Jubilation in Iraq on Eve of U.S. Pullback

Withdrawal of Combat Troops From Cities Also Stirs Fear By Ernesto Londoño Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 30, 2009 BAGHDAD, June 29 -- Iraqis danced in the streets and set off fireworks Monday in impromptu celebrations of a pivotal moment in their nation's troubled history: As of Tuesday, this is no longer America's war. Six years and three months after the March 2003 invasion, the United States will withdraw its remaining combat troops from Iraq's cities and turn over security to Iraqi police and soldiers. While more than 130,000 U.S. troops remain in the country, patrols by heavily armed soldiers in hulking vehicles will largely disappear from Baghdad, Mosul and Iraq's other urban centers. "The Army of the U.S. is out of my country," said Ibrahim Algurabi, 34, a dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen now living in Arizona who attended a concert of celebration in Baghdad's Zawra Park. "People are ready for this change. There are a lot of opportunities to rebuild our country, to forget the past and think about the future." The looming deadline has also created enormous fear and uncertainty among many Iraqis, who believe that the U.S. military pullback will open the door for insurgents to increase their attacks. Iraq remains a perilous place for the American troops stationed here, and they continue to be the top target for extremist groups. On Monday, some normally congested streets were virtually deserted after dark, as Iraqis appeared to heed warnings of impending attacks by insurgents. But city streets were also largely empty of Humvees and U.S. troops. Those Iraqis who ventured out were in the mood to party, celebrating a moment that the Iraqi government has said represents its return to full sovereignty. "Out, America, out!" a group of sweat-drenched young men chanted Monday at a Baghdad park as the sun was setting. They jumped up and down to the deafening beat of drums and the wail of horns. Across town, the virtual absence of American troops and helicopters, the cheerfulness of Iraqis in military uniform, and the cries of joy gave this scarred, bunkered capital a rare carnival-like atmosphere. Iraqi police and army cars were decked with ribbons, balloons, plastic flowers and new flags. A few Baghdadis drove under the sweltering midday sun honking horns as passengers hung out the windows waving flags and yelling euphorically. In Basra, the sentiment was inscribed on walls with spray paint: "No No Americans." Another graffiti artist instructed: "Pull your troops from our Basra, we are its sons and want its sovereignty." Banners were strung around Baghdad proclaiming: "On the day of sovereignty, we're lighting candles for a better future." Anchors on state-run television wore folded Iraqi flags over their shoulders, and the station kept a graphic of a small Iraqi flag waving under the date "6/30" on the top left corner of the screen. At the Zawra Park celebration, one of the largest in the country on Monday, revelers sang songs popular during the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s. "To the front lines we go," they sang. "Our bullets in our magazines." Then, spraying water from bottles at the crowd, they began chanting: "America has left! Baghdad is victorious!" Iraqi policemen, many wearing body-armor vests without plates, bobbed their heads, taken by the moment. Americans now enter a new phase in this war. As of July 1, they will have to behave as guests in a foreign land. "There was a time here where we had pretty much carte blanche to do whatever we wanted to do," Brig. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, the top U.S. spokesman in Iraq, said recently. Going forward, he added, "all missions are coordinated with the Iraqi government." As Americans adapt to the vaguely defined terms of the security agreement that set June 30 as the deadline for soldiers to leave the cities, there is little talk among U.S. commanders and diplomats of engineering a victory in the 2 1/2 years they expect to remain here. Some officials have begun saying privately that the best-case scenario would be to depart with a "modicum of dignity." Doing so will mean contending with a resilient insurgency, volatile politics and a growing assertiveness among Iraqis whose patience with the U.S. presence long ago wore thin. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has called the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the cities a "great victory." He has not mentioned the thousands of U.S. lives lost in Iraq, or the billions of American tax dollars spent here. Between now and the August 2010 deadline by which the U.S. combat mission in Iraq is slated to end, U.S. troops will retain a significant, if less visible, presence in Baghdad as well as Mosul, in northern Iraq, and Basra, in the south. U.S. soldiers anticipate that they will have to defer to Iraqi leaders and commanders more often than not in order to conduct business in the cities. With scores of urban outposts shut, a greater percentage of American soldiers are being deployed to the borders and the belts around Baghdad and Mosul, where U.S. commanders hope they will be able to interdict militants and weapons. All troops must withdraw by 2012, the final date of a drawdown timetable that neither Iraqi nor American officials are inclined to change. Although security has improved considerably in recent months, the past few days have been bloody for Iraqis and Americans -- and many remain deeply concerned about the ability of Iraq's security forces to control the cities without substantial U.S. help. A bombing in downtown Mosul on Monday killed 10 people. A U.S. soldier was killed in combat Sunday, the military said Monday; attacks on U.S. forces occur almost daily. Anticipating a wave of attacks during the transition period, Iraqi soldiers and policemen were out in full strength across the country on Monday. Lines at checkpoints were longer as policemen conducted thorough searches. At the Zawra Park celebration, Suhaile Muhsian Khlaf, 60, dressed in a black abaya, began to dance with abandon, the lone older woman in a sea of mostly young men dressed in Western clothes. She hadn't come to the park to celebrate, she said, stepping aside for a moment. "Orphan," she said, pointing to her young grandson, who was clutching her hand. The family was recently evicted from a house where they were squatters. They hadn't eaten well in days, she said. "I came here because they told me there would be government officials," she said. "This hunger is killing us."

BYE-BYE, BABYLON

New York Post Ralph Peters June 30, 2009 -- OUR effort in Iraq passed a major milestone today: Our troops are leaving the cities. Advisers remain in place. Joint patrols will still occur. And our forces will wait nearby to respond to Iraqi calls for support. But the last of the bases and US-only outposts within Iraq's urban centers will be vacated. Terrorists have already begun testing the new security arrangements. Iraqi forces won't always pass with flying colors. Yet this situation seemed a pipe dream not so long ago: Iraq's security forces, serving an elected government, assume primary responsibility for the good order of their own country. We all recall the delighted leftist claims that Iraq had entered a hopeless civil war. Wrong. That Iraqis preferred al Qaeda to us. Wrong. That Shia militias represented the people. Wrong. And that Iran would seize control. Wrong again. Looking back over six years of good intentions, tragic errors, generosity, arrogance, partisan vituperation, painful deaths and ultimate vindication, two things strike me: the ever-resisted lesson that human affairs are more complex than academic theories claim, and the simple truth that most human beings prefer a measure of freedom to immeasurable repression. Now the symbolism of our troops withdrawing from Iraq's cities is richer than Washington grasps. Mesopotamia created urban culture: Ur, Babylon, Nineveh and countless lesser-known sites are where humans first worked out ways to live together in close quarters in large numbers. The coming wave of terror will strike cities that make Baghdad seem a youngster. The "cradle of civilization" is rising from the grave again. Yes, sectarianism, old grievances and the greed for power may deliver future crises -- even an eventual civil war. An unnatural state with grossly flawed borders, Iraq has more obstacles to overcome than any of its neighbors except Lebanon. But our achievement remains profound: We gave one key Arab state a chance at freedom and democracy. We deposed a monstrous dictator who butchered his own people and invaded two foreign countries. And we didn't quit, despite the scorn of the global intelligentsia. Human events aren't linear, nor do they conform to political programs. In Iraq, the unintended consequences ultimately gave us an unexpected victory. We botched the occupation early on, which seemed to create an opportunity for our enemies. As a result, al Qaeda declared Iraq the central front in its war on civilization. Thus, it set itself up for a massive strategic failure, alienating the people of Iraq and exposing itself as a fraud. Al Qaeda may limp along for decades, lashing out now and then -- but its high watermark occurred in 2006 in Anbar Province. That single development made Iraq worthwhile. But other gains, too, emerged from the vilified Bush administration's actions: As we just saw in Lebanon and Iran, democracy now seems possible to populations that had almost given up. Iran will be free one day, the only question is when. And it won't be because of President Obama's grotesque Cairo apologia. The problem for presidents is that great changes don't conform to our political calendars. Derided for his "axis of evil" remarks, Bush now looks far wiser than Obama in the wake of North Korean threats of nuclear devastation and Iran's savage crackdown following a wildly fraudulent election (and Tehran's attack on Obama's "interference," even though our president initially defended the election results). There is evil in the world. No matter how resistant Obama may be to learning that basic lesson, our enemies will hammer it into him. As our troops leave Iraq's cities today, their commanders know that still more bloody trials lie ahead. Now and then, the Iraqis will "shoot the red star cluster," calling for our help. But today isn't just a day for Iraqis to celebrate -- it's a good day for us, too. And it's a day of vindication for a former president who saw clearly, but spoke poorly (to the delighted mortification of the media). Now we have a president who expresses himself beautifully, but seems blind to international reality. And it's up to him to determine whether Iraq was a new beginning or a dead end.

US intel: Al-Qaida activity plunges in Iraq

By LOLITA C. BALDOR WASHINGTON (AP) - The number of al-Qaida extremists in Iraq has plummeted and their ability to maintain a high-level of attacks has been eroded, U.S. intelligence suggests. Battered by the surge of U.S. and allied troops into Iraq, and the slowly increasing effectiveness of Iraqi security forces, al-Qaida's franchise in the war-worn country is finding fewer foreign fighters to tap for suicide bombings, said U.S. intelligence and counterterrorism officials who have been studying the terror group's activities. Those changes, officials say, suggest that the terror group is evolving to one more heavily dependent on local militants who are less committed to broader jihadist goals. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence reports, said that the number of foreign fighters coming across Iraq's borders had dropped from hundreds to "tens," and the membership of al-Qaida in Iraq, or AQI, has plunged from thousands at its peak in 2006-2007 to hundreds now. Intelligence reports indicate that not only has AQI become less effective and less popular, it's become a different operation, said one senior counterterrorism analyst. During its heyday, al-Qaida in Iraq had ties to the terror group's leadership with an eye to expanding beyond Iraq's borders to a broader jihadist effort against the west. Now, the U.S. official said, AQI is focused on Iraq, struggling to maintain a foothold there as its ties to the central al-Qaida leadership weaken. The terror group's leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are now believed to be hiding in safe havens in Pakistan, along the rugged border with Afghanistan. Still, military leaders from Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in the Middle East, on down have repeatedly warned that progress in Iraq is fragile, and it is too soon to count AQI out. As the bulk of U.S. forces pull out of Iraq's cities by early next week, military commanders are already seeing the expected spike in violence, including more large-scale attacks. A truck bombing near Kirkuk on Saturday killed at least 75 people, and an attack Wednesday in a Shiite district of Baghdad killed at least 56. The attacks have targeted Shiite areas, and appear aimed at inflaming sectarian tension by provoking a similarly violent response from Shiites that could plunge the country into civil war. The attacks also give al-Qaida successful assaults to promote as they reach out to their loyalists. "We think we have beaten back al-Qaida to the point where they are now conducting attacks that are basically propaganda campaigns to make it look as though they are driving us out of Iraqi cities," Pentagon press secretary Geoff Morrell asserted Wednesday. Intelligence officials said that the U.S. is concerned about the impending transfer of thousands of jailed militants from U.S. to Iraqi control, and whether al-Qaida loyalists could be released. Right now, said one counterterrorism official, intelligence reports and internal communications suggest that al-Qaida is suffering from a lack of volunteers, but that could change if some of those prisoners make their way back into the al-Qaida fold. According to Pentagon spokesman Air Force Lt. Col. Pat Ryder, the U.S. military has seen some recidivism by those released from Iraqi prisons, but it is very low. At this point, he said, there is "no real evidence linking the release" of detainees to any increase in violence. "There is a concerted effort under way to release those who are not a threat to security," Ryder said.

Ahmadinejad Vows Tougher Approach to West in New Term

Share | Email | Print | A A A By Ali Sheikholeslami and Heather Lang June 27 (Bloomberg) -- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad vowed his second term as president of Iran will be marked by a tougher approach to the West, saying U.S. criticism of his crackdown on dissent over the election shows the Obama administration’s offer of talks on the Iranian nuclear program isn’t genuine. “If they think the government will be influenced, they’re wrong,” Ahmadinejad told judiciary officials at a conference today in Tehran, in comments aired on state television. “The government will have a more powerful and decisive approach in the new term.” He called Western leaders “the arrogants.” President Barack Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, at a White House news conference yesterday, urged Iran to halt the violence against protesters who say Ahmadinejad’s election victory was rigged. They also said Iran must be blocked from gaining a nuclear weapon. Obama dismissed the Iranian president’s demand for an apology for “interfering.” Obama and Merkel spoke after leading Iranian cleric Ahmad Khatami urged authorities to punish demonstration organizers “harshly and cruelly” to deter the opposition from seeking to annul the June 12 vote. Protesters who use weapons should be executed, Khatami told followers at Friday prayers in Tehran. He is a member of the Assembly of Experts, which elects and can remove the Shiite Muslim-led nation’s supreme leader. ‘Ruthlessness’ “A government that treats its own citizens with that kind of ruthlessness and violence and that cannot deal with peaceful protesters who are trying to have their voices heard in an equally peaceful way I think has moved outside of universal norms,” Obama said. Merkel said the Iranian people have a right “to have their votes be counted” and to see that the election results are substantiated. “I’m surprised at Obama,” Ahmadinejad said. “He said he wanted to speak to Iran and we said we are ready, but with this rhetoric? The mask is now dropped and the Iranian people, the world’s people, know they are the same. There is no change.” Obama and Merkel said the U.S. and Europe, with Russia and China, must continue pressing to bring Iran into negotiations to suspend its effort to enrich uranium. Iran has defied United Nations sanctions imposed over its refusal to stop enrichment, saying the material is for power plants and not for weapons. “There is no doubt that any direct dialogue or diplomacy with Iran is going to be affected by the events of the last several weeks,” Obama said. The U.S. and other nations can’t assume there will be a “huge shift” in Iran’s stance in international relations as a result of the protests, he said. Disperse Crowds Protesters who defied a ban on opposition rallies since the election have been met with water cannon, tear gas and clubs as security forces tried to disperse crowds. Independent confirmation of the events has been limited, with foreign journalists expelled or ordered to remain in their offices. The government said 13 protesters and eight Basij militiamen died, with hundreds of demonstrators arrested. Iran’s leadership has accused the U.S., the U.K. and Israel of instigating the violence that followed the announcement that Ahmadinejad would be president for another four-year term. The courts will determine within the next week whether to continue holding those protesters who have been arrested for minor offenses, Alireza Avaei, a Tehran judiciary official, was cited as saying today by the state-run Mehr news agency. Social Networking Iranians circumventing government disruption of the Internet and mobile phone networks have used social-networking Web sites to allege that dozens of protesters were killed by police and the militia. The subjects of the postings include Neda Agha Soltan, a young woman whose death from gunshot wounds was captured in a video shown around the world. Ahmadinejad’s main challenger on the ballot, former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi, this week repeated his demand for the election result to be scrapped due to vote-rigging and urged demonstrators to continue the protests, saying they are legal under the constitution. He later said he will comply with a requirement to seek permission for rallies. His previous requests have been turned down or are still pending. Ahmadinejad won 63 percent of the vote to 34 percent for Mousavi, according to the official tally. The date for his inauguration and the approval of his new cabinet will take place between July 26 and Aug. 19, the Iranian Labor News Agency said. Guardian Council The Guardian Council, which supervises elections in Iran, will set up a commission to oversee a recount of 10 percent of the presidential votes and issue a public report on the findings, the state-run Iranian Students News Agency said. The media will be able to attend the recount by the commission, which will include former Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Velayati, ex-parliament Speaker Gholam-Ali Hadad Adel and Prosecutor General Qorban-Ali Najaf-Abadi. The Expediency Council, headed by former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, said today that the “unique participation” of the voters was a display of Iran’s religious democracy, according to the students news agency. The council, which resolves legislative issues on which parliament and the Guardian Council fail to agree, urged the candidates to cooperate with the Guardian Council as it ratifies the election tally and provide it with evidence for any complaints. “None of Mousavi’s claims were right and we’ve had the healthiest election,” Guardian Council spokesman Abbas Ali Kadkhodaei was cited as saying by the Khabar newspaper on its Web site. “Except for small breaches that are seen in every election, no major violation has been committed. I can firmly say that no election fraud has been committed.” During the campaign, Ahmadinejad accused Rafsanjani of rallying support within the religious establishment for Mousavi. Security forces on June 20 detained five members of Rafsanjani’s family, including his daughter Faezeh Hashemi who encouraged protesters during a rally address. They were held briefly. Mohsen Rezai, one of the other candidates for president, said Mousavi and the fourth challenger, Mehdi Karrubi, should cooperate with the Guardian Council’s commission. Mousavi and Karrubi have rejected any proposals for partial recounts, saying a new election should be held.

Premier Casting U.S. Withdrawal as Victory for Iraq

By STEVEN LEE MYERS and MARC SANTORA BAGHDAD — Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki has taken to calling the withdrawal of American combat troops from Iraq’s cities by next Tuesday a “great victory,” a repulsion of foreign occupiers he compares to the rebellion against British troops in 1920. And the Americans are going along with it, symbolically and substantively. American commanders have hewed far more closely to the June 30 deadline for withdrawing combat forces from Iraq’s cities than expected only a few weeks ago, according to American and Iraqi officials. They have closed outposts — even in Baghdad and still-troubled Mosul in the north — that they had initially lobbied the Iraqis to keep open, having concluded, the officials said, that pressing the case would be counterproductive given the political significance that Mr. Maliki had given the deadline. The day itself has been declared a national holiday, though it is not yet clear whether Iraq will hold the “feast and festivals” he recently promised. American and Iraqi officials acknowledge the risks — to Mr. Maliki’s political position and to Iraqis’ safety. On Wednesday, four days after the last American base in Sadr City closed, a bomb hidden on a motorcycle cart killed at least 76 people and wounded more than 150 in a market in the neighborhood. On Thursday, at least seven bombs exploded around the country in what appeared to be a message from extremists days before the deadline. A great deal of Mr. Maliki’s political support rests on the fact that violence has declined since the carnage of 2006 and 2007, that he has rebuilt the security forces, that he has presided over the beginning of the end of the American war. He rarely mentions any American role in the improved security in Iraq — though 130,000 American troops remain in the country. “We will not ask them to intervene in combat operations related to maintaining public order,” he said in an interview with Le Monde published last week. “It is finished.” With the deadline now only days away, a drastically reshaped American military posture has emerged, largely because of Mr. Maliki’s insistence. Bases built over months and years have been dismantled, often in weeks. The once ubiquitous presence of American armored vehicles on Baghdad’s streets has largely ended. More than 150 American bases or outposts have been closed in Iraqi cities this year — 85 percent of the total, an Iraqi official said — including some that commanders considered crucial. The Americans asked to keep open an outpost in Sadr City, the Shiite neighborhood in Baghdad that once served as the base of Shiite militias, only to be rebuffed. “This is one we wanted,” Brig. Gen. John M. Murray said. “The Iraqi government said ‘no,’ so now we are leaving.” The Americans even acquiesced to requests to suspend virtually all American operations — even in support roles — for the first few days of July to reinforce the perception that Mr. Maliki desires: that Iraqi security forces are now fully in control of Iraq’s cities. “They will be invisible for the people,” Ali al-Adeeb, a senior leader in Mr. Maliki’s Dawa Party, said of the Americans. “They will turn into genies.” Far from a celebration, the deadline has provoked uncertainty and even dread among average Iraqis, underscoring the potential problems that Mr. Maliki could face if bloodshed intensifies. Even some Iraqi officers are worried. Brig. Gen. Mahmoud Muhsen, a commander with the First Division of the Iraqi National Police, grimly predicted that sectarian violence could return. He warned that control of Iraq’s borders remained ineffective, allowing more foreign fighters to enter. “They are taking away all the equipment that the Americans provide,” he said, “and with the agenda of countries neighboring Iraq, it is a recipe for disaster.” The Sadr City attack, like others recently, appeared intended to discredit Mr. Maliki’s government, to test its security forces and to undermine the public sense of improving security. To some degree, they already have. “When the Americans get out of city centers, a big war will start,” a woman who identified herself as Um Hussan said amid the wreckage of a bombing on Monday outside her house in the Ur neighborhood of Baghdad. It has been months, she added, since she last saw American forces there. “We ask God to help us for what is coming,” she said. Iraqi and American officials anticipate attacks in the days surrounding Tuesday’s deadline, as extremists, Sunni and Shiite, seek to exploit the American withdrawal. The security agreement between Iraq and the United States that set the June 30 deadline for withdrawing from the cities, and from the country by 2011, gave American commanders broad discretion to continue operations. But decisions on what Americans remain where — doing what — ultimately now rest with the Iraqis, and the Americans have deferred in negotiations. “We will be gone in whatever way the Iraqi government tells us to be gone,” said Lt. Col. Timothy M. Karcher, commander of the forces departing Sadr City. It is far from a complete withdrawal, of course. Thousands of American troops will remain in Baghdad and other cities, merely shifting their role from combat to training and advising. So far there are no restrictions yet on the American use of helicopters, a regular reminder overhead of remaining firepower. The Americans have been strikingly sensitive to Mr. Maliki’s political position, emphasizing Iraqi primacy in all public remarks. They have declined to specify how many American troops will remain in cities, seemingly fearful of undercutting Mr. Maliki’s public declarations of a full withdrawal. The chief military spokesman, Brig. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, said that only an “extremely small” number would remain at the request of the Iraqis, conducting training and operations that the Iraqis could not yet do on their own, like emergency medical evacuation. Much of the complicated work of dismantling and removing millions of dollars of equipment from the combat outposts in the city has been done during the dark of night. Gen. Ray Odierno, the overall American commander in Iraq, has ordered that an increasing number of basic operations — transport and resupply convoys, for example — take place at night, when fewer Iraqis are likely to see that the American withdrawal is not total. In his discussions with the Americans, officials said, Mr. Maliki has shown far more pragmatism than his public remarks about repulsing foreign occupiers might suggest, requesting, for example, that American explosive removal teams keep sweeping Baghdad’s streets. Still, his strong language and what one Western adviser described as his inflated sense of the abilities of his own forces have left him little room, politically, to backtrack should the security situation worsen significantly. “Symbolically,” General Lanza said of the withdrawing American forces ahead of Tuesday, “this is what we want for the Iraqis as a sovereign nation.”

Big Oil Ready for Big Gamble in Iraq

By GINA CHON BAGHDAD -- Next week, Iraqi officials plan a welcome-back party for Big Oil. The government intends to auction off oil contracts to foreign companies for the first time since Iraq nationalized its oil industry more than three decades ago. If all goes according to plan in the first round, foreign oil companies will move in to help Iraq revive production at six developed fields that have suffered from years of war and neglect. View Full Image Hadi Mizban/Associated Press Iraqi oil minister Hussain al-Shahristani, left, and government spokesmen Ali al-Dabbagh held a joint press conference in Baghdad on June 10. The Iraqi government has hailed the start of oil exports from the semi-autonomous Kurdish region as a move toward ending a dispute with the Kurds. But Iraq's fractious politics have complicated the process. Some lawmakers and oil officials have called for a delay of the auction. The man behind the plan, Oil Minister Hussain al-Shahristani, appeared before parliament on Tuesday, where some lawmakers questioned the legality of the proposed contracts and what they called favorable terms for the foreign companies. But the auction appears to have sufficient political support to go ahead on schedule, and Mr. Shahristani and other government officials vowed to plow ahead. Mr. Shahristani's oil deals are crucial to this war-torn country's economy. Iraq is thought to have one of the world's largest supplies of crude oil, with 115 billion barrels in proven reserves. But foreign know-how is key to its plans to boost oil output to four million barrels a day within four to five years, from 2.4 million barrels currently. Despite security risks, Western oil companies are clamoring to get in. Iraq is still relatively unexplored, offering big companies a potentially easy-to-tap source of growth. Some are touting Iraq as the most important opening of petroleum fields since the discovery in 2000 of the giant Kashagan field in the Caspian Sea. Some 120 companies expressed interest in bidding for the contracts at the June 29 and 30 auction, according to the oil ministry. Thirty-five companies qualified to bid, including Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Italy's Eni SpA, Russia's Lukoil and China Petroleum & Chemical Corp., or Sinopec. The six oil fields at stake are believed to hold reserves of more than 43 billion barrels. Foreigners won't get the most prized piece of the action -- ownership stakes in the reserves -- but will be paid fees for ramping up output. Just over 20 of Iraq's roughly 80 known oil fields have been fully or partially developed, and most of its production comes from just three giants, North and South Rumaila and Kirkuk. Because lots of the black gold is considered relatively easy to extract, oil experts estimate that exploration and development in Iraq costs $1.50 to $2.25 a barrel, compared with about $5 in Malaysia or $20 in Canada. View Full Image Courtesy of Mr. Shahristani Mr. Shahristani (center) in Abu Ghraib prison in 1990 after his release from solitary confinement. He is with two other prisoners. "We're talking about a huge volume of crude flowing through their system for the companies who win the bids," says Samuel Ciszuk, IHS Global Insight's Middle East Energy analyst. "On the other side, Iraq desperately needs technology, and these companies can bring it." But Mr. Shahristani, architect of the plan, is under attack from many quarters. Falling oil prices have triggered a budget crisis, and he is being blamed for not boosting production enough to make up the difference. Lawmakers and some oil officials, meanwhile, say the auction will give foreigners too much access to Iraq's resources. Mr. Shahristani also has been called to appear before parliament for questioning about alleged corruption and mismanagement at the ministry. "He should not continue," says Jabber Khalifa al-Jabber, secretary of the parliament's powerful Oil and Gas Committee. "Let someone who is qualified do the job....I can't name one accomplishment." More Environmental Capital: Iraq's Oil Beckons But at What Price for Big Oil? Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's spokesman, appearing earlier this month with the oil minister, voiced confidence in him and reaffirmed that the auction would take place as scheduled. In a recent interview, Mr. Shahristani, 66 years old, says he has done nothing wrong, and that lawmakers critical of him have a political agenda. He says he looks forward to answering questions from parliament about corruption and mismanagement. "I'm not a political animal, and I don't enjoy politics," he says. "The only reason I've accepted and continue with my responsibility is to protect the Iraqi wealth from unclean hands." Deals in Iraq often are reached over cups of tea late at night, but Mr. Shahristani doesn't like schmoozing. In a capital built on patronage, he has denied plum jobs to longtime friends. He's earned a reputation as a stickler for rules, including cumbersome purchasing regulations that other oil officials blame for slowing down Iraqi oil development. He has refused even small gifts, such as neckties, from visiting oil executives, he says. In his three years as oil minister, Mr. Shahristani has emerged as a key lieutenant to Mr. Maliki. After violence started to ebb in Iraq in 2008, Messrs. Maliki and Shahristani and a handful of other former Iraqi exiles have pushed an ambitious set of economic reforms. Western oil companies were kicked out of Iraq in 1972, part of a wave of Mideast petroleum nationalization. Oil production hit at least three million barrels a day before Iraq invaded Kuwait in 1990, then fell sharply to 300,000 barrels after economic sanctions and trade embargoes were imposed. Production rebounded to about 2.5 million barrels before the U.S. invasion in 2003. Iraqi lawmakers have squabbled for years over a draft petroleum law that would set a legal framework for foreign companies to start drilling again. Tired of waiting, Mr. Shahristani in 2008 unilaterally invited oil companies to bid on contracts. Because global companies are reluctant to explore undeveloped fields in Iraq without an oil law, Mr. Shahristani has focused on getting foreign help pumping from existing fields. "We have done what we can with our national resources, and now we need outside help," he says. He says the contracts don't need approval from parliament, though he insisted they fit the conditions outlined in the draft oil law, which is now being redrafted in the cabinet. Some of the terms, he says, are particularly beneficial to Iraq: Winners of the auction must fork over hundreds of millions of dollars of cash in upfront loans to the government. Mr. Shahristani, who grew up in Karbala in a prominent, religious family, is a nuclear scientist by training. After studying in Moscow and spending time in London, he earned masters and doctorate degrees in nuclear chemistry at the University of Toronto. In 1978, he became chief adviser to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission. Saddam Hussein had consolidated power and become president. According to Mr. Shahristani and others, he wanted a nuclear weapon. In a face-to-face meeting with Mr. Hussein, Mr. Shahristani reminded him that Iraq had signed a nonproliferation treaty and was bound by it. Mr. Hussein told him to concentrate on science and leave politics to him, according to Mr. Shahristani and two other scientists at the meeting. A few days later, in December 1979, security officials took him to Iraq's Internal Security facilities, where he was tortured for three weeks, he says. Mr. Shahristani says his torturers offered him palaces and riches if he would reconsider his refusal to work on nuclear weapons. He declined and was put into solitary confinement, where he remained for 10 years, he says. "But I never lost my will, I never lost my faith," he says. In 1990, he was released from solitary confinement. A year later, the U.S. bombardment of Baghdad during the first Gulf War sowed chaos at the prison. Another inmate stole some intelligence-corps uniforms and arranged for a getaway car. One evening, Mr. Shahristani and two others managed to evade guards, duck into a storage room and put on the stolen uniforms. After hiding for several hours, they snuck past some visiting intelligence officers playing cards and hustled out the prison gate. They met up with their families and snuck across the border into Iran. For the next few years, Mr. Shahristani helped Iraqi dissidents and refugees. In 1995, he and his wife, a Canadian, set up the Iraqi Refugee Aid Council. He became an outspoken critic of Mr. Hussein's regime and of nuclear proliferation. View Full Image AFP/Getty Images An engineer walked past the chimneys at the Barjisiya oil fields in Zubair One, southwest of the city of Basra, on Feb. 3, 2009. After U.S. troops poured into Baghdad in April 2003, he returned. He was identified by American officials as a top contender for the prime minister's job. He declined the position because it wasn't an elected one, he says, instead becoming deputy speaker of Iraq's parliament. Around that time, Mohammed Baqir, a family friend who had helped Mr. Shahristani escape from prison, asked for his help in finding government jobs for relatives. Mr. Shahristani refused. "Shahristani's problem is he is too straight and clean," Mr. Baqir says. "As a politician, you need to be flexible." After a new government led by Mr. Maliki was formed in 2006, the prime minister named him oil minister. His new ministry, like other government agencies at the time, was overrun by militia members, and corruption was rampant, according to Mr. Shahristani and other current and former oil officials. Over the next two years, hundreds of ministry employees were murdered or kidnapped. By the end of 2007, many top technocrats had fled the country, and various political parties had filled the ministry with patronage employees, according to Mr. Shahristani and the other officials. Mr. Shahristani fired 250 members of the ministry's security staff thought to be militia members, and replaced top security officials with people he trusted. He turned over evidence of wrongdoing to the ministry's inspector general, and fired or transferred those suspected of malfeasance. "Before, there was lots of interference in the ministry from political blocs, but he got rid of all that," says Abdul Mahdy al-Ameedi, head of the ministry's contracts department. The purge stirred resentment. Some employees claimed they were wrongly targeted. Others accused Mr. Shahristani of being too by-the-book. He cracked down on absenteeism and introduced a card-scan check-in system. He scaled back bonuses. But boosting oil production significantly proved difficult. Insurgents were attacking pipelines and refineries. Without a legal framework in place, foreign companies were reluctant to come to Iraq. The oil law stalled in parliament. An impatient government in the semiautonomous Kurdish north decided to move without Baghdad. In September 2007, Kurdish officials signed a deal with Texas-based Hunt Oil Co. Mr. Shahristani criticized the deal, saying it had no legal standing. The Kurdish government accused him of moving too slowly, and pressed ahead with its deal. A Western official in Baghdad who has dealt with Mr. Shahristani says he and others advising the government agreed that Mr. Shahristani was moving too slowly. Oil prices were sky-high, and foreign oil executives were eager to get into Iraq. The country needed a "wheeler-dealer type," this official says. Recently, he dropped his longtime opposition and allowed the Kurdish government to begin exporting oil. He yielded after the Kurds agreed to have Baghdad's central government receive payments for the exports. In this month's auction, Western firms also are competing to develop two natural-gas fields. All these deals are so-called technical-service contracts. Essentially, Iraq will pay companies a fee for boosting output. The contracts will last 20 years. Oil executives would prefer "production sharing" agreements, which give companies a share of profits, and typically allow them to book new reserves. They are nonetheless eager to get their feet in the door. Mr. Shahristani says companies that offer the lowest costs and most profit for Iraq will win. If the auction succeeds, the winners are expected to begin work in November. The Oil Ministry is planning a second round of bidding, to cover oil fields that have been explored but not fully developed. Nine of the 38 companies that applied to participate have been chosen as bidders. Those contracts will be awarded at the end of this year. Mr. Shahristani's term ends when a new government is formed after elections early next year. He plans to return to the Iraqi National Academy of Science, which he established in 2003. "I am not a politician," he says. —Munaf Mustafa and Jabbar al-Obedi in Baghdad contributed to this article

China buys Addax for £4.4bn to tap Iraqi oil

China has made its first big foray into Iraq in a C$8bn (£4.4bn) deal to buy London-listed oil explorer Addax Petroleum. By Rowena Mason Published: 12:39PM BST 24 Jun 2009 Previous1 of 4 ImagesNext A platform at an oil well in the Northern Iraq region of Kurdistan An Iraqi worker opens an oil pipeline at al-Shouayba refinery station in Basrah Iraqi workers inspect equipment in the control room of the Basra oil refinery An Iraqi oil refinery engineer walks along the Iraqi- Turkish pipeline in Kirkuk The board of Addax, which is also listed in Toronto and based in Switzerland, has recommended a C$52.80 per share offer from Sinopec, the Chinese state oil and gas company. Addax has oil assets in West Africa and the Middle East, particularly the Kurdistan region of northern Iraq. The company has increased its crude oil production from 8.8m barrels per day ten to 134.7m barrels per day over the last ten years. Related Articles China rebuffs US and EU over trade attack China on the rise once more across the East Heritage Oil eyes FTSE 100 after takeover deal Heritage makes large Iraqi oil find Shell in talks with Chinese oil companies over Iraqi sites Questor: Good news could well flow from Dana's explorationThere has been a scramble for oil assets in Iraq's Kurdish region, which is more open to foreign investment than Baghdad. Heritage Oil, also a London listed explorer, agreed to buy Addax's partner in Kurdistan, Turkey's Genel Energy, for £1.5bn earlier this month. Addax and Genel both produce oil at Taq Taq, with the intention of increasing its production from 40,000 barrels a day to a peak production of 180,000 barrels a day. Sinopec's offer represents a 47pc premium to the closing price on June 5, the day before Addax announced it was in preliminary discussions with Sinopec and others about a potential deal. Its shares rose 282, or 12pc, to £26.50 in London The offer from the cash-rich Sinopec, an abbreviation of the China Petrochemical Corporation, does not rely on outside financing. It will have to pay a termination fee of C$300m if it withdraws from the acquisition, which needs the approval of the Chinese government by the end of August. Jean Claude Gandur, chief executive of Addax, said he hoped Sinopec would increase investment in the business and accelerate exploration plans. "We are pleased that Sinopec has recognised the highly attractive asset portfolio and exceptional team that we have assembled at Addax Petroleum," he said. The transaction is the second this month involving assets in Iraq's Kurdish territory after the region started exports at the beginning of June.

Despite risks, country of Iraq is eager for U.S. drawdown

Americans see progress, though hot spots remain By Aamer Madhani USA TODAY BAQOUBA, Iraq � While out on patrol here one recent night, Army Sgt. Andrew Frame kept hearing the same message from Iraqis: Please don't leave yet. One Iraqi, Amer Habeeb Huwaid, 30, said he feared that once U.S. troops were gone, no one would push the government to provide security or basic necessities, such as electricity. "The voice of 100 (Iraqis) does not equal the voice of one American," Huwaid told Frame. Another concerned Iraqi, Shaker Alwan, 44, said he and his family recently abandoned their home after four bodies with slashed throats were dumped at a traffic circle in their neighborhood. "The Iraqi army is strong now, and they will get better," Alwan said. "But I don't want the Americans to leave completely. I want to be able to walk around at midnight and feel safe. Then the Americans should leave." As a June 30 deadline approaches for most U.S. troops to withdraw from Iraqi cities after a six-year occupation, much of the country is eager for the change. Vast areas including Baghdad have seen security improve dramatically and, while some tensions linger between Sunni and Shiite Muslims, major combat operations have drawn to a close. Meanwhile, the Iraqi government says it's ready to provide security and assume other responsibilities that have been performed largely by Americans since the 2003 invasion to topple Saddam Hussein. Yet there are still trouble spots in Iraq where militant groups such as al-Qaeda retain considerable power, setting off suicide bombs and terrorizing the population in the hope of staging a comeback nationwide. One of those places is Baqouba, a city of 400,000 just 35 miles north of Baghdad. Despite its proximity to the capital, there have never been enough troops available to fully eradicate the militant groups operating here, even during the U.S. troop "surge" of 2007-08. In recent years, as al-Qaeda in Iraq was evicted from one Iraqi city after another, Baqouba became a kind of capital for the insurgents to regroup, said Lt. Col. Shawn Reed, the U.S. Army battalion commander in charge of the city. Here, the prospects following the departure of U.S. combat troops are far less certain. "I think there's progress being made here," Reed told USA TODAY. "But … if Iraq falls backward and heads toward civil war, this is where it's going to be." Reed and his soldiers won't be going too far away � the security agreement reached last winter with the Iraqi government stipulates only that U.S. combat troops leave cities, towns and villages by the June 30 deadline. That means that, in Baqouba as elsewhere, most American troops will shift to military bases outside the city limits, where they'll still be available for combat operations if needed by their Iraqi counterparts. An unspecified number of troops will also stay behind in cities to advise and train Iraqi forces. The total number of U.S. troops in Iraq is not set to decline significantly until this fall, when a gradual drawdown will begin until all combat troops are out by Aug. 31, 2010, according to the withdrawal plan announced by President Obama in February. Still, the departure of Americans from neighborhood security outposts and other strategic footholds could give militants the space they need to rebound in places like Baqouba. The U.S. military is worried enough that Gen. Ray Odierno, the top U.S. commander for Iraq, publicly offered in March for his troops to stay past June 30 in Baqouba and Mosul, a violence-ridden city in the north. That offer was rejected by Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who said the time has come for the Iraqi government and military to take charge. "Don't worry if some security breach occurs here or there," al-Maliki said in a speech Saturday. "They are trying to destabilize the situation, but we will confront them." Hours after he spoke, a massive truck bomb exploded near a Shiite mosque outside the northern city of Kirkuk and killed at least 75 people � the deadliest single attack this year. Al-Maliki's decision to stick with the deadline carries major risks. But Army Sgt Frame, who on his sweep through Baqouba heard one Iraqi after another plead for his troops to stay, thinks it's the right call. "Is there still a need for Americans' help?" Frame said. "Yes. But there is also a need for us to back out of the way. As long as we're here, they'll depend on us. If we get out of the way, we're forcing them to start making it on their own." The problems in Baqouba are the same ones seen elsewhere in Iraq � they're just worse here. The city has an uneasy mix of religious, ethnic and tribal groups that are still killing each other as they struggle for power and resources. Electricity services are spotty, undermining public faith in the government. And it's unclear whether Iraqi security forces can keep the peace. Col. Burt Thompson, who oversees Diyala province, which includes Baqouba, said the area provides a useful illustration of problems that still need to be fixed nationwide. "How Diyala goes is how Iraq goes," he said. Reed, the U.S. commander, said security has improved since 2006, when Iraq's insurgency peaked. Back then, he said, the U.S. military controlled only the provincial government's headquarters and the nearby city council building � and they were regularly attacked by mortars and suicide bombers. Dozens of destroyed buildings still dot Baqouba's landscape. Now, Iraqi forces patrol most of the city. Shops have reopened and markets bustle with people. Since March, significant acts of violence have fallen in the province by nearly 89%, according to Maj. Chris Hyde, a 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team spokesman. Yet, unlike more peaceful parts of Iraq, Baqouba's streets empty shortly after sunset, and the government enforces a 10 p.m. curfew to curb violence. Suicide bombings and assassinations still occur regularly. Among those who don't want the Americans to leave: Diyala's governor, Abdel-Nasir al-Muntasirbillah, who has received death threats, according to Thompson. "He has said to me: 'I want you � coalition forces � only to secure me. … I don't want you guys to leave,' " Thompson said. "I said, 'Boss, I can't do that. It's your rules, and we've got to abide by them.' " Even at the governor's headquarters � which, in theory, should have the best security around � there are questions about the competence of Iraqi forces. In a recent meeting, an Iraqi commander told Reed he had confidence in only about 110 of the 150 guards charged with the building's protection. The other 40 still need training, the commander said. The other main pillar of security here � the so-called Awakening groups, mostly former Sunni insurgents who are now paid by the government to keep streets safe � is also in doubt. Reed said that, since January, the federal government in Baghdad has failed to pay about 1,000 Awakening members in Diyala, leaving them and many others disgruntled. Also, about a quarter of Awakening members in Diyala are still waiting for the government to transform them into Iraqi security forces or offer other jobs as promised, Reed said. Both issues have posed a problem throughout Iraq. One possible explanation cited by Thompson: the Shiite-dominated government in Baghdad may be trying to dilute Sunni influence ahead of nationwide elections next January. He said that, in recent months, the interior ministry has removed or reassigned several Sunni police officers here. "Let's face it. This place is about power and influence," Thompson said. "Prime Minister al-Maliki wants to stay in power. … Diyala was (Shiite). It went Sunni. Do you think they're going to let it stay that way? I don't think so." The possibility of an open power struggle scares many Baqouba residents, who remain uncertain whether the worst violence has passed. Alwan, the man who saw the four bodies dumped in his neighborhood a few months ago, said one of the men was still alive when an ambulance arrived. Scared that they might be seen by the insurgents helping someone they wanted dead, the ambulance crew picked up the three corpses and left the other man to die, Alwan said. "Thanks to God, the situation is much better now," he said. "It is still dangerous, but not like before. God willing, it will stay calm after the Americans leave."

Mobision commercial service launch in Iraq

MOBISION, the leading TV-over-mobile operator in the region has just announced the launch of its unique commercial service as of Thursday 28 May 2009. MOBISION’s signal has been broadcasting in Iraq on a test-and-fine-tune basis since August of 2008 and has found hunger for variety and choice of delivery amongst mobile video consumers. Boasting the MENA and Arab world’s largest bouquet, MOBISION broadcasts 20 of the world’s most popular satellite channels directly to its customers’ mobile devices utilizing a technology known as Digital Video Broadcast Over Handheld (DVB-H). This technology has not only been standardized as the broadcast norm in Europe, but also uses time slicing technology resulting in the notable reduction of battery consumptions. More importantly, the quality of audio and video signals is synonymous to that seen on a regular flat screen television set. The launch project’s Senior Vice President for technical affairs, Mr. Jad Attallah, also the mastermind behind the technical integration of the project, confirms that “unlike 3G or streaming technologies, a DVB-H phone from major handset manufacturers such as Samsung, LG, …, etc., can deliver up to 4 hours of viewership without the need to recharge your phone.” Mr. Andre Abi Nassif, SVP and launch team leader explains that the breakthrough accomplished should bring pride and inspire confidence in the minds of the region. With the consistent support of sister company E2M (the system’s integrator), MOBISION is the first to develop a commercial business model that is completely independent from other value chain members. “In addition to working with giants in the MicroSD card world, we utilize our home developed Mobile TV Subscription Management System (MTV-SMS) which enables the deployment of this model quickly and seamlessly either with mobile phone operators, or local terrestrial channel broadcasters anywhere. This makes the signal completely redundant, i.e.; should the phone signal fail, you will still receive your 20 channels” he asserts following months of rigorous scrutiny. Currently, MOBISION covers most of the Northern and Central areas, namely Baghdad and Kurdistan. Mr. Abi Nassif asserts that the plans to cover the Southern areas are already under execution beginning with Basra and Diwaniyah, and should be completed in the immediate coming few months. With encouraging and aggressive pricing packages already in place, a MOBISION customer will have access to 20 of the regions’ most popular channels in all major cities in Iraq ranging from news, to movies and sports. In keeping with the group’s mission of customer satisfaction, MOBISION has put in a place a call center manned specifically to address the needs of its subscribers. From anywhere in Iraq, subscribers may receive personal assistance from qualified MOBISION Customer Care Officers in English, Arabic and Kurdish by simply dialing pre-assigned dedicated short code numbers. MOBISION part of the Alsumaria Group, which has seen celebrated success in Iraq, and is currently gearing up for its much anticipated Ramadan hit programs through Alsumaria TV. The management of the parent group was noted as saying “It is an incumbent duty for the entire world to aid this nation by investing in its potential. Our specialty is media in all its disciplines. Consequently, we have taken it upon ourselves to ensure that entertainment reaches all Iraqis, regardless of time, on an individual choice. However, MOBISION was not created solely for the satisfaction of the end user, but with the intent to hopefully foster many families through employment in the coming few years”.

Iran Guards vow "Revolutionary Crackdown" on protestors

Iran's Revolutionary Guards have threatened to crack down on any new street protests against the results of the country's presidential election. In a statement, the guards vowed to react in a "revolutionary" way to suppress unauthorised demonstrations. Reports are coming in that at least 1,000 demonstrators have gathered in a square in the centre of Tehran. On Friday Ayatollah Ali Khamenei banned protests, prompting street violence in which at least 10 people died. The capital has seen rallies both against and in support of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. 'Revolutionary confrontation' The Revolutionary Guards, Iran's elite security force, have close ties to the country's supreme leader. “ We know that some of them are tracking us on our phone ” Behrooz, student in Tehran, speaking to the BBC News website In a statement posted on their website, they said their troops would break up street protests and force protesters from the streets. "Be prepared for a resolution and revolutionary confrontation with the Guards, Basij [pro-government militia] and other security forces and disciplinary forces," they said. "The Guards will firmly confront in a revolutionary way rioters and those who violate the law," they added. The plain-clothed Basij militia was involved in quelling earlier protests during more than a week of demonstrations against the re-election of President Ahmadinejad. The streets of Tehran were quieter on Sunday, with the earlier weekend violence leading many Iranians to abandon protest plans. One regular protester, a 20-year-old student called Behrooz contacted by the BBC several times in recent days, said he was concerned he would be attacked if he took part. "My mother went to the demonstration on Saturday," he said. "She wasn't hurt, but she saw guards attacking people and hitting them with batons." Protesters were aware their electronic communications were being monitored, Behrooz added. "We know that some of them are tracking us on our phone," he said. "When we say certain words... such as 'supreme leader' or 'demonstration' our lines are cut." Mobile calls were being blocked in the evenings and phones would not work in areas where people were demonstrating, he said. Some online messages said opposition supporters planned to carry candles at a rally in Tehran on Monday evening in memory of those killed. Media 'vandalism' Results showed Mr Ahmadinejad won the 12 June election by a landslide, taking 63% of the vote, almost double that of Mir Hossein Mousavi, his nearest rival. Following complaints, the powerful Guardian Council, which oversees the electoral process, now says it has found evidence that more votes were cast in some constituencies than there were registered voters. But the number had "no effect on the result of the elections", a council spokesman said on Monday. Speaking at a news conference, foreign ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi accused Western governments of explicitly backing violent protests aimed at undermining the stability of Iran's Islamic Republic. "Spreading anarchy and vandalism by Western powers and also Western media... these are not at all accepted," he said. The BBC and other foreign media have been reporting from Iran under severe restrictions for the past week. The BBC's permanent correspondent in Iran, Jon Leyne, was asked to leave the country on Sunday.

Iraqis back Iranian protesters' call for change

By Mehdi Lebouachera – 1 day ago BAGHDAD (AFP) — In a bazaar in Baghdad's predominantly Shiite district of Kadhimiyah, one tailor bluntly expresses hope that the turmoil now besetting Iran will lead Iraq's neighbour to stop interfering in his country. "Iran constantly meddles in our affairs; I hope that change means they will stop intervening," 43-year-old Salah Aziz told AFP. Like many Iraqi Shiites, Aziz backs the Iranian protesters who have turned out onto the streets in massive demonstrations over the past week to contest the re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. His views mirror the distrust many here have for Tehran, even as the two countries with strong Shiite majorities have strengthened ties in recent years, nearly three decades after the start of a war that left a million dead. Those improved relations, sparked by a number of Iraqi Shiite political leaders who lived in Iranian exile during the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein, have given Tehran greater sway with Baghdad. "Iranians have reason to protest," Aziz said, sipping coffee with friends during a break from work. "But I think Ahmadinejad will stay in power. He has the support of (Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali) Khamenei." Nearby, mobile telephone seller Qais Zahar criticised Iranian political leaders, and particularly Khamenei, for imposing their vision of society on ordinary citizens. "Religious leaders should not intervene in politics and in people's day-to-day lives," the 27-year-old said. "I support the protesters. If the regime fell, that would be a good thing for Iran, and for Iraq." Though the two countries have Shiite majorities, religion's place in society is viewed in wildly different ways. In Iran, power resides with the clerics while, in Iraq religious leaders only provide counsel to politicians and generally do not participate in politics. It is a difference best illustrated by the differing roles taken on by Khamenei and Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, Iraqi Shiites' spiritual guide. While Khamenei is deeply involved in the day-to-day running of Iran and is the ultimate political arbitor, Sistani lives a cloistered life that is focused on religious matters. In the shrine city of Najaf, south of Baghdad, there is a large population of Iranian residents and tourists from the Islamic republic, and Iraqi Mohannad Hassan also hopes for change. "I think if Ahmadinejad wins this struggle, it would have a negative effect on Iraq, because Iranian intervention would continue," the 24-year-old said. Ali Saleh, a civil servant there, echoed those views, saying that "if Iran's leaders focused on their own problems, they would not get involved in other countries and would end their interference." In Iraq's other holy city of Karbala, a police officer who declined to give his name for fear of being reprimanded, also spoke of his hope of an end to Iran's influence on Iraq. "We don't interfere in Iranian affairs. We expect the same from them," he said. However, support for reform in Iran is not universal. Sheikh Abbas al-Daobul, an imam in Karbala, spoke of his concern that any change in Tehran could have a negative impact on Iran. "Ahmadinejad in power is better than any other regime when it comes to its relations with Iraq," he said. But for many Iraqis, who have only recently witnessed the emergence of democracy at home, their neighbours also should have the right to be "free". "Here, we are free," said Aziz in Baghdad. "Freedom to vote, to speak, to criticise. When I cast my ballot, it is taken into account. Why should Iranians not have this?"

The ordinary becomes magic in Iraq

McClatchy Newspaper Last night I went out for supper. One of the most ordinary acts we can do. But it was the first time I'd ever done it in Iraq. Last year Leila Fadel, the McClatchy bureau chief, Hussein, a reporter, and I were on the verge of venturing up the street outside the guarded compound where the bureau is to an ice cream shop. We'd talked about the security situation and decided that since several Iraqis and a few foreigners they knew had already gone there, we'd give it a shot. A couple nights later, from the rooftop we were forbidden to go to, we watched the ice cream shop burn down after a car bomb blew it up. So much for a chocolate cone. Last night Jack Dolan, the Miami Herald's bulldog/watchdog reporter, and I decided we wanted a burger. There were plates in the fridge left over from lunch, but we both took one look at 'em and shook our heads. "Burger," we said at the same time to Laith, a bureau reporter. To me, "burger" meant the cafe downstairs in the hotel we call home. So I started to move, wearing sandals and the traffic-cone-colored shorts I wear after dark when nobody but the staff is around. Both Jack and Laith looked at me. "Uh," said Jack, "those might, ah, set us apart a little." You want me to change into jeans? They nodded. Well, OK, it's only people from the hotel, I thought, but all right. I changed. We got downstairs and I headed toward the cafe. It was closed. They were walking out the guarded doors. Outside. Outside! The only times last year I'd been outside the wire had been in an armored Mercedes, an armored Humvee, a 25-ton mine-resistant rig, a Black Hawk helicopter and a C-130. The drachma dropped. We were going outside the compound. On foot. In jeans and sandals and a shirt. Last year my time on the streets of Baghdad consisted of three tense five-minute interviews: one with a fish restaurant manager; one with a bookseller; one with a magazine kiosk owner. While Hussein, his head on a swivel, translated, our driver loitered a few meters away, engine on, in case the presence of a 6'3, 220-pound westerner caught somebody's attention whose attention we didn't want to catch, and we had to make a run for it. But last night we walked past the security guards manning the iron rail across our road and came to Jadriyah Street. Cars and trucks and scooters buzzed past in two lanes either side of a weedy verge. It turned out the most dangerous part of the night was getting across that street. We came to the Tazij ("Fresh") restaurant. Many tables inside, a few on a terrace in front--a short grenade throw from the street. Inside or out, Jack asked. Wherever it's cooler, I said, immediately regretting it when Jack decided it would be cooler outside. All I could think of was the scene in "The Killing Fields" when the New York Times reporter and his freelance photographer friend were sitting at an outdoor cafe in Phnom Penh and a Khmer Rouge guy on a scooter cruised by and tossed a bomb. But Laith led us past the terrace behind a high hedge where dozens of tables sat on green grass. Red and yellow fairy lights were necklaced on the hedge. An orange cat meowed his way from table to table. A little girl in a pointed party hat ran through the opening in the hedge and onto the terrace. On the street as we were ordering, a wedding party in several cars drove by, horns honking and people shouting. The smell of charcoal drifted through the starry night. Jack and I had lamb burgers, Laith a chicken burger, Pepsis all around. They came on buns the size of salad plates, French fries on the meat forming a double layer of delicious. I leaned back in the metal chair. And relaxed. It still seemed a dream--to eat a meal outside in Baghdad. Before the insurgency got real in early 2004, reporters and Iraqis alike could still do this in post-invasion Iraq. But that small luxury, that little slice of heaven, like so many other parts of a civil society, had been swept from the table by four years of violence. After we ate, we talked, mostly about girls and sports. How normal is that? As we crossed the street heading back to the compound, I felt as if I'd also crossed a threshold. Last year in May, I wrote the first, or one of the first, stories about the sharp decline in violence and what it might mean: 'After weeks of relative calm, two questions are being asked in war-torn Iraq and in the United States: Will it last? And when can Americn forces come home?' I knew I was going out on a journalistic limb, but intellectually, I thought the timing was right to raise the questions. Emotionally, though, I harbored deep doubts about how long the calm might last. Our supper Thursday night eased some of those doubts. Hell, I've been around long enough to know that all it might take to keep people cowering again in their homes is another Alaskari Shrine incident--the 2006 bombing of the sacred mosque that lit the fuse that touched off civil war for the next two years. And as American combatants pull back to their bases outside major Iraqi cities by the end of this month, knuckleheads may test the Iraqi army and police to see just how tough they are. More bloodshed is inevitable. But last night's plain and simple walk to eat a meal outside the walls gave me more hope than I've ever felt about this place. Sure, it could all turn back to dung in a white-hot heartbeat. But for one easy hour or so, sitting with two friends at a quiet cafe in south central Baghdad, it seemed anything was posible in Iraq. Even peace.

Iraq Has Muted Reaction to Iran Election Result

By GINA CHON BAGHDAD -- After the fall of Saddam Hussein, Iraq mended ties with Iran, once a nemesis where many of Iraq's leading Shiite Muslim politicians found refuge from Mr. Hussein's repressive regime. But Baghdad's so-far lukewarm reaction to the announced re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad over the weekend is the latest sign of a new chill in relations between the two, mostly Shiite, Middle East heavyweights. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani publicly congratulated Mr. Ahmadinejad on his win, a customary diplomatic gesture. But other politicians, including Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki, who spent years of exile in Iran, have remained noticeably silent on the contested victory. Abdul Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of Iraq's largest Shia party, also spent years in Iran and is there now, receiving treatment for cancer. He hailed Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, after the election, but pointedly left out any mention of Mr. Ahmadinejad. When Shiite politicians took charge in Baghdad after Mr. Hussein's ouster, ties warmed considerably between Arab Iraq and Persian Iran, which were at war through the 1980s in a conflict that some estimate claimed as many as one million lives. Iran ratcheted up its economic and diplomatic presence here. Iranian pilgrims have flooded Shia holy sites in southern Iraq, lifting local economies. The two countries' leaders have visited each other. More recently, Mr. Maliki's government has clashed with its neighbor and sometime benefactor. The disputed Iranian election has triggered fresh carping at Tehran here, even among Shiite politicians who have the most to gain from warmer ties. "We hope whatever the outcome, we can find ourselves dealing with a more reasonable Iran that knows it can't bully us," said a Shia lawmaker. U.S. officials have long accused Iran of meddling in Iraqi affairs and backing Shiite militias. Iraqi officials have trod carefully because of past political ties and awareness that Iran provides significant economic investment. But in recent months, Iraqi officials have been more outspoken in complaining about Iranian interference. Baghdad and Tehran have exchanged heated letters recently over a border dispute, and Iranian officials lobbied Mr. Maliki's government against agreeing to a bilateral security pact with the U.S. late last year. After months of negotiations, the Iraqi government approved the deal. Iraqi businessmen and lawmakers, meanwhile, have lambasted Iran for economic encroachment, including flooding Iraqi markets with cheap goods. Part of the new Iran-bashing also is due to domestic politics. Iraq is bracing for its own elections early next year, and many politicians are eager to hone their nationalist credentials amid a growing popular backlash against perceived Iranian political and economic influence. Still, Baghdad is far from making an open break with Tehran. "We can talk about other neighbors, but with Iran, this is impossible," said a government official close to Mr. Maliki. "This was an unfair election," said the official, "but we can't say that publicly because we can't afford to affect our relationship with Iran."

Iran’s Hidden Revolution

After Iran’s rigged elections last week, with hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets, it looked as if a new revolution was in the offing. Five days later, the uprising is little more than a symbolic protest, crushed by the elite Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. Meanwhile, the real revolution has gone unnoticed: the guard has effected a silent coup d’état. The seeds of this coup were planted four years ago with the election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. And while he has since disappointed his public, failing to deliver on promised economic and political reforms, his allies now control the country. In the most dramatic turnabout since the 1979 revolution, Iran has evolved from theocratic state to military dictatorship. Disenchantment with clerical rule has been growing for years. To the urban youths who make up Iran’s most active political class, the mullahs represent the crude rigidity of Islamic law. To the rural poor, they epitomize the corruption that has meant unbuilt schools, unpaved roads and unfulfilled promises of development. This hostility overflowed during the 2005 presidential race, with the defeat of former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, a cleric widely considered corrupt, by Mr. Ahmadinejad, a former officer in the Revolutionary Guards. In Mr. Ahmadinejad, the public saw a man who repudiated the profligacy of the clerical class, a man who was ascetic, humble and devout. And he capitalized on that image to consolidate power and to promote his brothers in arms. Fourteen of the 21 cabinet ministers he has appointed are former members of the guards or its associated paramilitary, the Basij. Several, including Defense Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar, are veterans of notorious units thought to have supported terrorist operations in the 1980s. This creeping militarization has not been restricted to the central government: provincial governors, press commissars, film directors, intelligence officers and business leaders are increasingly former members of the guard. The elite force controls much of the economy either directly — the Basij has rights to oil extraction — or through proxy companies like Khatam al Anbiya, which dominates construction throughout Iran. Technically, the pinnacle of power in Iran remains Ayatollah Khamenei, along with the 12-member Guardian Council. Yet he has proved eager to fall in with the president’s overthrow of the clerics. Indeed, Western intelligence services suspect Ayatollah Khamenei approved the rigging of the second round of the 2005 presidential election to throw decisive votes to Mr. Ahmadinejad. And this time around, the supreme leader made clear his preference with coded references like his exhortation to vote for “a man of the people, sincere, with a simple lifestyle.” Why would he deliberately undercut his own clerical class? Survival. Far from fretting about an impending attack from Israel or America, guard leaders have been warning the ayatollah that the most formidable threat to the Islamic Republic is a “soft regime change policy” involving the use of “orange revolutions” (as the hard-line Iranian newspaper Kayhan recently editorialized). Encircled by American forces in Iraq and Afghanistan, besieged from within by disgruntled citizens, the supreme leader has turned to a bellicose strongman to preserve the system that elevated him. Indeed, Ayatollah Khamenei — who was scorned as a religious lightweight by many more established mullahs when he was chosen for the top post in 1989 — has repeatedly shown himself willing to undercut the “Islamic” in Islamic revolution. In doing so, he has painted himself into a corner — a permanent alliance with Mr. Ahmadinejad and the Revolutionary Guards. And this fraudulent election will only push them closer together. Many have been struck by the crudeness of the recent vote rigging, with reformist candidates losing even their hometowns. The unusually speedy certification of the election and Ayatollah Khamenei’s quick blessing — “a divine miracle” — only served to underscore an obvious sham. Yet you don’t have to be paranoid to wonder if events were following a script: protesters pour into the streets only to be beaten down by Revolutionary Guard and Basij gunmen; the regime is prepared to detain dissidents — reportedly using Facebook and Twitter to locate them; Mr. Ahmadinejad is so unworried he jets off to Russia; and every element of the confrontation has provided a pretext for an overwhelming assertion of domestic power by the Revolutionary Guards. What does this mean for President Obama and the policy of engagement he hopes to pursue? Some will argue that Mr. Ahmadinejad may be in a conciliatory mood because he needs talks with the United States to underscore his own legitimacy, but that can only be read as a self-serving Washington perspective. Meanwhile, the Iranian people will have suffered the consolidation of power by a ruthless regime and the transformation of a theocracy to an ideological military dictatorship. That Iran neither needs nor wants accommodation with the West. Danielle Pletka is the vice president for foreign and defense policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. Ali Alfoneh is a visiting fellow at the institute.

Why was top US general late for his own press conference? Iraqi security

An Iraqi government spokesman's opening line was meant comically, but rang true. The country's military leaders and officials are increasingly emphasizing Iraqi independence. By Jane Arraf | Correspondent of The Christian Science Monitor BAGHDAD Two weeks before Iraqi security forces take full control of the cities, the most telling comment in a major press conference by Gen. Ray Odierno and senior Iraqi officials Monday was the joke that preceded the event. "We apologize for being late – the American general needed permission to enter the building," government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh told reporters who had waited for two hours at the prime ministry complex. As the June 30 deadline approaches for US combat troops to be out of the cities, Iraqi military leaders, officials, and ordinary security people have been increasingly emphasizing Iraqi independence in ways large and small. The perimeter of Baghdad's Green Zone is now under Iraqi control, and Iraqi forces recently exercised for the first time their right to detain US contractors accused of crimes here. At Monday's press conference, Mr. Dabbagh – along with the Iraqi defense minister and interior minister – hailed June 30 as a day that would go down in history along with the anniversary of the Iraqi revolution. The officials reiterated the ways in which Iraqis would see even less of a US military presence in their streets. "There will be limited missions and limited movement for American forces," said Dabbagh. "There will be no combat missions unless requested by the government of Iraq." General Odierno told reporters that most troops have already pulled out of Iraqi cities and the remainder would be out by the June 30 deadline in the security agreement negotiated with Iraq, known as the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA). "US combat forces will leave the cities by June 30 and it will be a great day for the Iraqi people," said Odierno. Odierno 'much more comfortable' with Iraqi forces' ability The US general had said in April that he expected the Iraqi government to ask US troops to stay past June 30 in Mosul and Diyala, where Iraqi forces are still fighting an active insurgency. Most Iraqi military leaders agreed they needed more time. Nonmilitary US officials privately say those statements contributed to a backlash in the Iraqi government, resulting in Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki's insistence that US troops should leave those cities as well. US military leaders have since been reluctant to say anything at all on the subject of the security agreement, and on Monday Odierno said recent Iraqi Army operations had made him "much more comfortable" about the prospect of Iraqi forces holding their own in Mosul. The US general reiterated that attacks continued to remain relatively low due to the success of the US and Iraqi military surge in 2007 and that the country has seen a drop in foreign fighters entering Iraq over the last eight to 10 months. "The dark days of previous years are behind us," Odierno said. Defense minister: Still need US for air support The US has drawn down to 130,000 servicemen from 160,000 during the surge and will continue to reduce those numbers until it pulls out of Iraq entirely – scheduled to take place by the end of 2011 under SOFA. Odierno said there were still 320 US bases in Iraq – a reduction from the 460 they had held before closing or handing over bases within cities and towns. The general said that number would continue to drop this year. Iraqi Defense Minister Abdul Qadir al-Obeidi said Iraq would still rely on the United States for support functions including air support, surveillance, and medical evacuation facilities. The rare press conference by Odierno with Iraqi leaders was held under intensely tight security, reflecting the persistent threat to Iraqi government officials and Baghdad's still fragile security. Baghdad's Green Zone is now secured on the outer perimeters by Iraqi forces and inside by Peruvian guards contracted to a private American security firm. After exhaustive searches in the 110-degree F. heat to enter the Green Zone, reporters told to show up two hours in advance were put through a series of other checks. At the last entry point to the government press center, security guards placed banned cellphones and tape recorders for safekeeping next to dozens of pistols checked by their owners.

Combat Troops on Pace to Leave Iraqi Cities

Even Violent Mosul to Be Relinquished by June 30 Deadline, U.S. Commander Says By Nada Bakri Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 16, 2009 BAGHDAD, -- U.S. combat troops will leave all Iraqi cities by their scheduled deadline of the end of this month, including Mosul, which remains the country's most dangerous urban area, the commander of U.S. forces said Monday. American combat troops must pull back from cities by June 30 under a U.S.-Iraqi security pact that took effect this year. But Gen. Ray Odierno, the American commander, said this year that troops might remain in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul because of continuing security concerns. During a news conference Monday with senior Iraqi officials, Odierno said violence has declined because of a number of successful military operations in the past month or so. "We had reservations in Mosul a few months ago," Odierno said. "But I feel much more comfortable with the situation in Mosul now." Al-Qaeda in Iraq, a Sunni insurgent group, and other foreign fighters are believed to have regrouped in Mosul and the surrounding towns in Nineveh province after they were defeated in Baghdad and western Iraq. Odierno said that he is still "absolutely committed" to leaving all urban areas on schedule but added that a number of troops will remain in Iraqi cities as advisers and trainers to work with Iraqi security forces. He did not specify how many troops would remain or where they would be based. "We will not get into any specific numbers, but it is a very small number," he said. Odierno said 320 U.S. military bases remain in Iraq, down from 460, but he did not specify how many of them were in Iraqi cities. "The dark days of the previous years are behind us. Iraqis are able to live more normal lives," Odierno said. "It is a fitting time for our combat forces to move out." But while many Iraqis are happy to see U.S. troops leave their country, they fear a resurgence of violence after the withdrawal. Some have expressed reservations, saying Iraqi forces are not ready to assume responsibility for security. Last week, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki warned a gathering of hundreds of top military commanders from across the country that "terrorist operations" could increase ahead of the U.S. withdrawal from cities and a crucial vote for parliament in January. Under the joint security pact that took effect in January, as many as 50,000 U.S. troops will remain in Iraq in an advisory role until the end of 2011. But combat troops will leave inner cities on June 30 and Iraq by August 2010, under President Obama's plan. Odierno said the number of foreign fighters entering Iraq has dropped significantly thanks to improved security along the border and efforts by neighboring Syria. "For the most part, it has just been a trickle," Odierno said. "We have seen some fighters coming through Syria, but Syria has been taking some action over the last few weeks, so hopefully that will continue." Ali al-Dabbagh, the government spokesman, said the day U.S. forces left "would be written in Iraqi history." He added that there would be no American combat missions unless requested by the Iraqi government.

Hedgehogs and flamingos in Tehran

By Spengler Asia Times In Wonderland, Alice played croquet with hedgehogs and flamingos. In the Middle East, United States President Barack Obama is attempting the same thing, but with rats and cobras. Not only do they move at inconvenient times, but they bite the players. Iran's presidential election on Friday underscores the Wonderland character of American policy in the region. America's proposed engagement of Iran has run up against the reality of the region, namely that Iran cannot "moderate" its support for its fractious Shi'ite allies from Beirut to Pakistan's northwest frontier. It also shows how misguided Obama was to assume that progress on the Palestinian issue would help America solve more urgent strategic problems, such as Iran's potential acquisition of nuclear weapons. By assigning 64% of the popular vote to incumbent President Mahmud Ahmadinejad in last weekend's elections, Iran's reigning mullahs, if there was indeed rigging, made a statement - but to whom? The trumpet which dare not sound an uncertain note was a call to Tehran's Shi'ite constituency, as well as to a fifth of Pakistani Muslims. Religious establishments by their nature are conservative, and they engage in radical acts only in need. Tehran is tugged forward by the puppies of war: Hezbollah in Lebanon and its co-sectarians in Pakistan. With a population of 170 million, Pakistan has 20 million men of military age, as many as Iran and Turkey combined; by 2035 it will have half again as many. It also has nuclear weapons. And it is in danger of disintegration. Against a young, aggressive and unstable Pakistan, Iran seems a moribund competitor. Iran's fertility decline is the fastest that demographers ever have observed. As I reported on this site last February (Sex, drugs and Islam, February 24, 2009), Iranian fertility by some accounts has fallen below the level of 1.9 births per female registered in the 2006 census to only 1.6, barely above Germany's. Collapsing fertility is accompanied by social pathologies, including rates of drug addiction and prostitution an order of magnitude greater than in any Western country. Of the 15 countries that show the biggest drop in population growth since 1980, eight are in the Middle East, and the head of the United Nations population division calls the collapse of Islamic population growth "amazing". Pakistan is the great exception, and that makes it the fulcrum of the Muslim world. Ahmadinejad's invective may be aimed at Jerusalem, but his eye is fixed on Islamabad. That explains the decisions of his masters in Tehran's religious establishment who may have rigged, or at least exaggerated, his election victory. Pakistan's ongoing civil war has a critical sectarian component which the Shi'ites never sought: the Taliban claim legitimacy as the Muslim leadership of the country on the strength of their militancy against the country's Shi'ite minority. Were the Taliban to succeed in crushing Pakistan's Shi'ites, Iran's credibility as a Shi'ite power would fade, along with its ability to project influence in the region. As Middle East analyst Daniel Pipes asks, "Why did [Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali] Khamenei select Ahmadinejad to "win" the election? Why did he not chose a president-puppet who would present a smile to the world, including Obama, handle the economy competently, not rile the population, and whose selection would not inspire riots that might destabilize the regime? Has Khamenei fallen under the spell of Ahmadinejad or does he have some clever ploy up his sleeve? Whatever the answer is, it baffles me." The issue is less baffling when raw numbers are taken into account. The issues on which Iran's supposed moderation might be relevant, such as the Arab-Israeli conflict, are less pressing for Tehran than the problems on its eastern border. Of the world's 200 million Shi'ite Muslims, about 30% reside in Iran. Another 10% live in neighboring Iraq, and comprise about two-thirds of the country's population. Yet another 30% of the Shi'ite live in the Indian sub-continent, about equally divided between India and Pakistan. Pakistani Shi'ites make up only about one-fifth of the country's population. Their numbers are just large enough to make the Sunnis ill at ease with their presence. Shi'ite Sunni TOTAL 219,667,367 1,238,699,792 Iran 61,924,500 6,880,500 Pakistan 33,160,712 127,668,738 India 30,900,000 123,600,000 Iraq 18,158,400 9,777,600 Turkey 14,550,000 58,200,000 Shi'ite leaders of the region believe that they stand on the verge of an irreversible breakdown of Islamic civilization, a thesis which Iraqi leader Ali W Allawi argued forcefully in a recent book, The Crisis of Islamic Civilization. Allawi wrote, "The much heralded Islamic 'awakening' of recent times will not be a prelude to the rebirth of an Islamic civilization; it will be another episode in its decline. The revolt of Islam becomes instead the final act of the end of a civilization." I reviewed Allawi's book on this site in (Predicting the death of Islam May 5, 2009). Iran's aspirations for a restored Islamic civilization cannot exclude Pakistan's 30 million Shi'ites. The Taliban's insurgency inside Pakistan is directed against the Shi'ites more than any other target, and to make matters worse, Pakistani intelligence is agitating among Iran's own Sunni minority. On June 12, the day before Iran's election, a Taliban suicide bomber killed Mufti Sarfraz Naeemi in Lahore, the leader of the pro-government Barelvi Muslim current in Pakistan. As Pakistan's Daily Times wrote June 14, "The reason for this murder was not far too seek. Mufti Naeemi, arguably the most influential of the Ahle Sunnat-Barelvi school of thought in Pakistan, had recently presided over an all-Barelvi conference in Islamabad condemning the Taliban practice of suicide-bombing, and presenting to the nation, as it were, a choice between the extremist Deobandi Taliban and the moderate Ahle Sunnat clerical confederation." The Deobandi wing of Sunni Islam preaches violence against Pakistan's Shi'ite minority, whose position would be fragile were the Taliban to take power. Although Deobandi Islam is a minority current among Pakistani Sunnis, "The conduct of covert jihad by the state has thrown the Barelvis into obscurity and a lack of street power over the years," the Daily Times wrote. "Their mosques, once in a majority in the country, were either grabbed by the more powerful Deobandis with trained jihadi cadres who could be violent, or simply outnumbered by the more resourceful Deobandi-linked ones." The threat to Iran from the Pakistani Taliban extends to Iran's eastern provinces. A May 28 bomb destroyed a mosque in the Kordestan city of Zahedan, on the Pakistani border. Iran called in Pakistan's ambassador to protest alleged official support for the terrorists of the Pakistan-based Jundallah Sunni group which planted the bomb. Tehran also has circulated murky allegations that Israel's secret service was behind the mosque bombing. Kaveh L Afrasiabi wrote on June 3 in Asia Times Online, "Where Iran has Hezbollah, Israel has Jundallah, given Israel's apparent efforts to destabilize Iran by playing an 'ethnic card' against it. This, by some reports, it is doing by nurturing the Sunni Islamist group Jundallah to parallel Tehran's support for Lebanon's formidable Shi'ite group, Hezbollah." (Please see Hezbollah spices up Israel-Iran mix.) In addition to Israel, Xinhua reported May 30, "Iran also blamed the United States, Britain and some other Western countries behind these attacks, accusing them of destabilizing the Islamic Republic, a charge denied by Washington and London." It is hard to guess who might be funding Jundallah. Pakistan's secret service as well as the Saudis have a motive to do so. Washington's interest is to strengthen the coalition against the Pashtun-speaking Taliban, which means keeping several ethnic minorities allied against the Taliban with the Punjabi core of Pakistan's armed forces. These include the Dari-speaking Kabuli Pashtuns, the Tajiks and the mainly Shi'ite Hazara, a Turkic tribe whom the Iranians tend to deprecate. That is where Washington looks for help from Teheran. If Tehran were playing a two-sided chess game with Washington, a moderate face like that of Hossein Mousavi would have served Iranian interests better than Ahmadinejad, as Pipes suggests. But Tehran also has to send signals to the sidelines of the chess match. With the situation on its eastern border deteriorating and a serious threat emerging to the Shi'ites of Pakistan, Iran has to make its militancy clear to all the players in the region. Washington's ill-considered attempts at coalition building are more a distraction than anything else. Because Tehran's credibility is continuously under test, it cannot hold its puppies of war on a tight leash. Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon will continue to nip at the Israelis and spoil the appearance of a prospective settlement. The louder Iran has to bark, the less credible its bite. Iran's handling of last weekend's presidential election results exposes the weakness of the country's strategic position. That makes an Israeli strike against its alleged nuclear weapons facilities all the more likely - not because Tehran has shown greater militancy, but because it has committed the one sin that never is pardoned in the Middle East - vulnerability.

Army National Guard Leaders: Gates weakening security

By Roxana Tiron Hill Magazine Posted: 06/11/09 09:24 PM [ET] National Guard leaders from 48 of the 50 states sent a letter to the House and Senate Armed Services committees on Thursday warning that a budget decision made by Defense Secretary Robert Gates would weaken national security. The adjutants general from the states, along with three representing U.S. territories, are challenging Gates’s request to halve the C-27J Joint Cargo Aircraft program and transfer all responsibility to the Air Force, in a rare rebuke of the secretary outlined in their letter. To make their point, the 51 adjutants general who signed the letter indicated the decision “decimates the Joint Cargo Aircraft program [and] is a cause of grave concern.” The National Guard leaders wrote that it would weaken national defense and that they have a hard time understanding “how such a colossal shift in strategy can be rationalized.” The Army and Air Force so far have shared the program expected to field at least 78 cargo aircraft, mostly for National Guard units. Gates’s fiscal 2010 request would cut the number of planes to 38. “The cuts would have a devastating impact on the National Guard and weaken our national defense,” the adjutants generals wrote. “Whether responding to regional wind and ice storms, hurricanes on the coastlines, or a large scale terrorist incident, the National Guard needs the [C-27J] to timely deliver personnel and emergency supplies to areas that would otherwise be inaccessible.” At press time, a spokesman for Gates could not be reached for comment. While the adjutants general are expressing concern about the impact of the budget decision, they are also sending a clear message that the Guard and Reserve leaders still are not included in major Pentagon decisions despite Congress’s efforts over the past couple of years to ensure that happens. “Canceling a program for which there is no alternative and that resides primarily in the National Guard to serve both the Governors and DoD [the Department of Defense] without consulting with the leadership of the National Guard is precisely the type of behavior the National Guard Empowerment Act was meant to end,” the adjutants general wrote in the letter. As the military representatives answering to state governors, the adjutants general have considerable clout, and their decision to send a strongly worded letter to Congress will likely spur widespread grassroots support for the program. The Guard leaders call the Pentagon’s decision to slash the program in half and transfer control solely to the Air Force “readiness-eroding” and “unilateral.” They argue that the national security repercussions from this decision “cannot be overstated.” The letter comes at a critical time, with the House Armed Services Committee tackling the 2010 defense authorization bill this week. Sources told The Hill that the letter results from the annual meeting of the Adjutants General Association of the United States, which took place last week in Jackson Hole, Wyo. The adjutants general voted at the meeting on a resolution that supports buying at least 78 C-27J planes and splitting the program between the Army and Air Force — as initially planned and approved by Gates himself several months before the new budget request was submitted to Congress in May. Gates recently told House and Senate defense authorizers that he was a bystander when Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey and Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz discussed and agreed on the change to the C-27J program. The 2010 budget submission had Gates’s stamp of approval. The Army in particular has been adamant about buying a smaller cargo aircraft that can go deep into the battlefield to deliver supplies to troops. The Army has been relying heavily on its Chinook helicopters for that purpose. Army officials have argued for months that Afghanistan’s terrain, for example, has put great pressure on these helicopters, which are now filling the void of a cargo aircraft that can fly “the last tactical mile.” The C-27J, under contract to L-3 Communications and Alenia North America, was supposed to replace the decades-old C-23 Sherpas. Maj. Gen. Terry Nesbitt, the Georgia adjutant general, recently expressed his frustration with the Pentagon’s decision to The Macon Telegraph: “There’s probably been more studies and staffing of this program than any I’ve seen,” Nesbitt told the paper last week. “If there has ever been a joint program that’s been done right, it’s this one. It went through several years of work. Now, somebody with the stroke of a pen decided to change all that.” The Army National Guard was expecting to receive the C-27J in 12 states: California, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Texas, Alaska and Washington state. Each was supposed to receive four airplanes. Alaska was supposed to share its airplanes with Guam. Under the initial plan, the Air Force was expected to receive 24 of the 78 C-27Js — four planes in six states across the country: Connecticut, Michigan, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio and Mississippi. Under the proposed plan, those states get their planes and the other 14 planes will likely go into the active Air Force. The Air Force was expected to receive the planes a couple years after the Army, which has already received two C-27Js and has 11 others under contract.

Tearing down of neighborhood barriers breathes new life into Baghdad

The Guardian International Edition Michael Howard Baghdad Security may still be unpredictable, but officials in the Iraqi capital are planning to tear down Baghdad’s network of concrete barriers and razor wire in the coming months as a measure of reconciliation creeps through its neighbourhoods. The towering grey concrete barriers, known as T-walls, sprang up as sectarian conflict intensified in 2006 and 2007. Streets were closed and checkpoints established. Entire communities were isolated or divided, and familiar landmarks all but disappeared. Residents cowered or fled. Now, improved security means that teams of cranes and trucks are stealing out under cover of darkness from municipal depots across the capital and removing the barriers, street by street. A ministry of defence spokesman said that most of the concrete barriers would be gone by the end of 2009. “They are now the biggest obstacle to breathing new life into our city,” said Ali Dawoud, the head of reconstruction and development at Baghdad’s city council. He said that since January 10%-15% of the streets that were closed had been reopened and the barrier removal programme was growing month by month, security permitting. Security concerns still abound. Bombs and mortars are still a regular occurrence in Baghdad, with violence flaring across the country in advance of a 30 June deadline for US troops to withdraw from urban areas. Yesterday the volatility of the situation was underscored by a car bomb in the Shia heartland of Nasiriya that killed more than 30 people. But the Baghdad wall removal plan is part of a wider effort to beautify a city scarred by years of conflict. Sabah Sami, a spokesman for the Baghdad municipality, said: “Our role is to rehabilitate the streets and repair the damage made by the concrete walls to streets and pavements and because of their weight to the city’s drainage and sewerage system.” Each T-wall weighs about five tonnes. “Once they have gone from an area, we will clean and pave and then paint and plant,” Sami said. The only barriers to stay would be to protect ministries and other official buildings. Nobody knows how many barriers were deployed in the capital. Some residents likened them to tombstones, others to a thousand Berlin Walls. But as a result of the beautification campaign, city authorities have now found themselves in possession of thousands of unwanted reinforced concrete slabs, standard measurement 12ft by 5ft (3.7m x 1.5m). On a recent trip to a southern suburb the Guardian glimpsed a T-wall graveyard that appeared to stretch for miles. Suggestions have ranged from deploying them along Iraq’s notoriously porous borders to massing them into a large heap as a monument to the madness of war. “There’s really not much you can do with them, other than build more walls,” said an engineer serving with the US military in Iraq.