Thursday, May 31, 2012

NYTIMES:Divergent Path on Israel Helps Lobby Group Grow

Divergent Path on Israel Helps Lobby Group Grow

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/politics/j-street-a-lobbying-group-is-being-heard-as-moderate-voice-on-israel.html?ref=us

There was a time not so long ago when political contributions from Americans supportive of Israel inevitably veered toward those Congressional candidates who were the most hawkish and outspoken in defending Israel and its security.

No longer. While aggressive defenders of Israel still dominate the debate, more moderate voices in the Jewish community — led by J Street, a Washington lobbying group — are expanding their ability to generate money and political capital for pro-Israel candidates who favor a less confrontational approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and other issues.

This week, J Street is expected to land one of its biggest names when it announces its endorsement of Senator Dianne Feinstein, the veteran Democrat from California who is chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, an important forum for Middle East intelligence. With Ms. Feinstein’s acceptance of J Street’s endorsement, the group’s political action committee plans to raise at least $100,000 for her re-election bid, the officials said.

Founded in 2008, J Street is on pace to set a fund-raising record this election. By November, it expects to raise nearly $2 million for more than 60 Congressional candidates whose views on Israel align with its own, said Alexandra Stanton, a co-chairwoman of the PAC, and she said it had tapped into pro-Israel donors who had no real political outlet before now. Several leaders from J Street, along with other Jewish groups, attended a White House reception with President Obama on Wednesday as part of Jewish Heritage Month.

Jeremy Ben-Ami, president of J Street, said in an interview that “the assumption has always been that to run for office, you have to run to the right on this issue with a relatively hawkish view on Israel and the Middle East — the ‘Israel right or wrong’ position.”

“We’re changing that calculus,” he said. “We are beginning to organize a very, very large network of people in the middle.”

In the past, some Congressional candidates were reluctant to take J Street’s money because of charges from some American Jewish leaders and Israeli officials that the group’s moderate positions — it supports increased diplomacy, a two-state Israeli solution and continued aid to the Palestinian Authority — made it “anti-Israel.”

“These are people who cannot be considered friendly to Israel,” said Morris J. Amitay, a former executive director of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, widely considered the most powerful American lobbying force on Israeli matters. Aipac has generally supported a more aggressive defense of Israel, including possible use of American military force against Iran.

Josh Block, another former Aipac official, called J Street “a gnat” in the Israel debate and “a fringe organization with no credibility.”

Capitol Hill critics say J Street has been unnecessarily sharp-elbowed in attacking lawmakers over policy differences, leading to friction with onetime supporters like Representative Gary L. Ackerman, Democrat of New York, who broke with the group last year over its support for a United Nations resolution criticizing Israel’s West Bank settlements as illegal.

For J Street defenders, the vitriol is a sign that the group is beginning to have an impact.

Ms. Feinstein is regarded as a strong supporter of Israel — “obviously, we’re going to back up Israel” in any military conflict against Iran, she said in a recent CNN interview — and her acceptance of J Street’s endorsement is seen as buoying the group’s political credentials. Bill Carrick, the senior strategist for the Feinstein campaign, said that the senator agreed with many of J Street’s principles and that the decision to accept the group’s endorsement was simple.

“We didn’t look at it as picking sides in the debate,” he said. “They wanted to endorse her and, basically, she said fine.”

Tammy Duckworth, an Iraq war veteran who is challenging Representative Joe Walsh, Republican of Illinois, a staunch Israel defender, has also aligned herself with J Street. The group’s leaders said its political action committee expected to raise $50,000 or more for her.

“I stand by Israel,” Ms. Duckworth said in a telephone interview, “but from everything I’m hearing, a two-state solution is really the way forward. Sometimes the best security is peace.”

Her moderate stance stands in contrast to that of Mr. Walsh, who wrote in an op-ed piece this month in The Washington Times that a single Israeli state is “the only viable solution for the Middle East,” and suggested that the Palestinians move to Jordan.

So far this year, J Street is endorsing and raising money for more than 60 candidates — all Democrats — including the Senate campaigns of Representatives Martin Heinrich of New Mexico and Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and the re-election campaigns of Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio and Representatives John D. Dingell of Michigan, Keith Ellison of Minnesota, Anna G. Eshoo of California, and Melvin Watt of North Carolina.

Whatever inroads it has made, J Street lags far behind Aipac in terms of both money and influence. The influence gap was on display in March, when Aipac and J Street each held their annual conferences in Washington.

J Street drew a record number of attendees — 2,500 — as well as speeches by Ehud Olmert, the former Israeli prime minister, and other notables. But it could not compete for global news coverage or firepower with Aipac’s conference, which featured policy-defining and fist-pounding speeches defending Israel’s security by President Obama, Mitt Romney and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

American Jews, pro-Israel Christian evangelicals and other advocates for Israel represent a sizable political bloc, raising more than $12 million for candidates in the 2010 election cycle, according to data from the Center for Competitive Politics.

Aipac, unlike J Street, does not have a political action committee and so does not raise money directly for candidates. However, political analysts say the bulk of the money from Israeli-focused groups and individuals comes from harder-line factions aligned with Aipac and like-minded groups.

The biggest donor to emerge during the current campaign is the billionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, a pro-Israel hawk. He made headlines during the Republican presidential primaries when he and his wife gave $10 million to a group supporting Newt Gingrich, who called the Palestinians an “invented people” during the campaign.

While the liberal philanthropist George Soros gives J Street about $500,000 a year, it has no donor near the financial scale of Mr. Adelson.

Still, leaders of J Street and politicians aligned with the group say they believe they have helped shift the debate in Washington, broaden the politically acceptable options in Israel and advance an agenda that they characterize as both “pro-Israel” and “pro-peace.”

J. J. Goldberg, editor at large for The Forward, a Jewish newspaper, and author of “Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment,” said he was impressed by the inroads that J Street had made politically and financially.

“I’m stunned that there are so many members of Congress willing to take their money,” Mr. Goldberg said. “The fact that they’ve got 60 candidates who aren’t afraid to accept their ‘pro-Israel, pro-peace’ argument is a real breakthrough.”

NYTIMES:For the White House, a Wary Wait as Syria Boils

For the White House, a Wary Wait as Syria Boils

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/world/middleeast/for-the-white-house-a-wary-wait-as-syria-boils.html?_r=1&ref=us

After ordering American forces to Libya last year, President Obama declared that he had tackled a humanitarian crisis more decisively than his predecessors.

“When people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s,” Mr. Obama told a national television audience, “it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.”

Yet while the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad has brutalized its citizens for more than a year, Mr. Obama now shows no signs of intervening with force, an option his White House sees leading only to “greater chaos, greater carnage,” as Jay Carney, the press secretary, put it this week. If the president considered Libya a model of humanitarian intervention, Syria increasingly looks like Mr. Obama’s Bosnia.

Just as strife in the former Yugoslav republic confounded first President George Bush and then his successor, Bill Clinton, the bloody crackdown in Syria — underscored by last week’s massacre of children and other villagers — has put Mr. Obama in a deeply uncomfortable position. With American troops only recently withdrawn from Iraq and still in Afghanistan, the president is loath to engage in new military actions, especially one with few advocates, even among human rights groups. And yet with each passing incident, the scale of the crisis grows.

“You may come to the point where you have Srebrenica syndrome,” said Edward P. Djerejian, a former ambassador to Syria, referring to the slaughter of 8,000 Bosnian Muslims that galvanized more aggressive international action in 1995. “Once a humanitarian disaster looms so large, the international community becomes forced to act despite the national security considerations and the more levelheaded thinking on the consequences of military action.”

The White House has made clear that, however horrific, the killings in Houla last week, and another massacre discovered Wednesday, do not rise to that level. The United States has expelled the top Syrian diplomat and on Wednesday outlined more financial sanctions against Syria, but there is no serious support inside the West Wing for American military action at this point. Some officials, though, advocate arming the Syrian opposition or doing more to help others do so.

Among the president’s advisers, there is a recognition that the crackdown could eventually escalate to the point where it would compel a more aggressive response, but there is no consensus on what that threshold would be. One possible game-changing situation would be the spread of the conflict beyond Syria to neighboring countries like Lebanon, Turkey or Jordan.

For now, the range of options remains constrained. Every week or so, a cabinet or deputy cabinet-level meeting is convened on Syria, and, much to the frustration of the participants, each time the choices on the table are more or less the same: more diplomacy, more sanctions. The latest hope is that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia, a longtime Syrian ally, will force Mr. Assad to step down.

All the military contingencies that the Pentagon has developed involve a serious commitment of resources, with no low-cost options as in Libya. Unlike in Libya, there is no defined rebel army holding territory that would be helped by airstrikes. Syria has a better trained, better equipped military, including Russian antiaircraft defenses. And there is no United Nations or Arab League support for international force.

“In every situation you want to do something, but the fact that you want to do something doesn’t mean you will do anything,” said James B. Steinberg, a former deputy secretary of state under Mr. Obama. “You just have to decide even if you’re motivated to do something, how far you want to go and what will work. I think in this case, the what-will-work is as important as anything else.”

At a time of national fatigue after a decade of war, there is not much pressure in Washington on Mr. Obama to intervene directly. But as the killing drags on with about 10,000 dead, the situation invariably plays into the developing presidential campaign.

Mitt Romney, the Republican challenger, criticized Mr. Obama’s leadership on Syria and supports arming the rebels. “The world looks to America to lead and we’ve been sitting in the back burner hoping things would become arranged in a way that was attractive to the world,” Mr. Romney said in an interview broadcast Wednesday on Fox News. “But frankly, what’s happening in Syria is unacceptable.”

The dialogue echoes the conversation 20 years ago when another incumbent president fighting for his job was reluctant to involve American forces in a far-off killing field while his opponent criticized his lack of leadership. Mr. Bush ultimately lost to Mr. Clinton, who, like Mr. Romney with the Syrians today, had supported arming the Bosnians in their fight against the Serbs.

Once Mr. Clinton was in office, though, the “Black Hawk Down” disaster in Somalia soured him on direct military intervention. It was not until the Srebrenica massacre in 1995 under the noses of United Nations peacekeepers that he led a sustained NATO bombing campaign that resulted in the Dayton peace accords.

James Dobbins, who was a special envoy in Bosnia, said he saw parallels in Syria today. “If the U.S. remains passive or relies on unsupported diplomacy and that turns out to be ineffective, you could compare it to Bosnia,” he said. At the same time, he said, there is not a cohesive opposition in Syria to aid, nor leadership from the region to rely on.

“I don’t think anybody’s going to say we don’t have a dog in this fight,” Mr. Dobbins said. “But military intervention is going to be the last option.”

Mr. Steinberg, who was a top State Department official in Mr. Clinton’s first term, said the difference was that Bosnia was in the heart of Europe and a test of NATO’s credibility after the cold war. Moreover, the Bosnians set up their own breakaway government so there was a clear entity to assist, unlike the inchoate Syrian opposition. “Obviously the humanitarian side has some similarities,” he said, “but the differences are important.”

In the absence of more direct action, Mr. Obama continues to support the United Nations envoy, Kofi Annan, although few hold out much hope for his six-point peace plan. The president has called for Mr. Assad to step down, a demand ignored by the Syrian leader and one that Ambassador Susan E. Rice at the United Nations acknowledged on MSNBC on Wednesday “is really not realistic at this stage.”

Andrew J. Tabler, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy who specializes in Syria, said violence appeared likely to increase with the end of the United Nations observer mission in July and the arrival of the Ramadan holy month.

“We have to just be prepared for that, and the question is, what are we going to do?” he said. “Do we really think we can head off a civil war?”

NYDAILYNEWS:US military chief backs Pakistan aid cuts

US military chief backs Pakistan aid cuts

http://india.nydailynews.com/newsarticle/c8ee151335dd367fc3fee15c11d2f325/brief-us-military-chief-backs-pakistan-aid-cuts

May 30--WASHINGTON (Dawn/ANN) -- US military chief Gen Martin Dempsey has said that senators of his country made the right call by voting last week to trim aid to Pakistan.

"I think that choices should result in consequences. And I think the senate acted appropriately," Gen Dempsey told NBC News on Monday night.

The Senate Appropriations Committee voted last week to cut US$33 million for Pakistan -- $1 million for each year Shakil Afridi, who helped the CIA locate Osama bin Laden, will spend in prison.

In addition to this symbolic cut, the Senate Armed Service Committee voted to freeze $250 million in military aid until Pakistan reopens Nato supply routes to Afghanistan, ceases its support for militants and stops detaining citizens -- a veiled reference to the sentencing of Dr Afridi.

Gen Dempsey was questioned about the decision to "withdraw some funding" from Pakistan, without mentioning the Afridi case and his answer indicated that he approved both cuts.

Asked if the US relationship with Pakistan had ever been worse, he replied: "Not in my experience."

NYTIMES:Israeli Official Weighs an Imposed Palestinian Border

Both Mr. Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the security conference that they, too, preferred a final-status solution of two states for two peoples, and that the broad unity government they formed this month presented a unique opportunity for a peace deal. But many here see bilateral negotiations as all but impossible and are seeking a new paradigm.


Israeli Official Weighs an Imposed Palestinian Border

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/world/middleeast/top-israeli-weighs-imposed-borders-for-palestinians.html

Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Wednesday that Israel should consider imposing the borders of a future Palestinian state, becoming the most senior government official to suggest bypassing a stagnant peace process.

Mr. Barak’s statement urging consideration of what he and many Israelis call “unilateral actions,” without offering any specifics, echoed an emerging chorus of political leaders, analysts and intellectuals who have said that Israel needs to put in effect its own settlement to the Palestinian crisis. Though the Israeli government continues to call for negotiations toward a two-state solution, the drive for a one-sided approach also received a boost on Wednesday from the Institute for National Security Studies, a respected research center that is close to the military and security establishment.

Mr. Barak called for “an interim agreement, maybe even unilateral action,” during a conference sponsored by the institute here. Referring to fears that Jews will become a minority in their own state, he added, “Inaction is not a possibility.”

“Israel cannot afford stagnation,” Mr. Barak said. “It will be a difficult decision to make, but the time is running out.”

Calls for direct action are based on the arguments that negotiations are no longer feasible because of enduring political divisions on both sides and the changing dynamics inspired by the Arab Spring, which demand that leaders take more populist positions in line with anti-Israel public sentiment. But some advocates of this approach have also said that they believe the door should remain open to negotiations, suggesting that unilateral steps could be phased in over many years and be designed, in part, to give Israel a stronger hand in final status talks.

The Palestinian Authority has opposed any effort by Israel to decree the contours of its territory and abandon a negotiated settlement on a wide variety of issues, including the future of Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority, however, did take its own unilateral steps last fall, when it pursued United Nations recognition, something it is considering doing again. Israel has criticized such efforts for stepping outside the bounds of negotiations. The Obama administration has strongly opposed unilateral action by either side, and some senior Israeli officials have worried that such a move by Israel could provoke an uprising by Palestinians.

“The core issues of the conflict can only be resolved by direct negotiations,” Daniel B. Shapiro, the United States ambassador to Israel, said Wednesday. Nabil Abu Rudaineh, a spokesman for the Palestinian Authority, also objected to the call for unilateralism, saying, “This policy won’t lead to a solution and would prolong the conflict. It will end the idea of the two-state solution.”

Both Mr. Barak and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said at the security conference that they, too, preferred a final-status solution of two states for two peoples, and that the broad unity government they formed this month presented a unique opportunity for a peace deal. But many here see bilateral negotiations as all but impossible and are seeking a new paradigm.

Mr. Barak, who briefly spoke about the Palestinian conflict at the end of a wide-ranging lecture, did not offer any specifics by design, according to a senior aide who said later that “what he’s talking about is the importance of taking action.”

Shaul Mofaz, the Kadima Party leader whose alliance with Mr. Netanyahu this month created the supermajority of 94 out of 120 members of Parliament, has advocated creating an interim Palestinian state on 60 percent of the West Bank, with settlers offered incentives or being forced to leave their homes.

A new Israeli organization called Blue White Future, which supports a two-state solution along the 1967 borders, penned an April Op-Ed page article in The New York Times saying that “through a series of unilateral actions, gradual but tangible changes could begin to transform the situation on the ground.” From the right, Naftali Bennett, a high-tech millionaire trying to form a new political party, in March sent 5,000 opinion leaders his plan for Israeli annexation of large swaths of the West Bank known as Area C, where most settlers live.

And Khalil Shikaki, a Palestinian pollster, wrote this month that “unilateral steps by both sides could provide an alternative” to what he sees as a “growing one-state reality.” At Wednesday’s conference, Shlomo Brom, a retired general who leads the research center’s program on the Palestinian conflict, presented a paper calling “the unilateral route the only remaining course of action.”

“We can start talking about a permanent agreement,” Mr. Brom said, “but we believe we will start talking about the transitional arrangement very quickly and prepare ourselves to implement unilateral moves.”

Amos Yadlin, a former chief of military intelligence who now runs the institute, called it “the best of all evils.”

“If a miracle happens and we can reach a negotiation and reach an agreement, this institute will be happy to take all of its papers and burn them,” Mr. Yadlin told the audience of about 200 of Israel’s leading security officials and intellectuals. “We are going to shape the reality of the two states. Everybody believes in it. Let’s advance it without conditioning it on the agreement of the Palestinians. We have to take the initiative in our own hands.”

But critics of the unilateral approach abound, many of them citing Israel’s 2005 disengagement from the Gaza Strip and the takeover two years later by the militant Hamas faction.

“How come there are people who are ready to think about such a dangerous idea after the complete failure of the unilateral disengagement from Gaza?” Gideon Sa’ar, Israel’s minister of education, asked in a statement on Wednesday, adding that Mr. Barak, who is close to Mr. Netanyahu but not a member of his Likud Party, represented a minority view in the cabinet and coalition.

Robert M. Danin, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and an adviser to Tony Blair on the Middle East, called unilateralism “very problematic.”

“What political entity would emerge in the aftermath of your withdrawal?” Mr. Danin asked. “What are you getting for giving up land? Why would you want to uproot 70,000 settlers, or halt settlement activity, for nothing?”

Ziad Abu Zayyad, a former Palestinian Authority minister who is co-editor of the Palestine-Israel Journal, told the Israeli audience that continued settlement activity in the West Bank “undermines any possibility of disengagement.”

“We are negotiating about the West Bank and you continue eating the West Bank slice after slice, slice after slice,” Mr. Abu Zayyad said. “If I see that the Israeli government cannot evacuate outposts, can anyone convince me that it will be able to evacuate settlements?”

Asked about the unilateral proposals, a spokesman for Mr. Netanyahu referred to the prime minister’s speech on Tuesday evening in which he called for a return to bilateral talks. “Chances are not always repeated in history, in political history, but it exists now,” Mr. Netanyahu said. “Negotiations for peace need two sides. One side is there.”

By Wednesday afternoon, Moshe Yaalon, a deputy prime minister, had taken the stage at the conference to say that unilateral steps are a disincentive to President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority “to come to the table.”

“We as a government say O.K., we have a strategy, we’re ready to sit to the table if there’s a partner,” said Mr. Yaalon, the minster for strategic affairs and former chief of the Israeli Defense Force. “When we retreat or withdraw, we show weakness.”

IGNATIUS:Syria: The blood of future massacres is on Russia's hands

Syria: The blood of future massacres is on Russia's hands

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/syria-the-blood-of-future-massacres-is-on-russias-hands/2012/05/29/gJQAPrWB0U_blog.html

The answer to the Syrian tragedy isn’t complicated: It’s a political transition, starting now, from the regime of President Bashar al-Assad to a government of national unity that includes the opposition but also retains the basic structure of the Syrian state.

The entire world, outside Assad’s ruiling clique, supports this process. Even Russia, which is supposedly the Syrian dictator’s last friend, seems to be pulling away. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Monday that while Syrians should decide the transition, “Russia is not tied to Assad’s staying in power.”

So why doesn’t it happen? The answer is that Russian President Vladimir Putin is playing a cynical game of power politics, delaying the transition that he nominally supports. He gives lip service to U.N. diplomacy as an alternative to war, but does nothing to advance it.

So the question shouldn’t be how to turn up the heat on Assad, but rather, how to turn up the heat on Putin. Washington needs to be more persuasive with Moscow, but the heavy lifting here will be done by America’s partners in the region—Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, India—whose friendship or, at least, tolerance is important to Putin’s vision of Russian restoration.

Breast-beating about the President Obama’s decision not to intervene militarily misses the point that this is Russia’s failure, not America’s. Even Syria’s embattled Sunnis don’t want to see another American-led war in the region.

After Friday’s massacre of more than 100 civilians in the village of Houla, the Syrian regime is playing by “Houla rules,” to paraphrase my colleague Tom Friedman’s description of the “Hama rules” that Assad’s father Hafez used to obliterate Sunni resistance 30 years ago in another blood-soaked town in central Syria.

But the international community is still playing by “Kofi Annan rules,” as in the former U.N. secretary-general’s peace plan, which translates to waiting and hoping.

So let’s say it again: The right answer in Syria is clear. There must be a political transition that begins with the departure of the Assad-Maklouf family mafia, and moves to a broad-based government that includes the opposition (if it can get its act together) plus acceptable respresentatives of all the Syrian political factions and communities. Parliamentary elections would be set, and international peacekeepers would help restrain the score-settling and bloodletting that will surely follow Assad’s departure.

This process of change could begin tomorrow, if Russia would get serious. Putin can sponsor the talks, sign the peace deal, take a victory lap in Damascus, win a prize. But he has to get started now, or the Syrian mayhem will get worse, fast. And if he fails to act, the blood of future massacres will be on Putin’s hands.

IGNATIUS:The threat to global health from the hunt for bin Laden

The threat to global health from the hunt for bin Laden

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-cia-gambit-in-pakistan-threatens-a-global-vaccination-program/2012/05/29/gJQAW6W1zU_story.html

As an intelligence operation, it must have seemed like pure genius: Recruit a Pakistani doctor to collect blood samples that could identify Osama bin Laden’s family, under cover of an ongoing vaccination program. But as an ethical matter, it was something else.

The CIA’s vaccination gambit put at risk something very precious — the integrity of public health programs in Pakistan and around the globe. It also added to the dangers facing nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in a world that’s increasingly hostile to U.S. aid organizations.

What’s gotten attention in America is the plight of Dr. Shakil Afridi, the Pakistani physician who helped the CIA through his vaccination campaign in the tribal areas and the nearby province where bin Laden was hiding. The doctor was sentenced last week to 33 years in prison for treason, prompting indignant protests from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

U.S. officials shouldn’t treat the Afridi case simply as outrageous behavior by Pakistan. They’re right that the doctor’s actions weren’t treasonous: He was seeking information about terrorist leaders who were Pakistan’s enemies. I hope he’ll be released, but in any event Afridi and his handlers should reckon with the moral consequences of what they did.

Here’s the painful truth: Some people may die because they don’t get vaccinations, suspecting that immunization is part of a CIA plot. The rate of polio infection is rising in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Nigeria, in part because people believe conspiracy theories about vaccination. If the spread can’t be reversed in these three countries, warns a recent World Health Organization report, “polio eradication will fail.”

Among the organizations concerned is Save the Children, the biggest foreign-aid agency in Pakistan. According to the New York Times, Afridi told Pakistani authorities he was first contacted by the CIA through Save the Children, a claim that the organization denies. The Times reported that, after Afridi’s arrest last July, the NGO’s staff had been monitored by Pakistani intelligence and shipment of its medical supplies had been held at the border. A spokesman said Tuesday that the group hasn’t had any problems in recent months.

The potential danger for health workers was outlined in a Feb. 21 letter to CIA Director David Petraeus from Samuel A. Worthington, the president of an alliance of 200 NGOs that operate abroad. He warned: “Since reports of the CIA campaign first surfaced last summer, we have seen a continued erosion of U.S. NGOs’ ability to deliver critical humanitarian programs in Pakistan as well as an uptick in targeted violence against humanitarian workers. I fear the CIA’s activities in Pakistan and the perception that U.S. NGOs have ties with intelligence efforts may have contributed to these alarming developments.”

CIA spokesman Preston Golson, queried for this article, said he couldn’t comment on “any possible operational activity.” But he noted: “The agency is receptive to the views of the NGO community, and met with community representatives for a full and frank exchange on their concerns.”

The Afridi case is an example of what the CIA calls “cover for action.” The doctor was running a real vaccination program that gave him a reason to visit the areas where al-Qaeda operatives were hiding. A senior U.S. official explains: “Dr. Afridi was asked only to continue his program. . . . The vaccinations were real, and he never harmed a soul in the course of this campaign.”

Though Afridi never obtained bin Laden’s DNA sample, he did inadvertently confirm that the courier residing at the Abbottabad compound practiced extraordinary operational security, which was important intelligence. After bin Laden was killed, the doctor was offered options to leave Pakistan with his family, but he decided to stay, according to the U.S. official.

“There must have been a better, more ethical, way,” writes Heidi Larson, a public health researcher at London’s School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, in a comment posted Sunday on the Guardian’s Web site. “This choice of action has jeopardized people’s trust in vaccines.”

Intelligence operations, by definition, operate in a gray area where the normal legal and ethical rules get fuzzy. But this case makes me wonder if some intelligence tactics, such as using health workers overseas, should be off-limits: If the operations are blown, the consequences will be too damaging, in unintended ways, to innocent people.

davidignatius@washpost.com

WASHPOST:With Plan X, Pentagon seeks to spread U.S. military might to cyberspace

With Plan X, Pentagon seeks to spread U.S. military might to cyberspace

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/with-plan-x-pentagon-seeks-to-spread-us-military-might-to-cyberspace/2012/05/30/gJQAEca71U_story.html

The Pentagon is turning to the private sector, universities and even computer game companies as part of an ambitious effort to develop technologies to improve its cyberwarfare capabilities, launch effective attacks and withstand the likely retaliation.

The previously unreported effort, which its authors have dubbed Plan X, marks a new phase in the nation’s fledgling military operations in cyberspace, which have focused more on protecting the Defense Department’s own computer systems than on disrupting or destroying those of enemies.

Plan X is a project of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, a Pentagon agency that focuses on experimental efforts and has a key role in harnessing computing power to help the military wage war more effectively.

“If they can do it, it’s a really big deal,” said Herbert S. Lin, a cybersecurity expert with the National Research Council of the National Academies. “If they achieve it, they’re talking about being able to dominate the digital battlefield just like they do the traditional battlefield.”

Cyberwarfare conjures images of smoking servers, downed electrical systems and exploding industrial plants, but military officials say cyberweapons are unlikely to be used on their own. Instead, they would support conventional attacks, by blinding an enemy to an impending airstrike, for example, or disabling a foe’s communications system during battle.

The five-year, $110 million research program will begin seeking proposals this summer. Among the goals will be the creation of an advanced map that details the entirety of cyberspace — a global domain that includestens of billions of computers and other devices — and updates itself continuously. Such a map would help commanders identify targets and disable them using computer code delivered through the Internet or other means.

Another goal is the creation of a new, robust operating system capable of launching attacks and surviving counterattacks. Officials say this would be the cyberspace equivalent of an armored tank; they compare existing computer operating systems to sport-utility vehicles — well suited to peaceful highways but too vulnerable to work on battlefields.

The architects of Plan X also hope to develop systems that could give commanders the ability to carry out speed-of-light attacks and counterattacks using preplanned scenarios that do not involve human operators manually typing in code — a process considered much too slow. Officials compare this to flying an airplane on autopilot along predetermined routes.

It makes sense “to take this on right now,” said Richard M. George, a former National Security Agency cyberdefense official. “Other countries are preparing for a cyberwar. If we’re not pushing the envelope in cyber, somebody else will.”

A digital battlefield

The shift in focus is significant, said officials from the Pentagon agency, known by the acronym DARPA. Cyber-operations are rooted in the shadowy world of intelligence gathering and electronic spying organizations such as the NSA.

Unlike espionage, military cyberattacks would be aimed at achieving a physical effect — disrupting or shutting down a computer, for example — and probably would be carried out by U.S. Cyber Command, the organization that was launched in 2010 next to the NSA at Fort Meade.

“Because the origins of cyberattack have been in the intelligence community, there’s a tendency to believe that simply doing more of what they’re doing will get us what we need,” said Kaigham J. Gabriel, acting director of DARPA. “That’s not the way we see it. There’s a different speed, scale and range of capabilities that you need. No matter how much red you buy, it’s not orange.”

Plan X is part of a larger DARPA effort begun several years ago to create breakthrough offensive and defensive cyber capabilities. With a cyber budget of $1.54 billion from 2013 to 2017, the agency will focus increasingly on cyber-offense to meet military needs, officials say.

DARPA’s research is designed to foster long-shot successes. In addition to helping create the Internet, the agency’s work gave rise to stealth jet technology and portable global-positioning devices.

“Even if 90 percent of their ideas don’t pan out,” said Martin Libicki, a cyberwar expert at Rand Corp., “the 10 percent that are worthwhile more than pay back the difference.”

A digital battlefield map, as DARPA envisions it, would plot nodes on the Internet, drawing from a variety of sources and changing as cyberspace changes.

“In a split microsecond you could have a completely different flow of information and set of nodes,” Gabriel said. “The challenge and the opportunity is to create a capability where you’re always getting a rapid, high-order look of what the Internet looks like — of what the cyberspace looks like at any one point in time.”

The ideal map would show network connections, analyze how much capacity a particular route has for carrying a cyberweapon and suggest alternative routes according to traffic flows, among other things. The goal would be a visual representation of cyberspace that could help commanders make decisions on what to attack and how, while also seeing any attacks coming from an enemy. Achieving this will require an enormous amount of upfront intelligence work, experts say.

Michael V. Hayden, a former NSA director and a former CIA director, said he can imagine a map with red dots representing enemy computers and blue dots representing American ones.

When the enemy upgrades his operating system, the red dots would blink yellow, meaning the target is out of reach until cyber operators can determine what the new operating system is.

“I can picture that,” Hayden said. “But this really is bigger than all outdoors.”

Complicated controls

Plan X also envisions the development of technology that enables a commander to plan, launch and control cyberattacks.

A commander wanting to hit a computer that controls a target — a strategically important drawbridge in enemy territory, for example — should be able to predict and quantify battle damage while considering the timing or other constraints on a possible attack, said Dan Roelker, Plan X program manager.

Cyberwar experts worry about unintended consequences of attacks that might damage the flow of electricity to civilian homes or hospitals. A targeting system also should allow operators to stop a strike or reroute it before it damages systems that are not targeted — a fail-safe mechanism that experts say would be very difficult to engineer.

DARPA will not prescribe what should be represented on the digital map. Some experts say they would expect to see power and transportation systems that support military objectives.

Daniel Kuehl, an information warfare professor at National Defense University’s iCollege, said the Air Force built its history around attacks on infrastructure — in Korea, Vietnam, Serbia and Iraq.

“In all of those conflicts,” he said, “we went after the other side’s electricity with bombs.”

Today, he said, cyberweapons could be more humane than pulverizing power grids with bombs. If a cyberwarrior can disrupt a computer system controlling an enemy’s electric power, the system theoretically can also be turned back on, minimizing impact on civilians.

But retired Gen. James E. Cartwright, who as vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff until August had pushed to develop military cyber-offensive capabilities, said the military is focused less on power grids than on “tanks and planes and ships and anything that carries a weapon.”

“The goal is not the single beautiful target that ends the war in one shot. That doesn’t exist,” said Cartwright, who is now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The military needs more of a brute-force approach that allows it to get at a thousand targets as quickly as possible. ”

NYTIMES:Some G.O.P. Foreign Policy Experts Are Tepid on Romney

Some G.O.P. Foreign Policy Experts Are Tepid on Romney

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/31/us/politics/republican-foreign-policy-establishment-slow-to-embrace-romney.html?_r=1&ref=world


Henry A. Kissinger gave his endorsement to John McCain more than a year and a half before the last presidential election, explaining in April 2007 that Mr. McCain’s “record, character and belief that America’s best days lie ahead” made him the “the right leader for these times.”

But with the next election barely five months away and Mitt Romney gearing up for a tough battle with President Obama, Mr. Kissinger, a former Republican secretary of state, remains on the sidelines. The reason, according to several Republicans familiar with the matter: concerns about Mr. Romney’s aggressive statements on trade policy toward China, a keen issue for Mr. Kissinger, who helped reopen relations with China and who later, as a consultant, has had clients with significant interests there.

As Republican leaders fell in behind Mr. Romney this spring, many members of the party’s foreign policy establishment have been more muted. Reluctance by this group to come forward for Mr. Romney more quickly reflects an unease over some of his positions, including his hard line on Russia and opposition to a new missile treaty.

Mr. Romney will soon get a boost, however: Condoleezza Rice is expected to endorse him formally on Wednesday night when she headlines a fund-raiser for him near San Francisco, according to one of her aides and a Romney aide.

She would join Frank C. Carlucci, a defense secretary under President Ronald Reagan, and Stephen J. Hadley, a national security adviser under President George W. Bush, in officially backing Mr. Romney. Other Republican foreign policy stalwarts are likely to endorse him once they get a chance to discuss their differences with him directly.

But some nevertheless believe that Mr. Romney has taken approaches too confrontational or too hawkish, or worry that harsh campaign-trail statements could hurt later diplomatic efforts and may signal a drift toward neoconservative passions as the party seeks to take back the White House, say Republicans familiar with the discussions.

Some longtime deans of the Republican establishment, like Brent Scowcroft, the two-time national security adviser, believe the party as a whole has drifted rightward. Mr. Scowcroft declined a request for an interview, but he has recently voiced opinions at odds with Mr. Romney’s.

For example, a seeming eagerness to follow the cues of Israeli leaders has at times left Mr. Romney with what appears to be a dim view of the need to press Israelis and Palestinians toward a settlement, which many old-line Republican experts see as crucial to stability in the Middle East and cultivating ties with the Arab world. “I don’t think America should play the role of the leader of the peace process; instead we should stand by our ally,” he told an Israeli newspaper last year, referring to Israel.

A month ago, Mr. Scowcroft criticized the Obama administration and Republicans alike as failing to push for a comprehensive Mideast settlement. In an appearance on CNN, he was asked then by Fareed Zakaria, the host, whether he was comfortable with the Republican Party. Mr. Scowcroft looked down and paused before observing that “many parts of the party” now call him a “Republican in name only.”

“I don’t think I’ve changed my views at all,” he added. “I think the party has moved.”

Colin L. Powell, who preceded Ms. Rice as Mr. Bush’s secretary of state but backed Mr. Obama in 2008, has expressed concerns about neoconservative sway within the Romney camp. Some foreign policy advisers for Mr. Romney, he said, “are quite far to the right.” He has also taken strong issue with Mr. Romney’s statement that Russia is our “No. 1 geopolitical foe.”

“Come on, Mitt — think. It isn’t the case,” Mr. Powell said last week on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe,” adding that Mr. Romney’s remarks had caught “a lot of heck from the more regular G.O.P. foreign affairs community.”

James M. Lindsay, director of studies at the Council on Foreign Relations, says the Romney team “seems to be tilted more toward the neoconservative wing of the foreign policy establishment.”

But he cautions not to extrapolate too much. “It matters much less who’s giving advice to the candidate and a lot more who the candidate is actually listening to.” Mr. Lindsay added, “Most people in foreign policy circles recognize that some of what is said on the campaign trail is not going to survive the transition to office.”

The Romney campaign bristles at the “neoconservative” description, and says its advisers have a range of backgrounds, including some who worked for Mr. Reagan, President George Bush, Mr. Powell and Mr. Scowcroft. And they say Mr. Romney enjoys hearing dissenting views.

Mr. Kissinger and another Republican secretary of state who has not made an endorsement, George P. Shultz, were unavailable for interviews. They backed Mr. McCain in April 2007.

Mr. Romney will have an opportunity to make his case to Mr. Shultz at the fund-raiser on Wednesday, at the Carolands mansion near Stanford University, where Mr. Shultz and Ms. Rice are at the Hoover Institution, and Ms. Rice is a professor. Both are listed as honorary co-chairmen for the $2,500-a-person event. Ms. Rice, while not seen as someone who would fail to support her party’s candidate, is a moderate within the current Republican foreign policy field and could help deflect Mr. Powell’s criticism.

Another former Republican secretary of state, James A. Baker III, backed Mr. McCain in February 2008, and he said last year that Mr. Romney would make the strongest Republican nominee. Mr. Baker intends to endorse Mr. Romney, according to his policy assistant, John Williams, who said that Mr. Baker was “120 percent behind Mitt Romney.” Former Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was not available for comment, an aide said. But he came to Mr. Romney’s aid in early May, saying it was not a tough decision for Mr. Obama to attack Osama bin Laden’s compound, a comment that buttressed Mr. Romney as he complained that the president was politicizing the anniversary of the raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan, that killed Bin Laden.

Romney advisers also saw a silver lining in Mr. Powell’s comments, noting that he said in a different interview that he owed the Republican Party consideration before an endorsement, and even called Mr. Romney a “good man.” (Mr. Powell has not endorsed Mr. Obama for a second term; he waited until a few weeks before the election to give him his backing last time.)

But the advisers acknowledge it has been slow going soliciting some Republican foreign policy luminaries, who want to gauge whether Mr. Romney’s statements are anything more than hawkish pronouncements during primaries, or who want to use an endorsement to influence the campaign’s approach.

“They want to make sure they get an honest hearing on what they disagree with him on,” said one Republican close to the campaign. “If I tell you I’m with you 110 percent, there may be a fear that you’ll stop listening to me at that point.”

YNETNEWS:Dagan: Strike on Iran could hasten bomb Former chief of Israeli secret service says an attack on Islamic Republic would garner Iranian publi

Dagan: Strike on Iran could hasten bomb

Former chief of Israeli secret service says an attack on Islamic Republic would garner Iranian public's support for regime, give Tehran legitimacy to accelerate development of military atom capabilities

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4236234,00.html

Former Mossad Chief Meir Dagan said Wednesday that a strike on Iran could hasten the Islamic Republic's development of an atom bomb.

"A strike could accelerate the procurement of the bomb," claimed Dagan, who spoke at a conference held at the National Security Studies Institute in Tel Aviv. "An attack isn't enough to stop the project."

Dagan posited that military action would align the Iranian population behind the regime, thus solving the country's political and financial problems.

Moreover, he asserted that in the case of an Israeli strike, Iran could declare before the world that it was attacked even while adhering to agreements made with the International Atomic Energy Agency – by a country that reportedly possess "strategic capabilities."

"We would provide them with the legitimacy to achieve nuclear capabilities for military purposes," he said.

'Sanctions more effective'

The former chief of the secret service postulated that economic sanctions are more effective than military action.

"The military option must be given serious consideration. The fact that it is being waved around as means of deterrence does not deter the Iranians, but could provide the answer to their nuclear aspirations," he said. "The ability to stop the Iranian nuclear program in a military strike, at this point, is very limited."

Officials speaking at the conference hinted that the option of an attack on the Islamic Republic's nuclear facilities is not only on the table, but is more viable than ever.

Former Military Intelligence Chief Amos Yadlin said that the a nuclear Iran is more dangerous than the consequences of a strike, but suggested that Israel won't be the one to lead military efforts against the country.

Gabi Ashkenazi, the IDF's former chief of staff, said that there is still time for diplomacy and economic sanctions, but added that the use of military force in Iran should remain a possibility.

Action in moment of truth

Uzi Arad, a former national security adviser to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, said during the conference that while the US is capable of attacking the Islamic Republic, "the challenge isn't to strike Iran but to prevent it from becoming nuclear in the long run."

He called on the US to project determination to use "other means" if its objectives are not reached through talks, noting that the American government is aware that the consequences of "inaction in the moment of truth" would destabilize the Middle East and compromise American interests in Asia.

Earlier in the conference, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said that Israel's government "will make decisions on issues vital to the Jewish people's future and security by itself."

He remarked that the US and Israel differ in attitudes towards the Iranian issue and "the ticking of the clocks." Nevertheless, he stressed that the US is aware that Israel will decide independently whether to mount a military operation against Iran's nuclear facilities.

US Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro said that Tehran must take concrete steps to dissipate the international community's concern over its atom program. He added that the window of opportunity for talks is closing, and that the US will bolster pressure on Iran until it achieves its goal of barring it from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

MSNBC:Report: Obama changes definition of 'civilian' in drone wars

Report: Obama changes definition of 'civilian' in drone wars

http://worldnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11949657-report-obama-changes-definition-of-civilian-in-drone-wars

By Chris Woods, The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

LONDON -- Two U.S. reports published Tuesday provide significant insights into President Obama’s personal and controversial role in the escalating covert U.S. drone war in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia.

In a major extract from Daniel Klaidman’s forthcoming book Kill Or Capture, the author reveals extensive details of how secret U.S. drone strikes have evolved under Obama – and how the president knew of civilian casualties from his earliest days in office.

The New York Times has also published a key investigation exploring how the Obama Administration runs its secret 'Kill List' – the names of those chosen for execution by CIA and Pentagon drones outside the conventional battlefield.

The Times' report also reveals that President Obama personally authorised a broadening of the term "civilian", helping to limit any public controversy over "non-combatant" deaths.

As the Bureau's own data on Pakistan makes clear, the very first covert drone strikes of the Obama presidency, just three days after he took office, resulted in civilian deaths in Pakistan. As many as 19 civilians – including four children – died in two error-filled attacks.

Until now it had been thought that Obama was initially unaware of the civilian deaths. Bob Woodward has reported that the president was only told by CIA chief Michael Hayden that the strikes had missed their High Value Target but had killed "five al Qaeda militants."

Read more stories from The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Now Newsweek correspondent Daniel Klaidman reveals that Obama knew about the civilian deaths within hours. He reports an anonymous participant at a subsequent meeting with the president: "You could tell from his body language that he was not a happy man." Obama is described aggressively questioning the tactics used.

Yet despite the errors, the president ultimately chose to keep in place the CIA’s controversial policy of using "signature strikes" against unknown militants. That tactic has just been extended to Yemen.

'Covert' US drone operation is mapped on Twitter

On another notorious occasion, the article reveals that U.S. officials were aware at the earliest stage that civilians – including "dozens of women and children" – had died in Obama’s first ordered strike in Yemen in December 2009. The Bureau recently named all 44 civilians killed in that attack by cruise missiles.

'I'd have to go to confession'
No U.S. officials have ever spoken publicly about the strike, although secret diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks proved that the U.S. was responsible. Now Klaidman reveals that Jeh Johnson, one of the State Department’s senior lawyers, watched the strike take place with others on a video screen:

"Johnson returned to his Georgetown home around midnight that evening, drained and exhausted. Later there were reports from human-rights groups that dozens of women and children had been killed in the attacks, reports that a military source involved in the operation termed “persuasive.” Johnson would confide to others, “If I were Catholic, I’d have to go to confession.”

Klaidman describes a world in which the CIA and Pentagon constantly push for significant attacks on the U.S.’s enemies. In March 2009, for example, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen reportedly called for the bombing of an entire training camp in southern Somalia in order to kill one militant leader.

One dissenter at the meeting is said to have described the tactic as "carpet-bombing a country." The attack did not go ahead.

Obama is generally described as attempting to rein back both the CIA and the Pentagon. But in the case of Anwar al-Awlaki – "Obama’s Threat Number One" – different rules applied.

According to Klaidman, Obama let it be known that he would consider allowing civilian deaths if it meant killing the U.S.-Yemeni cleric. "Bring it to me and let me decide in the reality of the moment rather than in the abstract," an aide recalls him saying. No civilians died that day, as it turned out.

In its own major investigation, the New York Times examines the secret US 'Kill List' – the names of those chosen for death at the hands of US drones. The report is based on interviews with more than 36 key individuals with knowledge of the scheme.

'Whack-A-Mole approach'
The newspaper also accuses Obama of "presidential acquiescence in a formula for counting civilian deaths that some officials think is skewed to produce low numbers," and of having a "Whack-A-Mole approach to counter-terrorism," according to one former senior official.

It is often been reported that President Obama has urged officials to avoid wherever possible the deaths of civilians in covert US actions in Pakistan and elsewhere. But reporters Jo Becker and Scott Shane reveal that Obama inserted a loophole.

"Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent."

So concerned have some officials been by this "false accounting" that they have taken their concerns direct to the White House, according to the New York Times.

The revelation helps explain the wide variation between credible reports of civilian deaths in Pakistan by the Bureau and others, and the CIA’s claims that it had killed no "non-combatants" between May 2010 and September 2011 – and possibly later.

The investigation also reveals that more than 100 U.S. officials take part in a weekly "death list" video conference run by the Pentagon, at which it is decided who will be added to the U.S. military’s kill/ capture lists. "A parallel, more cloistered selection process at the CIA focuses largely on Pakistan, where that agency conducts strikes," the paper reports.

But according to at least one former senior administration official, Obama’s obsession with targeted killings is "dangerously seductive." Retired admiral Dennis Blair, the former US Director of National Intelligence, told the paper that the campaign was:

"The politically advantageous thing to do — low cost, no US casualties, gives the appearance of toughness. It plays well domestically, and it is unpopular only in other countries. Any damage it does to the national interest only shows up over the long term."


HAARETZ:Iran warns West: New sanctions will jeopardize talks over nuclear program Foreign ministry spokesman says Islamic Republic has a right 'to pos

Iran warns West: New sanctions will jeopardize talks over nuclear program

Foreign ministry spokesman says Islamic Republic has a right 'to possess nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes' as U.S. prepares fresh round of sanctions on Iran's oil industry.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/middle-east/iran-warns-west-new-sanctions-will-jeopardize-talks-over-nuclear-program-1.433139

Iran on Tuesday warned Western countries that pressuring Tehran with sanctions while engaging in nuclear talks would jeopardise chances of reaching an agreement.

"This approach of pressure concurrent with negotiations will never work. These countries should not enter negotiations with such illusions and misinterpretations," foreign ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast told a news conference.

"They have their own wrong conceptions and this will stop them from coming to a speedy and constructive agreement," he said in the conference broadcast by state network Press TV.

Western countries have stepped up sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program which Washington and its allies suspect is a cover for developing the capability to make an atomic bomb.

Tehran says it is only interested in using nuclear power for generating electricity and other peaceful projects.

Fresh U.S. legislation that targets Iran's oil industry is to come into force on June 28, days after the next meeting between Iran and world powers in Moscow.

European Union states are to impose a total ban on shipments of Iranian crude oil in July. European diplomats say this tactic will not change until Tehran takes tangible steps to curb its nuclear activity.

At the last talks between Iran and the powers, in Baghdad, Tehran pushed for the lifting of sanctions on its oil and banking sectors as a sign of goodwill.

But hours after the Baghdad talks concluded, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the dual-track approach of sanctions and negotiations would remain in place, saying there was "still a lot of work to do."

One of the Iranian negotiators' key demands in Baghdad was a clear statement from world powers of its right to engage all steps in the nuclear fuel cycle - from producing and preparing fuel to loading it and managing its disposal or reprocessing.

"Our rights for possessing the nuclear fuel cycle for peaceful purposes ... needs to be recognised and we will never do away with these rights," Mehmanparast told reporters.

Iran was looking forward to constructive talks in Moscow, he added, saying both sides needed to bring their viewpoints closer together to cooperate on all issues.

LATIMES:The least bad option on Iran An interim nuclear deal could buy time, which is the essential point.

The least bad option on Iran

An interim nuclear deal could buy time, which is the essential point.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-freilich-iran-nuclear-israel-20120523,0,5130013.story

By Chuck Freilich

May 23, 2012

It is a bad outcome — but it is the least bad of the available options.

When world powers meet with Iran on Wednesday in Baghdad, they may reach an interim nuclear deal. Its precise outline is unknown, but it reportedly includes Iran's agreement to cease weapons-grade uranium enrichment, ship its existing stockpile abroad for conversion into reactor fuel, and accept heightened inspections of its nuclear infrastructure. In exchange, Iran would be allowed to continue enrichment at low levels, and the punishing new American banking sanctions and European Union oil sanctions due on July 1 would be eased.

Iran has strategic reasons for wanting nuclear capability and has so far rejected all inducements to give up the effort. It has dangled the prospect of a diplomatic resolution in the past, only to renege, repeatedly using artifice and deceit, apparently in the attempt to gain time to complete development. It may be doing so again; however, the crushing weight of international sanctions — those in place and those that are imminent — may have finally changed Iran's strategic calculus.

Still, the purported deal is no more than a stopgap measure. It would not resolve the issue.

Iran would be able to claim that it had forced the West to back off from the long-standing demand that it cease all enrichment activity and to accept its "right" to do so.

In practice, Iran would become a "nuclear threshold state," with its nuclear infrastructure intact, a reserve of fissile materials and the potential "breakout capability" to build a bomb quickly. The deeply buried mountain facility outside Qom, which Israel believes may already put Iran's nuclear production inside a "zone of immunity," would continue to exist.

Perhaps worst of all, there is the risk that with the immediate danger removed, the West would lower its guard and in effect "declare victory," turning its attention elsewhere. Ramping up serious multinational sanctions again would prove difficult.

Nonetheless, the interim deal would gain time, and that is the essential point. No other option, including a successful military attack, could achieve more. Iran has already developed the know-how and infrastructure needed to make a bomb; were a military attack to destroy all of its nuclear facilities, it could rebuild within a few years. An attack may still prove to be necessary, but if the few years can be achieved through diplomacy, this is obviously preferable.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu deserves credit for successfully forcing the international community to finally address the Iranian nuclear threat seriously. For 15 years Israel has argued that the only measures that might, conceivably, force Iran to compromise are those that the West is now belatedly imposing. Netanyahu's implied threats of military action were designed primarily to encourage those severe sanctions rather than to indicate an actual intention to attack. No one prefers a diplomatic resolution more than Israel; it would pay the price in international opprobrium after an attack, no matter its motives, and it would bear the brunt of retaliation by Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

In Baghdad, Iran must be made to understand that this is its last opportunity to reach a deal. In the absence of this agreement, the full force of the sanctions must go into effect as planned on July 1.

Moreover, any concessions made by the West should be for a limited time and contingent on a final agreement providing for a full cessation of Iran's nuclear program. We can also hope that the processes of change underway in the region, which began with the Iranian demonstrations of 2009, may return to Iran and sweep away the mullahs, the best long-term solution to the threat Iran presents.

In the meantime, the least bad option may be good enough.

Chuck Freilich, a senior fellow at Harvard's Kennedy School, was a deputy national security advisor in Israel during Labor and Likud governments.

WASHPOST:In Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-QaedaIn Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda

In Yemen, U.S. airstrikes breed anger, and sympathy for al-Qaeda

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/in-yemen-us-airstrikes-breed-anger-and-sympathy-for-al-qaeda/2012/05/29/gJQAUmKI0U_story.html

Aden, Yemen — Across the vast, rugged terrain of southern Yemen, an escalating campaign of U.S. drone strikes is stirring increasing sympathy for al-Qaeda-linked militants and driving tribesmen to join a network linked to terrorist plots against the United States.

After recent U.S. missile strikes, mostly from unmanned aircraft, the Yemeni government and the United States have reported that the attacks killed only suspected al-Qaeda members. But civilians have also died in the attacks, said tribal leaders, victims’ relatives and human rights activists.

“These attacks are making people say, ‘We believe now that al-Qaeda is on the right side,’ ” said Salim al-Barakani, whose two brothers — one a teacher, the other a cellphone repairman — were killed in a U.S. strike in March.

Since January, as many as 21 missile attacks have targeted suspected al-Qaeda operatives in southern Yemen, reflecting a sharp shift in a secret war carried out by the CIA and the Joint Special Operations Command that had focused on Pakistan.

But as in the tribal areas of Pakistan, where U.S. drone strikes have significantly weakened al-Qaeda’s capabilities, an unintended consequence of the attacks has been a marked radicalization of the local population.

The evidence of radicalization emerged in more than 20 interviews with tribal leaders, victims’ relatives, human rights activists and officials from four provinces in southern Yemen where U.S. strikes have targeted suspected militants. They described a strong shift in sentiment toward militants affiliated with the transnational network’s most active wing, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, or AQAP.

“The drone strikes have not helped either the United States or Yemen,” said Sultan al-Barakani, who was a top adviser to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh. “Yemen is paying a heavy price, losing its sons. But the Americans are not paying the same price.”

In 2009, when President Obama was first known to have authorized a missile strike on Yemen, U.S. officials said there were no more than 300 core AQAP members. That number has grown in recent years to 700 or more, Yemeni officials and tribal leaders say. In addition, hundreds of tribesmen have joined AQAP in the fight against the U.S.-backed Yemeni government.

As AQAP’s numbers and capabilities have grown, so has its reach and determination. That was reflected in a suicide bombing last week in the capital, Sanaa, that killed more than 100 people, mostly Yemeni soldiers.

On their Web sites, on their Facebook pages and in their videos, militants who had been focused on their fight against the Yemeni government now portray the war in the south as a jihad against the United States, which could attract more recruits and financing from across the Muslim world. Yemeni tribal Web sites are filled with al-Qaeda propaganda, including some that brag about killing Americans.

“Every time the American attacks increase, they increase the rage of the Yemeni people, especially in al-Qaeda-controlled areas,” said Mohammed al-Ahmadi, legal coordinator for Karama, a local human rights group. “The drones are killing al-Qaeda leaders, but they are also turning them into heroes.”

An escalated campaign

Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser, John O. Brennan, has publicly defended the use of drone strikes, arguing that their precision allows the United States to limit civilian casualties and lower risks for U.S. military personnel. The decision to fire a missile from a drone, he said, is taken with “extraordinary care and thoughtfulness.”

National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor said the administration’s counterterrorism strategy in Yemen is “guided by the view that we must do what is necessary to disrupt AQAP plots against U.S. interests” and to help the Yemeni government build up its capabilities to fight AQAP.

“While AQAP has grown in strength over the last year, many of its supporters are tribal militants or part-time supporters who collaborate with AQAP for self-serving, personal interests rather than affinity with al-Qaeda’s global ideology,” Vietor said. “The portion of hard-core, committed AQAP members is relatively small.”

The dramatic escalation in drone strikes in Yemen followed foiled plots by AQAP to bomb a U.S. airliner headed to Detroit in 2009 and to send parcel bombs via cargo planes to Chicago the following year. In April, Saudi intelligence agents helped to foil an AQAP plot to plant a suicide bomber on a U.S.-bound plane.

On May 6, a U.S. drone strike killed Fahd al-Quso, a senior al-Qaeda leader who was on the FBI’s most-wanted list for his role in the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole in Aden, an attack that killed 17 American sailors. The drone strike in Shabwa province also killed a second man, whom U.S. and Yemeni officials described as another al-Qaeda militant.

But according to his relatives, the man was a 19-year-old named Nasser Salim who was tending to his farm when Quso arrived in his vehicle. Quso knew Salim’s family and was greeting him when the missiles landed.

“He was torn to pieces,” said Salim’s uncle, Abu Baker Aidaroos, 30, a Yemeni soldier. “He was not part of al-Qaeda. But by America’s standards, just because he knew Fahd al-Quso, he deserved to die with him.”

Out of anger, Aidaroos said, he left his unit in Abyan province, the nexus of the fight against the militants. Today, instead of fighting al-Qaeda, he sympathizes with the group — not out of support for its ideology, he insists, but out of hatred for the United States.

‘More hostility’ toward U.S.

The U.S. strikes, tribal leaders and Yemeni officials say, are also angering powerful tribes that could prevent AQAP from gaining strength. The group has seized control of large swaths of southern Yemen in the past year, while the government has had to counter growing perceptions that it is no more than an American puppet.

“There is more hostility against America because the attacks have not stopped al-Qaeda, but rather they have expanded, and the tribes feel this is a violation of the country’s sovereignty,” said Anssaf Ali Mayo, Aden head of al-Islah, Yemen’s most influential Islamist party, which is now part of the coalition government. “There is a psychological acceptance of al-Qaeda because of the U.S. strikes.”

Quso and Salim are from the Awlak tribe, one of the most influential in southern Yemen. So was Anwar al-Awlaki, the Yemeni American preacher who was thought to be a senior AQAP leader and was killed in September by a U.S. strike. The following month, another U.S. strike killed Awlaki’s 16-year-old son, Abdulrahman, also an American citizen, generating outrage across Yemen.

Awlak tribesmen are businessmen, lawmakers and politicians. But the strikes have pushed more of them to either join the militants or to provide AQAP with safe haven in their areas, said tribal leaders and Yemeni officials.

“The Americans are targeting the sons of the Awlak,” Aidaroos said. “I would fight even the devil to exact revenge for my nephew.”

In early March, U.S. missiles struck in Bayda province, 100 miles south of Sanaa, killing at least 30 suspected militants, according to Yemeni security officials. But in interviews, human rights activists and victims’ relatives said many of the dead were civilians, not fighters.

Villagers were too afraid to go to the area. Al-Qaeda militants took advantage and offered to bury the villagers’ relatives. “That made people even more grateful and appreciative of al-Qaeda,” said Barakani, a businessman whose two brothers were killed in the strike. “Afterwards, al-Qaeda told the people, ‘We will take revenge on your behalf.’ ”

In asserting responsibility for last week’s bombing in Sanaa, Ansar al-Sharia — the name by which AQAP goes in southern Yemen — declared that the attack was revenge for what it called the U.S. war on its followers.

The previous week, al-Qaeda’s supreme leader, Ayman al-Zawahiri, released a video portraying Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi, who took office in February and vowed to fight AQAP, as an “agent” of the United States.

In some cases, U.S. strikes have forced civilians to flee their homes and have destroyed homes and farmland. Balweed Muhammed Nasser Awad, 57, said he and his family fled the city of Jaar last summer after his son, a fisherman, was killed in a U.S. strike targeting suspected al-Qaeda militants. Today, they live in a classroom in an Aden school, along with hundreds of other refugees from the conflict.

“Ansar al-Sharia had nothing to do with my son’s death. He was killed by the Americans,” Awad said. “He had nothing to do with terrorism. Why him?”

No Yemeni has forgotten the U.S. cruise missile strike in the remote tribal region of al-Majala on Dec. 17, 2009 — the Obama administration’s first known missile strike inside Yemen. The attack killed dozens, including 14 women and 21 children, and whipped up rage at the United States.

Today, the area is a haven for militants, said Abdelaziz Muhammed Hamza, head of the Revolutionary Council in Abyan province, a group that is fighting AQAP. “All the residents of the area have joined al-Qaeda,” he said.

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

NATIONALJOURNAL:Report: Official Says Iran Will Continue to Enrich Uranium

Report: Official Says Iran Will Continue to Enrich Uranium

http://nationaljournal.com/nationalsecurity/report-official-says-iran-will-continue-to-enrich-uranium-20120527

Updated: May 27, 2012 | 3:19 p.m.
May 27, 2012 | 3:10 p.m.

Despite indications earlier this week that Iran was close to striking a deal on its nuclear program, the country's nuclear chief said on Sunday that it will not stop producing high-grade nuclear material, the New York Times reports.

Fereydoon Abbasi said on state television that Iran would continue to enrich uranium to the 20-percent level it says it needs for its medical reactors, and plans to start building two new plants in 2013. The announcement will complicate international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, which were at a standstill after two days of talks last week, and are slated to continue in mid-June.

While the U.S. and other Western nations want Iran to halt production of highly-enriched uranium and to export its existing stockpile, Iran seems unlikely to agree to such a scenario, and neither side has expressed a willingness to compromise. If an agreement is not reached, a coalition of nations, led by the U.S., will tighten sanctions on Iran in July.

JPOST:'Nuclear negotiations with Iran are not working'

'Nuclear negotiations with Iran are not working'

05/28/2012 22:01

There is no evidence Tehran's serious about curbing nuclear program, senior Israeli official says.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=271748

The current round of negotiations between the world powers and Iran is “not working,” a senior Israeli official said Monday, adding that after two meetings there is “not an iota of evidence indicating the Iranians are in any way serious about curbing their nuclear program.”

Israel was briefed by a senior American team over the weekend about what happened at last week’s talks in Baghdad, and the official said what the international community put on the table “is less than what is needed, and even those minimal demands were rejected by the Iranians.”

According to the official, the Iranians have succeeded in changing the world’s demands. “In the previous rounds of talks, when Iran was only enriching uranium up to three percent, the world’s demand was for a full halt to enrichment. Now that they are enriching up to 20%, there are those in the world saying they are able to accept a certain amount of enrichment,” he said.

Israel’s position, which Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu reiterated in a meeting Monday with members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, is that Iran must stop all enrichment, transfer all enriched uranium out of the country and close the underground facility at Qom.

Israel, the official said, was “skeptical in the extreme” about the current talks, and said the Iranians have bought themselves two months to move their nuclear ambitions forward – five weeks from the first meeting in Istanbul on April 14 to last week’s session in Baghdad, and now another three weeks between that meeting and the next one scheduled for June 19 in Moscow.

“They are successfully playing for time,” the official said.

Netanyahu, in a meeting with senators Mark Udall (DColorado), Richard Burr (RNorth Carolina), Mark Warner (D-Virginia), and Barbara Mikulski (D-Maryland) said the Iranians were playing “nuclear chess.” Tehran, he said, might decide to sacrifice a pawn – that is, give some concessions – in order to “keep their king,” which is defined in Jerusalem as Iran keeping its nuclear program intact.

In addition to Iran, Netanyahu told the delegation going to Egypt on Tuesday that Israel “appreciated” the position articulated publicly by the US that it expected any future government in Cairo to keep the peace treaty with Israel.

Netanyahu also thanked the senators for US support for the Iron Dome anti-missile system, saying that it was an investment not only in Israel’s security, but also in peace. He said the Iron Dome was key in de-escalating the recent rounds of tension in Gaza, because the system ensured that things would “not get out of control.”

The reasoning behind this is that had the missiles struck at the heart of population centers in the South earlier this year, Israel would have had no choice but to launch a major offensive against Gaza.

Neither the diplomatic process with the Palestinians nor the situation with Syria were discussed at any length during Netanyahu’s meeting with the delegation