Wall Street Journal:Qaeda Aide Believed Dead Drone Attack in Pakistan Said to Have Killed No. 3 Official"killed a little more than a week ago"

Qaeda Aide Believed Dead

Drone Attack in Pakistan Said to Have Killed No. 3 Official

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703406604575279392274902642.html?mod=wsj_india_main

WASHINGTON—Al Qaeda's third in command, who played key roles in a recently foiled terrorist plot against the U.S. and the 2001 terrorist attacks, is believed to have been killed by a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan's tribal areas, potentially dealing a significant blow to the terrorist network.

Sheik Sa'id al-Masri, al Qaeda's chief operating officer, was killed a little more than a week ago, according to two U.S. officials.

"This is the main person who everyone has been looking for," one official said.

The Obama administration has relied heavily on Central Intelligence Agency drone strikes to combat al Qaeda, even as intelligence and White House officials have grown increasingly concerned about the threat of terrorist operatives hiding in plain sight in the U.S. More than 500 militants have been killed in the CIA's drone campaign since President Barack Obama took office.

Mr. Masri, in his mid-50s, is believed to have been a key al Qaeda official behind the plot of Najibullah Zazi, who plead guilty earlier this year to planning to blow up the New York subway. He also provided funds to three of the Sept. 11 hijackers, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Mr. Masri was targeted based on U.S. intelligence tips, and officials had been working to confirm his death when al Qaeda posted a eulogy to him on militant websites on Tuesday, two officials said.

Al Qaeda said in a message to jihadist websites that Mr. Masri's wife, three daughters, his granddaughter and others were also killed, according to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors these websites. U.S. officials didn't confirm that claim late Monday.

"Word is spreading in extremist circles" of Mr. Masri's death, said another U.S. official. "We have strong reason to believe that's true, and that al-Masri was killed recently in Pakistan's tribal areas. In terms of counterterrorism, this would be a big victory."

Mr. Masri is the highest profile al Qaeda leader to have been killed in at least a year and a half, making him the most important al Qaeda militant killed during the Obama administration.

He is the group's main conduit to al Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden and his second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri. In addition to honchoing operations, Mr. Masri also had a hand in the group's finances and operational planning in Afghanistan and other international targets.

Also known as Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, Mr. Masri is an Egyptian who was a founding member of al Qaeda. He is believed to have served jail time with Mr. Zawahiri following the 1981 assasination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat.

His death is "a major blow to al Qaeda," said Bruce Hoffman, a Georgetown University professor who writes extensively on al Qaeda. "He was an emerging star in al Qaeda's firmament and his death will be a grave setback to the organization."

U.S. officials heralded the killing of Mr. Masri as a major counterterrorism victory.

"He was key to al Qaeda's command and control," said a U.S. official. Mr. Masri's death follows those of the group's internal and external operations chiefs in December.

Mr. Masri's death, the official added, shows that Pakistan's tribal areas aren't the safe haven al Qaeda and other militants have believed it to be.

Still, Mr. Hoffman said, al Qaeda has quickly fielded new third in commands in the past. Being al Qaeda's No. 3 is an unlucky post, because that person seems to get killed more frequently than many.

"At least five or six previous al Qaeda 'No. 3s' have been killed and captured in the past eight years," Mr. Hoffman said. "It may be that we are finally depleting its hitherto deep bench of operatives. It is likely though, based on past experience, that a successor is already waiting in the wings."

While U.S. officials believe the al Qaeda eulogy for Mr. Masri to be the final confirmation of his death, there have been militants who were initially believed to be dead who later turned up alive. Rumors circulated in Pakistan in 2008 that Mr. Masri had been killed, but they were never confirmed. Last year, U.S. officials said Ilyas Kashmiri, a militant leader of an al Qaeda affiliate, had been killed, but he later turned up alive.

Los Angeles Times:Al Qaeda's No. 3 believed killed in Pakistan The death of Sheik Said Masri, the terrorist network's operations chief and a relative

Al Qaeda's No. 3 believed killed in Pakistan

The death of Sheik Said Masri, the terrorist network's operations chief and a relative of Osama bin Laden, would be a blow to Al Qaeda. U.S. officials say he was targeted in a drone strike.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-pakistan-masri-20100531,0,4747464.story

Reporting from Washington —

Al Qaeda's third-ranking leader — a close associate and relative by marriage to Osama bin Laden — is believed to have been killed in a U.S. drone strike in Pakistan's tribal region, U.S. officials said.

The death of Sheik Said Masri, an Egyptian who is believed to act as the terrorist network's operational leader, would be the latest blow to Al Qaeda, which has suffered a steady degradation of its leadership and ability to mount attacks since the U.S. stepped up its campaign of missile strikes by unmanned aircraft in Pakistan's tribal region.

"We have strong reason to believe" that Masri is dead, a U.S. official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was discussing intelligence information. "He was key to Al Qaeda's command and control. His death would be a major blow."

» Don't miss a thing. Get breaking news alerts delivered to your inbox.

Masri, also known as Mustafa Abu Yazid, was believed to play a role in most of Al Qaeda's operations, including its finances and its continuing attempts to mount attacks. He is also thought to have been the key conduit to Bin Laden and his No. 2, Ayman Zawahiri, both of whom are thought to play a minimal role in the network's day-to-day activities because of their need to remain in hiding.

"Masri was the group's chief operating officer, with a hand in everything from finances to operational planning," the U.S. official said.

Like some other militant leaders, Masri has been erroneously reported dead in the past. U.S. officials discussed Masri's apparent death Monday after a statement began appearing on extremist websites announcing that he had been killed in Pakistan. It did not confirm how he was killed but said that his wife, three daughters and others were killed at the same time, according to the SITE Institute, a private group that monitors militant websites.

The statement claimed that Masri had been training Al Qaeda operatives to carry out future attacks.

"What he left behind will, with permission from Allah, continue to be generous and copious and to produce heroes and raise generations. His death will only be a severe curse by his life upon the infidels. The response is near."

U.S. officials would not discuss the reports that Masri's family members had been killed in the drone strike. He is thought to have married into Bin Laden's family in the years since the two arrived in Afghanistan.

U.S. officials say they take steps to minimize the risk of civilian deaths, but in cases when a senior Al Qaeda leader is found, they have to decide on firing a missile even if it means causing noncombatant casualties.

Although severely hobbled and relegated to an ever-smaller sanctuary in Pakistan, Al Qaeda has been able to replace leaders killed or captured, though there was no indication Monday who would take over as operations chief. Masri's apparent death followed the demise in Pakistan of two other senior Al Qaeda leaders, Abu Laith al Libi, who was killed in a U.S. missile strike in December, and Hussein Yemeni, who was reported to have died in an attack in Miram Shah in March.

Under severe pressure over the last year, Al Qaeda has formed closer links with Pakistani militant groups, including Tehrik-e-Taliban, a violent organization that U.S. officials say was involved in training and financing the attempted bombing in Times Square this month.

Masri, who is believed to have been 56, had been involved with Islamic extremist movements for nearly 30 years after joining Zawahiri in a radical organization founded in Egypt. He spent three years in prison in connection with the assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and later followed Bin Laden to Sudan and Afghanistan, where he was involved in the planning for the Sept. 11 attacks. A report issued by the 9/11 Commission said that Masri had been among the Al Qaeda leaders who had opposed the hijacking operation.

The U.S. has repeatedly captured or killed Al Qaeda members described as the organization's No. 3 leader since 2001. Masri ascended to the job a few years ago, an official said, and has issued several statements since then promising or taking credit for attacks, including the suicide bombing against a CIA base in Khowst, Afghanistan, last year that killed seven CIA employees and contractors.

Officials would not discuss where the attack occurred in the tribal areas. Many of the U.S. drone strikes are carried out against militants whose identities are not fully known, but the CIA also looks for specific leaders such as Masri whose names are on an approved target list.

After the Times Square attempt, the White House has warned Pakistan that it needs to intensify its effort to crack down on militant groups in the tribal areas. The U.S. has also bluntly warned that it might take action beyond the current drone campaign if there is a successful attack against the U.S. that is traceable to Pakistan.

New York Times: U.S. Believes It Has Killed Al Qaeda No. 3 Leader

U.S. Believes It Has Killed Al Qaeda No. 3 Leader

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2010/05/31/world/asia/international-us-pakistan-usa-qaeda.html?_r=1&hp

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. intelligence agencies believe al Qaeda's No. 3 leader was killed recently in a missile strike in the tribal areas of Pakistan, officials said on Monday.

The CIA has stepped up the pace of unmanned aerial drone attacks, targeting not only high-level al Qaeda and Taliban targets but largely unknown foot soldiers as well.

A U.S. official said Sheikh Sa'id al-Masri, also known as Mustafa Abu al-Yazid, was widely seen as the group's No. 3 figure and its main conduit to leader Osama bin Laden. As al Qaeda's chief operating officer, he had a hand in everything from finances to operational planning.

"We have strong reason to believe ... that al-Masri was killed recently in Pakistan's tribal areas," the official said on condition of anonymity. "In terms of counterterrorism, this would be a big victory."

In March, U.S. officials said a drone strike in Pakistan killed a key al Qaeda planner.

CIA Director Leon Panetta has asserted that attacks against al Qaeda in Pakistan's tribal regions appear to have driven bin Laden and other leaders deeper into hiding, leaving the organization incapable of planning sophisticated operations.

But the White House warned last week of a dangerous "new phase" in the terrorism threat, citing the failed Christmas Day bombing of a U.S. airliner and the botched Times Square car bomb attempt earlier this month.

New York Times: U.N. Report Says Iran Has Fuel for 2 Nuclear Weapons

U.N. Report Says Iran Has Fuel for 2 Nuclear Weapons

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01nuke.html?hp

WASHINGTON — In their last report before the United Nations Security Council votes on sanctions against Iran, international nuclear inspectors declared Monday that Iran has now produced a stockpile of nuclear fuel that experts say would be enough, with further enrichment, to make two nuclear weapons.

The report, by the International Atomic Energy Agency, a branch of the United Nations, appears likely to bolster the Obama administration’s case for a fourth round of economic sanctions against Iran and further diminish its interest in a deal, recently revived by Turkey and Brazil, in which Iran would send a portion of its nuclear stockpile out of the country.

When Iran tentatively agreed eight months ago to ship some of its nuclear material out of the country, the White House said the deal would temporarily deprive Iran of enough fuel to make even a single weapon.

But Iran delayed for months, and the figures contained in the inspectors’ report on Monday indicated that even if Iran now shipped the agreed-upon amount of nuclear material out of the country, it would retain enough for a single weapon, undercutting the American rationale for the deal.

The toughly worded report says that Iran has expanded work at one of its nuclear sites. It also describes, step by step, how inspectors have been denied access to a series of facilities, and how Iran has refused to answer inspectors’ questions on a variety of activities, including what the agency called the “possible existence” of “activities related to the development of a nuclear payload for a missile.”

A spokesman for the White House, Michael Hammer, said in a statement on Monday that the report “clearly shows Iran’s continued failure to comply with its international obligations and its sustained lack of cooperation with the I.A.E.A.” He said the report “underscores that Iran has refused to take any of the steps required of it” by the Security Council or the I.A.E.A.’s board of governors, “which are necessary to enable constructive negotiations on the future of its nuclear program.”

Iran, which insists that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, has said that it has conducted no work on weapons, and argues that the evidence of work on warheads is forged.

Iran’s nuclear progress had been expected to be a central subject at a meeting scheduled for Tuesday at the White House between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. Mr. Netanyahu canceled the visit after a deadly raid by Israeli commandos on ships carrying supplies to Gaza.

But the I.A.E.A. report left hanging the question of whether Israel would ratchet up the pressure on Washington and its allies to show that they can deal with the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran diplomatically. Israeli officials have hinted, but never explicitly threatened, that they would take military action if diplomacy fails and Iran is close to weapons capability.

Administration officials have argued that the combination of the sanctions they expect to come out of the Security Council, along with other sanctions imposed by the United States and its European allies, may change Iran’s calculus. But many inside and outside the administration are highly skeptical.

It has been four years since the Security Council first demanded that Iran cease all enrichment of uranium, citing its efforts to hide its activities and deceive inspectors. The country has openly defied those resolutions, telling inspectors that those demands — along with calls to allow inspectors to visit a series of facilities that could be useful in energy or weapons production — had been “issued illegally and have no legal basis.”

The inspectors reported Monday that Iran has now produced over 5,300 pounds of low-enriched uranium, all of which would have to undergo further enrichment before it could be converted to bomb fuel.

The inspectors reported that Iran had expanded work at its sprawling Natanz site in the desert, where it is raising the level of uranium enrichment up to 20 percent — the level needed for the Tehran Research Reactor, which produces medical isotopes for cancer patients. But it is unclear why Iran is making that investment if it plans to obtain the fuel for the reactor from abroad, as it would under its new agreement with Turkey and Brazil.

Until recently, all of Iran’s uranium had been enriched to only 4 percent, the level needed to run nuclear power reactors. While increasing that to 20 percent purity does not allow Iran to build a weapon, it gets the country closer to that goal. The inspectors reported that Iran had installed a second group of centrifuges — machines that spin incredibly fast to enrich, or purify, uranium for use in bombs or reactors — which could improve its production of the 20 percent fuel.

The inspectors also noted that the agency had finally succeeded in setting up a good monitoring system for the 20 percent work after a rocky start in February, when Iran began raising the enrichment levels. “A new safeguards approach is now being implemented,” the report said.

But the report called the equipment upgrades and the continuing enrichment “contrary to the relevant resolutions of the I.A.E.A.’s Board of Governors and the Security Council.” Both have called on Iran to cease its uranium enrichment because of outstanding questions about Tehran’s intentions. The sanctions, if passed, are intended to compel Iran to comply with that demand by the Security Council.

Last fall, President Obama, along with the leaders of Britain and France, denounced Iran for secretly building a second enrichment plant near the city of Qum, without alerting inspectors until just before the three leaders’ countries announced they had discovered the facility. But curiously, the report suggested that now, with its existence revealed, Iran might be losing interest in it. The report said that Iran had installed no centrifuges in the half-built enrichment facility, which is located inside a mountain near a military base.

Iran has sought to locate many of its nuclear facilities in underground sites so as to lessen their vulnerability to aerial attacks. In the new report, the inspectors said that the Iranians disclosed that a new analytical laboratory planned for construction amid a warren of tunnels at Isfahan “would have the same functions as the existing” unprotected laboratory there.

The report quoted an Iranian letter as saying the second, underground laboratory was needed “to meet security measures.”

New York Times: Israeli Raid Complicates U.S. Ties and Push for Peace[gaza blockade,israeli raid]

Israeli Raid Complicates U.S. Ties and Push for Peace[gaza blockade,israeli raid]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01policy.html?hp

WASHINGTON — Israel’s deadly commando raid on Monday on a flotilla trying to break a blockade of Gaza complicated President Obama’s efforts to move ahead on Middle East peace negotiations and introduced a new strain into an already tense relationship between the United States and Israel.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel canceled plans to come to Washington on Tuesday to meet with Mr. Obama. The two men spoke by phone within hours of the raid, and the White House later released an account of the conversation, saying Mr. Obama had expressed “deep regret” at the loss of life and recognized “the importance of learning all the facts and circumstances” as soon as possible.

While the administration’s public response was restrained, American officials expressed dismay in private over not only the flotilla raid, with its attendant deepening of Israel’s isolation around the world, but also over the timing of the crisis, which comes just as long-delayed American-mediated indirect talks between Israelis and Palestinians were getting under way.

Some foreign policy experts said the episode highlighted the difficulty of trying to negotiate peace with the Palestinian Authority without taking into account an element often relegated to the background: how to deal with Hamas-ruled Gaza. Hamas, the Islamist organization that refuses to recognize Israel’s existence, operates independently of the Palestinian Authority and has rejected any peace talks. Gaza has repeatedly complicated Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations.

“This regrettable incident underscores that the international blockade of Gaza is not sustainable,” Martin S. Indyk, the former United States ambassador to Israel, said Monday. “It helps to stop Hamas attacks on Israelis, but seriously damages Israel’s international reputation. Our responsibility to Israel is to help them find a way out of this situation.”

The Obama administration officially supports the Gaza blockade, as the Bush administration did before it. But Mr. Obama, some aides say, has expressed strong frustration privately with the humanitarian situation in Gaza.

At a time when the United States is increasingly linking its own national security interests in the region to the inability of Israelis and Palestinians to make peace, heightened tensions over Monday’s killings could deepen the divide between the Israeli government and the Obama administration just as Mr. Obama and Mr. Netanyahu were trying to overcome recent differences.

“We’re not sure yet where things go from here,” one administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the diplomatic delicacy of the issue. The White House statement said that Mr. Obama “understood the prime minister’s decision to return immediately to Israel to deal with today’s events” and that they would reschedule their meeting “at the first opportunity.”

No matter what happens, foreign policy experts who advise the administration agreed that if Mr. Obama wanted to move ahead with the peace talks, preceded by the so-called proximity or indirect talks, the flotilla raid demonstrated that he may have to tackle the thornier issue of the Gaza blockade, which has largely been in effect since the takeover of Gaza by Hamas in 2007.

Since then, Israel, the United States and Europe have plowed ahead with a strategy of dealing with the Palestinian Authority, which has control over the West Bank, while largely ignoring Gaza, home to some 1.5 million Palestinians.

Gaza was left with a deteriorating crisis as Hamas refused to yield to Western demands that it renounce violence and recognize Israel.

“You can talk all you want about proximity talks, expend as much energy as Obama has, but if you ignore the huge thorn of Gaza, it will come back to bite you,” said Robert Malley, program director for the Middle East and North Africa with the International Crisis Group.

For the Obama administration, the first order of business may be figuring out a way to hammer out a cease-fire agreement between Israel and Hamas that will end the blockade of Gaza. Several attempts in the past two years to reach such an agreement have come close, but ultimately failed, the last time when the two sides were unable to reach a consensus on the release of an Israeli soldier captured by Hamas, Gilad Shalit.

Mr. Indyk, the director of foreign policy at the Brookings Institution, says that after things cool down, the administration needs to work on a package deal in which Hamas commits to preventing attacks from, and all smuggling into, Gaza. In return, Israel would drop the blockade and allow trade in and out. “That deal would have to include a prisoner swap in which Gilad Shalit is finally freed,” he said.

It was unclear whether the indirect talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority would suffer an immediate delay. George J. Mitchell, the Obama administration envoy to the Middle East, was still planning to attend the Palestine Investment Conference in the West Bank city of Bethlehem on Wednesday and Thursday.

The indirect talks involved American negotiators shuttling between the Israelis and Palestinians, and are widely viewed as a step back from nearly two decades of direct talks.

But their structure may actually serve the purpose of keeping them going. Mr. Mitchell and his staff have been shuttling between the two sides for more than a year, meaning that the preparation for indirect talks and the talks themselves do not look different from the outside. As a result, the American brokers could continue their shuttles despite the flotilla attack.

While the blockade of Gaza has been widely criticized around the world, Israeli officials say it has imposed political pressure on Hamas. The group has stopped firing rockets at southern Israel and is fighting discontent among the people in Gaza.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

An earlier version of this article misstated the stance of the European Union on the Gaza blockade.

military.com(Knight-Ridder):McChrystal Calls Marjah a ‘Bleeding Ulcer’

McChrystal Calls Marjah a ‘Bleeding Ulcer’

May 25, 2010

Knight Ridder/Tribune

http://www.military.com/news/article/mcchrystal-calls-marjah-a-bleeding-ulcer.html?ESRC=dod.nl

MARJAH, Afghanistan -- Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top allied military commander in Afghanistan, sat gazing at maps of Marjah as a Marine battalion commander asked him for more time to oust Taliban fighters from a longtime stronghold in southern Afghanistan's Helmand province.

"You've got to be patient," Lt. Col. Brian Christmas told McChrystal. "We've only been here 90 days."

"How many days do you think we have before we run out of support by the international community?" McChrystal replied.

A charged silence settled in the stuffy, crowded chapel tent at the Marine base in the Marjah district.

"I can't tell you, sir," the tall, towheaded, Fort Bragg, N.C., native finally answered.

"I'm telling you," McChrystal said. "We don't have as many days as we'd like."

The operation in Marjah is supposed to be the first blow in a decisive campaign to oust the Taliban from their spiritual homeland in adjacent Kandahar province, one that McChrystal had hoped would bring security and stability to Marjah and begin to convey an "irreversible sense of momentum" in the U.S.-led campaign in Afghanistan.

Instead, a tour last week of Marjah and the nearby Nad Ali district, during which McClatchy Newspapers had rare access to meetings between McChrystal and top Western strategists, drove home the hard fact that President Obama's plan to begin pulling American troops out of Afghanistan in July 2011 is colliding with the realities of the war.

There aren't enough U.S. and Afghan forces to provide the security that's needed to win the loyalty of wary locals. The Taliban have beheaded Afghans who cooperate with foreigners in a creeping intimidation campaign. The Afghan government hasn't dispatched enough local administrators or trained police to establish credible governance, and now the Taliban have begun their anticipated spring offensive.

"This is a bleeding ulcer right now," McChrystal told a group of Afghan officials, international commanders in southern Afghanistan and civilian strategists who are leading the effort to oust the Taliban fighters from Helmand.

"You don't feel it here," he said during a 10-hour front-line strategy review, "but I'll tell you, it's a bleeding ulcer outside."

Throughout the day, McChrystal expressed impatience with the pace of operations, echoing the mounting pressure he's under from his civilian bosses in Washington and Europe to start showing progress.

Progress in Marjah has been slow, however, in part because no one who planned the operation realized how hard it would be to convince residents that they could trust representatives of an Afghan government that had sent them corrupt police and inept leaders before they turned to the Taliban.

A hundred days after U.S.-led forces launched the offensive, Marjah markets are thriving, the local governor has begun to build a skeleton staff, and contractors have begun work on rebuilding schools, canals and bridges.

Yet, Marines are running into more firefights on their patrols. Taliban insurgents threaten and kill residents who cooperate with the Americans, and it will be months before a permanent police force is ready to take control of the streets from the temporary force that's brought some stability to Marjah.

The U.S.-backed Marjah governor, Marine officials said, has five top ministers. Eight of 81 certified teachers are on the job, and 350 of an estimated 10,000 students are going to school.

In an attempt to contain the creeping Taliban campaign, Lt. Col. Christmas' 3rd Battalion, 6th Marine Regiment, in northern Marjah recently ceded direct control of an outlying rural area, collapsed its battle space and moved a company back into the population center, which had been neglected.

"There was no security," said Haji Mohammed Hassan, a tribal elder whose fear of the Taliban prompted him to leave Marjah two weeks ago for the relative safety of Helmand's nearby provincial capital, Lashkar Gah.

"By day there is government," he said. "By night it's the Taliban."

Even in Nad Ali, where British commanders have had success holding elections, opening schools and building the beginnings of a functioning local government, there are significant pockets of Taliban resistance. The local police force, the British commander said, is about half the size that's needed to patrol the area.

"What we have done, in my view, we have given the insurgency a chance to be a little bit credible," McChrystal said in one meeting. "We said: 'We're taking it back.' We came in to take it back. And we haven't been completely convincing."

Still, no one proposed sending more troops to Marjah.

McChrystal's top commanders in southern Afghanistan did weigh a suggestion from the top U.S. Marine general in the country, who said the time had come to gamble on turning over some areas to Afghan control more quickly than planned.

"I think if we want to shorten the timelines, then we are going to have to assume more risk in certain areas," said Marine Maj. Gen. Richard P. Mills.

In the final briefing of the tour last week, one American civilian strategist told McChrystal that it would be hard to force Marjah residents to shed their skepticism quickly.

"The vast majority of people are going to be on the fence, and they're going to wait," said the U.S. official, who asked not to be identified because the meeting was meant to offer candid advice to McChrystal.

"The hard question for us is: Can we push them off the fence or do we have to wait for them? It will take time, and even if you throw two more battalions in there, it is still going to take months and months."

"It was a long way gone; therefore, I think patience is necessary," said Mark Sedwill, NATO's senior civilian representative in Afghanistan. "But I can quite understand why the sheer amount of attention created a sense of expectation that is hard to fulfill."

The military shares the blame for generating great expectations about how fast the Marjah campaign could turn the tide against the Taliban, expectations that defense officials in Washington, speaking only on the condition of anonymity, said the Obama administration was eager to embrace.

In February, as the intense battles with Taliban fighters around Marjah were winding down, British Maj. Gen. Nick Carter, the commander of coalition forces in southern Afghanistan, told Pentagon reporters: "Looking downstream, in three months' time or thereabouts, we should have a pretty fair idea about whether we've been successful. But I would be very cautious about any triumphalism just yet."

Nearly three months to the day after making that prediction, Carter was sparring with McChrystal over whether they'd sent too few troops to seize Marjah.

"I think that we've done well, but I think that the pace of security has been slower," McChrystal said in one meeting. "I'm thinking that, had we put more force in there, we could have locked that place down better."

"I don't agree with you about putting more forces in there," Carter argued, reflecting the inherent tension between defeating the Taliban and winning over civilians. "This is about convincing people."

"You're going to feel that way," McChrystal cut in with a deadpan joke. "It's your plan."

"I am, sir," Carter replied. "You would have to put about five brigades in to achieve the effect you're talking about and, even then, I bet the Taliban would get through, because it's in the minds of people."

Like other commanders throughout the day, Carter pleaded for patience.

"I think what's going to make the difference, whether we marketed it right or not at the beginning, is time," he said. "And it's about persuading people."

McChrystal appeared unpersuaded.

"I think we have let too much move along without overwhelming-enough security," McChrystal said, "and I think we are paying the price for it."

On the flight back to Kabul, McChrystal said he'd intentionally asked provocative questions about troop levels to light a fire under the team and to convey a renewed sense of urgency.

McChrystal now has 13 months to produce some elusive, irreversible momentum before Obama plans to start bringing U.S. forces home -- and the president expects to stay on schedule.

"I am confident that we're going to be able to reduce our troop strength in Afghanistan starting in July 2011, and I am in constant discussions with General McChrystal, as well as Ambassador (Karl) Eikenberry, about the execution of that time frame," Obama said earlier this month during a joint news conference with Afghan President Hamid Karzai.

The tension between political and military timetables was apparent again Sunday, when the foreign minister in Britain's new, Conservative-led government criticized withdrawal deadlines as counterproductive.

"I don't think setting a deadline helps anybody," Foreign Secretary William Hague told the BBC during a visit to Afghanistan. "I think so much of what we're doing in Afghanistan, setting targets for people then to jump through hoops towards, doesn't help them in their work."

If there's concern in global capitals, said NATO's Sedwill, a former British ambassador in Kabul, it's as much a product of inflated expectations as of unmet promises.

"If there are politicians anywhere in the alliance who are making a judgment that we shouldn't have gone for the surge unless we could have been confident by the end of 2010 it would all look completely different, then we shouldn't have gone for the surge, because that was never practical," he told McClatchy.

New York Times: NATO Has High Hopes for Afghan Peace Council

NATO Has High Hopes for Afghan Peace Council

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/31/world/asia/31afghan.html?ref=world

KABUL, Afghanistan — Western leaders are banking on a national peace council set to begin here on Wednesday to start a new chapter in Afghanistan’s political life, bringing the country together and strengthening President Hamid Karzai, even as security deteriorated on Sunday in several areas of the country.

In a joint news conference, the NATO commander, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, and the senior civilian representative, Mark Sedwill, emphasized that the West supported the peace council, called a jirga, even as many Afghans questioned whether those attending would truly represent the many factions in the country.

“This is a big week for Afghanistan,” said Mr. Sedwill, who described the conference as “the first of a series of major political events that are going to set the agenda of 2010.”

The jirga will be followed by the Kabul Conference on economic development in July and parliamentary elections in September.

“This is a critical moment for this country to bring together all of the people of Afghanistan, their representatives, in an opportunity to set the direction forward and create a national consensus behind the overall approach to security, to development, to reconciliation,” Mr. Sedwill said.

The Electoral Complaints Commission announced Sunday that 85 candidates had been preliminarily barred from participating in the parliamentary elections because they are members of illegal armed groups. They will have the right to appeal. Still, the number is far more than that in the first round of parliamentary elections in 2005, when just 17 people were disqualified for the same reason, according to a former E.C.C. commissioner, Fahim Hakim.

The increase suggests that a more rigorous review system is now in place, analysts say.

Even as the peace efforts proceed in the capital, Kabul, security appeared to be deteriorating in districts in the east and south of the country and on the western border, where Afghan insurgents trained in Iran are returning to fight and smuggling in weapons, General McChrystal said.

“There is clear evidence of Iranian activities, in some cases supplying weaponry and training to the Taliban that is inappropriate,” he said.

In Nuristan Province, on the country’s eastern border, hundreds of local and Pakistani Taliban have taken control of a remote district near the Pakistan border, Barg-e-Matal. The number of fighters who have crossed the border from Pakistan swelled through the week and now has reached 1,000 to 1,500, said Gen. Zaman Mamozai, the commander of the Afghan Border Police for the eastern region of Afghanistan.

They are “mostly from Pakistan and are conducting collective attacks,” he said.

It appears that many of the Taliban from Pakistan had come to Nuristan in search of a new haven after having come under attack from the Pakistani Army in Pakistan. There are few Afghan security troops in Nuristan’s rugged mountains and only a small number of American troops in the province.

NATO leaders say that they cannot control the entire country with the number of troops they have and had to rely on Afghan forces in remote areas. But because not enough Afghans have been trained, NATO officials say they may have to live with some insurgent havens.

“As we execute our strategy and our capacity to secure areas, we must prioritize the order in which we do those, and how we deploy our forces and our assets,” General McChrystal said when asked whether Barg-e-Matal was being allowed to become a sanctuary.

“The Taliban can still muster strength in places and there are a lot of unknowns there,” added a senior NATO officer, speaking about Nuristan on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak on the record on the matter.

“If there are Taliban there, so what?” he said, adding that the district was far from any population center. He acknowledged that the situation would become more complicated if the Taliban filter out of remote mountain redoubts and into populated areas.

There was violence as well in the southeastern province of Khost, where a barely completed high school, built with international aid, was blown up late Saturday night by men using rocket-propelled grenades and bombs.

The school, which cost $220,000 to build, would have provided classrooms for 1,300 students, said Musa Majrooh, the spokesman for the Khost Education Department. A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, denied that the Taliban were involved in the blast.

Also in Khost, a suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle at the entrance to the police battalion that patrols suburban areas. Nine police officers were wounded, two of them seriously.

In Nangahar Province, in the east, which until recently was relatively calm, two bombings killed five members of the Afghan security forces, and in Badakhshan Province in the far northeast, six counternarcotics officers were killed when their patrol vehicle was blown up by a homemade bomb.

They were on a mission to eradicate poppy, and the province’s governor, Baz Mohammed, accused narcotics traffickers and the Taliban of setting the bomb.

New York TImes: Deadly Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla Draws Condemnation

Deadly Israeli Raid on Aid Flotilla Draws Condemnation

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/01/world/middleeast/01flotilla.html?hp

JERUSALEM — Israel’s deadly naval commando raid Monday morning on a flotilla carrying thousands of tons of supplies for Gaza is generating widespread international condemnation and diplomatic repercussions far beyond the waters where the confrontation occurred.

Several European nations summoned their Israeli envoys to explain Israel’s actions.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu canceled his plans for meeting with President Obama in Washington on Tuesday, an Israeli government official confirmed. Mr. Netanyahu, who is visiting Canada, planned to return home Monday to deal with fallout from the raid, the official said.

The criticism offered a propaganda coup to Israel’s foes, particularly Hamas, the militant group that holds sway in Gaza, and damaged Israel’s ties to Turkey, one of its most important Muslim partners and the unofficial sponsor of the Gaza-bound convoy. Turkey recalled its ambassador to Israel, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, calling the raid “state terrorism,” cut short a visit to Latin America to return home.

The Israeli Defense Forces said more than 10 people were killed when naval personnel boarding the six ships in the aid convoy met with “live fire and light weaponry including knives and clubs.” The naval forces then “employed riot dispersal means, including live fire,” the military said in a statement.

Greta Berlin, a leader of the pro-Palestinian Free Gaza Movement, speaking by telephone from Cyprus, rejected the military’s version.

“That is a lie,” she said, adding that it was inconceivable that the civilian passengers on board would have been “waiting up to fire on the Israeli military, with all its might.”

“We never thought there would be any violence,” she said.

At least four Israeli soldiers were wounded in the operation, some from gunfire, according to the military. Television footage from the flotilla before communications were cut showed what appeared to be commandos sliding down ropes from helicopters onto one of the vessels in the flotilla, while Israeli high-speed naval vessels surrounded the convoy.

A military statement said two activists were later found with pistols they had taken from Israeli commandos. The activists, the military said, had apparently opened fire “as evident by the empty pistol magazines.”

The warships first intercepted the convoy of cargo and passenger boats shortly before midnight on Sunday, according to activists on one vessel. Israel had vowed not to let the flotilla reach the shores of Gaza.

Named the Freedom Flotilla and led by the Free Gaza Movement and a Turkish organization, Insani Yardim Vakfi, the convoy was the most ambitious attempt yet to break Israel’s three-year blockade of Gaza.

About 600 passengers were said to be aboard the vessels, including the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Mairead Corrigan-Maguire of Northern Ireland.

“What we have seen this morning is a war crime,” said Saeb Erakat, the chief Palestinian negotiator for the government in the West Bank. “These were civilian ships carrying civilians and civilian goods — medicine, wheelchairs, food, construction materials.”

“What Israel does in Gaza is appalling,” he added. “No informed and decent human can say otherwise.”

At a news conference on Monday in Jerusalem, Israeli deputy foreign minister, Danny Ayalon, said the flotilla’s intent was “not to transfer humanitarian things to Gaza” but to break the Israeli blockade.

“This blockade is legal,” he said, “and aimed at preventing the infiltration of terror and terrorists into Gaza.”

Ms. Berlin, of the Free Gaza Movement, said, “They attacked us this morning in international waters. According to the coordinates, we were 70 miles off the Israeli coast.”

Within hours, diplomatic repercussions began to spread from the Mediterranean to Europe where Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s high representative for foreign affairs, called for a full inquiry into the incident and the immediate lifting of the Israeli blockade of Gaza.

Bill Burton, a deputy press secretary for the White House, said, “The United States deeply regrets the loss of life and injuries sustained and is currently working to understand the circumstances surrounding this tragedy.”

A joint statement from Robert Serry and Filippo Grandi, two senior United Nations officials involved in the Middle East peace process and humanitarian aid to Gaza, condemned the raid, which they said was “apparently in international waters.”

“We wish to make clear that such tragedies are entirely avoidable if Israel heeds the repeated calls of the international community to end its counterproductive and unacceptable blockade of Gaza,” the officials said.

President Nicolas Sarkozy of France called Israel’s use of force “disproportionate,” while William Hague, the British foreign secretary, said he deplored the loss of life. Tony Blair, the representative of the so-called quartet of powers seeking a Middle East settlement, said in a statement that he expressed “deep regret and shock at the tragic loss of life.”

“We need a different and better way of helping the people of Gaza and avoiding the hardship and tragedy that is inherent in the current situation,” the statement said. The quartet includes the United States, the United Nations, the European Union and Russia. In London, hundreds of pro-Palestinian protesters blocked Whitehall, the broad avenue running past the prime minister’s residence and office at 10 Downing Street.

Turkey strongly condemned the Israeli military action.

“Regardless of any reasoning, such actions against civilians engaged in only peaceful activities are unacceptable,” said a statement on the Foreign Ministry’s Web site on Monday. “Israel will be required to face the consequences of this act that involves violation of the international law.”

“Israel launched this operation in international waters and to a ship flagged white, which is unacceptable under any clause of the international law,” the head of the Turkish Grand National Assembly’s Foreign Affairs Commission, Murat Mercan, said on the Turkish station NTV.

“We are going to see in the following days whether Israel has done it as a display of decisiveness or to commit political suicide.”

Thousands of protesters gathered in Istanbul’s Taksim Square, chanting anti-Israeli slogans and repeating Islamic verses while government officials called for calm and urged demonstrators to avoid retaliation against Israeli nationals. Protesters met in front of the Israeli Consulate earlier and marched toward the square carrying a banner that read, “Zionist Embassy should close down,” and chanting slogans including “Damn Israel” and “Long live global intifada.”

Crowds also gathered outside the Ankara residence of Gabi Levi, the Israeli ambassador, who was summoned to the Foreign Ministry. Protests broke out in Iraq as well.

Ban Ki-Moon, the United Nations Secretary General, said he was “shocked” by the attack. “I condemn this violence,” Mr. Ban told news conference in Kampala, Uganda. “It is vital that there is a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place. I believe Israel must urgently provide a full explanation.”

News reports said the authorities in Egypt and Jordan, two Arab neighbors which have peace treaties with Israel, had summoned Israeli envoys to protest the action.

The outcry from Muslim leaders was strong and immediate. Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, called the incident “a massacre,” according to the official Wafa news agency. Mr. Abbas is to meet with President Obama in Washington next week.

Riyad Mansour, the Palestinian envoy to the United Nations, called for “the strongest reaction possible” from the Security Council, saying it cannot let Israel get away “for the thousandth time” with ignoring international law. “It cannot act like it is a country above international law,” Mr. Mansour told reporters.

Saad Hariri, the Lebanese prime minister, denounced the raid as “a dangerous and crazy step that will exacerbate tensions in the region,” while the president of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said it was “inhuman.”

Channel 10, a private television station in Israel, quoted the Israeli trade minister, Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, as saying 14 to 16 people had been killed. He said on Israeli Army Radio that commandos boarded the ships by sliding down on ropes from a hovering helicopter and were then struck by passengers with “batons and tools.”

“The moment someone tries to snatch your weapon, to steal your weapons, that’s where you begin to lose control,” Mr. Ben-Eliezer said, according to Reuters.

Jamal El Shayyal, a reporter from the television broadcaster Al Jazeera, was on board the Mavi Marmara, the largest of the six ships, during the assault. He said in a video report that dozens of civilians had been injured in the fighting.

The I.D.F. said the ships from the convoy would be taken to the Israeli port of Ashdod, north of Gaza, where “naval forces will perform security checks in order to identify the people on board the ships and their equipment.”

On Sunday, three Israeli Navy missile boats had left the Haifa naval base in northern Israel a few minutes after 9 p.m. local time, planning to intercept the flotilla. After asking the captains of the boats to identify themselves, the navy told them they were approaching a blockaded area and asked them either to proceed to Ashdod or return to their countries of origin.

The activists responded that they would continue toward their destination, Gaza.

Speaking by satellite phone from the Challenger 1 boat, which has foreign legislators and other high-profile figures on board, a Free Gaza Movement leader, Huwaida Arraf, said: “We communicated to them clearly that we are unarmed civilians. We asked them not to use violence.”

Earlier Sunday, Ms. Arraf said the boats would keep trying to move forward “until they either disable our boats or jump on board.”

Guardian: Hamas leader says American envoys making contact, but not openly[US talking to hamas?]

Hamas leader says American envoys making contact, but not openly[talking to hamas?]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/may/30/hamas-leader-americans-contact

The United States is sending a succession of envoys to engage with Hamas but lacks the bravery to talk to the Islamist movement openly, its leader, Khaled Meshal, said in an interview with the Guardian.

Meshal praised President Dmitry Medvedev of Russia for meeting him in Damascus and the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, for hosting the discussion 10 days ago. He told Medvedev that the US was also talking to him. "I thanked him for that meeting and told him the Americans contact us, but are not brave enough to do so openly," said Meshal. "I am confident that in the very near future, everyone will realise that they will have to deal with Hamas."

The claim that the US is engaging with a group it lists as a terrorist organisation will upset the Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, whose security forces have locked up and allegedly tortured leading Hamas members in the West Bank..

But four years into Israel's blockade of Gaza, the revelation could be seen as a sign that cracks are opening up in the western consensus that Hamas should remain isolated. Russia is a member of the Middle East Quartet, which demands recognition of the state of Israel as a precondition to a seat at the negotiating table.

Hamas says that recognising Israel was one of the Fatah leadership's biggest mistakes, and resulted in 17 years of fruitless negotiation. Meshal predicted that the conditions, which he called a trap for the Quartet itself, would change.

The Hamas leader claimed many western officials recognised that the blockade of Gaza had failed and the time had come to end it. This, he said, was the significance of efforts by a flotilla of eight ships, including four cargo vessels carrying construction and medical supplies and a Turkish passenger ferry carrying 600 people, heading for a confrontation with the Israeli navy off Gaza tomorrow.

Meshal said the tectonic plates in the Middle East were shifting, with Iran, Turkey and Syria emerging as regional powers. Egypt was in the throes of a battle for succession that would paralyse it as a regional player. As a result, Israel was losing its power to impose conditions on a weakened Palestinian leadership in Ramallah.

As it felt its power ebbing, Israel needed a new war but was crippled by self-doubt, Meshal said. He claimed the attacks on Hezbollah in Lebanon in 2006, and against Hamas in Gaza in 2009, left both organisations stronger politically and militarily.

"Israel is conducting exercises threatening Hamas, Hezbollah and Syria. It needs a war, but choosing the front to fight on will not be a picnic and this reflects the crisis in Israel. It does not want peace, but the option of war is not easy for it," he said.

The Hamas leader added that Israel might be tempted to strike Gaza again. "A war in Gaza might appear the easy option. But that would be an illusion, not because we have adequate weapons, but because Israel this time would be fighting against a people with nothing to lose. Gaza is small in size but it has become a large symbol for the rest of the world. This has become very clear in the last week."

Senior Hamas officials said they had conducted a study of their military tactics in Israel's attack on Gaza in 2009 and were now working with rockets that could hit tanks effectively at longer range.

Meshal said Barack Obama had made a brave speech in Cairo, but within months had retreated, with administration officials actively vetoing efforts to seek agreement between Fatah and Hamas on a national unity government. Citing senior Fatah sources, he claimed George Mitchell, the US negotiator, told the Palestinian Authority and Egypt that the US would cut off aid to the PA if it formed a national unity government with Hamas and the other militant Palestinian factions.

"Palestinian reconciliation is not on the table at the moment, because the priority for America is to resume the proximity talks. Mahmoud Abbas is better for America's purpose without reconciliation, because he is weak and a deal with Hamas would strengthen the Palestinian position in the negotiation. America prefers a weak Palestinian negotiating party, because it believes this is the best chance for a deal with an intransigent [Israeli prime minister Binyamin] Netanyahu."

Hamas claims that nine or 10 of the 22-member Arab League now either publicly or tacitly back its formula for a unity government, not least Saudi Arabia, a country still thought to be furious with Hamas about its takeover of Gaza in 2007, which tore up an agreement with Fatah.

Meshal said that four days before the last Arab League summit in Sirte, Libya, the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, took a one-page Hamas document to Egypt, containing its latest proposal.

The document called for the creation of a Palestinian leadership representative of all factions, a high security council to reform the security forces of Gaza, and a committee to organise new elections. Palestinians outside the occupied territories would also take part in the vote.

The Egyptians came back with three additions: that the new Palestinian unity government would recognise a two-state solution, the borders of 1967 and the Arab Peace Initiative. Meshal said that these demands were tantamount to a recognition of Israel.

"What Mahmoud Abbas is seeking is to restore his authority over Gaza and to draw Hamas into an electoral process in conditions in which it would lose. Egypt's position is a real obstacle, too. It raises the question what is reconciliation for, to exclude Hamas, or to bring it into the process to participate?"

Nonetheless, Meshal said he would pursue negotiations, now being brokered by Libya. He rejected the claim that Hamas was on the sidelines of efforts to find peace in the Middle East, refusing to lay out its vision of solution. He said the Palestinians and Arabs were ready to accept a state within 1967 borders, with its capital in Jerusalem, and the return of its refugees, but that Israel was not prepared to pay the price.

"After 17 years of negotiations, it has given nothing to those Palestinians who recognise it. It just demands more concessions like security co-operation. It is only when Israel is forced to make concessions that peace will come, but that will only happen when it is faced with a strong Palestinian partner. So Hamas will continue to reserve the right to resistance until Israel returns to the '67 borders."

Breitbart(AFP): Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move[non-proliferation treaty,israel "nuclear ambiguity"]

Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move[non-proliferation treaty,israel "nuclear ambiguity"]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.5eaf6bbb255b23063c3b3635bd5f7c52.161&show_article=1

Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical."

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it.

According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it."

"The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said.

"In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against."

The left-leaning Haaretz daily said Israel had been "sacrificed by the US on the altar of a successful conference" in what constituted "a diplomatic victory for Egypt" which has campaigned against Israel's nuclear arsenal.

Five years ago, the paper recalled, Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, refused to accept parts of a draft document calling on Israel to join the NPT and dismissed the idea of holding talks to create a nuclear-free Middle East -- even at the cost of the conference's failure.

The controversial resolution was passed just days ahead of a key meeting between Obama and Netanyahu aimed at restoring friendly ties between the two allies which had been soured over a dispute about Jewish settlements.

But the Maariv daily said that Obama's 'last minute' invitation for Netanyahu to visit the White House had clearly been planned with the NPT review conference in mind.

"It is reasonable to assume that the Americans knew they were going to deliver a blow to Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity and that Obama wanted to try to minimize the damage," the paper said.

The move draws a line under a long-held "agreement" between Israel and Washington dating back to 1969 under which the Jewish state was permitted to keep silent on its country's nuclear potential while holding back from any nuclear test.

In return, Washington agreed not to exert or allow any pressure on Israel over its nuclear capabilities.

"It is an undeniably negative change to US policy" with regards to Israel's nuclear programme, said Eitan Gilboa, an analyst from Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv.

Pointing to contradiction between Obama both applauding the resolution and criticising it for singling out Israel, Gilboa said Washington was "losing its leadership role because of the naive and unrealistic" outlook of its president.

Washington Post: Nations at NPT session seek meeting on Middle East nuclear-free zone

Nations at NPT session seek meeting on Middle East nuclear-free zone

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802249.html

UNITED NATIONS -- Countries attending a global meeting on nuclear weapons agreed Friday to open talks on establishing a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East, but U.S. officials said the plan might go nowhere because of language singling out Israel's secret nuclear program.

U.S. officials had fought to keep Israel from being named in the final document, with Vice President Biden meeting with Arab ambassadors in Washington and calling Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in recent days.

The planned Middle East conference was the most prominent result of the meeting, held once every five years to review the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The Obama administration had hoped for a different outcome: measures to strengthen compliance with the 189-country treaty, which has been crucial in curtailing the spread of the deadly weapons but is under strain because of the nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea.

Arab countries and their allies, however, threatened to block the conference unless progress was made on a 1995 resolution calling for a nuclear-free Middle East. NPT agreements require the approval of all members.

U.S. officials described the final document as making some modest progress on nonproliferation, including emphasizing the importance of pressing countries that are not fulfilling their obligations on nuclear inspections to change course. Iran tried unsuccessfully to excise that language, which clearly referred to its actions, U.S. officials said. Iran says that its nuclear program is aimed at producing peaceful energy.

U.S. officials said the meeting at least avoided the fate of the last NPT review, in 2005, which collapsed in rancor, with many countries accusing the George W. Bush administration of intransigence. This review's final document praised President Obama's nuclear achievements, including a new arms treaty with Russia, and echoed his language on seeking a world free of nuclear weapons.

The document calls for holding a conference in 2012 on the proposed Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction. The details are unclear, but it does not appear such a conference would be binding. The document urges Israel to join the NPT, which would require the Jewish state to give up its nuclear weapons, which Israel neither confirms nor denies it possesses.

Gary Samore, Obama's nuclear coordinator, said that naming only Israel in the context of the Middle East conference sent a signal that the event would be used to isolate the Jewish state.

"We will not support a meeting that puts Israel in that kind of position," he told reporters. The final document makes no explicit reference to Iran's violations of U.N. resolutions calling for the suspension of its uranium enrichment or its failure to fully cooperate with U.N. inspectors.

That was expected, because, as a member of the treaty, Iran has the power to block a final document.

"Because Iran was in the room, we were never able to get serious support to go after [it] in the non-compliance" area, said Ellen O. Tauscher, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control.

Israel has said it would agree to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction only after it has reached peace agreements with its neighbors, something unlikely to happen for years. A Middle East conference would also address chemical and biological weapons, which are allegedly possessed by Syria. The NPT is essentially a bargain in which the five original nuclear powers agree to gradually disarm, while nonnuclear states foreswear atomic weapons but get access to nuclear energy, subject to international monitoring.

The final agreement dropped a provision condemning North Korea in "the strongest possible terms" for conducting nuclear tests in 2006 and 2007, after it quit the treaty, merely urging it to live up to its 2005 commitment to carry out the "verifiable abandonment of all nuclear weapons" and its nuclear program.

Washington Post: Israel rebuffs call to join Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

Israel rebuffs call to join Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/29/AR2010052902304.html

JERUSALEM -- Israel on Saturday sharply rejected a call to join the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), a day after signatories to the accord adopted a resolution calling for talks to establish a nuclear-free zone in the Middle East.

"This resolution is deeply flawed and hypocritical: It ignores the realities of the Middle East and the real threats facing the region and the entire world,'' said a statement released by Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's spokesman.

"It singles out Israel, the Middle East's only true democracy and the only country threatened with annihilation. Yet the terrorist regime in Iran, which is racing to develop nuclear weapons and which openly threatens to wipe Israel of the map, is not even mentioned,'' the statement added.

Netanyahu is scheduled to meet with President Obama in Washington on Tuesday to discuss efforts to halt Iran's nuclear program and the peace process with the Palestinians. He also now plans to discuss the implications of the NPT resolution, his office said.

The resolution adopted at the NPT review conference in New York called on Israel, which has never confirmed or denied that it has a nuclear arsenal, to join the 189-country treaty and put its nuclear facilities under the oversight of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency.

Israel has said it would agree to a zone free of weapons of mass destruction only after it has reached peace agreements with its neighbors.

Given the "distorted nature'' of the resolution, Israel won't take part in its implementation, the statement issued by Netanyahu's office said.

The United States, which had hoped to use the conference to strengthen compliance with the nonproliferation accord as part of an effort to curtail the spread of weapons of mass destruction, had warned that plans for a conference in 2012 on a nuclear-free Middle East might go nowhere, given the singling out of Israel.

Washington Post (Ignatius):Can Obama's team of rivals bring Afghan success?

Can Obama's team of rivals bring Afghan success?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052802760.html

By David Ignatius

Sunday, May 30, 2010

For many months, rumors have circulated that a shakeup is coming in the administration's Afghanistan team because of internal tensions. But to the contrary, President Obama appears comfortable with the group he has assembled -- in part because he doesn't mind dissent, so long as it stays focused on policy issues.

The gossip mill has centered on two areas of apparent friction. Both appear to have been defused over the past several months, partly because of signals from the White House that one official characterizes this way: "Stop the sniping and get on with it."

The first area of tension involved Richard Holbrooke, the special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan. A famously talented but sometimes abrasive diplomat, Holbrooke assembled an aggressive staff that included representatives from 10 agencies. Part of his mission was to rock the boat by integrating policies for Afghanistan and Pakistan that previously had been in different bureaucratic stovepipes.

But Holbrooke was weakened last year by reports of hostility between him and Afghan President Hamid Karzai, which led some to question whether he could continue to be effective. When Holbrooke didn't accompany Obama on his trip to Afghanistan in late March, observers wondered if he was being eased out.

Holbrooke's standing with Obama still appears strong. He worked closely with the White House to prepare this month's visit to Washington by Karzai, which was viewed by U.S. and Afghan officials as a success. The veteran diplomat has also labored to improve his relations with Karzai and other key Afghan officials. Obama is now said to view Holbrooke as an experienced strategist who can drive policy as the United States and Afghanistan move toward a process of engagement with the Taliban next year.

The second tension point has been the relationship between Karl Eikenberry, the U.S. ambassador to Kabul, and Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the military commander there. This hasn't been an easy partnership, to put it mildly. It's the four-star McChrystal, rather than the three-star-turned-diplomat Eikenberry, who has the warmer relationship with Karzai. Yet here again, despite speculation that Eikenberry might be replaced, insiders say there is no indication that Obama intends to make a change.

The Eikenberry-McChrystal friction surfaced last year when the ambassador sent cables to Washington that were sharply critical of Karzai, without showing them first to the U.S. commander. When the cables were leaked, Eikenberry's relationship with Karzai was badly damaged. The ambassador has tried to heal wounds during the past few months, and, here again, the successful Karzai visit seems to have helped.

One substantive dispute between Eikenberry and McChrystal illustrates a broader tension. The commander favors bottom-up experiments to strengthen tribes and local self-defense groups, at the same time that the United States pursues its top-down strategy of building the Afghan national army and police. Eikenberry, in contrast, has often sided with Afghan officials in Kabul who worry that these local experiments will undermine the authority of the central government.

"The military is more in favor of empowering local security than our counterparts at State," says one Pentagon official. Obama would be wise to take McChrystal's side on this one and encourage more local experimentation. That's the best way to test what works in the limited time available.

The Afghanistan process illustrates an interesting aspect of Obama's overall approach to foreign policy. Though he favors a "no-drama" united front in public, he appears comfortable with a sometimes fractious internal process. His "team of rivals" has worked in part because the top three officials -- Bob Gates at Defense, Hillary Clinton at State and Jim Jones at the National Security Council -- agree on most major issues. But on Afghanistan, where it's hard to be sure of the right course, Obama appears to welcome the competing views.

Obama has also come to appreciate the value of ceremonial events in sending clear messages on foreign policy. The Karzai visit was a case in point. Relations with the Afghan president had been nearing a breakdown during the spring. But the Washington trip helped reverse the downward slide -- precisely because it was so carefully scripted and stage-managed. Just as important, the Karzai trip provided an impetus for the administration team to get its act together -- and to keep creative tension from turning into something poisonous.

Obama needs to be careful: Debate is fine, so long as it doesn't obstruct clear policy choices. He has bet his presidency on success in Afghanistan, and he needs to make sure he has in place the people who can get the job done.

Washington Post(Ignatius):The U.S.-Israel relationship on defrost

The U.S.-Israel relationship on defrost

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2010/05/the_us-israel_relationship_on.html

Ignatius

The White House will show some love to Israel next Tuesday -- when Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu visits the White House -- as part of an effort to improve chemistry after a March encounter widely described as a “snub” by President Obama.

But to make real headway with a suspicious Israeli public, Obama will have to go to Israel. And the betting among some U.S. and Israeli officials is that such a visit could happen in late August or early September – around when U.S.-mediated “proximity talks” between Israelis and Palestinians are slated to transition into more direction negotiations. “The president will come at a significant moment, when something has been achieved of substance,” predicts one Israeli official.

That Obama has yet to visit the Jewish state during his presidency has added to Israeli feelings that he is cooler and more distant than his predecessors. Some “daylight” between the two countries was useful, Obama told American Jewish leaders at a White House last September, because it enhanced America’s position as a mediator. But that daylight increased to a gaping hole during Netanyahu’s last visit, because of sharp disagreements over Israel’s plan to build new housing on land that’s officially part of East Jerusalem.

The two sides are still wide apart on policy issues related to the peace process. The White House, however, seems to have decided to reduce the appearance of friction with a series of outreach efforts. The latest instance of the charm offensive came yesterday, when White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, in Israel for his son’s long-schedule bar mitzvah, stopped by Netanyahu’s office and invited him to the White House. Emanuel was effusive in his expressions of goodwill, political and personal. He noted that he had brought his family to Israel to “expose them to the history in a very intimate way.” In the past, Emanuel has had a testy relationship with Netanyahu, who, according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, privately described Emanuel as a “self-hating Jew” following his criticisms of Israeli policy.

Next week’s meeting promises smiles and polite expressions of mutual support, with a televised joint meeting with the press. The Israeli government has been advised, according to one official, “Rest assured, there will not be any suggestion of a snub.”

Washington Post: Options studied for a possible Pakistan strike(response to successful attack in US)

U.S. spy agencies have engaged in a major buildup inside Pakistan over the past year. The CIA has increased the pace of drone strikes against al-Qaeda affiliates, a campaign supported by the arrival of new surveillance and eavesdropping technology deployed by the National Security Agency.


Options studied for a possible Pakistan strike

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/28/AR2010052804854_pf.html

The U.S. military is reviewing options for a unilateral strike in Pakistan in the event that a successful attack on American soil is traced to the country's tribal areas, according to senior military officials.

Ties between the alleged Times Square bomber, Faisal Shahzad, and elements of the Pakistani Taliban have sharpened the Obama administration's need for retaliatory options, the officials said. They stressed that a U.S. reprisal would be contemplated only under extreme circumstances, such as a catastrophic attack that leaves President Obama convinced that the ongoing campaign of CIA drone strikes is insufficient.

"Planning has been reinvigorated in the wake of Times Square," one of the officials said.

At the same time, the administration is trying to deepen ties to Pakistan's intelligence officials in a bid to head off any attack by militant groups. The United States and Pakistan have recently established a joint military intelligence center on the outskirts of the northwestern city of Peshawar, and are in negotiations to set up another one near Quetta, the Pakistani city where the Afghan Taliban is based, according to the U.S. military officials. They and other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity surrounding U.S. military and intelligence activities in Pakistan.

The "fusion centers" are meant to bolster Pakistani military operations by providing direct access to U.S. intelligence, including real-time video surveillance from drones controlled by the U.S. Special Operations Command, the officials said. But in an acknowledgment of the continuing mistrust between the two governments, the officials added that both sides also see the centers as a way to keep a closer eye on one another, as well as to monitor military operations and intelligence activities in insurgent areas.

Obama said during his campaign for the presidency that he would be willing to order strikes in Pakistan, and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said in a television interview after the Times Square attempt that "if, heaven forbid, an attack like this that we can trace back to Pakistan were to have been successful, there would be very severe consequences."

Obama dispatched his national security adviser, James L. Jones, and CIA Director Leon Panetta to Islamabad this month to deliver a similar message to Pakistani officials, including President Asif Ali Zardari and the military chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kiyani.

Jones and Panetta also presented evidence gathered by U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies that Shahzad received significant support from the Pakistani Taliban.

The U.S. options for potential retaliatory action rely mainly on air and missile strikes, but could also employ small teams of U.S. Special Operations troops already positioned along the border with Afghanistan. One of the senior military officials said plans for military strikes in Pakistan have been revised significantly over the past several years, moving away from a "large, punitive response" to more measured plans meant to deliver retaliatory blows against specific militant groups.

The official added that there is a broad consensus in the U.S. military that airstrikes would at best erode the threat posed by al-Qaeda and its affiliates, and risk an irreparable rupture in the U.S. relationship with Pakistan.

"The general feeling is that we need to be circumspect in how we respond so we don't destroy the relationships we've built" with the Pakistani military, the second official said.

U.S. Special Operations teams in Afghanistan have pushed for years to have wider latitude to carry out raids across the border, arguing that CIA drone strikes do not yield prisoners or other opportunities to gather intelligence. But a 2008 U.S. helicopter raid against a target in Pakistan prompted protests from officials in Islamabad who oppose allowing U.S. soldiers to operate within their country.

The CIA has the authority to designate and strike targets in Pakistan without case-by-case approval from the White House. U.S. military forces are currently authorized to carry out unilateral strikes in Pakistan only if solid intelligence were to surface on any of three high-value targets: al-Qaeda leaders Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri, or Taliban chief Mohammad Omar. But even in those cases, the military would need higher-level approval.

"The bottom line is you have to have information about targets to do something [and] we have a process that remains cumbersome," said one of the senior military officials. "If something happens, we have to confirm who did it and where it came from. People want to be as precise as possible to be punitive."

U.S. spy agencies have engaged in a major buildup inside Pakistan over the past year. The CIA has increased the pace of drone strikes against al-Qaeda affiliates, a campaign supported by the arrival of new surveillance and eavesdropping technology deployed by the National Security Agency.

The fusion centers are part of a parallel U.S. military effort to intensify the pressure on the Taliban and other groups accused of directing insurgent attacks in Afghanistan. U.S. officials said that the sharing of intelligence goes both ways and that targets are monitored in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

In the Peshawar fusion cell, which was set up within the last several months, Pakistanis have access to "full-motion video from different platforms," including unarmed surveillance drones, one official said.

The fusion centers also serve a broader U.S. aim: making the Pakistanis more dependent on U.S. intelligence, and less likely to curtail Predator drone patrols or other programs that draw significant public opposition.

To Pakistan, the fusion centers offer a glimpse of U.S. capabilities, as well as the ability to monitor U.S. military operations across the border. "They find out much more about what we know," one of the senior U.S. military officials said. "What we get is physical presence -- to see what they are actually doing versus what they say they're doing."

That delicate arrangement will be tested if the two sides reach agreement on the fusion center near Quetta. The city has served for nearly a decade as a sanctuary for Taliban leaders who fled Afghanistan in 2001 and have long-standing ties to Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence directorate.

U.S. officials said that the two sides have done preliminary work searching for a suitable site for the center but that the effort is proceeding at a pace that one official described as "typical Pakistani glacial speed." Despite the increased cooperation, U.S. officials say they continue to be frustrated over Pakistan's slow pace in issuing visas to American military and civilian officials.

One senior U.S. military official said the center would be used to track the Afghan Taliban leadership council, known as the Quetta shura. But other officials said the main mission would be to support the U.S. military effort across the border in Kandahar, Afghanistan, where a major U.S. military push is planned.

Staff writers Greg Jaffe and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.