• 
  

• Archives

  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007

• Blogroll

  • Abu Aardvark
  • Arabist
  • Beirut Beltway
  • Beirut Spring
  • City Boy Blog
  • Conflict Blotter
  • Crossroads Arabia
  • EU Referendum
  • Foreign Policy Watch
  • Iraq The Model
  • Librocrat
  • Pajamas Media
  • Serendip
  • Show Me The Rules
  • The Moderate Voice

• Daily News Sites

  • Al-Ahram Weekly
  • American Thinker
  • BBC News - ME
  • CNN - ME
  • Daily Star - Egypt
  • Daily Star - Lebanon
  • Dutch News
  • Haaretz
  • International Herald Tribune
  • Jerusalem Post
  • Khaleej Times
  • ME Times
  • MENL
  • NOW Lebanon
  • Spiegel International
  • Yahoo News - Mid East

• ME Reform

  • Fora TV
  • Free Muslims Coalition
  • Ibn Khaldun Center For Developmental Studies
  • Mideast Youth
  • Nora Younis

•  

•  

  

In comments made last week, U.S Secretary of State Condolezza Rice stated her aim to gather support from Arab nations in an effort to counter Iran’s “nefarious influence” in Iraq.  Rice, who is scheduled to attend a conference on Iraq in Kuwait next Tuesday, said she would push for more Arab support of Iraq in terms of financing and an increase of Sunni participation in the country’s politics:

“What they need to do is confirm and work for Iraq’s Arab identity,” she said. “That in and of itself will begin to shield (Iraq) from influences of Iran that are nefarious influences,” Rice said at a news conference.

She also said Iraq’s Arab neighbors could help encourage the Sunni minority to participate more fully in the political process in Iraq and to offer Baghdad much-needed debt relief, which has been slow in coming. 

In response, the Iranian Foreign Ministry has accused the Secretary of “Iranophobia”:

“Regarding Rice’s statements, these statements are not something new. American officials follow the policy of Iranophobia,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini told reporters in a weekly news conference.

“We see the developments in Iraq today are the outcome of the U.S. administration’s illogical policies. The American officials want to externalise the problems they are facing inside Iraq,” he said, adding U.S. policies in Iraq had failed.

 

In keeping with a similar theme to a previous post of mine (in response to a post at FPWatch), I thought this report by Joshua Stacher was worth a small write-up.  Some may remember his article published last year in the Boston Globe along with Samer Shahata arguing that in light of the Brotherhood’s electoral successes, a policy of engagement is warranted.The attitudes towards the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) in the West are beginning to change, and despite some long-held reservations about the group Western governments seem to be opening up to the idea of responsible engagement with a major Islamist force in the region. 

While I generally have little problem with the notion of talking to the Muslim Brotherhood, a change from the current prevailing policy of non-engagement would not come without its share of implications.  Firstly, as Stacher makes note of in his report, there are many ‘grey areas’ surrounding the MB.  These include “political pluralism,the use of violence, the principles of equal citizenship and universal human rights, and the relationship between religion and state.” Yet with this acknowledgement two policy recommendations are made concerning the relationship of Western governments towards the MB. What I find laudable about these recommendations is that they are presented in the context of the Egyptian political landscape as a whole. While I can’t find the paper to link to right now, I have argued in the past that while increased engagement of the countries’ theocrats is warranted, it should not come at the expense of Egypt’s other political factions, no matter how ineffective they have proven to be. In other words, the West should not embolden the theocrats at the expense of the democrats in the country, who equally have not been given a fair playing field to run their political activities. Stacher presents his recommendations in this context, one which I think is missing at times in other analyses of Western policy towards the MB.

The two recommendations are essentially that the West should increase its pressure on the Egyptian government for political reform which would allow for plurality in the system, while increasing efforts to open up channels of communication between the country’s opposition parties, including the MB. According to the executive summary, a future report is in the works which will highlight some of the more critical aspects of these policy recommendations and their implications. 

I am no fan of the Brotherhood, and will continue to have my reservations against the group.  However a broader policy of communication with both the theocrats and democrats of Egypt’s political opposition, with care taken not to promote any particular group and stimulate the freedom political activity in the country, would be in the interest of the country as a whole.

You can download the entire report here.

Update: Here is a previous post of mine over at MidEastYouth, in which I expressed some of my reservations towards the Muslim Brotherhood’s position as Egypt’s political opposition, with an important quote from Saad Eddin Ibrahim.  I was arguing for an empowerment of the ’silent majority’ Ibrahim speaks of through conditional U.S aid to Egypt:

The fact of the matter is Egypt, and the regime ruling it is extremly dependant on U.S support, which they have maintained through the illusion of the Muslim Brotherhood as the main political opposition. Secular parties are banned from forming or even gathering, charged with fabricated accusations of crime and effectively marginalised, yet to much less media fanfare than news of Brotherhood members being arrested. This is not unintentional, and as democracy activist Saad Eddin Ibrahim said in a recent interview (asked about the Brotherhood being the largest opposition group link:

We could not organize rallies, we could not organize marches or demonstrations because of emergency laws. Emergency laws have been in effect since 1981, since the assassination of President [Anwar] Sadat. So for the last 26 years, these emergency laws have prevented secularists from going out and organizing and mobilizing.

On the other hand, the Muslim Brothers have the mosques, and that is an advantage that is without design probably by the regime, but it has played in their favor. Meanwhile, I do not like to exaggerate their constituency because despite the fact that they have freer space to move in, still their share in the last Egyptian parliamentary election was 20 percent out of the 20 percent [of registered voters who actually voted]. So, 77 percent of the registered voters did not like to vote for them, nor to vote for the regime. And that is a 77 percent that I consider to be the silent majority, the potential constituency for liberal-democratic parties whenever liberal-democratic parties are allowed full freedom to operate.

We hear so often of the casualties of the Iraq war, mainly in its human toll.  Yet Iraqi society and culture at large has suffered tremendously as well, one instance of which was the looting of the Iraqi National Library and Archives 5 years ago:

The sacking of the library that began April 11, 2003, was a bad one. The current Director of Iraq’s National Library and Archive, Dr. Saad Eskander, estimates that over three days, as many as “60 percent of the Ottoman and Royal Hashemite era documents were lost as well as the bulk of the Ba’ath era documents…. [and] approximately 25 percent of the book collections were looted or burned.” Other Iraqi manuscript collections and university libraries suffered similar fates.

Since then, Iraqis have once again tried to rebuild their library. The occupying powers have played along, but like so much about the Iraq War, their effort has been marked by ineptitude, hypocrisy and a cruel disregard for Iraqi people and culture.

An issue of much deliberation in the blogosphere lately has been the initiation of negotiations with Hamas. Former U.S President Jimmy Carter has recently made his intentions known, once again, that he’d favor meeting with the Palestinian group in light of the increasing failure of the current American policy of isolation. Barack Obama has issued a weak statement in opposition to the proposed meeting between Carter and Khaled Meshaal in Syria next week, citing Hamas’ refusal to recognize Israel and its status as a terrorist organization as his reasons. A recent post by Jeb Koogler over at FPWatch, a blog which I’d highly recommend for daily reading, takes umbrage at the presidential candidate’s statement and expresses disappointment at a lack of courage in Obama’s position to speak out against the Bush administration’s failing policy of isolation and containment. I found myself responding to this post by debating out loud the words displayed on my computer screen, not necessarily in disagreement with Jeb but with an interest to examine the implications of Carter’s meeting.

First, allow me to address the issue of Barack Obama in this discussion. While the consensus is that his response has been politically calculated, it was also weak at best and may serve to put some of his other positions into perspective. If a precondition for negotiation is the recognition of Israel, then U.S allies such as Saudi Arabia should accordingly be treated differently with regards to foreign policy. The current president has met with many heads of state whom have yet to recognize Israel. If the same conditions posed for a meeting with Hamas are applied to Iran, whose president Obama has indicated he is willing to meet with, his proposal suffers similar scrutiny. My take on Obama’s position towards meeting with America’s adversaries was that it was rooted in a moral and logical conviction, one which I was impressed by because of his perceived candor. His promised break from the failed policies of the past was refreshing, albeit slightly disconcerting if only for the inability to predict the implications of an alternative policy. Yet in light of his position towards Carter’s visit, Jeb’s expressed sentiment of disappointment is one I share.

However another aspect of this discussion which is conducive to disappointment has been the lack of mention of the metrics with which success of such a policy will be measured. In the same way the current policy of isolation and the insistence on preconditions for negotiations have had no historical precedent, the engagement of an Islamist group by the West with aim to push it towards moderacy has no precedent either. Therefore the advocacy of negotiations should not be cast as a solution to the crisis, but as a step towards eradicating a mentality which has caused such policy predicaments.

Looking solely at Carter’s visit though, I am tempted to declare that the reaction it is receiving from pundits and bloggers has been much ado about nothing. While providing the potential for a serious debate on the implications of such a policy, should it ever be officially adopted, the ensuing reaction has failed to deliver. For starters, a visit by Jimmy Carter will not realistically achieve anything significant, other than perhaps to attract a fair share of media coverage. I have not yet read what it is his visit is aiming to accomplish. Reports suggest “that the discussions will cover the issues of truce, prisoner swap and Palestinian reconciliation.” The Saudis and Egyptians have been negotiating these issues, with little success. The issues dividing the Palestinian factions are deeply nuanced. Carter will be attempting to accomplish what others have not been able to, and without any backing from an official body directly involved in the conflict.

And if it is not necessarily the intention of the former president to broker some sort of peace in the near future, his visit will be seen as an exercise of legitimizing Hamas in the eyes of the world. While one may argue that this is necessarily inevitable, given the support Hamas receives at home, without any significant change in U.S foreign policy this legitimization will only serve to anger allies who have been working within the realm of American policy to prescribe some sort of peace to the region. It could shift the moral authority in the way of Hamas, contrasting the U.S policy of isolation with its defiance by one of the country’s former leaders, and placing a measure of empathy on a group which has waged campaigns of terror in order to prevent peace in the past. It could potentially upset allies like Egypt, who will suffer from the parallel of increased engagement with Hamas with their treatment of the Muslim Brotherhood.

In principle, I am not an advocate of isolation and boycott. The United States should talk to some of its adversaries, given that there are predetermined goals which are to be reached, as well as a careful evaluation indicating the U.S would be able to realize those goals with engagement. And while I do not see the proposed trip by Carter as overly significant, I struggle to comprehend what the endeavor aims to accomplish. Unless an American administration declares its intentions to open a dialogue with Hamas, any visits by former officials will not only fail to solve the problems which exist in the Palestinian territories, but would add legitimacy to a group before the world is able to adjust its policies to handle the effects of that. Let us remember that there are significant moral arguments to be made against Hamas, and that the policy of isolation and boycott was not entirely misguided in its intent but rather its calculation and execution. It is time for a new policy towards Hamas, but it should not start with Jimmy Carter.

Which in itself is a sign that the IA is not yet capable of ensuring security and sovereignty to its government and country. The British have taken note as well, and a planned spring withdrawal of around 1500 soldiers will have to be put off. Britain’s Defense secretary, speaking to the House of Commons, said that “it is prudent that we pause any further reductions while the current situation is unfolding.” The apparent lack of success in Basra has been attributed to a fierce resistance from the Sadr-loyal Mahdi Army, who kept their positions so secure in the oil rich southern city of the country that the IA called in backup from its coalition partners.

Iraq’s Prime Minister, realizing the significance of the operation, begged to differ in another one of those ever-familiar situations in the Middle East where victory is claimed and the real losers are forgotten about:

Maliki said the offensive was aimed at criminal elements, not Sadr’s Mahdi Army, which is a rival to the militia of the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, a key component of Iraq’s coalition government. The two Shiite militias are vying for power in southern Iraq, and Basra, with its port and oil, is the biggest prize there when local elections take place this fall.

Sadr has said Maliki is trying to crush him before the balloting to ensure that the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council controls Basra.
…
The Iraqi prime minister had a different take. In a statement released Tuesday, Maliki said the “success of the rule of law plan” in Basra would allow him to launch several reconstruction projects to help the city.

While North Korea and Iran continue to make nice with the Assad regime, pressure has been issued in the form of creating a watchlist of ships who stop at Syrian ports.  The decision signals what most believe to be a reaction to Syria’s meddling in Lebanon:

The decision, which could put pressure on businesses trading or shipping through Syria, was a further blow to long strained ties that had held out brief hopes of improvement last November when the United States courted Syria for the launch of new Palestinian-Israeli peace talks.

Syria was placed on a so-called “Port Security Advisory List” amid “concerns about the connections between Syria and international terrorist organizations,” the State Department’s deputy spokesman Tom Casey told reporters.

The move allows the Coast Guard “to impose some additional port security measures to ships traveling to or arriving in US ports that have previously been either departing from Syria or have called on Syrian ports,” he said.

Casey added he understood the measures would affect any ship that has visited Syria during its last five ports of call, but referred reporters to the Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for further information.

Also, an unnamed Egyptian official has claimed that the recent developments in Gaza have served Syrian interests in diverting attention away from its actions in Lebanon:

According to Egyptian sources, the heads of Hamas and Islamic Jihad, currently based in Damascus, are the only ones authorized to make a decision regarding a cease-fire with Israel, and it is possible that the Syrian government is behind the failure of truce negotiations thus far. “All the evidence points to the fact that Syria wants to divert attention from Lebanon and point the spotlight on Gaza,” the Egyptian official said.

The current escalation [of violence] in the Palestinian arena serves the Syrian interests,” they said, explaining that the embarrassment caused by continuing violence in Gaza to Arab Leaders may prompt the Arab nations to send high-level representation to the upcoming Arab summit hosted by Syria later this month, after having threatened that state leaders will not attend if Syria continues to interfere in the political crisis in Lebanon.

The Egyptian accusations against Syria are directly linked to rising tensions in the Arab world currently. The absence of Arab leaders from the Arab summit will cause great embarrassment to Damascus, as the host country, and likely prevent the success of the summit.

The Egyptian officials added that they had frozen efforts to mediate a truce between Israel and the Palestinians until after the Arab summit at the end of March. They said that Suleiman, who is responsible for the mediation efforts, will accompany Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak this week to Poland and Dakar, which will prevent him from advancing truce negotiations.

I just read Obama’s “Terrorism Fact-sheet“, boldy titled “Obama’s Plan To Defeat Terrorism Worldwide”. Although that may be quite a strech of ambition, there was an aspect of the plan that impressed me, and given my last post on his candidacy I figured I’d highlight something positive about his policies.

The document is 8 pages, and presents a five point plan to defeat terrorism. Ending the war in Iraq and focusing on Afghanistan is one aspect of the plan which leaves many questions unanswered, containing phrases like “ramping up the diplomatic surge” as if there has been no attempt at diplomacy. The other points are securing the homeland, restoring our (America’s) values, capabilities in partnerships and drying up support for extremists. The last point mentioned interested me the most, which may have something to do with my studying international relations and communication. On combating the influence extremists have in these societies, the plan makes specific mention the “madrassas” that has made its presence felt in Western media stories on the Mid East and Pakistan/Afghanistan specifically. These religious schools, which often take advantage of large educational deficits existant in Mid East countries, would recieve competition from the United States under an Obama administration:

Offer an Alternative to Madrasas. Worldwide, an estimated 100 million children are not attending school, according to Human Rights Watch. This is a gap that extremists have stepped into with radical Muslim madrasas. Barack Obama would invest part of increased U.S. assistance to establishing a $2 billion Global Education Fund to eliminate the global education deficit and offer an alternative to extremist schools.

This is important, and while I haven’t checked whether similar points have been proposed by the other candidates, it implies that there is a certain understanding of the conflict which allows for long-term objectives to be set keeping in mind the future generations born into this conflict.

The other aspect of drying up support for extremists included an idea which I found very intuitive, the proposed creation of a new “America’s Voice Corps” trained in foreign languages and diplomacy to increase America’s presence in international media. Not only will this help achieve an aim of increased cultural communication but also re-shape America’s international image in a globalized world:

Launch a Public Diplomacy Effort. World opinion of the United States has fallensignificantly since September 11. According to the Pew Global Attitudes Survey, 80 percent of citizens of predominantly Muslim countries have solidly negative views of the United States. Barack Obama will launch a coordinated, multi-agency program of public diplomacy. He will open “America Houses” in cities across the Arab world. Modeled on the successful program the United States launched in Germany following World War II, America Houses would offer state-of-the-art English-language training programs, discussions, and a wide selection of current periodicals, newspapers, and literature. They would offer free Internet access and moderated programs that promote direct exchange with Americans through the use of modern informationtechnology. Obama also would launch a new “America’s Voice Corps” to rapidly recruit and train fluent speakers of local languages (Arabic, Bahasa Melayu, Bahasan, Farsi, Urdu, and Turkish) with public diplomacy skills, who can ensure our voice is heard in the mass media and in our efforts on the ground. Together these initiatives will show the Arab world the best America has to offer.

So I took a break from blogging and there’s much news to get to. Many events have happened around the world in the past couple of month, and as I sit here and try to recall one of them, a single name keeps flashing through my head. Obama.

Not to cast any insignificance on the assassinations in Lebanon, Pakistan or Syria, or to belittle the ongoing crisis with Iran, but the first viable African American presidential candidate has most certainly made his presence felt in the media, rightly or wrongly. It is a presence that I’m dying to relieve myself of, and hopefully by spilling my thoughts out onto a blog post I’ll stop chanting “yes we can” in the mornings while I shower.

I’ve been following the U.S elections with increasing interest, and I liken the whole deal to a sporting event. From premature speculation about how the votes will be cast, to the minute by minute coverage of the Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina primaries, there has been more than enough information to absorb.

It can probably be argued that many of us following the race know too much about it. Yet nothing quite beats the election coverage of American media outlets on the night of a primary. When did every cable news network turn into ESPN?

Not that it hasn’t been effective. I wake up every morning checking to see what has developed overnight. So with McCain as the presumptive Republican nominee, the race between a former first lady and a skilled but rhetorically shallow orator moves into sharper focus.

The candidates trash talk, insinuate falsehoods and at times lie openly about their opponents. You have pundits measuring how black, how feminine and how old the candidates are. All of this is ridiculous, to be sure, but I’m not an American and I’m entertained. I don’t care much for domestic policy disputes, since I’m not a U.S citizen and don’t live there. My initial interest in the race was to gauge which candidate would have the best policy towards countries in the Middle East and on the War on Terror, but I soon learnt that wasn’t very important. As I would find out, what is actually needed in the Mid East is more “diplomacy”. Gosh, how could we have been so stupid? Why did nobody think of that before?

Of course, people have thought of that before. The Bush administration has exhausted many avenues to pursue some sort of stability and peace in the troubled region, so the idea that a Democratic president would simply use diplomacy to settle foreign disputes is like revolutionizing the art of writing by reintroducing the pencil. It’s empty, meaningless rhetoric that shies away from addressing the nuances of a conflict in order to avoid controversy.

So what will Obama do on, say, that small issue of the Islamic Republic of Iran supporting and funding terrorist groups, bringing Lebanese political life to a halt, influencing militias in Iraq, threatening Israel, pursuing regional hegemony and apocalyptic weaponry? Simple, via his website:

Diplomacy: Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation.

In other words, he’ll try to lure away a tyrannical theocracy with money, in the hopes that they will stop killing people and running illegal militias. Just like all murderers are treated in the secular world. And if all that doesn’t work (it won’t), he’ll just continue doing what George Bush has done and isolate them. That’s not a plan, that’s naive bribery, with a fallback option of the status-quo.

Well, maybe Iran isn’t his strong suit. Pray tell, what will he do with Israel-Palestine?

Israeli-Palestinian Conflict: Obama will make progress on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict a key diplomatic priority. He will make a sustained push – working with Israelis and Palestinians – to achieve the goal of two states, a Jewish state in Israel and a Palestinian state, living side by side in peace and security.

That’s all there is on the website. Nothing on how he’ll achieve all this, nor any mention of the right of return or Hamas. In fairness to him, the other candidates are equally as vague.

My point with all of this is that he is just another politician, an obvious fact which those who have resisted the lure of his personality cult still grasp. Yet too many have jumped aboard the Obama bandwagon as of late, and his ability to inspire hope (which is as ridiculous as it sounds) has touched people Europe, the Middle East, Asia and Africa. And for a while, he had gotten me too. In fact, I still hope for a few things.

I hope that his campaign will not raise people’s expectations as to what can be accomplished in the Middle East, only to be met with a shot of realism which sends those high hopes falling.

I hope that when Hezbollah gets so influential in the Middle East, or when Hamas destroys his efforts at consolidating peace with a suicide attack or barrage of rockets, that he will not legitimize them in the eyes of the world by negotiating with them.

I hope that the war which Al-Qaeda waged against his country will not be viewed solely in the vacuum of Pakistan and Afghanistan, while the spread of a theocratic, celestially mandated ideology continues to spread across the world.

Most of all, I hope that in 4 years time Obama will not have to face the world and reluctantly admit that “No, he really can’t.”

I haven’t written anything about the much talked about conference this week in Annapolis, Maryland, probably because of the overwhelming amount of skepticism surrounding it.  Not that pessimistic attitudes are necessarily surprising in this case; these conferences usually don’t produce much.  Of course circumstances differ this time around. There were some pretty interesting storylines surrounding the attendance of several Arab states, and the speculation that perhaps a deal could be made vis-a-vis Syria, concerning their support for Hezbollah.

These conferences always produce speculation (sometimes interesting), I’d imagine primarily because people would like to see something concrete accomplished.  An article in the WSJ titled “After Annapolis” summed up some of the basic struggles the United States and its’ president will face on this issue.  It failed however, as its’ title may have suggested it would, to provide anything to really look forward to after this conference except for what leverage Bush may have in the future in regards to the Israel and the Palestinians.  A telling paragraph from the middle of that article follows:

Then again, if the Arab regimes were really keen to settle the conflict, they might be slightly more forthcoming than Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, who attended on the condition that he wouldn’t shake hands with Israelis. And they might be more realistic than Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, who has ruled out recognizing Israel as a Jewish state even though Israel was created explicitly as such by a U.N. resolution approved 60 years ago today. As historian Bernard Lewis pointed out in these pages Monday, how do these so-called moderates expect Israel to cede territory when they’ll cede nothing on the right of Israel simply to exist?

Another question to ponder: don’t these conferences, and their subsequent declarations to work towards peace, only serve to harden these Arab positions?  Additionally, as long as there are people taking ‘extreme’ positions in the Middle East, will any leader be able to publicly accept to correct any of the aforementioned criticisms?  These “so called moderates” and the positions they have to take in public are largely determined by what the extremes are saying, because right now the Arab world has no courageous leaders. 

The issue of Hamas, from what I have read on the conference, was dealt with in the usual rhetoric that achieves nothing.  Will re-establishing “dialogue” solve this problem?  That article is a harsh critique, but these words by Hamas’ Gaza chief sum up my point:

Earlier this month, Hamas’ chief in Gaza, Mahmoud al-Zahar, a frequent visitor to Iran, became the most senior Hamas terror leader to state this when he told a massive rally: “Israel thinks Fatah in the West Bank is there to serve it, but we will take over the West Bank the way we took over Gaza.”

It was only five months ago al-Zahar’s Hamas forces humiliated Abbas when in less than seven days they took complete control of the Gaza Strip, seizing all American-backed Fatah security compounds in the territory and even taking possession of weapons that our tax dollars provided to Abbas. America’s Fatah paper tiger pathetically fell like a deck of cards.

Iran’s President has already declared the conference a “failure”, although one wonders whether he really would know why. 

Update: Israel’s Foreign Minister wondered aloud, in the presence of her Arab counterparts, as to why nobody would shake her hand.  The article mentions that she looked over at the Saudi FM, who had stated his refusal earlier to shake hands with the enemy.  I hope she really did “berate” them, as per the article’s title. 

Scroll down to the second half of that page, and you’ll find something potentially much juicier:

Did a high-profile meeting take place between Israel and Syria during the Annapolis peace conference this week?

Kuwaiti daily al-Jarida reports that the Palestinian track may not have been the only one being pursued by Israeli officials and claims Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Syrian Deputy Foreign Minister Fayssal Mekdad met in secret at an unnamed hotel in Washington.

No further details were provided regarding the clandestine meeting and no official source confirmed it had taken place.

I say upcoming, although the war has already begun, non-officially of course.  Today another accusation of Iranian support for the great Jihad emerged, with commander in the U.S military warning that they would “act decisively” in order to curb support for the Taliban.

Heavy battles in the violence-plagued south, meanwhile, killed 75 Taliban and at least six civilians, and a suicide car bomb in the capital killed a French soldier and an Afghan bystander.

Adm. William Fallon, the head of U.S. Central Command, said Iran’s Revolutionary Guard is supplying roadside bomb parts for the type of sophisticated and deadly bombs found in Iraq known as explosively formed penetrators.

“The Iranians are clearly supplying some amount of lethal aid,” Fallon told The Associated Press during a trip to Afghanistan. “There is no doubt … that agents from Iran are involved in aiding the insurgency.”

Fallon said the U.S. was carefully watching the flow of weapons from Iran and said the U.S. would “act decisively” if the cross-border flow continues. His comments were not meant as a threat of military action against Iran but a suggestion that border interdiction efforts may need to be increased, Fallon’s aides said later.

Iran has denied that it is supplying arms to fighters in Afghanistan.

And this week, another push for sanctions against Iran, with a meeting of world powers in Washington.  The sanctions don’t seem to be having the desired effect for the West, and with Iranian meddling continuing to escalate in the Middle East, it seems a sales pitch for a possible strike at nuclear targets is underway.  In the U.S, Senator Lieberman and John Bolton have both been very vocal about discussing the possibility of an attack. 

Also this week, France’s FM is still trying to fan the flames his comments on Iran created, in another step of a Western figure preparing the public for what seems to be an eventuality.  Seperating themselves from the conflict are Russia and China, which have both publicly protested  an upcoming war.

Next Page →

• Latests Posts

  • In House Stuff: Facelift
  • Hezballah Training Iraqi Militias Near Tehran
  • Noise Pollution
  • Egypt’s Local Elections Farce
  • Iranophobia?
  • Engaging The Muslim Brotherhood
  • Busy
  • Casualty of War
  • Engaging Hamas
  • “Dear Ayman…”

• Bookmark This Page

  

• Recommended Reads

  

  

  

  The "Beatles"

• Pages

  • About Me
  • Contact
  • Writings

• Meta

  • Login
  • Entries RSS
  • Comments RSS
  • WordPress.org