Russian Spy Ring in US: 11 SVR Agents Arrested

Alleged spy ring seen as 'throwback to the Cold War' By Greg Miller and Philip P. Pan Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, June 30, 2010; A07 The roll-up of an alleged network of Russian spies has provided new evidence that the era of Cold War espionage never completely ended, exposing what U.S. intelligence experts described as Moscow's ongoing commitment to aggressive espionage operations, as well its fondness for spycraft techniques that haven't advanced since the KGB was dissolved. Current and former U.S. intelligence officials marveled at the odd mix of targets and methods in the alleged operation, which involved secret documents embedded in Web sites and high-tech transmissions between laptops -- but also buried stashes of money, "brush passes" on sidewalks and messages written in invisible ink. "It just struck me as a throwback to the Cold War at a time when the Russians and the United States have so many forward-looking kinds of issues," said Frederick Hitz, a former inspector general of the CIA. "I think it's nutty," Hitz said. "It looks as if it got going at the end of the Soviet era and just continued, even though it wasn't clear what the immediate goals of these people were." Officials in the United States and Russia sought to contain the fallout from the case at a time of improving relations between the countries. President Obama took Russian President Dmitry Medvedev out for cheeseburgers last week. The administration is seeking Russian support on a range of initiatives, including sanctions designed to curb the nuclear ambitions of Iran. Russia's Foreign Ministry confirmed for the first time that at least some of the 11 suspects are Russian citizens but asserted that "they have not committed any actions directed against U.S. interests." Others in Russia questioned whether the arrests were a deliberate attempt to sabotage the relationship. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin said at the start of a meeting with former president Bill Clinton that the case showed that U.S. law enforcement agencies "have gotten out of hand." The former KGB agent added that he hopes U.S. relations "will not be damaged." Even so, U.S. officials said they expect Russia to retaliate in time-honored Cold War fashion. "The Russians have to do something," said a former senior U.S. intelligence official who was stationed in Moscow, speculating that Americans in Russia would be rounded up and accused of espionage. "If I was some think tank person in Russia . . . I'd be very nervous." Court records portray the suspects as plants sent to the United States more than a decade ago to blend into American society and pursue information on topics ranging from leadership changes at the CIA to developments in nuclear science. The targets, and the methods employed, struck some as a sign that Russia's once vaunted spy service has struggled to evolve. "What a feckless operation," said Mark Lowenthal, a former senior CIA official. "So many of the things they seemed to be after you can find out by listening to the right radio station or reading the right newspaper. . . . It doesn't say a lot about the smarts of the SVR." The letters refer to Russia's foreign intelligence service, one of the successor agencies to the KGB. The tradecraft employed was also spotty, experts said. Records depict scenes in which alleged spies arrived at a coffee shop and opened a laptop specially equipped to send secret transmissions at the precise moment that a vehicle driven by a known Russian official pulled up outside. "It sounds preposterous to me," said Mikhail Lyubimov, a writer and former member of the SVR. "We've never used illegals like this," he said, referring to spies posing as ordinary citizens instead of diplomats. U.S. officials said Russia remains a significant espionage target for American spy agencies but falls much lower on the priority list than places such as Iraq and Afghanistan. The CIA probably has dozens of case officers in Russia, former officials said, but bases nearly all of them in the U.S. Embassy, where they could claim diplomatic immunity if caught.

Truth about Hamas in the Washington Post

Hamas is a threat to the Palestinian cause By Richard Cohen Tuesday, June 29, 2010 It's a pity that Israel, while substantially loosening its grip on Gaza, will continue to enforce a blockade when, with just a little imagination, it could insist on a deal with the activists once again steaming its way: You can proceed to Gaza if, once you get there, you demand that Hamas cease the persecution of women, institute freedom of religion, halt the continuing rocketing of Israel, release an Israeli hostage, ban torture and rescind an official charter that could have made soothing bedtime reading for Adolf Hitler. This may take some time. In fact, these demands would never be met. Gaza is a mean and brutal place with a totalitarian government steeped in a cult of violence and death. This hardly means that the government does not have a measure of popular support and did not, as some of the activists naively point out, come to power by democratic means. So did the Nazis. The term "Islamic fascism" gets thrown around a lot. I initially recoiled from it because I prefer to reserve fascism for fascists. The term is too loosely employed -- New York City cops were called fascists by Vietnam-era peace demonstrators -- but Paul Berman, in his new book "The Flight of the Intellectuals," makes a solid case that it can, with justice, be applied to Hamas. Berman traces Hamas's intellectual pedigree to Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood, whose founder, Hassan al-Banna, greatly admired Hitler, and to Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem who spent much of World War II in Germany cozying up to Hitler, organizing a Muslim SS unit and, on occasion, remonstrating with the Nazis for not killing enough Jews. (See also Robert S. Wistrich's recent book, "A Lethal Obsession.") It's appalling not only that Husseini was granted sanctuary in Arab countries after the war but also that he continues to be revered as a Palestinian patriot. The successor to both Banna and Husseini was Sayyid Qutb (1906-66), an Egyptian intellectual of uncontested importance whose influence can be found in the writing of the Hamas charter. Qutb was an indefatigable author (more than 20 books, some written while in an Egyptian prison where he was tortured), but the article that should interest the pro-Hamas activists the most is called "Our Struggle with the Jews." It is a shocking and repellent work of anti-Semitism that, among other things, says the "Jews will be satisfied only with the destruction" of Islam. Qutb cites that hoary anti-Semitic forgery "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion" for substantiation -- suggesting that his status as an intellectual is somewhat due to heroic grade inflation. The extremely useful term "useful idiots" was originally coined to describe Soviet sympathizers in Western countries. But there is no reason it cannot be applied to so-called activists who wish to break the blockade, which is an increasingly untenable exercise that Israel, bit by bit, is loosening. That's a good thing. But if Israel is expected to release its grip on Gaza, it's entitled to a bit of reciprocity -- at the very least the release of the hostage Gilad Shalit, who was captured not in Gaza but on the Israel side of the border. He has been held for four years now and has never once been visited by an outsider. How about maybe one ship in the approaching flotilla just for him? Now is the time, I suppose, to say that Israel is not exactly perfect either. It continues to overreact, uses too much force and has often trampled on the rights of Palestinians. Still, Israel is Thomas Jefferson's idea of heaven compared with Gaza, which could serve as a seaside Club Med for Jew-haters. One country is consonant with the Enlightenment; the other is a dark place of religious intolerance where the firmest principles of anti-Semitism -- not anti-Zionism or pro-Palestinianism -- are embedded in the Hamas charter. The irony is that Israel is often called a colonialist power. In some sense, the charge is true. But the ones with the true colonialist mentality are those who think that Arabs cannot be held to Western standards of decency. So, for this reason, Hamas is apparently forgiven for its treatment of women, its anti-Semitism, its hostility toward all other religions, its fervid embrace of a dark (non-Muslim) medievalism and its absolute insistence that Israel has no right to exist. Maybe the blockade ought to end -- but so, too, should anyone's dreamy idea of Hamas. It's not just a threat to Israel. It's a threat to the eventual Palestine.

Afghan forces won't be ready for U.S. withdrawal

Afghan forces won't be ready for U.S. withdrawal, report says June 28, 2010 | 8:48 pm WASHINGTON — Afghanistan's military and police aren't on track to meet President Obama's 18-month timetable for starting to withdraw U.S. troops, according to a report by an independent watchdog group. Despite assurances last week by Army Gen. David H. Petraeus, the newly appointed U.S. commander in Afghanistan, that the Afghan National Security Forces are making significant progress in anticipation of Obama's July 2011 deadline, the Special Inspector General for Afghan Reconstruction said the benchmarks that are being used to assess the security forces are misleading. “Serious challenges affect U.S. and coalition assessment efforts, including security conditions, mentor shortages, and inadequate training,” the report said. “Further, systemic [Afghan security force] deficiencies have undermined efforts to develop unit capabilities.” An independent, effective Afghan military and police force are key for U.S. troops to begin their departure from a nearly nine-year conflict that has cost more than 1,100 American lives, it said. The report's criticisms of Afghan military training include logistics problems, drug abuse and illiteracy. The report points to shortcomings in the Capability Milestone system that's used to assess the progress of training Afghan forces. The inspector general found that the system, implemented in 2005, has unreliable assessments, inconsistent results, outdated information and disincentives for overall improvement. “[The] ratings have not provided consistent and reliable measures of progress toward the goal of developing self-sustaining security forces for Afghanistan,” the report said. The Pentagon had no comment. According to the report, the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan and the Defense Department have stated their concerns about the rating system. The International Joint Committee said it plans to implement a new system, which the special inspector general's report said will be more consistent and reliable. “Without such measures, decision makers will not have a clear understanding of the extent to which progress is being made in developing Afghan security forces capable of independently conducting operations, and ultimately securing Afghanistan,” the report said.

CIA director skeptical of Iran sanctions

Curb nuke bid? 'Probably not' By THE WASHINGTON TIMES Sunday, June 27, 2010 ABC via Associated Press CIA Director Leon E. Panetta, on ABC's "This Week," expressed doubts that sanctions would deter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Targeted economic sanctions on Iran probably will not deter Tehran from seeking a nuclear capability, CIA chief Leon E. Panetta said Sunday. Urged on by the Obama administration, the U.N. Security Council this month passed a resolution to impose new sanctions on Iran over its nuclear development. New sanctions also were agreed on by the European Union and the U.S. Congress. In an interview with ABC's "This Week" program, Mr. Panetta said the new sanctions could create serious economic problems and help weaken the Tehran government. "Will it deter them [Iran] from their ambitions with regards to nuclear capability? Probably not," he said, adding that Iran was continuing to develop its nuclear know-how. The United States thinks Iran has enough low-enriched uranium now for two weapons, but Iran would have to enrich it first, the Central Intelligence Agency director said. "And we would estimate that if they made that decision, it would probably take a year to get there, probably another year to develop the kind of weapons-delivery system in order to make that viable," Mr. Panetta said. The Islamic republic vehemently denies the charge, but has been flexing its military muscle, mainly in the strategic Persian Gulf region by staging regular war games and showcasing an array of Iran-manufactured missiles. Later Sunday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said he was alarmed by the CIA's claims that Iran had material for two bombs within two years and warned that Tehran may face new measures. "Such information is always alarming, because today the international community does not recognize the Iranian nuclear program as transparent," Mr. Medvedev said after a world economic summit in Canada. "If it is shown that what the American special services say is true, then it will of course make the situation more tense, and I do not exclude" looking at additional actions against Iran. While Mr. Medvedev cautioned that the information "needs to be checked," the Kremlin rarely comments on CIA statements at all and the sharpness of Mr. Medvedev's comments indicate the gulf that has grown between Moscow and Tehran over recent months. Neither the United States, nor its top regional ally Israel - the sole if undeclared nuclear-armed power in the Middle East - have ruled out a military strike to curb Iran's atomic drive. "Israel is very concerned about what's happening in Iran," Mr. Panetta noted. "We continue to share intelligence [with Israel] as to what exactly is Iran's capacity," Mr. Panetta told ABC, but added that Israel is "willing to give us the room to be able to try to change Iran diplomatically and culturally and politically." Congress this week endorsed a sweeping package of tough new energy and financial sanctions on Tehran over the program, and on June 10, the U.N. Security Council adopted Resolution 1929, which imposes military and financial sanctions on Iran aiming to rein in its nuclear program. The new U.S. measures being sent to President Obama for his signature, piled atop the U.N. Security Council and European sanctions, aim to choke off Iran's access to imports of refined petroleum products, such as gasoline and jet fuel, and to curb its access to the international banking system. The bill would also shut U.S. markets to firms that provide Iran with financial services and the refined petroleum products that the oil-rich nation must import because of its weak domestic refining capability.

Obama's Presidency on the Rocks

"A Presidency on the Rocks Jennifer Rubin - 06.24.2010 - 8:30 AM The firing of Gen. Stanley McChrystal has many liberal pundits breathless. Granted, it’s been a long time since Obama made a decision quickly and effectively. There was disagreement over whether McChrystal had to go, but few quibble with bringing in the general who snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq. Despite liberals’ delirium (See, he can get something right!), the incident actually highlights the degree to which Obama is no longer in command of events or his own political destiny. In a compelling column, A.B. Stoddard of the Hill writes: Within the competing factions in burgeoning disagreement over Afghan war policy in his administration, Obama has tried taking shelter in the middle, his habitual no man’s land where he is neither wartime commander nor consensus builder. In deciding to relieve McChrystal, Obama cannot be accused of weakness, but the scandal weakened him instantly and immeasurably and made him appear even more alone. In a foundering war our allies have lost patience with, and a fragile economic recovery that has failed to make a dent in joblessness, Obama struggles to lead at home and abroad. Seventeen months into office, Obama is increasingly isolated — from his party, from American voters and from the world. Though he was sworn in amid great expectations to transcend partisan, racial, cultural and economic divisions, the country is more polarized than ever and Washington is even more a target for voter anger than it was under President Bush. Obama has gone from a political colossus to a political leper. (”Obama is so politically toxic in battlegrounds he can’t campaign for most Democratic candidates and his relationships with Democrats outside his intimate circle of mostly Chicagoan advisers fall somewhere between faint and frosty.”) His fondness for big government and for phony budget calculations has run up against increasingly skeptic voters and nervous Democrats. As Stoddard notes: Democrats have joined Republicans with a newfound distaste for deficit spending. So spooked are Democrats from every region of the country, mostly vulnerable members elected in 2006 and 2008, they are turning their backs on unpaid emergency spending to extend COBRA health benefits for the unemployed and continued unemployment benefits and aid to cash-strapped states that can’t be offset with other spending cuts. Jobs bills are stalling, and a debate about the extension of Bush tax cuts — including those promised to the middle class by then-candidate Obama in his presidential campaign — it’s all on the table in the new age of fiscal rectitude. None of this should be that surprising. Americans elected an ideologically extreme candidate with no executive experience and little warmth. He identifies with European elites and American academics, not so much with ordinary Americans. He has even managed to annoy his mainstream fan club. It’s no wonder that his administration is on the rocks. Obama has two and a half years in his term to turn things around. The irony here is that he came into office wanting to change us. Now, to save his presidency, he will have to change policies, staff, and himself. I frankly don’t think he has it in him. But we’ll find out."

Don't blame McChrystal, blame Obama

When even the Washington Post and Jackson Diehl are admitting the truth you know the White House is in big trouble. "Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal should not lose his job because of the article about him in Rolling Stone magazine. If anyone deserves blame for the latest airing of the administration’s internal feuds over Afghanistan, it is President Obama. For months Obama has tolerated deep divisions between his military and civilian aides over how to implement the counterinsurgency strategy he announced last December. The divide has made it practically impossible to fashion a coherent politico-military plan, led to frequent disputes over tactics and contributed to a sharp deterioration in the administration’s relations with Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The virtue of the Rolling Stone article is that Obama may finally have to confront the trouble. But the dismissal of McChrystal would be the wrong outcome. It could spell disaster for the military campaign he is now overseeing in southern Afghanistan, and it would reward those in the administration who have been trying to undermine him, including through media leaks of their own. Rolling Stone portrays McChrystal as being sharply at odds with Vice President Biden, State Department Afghanistan envoy Richard Holbrooke and U.S. ambassador Karl Ikenberry. Most of its incendiary quotes come not from the general, but his aides -- one of whom resigned Tuesday. McChrystal himself apologized for the article; he was reported to be returning to Washington for a White House meeting on Afghanistan Wednesday. McChrystal’s enemies were quick to portray him as out of line and likely to be scolded, if not fired, by Obama. My colleague Jonathan Capehart said McChrystal should be ready to resign. But the tensions McChrystal disclosed were not news to anyone who has been following the Afghanistan mission in recent months; I first wrote about them more than a month ago. Nor is McChrystal the only participant in the feuding who has gone public with his argument. A scathing memo by Ikenberry describing Karzai as an unreliable partner was leaked to the press last fall. At a White House press briefing during Karzai’s visit to Washington last month, the ambassador pointedly refused to endorse the Afghan leader he must working with. Biden, for his part, gave an interview to Newsweek’s Jonathan Alter in which he said that in July of next year “you are going to see a whole lot of [U.S. troops] moving out.” Yet as Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates tartly pointed out over the weekend, “that absolutely has not been decided.” Instead, Biden was pushing his personal version of the strategy Obama approved, which calls for the beginning of withdrawals next year, with the size and pace to be determined by conditions at that time. The real trouble is that Obama never resolved the dispute within his administration over Afghanistan strategy. With the backing of Gates and the Pentagon’s top generals, McChrystal sought to apply to Afghanistan the counterinsurgency approach that succeeded over the last three years in Iraq, an option requiring the deployment of tens of thousands more troops. Biden opposed sending most of the reinforcements and argued for a “counterterrorism plus” strategy centered on preventing al-Qaeda from establishing another refuge. In the end, Obama adopted what is beginning to look like a bad compromise. He approved most of the additional troops that McChrystal sought, but attached the July, 2011 deadline for beginning withdrawals. Since then both sides have been arguing their cases, in private and in public, to the press and to members of Congress. McChrystal may be at fault for expressing his frustrations to Rolling Stone. He is not at fault for the lack of coherence in the Afghan campaign or the continued feuding over strategy. That is Obama’s responsibility. By Jackson Diehl, Washington Post"

McChrystal to Washington to explain anti-administration comments

What the hell is going on in this administration?! Seriously, when it gets to this level of general officer insubordination the situation is completely out of control. Obama has no clue and probably no interest in actually running a war successfully. By Ernesto Londoño and Michael D. Shear Washington Post Foreign Service Tuesday, June 22, 2010; 9:12 AM KABUL -- The top U.S. general in Afghanistan was summoned to Washington for a White House meeting after apologizing Tuesday for flippant and dismissive remarks about top Obama administration officials involved in Afghanistan policy. The remarks in an article in this week's in Rolling Stone magazine are certain to increase tension between the White House and Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal. The profile of McChrystal, , titled the "Runaway General," also raises fresh questions about the judgment and leadership style of the commander Obama appointed last year in an effort to turn around a worsening conflict. McChrystal and some of his senior advisors are quoted criticizing top administration officials, at times in starkly derisive terms. An anonymous McChrystal aide is quoted calling national security adviser James Jones a "clown," who remains "stuck in 1985." Referring to Richard Holbrooke, Obama's senior envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan, one McChrystal aide is quoted saying: "The Boss says he's like a wounded animal. Holbrooke keeps hearing rumors that he's going to get fired, so that makes him dangerous." On one occasion, McChrystal appears to react with exasperation when he receives an e-mail from Holbrooke, saying, "Oh, not another e-mail from Holbrooke. I don't even want to read it." U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, a retired three-star general, isn't spared. Referring to a leaked cable from Eikenberry that expressed concerns about the trustworthiness of Afghan President Hamid Karzai, McChrystal is quoted as having said: "Here's one that covers his flank for the history books. Now if we fail, they can say, 'I told you so.' " The magazine hits newsstands Friday and could be posted online earlier in the week. The Washington Post received an advance copy of the article from its author, Michael Hastings, a freelance journalist who has written for the Post. "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile," McChrystal said in a statement issued Tuesday morning. "It was a mistake reflecting poor judgment and it should have never happened." McChrystal's civilian press aide, Duncan Boothby, submitted his resignation Tuesday as a result of the article, according to an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. A U.S. embassy spokeswoman said she had no immediate comment on the piece. The story features an exchange in which McChrystal and some of his aides appear to mock Vice President Biden, who opposed McChrystal's troop surge recommendation last year and instead urged instead for a more focused emphasis on counter-terrorism operations. "Are you asking me about Vice President Biden?" McChrystal asks the profile's reporter a at one point, laughing. "Who's that?" "Biden?" an unnamed aide is quoted as saying. "Did you say Bite me?" Lt. Col. Joseph Breasseale, a U.S. military spokesman, said McChrystal called Biden and other senior administration officials Tuesday morning (Monday evening in Washington) in reference to the article. "After these discussions, he decided to travel to the U.S. for a meeting," the spokesman said in an e-mail. Officials in Washington who were familiar with the situation said the general apologized during the phone call. Biden has been highly skeptical of McChrystal's insistence that more troops be sent to Afghanistan. McChrystal's remarks were made public on the eve of the president's monthly meeting with his top advisers on Afghanistan, which is scheduled to take place on Wednesday. McChrystal typically joins that meeting by a secure videoconference from Afghanistan, but was summoned to Washington to participate directly and explain his remarks, a senior administration official said Tuesday morning. The meeting, which includes Biden and many of the other advisers who McChrystal or his staff mocked in the article, is sure to be tense as the general attempts to make amends in person. It is not the first time that McChrystal has had to be dressed down by Obama. Shortly after the general's assessment of the situation in Afghanistan was made public last year, McChrystal gave a speech in London in which he publicly criticized those who advocated a scaled-back effort in Afghanistan. Those comments were widely seen as being directed against Biden, who had advocated for an approach in the country which focused on targeting terrorists more narrowly. After that speech, an angry Obama summoned McChrystal to a face-to-face meeting on Air Force One in Copenhagen, where Obama had arrived to pitch Chicago's Olympic bid. White House officials declined to comment publicly Tuesday morning, but the latest public relations blunder by McChrystal is sure to further strain his relationship with a president who puts a premium on message discipline and loyalty. The timing of the piece could hardly be worse. Amid a flurry of bad news in Afghanistan and a jump in NATO casualties, U.S. lawmakers and senior officials from NATO allied countries are asking increasingly sharp questions about the U.S.-led war strategy. Dutch and Canadian troops are scheduled to pull out within the next year. And the White House has said it will start drawing down U.S. forces next July. The magazine story shows that McChrystal is also facing criticism from some of his own troops who have grown frustrated with new rules that force commanders be extraordinarily judicious in using lethal force. A few weeks ago, according to the magazine, the general traveled to a small outpost in Kandahar province, in southern Afghanistan, to meet with a unit of soldiers reeling from the loss of a comrade, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Ingram. The corporal was killed in a booby-trapped house that some of the unit's commanders had unsuccessfully sought permission to blow up. One soldier at the outpost showed Hastings, who was traveling with the general, a written directive instructing troops to "patrol only in areas that you are reasonably certain that you will not have to defend yourself with lethal force." During a tense meeting with Ingram's platoon, one sergeant tells McChrystal: "Sir, some of the guys here, sir, think we're losing, sir." McChrystal has championed a counterinsurgency strategy that prioritizes protecting the population as a means to marginalize and ultimately defeat the insurgency. Because new rules sharply restrict the circumstances under which air strikes and other lethal operations that have resulted in civilian casualties can be conducted, some soldiers say the strategy has left them more exposed. June is on track to be the deadliest month for NATO troops in Afghanistan since the war began nearly nine years ago. At least 63 NATO troops have been killed so far this month, including 10 who died Monday in a helicopter crash and a series of attacks. In his statement, McChrystal says he has "enormous respect and admiration for President Obama and his national security team." "Throughout my career, I have lived by the principles of personal honor and professional integrity," the general said. "What is reflected in this article falls far short of that standard."

US Intel sees Iran becoming Military Dictatorship

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Sunday that Iran's government is becoming a military dictatorship, with religious leaders being sidelined and, as a result, new sanctions could pressure Tehran into curbing its illegal nuclear program. "What we've seen is a change in the nature of the regime in Tehran over the past 18 months or so," Mr. Gates said on "Fox News Sunday." "You have a much narrower-based government in Tehran now," he said. "Many of the religious figures are being set aside." The defense secretary said Iranians "appear to be moving more in the direction of a military dictatorship." Iran's supreme leader, Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, "is leaning on a smaller and smaller group of advisers," he said. "In the meantime, you have an illegitimate election that has divided the country." "There's no doubt that Iran's military and security forces are playing an active role in running the regime," said a U.S. official familiar with assessments on Iran. "Religious leaders like Khamenei continue to make key decisions and rely on the vast security apparatus to carry them out." Since Iran's 2005 presidential election, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) expanded its control over the national economy. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a former IRGC officer, has appointed many retired IRGC officers to posts in Iran's government bureaucracy. The IRGC also began to control more oil contracts and asserted itself in Iran's efforts to obtain nuclear technology. "Right now, the Revolutionary Guard is everywhere," said Mohsen Sazgara, a founder of the IRGC who now lives in the United States and backs Iran's democratic opposition, the Green Movement. "They control the economy, the news agencies, radio and television; they own several newspapers and the security forces and intelligence forces. They have secret prisons, and they control the puppet Ahmadinejad." Mr. Gates said that added economic pressures on top of the militarization "has real potential" of pressuring Iran into complying with international controls on its nuclear program. Along with allies in the Persian Gulf and improvements in their defenses and other diplomatic pressure, "I think you have a reasonable chance of getting the Iranian regime finally to come to their senses and realize their security is probably more endangered by going forward than by stopping it," Mr. Gates said of the nuclear program. The U.N. Security Council on June 11 passed a resolution sanctioning Iran, focused on limiting Tehran's access to nuclear-weapons goods and ballistic missiles and seeking to isolate the IRGC, the Islamist military forces that are in charge of nuclear and missile programs. The resolution identifies 40 entities and one person who are the targets of the economic sanctions. "On their own, these sanctions will not solve the crisis over Iran's nuclear program," Matthew Levitt of the Washington Institute said in a report on the sanctions. "But wisely implemented and enforced, they could prove critical in preventing Iran from getting the bomb. And that's a very good thing." In a wide-ranging interview, Mr. Gates also said pessimistic assessments of counterinsurgency operations in Afghanistan are "overly negative" and that plans for withdrawing troops in July 2011 will be decided by conditions in the country at that time. On recently passed legislation that would repeal the military ban on openly gay service members, Mr. Gates said unwanted items in the current defense authorization bill could lead to a presidential veto, despite President Obama's plan to lift the policy called "don't ask, don't tell." Mr. Gates originally opposed a congressional vote on repealing the ban before the military could complete its review. However, under political pressure, he reversed himself and agreed to the vote on lifting the ban, which passed both armed services committees earlier this month and allows implementation to be delayed. "I feel it's very important for the military to have the opportunity to weigh in, to register their views on these issues, and to give us help on how to do this smart, should the legislation pass," Mr. Gates said. Asked whether repeal of the ban is inevitable, Mr. Gates said, "The president has made his decision." "Our review is about how to implement this, and what are the obstacles, what are the problems, what are the challenges, what are the issues," Mr. Gates said. "How do we mitigate the negative consequences, if we identify negative consequences? What are the questions we have to address? Those are the things this review is all about." Mr. Gates said Mr. Obama could veto the defense bill containing the gay-ban repeal if the final bill includes funds for building unwanted C-17 transport aircraft or an alternative jet engine to the new F-35 multiservice fighter-bomber. Mr. Gates was asked about comments from the commander of U.S. and allied forces in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, who said operations in Marja were a "bleeding ulcer" and that a major offensive against Kandahar is being delayed by a lack of Afghan civilian support. "Sure, it's a concern. But I think that the narrative is perhaps overly negative, in part because it's incomplete," Mr. Gates said. He said the "bottom line" is that progress is being made in stabilizing southern Afghanistan, a Taliban stronghold. "It's somewhat slower than anticipated," he said, noting that "it is a tough pull, and we are suffering significant casualties." "We expected that; we warned everybody that would be the case last winter, that as we went into areas that the Taliban had controlled for two or three years, that our casualties would grow, especially this summer," he said. "But I think General McChrystal's message to the defense ministers was he is confident he will be able to demonstrate by December that we not only have the right strategy, but that we are making progress."

Turkey is not fit to remain in NATO

In addition to Turkey refusing to allow transport of United States troops into Iraq in 2003, (a fellow NATO member)- their Islamist government over the last few years has been siding more and more with enemies such as Iran and Syria. Their latest actions spearheading opposition to Israel in the non-Aligned movement bodes ill for Turkey's role in the Western alliance. Not every Jewish organization is taking the path of least resistance in opposing Obama’s approach to Israel. This report explains: The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) declined to meet with a delegation from Turkey’s ruling party, the AKP, this week. JINSA views the AKP invitation as an attempt by the Government of Turkey to avoid dealing with the Government of Israel by appealing to the American Jewish community. As such, the effort failed. JINSA executive director Tom Neumann stated, “The negative trend in Turkish government statements and actions regarding the United States and Israel, however, ultimately has made the AKP an unacceptable interlocutor.” JINSA provides an ample list of Turkish actions to support its decision: Examples of this negative trend include the Turkish government’s growing closeness with the Iranian government and Turkey’s negative vote in the UN on international sanctions aimed at preventing a nuclear-capable Iran; new military relations with Syria, which is on the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorism supporting countries; increasing closeness with the Hamas government in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, both of which are U.S.-designated terrorist organizations; open support for the flotilla that sought a violent confrontation with Israel as it attempted to break the Israeli-Egyptian security cordon designed to prevent the smuggling of weapons and materials to Hamas; and the poisonous anti-Israel and anti-Semitic rhetoric the AKP has issued over the last several years. Neumann added that, “JINSA regrets the choices made by the AKP and will not be used to provide political cover for those choices.” Well, that’s a breath of fresh air — and certainly a far cry from the Woodrow Wilson Center, which is giving the Turkish foreign minister a pat on the back and a prize. There is no shortage of evidence of Turkey’s dangerous turn to the “radical camp,” Elliott Abrams recently wrote: In the flotilla incident, it not only sided with but also sought to strengthen the terrorist group Hamas—a group that is anathema not just to the United States and Israel, but to the governments of Jordan and Egypt. The recent photo of Turkish prime minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Bashar Assad in Damascus is an emblem of this change, and Turkey’s work to undermine U.N. sanctions against Iran shows its substance. Turkey’s U.N. Security Council vote against the newest round of sanctions this past week put it in Iran’s camp against Europe, the United States, Russia, and China. That’s quite a realignment for a NATO ally. For now, however, most Jewish groups are not doing much at all to call attention to the growing Islamic, and hence anti-Israel, inclinations of the Turkish government. The Pope-Peters letter, for which AIPAC is rounding up support, lightly — almost invisibly — tiptoes around the Turkish connection. The letter has a single sentence on the topic that explains the “sinister element” that infiltrated the flotilla: Furthermore, as confirmed by the State Department and intelligence agencies around the world, the Turkish aid group that sent out the flotilla … IHH, has met with senior officials of recognized terrorist groups over the last three years. That’s it. There are two approaches Jewish groups might take with regard to Turkey. The JINSA tactic is to call attention to Turkey’s role in the flotilla incident and its increasingly hostile behavior toward the West, thereby applying some pressure on the Obama administration to demand some answers on Turkey’s role in the flotilla and to rethink its policy toward a NATO ally that has turned unmistakably away from the West. The other is to ignore the whole thing and hope the Obama team doesn’t give Turkey a pass on its efforts to assist Hamas (which would thereby embolden the radical camp and undermine the “peace process” of which Obama is so enamored). It is disturbing that so few groups have decided to follow JINSA. It is yet another failure to stand up to the administration — and stand with Israel.

World’s Mining Companies Covet Afghan Riches

By JAMES RISEN WASHINGTON — Mining companies around the world are eager to exploit Afghanistan’s newly discovered mineral wealth, but executives of Western firms caution that war, corruption and lack of roads and other infrastructure are likely to delay exploration for years. A few high-risk investors are sufficiently intrigued by the country’s potential to take an early look. JP Morgan, for instance, has just sent a team of mining experts to Afghanistan to examine possible projects to develop. “Afghanistan could be one of the leading producers of copper, gold, lithium and iron ore in the world,” said Ian Hannam, a London-based banker and mining expert with JP Morgan. “I believe this has the potential to be transforming for Afghanistan.” But executives with international mining firms said in interviews that while they believed that Afghanistan’s mineral deposits held great potential, their businesses were not planning to move into the country until the war was over and the country more stable. “There are huge deposits there,” said David Beatty, chief executive of Rio-Novo Gold, a mining company based in Toronto. “But as chief executive, would I send a team to Kandahar? And then call a guy’s wife after he gets shot? No.” It has long been known that Afghanistan had significant deposits of gemstones, copper and other minerals, but United States officials say they have discovered and documented major, previously unknown deposits, including copper, iron, gold and industrial metals like lithium. A Pentagon team, working with geologists and other experts, has shared its data with the Afghan government, and is working with the Afghan Ministry of Mines to prepare information for potential investors in hopes of placing some mineral exploration rights up for auction within the next six months. On Thursday, Afghan officials said they believed that the American estimates of the value of the mineral deposits — nearly $1 trillion — were too conservative, and that they could be worth as much as $3 trillion. The Ministry of Mines also announced that it would take the first steps toward opening the country’s reserves to international investors at a meeting next week in London. Two hundred investors from around the world have been invited to offer suggestions for how to develop the iron ore deposits at the Hajigak area of Bamian Province, according to Craig Andrews, the principal mining specialist for Afghanistan for the World Bank. Nongovernment Western mining experts will be helping the ministry develop the bidding process, Mr. Andrews said. At a news conference in Kabul, Wahidullah Shahrani, the mines minister, pledged to make the bidding and contracting of mining rights as transparent as possible to reduce the possibility of corruption. He said the ministry would post contracts on its Web site. Mr. Shahrani and his advisers cautioned against overly high expectations, underscoring that development would take years and that there were many obstacles to overcome, not least of all the lack of security in some of the areas with the most minerals and the lack of a transportation infrastructure. International mining officials and independent experts echoed that view. Jim Yeager, a Colorado-based geologist and former consultant to the Afghan mines ministry, said that poorly written mining regulations could also hamper future development. Afghan officials have interpreted their mining regulations in such a way that if a company is awarded a concession to explore and then discovers valuable minerals, the government can tender the concession back and rebid it, undermining any incentive for a foreign firm to actually find large deposits, he said. “They can take it back after you discover something,” Mr. Yeager said. “That needs to be corrected.” Several mining executives and other experts said that the multibillion-dollar investment required to build a large copper mine, for example, meant that the industry would focus on other deposits in less risky countries before they turned to Afghanistan. “The industry is going to take a look at Afghanistan, but they will weigh their risks carefully,” said Steve Vaughn, a Canadian lawyer and mining expert. “There is every indication that these deposits are very large. But as political risks increase, they will lay off spending.” Today, many of the world’s leading mining companies are based in Canada and Australia, but resource-hungry China is rapidly emerging as a major competitor for mineral deposits. A Chinese state-owned firm has already been awarded the concession for a copper mine in eastern Afghanistan. No, many mining industry executives say they expect the Chinese to bid aggressively on Afghanistan’s newly discovered mineral deposits even as many Western firms sit it out. Robert Schafer, executive vice president of Hunter Dickinson, an exploration and mining firm based in Vancouver, Canada, which lost the bid for the copper mine concession to the Chinese company, said he believed that the Chinese “have a different perception of the risk” because they see mineral resource development as part of a national strategy. “Their concern is for the supply of a commodity, so they are willing to do things at a loss,” Mr. Schafer said. “So yes, I could see the Chinese being willing to make investments in areas where we are unwilling to.” Mining industry executives, as well as American officials, are also concerned about the corruption in the Afghan government, and are uncertain how to avoid turning the discovery of great mineral wealth into nothing more than a windfall for Kabul’s oligarchs. “I know some people have gone in to kick the tires, and some guys found there was too much risk, too much corruption, and didn’t want to play the game,” observed Mr. Yeager, the Colorado geologist. “They have got to resolve the corruption issue.”

Salutes for Graduates Who’ll Be Saluting Soon

By WINNIE HU PHILADELPHIA — The valedictorians stood out with their bronze medals, and the honor-society members wore turquoise stoles and decorative cords to mark their successes at Cherry Hill High School West in New Jersey. But it was three serious-looking young men in plain purple robes who were asked to stand midway through their graduation ceremony here at Temple University on Wednesday afternoon, as the school’s principal, Joseph Meloche, announced their names and future plans. Abner Alcontin: United States Air Force. Keith Mailahn: United States Army. Robert Pennington: Air Force. “Thank you gentlemen, on behalf of everyone here, for your dedication, commitment and willingness to serve,” Mr. Meloche told them, as their classmates and families clapped loudly. High schools across the nation are saluting students who opt for boot camp over freshman orientation, rewriting graduation traditions in suburban communities like Cherry Hill. These military recruits, long overshadowed by their Ivy League-bound classmates, are being given a place of honor alongside the valedictorians and scholars. “Everybody’s going to know who we are, and I’m going to feel more appreciated even by people who don’t know me,” said Mr. Mailahn, 18. “Even though some of us may not be the brightest students, we’re still doing something with our lives. When we’re signing those papers, we’re putting our lives on the line.” Bethel Park High School, outside of Pittsburgh, awarded diplomas this month to its eight enlisted students before everyone else. The Lenape regional district in New Jersey started a new awards ceremony for those joining the armed services, and on Long Island, Longwood High School has created a “wall of honor” with plaques dedicated to recent graduates and alumni on active duty; there are 52 so far. In Oregon and Washington State, 237 seniors started a new tradition of wearing honor cords of black and gold at their graduation ceremonies to signify their Army future. And across Illinois, dozens of schools have signed on to a campaign to honor enlisted students at graduation that is supported by the state’s principals association and political leaders. “I think we’re finally starting to get it,” said Zeb Jansante, principal of Bethel Park. “In the past, it’s not been honored as it should have been. As a school, we’re an academic institution by and large and we don’t see the military as a next step.” But some parents and antiwar groups have questioned the special recognition, saying that public schools should not be singling out any particular career path or appear to be endorsing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. “I think it glamorizes it in the same way that a lot of recruiting materials glamorize serving in the military,” said Kimber Heinz, national organizing coordinator for the War Resisters League. “It’s seen as really cool, but it doesn’t show the reality of war.” In a country that has been at war for nearly nine years, principals and students at highly regarded suburban schools say that interest has been growing in the military — and not just in West Point and the other academies that traditionally attract top students. They say that the enlisted ranks give many more students a chance to show their patriotism, gain experience in specialized fields and technologies, and receive a loan-free college education through an expanded G.I. Bill. The Department of Defense said that about 76,000 high school graduates between the ages of 17 and 19 had reported for active duty in 2008, the most recent year available, falling from 80,000 in 2006. Most high schools have no more than a few enlisted students, particularly in high-performing districts where, some officials say, joining the military has sometimes been seen as a step below enrolling in community college. Indeed, military recruiting is often discouraged because it could lower a school’s college-acceptance rate — a highly prized statistic that can be linked to real estate values. “There are lots of communities where that’s the measuring stick of success,” said Dick Flanary, a senior director of the National Association of Secondary School Principals. “We need to recognize that every kid is not going to college.” Jade Bates, 18, who is joining the Air Force, said she felt largely overlooked at Audubon High School in New Jersey as her classmates went first to college fairs and then to banquets for academic and athletic achievements. “I’m an average student but I’m doing something, and I think more students going to the military should be recognized,” she said. “A lot of times, we really do get brushed aside. I’ve felt really left out, and unappreciated, and not even there.” Kenneth E. Hartman, an administrator at Drexel University who is an Army veteran, said that he started a volunteer group, Our Community Salutes, last year to honor enlisted students and their families because so many high schools did not. His group has raised more than $25,000 to hold an annual banquet for military-bound seniors and their parents in South Jersey. A similar effort started in Pittsburgh this year. “I went around with a tin cup in hand, and not one person turned me down,” Dr. Hartman said. “This is a different type of graduate who deserves the support and gratitude of our entire community.” Dr. Hartman, a parent and former school board member in Cherry Hill, also pushed his own district to recognize enlisted students at its graduation ceremonies. Cherry Hill High School East will honor four enlisted graduates at its ceremony Thursday, including Jerome Epps, who said he was a C student who would not otherwise be singled out. “I believe that most kids think going to the military is the easy way out and you don’t have to work as hard as the kids going straight to college,” he said. “They don’t know what the military involves exactly.” Before Wednesday’s ceremony here, Mr. Mailahn stood with his fellow enlistees, and looked around at his classmates, many of whom were busy tweaking their honor stoles and cords. “I feel different because they’re still going to school and I’m starting my career,” he said. “I feel good about myself.”

Senators Blast Obama Afghanistan Policy

Gen. David Petraeus briefly collapsed during questioning about Afghanistan strategy Tuesday by the Senate Armed Services Committee. Wall Street Journal WASHINGTON—The Obama administration's Afghan war effort came under blistering bipartisan attack in the Senate Tuesday, in one of the clearest signs yet that uneven progress on the ground risks undermining domestic support in the months leading up to a key December review of war strategy. The top Democrat and the top Republican on the Senate committee responsible for military oversight—both of whom were strong supporters of the White House's decision to surge 30,000 troops into Afghanistan last year—sharply questioned administration claims of progress in southern Afghanistan, where the bulk of new troops has been deployed. Sen. Carl Levin (D., Mich.), chairman of the Armed Services Committee, opened a Capitol Hill hearing on the war by reading a litany of recent setbacks in Afghanistan, including the "return of Taliban intimidation and assassinations" in Marjah, site of a much-touted offensive earlier this year, and the questionable role of power brokers, "including members of the Karzai family" in the south. Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.), the top Republican on the panel and long one of the war's staunchest defenders, was even more critical, saying there were multiple negative trends inside Afghanistan, making him concerned there may be a "mounting crisis" in the campaign. "The larger trend that underlies all the others [is] the mounting loss of confidence in America's commitment to succeed that seems to be shared by both our friends and enemies in Afghanistan, as well as its neighbors," Mr. McCain said. Taliban Kill Official Vital to U.S. Plans Most of the concerns raised by both men focused on the coming operation in Kandahar, which Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commander in Kabul, recently said would begin later than originally anticipated. Mr. Levin harshly criticized the lack of trained Afghan forces participating in the operation, and Mr. McCain warned that the delay "is not projecting an air of confidence and success." The U.S. suffered a significant setback in the Kandahar campaign Tuesday when the Taliban assassinated the leader of one of the most important districts in the region, Arghandab Gov. Hajji Abdul Jabbar, who died when a car bomb exploded next to his vehicle in Kandahar city, Afghan officials said. A priority for the coalition has been to build Mr. Jabbar, a former anti-Soviet guerrilla, into a figure of real authority—in part by channeling through his office farming-aid projects financed by the U.S. Agency for International Development. The rising level of concern about the war effort in the U.S., shared by some military and civilian officials within the administration, is focusing increased attention on President Barack Obama's decision to begin U.S. withdrawals in July 2011, always one of the most controversial aspects of his war plan. Senior U.S. and Western officials acknowledged that they have done a poor job explaining to allies in the region that the U.S.-led coalition will remain committed to Afghanistan even as withdrawals begin next summer. One Western diplomat who has discussed the issue with the Obama administration said allies will attempt to make a stronger case in the coming months. More interactive graphics and photos "Up until this point, I don't think we have quite got that message across yet," said the diplomat. "People are still focusing on July 2011 as an issue unto itself." But current and former U.S. officials said there is increasing evidence that the short time frame is forcing the key actors in the war—particularly Afghan President Hamid Karzai and the Pakistani military leadership—to begin cutting deals to ensure their position in Afghanistan, a process that may be exacerbating sectarianism in a country where the insurgency is dominated by the Pashtun majority. The debate over the July 2011 date dominated Tuesday's hearing, which was cut short after Gen. David Petraeus, overall commander of U.S. forces in the Middle East and Central Asia, briefly fainted during intense questioning by Messrs. Levin and McCain. Gen. Petraeus later blamed his collapse—he slumped forward and appeared to lose consciousness—on dehydration, and resumed his regular schedule in the afternoon. Earlier, Gen. Petraeus appeared to struggle with whether withdrawals should begin in July 2011. Pressed by Mr. Levin whether it was his "best personal, professional judgment" that reductions should begin then, Gen. Petraeus paused for eight seconds before appearing to hedge, saying "we have to be careful with timelines." "We are assuming that we will have those kinds of conditions that will enable [withdrawals] by that time, in July 2011," he said. "That's the projection, and that is what we have supported." Mr. Levin followed up, asking whether the general's comments were a "nonanswer" or intended to be qualified. "A qualified yes, Mr. Chairman," Gen. Petraeus replied. "There was a nuance to what the president said that was very important, that did not imply a race for the exits, a search for the light to turn off or anything like that." The uneven progress on the ground has also forced a debate within the administration over the December review itself. Originally, the review, announced by Mr. Obama when he unveiled his war strategy late last year, was expected to focus on the Marjah and Kandahar campaigns as test cases for whether the current strategy could succeed. But U.S. and Western officials said the review won't be as significant as last year's three-month White House overhaul of war policy, and is likely to focus on older, more successful operations—like those in towns near Marjah such as Nawa and Garmser—that were secured in the summer of 2009. The Western diplomat who has discussed the issue with the administration said that framing the December review as a verdict on Marjah and Kandahar had been a mistake and that the administration needed to spend the rest of the year better managing expectations. Sen. John McCain said there were multiple negative trends inside Afghanistan, making him concerned there may be a "mounting crisis" in the campaign. "Had you gone at the start of the year expecting, yes, Marjah will now be this bustling, thriving safe place and Kandahar will be a city transformed, it was unrealistic to think that was going to happen by December of this year," said the diplomat. In areas near Marjah secured earlier last year violence is down sharply and coalition forces are well into the "build" phase of their operations. "If you were to look at what they have done—the areas they have cleared and gone into, it's quite impressive," said a senior U.S. military official.

Report: US policy on North Korea nukes halfhearted

By FOSTER KLUG- Associated Press Writer June 15, 2010 12:11am EDT WASHINGTON — A muddled U.S. strategy on confronting North Korea's nuclear ambitions could lead to acceptance of the North as an atomic power, according to a report being released Tuesday by a leading American think tank. The Center on Foreign Relations report calls the Obama administration's efforts to rid North Korea of its nuclear weapons programs vague and halfhearted. Several U.S. envoys divide responsibilities for pressuring the North on nuclear negotiations, human rights and sanctions enforcement, the report says, "with no clear evidence that these discreet missions are backed by a sense of urgency or priority at senior levels in the administration." The report comes amid high tensions on the Korean Peninsula over an international investigation's finding that a North Korean torpedo sank a South Korean warship in March, killing 46 sailors. South Korea wants the U.N. Security Council to punish North Korea for the attack. North Korea denies responsibility and says any punishment would trigger war. The ship sinking complicates already strained diplomatic efforts to get the North to give up its nuclear programs. Six-nation nuclear disarmament talks stalled after Pyongyang's furious reaction to earlier international rebukes of North Korean missile and nuclear tests. A vague timeframe for getting North Korea to abandon its nuclear aspirations, the report says, risks a U.S. policy that "will result in acquiescence to North Korea's nuclear status as a fait accompli." The State Department didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. The report's chairs were John Tilelli Jr., commander of U.S. forces in Korea during the Clinton administration, and Charles "Jack" Pritchard, a special envoy for negotiations with North Korea early in the George W. Bush administration and an adviser on Asia in the Clinton administration. The report contrasts the strong words the Obama administration aims at the North with what it calls "halfhearted" U.S. actions to deal with the nuclear standoff. "The Obama administration's current approach does not go far enough in developing a strategy to counter North Korea's continuing nuclear development or potential for proliferation," the report says. The United States and China are urged to work together on North Korea. Failure to do so, the report says, could jeopardize U.S.-Chinese cooperation in other areas; those include efforts to deal with global warming, Iran's nuclear program and trade and economic matters. The report also notes widespread pessimism that negotiations will get North Korea to voluntarily give up its nuclear programs, "especially given that no state that has conducted a nuclear test has subsequently reversed course without a change in political leadership." The North conducted nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009. The six-nation disarmament negotiations are the best framework for forcing change in the North, the report says, but officials "may in the end find it necessary to apply non-diplomatic tools such as sanctions or even military measures." One of the report's task force members says in dissent that the current U.S. policy isn't halfhearted but is instead "pragmatic and prudent." Stanley Owen Roth, vice president of international government relations for Boeing Company, says it allows the United States to work on missile negotiations and other matters "without raising either expectations or tensions."

Obama faces messy war-funds fight

Politico by David Rogers With mixed signals from Kabul and an unhappy left at home, President Barack Obama risks an increasingly messy fight in Congress this month over new funding for U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. Obama moved over the weekend to try to reassure doubtful Democrats that he also supports new state aid to avert teacher layoffs and cuts in medical services. But the White House has yet to back up its words with formal budget requests, and Saturday night’s letter to House and Senate leaders — leaked in advance to maximize coverage in the Sunday newspapers — was greeted as more of a public relations ploy. “I’m asking myself, ‘Why is this coming up on a Saturday night?’” said House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) on ABC News’s “This Week.” Privately, congressional Democrats agreed. Senior House and Senate aides said they got no warning before Saturday evening. And the letter follows a week of increased tension with the White House over aid to education and complaints of double dealing in an effort to roll the House on the war funding. Last week also saw new evidence that the U.S. military campaign in southern Afghanistan is slowing, capped by a front-page New York Times report Saturday saying that Afghan President Hamid Karzai has lost faith that NATO can prevail over Taliban insurgents in his nation. Karzai’s office has since disputed this, according to an administration official. But the Afghan president remains an uncertain trumpet. And the continued divisions in his government — including the recent resignation of the respected director of intelligence, Amrullah Saleh — fuel doubts in Congress. For liberals who want to support Obama, the debate about war funding is aggravated by the fact that it would be an additional $33 billion-plus in deficit spending at a time when domestic needs are threatened. With only 60 Democratic defections, the administration in March trounced war critics in a House vote on its Afghanistan policy. But in the three months since, the White House has trimmed its sails on adding stimulus spending that liberals were counting on going into November’s elections. “At this critical moment, we cannot afford to slide backwards just as our recovery is taking hold,” Obama wrote in his letter Saturday. But Democrats complain that, almost like Karzai, the White House is sending conflicting signals. The most pointed case is a proposed $23 billion aid package for state and local school boards to avert the threat of layoffs because of budget cuts for the coming fiscal year. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has championed this so-called Teacher Firing Prevention Fund, urging that the money be added to the war funding bill. Obama himself says “the urgency is high” in his Saturday letter, but the White House has yet to submit a formal budget request and was conspicuously silent on the issue when the war funds were before the Senate last month. Now that the war bill has moved to the House, Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey (D-Wis.) is threatening to go back into last year’s Recovery Act and cut from White House priorities to pay for the teachers. The Wisconsin Democrat appears to have the tacit support of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), and their combined force may explain the sudden Saturday night letter. Appearing on ABC, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) seemed to suggest that the administration was open to this approach. But Obama’s letter doesn’t appear to address it directly, offering no offsets and speaking of the teachers’ aid as an “emergency.” The other big pressure point is a pending Senate debate over a larger jobs and economic-relief bill that includes $24 billion to help states pay their share of Medicaid, the joint federal-state health care program for the poor and disabled. Sixty votes will be needed, and in a reversal of their typical roles, House liberals hope Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) can restore the Medicaid funds after they were dropped in a last-minute deal engineered by Pelosi before Memorial Day. Failure to approve the Medicaid funds will not only affect 30 states that have already factored that money into their 2011 budgets but will add to the angst among House liberals over Obama’s costly Afghan policy. Republican governors, with their own stake in the fight, could help but are often mismatched with the Republican Senate moderates most likely to switch. A big test will come this week, when Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) rolls out for his party a major substitute bill that strips out the Medicaid funds but also promises to reduce Washington’s future deficits. The ambitious package, an election-year minefield, seems designed to fail because it takes on so many Democratic priorities in one swoop. But it does offer a route to restore long-term unemployment benefits for the jobless through November and addresses a crisis this month in Medicare reimbursements to physicians. Republican business allies will receive tax breaks without the painful reforms opposed by venture-capital and private-equity interests with influence in both parties. And, reopening the health care debate, Thune will propose saving $11 billion by lowering the threshold at which families are excused from getting coverage because the premiums are judged unaffordable. This also is a ticklish issue for Democrats, because those affected include middle- and working-class individuals important to the party’s political base. In past years, Republican moderates might vote for Thune’s substitute and then the Democratic bill as the last standing option. But the changed climate in Congress is such that nothing is guaranteed, and the fact that neither chamber has even voted on a budget plan for the coming year makes the chore harder. “If you believe they’re going to move a budget on the Hill, you must believe Elvis is still alive,” Boehner said. And while he and other Republican leaders have supported the war funding, it has become a tougher sell among rank-and-file party members. Twenty-six Senate Republicans — or more than half the party’s conference — opposed the measure when it passed the Senate last month. And this further constrains how far Obama can go to placate the left on domestic spending and still get his war funding through Congress.

Obama seeks to soften U.S. Congress sanctions on Iran

The Obama administration is worried that proposed congressional bills targeting Iran's energy sector would harm ties with Europe, Russia and China, the Los Angeles Times reported. By Haaretz Service and Reuters Tags: Israel news Iran nuclear Barack Obama The Obama administration is working to soften U.S. congressional legislation that, if passed, would target Iran's energy sector, the Los Angeles Times reported on Friday. According to the report, administration officials have begun negotiations with congressional leaders, who are crafting bills that would punish companies that sell refined petroleum products to Iran or aid the country's oil industry. The Obama administration fears that such legislation would harm relations with Europe, Russia and China, whose support was essential in passing on Wednesday a fourth round of UN sanctions against Iran. There is strong support in both houses of Congress for U.S. sanctions that would be stricter than the new UN sanctions imposed on Iran. The congressional legislation would apply only to U.S. polices and agencies and would not be binding on other countries. The European Union is also reportedly considering additional measures to supplement the UN sanctions. In its negotiations with congressional leaders, the Obama administration is seeking the authority to waive U.S. punishment against companies that have cooperated on efforts against Iran's nuclear program. Iran has vowed to continue its nuclear program, which it says is for peaceful energy purposes, despite the new UN sanctions. On Saturday, the head of Iran's Atomic Energy Organization, Ali Akbar Salehi, was quoted in the Resalat daily as saying that Iran would unveil a new nuclear achievement in the next few months.

U.N. adopts new sanctions against Iran

In a diplomatic setback, the U.S. fails to win unanimous support for latest round of sanctions approved by the U.N. Security Council. Turkey and Brazil voted against the measures meant to punish Iran for its nuclear program, and Lebanon abstained. Paul Richter, Tribune Washington Bureau The United Nations Security Council approved a new round of sanctions Wednesday to punish Iran over its nuclear program, but U.S. officials and their allies failed in a last-minute bid to adopt a resolution without opposition. While 12 of the 15 members approved the new strictures, Turkey and Brazil voted against them, and Lebanon abstained. The absence of unanimity represented a setback to the U.S. and its Western allies, which had hoped to demonstrate solid world opinion against Tehran and its continuing expansion of its nuclear program. Iran insists the nuclear program is intended for development of civilian energy, but U.S. officials and many world leaders charge Iran is seeking an atomic weapons capability. The Brazilian ambassador to the Security Council, Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, said before the vote that Brazil does not consider sanctions "an effective instrument in this case." In recent weeks, Turkey and Brazil had mounted a diplomatic effort to strike a deal with Iran to avert the vote. But to their frustration, other world powers rejected their effort as insufficient to deal with their concerns about the Iranian program. China and Russia voted in favor of the sanctions resolution after expressing reservations in the months leading up the vote. After the vote, the U.S ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, portrayed the latest round of sanctions as the strongest yet. "Today, the Security Council has responded decisively to the grave threat to international peace and security posed by Iran's failure to live up to its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty," she said. Nonetheless, many critics have said the sanctions had to be watered down to win Russian and Chinese votes, and represent only a modest tightening of three previous measures. The sanctions tighten a range of restrictions on Iran's nuclear industry, arms sales, and its economy. The sanctions resolution adopted Wednesday hits 40 enterprises and a scientist tied to the nuclear program with asset freezes and a travel ban. Karim Sadjadpour, an Iran specialist at Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said the significance of the sanctions "is more political than economic." He said that support for the new sanctions from China and Russia "prevents Iran from framing this as a struggle between the Islamic world and the West." Lebanon abstained because its government has been whipsawed by countervailing pressures. The militant group Hezbollah is prominent in the country's government. At the same time, though, the weak central government receives significant amounts of aid from the West. The split vote is likely to expose the Obama administration to criticism. Some observers believe the administration bungled the run-up to the vote by appearing to give Turkey and Brazil a green light to pursue their diplomacy. That initiative undermined the West's efforts to isolate the Iranian regime. Paul Saunders of the Nixon Center think tank in Washington said that because the sanctions' import was symbolic, the clumsy handling of it by the administration "is all the more problematic." The vote came hours after the U.S., Russia and France formally rejected the Brazilian and Turkish diplomatic effort in a statement at the U.N.'s watchdog nuclear agency in Vienna.

Communities bid National Guard Armories Goodbye

Updated 3h 56m ago By Tim Evans, USA TODAY Sgt. 1st Class Rodney Cox works at the New Castle National Guard Armory. The armory and two others in Indiana will be replaced by two Readiness Centers in the Indianapolis area. By Michelle Pemberton, The Indianapolis Star New Castle, Ind., Mayor Jim Small was stunned by the announcement in May that the Indiana National Guard would close its armory in his town of about 18,000 after having a presence there since 1938. "They've gone to war from there, and they've been here when the community needed help," he said. "It's sad. We're a very patriotic community, and this hurts." The closing of the small, aging facility and many like it across the USA is the result of shifting demographics, tight state budgets and changes in the way America's citizen soldiers are being trained and deployed, says Sgt. Katherine Perez, a National Guard public affairs officer. More than 100 armories nationwide have closed or been targeted for closing in the past five years — many in smaller communities — and more are closing this year, USA TODAY research found. Some are being replaced by larger joint Army National Guard, Army Reserve and Air National Guard Readiness Centers. In Indiana, two additional armories — in Delphi and Tell City— will close by year's end. Maj. Gen. R. Martin Umbarger, adjutant general of the Indiana National Guard, said the state unit is building two Readiness Centers in the Indianapolis area. Among other state plans: •In Kansas, 18 of 56 armories will close this year. A Readiness Center is planned for Wichita in 2011. • Oklahoma has closed 40 since 2006 and plans to close at least 10 more over the next two years. It has seven Readiness Centers under construction. • Oregon plans to shut down two by the end of 2011 and is building one Readiness Center. • Louisiana is closing four and building two Readiness Centers. • New York has closed or announced plans to close 11. It has built one Readiness Center, has a second under construction and is looking for a site for a Advertisement third. "As great as those armories have been and as hard as it is to leave those communities, it just doesn't make sense to keep them open," said Sgt. Leslie Newport, spokesman for the Indiana National Guard. "Its more than cost-cutting. We are doing a layer of teaching that is above what we have had." The closings come as the Army and Air National Guard combined report membership is up — from 459,000 in 2000 to 470,000 in 2009. Some armories close because of a lack of state and federal funds for maintenance and utilities, Perez says. Others have closed as a result of changing population trends where, she said, "towns no longer support units." Still others have closed as part of the 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program, which funded construction of some of the joint Readiness Centers, says Hallet Brazelton Jr., deputy in the National Guard Bureau's Installation Division. Readiness Centers, like the armories, are managed within each state. The states make decisions about construction and location, Brazelton said. The number of Readiness Centers varies as new facilities are constructed and old ones are disposed of, Brazelton says. Over the past 10 years, he says, the total number has stayed close to 3,000. That doesn't ease the sting for Small, or for Barb Bartell, finance officer for the town of Lemmon, S.D., a ranching community of about 1,400 where the armory closed last year. Bartell said the loss of the armory is another hit to a town dealing with tough economic times. She said it's not only the impact on the town's psyche that is troublesome. "The Guard members that live around here now have to drive almost 200 miles for training," she said. "And as far as getting help from the Guard, which used to be right out the back door, now they're a long way away."

Al-Qaida in Iraq is 'devastated'

Top US officer: Al-Qaida in Iraq is 'devastated' By ROBERT BURNS The Associated Press Sunday, June 6, 2010; 3:49 PM ANDREWS AIR FORCE BASE, Md. -- The top U.S. military officer says that a string of setbacks for al-Qaida's affiliate in Iraq has left the insurgent group "devastated" and struggling. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, said Sunday that leadership vacuums and a money squeeze have put a double whammy on the group. Mullen says he is encouraged by gains made against al-Qaida in operations carried out jointly by U.S. and Iraqi military forces. He says that makes it more likely the Iraqi government will be able to handle what remains of al-Qaida's capability to launch terror strikes once U.S. troops leave next year. The Joint Chiefs chairman adds that he can't estimate how much longer al-Qaida will remain a factor inside Iraq.

Looks like Israel gets to sink a few Iranian warships..

Gaza blockade: Iran offers escort to next aid convoy• Aide threatens use of Revolutionary Guard • Netanyahu warns of Jerusalem missile danger Ian Black, Middle East editor guardian.co.uk, Sunday 6 June 2010 smaller Article history Hojjatoleslam Ali Shirazi, an aide to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, pledged Tehran would send Revolutionary Guard units to escort Gaza aid convoys. Iran has warned that it could send Revolutionary Guard naval units to escort humanitarian aid convoys seeking to break the Israeli blockade of Gaza – a move that would certainly be challenged by Israel. Any such Iranian involvement, raised today by an aide to the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, would constitute a serious escalation of already high tensions with Israel, which accuses Tehran of seeking to build a nuclear weapon and of backing Hamas, the Islamist movement that controls Gaza. "Iran's Revolutionary Guard naval forces are prepared to escort the peace and freedom convoys that carry humanitarian assistance for the defenceless and oppressed people of Gaza with all their strength," pledged Hojjatoleslam Ali Shirazi, Khamenei's personal representative to the guards corps. The threat came as the Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, dismissed a UN proposal for an international commission to investigate last week's commando assault on aid ships, in which nine people died. Another aid ship, the Rachel Corrie, carrying Irish and other peace activists, was boarded peacefully by Israeli forces on Saturday, escorted to the port of Ashdod, and its passengers deported. Netanyahu has defended Israel's right to maintain the blockade by arguing that without it Gaza would become an "Iranian port" and Hamas missiles would strike Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Israel's undeclared aim is to weaken or bring down the Hamas government. Iran continued to exploit the "freedom flotilla" affair to lambast Israel. Its foreign minister, Manuchehr Mottaki, told the Organisation of the Islamic Conference in Jeddah on Sunday that Israel's crime was "another instance of the Zionist regime's brazen and merciless treatment of Muslims, especially the oppressed Palestinian people." Mottaki also called for a UN resolution condemning Israel. The security council is discussing imposing new sanctions on Iran because of its failure to meet international demands over its nuclear programme. Iran and Israel have had no diplomatic relations since the 1979 revolution and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad regularly predicts the disappearance of the Jewish state as well as denying the Holocaust. Shirazi said Iran should encourage international efforts to break the blockade. "We should expose our enemies to spontaneous global action and not let them achieve their heinous goals," he was quoted as saying by the semi-official Mehr news agency. Iran's Revolutionary Guards, which have a command structure separate from the regular armed forces, are fiercely loyal to the supreme leader. Khamenei has attacked the raid as a "mistake" that "showed how barbaric the Zionists are". Israel's determination to strike at links between Iran and Hamas was dramatically demonstrated in January when presumed Mossad agents in Dubai assassinated Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, who was described as the Hamas official in charge of smuggling Iranian weapons into Gaza. Israel's no-compromise attitude to aid convoys could be tested again after two Lebanese organisations pledged to send boats to Gaza in the next few days. Reporters Without Borders is attempting to assemble 25 European activists and 50 journalists for a boat leaving Beirut. The Free Palestine Movement is planning a similar attempt. George Galloway, the founder of Viva Palestina, announced in London that two simultaneous convoys "one by land via Egypt and the other by sea" would set out in September to break the Gaza blockade. The sea convoy of up to 60 ships will travel around the Mediterranean gathering ships, cargo and volunteers.

Al Qaeda Leaders in Iraq Neutralized, U.S. Says

By THOM SHANKER WASHINGTON — Iraqi and American forces have killed or captured 34 of the top 42 leaders of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, cutting off the terrorist organization from its foreign sponsors and raising questions about whether it can reconstitute, the senior American commander in Iraq said. The commander, Gen. Ray Odierno, said Friday that the terrorist group in Iraq had “lost connection” to Al Qaeda’s central leadership in Pakistan and would face difficulties as it tried to promote new officers for its efforts to topple the Iraqi government and establish havens. “I think they’re struggling now, and I think it’s going to be difficult for them to continue to recruit,” General Odierno said. Speaking at a Pentagon news conference, he said Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia had announced the appointment of some new leaders, “but we’re not even sure if there’s actually people behind those names.” Even so, he said, the threat should not be ignored. “I will never take my eyes off of Al Qaeda,” he said. “We will always watch them.” The successes in picking up or picking off leaders of the terrorist movement in Iraq that pledged alliance with Al Qaeda stemmed from operations in Mosul, in the north, that allowed the American and Iraqi military to gain insight into how the network operated. “We picked up several of their leaders that did the financing, that did planning, that did recruiting — some of their lawyers that worked on bringing detainees who were released and bringing them into Al Qaeda,” General Odierno said. “We were able to get inside of this network.” That intelligence led to a mission in April in which the military killed the organization’s two leaders: Al Qaeda’s military commander, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, an Egyptian also known as Abu Ayyub al-Masri, and Hamid Dawud Muhammad Khalil al-Zawi, the Iraqi who led the Islamic State of Iraq and went by the nom de guerre Abu Omar al-Baghdadi. As General Odierno prepares to leave Iraq this fall to take the senior job at the military’s Joint Forces Command, he said that “security continues to move forward at a very good pace.” He cited statistics for high-profile attacks and casualties among civilians, Iraqi security forces and American troops over the first five months of this year as the lowest on record. “There will still be bad days in Iraq,” he said. “There are still violent elements that operate inside of Iraq. Their violence is less than it was before, but it’s still violence. And we will continue to work with the Iraqi security forces to continue to improve their capacity and capability to deal with the violence.” General Odierno said there were now 88,000 American military service members on the ground in Iraq, down from a high of 175,000. He said the effort was on track to meet President Obama’s order to drop to 50,000 American service members in Iraq by Sept. 1.

Pro-Hamas Flotilla has clear ties to Islamic Terror

Flotilla Organizer has "Clear, Long-Standing Ties to Terrorism and Jihad" Evidence of the flotilla organizer’s terror ties continues to mount. ShareThis12:25 AM, Jun 4, 2010 · BY Thomas Joscelyn The Associated Press has published its account of an interview with France’s former top counterterrorism judge, Jean-Louis Bruguiere. In the late 1990s, Bruguiere investigated the Foundation for Human Rights and Freedoms and Humanitarian Relief. The group is better known by its Turkish acronym, the IHH. This is the group that organized the flotilla that was interdicted by Israeli forces earlier this week. Bruguiere says the IHH has “clear, long-standing ties to terrorism and Jihad.” In particular, Bruguiere says he discovered that the IHH played a role in al Qaeda’s millennium plot against the LAX airport in California. The AP writes (emphasis added): Bruguiere, who led the French judiciary's counterterrorism unit for nearly two decades before retiring in 2007, didn't indicate whether IHH now has terror ties, but said it did when he investigated it in the late 1990s. "They were basically helping al-Qaida when (Osama) bin Laden started to want to target U.S. soil," he said. Some members of an international terrorism cell known as the Fateh Kamel network then worked at the IHH, he said. Kamel, an Algerian-Canadian dual national, had ties to the nascent al-Qaida, Bruguiere said. Among Kamel's followers was Ahmed Ressam, an Algerian who was arrested in the U.S. state of Washington in December 1999 on his way to bomb Los Angeles International Airport as part of an al-Qaida plot. "IHH had a role in the organization that led to the plot," Bruguiere said, reiterating sworn testimony he made in a U.S. Federal Court during Ressam's trial. Ressam is serving a 22-year prison sentence. Bruguiere issued an international warrant for Kamel, Ressam's former mentor, who was extradited from Jordan to France in 1999 and sentenced to eight years in prison on terror-related charges. … In addition to its role in assisting al Qaeda’s millennium plotter, Judge Bruguiere says that the IHH was responsible for moving “funds, weapons and mujahedeen to and from Bosnia and Afghanistan” – two jihadist hotspots. Bruguiere also told the AP that he was personally involved in a raid of IHH offices that turned up all sorts of incriminating material. The IHH, of course, denies all of this. And the good judge says he does not know if the IHH has been involved in these same jihadist activities more recently -- but that makes sense, considering he has not investigated the group in recent years. In addition, the U.S. State Department, according to this same AP report, says it cannot “validate” the IHH’s ties to al Qaeda. (That last part is hard to believe because Judge Bruguiere references, in part, sworn testimony from a U.S. federal court. Presumably, that should be easy enough for the State Department to locate. Either the transcripts say what Bruguiere says they do, or they do not.) Does this mean that “al Qaeda” was directly behind or involved in the flotilla operation? No, of course Bruguiere’s testimony does not mean that. But Bruguiere’s analysis is one piece of additional evidence that firmly places the IHH within the broader Islamist and jihadist network. That is not surprising given the IHH’s extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, and the Brotherhood’s Palestinian branch, Hamas. In other words, the IHH is not some benign humanitarian organization. And the flotilla was not some purely benign operation either.

General Odierno gives Obama 'positive' report on Iraq security

(AFP) – 17 hours ago PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania — US commander in Iraq General Ray Odierno Wednesday gave President Barack Obama a "positive" report on security as American combat troops prepare to exit within three months. "General Odierno provided a positive assessment of the current security conditions and the ongoing transition of responsibilities to Iraqi security forces," White House deputy spokesman Bill Burton told reporters. "The President and General Odierno also discussed the encouraging step taken by Iraq's federal Supreme Court to certify election results, as well as US support for an inclusive government formation process." Burton was speaking as Obama headed to Pittsburgh on Air Force One, after meeting Odierno in the Oval Office. The meeting came a day after US military support for Iraqi efforts to secure Baghdad's Green Zone ended, in the latest step in the American withdrawal from Iraq more than seven years after its invasion of Iraq. American combat troops are due to pull out of Iraq by the end of August, leaving behind around 50,000 soldiers who will focus on advising and training their Iraqi counterparts. Under the terms of a US-Iraq bilateral security agreement signed in November 2008, all American soldiers are to leave Iraq by the end of 2011. There are currently 92,000 US soldiers in Iraq.

Iraqi Court Ratifies Election Results

By ANTHONY SHADID New York Times BAGHDAD — After weeks of political wrangling and legal challenges, Iraq’s highest court on Tuesday ratified the results of landmark parliamentary elections, removing a major obstacle to seating a new Parliament but leaving many frustrated that it had taken so long. The announcement by the chief judge, Midhat al-Mahmoud, represented a crucial step forward after nearly three months of setbacks and turmoil that heightened the sense of crisis here and stoked popular anger. With the results official, the country’s various factions are now expected to begin negotiations in earnest over a coalition government that will preside over the country as the American military completes its withdrawal. In reality, though, the step does not necessarily bring deeply divided politicians any closer to naming that government. Officials say it could still be months away, perhaps even into the fall. And some politicians were rueful in greeting Judge Mahmoud’s announcement. Essentially, the results ratified by the court were, in numbers at least, the same as preliminary results announced after the March 7 vote and before a flurry of legal appeals, an assassination, candidates’ disqualifications and vote recounts. “I don’t think it was worth the wait,” said Haidar al-Mulla, a winning candidate for a slate led by Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite and former interim prime minister. Under Iraq’s Constitution, Parliament must be seated within 15 days of the court’s ratifying the results. But Jalal Talabani, Iraq’s president, said in an interview that he would seat Parliament as soon as two days after the announcement. The law then stipulates that Parliament will choose a new president, who will name a prime minister. But everyone here expects a package deal, hence the period needed to negotiate everything from Parliament speaker to minister of youth and sports. “There are still long months ahead,” said Ghassan Attiya, an Iraqi analyst. No one coalition won a majority in the parliamentary vote, making the task of forming that government even more arduous. Mr. Allawi’s slate won the highest number of seats, at 91. But an alliance led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki came in a close second with 89 seats. Since the vote, he has entered into a coalition with a rival Shiite Muslim slate, and together the two blocs are just four seats short of an outright majority. Mr. Allawi has insisted that, as the top vote-getter, his candidate list still has the right try to form a government after the 325-member Parliament is seated. But Mr. Maliki’s new coalition has a court ruling on its side, a point Judge Mahmoud underlined again on Tuesday, and it seems almost assured of taking the lead in choosing the next prime minister. Therein lies the next dispute. Mr. Maliki insists that he return to power, though his new allies have opposed his candidacy. In particular, the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, a populist and influential Shiite cleric, have said Mr. Maliki’s return to power is not an option. Sensing the discord, Mr. Allawi and his bloc have continued to try to negotiate a separate deal with Mr. Sadr and other factions in the smaller Shiite slate. Even if Mr. Maliki does hold on to power, many Shiite politicians believe there will be an attempt to circumscribe his authority and give greater power to his cabinet. For weeks, the crisis over the results seemed to be ebbing somewhat, as challenges were resolved through court rulings, political compromises and compromises fashioned as rulings. The United States Embassy welcomed Tuesday’s announcement, but aware of the anger over the talks’ glacial pace, it appealed to politicians to move forward quickly. Politicians, seemingly with varying degrees of sincerity, said the same. “It is important now to start serious and real talks between the political blocs to form the government,” said Mahmoud Othman, a Kurdish lawmaker. “If any more delays happen, the responsibility will fall on the political blocs.” Before the March election, most politicians had expected the negotiations over a new government to drag on for weeks, and probably longer. But no one quite predicted the intensity of the dispute over the results themselves. Mr. Maliki’s slate demanded a recount after finishing narrowly behind Mr. Allawi’s. A partial recount left those results largely unchanged. A committee of dubious legal standing disqualified candidates for ties to the Baath Party of former President Saddam Hussein. Only after a shadowy deal did an appeals court overrule the decisions. Last month, a candidate in Mosul, Bashar Mohammed Hamid, was assassinated, and last week, even more challenges were filed. As a way to move forward, the court left the status of two candidates pending. The fate of another candidate, Ibrahim al-Mutlak, who won a seat in Baghdad, was also finally resolved. He had replaced his brother, Saleh, a leading Sunni politician disqualified in January. Then Mr. Mutlak himself was disqualified, and his slate replaced him. The judge said Mr. Mutlak would take his seat after all. Reached by telephone Tuesday in Dubai, Mr. Mutlak had yet to hear the news. “The Iraqi judiciary has proved its independence,” he said, satisfied.

The Terror Finance Flotilla

BY Jonathan Schanzer May 31, 2010 4:20 PM The Turkish organizers of the Gaza Strip-bound flotilla that was boarded this morning by Israeli commandos knew well in advance that their vessels would never reach Israeli waters. That's because the organizers belong to a nonprofit that was banned by the Israeli government in July 2008 for its ties to terrorism finance. The Turkish IHH (Islan Haklary Ve Hurriyetleri Vakfi in Turkish) was founded in 1992, and reportedly popped up on the CIA's radar in 1996 for its radical Islamist leanings. Like many other Islamist charities, the IHH has a record of providing relief to areas where disaster has struck in the Muslim world. However, the organization is not a force for good. The Turkish nonprofit belongs to a Saudi-based umbrella organization known to finance terrorism called the Union of Good (Ittilaf al-Kheir in Arabic). Notably, the Union is chaired by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is known best for his religious ruling that encourages suicide attacks against Israeli civilians. According to one report, Qardawi personally transferred millions of dollars to the Union in an effort to provide financial support to Hamas. In 2008, the Israelis banned IHH, along with 35 other Islamist charities worldwide, for its ties to the Union of Good. This was a follow-on designation; Israelis first blocked the Union of Good from operating in the West Bank and Gaza in 2002. Interestingly, the Union of Good may not only be tied to Hamas. Included in the Israeli list of 36 designees was the International Islamic Relief Organization (IIRO). In 2006, both the U.S. government and the United Nations designated the IIRO branch offices in Indonesia and the Philippines for financing al Qaeda. French magistrate Jean-Louis Brougiere also testified that IHH had an "important role" in Ahmed Ressam's failed "millennium plot" to bomb the Los Angeles airport in late 1999. The U.S. government, it should be noted, also views the Union of Good as a terrorist organization. On November 12, 2008, a press release from the U.S. Treasury announced the umbrella group's leaders as Specially Designated Global Terrorists (SDGT), stating that the group was "created by Hamas leadership to transfer funds to the terrorist organization." "Terrorist groups such as Hamas continue to exploit charities to radicalize vulnerable communities and cultivate support for their violent activities," said Treasury Undersecretary Stuart Levey. According to Treasury, Hamas's leadership actually created the Union of Good in 2000—just after the launch of the armed campaign against Israel—as a means to transfer funds to Hamas. At the time of designation in 2008, the Treasury believed that the Union of Good was transferring "tens of millions of dollars a year" to Hamas-controlled entities in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. As the Treasury release explained, "The Union of Good acts as a broker for Hamas by facilitating financial transfers between a web of charitable organizations—including several organizations previously designated… for providing support to Hamas—and Hamas-controlled organizations in the West Bank and Gaza. The primary purpose of this activity is to strengthen Hamas' political and military position in the West Bank and Gaza." It gets worse. The Treasury, drawing from declassified documents, stated unequivocally that the Union of Good "compensated Hamas terrorists by providing payments to the families of suicide bombers. One of [the charities], the Al-Salah Society, previously identified as a key support node for Hamas, was designated in August 2007... The Society employed a number of members of the Hamas military wing and supported Hamas-affiliated combatants during the first Intifada." Then there's the leadership. Apart from the aforementioned Qardawi, Union of Good's top officials include Hamas members, as well as Yemeni national Abd al-Majid al-Zindani, who was designated by the U.S. Treasury as a terrorist in 2004 for providing support to al Qaeda. Thus, the convoy of ships allegedly trying to bring aid to the Gaza Strip could never be characterized as a "peace flotilla." With ties to Hamas and other dangerous groups, the IHH can only be described as a dangerous organization. Its members only underscored this fact when they attacked Israeli naval personnel with iron bars and knives, ultimately leading to the regrettable deaths this morning on the Mediterranean Sea. Jonathan Schanzer is a former terrorism finance analyst at the U.S. Department of the Treasury and the vice president for research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies