Bolton, a former United Nations ambassador for Bush who has become one of his most vocal conservative critics, likened the developments to breaches in a dam that is about to burst. "Once the collapse begins, adversaries have a real opportunity to gain advantage," he said Saturday. "In terms of the Bush presidency, this many reversals this close to the end destroys credibility. . . . It appears there is no depth to which this administration will not sink in its last days."

Former White House Middle East director Flynt Leverett, who has criticized the administration for being too hawkish, said the moves on Iraq, Iran and North Korea were signs of "tactical desperation," adding: "It's a recognition that if they don't make these moves, they'll be left with nothing."

White House officials bristle at such criticisms, saying that partisans on both sides have misinterpreted tactical decisions as policy changes. …U.S. officials have said the decision to send Burns was intended to further unify the international coalition that opposes Iran's nuclear work.

Saudi Arabia tried to Disuade France from Inviting Syria: 

French foreign minister Bernard Kouchner confirms that Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud Al-Faisal, visited France before President Assad’s visit in order to convince the French to not seek friendly relations with Syria. Kouchner also said that he hopes the Saudis (who are smart) will understand that there is no other way .. because everyone is working for peace. Finally, he said that the Americans and Israelis approved and supported Sarkozy’s initiatives … including his work with President Assad.

كوشنير يؤكّد لـ»السفير« لقاء الفيصل وساركوزي:
السعوديون ليسوا متحمسين لتقارب دمشق وباريس

محمد بلوط
باريس :
السعوديون ليسوا متحمسين للتقارب الفرنسي السوري. الخلاصة تفرض نفسها في ما قاله وزير الخارجية الفرنسية برنار كوشنير لـ»السفير«، وهو يغادر ظهر امس، منبر مؤتمر صحافي عقده في الكي دورسيه.
انتخب الوزير الفرنسي من سؤال »السفير« عن حقيقة موقف الرياض من تقارب باريس ودمشق، عبارة »قلة الحماس«، مفضلا إياها على تعبير »معارضة الرياض« للقاء الرئيس الفرنسي نيكولا ساركوزي بالرئيس السوري بشار الأسد في قصر الإليزيه الأسبوع الماضي.
»هل أظهر السعوديون معارضتهم او قلة حماسهم للتقارب الفرنسي السوري؟«، يجيب كوشنير المقاطع »أفضل قلة الحماس«.
و»هل أتى وزير الخارجية السعودية سعود الفيصل وتحدث بذلك مع الرئيس ساركوزي؟«، يجيب كوشنير »نعم بالتأكيد«.
وكانت »السفير« قد نشرت الاثنين الماضي، خبر المساعي السعودية للجم الاندفاع الفرنسي تجاه دمشق، في لقاء عقده الأمير سعود الفيصل مع الرئيس ساركوزي، قبل وصول الرئيس الأسد إلى العاصمة الفرنسية. ومن غير المستبعد ان يقتطع ساركوزي والملك السعودي عبد الله، بعض الوقت من عطلتيهما الصيفية في المغرب، للاجتماع بهدف متابعة البحث في الموقف السعودي.
وبات واضحا ان الاعتراض السعودي على تطوير باريس لعلاقاتها مع دمشق، في الوقت الحاضر على الأقل، حجته الراجحة في خطر البرنامج النووي الإيراني، اذ لم يعد تحالف سوريا مع ايران يشكل حاجزا لا يمكن للرئيس ساركوزي اجتيازه، في طريقه إلى دمشق. كما لم يشكل عقبة كبيرة امام القائمين على الاليزيه لفتح أبوابه الأسبوع الماضي امام الأسد.
ويحيل كوشنير »اسباب الاعتراض السعودي حول التقارب مع سوريا«، لاختلاف في »التعبير، في الأنظمة، والبلدان، والموارد، والتحالفات التي تعقدها سوريا، او السعودية وهي قطب مهم في العالم العربي، وهذا طبيعي، ولا يصدم. هذه حال الدنيا ولا جديد فيها«. ويضيف »لم يظهر الاختلاف فقط حول قدوم الرئيس الأسد إلى باريس، بل قبل ذلك.. والجميع يبدل رأيه، ولان السعوديين أذكياء، اعتقد أنهم يفهمون، ولكننا لا نطلب منهم تغيير موقفهم.. هناك مساران سياسيان لا بد لهما من لقاء، لأننا جميعا نريد السلام«.
والشراكة الفرنسية ـ السعودية الإستراتيجية، تملي تنسيقا مستديما بين الرياض وباريس، لكن وصف ساركوزي في الإليزيه للعلاقات السورية الفرنسية المستجدة، بانها بنيوية واستراتيجية، يندرج لدى الوزير الفرنسي في تحولات سياسية أوسع في فرنسا والولايات المتحدة إزاء سوريا وإيران.

ويسأل كوشنير عما اذا كان السعوديون على اطلاع أم لا على ما يجري على الخط السوري الفرنسي. ويقول »من البديهي أننا أعلمناهم بما يحدث.. لكن البعض قد يقدر أننا لم نفعل ذلك بشكل كاف.. لا أعرف! صحيح ان السعودية لم تكن نصيرة للقائنا مع الأسد، إنها علاقات معقدة وحساسة وأفهم اختلاف المواقف داخل العالم العربي، لكن أعتقد أن الجميع قد فهم موقفنا وهو يجنح نحو السلام والتهدئة«.
ويتابع الوزير الفرنسي »بوسع السعوديين الا يقبلوا طريقتنا في البدء، أو لا يوافقوا عليها كليا في مرحلة تالية.. ولكن هذا ليس انطباعي.. ان ما يجري جزء من إعادة التشكيل، ليس الجغرافي فقط، ولكن السياسي والإستراتيجي أيضا.. إنها دبلوماسية الحركة والحوار«.
واختلاف التقدير بين السعودية وفرنسا، لا يفقد تقارب باريس ـ دمشق شيئا من زخمه، ولن يغير الاعتراض السعودي شيئا كبيرا في المدى القريب، لأنه يجري في ظل تفاهم أميركي فرنسي، وتشجيع إسرائيلي. ويقول كوشنير »نلنا تهنئة إسرائيلية على دعوة الأسد إلى قمة الاتحاد من أجل المتوسط.. وقد التقينا بالرئيس جورج بوش وكوندليسا رايس في حزيران هنا في باريس، وعقدنا اجتماعا لأربع ساعات وشرحنا لهم موضوع اللقاء.. وبدأوا بالتفكير بطريقة عملية، انطلاقا من المعطيات الجديدة.. وقد هنأنا الأميركيون على القمة وعلى اللقاء بالأسد لأنه لا يمكن الفصل بين الحدثين«.
ويتقدم التقارب السوري الفرنسي بسرعة أكبر مما يعتقده كثيرون، من دون ان تعيقه شروط مسبقة. ولأن باريس ترى انها حققت الأهم في إعلان الأسد من الإليزيه قرب إقامة سفارة سورية في بيروت، فقد اصبح نافلا بنظرها، ان يسبق موعد اقامتها، زيارة الرئيس ساركوزي إلى دمشق، مطلع أيلول المقبل، طالما ان مبدأ إقامتها قد أصبح واقعا.

'Our resistance is education': Students serve as crucial link between Golan Heights, Syria 
By Meris Moore Lutz
Special to The Daily Star
Saturday, July 19, 2008

DAMASCUS-On a hot afternoon in Damascus in late June, 26-year-old Bashar Fakhradeen ticks of his list of things to do, see, and eat before crossing the border back to his village in the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights for the last time. "I need to get an oil painting of old Damascus, and some mosaic woodwork," he says, sitting in one of the old city's renovated palaces-turned cafes. Giant plasma screens hang from the ancient stone walls, flashing an endless stream of music videos from the Arab world's top pop divas, as tittering groups of teenagers flirt over beer and nargileh.

"This is my farewell to Damascus, so I've just been walking around trying to take it all in," he adds, shrugging helplessly.

Until recently, Fakhradeen was one of approximately 300 university students from the Golan Heights given special permission to cross into Syria to pursue their higher education. But this spring, he graduated with a degree in Arabic literature from the University of Damascus, and so his last days in Syria will be spent saying goodbye to friends and family he may never see again.

"I have been here for eight years - my entire youth was spent here," he says. "I definitely feel a stronger sense of belonging to Syria than when I first came."

Since 1978, the students' unique status has allowed them to act as intermediaries between the Golan Heights and Syria, maintaining the bonds of culture, family and language that they hope will one day lead to reunification. 

The Syrian government, for its part, attempts to attract students from the occupied territory by giving them special privilege at Syrian universities, such as exemption from entrance exams to the most competitive departments, like medicine, and a small stipend of about $20 a month.

Last December, the Syrian government announced its decision to grant citizenship to the students, and began distributing new identity cards, but not passports. However, the Israelis have been confiscating the cards at the border as the students cross back into the Golan for their allotted two-month summer vacation, according to Fakhradeen and other students interviewed for this article.

The Jerusalem Post reported on July 5 that the Syrian government has filed an official complaint with the United Nations claiming Israel is 'abusing' the mostly Druze inhabitants of the Golan by taking their ID cards, dumping nuclear waste in the area, and confiscating land.

The Post went on to report that representatives from a special UN committee for human rights abuses said the Israeli government denied them permission to visit the Golan in order to verify the accusation.

"Syria gives us one card and Israel takes it away," Fakhradeen says, showing off his new identity card, nearly identical to his old one except for a 'citizen number' printed at the bottom. …..

The talk of the town

By Zvi Bar'el and Barak Ravid

The pictures that came in from the French capital depicted him as trying to court Syrian President Bashar Assad, with the latter turning his back on him time after time.

Olmert's advisers were angry. "No such thing," they said and offered the following version: "Time after time, the French, the UN secretary general and others came to us," they said. "All of them asked, 'do you want us to introduce you to each other?' But Olmert gave all of them the same reply and said, 'drop it. I don't want to embarrass anybody.'"

Even if Olmert wasn't trying to "court" Assad, and the pictures were misleading, Syria's behavior at the conference was yet another instance in which Israel was exploited for Assad's purposes. To the extended Israeli hand, the Syrians responded with a hasty retreat from any Israeli who came within 10 meters of them in the conference hall. The Syrians received international legitimization, and Israel again received not even a crumb.

But even if the Syrians rejoiced in the streets of Paris at Israel's expense, they may still have understood it's a lot nicer in Europe than in Tehran. If Assad had a swell time in Paris, that doesn't present a problem for Olmert. On the contrary, let him sense the advantages. Things must also be examined with an eye toward the bigger picture: Israel's freedom to engage in military action in the region in the coming months, especially in the light of increasing talk of a possible Israeli attack on Iran. A Syrian president whose wife can go shopping again in Saint Michel and Saint Germain is not going to be in any rush to join an Iranian military adventure.

Samir Kuntar will visit Syria (Jerusalem Post) and meet with Syrian President Bashar Assad in coming weeks, Qatari newspaper Al-Watan reported Saturday. Kuntar was expected to thank Assad for Syrian's role in defending Lebanon.

Growing Salafist movement in North poses challenge to the project of state building
By Mona Alami of Inter Press Service
Saturday, July 19, 2008

… "Most Salafists are allied to the Saudis and, thus, aligned with American Middle East policy. They maintain excellent relations with the government and the Hariri family," says Bakri. The Hariris are a powerful Lebanese political clan with strong ties to Saudi Arabia. Saad Hariri, son of slain Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, heads the majority parliamentary coalition in Lebanon.

… Different sources interviewed by IPS report that most Salafists seem to follow the pro-government bloc, while other radical Sunni factions, such as Tawhid, are sponsored by either Syria or Iran, and hence, support the opposition.

According to a source, who chose to remain anonymous due to the topic's sensitivity, many Salafist preachers are on the payroll of Arab embassies located in Lebanon. Bakri says this support can be partly explained by Sunnis' growing fear of Lebanese Shiites, represented by Hizbullah….

Thaw in relations with Syria only a 'partial' step - analysts
Hariri tribunal could pose stumbling block in talks
By Dalila Mahdawi

… Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut told The Daily Star Friday that the recent thaw between the two states was only a "partial" step toward reconciliation, "part of the general reorientation of Syrian policy" and "indicated a new period in Lebanese-Syrian relations."… Salem said, "the rapprochement between Syria and France suggests that there might be some progress on the issue of the tribunal that we don't know about."..

Elias Hanna, a retired army general and senior lecturer of Political Science at the Notre-Dame University in Lebanon, was optimistic that "regardless of all the complexities faced, I don't think the talks will break down. Syria lost Lebanon, a major strategic asset in 2005, and regaining it now would be of huge value" to Damascus. …

Hizbullah Secretary-General Sayyed Hasan Nasrallah delivered an important speech on Wednesday, July 16 2008, following the exchange of Lebanese prisoners and the remains of Hizbullah fighters for the bodies of the two Israeli soldiers abducted in 2006. The speech possessed all of the signature Nasrallah ingredients: defiance, magisterial oratory, and, of course, historiography, which is one of the most important elements of his rhetoric. Nasrallah sought to situate Hizbullah within a long line of "resistance" movements and ideologies, even doctrines seemingly antithetical to Hizbullah's identity. He stated:

"Brothers and sisters, from this position, with this crowd of martyrs throughout 30 years, we evoke all the sacrifices of the Lebanese, Palestinian, and Arab Resistance men – Islamists, nationalists, Arabists, and pan-Arab irrespective of any ideological trend they are affiliated with. We are proud of and appreciate all the resistance factions and parties and all the resistance men and martyrs, who joined the arenas of resistance, jihad, and struggle before us. We benefit from their experience, seek inspiration from their sacrifices, and recognize their status in the past, present, and future of the Resistance. In this context too, through what I have said, I would like to stress that the genuine and well-established identity of our region and nation is the identity of resistance, the will of resistance, the culture of resistance, and the rejection of humiliation and occupation, regardless of occupiers, dictators, and tyrants.

Based on this, throughout decades, you can see that the flag did not fall, the Resistance flag does not fall, but it moves from the hand of one group to another, from one faction to another, from one party to another, and from one heading to another."

While the occasion was devoted primarily to the celebration of the prisoners' return, Nasrallah took the opportunity to address some issues that made this a potentially historic speech. (1) He brought up the issue of the so-called "national defense" strategy, and insisted that it be brought to the table, dismissing the idea that Hizbullah is afraid of tackling such a sensitive subject. (2) He declared that the Hizb is prepared to discuss all issues relating to national interests and national unity. This should be read as referring not only to the issue of the resistance's weapons, but to the future of political reform in the country, which will be the necessary quid pro quo for Hizbullah's "normalization". In other words, we are witnessing the transformation of Hizbullah into one of the most powerful forces for political reform in Lebanon (and potentially beyond) since independence. Nasrallah is reinventing the vocabularies of both resistance and nationalism, with potentially far-reaching consequences. 

There's an old joke about "accepted wisdom" in the field of economics. Two Nobel Prize winning economists are walking down the street when one of them spots a hundred dollar bill lying in the gutter. He says to his friend: "Is that a hundred dollar bill lying in the gutter?" His friend scoffs as they walk by it, and he says dismissively: "Of course not. If it were, someone would have picked it up already."

Similarly, many will be inclined to dismiss Nasrallah's rhetoric as empty talk. The smart money, in my view, is to take the man at his word, which, as he has already demonstrated on several occasions, is to be trusted. Beyond Nasrallah's personal guarantees, however, there is unescapable logic of demography, population pressures, and economic disparities which can only be ignored for so long before they become a liability for the Shi`a community's own leadership, the mighty Hizbullah not excluded. The end game will have to be political reform, if Lebanon is to survive.

Here is the relevant excerpt from his speech, translated to English for non-Arabic readers (by NOW Lebanon):

"I declare anew – in view of what I raised for discussion – that all our concern is to liberate the rest of our land. We in Hezbollah are open to every discussion on a strategy to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shouba hills, and the part of Al-Ghajar that is still under occupation. Our concern, brothers and sisters, all our concern is to defend our country, land, waters, the sovereignty of our country, and our people and their dignity and security. We in Hezbollah are open to every discussion on a strategy for national defense. We insist on this discussion.

Some people imagine we do not like this discussion or we are evading it. No, now we insist on it. We do not want it to be postponed. How does the saying go: "Let us burst this boil." Let us see this defense strategy which we have been talking about for some years. Let us get somewhere. That is because the threats and dangers to Lebanon have not ended.

We go to this dialogue and discussion in a positive and serious spirit. Our aim is to protect our country. We insist on this discussion, and we insist that everyone participates in protecting this country, and that the State bears the primary responsibility for protecting and defending this country. And thus we end the story of who is monopolizing defense and who is monopolizing resistance, as though it is a feast over which the people are competing. Usually people escape from the fighting, even the believers. Almighty God says: "Fighting is ordained for you, though you dislike it."

It is human nature to prefer to turn to politics, economic activity, cultural activity, and commercial activity, but people do not want to hear about fighting, staying up all night, captivity, wounds, sacrifices, hunger, staying in the valleys and plains. What is this thing which we are monopolizing and for which we are envied? Are we envied because our youth are in prisons, and that we are getting them back? Or are we envied because hundreds of our young have lost the flower of their youth to defend this homeland, and we get back their dead bodies?

No, I say to you today as we celebrate the freedom of the prisoners: We will ask everyone to contribute to protecting and defending this country, and whoever abandons this duty is the traitor. That is a national responsibility which all of us should seek to fulfill. At the same time, and within the context of the national unity government, I would like to affirm that we are ready to cooperate in handling all – and please underline the word "all" twice – files without exception or reservations in a way that will serve the national interest and enhance national unity and Lebanon's strength and impregnability, and enable Lebanon to overcome its crises."

The entire speech is available from YouTube. The excerpt begins at 37:00

Presidential hopeful Barack Obama held consultations Saturday in Kabul with Afghan government officials. He discussed the rapidly deteriorating security situation in the country. I heard him on television at one point pledging to defeat the Taliban.

Aljazeera is showing footage of him addressing US troops who are going wild for him, and shooting hoops in the base gym. Meanwhile, the Prime Minister of Iraq, endorsed Obama's plan for a withdrawal US troops from Iraq. Although al-Maliki said he was not choosing up sides in the presidential race, it seems clear that he'd be much more comfortable with Obama.

CBS reports on the trip, which included a stop at the provincial eastern Pushtun city of Jalalabad. I was impressed that Obama got out of the capital.



Violence against NATO troops in Afghanistan is up 40% in 2008 over 2007, and more civilians were killed in the first half of 2008 than in all of 2007. AP has more.

The Observer's editorial on the situation in Afghanistan points out that the poppy crop this year will be a bumper one, that the Afghanistan government is riddled with corruption, that billions in foreign aid have made little difference (and that they may have been embezzled), and that more foreign troops in the country is unlikely to be the solution.

Remnants of the old Taliban met recently. They are making a united front in the Pushtun areas against outsiders.

Foreign radical vigilantes have been flooding into Afghanistan.

Check out Barnett Rubin's recent entries on Afghanistan.

The USG Open Source Center translates a report in Dari Persian on a parliamentarian and two close observers from Afghanistan who entertain the severest doubts about Barack Obama's plan to send more US troops to Afghanistan.

Afghan Observers Sceptical of Senator Obama's Plan To Send More Troops
Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran External Service
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Document Type: OSC Translated Text

An Afghan parliamentarian has criticized one of the US presidential candidates for his plan to deploy more troops in Afghanistan. Elaborating on his foreign policy this week, Barack Obama said that as president, he would send two more US combat brigades to the Afghan theatre.

According to a report (source indistinct) from Kabul, Afghan MP Kabir Ranjbar asserted on Friday that increasing the number of US and other foreign servicemen would not help Afghanistan at all.
Wahid Mozhda, another Afghan political observer, has also warned that the Obama's plan to deploy up to 10,000 additional troops will worsen the situation in Afghanistan. This Afghan observer states according to this plan, the US is trying to resolve the problem through military measures, which is obviously not an effective strategy.

In addition, Mr Fahim Dashti, a journalist and observer, has said that the US government officials have decided to increase troops in Afghanistan, at a time when they have failed to defeat remnants of the Taliban and Al-Qa'ida in this country. Fahim Dashti says sending additional US and other foreign troops to Afghanistan will cause more problems in the long term, because it may antagonize the people's anti-American feelings. The Afghan analyst accentuated that countries like the USA should organize and equip the Afghan native forces, including the national army and police, as soon as possible if they really want to put an end to insecurity in Afghanistan.

(Description of Source: Mashhad Voice of the Islamic Republic of Iran External Service in Dari -- Iranian government-run radio)

Bush has agreed in all but name with Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki on a timetable for US troop withdrawal from that country. As usual Bush's staff made up an implausible euphemism for the timetable, calling it a "time horizon" for "aspirational goals?" Language like that is a sure sign that Bush is too embarrassed to call it like it is.

Al-Maliki has gotten enormous pressure from the grand ayatollahs in Najaf and from the Sadr Movement not to sign away Iraqi sovereignty in making a status of forces agreement (SOFA) with the US. Al-Maliki is said to have despaired of getting a SOFA past the Iraqi parliament, since the MPs demand a timetable for US withdrawal. He will instead initial a Memorandum of Understanding with the Bush administration. Al-Maliki and Bush hope this MOU will take on the force of law even though no legislature in either country will have passed it.

So Bush has thrown al-Maliki the lifeline of a few euphemisms. But a time horizon is just a fancy way of saying "timetable."

The Sadrists are already angry about al-Maliki's crackdown on them, and they demonstrate weeklly against the SOFA.

Bush probably wants US troops in Iraq because they help nail down energy contracts between the US and Iraqi concerns. Without 140,000 troops in the country, the Iraqis would not have a good reason to favor US concerns like Hunt over China's Sinopec or Russia's Lukoil (see the next item).

The Pan-Arab daily, al_Hayat, said that the euphemist language was a compromise on Bush's part.

The USG Open Source Center summarizes Russian press comment on the Gazprom deals with Libya and Iran. The deal with Iran is extremely important because if it goes forward, it would require Russia to tangle with US economic sanctions.

OSC Report: Russian Media View Implcations of Gazprom Deals With Libya, Iran
Russia -- OSC Report . . .
Friday, July 18, 2008

Russian Media View Implications of Gazprom Deals With Libya, Iran The Russian gas monopoly Gazprom held substantive talks with Libya and signed a memorandum of understanding with Iran, adding two more participants to its policy of geographical diversification of gas and oil sources. Many Russian media harked back to the idea of a "gas OPEC" and also pointed out that Gazprom's cooperation with the two countries made Europe's search for alternative energy suppliers much more difficult. While some media saw a chance for Russia to fill the void left by Western oil companies' decisions to pullout of Iran, others commented that the agreements were more political than economic and might not be carried out. . .

On 13 July, Gazprom signed a memorandum of understanding with the National Iranian Oil Company, with some provisions similar to the agreement reached with Libya. The two companies proposed a joint venture for exploration and development of gas and oil fields in Iran, and to build refining and transport facilities in Russia, Iran, and "third countries."

Some media hypothesized that the new cooperation agreement smight resurrect the idea of an international gas cartel similar to OPEC.

. Elite-oriented Gazeta opined that Russian-Iraniancooperation in producing gas "could lead to creation of a gas analog to OPEC" (14 July) . .


Many media opined that Gazprom's control over Libyan and possibly Iranian gas and oil exports would make Europe even more dependent onthe Russian company.

. Independent daily Nezavisimaya Gazeta stated that Gazprom had Europe "in a vise," expanding into areas like Africa, whichE urope had traditionally regarded as an alternative to Russian supplies."Europe risks being completely dependent on Gazprom," the paper predicted (15 July).

. Business Internet publication RBCdaily cited Kapitalcompany analyst Vitaliy Kryukov, who noted that Gazprom's strengthened positioncaused "a negative reaction in the world community" (10 July). . .

Government daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta recalled that the EU had viewed Libyan resources as an alternative to Russian supplies, butdue to Gazprom's deal with Libya, EU companies "trading with Libya willstill have to deal with Gazprom as a middleman" (11 July). . .

. Gazeta cited experts' opinions that Gazprom "had every chance to occupy the freed-up spot" formerly held by the French companyTotal (11 July).

. The oil and gas industry Internet site Novosti TEK, commenting on the Western companies leaving Iran, noted that Gazprom was "the only company which doesn't fear political instability in Iran" (16 July).

Some media and commentatorsexpressed doubt that the deal with Iran would be successful.

. Influential daily Kommersant cited Mikhail Korchemkin,director of East European Gas Analysis, who called the Gazprom-Iranian OilCompany memorandum a "political document" that would remain "onpaper" until the situation in Iran "changes profoundly" (15 July).

. biGness.ru quoted Troyka Dialog analyst Valeriy Nesterov,who pointed out that "concrete actions do not always follow memoranda ofcooperation," recalling many such memoranda Gazprom had signed with Westerncompanies that "were not fully carried out or not carried out at all"(15 July).

Vitaliy Portnikov, writing in the independent Internet site Politkom.ru,likened the situation in Iran to that in Iraq, where Russia's Lukoil had signedcontracts with Saadam Husayn only to lose out to Western companies when hisregime toppled. He suggested that if the situation in Iran stabilized, theleadership would again invite Western investors and Gazprom would be the loser (15 July). '

"Observer," one of Syria Comment's keenest commentators, sent in this note on his recent trip to Syria. He writes:

I just returned from a trip to Europe and Syria with a short stay in Lebanon as well. Here are my observations

1. The Syrian regime never felt any significant pressure from being so called isolated. As long as the foundations of the regime remain stable and strong, they do not care one bit whether tourists come or stay home, investments flow in or out, and so on and so forth.

2. The state which I felt a mere three years ago was going towards a failed situation has recovered well. Infrastructure is being built and more importantly being maintained and repaired. It is by no means similar to what a first world country does, but it is a remarkable improvement.

3. The public is happy with stability and disgruntled with nepotism and corruption. If the last two items are tackled the populace will rally behind the regime even more

4. The ability to absorb and manage the near 2 million refugees from Iraq is a feat to be absolutely commended. Some are doing well having brought money and invested in local business, others are quite poor and destitute but still not hungry and all are sheltered.

5. The price of commodities has people unhappy but I saw much fewer begging than before and certainly a lot less than what I saw in Prague.

6. The alliance with Iran is unbreakable, the two countries have mutual investment and military and economic ties that will be near impossible to break short of a real threat of regime change.

7. The military is transformed into a more efficient force, although still in conventional terms no match for Israel, training is being conducted day and night. I happen to have stayed near an army shooting range and I could hear the firing both days and nights.

8. The KSA invested 1.5 billion dollars and with the Jordanian secret service trained the Hariri militia into a state that was completely destroyed in less than four hours by HA with the full awareness and even help from Syria as they poured 600 highly loyal and very well trained Druze into the Shouf mountains to put Walik Bek in his place while at the same time helping fully with the Alawite community near Tripoli.

9. In Paris, Assad got all he wanted, cooperation, recognition, while not committing to anything substantial and at the same time snubbing Olmert and more importantly Mubarak.

10. The Lebanese may opt for partition of the country if encouraged and helped by France and the US to avoid having the state de Jure that is non present, be controlled by the non-state but active HA. This will be a disaster for the country, especially since the Foreign policy of France is being conducted by impulsive Sarko le premier.

11. The entire south and the Dahyia has been fully rebuilt with Iranian help. The transformation is absolutely remarkable.

12. In Iraq, the US have stabilized the situation somewhat by doing essentially what Saddam did all along. Fear, co-opt some, bribe some, pay some, and divide some. Outside of the Green zone, there is really no true government but warlords, gangs, bandits, factions, and the like. Iran has essentially played a major role in stabilizing Iraq by having its hand in with every faction except the hard line Sunnis. Here Syria has been able to help due to the ties between the two Baath party factions.

13. Europe is tired of competing, and the population is fully frazzled at having to work harder, longer, and in a more frantic way than ever before. The elite have a vision of Europe equal to that of the US in all measures and the population see an incompetent parasitic bureaucracy that is out of touch with reality.

14. Returning to the US, I see that the public here is so oblivious to what the rest of the world is doing that it is truly amazing. In terms of energy efficiency every toilet has a water sparing system and every lighting is motion activated to reduce energy costs in every place I went to even in Syria and here we are still refusing to see the train coming down the track full speed ahead at us. The deer in the headlight is an apt description.

15. Finally the consensus in the ME from the 2006 war is that the Israeli public and the Israeli society have moved into a stage of development that they no longer are willing to fight. 3000 HA fighters fought to a standstill 30 000 Israelis. I wish you could see the pictures of Nasrallah in the region to have an idea of the depth of popularity that he enjoys.

The New Israel and the Old: Why Gentile Americans Back the Jewish State
Walter Russell Mead
From Foreign Affairs, July/August 2008

Summary:  The real key to Washington's pro-Israel policy is long-lasting and broad-based support for the Jewish state among the American public at large.

WALTER RUSSELL MEAD is Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy at the Council on Foreign Relations and the author, most recently, of God and Gold: Britain, America, and the Making of the Modern World.

Listen to this essay on CFR.org

On May 12, 1948, Clark Clifford, the White House chief counsel, presented the case for U.S. recognition of the state of Israel to the divided cabinet of President Harry Truman. While a glowering George Marshall, the secretary of state, and a skeptical Robert Lovett, Marshall's undersecretary, looked on, Clifford argued that recognizing the Jewish state would be an act of humanity that comported with traditional American values. To substantiate the Jewish territorial claim, Clifford quoted the Book of Deuteronomy: "Behold, I have set the land before you: go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give unto them and to their seed after them."

Marshall was not convinced and told Truman that he would vote against him in the upcoming election if this was his policy. Eventually, Marshall agreed not to make his opposition public. Two days later, the United States granted the new Jewish state de facto recognition 11 minutes after Israel declared its existence as a state. Many observers, both foreign and domestic, attributed Truman's decision to the power of the Jewish community in the United States. They saw Jewish votes, media influence, and campaign contributions as crucial in the tight 1948 presidential contest.

Since then, this pattern has often been repeated. Respected U.S. foreign policy experts call for Washington to be cautious in the Middle East and warn presidents that too much support for Israel will carry serious international costs. When presidents overrule their expert advisers and take a pro-Israel position, observers attribute the move to the "Israel lobby" and credit (or blame) it for swaying the chief executive. But there is another factor to consider. As the Truman biographer David McCullough has written, Truman's support for the Jewish state was "wildly popular" throughout the United States. A Gallup poll in June 1948 showed that almost three times as many Americans "sympathized with the Jews" as "sympathized with the Arabs." …………. (Read the rest: New Israel)

A Cast of 300 Advises Obama on Foreign Policy (NYT): "Dennis Ross, the Middle East envoy for Mr. Clinton and the first President Bush and a member of the Obama campaign’s Middle East team, is frequently asked by Ms. Rice, Mr. Lake or Mr. McDonough for help on framing Mr. Obama’s comments on Iran’s nuclear program and its potential threat to Israel.

“They’ve asked for substantive help: ‘Can I take a look at language on Iran?’ ” Mr. Ross said. “Or sometimes I’ve been asked questions to explain the administration’s approach on Iran.” Mr. Ross participated in a conference call last week with Mr. Obama and other advisers to prepare for the senator’s foreign trip, and he will travel with Mr. Obama in Israel and the West Bank city of Ramallah and at other stops. Mr. Ross described Mr. Obama in the conference call as focused on “drilling down” into the issues on the trip."

Why John Bolton is Right on Iran, by Gary Sick at Rootless Cosmopolitan by Tony Karon

Sanctions Fail to Cripple Iran's Oil Industry
U.S. Tries Squeeze But Fears Tehran Is Buying Time
By CHIP CUMMINS in Dubai and ROSHANAK TAGHAVI in Tehran
July 18, 2008

Sanctions Fail to Cripple Iran's Oil Industry
U.S. Tries Squeeze But Fears Tehran Is Buying Time
By CHIP CUMMINS in Dubai and ROSHANAK TAGHAVI in Tehran
July 18, 2008

As Iran prepares to hold nuclear talks this weekend with Europe and the U.S., economic sanctions are crimping Tehran's oil industry — but they haven't
broken it.

War*Piece. Via FLC

"A colleague writes, "Everyone seems to have missed the obvious: The State Department's third man is going to [talk with] Iran to send oil prices down. I'm sure Paulson told Bush this was the only way to stop a panic." Almost certainly part of it. (And is it working?)

Indeed, a US official involved with Iran policy wrote me a couple weeks back that high oil prices had severely crimped their policy: "It’s clear that the two-track policy put in place a number of years ago (incentives vs. sanctions) has been overtaken somewhat by the unforeseeable and dramatic rise in oil prices. Iran’s GDP has doubled, and they are more isolated from the effects of economic sanctions. At the same time the Iranians have made significant progress on enrichment. There are many, many more economic sanctions in the quiver, but we have carefully resisted imposing economic sanctions, unilaterally or multilaterally, that would significantly affect the Iranian people. Our goal remains an Iran without nuclear weapons, and our strategy remains the two-track approach. In light of the rise in oil prices and Iran’s enrichment achievements, the interim objectives that the two-track strategy should be aiming to achieve is something everyone is looking at, and there is no question that there is a way forward. …"

Sham Holding wins contract to build a private electrical power plant that will sell its electricity to the government. Although this article (in Arabic: Syria-News) proposes that this new method of financing and building a power plant in Syria constitutes the mobilization of home-grown capital and talent to solve the nation's problems, some questions are left unanswered. No mention is made of how the contract was awarded. Syria needs an improved and steady supply of electricity, no doubt. The country is moving away from the strict state-controlled model of the socialist era. It has been reluctant to sell state assets; however, many new Syrian oil companies, electrical power plants, and other large infrastructural investments, such as road building, are being handed over to private investors. Because some of those investors have strong ties to the state, the transition is not to a strictly free market model.

Israel Advises Nasrallah to Stay in Hiding