Author Archives: Paul Woodward

OPINION: The Muslim Brotherhood is not at odds with its democratic rivals

The Muslim Brotherhood will stand up for all Egyptians
By Ibrahim El Houdaiby, The Forward, September 26, 2007

In her opinion article, [Mona] Eltahawy criticizes the Muslim Brotherhood’s leader, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, for calling her “naked” because she was wearing a short-sleeved T-shirt and pants. I could not agree more with her.

Not wearing the hijab, or headscarf, makes a woman unveiled, not naked. I realize how offensive it is to call someone “naked” for not wearing a headscarf, and I find Akef’s comment unjustifiable.

To be clear, I support Akef’s stance on wearing the hijab, and like him view it as a religious obligation. There has been consensus on that among Islamic scholars for centuries.

Yet this has got nothing to do with the Muslim Brotherhood as a political group. While we believe that wearing the hijab is an obligation, we believe it is an individual woman’s choice to uphold it — a choice that the state should not interfere in. [complete article]

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Barghouti’s chance to become Palestinian president; Saudi’s quest for diplomatic cover; IDF killings in Gaza

The next Palestinian president?
By Dion Nissenbaum, Checkpoint Jerusalem, September 26, 2007

Barghouti has something Abbas never will: Respect on “the street,” with Hamas leaders and among the political elite.

From his prison cell, Barghouti has worked to establish himself as a diplomat. He routinely issues statements calling for Palestinian unity. He helped draft a platform signed by prisoners across the political spectrum that helped lay the groundwork for the now-fractured PA unity government. And politicians regularly seek his advice and counsell.

But he has never been tested as a politician on the world stage, and there are serious doubts about Barghouti’s abilities as a diplomat and negotiator.

Still, the options are limited. Fatah’s old leadership is largely discredited and viewed as corrupt. Barghouti represents the new guard that has a chance to start with a cleaner slate.

When Israel thought it was in its interests, it has freed people like Barghouti before. The fact that the idea is being floated again suggests that Israeli leaders understand that the idea of freeing Barghouti should be in play. [complete article]

Saudi asks Israel to abandon barrier as a gesture to Arabs
By Helene Cooper, New York Times, September 27, 2007

Israel should stop work on a security barrier in and along the West Bank and halt settlement activity there as a good-will gesture to assure Arab states that it is serious about comprehensive peace talks, Saudi Arabia’s foreign minister said yesterday.

The minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, stopped short of making his demand a condition for Arab attendance at a planned Middle East peace conference. And he said that in recent days, he had become encouraged about the prospects for the conference, which the United States is to sponsor in November. But he would not promise that Saudi Arabia would attend, a major Israeli objective. [complete article]

Israel kills 12 Palestinians in Gaza in 24 hours
By Adel Zaanoun, AFP, September 27, 2007

The Israeli military killed three Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip on Thursday, bringing to 12 the death toll in one of the bloodiest 24 hours in the Hamas-run territory in recent months.

The escalation, in which another 21 people were wounded, followed a warning by Israeli Defence Minister Ehud Barak that the clock was ticking down to a widescale military operation in Gaza aimed at curbing near daily rocket fire. [complete article]

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Myanmar’s Saffron Revolution

Bush astounds activists, supports human rights
By William Douglas, McClatchy, September 25, 2007

President Bush implored the United Nations on Tuesday to recommit itself to restoring human decency by liberating oppressed people and ending famine and disease.

Speaking before the United Nations General Assembly, the president called for renewed efforts to enforce the U.N.’s Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a striking point of emphasis for a leader who’s widely accused of violating human rights in waging war against terrorism.

Bush didn’t mention the U.S. prisons in Afghanistan or at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, the U.S. practice of holding detainees for years without legal charges or access to lawyers, or the CIA’s “rendition” kidnappings of suspects abroad, all issues of concern to human rights activists around the world. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — Bush, the champion of democracy, now the defender of human rights — all he has succeeded in doing is to underline the bankruptcy of American presidential authority and his own ability to devalue language.

Burma’s question
By Aung Zaw, Open Democracy, September 26, 2007

Amid the rhetoric in the outside world, the regime is confident that it can continue to ignore critical world opinion. It is reinforced in this stance by China and India as well its other, smaller neighbours, whose desire to maintain lucrative trade deals and exploit Burma’s natural resources override any interest in the junta’s brutal suppression of its own people.

China lends active political support to the regime, and in 2006 teamed with Russia to shoot down a US initiative to bring the Burma issue to the UN Security Council. India shamed its reputation as the world’s largest democracy by flattering the generals in hope of winning contracts to buy Burmese gas and supply the regime with armaments. [complete article]

Buddha vs the barrel of a gun
By Pepe Escobar, Asia Times, September 27, 2007

US sanctions are just for internal American consumption; they will have absolutely no impact. For starters, Myanmar is not under a military embargo. A really different story, for instance, would be the Bush administration telling the Chinese to drop the junta, otherwise no US athletes will be seen at the Beijing Summer Olympics next year. London bookies wouldn’t even start a bet on it. The French for their part now say they fear a terrible crackdown – but in fact they fear what happens to substantial oil business by French energy giant Total. The European Union should have a unified position, but for the moment that is hazier than sunrise at the sublime Shwedagon Pagoda in the heart of Yangon.

This year China vetoed a UN Security Council resolution condemning the junta’s human-rights record. It’s virtually impossible that the collective leadership in Beijing will let one of its neighbors, a key pawn in the 21st-century energy wars, be swamped by non-violent Buddhists and pro-democracy students – as this would constitute a daring precedent for the aspirations of Tibetans, the Uighurs in Xinjiang and, most of all, Falungong militants all over China, the embryo of a true rainbow-revolution push defying the monopoly of the Chinese Communist Party. [complete article]

Monks’ protests put pressure on junta
By Amy Kazmin, Financial Times, September 25, 2007

Gen Than Shwe and Burma’s other rulers have long appeared dangerously out of touch with the sentiments and struggles of the population, heightening the chances of a miscalculation.

Gen Than Shwe is also famously hostile towards Aung San Suu Kyi, making it highly unlikely he would enter into any kind of negotiations with her now.

Some younger Burmese officers are thought to favour an accommodation with Ms Suu Kyi, raising the prospect of an internal military shake-up that could see more flexible, pragmatic leaders come to the fore.

Diplomats say internal army tensions and rivalries are such that any newly emergent leaders may not feel sufficiently confident of their position to deal directly with a figure that the military has so long sought to demonise. Yet ultimately, Ms Suu Kyi, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, may hold the only key for the generals to find a peaceful way out.

“It’s very sure that the forthcoming scenario will be a compromise between the military and Aung San Suu Kyi,” says one Burmese scholar, who asked not to be identified. “Whether they like it or not, there is no choice. The situation is demanding it. For their own benefit, they have to compromise with ‘The Lady’, or they will pay the price.” [complete article]

Eyewitness reports from bloggers inside Burma
By Tom Whipple and Thant Zin, The Times, September 26, 2007

With the Burmese government restricting visas to foreign journalists, and all internal media controlled by the state, the internet provides one of the few routes left for getting eyewitness reports from inside Burma to the outside world. Despite rumours that the junta intends to close down internet access, a few brave bloggers continue to report their experiences. [complete article]

NEWS: North Korea objects to US-Israeli nuclear hypocrisy; Israel lobbies to import nuclear material; Texas forms alliance with Israel

North Korea accuses US of helping Israel develop nuclear weapons
AP, September 25, 2007

North Korea accused the United States on Tuesday of actively providing nuclear weapons assistance to Israel while seeking to deprive other countries of the right to peaceful nuclear programs. [complete article]

Documents show Israel lobbying to import nuclear material
AP, September 26, 2007

Israel is looking to a U.S.-India nuclear deal to expand its own ties to suppliers, quietly lobbying for an exemption from nonproliferation rules so it can legally import atomic material, according to documents made available Tuesday to The Associated Press.

The move is sure to raise concerns among Arab nations already considering their neighbor the region’s atomic arms threat. Israel has never publicly acknowledged having nuclear weapons, but is generally considered to possess them. [complete article]

Texas governor announces establishment of Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce
AP, September 26, 2007

Gov. Rick Perry announced on Tuesday the establishment of the Texas-Israel Chamber of Commerce, an agency meant to foster economic exchange and academic collaboration between the two.

Perry also said he has asked the directors of the Employees Retirement System and Teachers Retirement System to divest their funds from companies doing business with Iran. The governor said Texans will not condone Iran’s support of terrorism.

“I personally believe that any company that does business with Iran is actively assisting those who seek to harm American men and women who are serving in the Middle East and funds terror attacks on our allies in the region,” Perry said.

“And so, today, as we usher in a new era of relations between Texas and Israel, we speak of a grand vision of a world where terror is defeated by kinship, economic partnerships create new opportunity and people are free to work and live in peace,” he added. [complete article]

Editor’s Comment — And when will Texas lead the way and establish its own embassy in Jerusalem?

FEATURE: Little relief in sight for millions of displaced Iraqis

No going back
By Nir Rosen, Boston Review, September/October, 2007

The international response to the refugee crisis was extremely weak until recently, and it’s not at all clear that it is sufficient now. In June the International Organization for Migration, one of the main American NGOs, issued an appeal for $85 million over two years, but it has not received even half of that amount. The UN, for its part, has significantly expanded its presence in the region. Since 2006 United Nations High Commissioner on Refugees (UNHCR) increased its budget from $23 million to $123 million. UNHCR has also issued a common appeal with UNICEF to raise $129 million to fund education for refugees. Other UN agencies have become more active, including the World Food Program. The United States traditionally funds approximately 25 percent of UNHCR appeals across the world. In Iraq it is doing the same, responding to this crisis the way it would to any other. But this is not any other crisis. It is an American-made humanitarian catastrophe. And the presence or absence of U.S. troops committed to a military mission for however many months or years is irrelevant to that problem.

One explanation for why the international community has been slow to act is that is has been waiting for U.S. leadership. But for the U.S. to acknowledge the size and seriousness of the humanitarian disaster in Iraq would be to admit that the recent troop “surge” is not working. According to a senior UN official, “the U.S. government doesn’t want to admit there is a refugee problem because it is a sign of failure.” It would also mean acknowledging that a massive process of ethnic cleansing has taken place under the watch of the U.S.-backed government—indeed, that it has been perpetrated by the Iraqi government’s own security forces. Iraq’s Christian and Sabean minorities were decimated and have left for good. Baghdad, now cleansed and controlled by Shias, is irrevocably a Shia city, and its former Sunni-majority neighborhoods are ghost towns. [complete article]

NEWS: Mercenaries hurt the war effort; State Dept. shields Blackwater; insurgents launch assassination campaign against Iraq’s Interior Ministry

New study: private security firms hurt U.S. mission in Iraq
By Spencer Ackerman, TPMmuckraker, September 26, 2007

A forthcoming study by private-military contractor expert P.W. Singer obtained by TPMmuckraker finds that Blackwater and other private security firms in Iraq are detrimental to U.S. counterinsurgency efforts.

Singer, author of the landmark book Corporate Warriors: The Rise of the Privatized Military Industry, goes beyond the current Blackwater imbroglio to criticize the entire system for security contracting in Iraq. He finds that even though private military firms represent a hindrance to counterinsurgency objectives, the privatization boom beginning in the 1980s has left the U.S. military functionally dependent on the companies for numerous combat operations and logistics tasks. Private military companies have become “the ultimate enabler” for military commitments, Singer writes in “Can’t Win With ‘Em, Can’t Go To War Without ‘Em: Private Military Contractors and Counter-Insurgency,” allowing a politically cost-free way for the U.S. to go to war in Iraq without a massive call-up of reserve forces. [complete article]

Blackwater inquiry blocked by State Dept., official says
By James Risen, New York Times, September 26, 2007

The Democratic chairman of a House committee complained Tuesday that the State Department was blocking his panel’s efforts to investigate the private security firm Blackwater USA and its operations in Iraq.

The department described the situation as a “misunderstanding.”

In a letter to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, the chairman of the House Oversight Committee, wrote that the State Department had prevented Blackwater from cooperating.

“Blackwater has informed the committee that a State Department official directed Blackwater not to provide documents relevant to the committee’s investigation into the company’s activities in Iraq without the prior written approval of the State Department,” Mr. Waxman’s letter stated. The letter was made available to the news media on Tuesday. [complete article]

Sunni insurgents in new campaign to kill officials
By Alissa J. Rubin, New York Times, September 26, 2007

Sunni Arab extremists have begun a systematic campaign to assassinate police chiefs, police officers, other Interior Ministry officials and tribal leaders throughout Iraq, staging at least 10 attacks in 48 hours.

Eight policemen have been killed, among them the police chief of Baquba, the largest city in Diyala Province. Two other police chiefs survived attacks, though one was left in critical condition, and about 30 police officers were wounded, according to reports from local security officers.

“We warned the government just a few days ago that there is a new plan by terrorist groups to target senior governmental officials, and particularly Interior Ministry officials,” said Maj. Gen. Hussein Kamal, the deputy interior minister for information and national investigations. The Interior Ministry is dominated by Shiites. [complete article]

NEWS & ANALYSIS: Talking to the Taliban; Karzai loses friends; Al Qaeda’s coalition plans to take over Pakistan

Taleban ‘needed for Afghan peace’
BBC News, September 26, 2007

The Taleban “will need to be involved” at some stage with a peace process in Afghanistan, UK Defence Secretary Des Browne has said.

At a fringe meeting at the Labour Party conference, he said a solution would have to be “Islamic based”.

Mr Browne said Taleban involvement would happen “because they are not going away” any more than Hamas was from the Palestinian territories. [complete article]

In Afghanistan, anger in parliament grows as Karzai defies majority’s wishes
By Kirk Semple, New York Times, September 26, 2007

In May, the lower house of the Afghan Parliament voted overwhelmingly to oust the country’s foreign minister on the grounds of incompetence. In a different time and place, the matter might have been over as quickly as it began.

But this is Afghanistan, still in the tense, halting infancy of a new democratic era. And more than four months after the vote, much to the anger of the parliamentary majority, the minister remains in his post, protected by the man who appointed him: President Hamid Karzai.

Mr. Karzai said the vote was illegal and motivated simply by politics. The legislators have accused the president of snubbing the Constitution and undermining the democratic foundations of the republic.

The dispute is the most serious manifestation of the long-simmering tension between the Karzai administration and the warlords and former mujahedeen in the legislature, who want more control over policy making. It threatens to bring Parliament to a halt and pitch Afghanistan into a political crisis. [complete article]

Military brains plot Pakistan’s downfall
By Syed Saleem Shahzad, Asia Times, September 26, 2007

The Saudis are concerned that should their erstwhile son bin Laden succeed in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia would be one of the next logical targets. So a joint strategy was devised to confront the threat.

According to a witness who spoke to Asia Times Online, last month a Saudi consul visited North Waziristan in the first such interaction with the al-Qaeda command since the US invasion on Afghanistan in 2001. The consul was meant to meet Zawahiri or bin Laden, but he was not allowed to see them and instead met second-tier al-Qaeda leaders. [complete article]

ANALYSIS: Elections in Lebanon

All power to the weak in Lebanon
By Sami Moubayed, Asia Times, September 27, 2007

Lebanon’s Parliament on Tuesday postponed the first stage in electing a new president after a Hezbollah boycott. If legislators do manage to complete the process – despite the mountainous obstacles – it will be the first real election in Lebanon since the country erupted into civil war in 1975.

Parliament’s 127 deputies will now vote next month on who should replace pro-Syrian President Emile Lahoud, whose term ends on November 23. Parliament has until then to finalize the issue, though there is disagreement over just how this should be done to get a new man in Baabda Palace.

Lebanese politics is sharply polarized into two camps, which refuse to back down. On another level, the contenders are divided Lebanon caught in a proxy war between the great powers. [complete article]

EDITORIAL: Ahmadinejad’s free speech

Ahmadinejad’s free speech
By Paul Woodward, War in Context, September 25, 2007

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did something yesterday that neither President Bush nor Vice-President Cheney have the courage to do: stand up and speak in front of an unfriendly college audience. How can America’s leaders claim that they are defending freedom when they are so clearly afraid of it?

In the Bush-Cheney lexicon, “free speech” is something that can be confined to a zone out of earshot and out of sight; it is something whose value is cathartic rather than political. They regard free speech as a form of free expression that serves the psychological needs of the individual rather than the political needs of a healthy democracy.

America has over the last six years become infected by this impoverished view of free speech. It is a right that seemingly only benefits those who exercise it, while society merely tolerates its performance. Thus, as he introduced President Ahmadinejad, Columbia president Lee Bollinger wanted to assure the nation that no one in his illustrious university was in jeopardy of being influenced by anything that Iran’s president might say. Continue reading →

FEATURE: The faultline in American democracy

‘The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy’ – Chapter One
By John J. Mearsheimer and Stephen M. Walt, New York Times, September 23, 2007

America is about to enter a presidential election year. Although the outcome is of course impossible to predict at this stage, certain features of the campaign are easy to foresee. The candidates will inevitably differ on various domestic issues-health care, abortion, gay marriage, taxes, education, immigration-and spirited debates are certain to erupt on a host of foreign policy questions as well. What course of action should the United States pursue in Iraq? What is the best response to the crisis in Darfur, Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Russia’s hostility to NATO, and China’s rising power? How should the United States address global warming, combat terrorism, and reverse the erosion of its international image? On these and many other issues, we can confidently expect lively disagreements among the various candidates.

Yet on one subject, we can be equally confident that the candidates will speak with one voice. In 2008, as in previous election years, serious candidates for the highest office in the land will go to considerable lengths to express their deep personal commitment to one foreign country-Israel-as well as their determination to maintain unyielding U.S. support for the Jewish state. Each candidate will emphasize that he or she fully appreciates the multitude of threats facing Israel and make it clear that, if elected, the United States will remain firmly committed to defending Israel’s interests under any and all circumstances. None of the candidates is likely to criticize Israel in any significant way or suggest that the United States ought to pursue a more evenhanded policy in the region. Any who do will probably fall by the wayside. [complete article]

NEWS: Talking to Hamas

Israeli writers urge talks with Hamas
By Dion Nissenbaum, Checkpoint Jerusalem, September 24, 2007

Ever since Hamas won control of the Palestinian Authority 20 months ago, there have been isolated calls from well-respected figures for Israel to talk to the Islamist movement that spearheaded the dispiriting suicide bombing campaign of the second intifada.

Among those who have urged talks with Hamas: Former Mossad leader Efraim Halevy and former U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Now, a group of prominent Israeli intellectuals is joining the call.

A.B. Yehoshua, Amos Oz, and David Grossman have all signed a petition urging Israel to negotiate a cease fire with Hamas to stop the near-daily volleys of Qassam rockets being fired into southern Israel from the Gaza Strip. [complete article]

See also, On the way to a pariah state (Carlo Strenger).

OPINION: The age of irresponsibility

How Bush has created a moral vacuum in Iraq in which Americans can kill for free
By Michael Hirsh, Newsweek, September 20, 2007

Imagine a universe where a man can gun down women and children anytime he pleases, knowing he will never be brought to justice. A place where morality is null and void, and arbitrary killing is the rule. A place that has been imagined hitherto only in nightmarish dystopian fiction, like “1984,” or in fevered passages from Dostoevsky—or which existed during the Holocaust and Stalinist purges and the Dark Ages. Well, that universe exists today. It is called Iraq. And the man who made it possible is George W. Bush.

The moral vacuum of Iraq—where Blackwater USA guards can kill 10 or 20 Iraqis on a whim and never be prosecuted for it—did not happen by accident. It is yet another example of something the Bush administration could have prevented with the right measures but simply did not bother about as it rushed into invading and occupying another country. With America’s all-volunteer army under strain, the Pentagon and White House knew that regular military cannot be used for guarding civilians. As far back as 2003, then-defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld convened a task force under Undersecretary of Defense David Chu to consider new laws that might be needed to govern the privatization of war. Nothing was done about its recommendations. Then, two days before he left Iraq for good, L. Paul Bremer III, the Coalition Provisional Authority administrator, signed a blanket order immunizing all Americans, because, as one of his former top aides told me, “we wanted to make sure our military, civilians and contractors were protected from Iraqi law.” (No one worried about protecting the Iraqis from us; after all, we still thought of ourselves as the “liberators,” even though by then the worst abuses at Abu Ghraib and other places were known.) [complete article]

FEATURE: A desperate Washington is reaching out to Saddam’s henchmen

How George Bush became the new Saddam
By Patrick Graham, Macleans, September 20, 2007

If you look at recent polls, Shia support for partition runs around two per cent, while the majority, 56 per cent, support a strong centralized state. Some Shias in the south may want to create regional blocks, but this is more an expression of regional culture than sectarianism—they just don’t like Baghdad, the way western Canadians don’t like Ottawa. The Sunnis, for their part, want a unified, centrally controlled government because they view themselves as the country’s natural governing class. In fact, many Sunnis don’t view themselves as Sunni, just Iraqi. This is especially true in Baghdad, where every Sunni I know has a Shia parent or grandparent—until recently class was the primary division in Baghdad, not sect. The Sunnis think of themselves as Iraqi in the way that Torontonians think of themselves as Canadian, not English-Canadian—it’s the other guys who are hyphenated.

The much-repeated line that Iraq is a phony country made up by colonial powers is itself a myth. Indeed, I’m always amazed by the extent of Iraqi nationalism in Arab Iraq, a nationalism that coexists with sectarian suspicions but which is very real. The historian Reidar Visser has written extensively about this, especially the diverse Shia sense of being Iraqi, and the long history of Iraq as a governed unit. But it is too complex an argument to be put forward in the media, and blaming previous colonial governments is easy. As Visser points out, U.S. Democratic party supporters have found the argument for partition to be a convenient solution for a problem they have no clue how to solve, but which makes them sound less clueless and cruel than saying, “Forget the Iraqis, let’s leave.”

But foreign interference in Iraq has greatly exacerbated the divisiveness among the various groups, which were already suffering years of grinding dictatorship under which citizens and sect were played off against each other. The process that began during the Saddam era has now turned into civil war—with outside help. Early on, the American-controlled occupying government created a “Governing Council” organized on sectarian lines, with money being funnelled through various groups according to their “ethno-sectarian” divisions. This only increased existing divisions, and once an actual Iraqi government was elected it governed purely along sectarian lines.

Ironically, the recent American support for Sunni militias is itself a classic Balkan solution to an Iraqi problem. In 1994, the U.S. quietly helped to build up the Croatian army, allowing the Croats to sweep through Serb-held Krajina the following year, viciously cleansing it of the Serbs. The newly pumped-up Croats then acted as a counterbalance to Serbian power; this, in turn, brought Slobodan Milosevic to the table and led to the signing of the Dayton peace accord. Today, the Sunni tribes are the Croats, backed by the U.S. and presenting an increasing military threat to the Shia government, which at some point may have to rely on Iran to defend itself.

To call this “Yugoslav solution” a risky strategy in Iraq is an understatement. Once the Sunnis are free of their own civil war with al-Qaeda, and are no longer wasting their strength fighting U.S. forces, you will see the re-emergence of the same coalition of Sunnis that supported Saddam, but which is increasily allied with the U.S. military. And then? My guess is that there will be a series of well-orchestrated assassinations of Shia government officials, especially in the Interior Ministry, who are viewed as responsible for killing Sunnis and the ethnic cleansing of Baghdad. The U.S. will be unable to stop this, just as in the aftermath of the invasion it was unable to stop the Shia parties from hunting down and killing former Baathists. Nor will there be much incentive for the Americans to step in, since the Sunnis will also target anyone in the government or government-sponsored militias who have close ties to Iran. When Prime Minister Maliki says he’s reluctant to have the tribal militias gain too much power, he knows that the old Saddam cadres of Republican Guards and intelligence officers with a base among the tribal militias in Anbar will be coming into Baghdad for a little payback. It will be a proxy war against Iran, masked by warring sectarian militias. And this is just the kind of problem partitioning the country cannot solve. [complete article]

OPINION: Greenspan’s oil claim in context

How the Bush administration’s Iraqi oil grab went awry
By Dilip Hiro, TomDispatch, September 25, 2007

Here is the sentence in The Age of Turbulence, the 531-page memoir of former Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, that caused so much turbulence in Washington last week: “I am saddened that it is politically inconvenient to acknowledge what everyone knows: the Iraq war is largely about oil.” Honest and accurate, it had the resonance of the Bill Clinton’s election campaign mantra, “It’s the economy, stupid.” But, finding himself the target of a White House attack — an administration spokesman labeled his comment, “Georgetown cocktail party analysis” — Greenspan backtracked under cover of verbose elaboration. None of this, however, made an iota of difference to the facts on the ground.

Here is a prosecutor’s brief for the position that “the Iraq War is largely about oil”:

The primary evidence indicating that the Bush administration coveted Iraqi oil from the start comes from two diverse but impeccably reliable sources: Paul O’Neill, the Treasury Secretary (2001-2003) under President George W. Bush; and Falah Al Jibury, a well-connected Iraqi-American oil consultant, who had acted as President Ronald Reagan’s “back channel” to Iraqi President Saddam Hussein during the Iraq-Iran War of 1980-88. The secondary evidence is from the material that can be found in such publications as the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal. [complete article]

NEWS: GOP turns Gitmo into political asset; court jumps over legal hurdles

Closing Guantanamo lockup looks increasingly unlikely
By Noam N. Levey, Los Angeles Times, September 24, 2007

A lightning rod for international criticism, the U.S. detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, not long ago appeared headed for closure. President Bush and his top advisors said they wanted to shutter the controversial lockup.

But the latest attempt to shut it down is facing collapse: The detention facility has been embraced by many Republicans as a potent political symbol in their quest to seize the terrorism issue ahead of next year’s elections.

GOP presidential candidates have jockeyed to demonstrate their support for the prison. One candidate has called for doubling its use. Another praised the menu and health plan offered to detainees. [complete article]

Court advances military trials for detainees
By William Glaberson, New York Times, September 25, 2007

A special military appeals court, overturning a lower court ruling, on Monday removed a legal hurdle that has derailed war crime trials for detainees at Guantanámo Bay, Cuba.

The ruling allows military prosecutors to address a legal flaw that had ground the prosecutions to a halt. The decision, by a three-judge panel of a newly formed military appeals court, was an important victory for the government in its protracted efforts to begin prosecuting some of the 340 detainees at Guantánamo. [complete article]

OPINION: Bush’s message to Egyptian democrats — you’re on your own

Forsaking the Egyptian free press
By Jackson Diehl, Washington Post, September 24, 2007

Two years ago, political liberalization in Egypt was at the center of Bush’s attention, and Kassem’s newspaper, al-Masri al-Yom (the Daily Egyptian), was at the forefront of a fragile Cairo Spring. With Mubarak under pressure from Washington, Kassem was able to employ journalists who reported critically on domestic issues and secular liberal columnists whose voices had previously been stifled. Other newspapers soon rushed into the gap, some of them aggressively populist. Taboos on criticism of Mubarak and his family were broken. By this year, the new independent press had captured a quarter of overall newspaper circulation, compared with just 3 percent four years ago.

The free press survived even as Mubarak moved methodically to crush other nascent centers of opposition in the past 18 months, including liberal political parties, a movement of judges seeking greater independence for the courts, and the Muslim Brotherhood. But this month, irritated by press speculation about his failing health, the 79-year-old president turned on the newspapers. First, one of the most fiery independent editors, Ibrahim Eissa of the newspaper al-Dustor, was charged by a state prosecutor with disturbing the peace and, even more absurdly, harming Egypt’s economic interests. A trial date was set for Oct. 1.

Two days later, on Sept. 13, Eissa and three other newspaper editors were hauled into court and sentenced to a year in prison for publishing articles critical of Mubarak; his son and presumed heir, Gamal; and other government officials. It was the biggest single assault on the press in Mubarak’s quarter-century in power and one of the worst blows in years to media freedom in the Arabic-speaking world.

Yet there was no reaction from the State Department or the White House, which Kassem once credited with helping to create the space his newspaper occupied. [complete article]

OPINION & NEWS: Listening to Iran

Ganji: “difficult days” for Iranian democracy activists
By Akbar Ganji, Scott MacLeod’s Time blog, September 24, 2007

Far from helping the development of democracy, US policy over the past 50 years has consistently been to the detriment of the proponents of freedom and democracy in Iran. The 1953 coup against the nationalist government of Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadeq and the unwavering support for the despotic regime of the Shah, who acted as America’s gendarme in the Persian Gulf, are just two examples of these flawed policies. More recently the confrontation between various US Administrations and the Iranian state over the past three decades has made internal conditions very difficult for the proponents of freedom and human rights in Iran. Exploiting the danger posed by the US, the Iranian regime has put military-security forces in charge of the government, shut down all independent domestic media, and is imprisoning human rights activists on the pretext that they are all agents of a foreign enemy. The Bush Administration, for its part, by approving a fund for democracy assistance in Iran, which has in fact being largely spent on official institutions and media affiliated with the US government, has made it easy for the Iranian regime to describe its opponents as mercenaries of the US and to crush them with impunity. At the same time, even speaking about “the possibility” of a military attack on Iran makes things extremely difficult for human rights and pro-democracy activists in Iran. No Iranian wants to see what happened to Iraq or Afghanistan repeated in Iran. Iranian democrats also watch with deep concern the support in some American circles for separatist movements in Iran. Preserving Iran’s territorial integrity is important to all those who struggle for democracy and human rights in Iran. We want democracy for Iran and for all Iranians. We also believe that the dismemberment of Middle Eastern countries will fuel widespread and prolonged conflict in the region. In order to help the process of democratization in the Middle East, the US can best help by promoting a just peace between the Palestinians and Israelis, and pave the way for the creation of a truly independent Palestinian state alongside the State of Israel. A just resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict and the establishment of a Palestinian state would inflict the heaviest blow on the forces of fundamentalism and terrorism in the Middle East. [complete article]

U.S. focus on Ahmadinejad puzzles Iranians
By Michael Slackman, New York Times, September 24, 2007

In demonizing Mr. Ahmadinejad, the West has served him well, elevating his status at home and in the region at a time when he is increasingly isolated politically because of his go-it-alone style and ineffective economic policies, according to Iranian politicians, officials and political experts.

Political analysts here say they are surprised at the degree to which the West focuses on their president, saying that it reflects a general misunderstanding of their system.

Unlike in the United States, in Iran the president is not the head of state nor the commander in chief. That status is held by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader, whose role combines civil and religious authority. At the moment, this president’s power comes from two sources, they say: the unqualified support of the supreme leader, and the international condemnation he manages to generate when he speaks up.

“The United States pays too much attention to Ahmadinejad,” said an Iranian political scientist who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of reprisal. “He is not that consequential.” [complete article]

INTERVIEW: The IAEA’s Mohamed ElBaradei

IAEA chief Mohamed ElBaradei says Iran is not a ‘clear and present danger’
Mohamed ElBaradei interviewed by Christopher Dickey, Newsweek, September , 2007

DICKEY: The Israeli airstrike on Syria may have targeted a nuclear facility supplied by North Korea. What do you have on that?

ELBARADEI: We have zilch on that. We would be happy to investigate it if anybody has any information that is nuclear related, but today we have nothing.

Is the speculation about impending military action against Iran hurting or helping efforts at a negotiated settlement?
We still have issues that we need to clarify in Iran. But I don’t see Iran, today, to be a clear and present danger. And our conclusion here is supported by every intelligence assessment I’ve seen that even if Iran has ambitions to develop nuclear weapons [which it denies], it’s still three to eight years away from that. We need to continue to do robust verification. But we do not need to hype the issue. What we need right now is to encourage the moderates in Iran. [complete article]

See also, Iran doesn’t need bomb, leader says (LAT).