Obama stabs Israel in the back once again..

Israel recoils as US backs nuclear move May 30 03:22 PM US/Eastern Washington's unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally. The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection. It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East. Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s. The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran's controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as "deeply flawed and hypocritical." But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as "a resounding slap around the face" which has dealt a very public blow to Israel's long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity. Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it. According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was "furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing... and for choosing to support it." "The American support for the resolution, after decades in which it supported Israel on this issue, came as a complete surprise," the paper said. "In the secret talks that Netanyahu held with Obama's men... Israel was promised that the resolution would not focus on Israel and that if it did, the Americans would vote against." The left-leaning Haaretz daily said Israel had been "sacrificed by the US on the altar of a successful conference" in what constituted "a diplomatic victory for Egypt" which has campaigned against Israel's nuclear arsenal. Five years ago, the paper recalled, Obama's predecessor George W. Bush, refused to accept parts of a draft document calling on Israel to join the NPT and dismissed the idea of holding talks to create a nuclear-free Middle East -- even at the cost of the conference's failure. The controversial resolution was passed just days ahead of a key meeting between Obama and Netanyahu aimed at restoring friendly ties between the two allies which had been soured over a dispute about Jewish settlements. But the Maariv daily said that Obama's 'last minute' invitation for Netanyahu to visit the White House had clearly been planned with the NPT review conference in mind. "It is reasonable to assume that the Americans knew they were going to deliver a blow to Israel's policy of nuclear ambiguity and that Obama wanted to try to minimize the damage," the paper said. The move draws a line under a long-held "agreement" between Israel and Washington dating back to 1969 under which the Jewish state was permitted to keep silent on its country's nuclear potential while holding back from any nuclear test. In return, Washington agreed not to exert or allow any pressure on Israel over its nuclear capabilities. "It is an undeniably negative change to US policy" with regards to Israel's nuclear programme, said Eitan Gilboa, an analyst from Bar Ilan University near Tel Aviv. Pointing to contradiction between Obama both applauding the resolution and criticising it for singling out Israel, Gilboa said Washington was "losing its leadership role because of the naive and unrealistic" outlook of its president.

Pro-Hamas terrorist supporters use deadly force on Israeli boarders

Bloody clash off Gaza coast leaves 10 deadShare66posted at 10:43 am on May 31, 2010 by Ed Morrissey The preferred media headline so far this morning has been “Israelis kill 10 peace activists in Gaza flotilla,” but that’s not quite what happened. The IDF attempted to head off a number of boats attempting to run the blockade on Gaza, a blockade necessitated by Hamas’ repeated attacks on Israel. They boarded the lead ship by helicopter, expecting to either convince the occupants to turn back or to commandeer the boat themselves. What they didn’t expect was to find armed “peace activists,” and a bloody melee ensued: The left-wing activists on board a flotilla carrying aid to the Gaza Strip tried to lynch the Israel Navy commandos who stormed their Turkish-flagged ship early Monday, Israel Defense Forces sources told Haaretz. The commandos, who intercepted the Turkish ferry Mavi Marmara after it ignored orders to turn back, said they encountered violent resistance from activists armed with sticks and knives. According to the soldiers, the activists threw one of their comrades from the upper deck to the lower after they boarded. Activists attacked a commando with iron bars as he descended onto the ship from a helicopter, the army said. The IDF said its rules of engagement allowed troops to open fire in what it called a “life-threatening situation”. The soldiers said they were forced to open fire after the activists struck one of their comrades in the head and trampled on him. A senior field commander ordered the soldiers then to respond with fire, a decision which the commandos said received full backing the military echelon. At least 10 people were killed and several more wounded after the Israel Navy troops opened fire on the six-ship flotilla. Unofficial reports put the death toll at between 14 and 20. Ynet has a more detailed timeline of the confrontation: A few minutes before the takeover attempt aboard the Marmara got underway, the operation commander was told that 20 people were waiting on the deck where a helicopter was to deploy the first team of the elite Flotilla 13 unit. The original plan was to disembark on the top deck, and from there rush to the vessel’s bridge and order the Marmara’s captain to stop. Officials estimated that passengers will show slight resistance, and possibly minor violence; for that reason, the operation’s commander decided to bring the helicopter directly above the top deck. The first rope that soldiers used in order to descend down to the ship was wrested away by activists, most of them Turks, and tied to an antenna with the hopes of bringing the chopper down. However, Flotilla 13 fighters decided to carry on. Navy commandoes slid down to the vessel one by one, yet then the unexpected occurred: The passengers that awaited them on the deck pulled out bats, clubs, and slingshots with glass marbles, assaulting each soldier as he disembarked. The fighters were nabbed one by one and were beaten up badly, yet they attempted to fight back. However, to their misfortune, they were only equipped with paintball rifles used to disperse minor protests, such as the ones held in Bilin. The paintballs obviously made no impression on the activists, who kept on beating the troops up and even attempted to wrest away their weapons. One soldier who came to the aid of a comrade was captured by the rioters and sustained severe blows. The commandoes were equipped with handguns but were told they should only use them in the face of life-threatening situations. When they came down from the chopper, they kept on shouting to each other “don’t shoot, don’t shoot,” even though they sustained numerous blows. The Navy commandoes were prepared to mostly encounter political activists seeking to hold a protest, rather than trained street fighters. The soldiers were told they were to verbally convince activists who offer resistance to give up, and only then use paintballs. They were permitted to use their handguns only under extreme circumstances. The planned rush towards the vessel’s bridge became impossible, even when a second chopper was brought in with another crew of soldiers. “Throw stun grenades,” shouted Flotilla 13’s commander who monitored the operation. The Navy chief was not too far, on board a speedboat belonging to Flotilla 13, along with forces who attempted to climb into the back of the ship. The forces hurled stun grenades, yet the rioters on the top deck, whose number swelled up to 30 by that time, kept on beating up about 30 commandoes who kept gliding their way one by one from the helicopter. At one point, the attackers nabbed one commando, wrested away his handgun, and threw him down from the top deck to the lower deck, 30 feet below. The soldier sustained a serious head wound and lost his consciousness. Only after this injury did Flotilla 13 troops ask for permission to use live fire. The commander approved it: You can go ahead and fire. The soldiers pulled out their handguns and started shooting at the rioters’ legs, a move that ultimately neutralized them. Meanwhile, the rioters started to fire back at the commandoes. Ynet notes that the IDF should learn two lessons from this. First, paintball rifles won’t work against so-called peace activists when they’re armed and inclined to fight. That’s probably even more true in an in-close confrontation, such as on a boat. Paintballs sting, as anyone who has played war games with them attest, but once antagonists understand that’s all they do, they won’t provide any deterrent value at all. The second lesson Ynet takes is that the soldiers should have considered the fact that their arrival was hardly a surprise and planned accordingly, but really, the IDF and the Israelis were foolish to assume that these activists had non-violent intentions in the first place. The demonstration was in support of Hamas, hardly a group dedicated to non-violence and peaceful coexistence. That assumption put their soldiers’ lives at risk unnecessarily and allowed planners to eschew a more muscular entry to the boat — which could have saved lives on both sides of the equation with an initial use of overwhelming force. The world will blame Israel for this, but the blockade exists to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, which continually attacks Israel despite the latter’s withdrawal from Gaza years ago. It’s a legitimate and necessary military response to Hamas’ terrorism, and the flotilla knowingly sailed itself into a military conflict — and carried arms into it as well. That makes them legitimate antagonists in the conflict and fair game for Israeli’s military. Update: Say, it’s probably a good thing the IDF had its video cameras rolling: Update II: Via Cubachi, the group behind the flotilla has a history of supporting violent jihad and anti-Westernism: Prominent among the coalition organizations participating in the aid flotilla scheduled to arrive in the Gaza Strip in the coming days is the Turkish IHH (Insani Yardim Vakfi, IHH, “humanitarian relief fund”). It is a radical Islamic organization which was established in 1992 and formally registered in Istanbul in 1995. It is headed by Bülent Yildirim. … In practice, besides its legitimate humanitarian activities, IHH supports radical Islamic terrorist networks. Inrecent years it has prominently supported Hamas (through the Union of Good). In addition, the ITIC has reliable information that in the past IHH provided logistical support and funding to global jihad networks. IHH’s orientation is radical-Islamic and anti-American, and it is close to the Muslim Brotherhood(Hamas’ parent movement). IHH supports Hamas and does not hide the connection between them. Hamas also considers its links to IHH and Turkey to be extremely important, and regards Turkey as a target audience for its propaganda network (Palestine-Information, Hamas’ main website, has a Turkish version, and as of the end of 2009, the website of its military wing, the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades, has also appeared in Turkish). In recent years, especially since Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, IHH has supported Hamas’ propaganda campaigns by organizing public support conferences in Turkey. At those conferences, which featured the participation of senior IHH figures, the heads of IHH expressed their support for Hamas and its strategy (including the armed struggle it favors), in defiance of the Palestinian Authority, Hamas’ rival. IHH is a member of the Union of Good, an umbrella organization of more than 50 Islamic funds and foundations around the globe, which channels money into Hamas institutions in the Palestinian Authority-administered territories. As a Union of Good member IHH has connections with other worldwide Islamic funds and foundations which support Hamas. Among other things, the support includes initiating and conducting joint projects whose objectives are to bolster the de facto Hamas administration in the Gaza Strip and Hamas’ civilian infrastructure in Judea and Samaria, which also supports terrorism (the infrastructure is under pressure from the Palestinian Authority security services). IHH, which has become an important factor in global fund-raising for Hamas, transfers significant amounts of money to Hamas institutions in Judea and Samaria, including the Islamic Charitable Society in Hebron and the Al-Tadhamun Charitable Society in Nablus (Hamas’ two central “charitable societies,” both outlawed by Israel). IHH operates widely throughout the Gaza Strip. To promote its activities it opened a branch there, headed by Muhammad Kaya, who recently stated that IHH intended to send other aid flotillas to the Gaza Strip (See below). In January 2008 an IHH delegation met with Ahmed Bahar, a senior Hamas activist who is acting chairman of Hamas’ council in the Gaza Strip. At the meeting the delegation revealed the extent of the aid it had given Hamas in the Gaza Strip during the preceding year and said it intended to double the sum in the future. In January 2009 IHH head Bülent Yildirim met with Khaled Mashaal, chairman of Hamas’ political bureau in Damascus, and Mashaal thanked him for the support of his organization. Israel expelled IHH from Gaza in 2008, along with 35 other organizations associated with the Union of Good. Update III: And here we have a “peace activist” repeatedly stabbing an IDF soldier, via Orit Sklar on Twitter: Yup, a really good thing the IDF brought along its video cameras … Update V: A few commenters point out that this took place in international waters, not in Gaza’s waters, and therefore consider Israel’s actions illegitimate. However, the flotilla had already announced their intention to run the blockade, making them belligerent and giving the Israelis a reason to interdict them. And are we to believe that the “peace activists” would have surrendered peacefully had this action taken them within the 12-mile limit? I see no reason to believe that; indeed, it looks as though they were prepared for armed confrontation. Update VI: Noel Sheppard at Newsbusters takes a look at the news coverage of the incident.

Clinton: Iran nuclear fuel swap offer is 'ploy'

By MATTHEW LEE (AP) – 18 hours ago BEIJING — U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday rejected as inadequate an Iranian plan to swap some of its enriched uranium for reactor fuel and called the offer a "transparent ploy" to try to avoid new U.N. Security Council sanctions over its suspect nuclear program. Speaking in the Chinese capital of Beijing, Clinton said the swap offer submitted on Monday to the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog did not address international concerns about Iran's atomic ambitions and that the U.S.-led push for fresh Security Council penalties would continue. "There are a number of deficiencies with it that do not answer the concerns of the international community," she told reporters after two days of intense strategic and economic talks with the Chinese that included lengthy discussions about Iran. For one, she noted that despite the offer Iran is insisting on continuing to enrich uranium at a high level. The swap offer was negotiated last week by Brazil and Turkey, which are opposed to new U.N. sanctions on Iran. A day later, the United States announced that it had won agreement from the permanent members of the Security Council and Germany on a draft resolution that would hit Iran with a fourth round of penalties. Clinton dismissed Iran's decision to accept Brazilian-Turkish mediation as a last-ditch attempt to avoid Security Council action that it knew were coming. She said traditional sanctions opponents like Russia and China saw the move in the same light. "There is a recognition on the part of the international community that the agreement that was reached in Tehran a week ago between Iran and Brazil and Turkey only occurred because the Security Council was on the brink of publicly releasing the text of the resolution that we have been negotiating for many weeks," Clinton said. Tehran had no official comment, but Iranian state television called Clinton's remarks "hasty." "It shows that the U.S. is not after a solution" for Iran's nuclear issue and that Washington's attitude is similar to a "political deception," the TV commentary said. It added that the "ground for talks will be paved" if the U.S. and its Western allies respect the "rules of the game." Clinton said progress had been made on finalizing details of the new resolution, particularly with the Chinese who have been objecting to some specific companies and individuals that would be targeted by the economic and financial penalties. China has vast investments in Iran and has been resistant to sanctions, although it signed onto the draft. "We discussed all this in great detail with our Chinese friends, and we are moving forward to hold Iran accountable," she said. At U.N. headquarters in New York, U.S. Ambassador Susan Rice said experts from the Security Council member nations were working through the text of the draft resolution. "The inputs and comments we've received from fellow council members have been constructive," she said. In Washington, the two U.S. lawmakers leading efforts to craft an Iran sanctions bill said that they will delay passage of their legislation in light of the progress made at the U.N. They had intended to send a sanctions measure to President Barack Obama by the end of May, despite the administration's preference that they wait until after the U.N. and European Union adopt sanctions. "We believe that our overriding goal of preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability is best served by providing a limited amount of time" for the U.N. to complete its work and for the European Union to take action on Iran at its mid-June summit, said Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., and Rep. Howard Berman, D-Calif., in a joint statement. The U.S. and other Western countries accuse Iran of trying to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian atomic energy program. Iran denies the charge but has repeatedly refused to prove that its program is peaceful. On Monday, Iran formally submitted its swap plan to the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna. The deal would commit Iran to ship 2,640 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would receive, within one year, higher-enriched fuel rods to be used in a U.S.-built medical research reactor. On its face, the latest plan seems a significant concession, with Iran agreeing to ship its material to be stored in Turkey and to wait up to a year for higher-enriched uranium from France and Russia. However, Iran is believed to have much more nuclear material stockpiled since the IAEA first made the proposal last October. And, Iran's insistence that even with the deal it will continue to enrich uranium to 20 percent — from which it can produce weapons-grade material much more quickly than lower levels — is an even greater problem for the U.S. and its allies.

Pentagon tries to steer media coverage on Iraq

Washington Post By WALTER PINCUS Tuesday, May 25, 2010; A23 The Pentagon may be sharply reducing its combat forces in Iraq, but the military plans to step up efforts to influence media coverage in that country -- as well as here at home. "It is essential to the success of the new Iraqi government and the USF-I [U.S. Forces-Iraq] mission that both communicate effectively with our strategic audiences (i.e. Iraqi, pan-Arabic, international, and U.S. and USF-I audiences) to gain widespread acceptance of core themes and messages," according to the pre-solicitation notice for a civilian contractor or contractors to provide "strategic communication management services" there. Calling strategic communications "a vital component of operations in Iraq," the notice says one goal is "to effectively build U.S. decision makers' and the public's understanding of Iraq's current situation, future and strategic importance as a stabilizing presence and ally against terrorism in the Middle East." The notice is a prime illustration of how the military is increasingly integrating information operations into the heart of its commands. The contractor team of 10 to 12 people is expected to provide work of "executive level quality, commensurate with that of a four-star military headquarters command." And, this being a military activity, the "personnel must display the highest degree of professionalism in appearance, personal behavior . . . with no more than one personal conduct incident occurring over the period of performance." The contractor is to serve as "a media advisor/speechwriter for the USAF-I spokesman and shall provide support to the J9 STRATCOM media outreach section," including prepping military officers for news conferences. Before interviews with USF-I commanders or spokesmen, the contractor will have the task of talking with reporters ("pre-engagement with media outlets to determine the nature of the interview and the questions that will be asked by the media during the interview . . . to ensure that USF-I spokesman has maximum situation awareness prior to the interview"). When interviews are concluded, the contractor will be responsible for submitting an "electronic report capturing the key questions from the media and answers from the interviewee within 24 hours" with "a detailed recap of the interview [as] the core component of the report." The contractor can expect to prepare for "between 20-40 media engagements per month" and to write "10-20 single or double page talking point summaries monthly." Another major effort for the contractor will continue to be "media monitoring, assessment and reporting." Both Arabic and Western sources are to be monitored, including CNN, Fox News, and other U.S. and British television channels, plus the major wire services and the Wall Street Journal, USA Today, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post. The assessments will cover the effectiveness of USF-I strategic communications as well as attitudes among the Iraqi population toward USF-I. Another element is to be the "attitude of pan-Arab/Western media and professionals" toward the government of Iraq. Interestingly, the notice recognizes that other media analyses are being done, saying the contractor should do a cross-check "against DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency] media monitoring reports and other USF-I contracts having media monitoring activities." It says this contractor's monitoring "must have at least 95% similarly categorized media" as found in the other contractor reporting. In developing the longer-term strategic communications plans and campaigns, the contractor is to focus on areas such as "national loyalty and communal factors, inclusion or exclusion of factions within the GoI [government of Iraq] and/or ISF [Iraqi security forces], capacity building." But the contractor must also work as a team player with the State Department and other U.S. governmental and nongovernmental agencies. Finally, the contractor is to serve as Web site manager for USF-I's unclassified English and Arab sites, delivering products under Defense Department standards and guidelines for the protection and release of information. This involves "continuous updates on a 7-day, 24-hour basis." It's not surprising that the notice adds: "All personnel assigned under this contract will be expected to work a minimum 72-hour workweek."

No Worries, Israel Insists, Defense Drill Is Just a Drill

By ISABEL KERSHNER and FARES AKRAM New York Times JERUSALEM — As Israel embarked on a large-scale civil defense exercise on Sunday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sought to reassure Israelis and some jittery Arab neighbors that the nationwide drill was not meant to signal a deterioration in security or an imminent war. “This is a routine exercise that has been scheduled for some time,” Mr. Netanyahu said at the start of the weekly cabinet meeting. “I would like to make it clear that it is not the result of any exceptional security development. On the contrary, Israel aspires towards calm, stability and peace.” The five-day exercise, designed to test the readiness of citizens, the emergency services and the local authorities in the case of war, is taking place for the fourth consecutive year. It comes amid growing concern in Israel about the rocket and missile capabilities of militant groups on its borders, and the potential threat of a nuclear Iran. But the exercise appears to have rattled nerves in Lebanon, where Israel fought a monthlong war against Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed militia, in 2006. Lebanon’s prime minister, Saad Hariri, told reporters in Cairo on Saturday that “to launch military exercises at such a time runs counter to peace efforts” with the Palestinians. Hezbollah’s deputy head, Nabil Qaouk, said Friday that the military exercise was a sign of Israel’s aggressive intentions and that Hezbollah had gone on alert. Mr. Qaouk was speaking during a meeting at his home in southern Lebanon with the Jewish American intellectual Noam Chomsky, a fierce critic of both American and Israeli policy who was barred by Israel from entering the occupied West Bank from Jordan last week. The Israeli military said the drill will include the sounding of sirens throughout Israel on Wednesday and will “replicate emergency scenarios” in more than 30 local authorities, in cooperation with the Home Front Command. In Gaza, unidentified gunmen attacked the site of a United Nations children’s summer camp before dawn on Sunday, burning empty water tanks and plastic sheds. The Hamas government that rules the Palestinian enclave condemned the attack and said it had opened an investigation. The beachside camp, which was still under construction, was set up by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, which provides assistance to Palestinian refugees and their descendants. It was scheduled to open next month. More than 20 masked militants were said to have taken part in the attack. The camp’s guard, Ibrahim Eliwa, 37, said he was awake at 3 a.m. when he saw “an army of gunmen approaching the camp.” Mr. Eliwa was handcuffed. He said the gunmen tucked an envelope into his coat containing a letter and three bullets. “The letter carried threats to senior staff officials at U.N.R.W.A.,” he said. John Ging, operations director of the United Nations agency, promised to rebuild the camp and said that the agency would not be intimidated. “It is a disgraceful situation,” he told reporters in Gaza. “There is no doubt in my mind that it is vandalism linked to a certain degree of extremism.” The agency has been running summer programs for the past five years for about 250,000 children who study in its schools in Gaza. Hamas, the Islamic militant group, has been running its own camps since it took over Gaza in 2007. In the Hamas camps, strict, bearded men, sometimes waving sticks, teach children the basic tenets of Islam. In the more popular United Nations camps, children’s activities have included painting, singing and swimming. Last summer, Younis al-Astal, a Hamas lawmaker, accused the United Nations agency of “implementing a plan to spoil the growing generation of Gaza.” Isabel Kershner reported from Jerusalem, and Fares Akram from Gaza.

Iraqi Politicians Break Bread, but Not the Standoff

Holly Pickett for The New York Times Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi of Iraq expressed his frustration over the stalled government. By STEVEN LEE MYERS BAGHDAD — Iraq’s leading politicians — government ministers, clerics and sheiks, not a single woman among them — gathered Thursday over a lunch of roasted meat and rice at the arabesque Peace Palace on the bank of the Tigris. It was an effort to foster reconciliation after the country’s intensely disputed election, but ended with little of it in evidence. Notes from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other areas of conflict in the post-9/11 era. Go to the Blog » Enlarge This Image Holly Pickett Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki of Iraq greeted President Jalal Talabani before a lunch meeting of Iraq’s main political players in Baghdad on Thursday. Most conspicuous by his absence was Ayad Allawi, the man who still claims the right to form and lead the next government but who slowly appears to be falling short of that goal. Mr. Allawi departed Iraq for Jordan on Wednesday evening and the next day sent his regrets in writing, explaining that he had already twice postponed a meeting with an Arab head of state and could not possibly do so again. The gathering, described by one newspaper as “a political feast,” came 74 days after Iraqis went to the polls and emerged with an inconclusive result that is still the subject of mostly behind-the-scenes jockeying. Despite several recent developments that raised hopes that the post-election impasse was easing, including the completion on Sunday of a partial recount, the formation of a new government still appeared to be months away. That government will have to guide the country through the planned withdrawal of American troops next year. Public pledges of brotherhood and unity aside, the tensions over who will lead the country were palpable after the Thursday lunch, as was frustration that the process continued to drag on. “It’s a shame on Iraq,” one of the two current vice presidents, Tariq al-Hashimi, said, comparing his country to others that recently held elections. “The United Kingdom formed a government in five days. Despite the political conflicts in Sudan, they were able to form a government quicker than us.” It was left to Mr. Hashimi to explain the absence of Mr. Allawi, whom he joined in an electoral coalition known as Iraqiya. Iraqiya won a narrow victory over the bloc led by Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki — 91 seats to 89 — but has failed to rally enough support to have its leader be elected as prime minister. The animosity between Mr. Allawi and Mr. Maliki is such that they have not spoken in years. “What makes me sad,” Mr. Hashimi went on, “is that the media is only concerned about talking about figures. Iraq’s concerns are larger than any political figure in the political process.” The gathering took place even as what concerns Iraq most relentlessly exacted another toll. At least six roadside bombs exploded in Baghdad, wounding two dozen people. A suicide bomber in the northern city of Mosul killed one person and wounded 12. Turkish warplanes battered northern Iraq, reported Anatolia, the semi-official Turkish news agency, striking what it said were Kurdish rebels who use Iraqi territory as a refuge. The acting government of Mr. Maliki did not immediately respond. The gathering was at the initiative of President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd who hopes to remain in office, and Ammar al-Hakim, the scion of a respected religious family who is a leader of a largely Shiite coalition that allied with Mr. Maliki after the election but seems not to want him to return as prime minister. “There is no doubt the general atmosphere was optimistic,” Mr. Hakim said. Whether the gathering was a step toward a political resolution — or a meaningless footnote in Iraq’s byzantine politics — remains to be seen. No further meetings were announced, pending the official certification of the election results. That is expected within days, after which the new 325-member Parliament can convene. Even then, few expect it to agree on a new prime minister, let alone the rest of the cabinet, for months. Despite its uncertain effect, Thursday’s meeting spoke volumes about Iraqi politics today. It took place inside the manicured grounds of the Kurdish enclave of Mr. Talabani, something like a (heavily) gated community, far removed from the dangerous, gritty, trash-filled reality that daily confronts most Iraqis. As official after official arrived, the parking lot began to look like an auto show featuring armored Land Cruisers and Suburbans. No women walked up the red-carpeted steps to greet Mr. Talabani. Despite a legal requirement that women occupy one in four seats in the new Parliament, the struggles for power here clearly remain the domain of men. While Mr. Allawi did not attend, several other aspirants to the job of prime minister did. They included the country’s other vice president, Adel Abdul Mahdi, and a former prime minister, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, both of them members of the Shiite alliance allied now with Mr. Maliki. That alliance is a handful of seats short of a controlling majority, but the alliance’s factions have been unable to agree on even the method for choosing who among them will become prime minister. Vice President Hashimi restated Mr. Allawi’s insistence that their Iraqiya coalition’s narrow majority gave it the right to be the first to try to forge a coalition, as allowed by the Constitution. Mr. Maliki did not speak publicly after the meeting, but in a newspaper interview published Thursday, he pointedly accused Mr. Allawi’s coalition of delaying the formation of a new government, even though it was Mr. Maliki’s bloc that demanded a recount that took nearly three weeks to complete, with no effect. “You’re wasting time on yourselves and delaying the political process,” the newspaper, Al Mada, quoted him saying, referring to his rivals.

The bright spot among Afghan woes

By: Michael O'Hanlon May 19, 2010 04:29 PM EDT A good way to understand what is going right in Afghanistan, rather than fixate on the Karzai government’s limitations, is to spend a few days in the field watching the Afghan army in its recruiting, training and operational planning. I had this opportunity last week. New recruits begin service under the auspices of the NATO Training Mission for Afghanistan, or NTM-A). This is run by Gen. Bill Caldwell, an U.S. Army three-star officer. He and his team have revamped the effort since arriving in late fall. And by all accounts, the U.S. Defense Department is bending over backward to help. NATO is still short on trainers, but that is largely because the Afghan army is growing fast and the previously poor ratios of trainers to soldiers are being corrected. Literacy training is provided to the new Afghan soldiers, for only 11 percent are estimated to be literate. Pay has roughly doubled this year, which helps with retention as well as recruiting. There are still equipment shortages for the Afghan security forces, but that is partly due to the inevitable slowness of the U.S. contracting system. These shortfalls are now being rapidly reduced. New courses have been created for Afghan noncommissioned officers, the leaders crucial to any good military’s performance in the field. Graduates of Afghanistan’s military officer academy, who would have previously been steered to safe jobs by political allies, are now deployed where they are most needed -- in the field. As a result, the Afghan army is now on track to reach its interim goal of 134,000 troops by this fall, and an ultimate size of roughly 171,000 by next year. The pursuit of quantity is not slowing efforts to improve the force’s quality. One indicator of the latter is the number of Afghan soldiers with basic marksmanship proficiency -- previously 35 percent, now 65 percent. But best is how these forces are doing in the field. Formed into units and deployed, they are teamed with NATO units—an Afghan brigade of some 3,000 soldiers might be paired with a U.S. battalion of, say, 1,000, for example, though ratios can vary. And in some places, NATO continues to outnumber the Afghan security forces, at least for now. Those sister units then exercise, patrol and fight together, providing on-the-job training to complement the schoolroom and basic field instruction. With the typical Afghan unit, this process continues for many months -- if not a year or two. In some places, in fact, the development has been so rapid that Afghan Army units are planning and conducting operations on their own—even declining to ask for help in some of them. There is a long way to go, and the police lag the army badly among other problems, with drug abuse and corruption still big challenges. But progress is already palpable. The Afghan Army is the best place I found to look for good news to balance the all too common bad news in Afghanistan. A strong Afghan security force is probably the linchpin of our exit strategy, so this good news should not be underrated. Michael O’Hanlon is the co-author of “Toughing It Out in Afghanistan” and co-author of Brookings’ Afghanistan Index at www.brookings.edu/afghanistanindex.

Major Powers Have Deal on Sanctions for Iran

By DAVID E. SANGER and MARK LANDLER WASHINGTON — The Obama administration announced an agreement on Tuesday with other major powers, including Russia and China, to impose a fourth set of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program, setting the stage for an intense tug of war with Tehran as it tries to avoid passage of the penalties by the full United Nations Security Council. The announcement came just a day after Iranian leaders announced their own tentative deal, with Turkey and Brazil, to turn over about half of Iran’s stockpile of nuclear fuel for a year, part of a frantic effort to blunt the American-led campaign for harsher sanctions. “This announcement is as convincing an answer to the efforts undertaken in Tehran over the last few days as any we could provide,” Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, describing the agreement as a “strong draft.” But even if the Security Council adopts the new sanctions, it is unclear whether the provisions — including a mandate to inspect Iranian ships suspected of entering international ports with nuclear-related technology or weapons — would inflict enough pain to force Iran to halt its uranium enrichment and cooperate with international inspectors. None of the previous three sets of sanctions passed by the Council during the Bush administration succeeded in their goal: forcing Iran to end its enrichment of uranium and to answer the many questions posed by international inspectors related to their suspicions about Iranian research into nuclear weapons. Some of the toughest proposals were barely even discussed as the United States sought support from China, which is a major trading partner with Iran and has been the most resistant to new sanctions. Along with the Russians, the Chinese blocked any measure that would stop the flow of oil from Iranian ports or gasoline into the country. President Obama himself had raised the possibility of such sanctions during the 2008 campaign. In the end, a deal was reached by the five permanent, veto-wielding members of the Council — the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — plus Germany. They agreed on sanctions against Iranian financial institutions, including those that supported the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps. Members of the Guard Corps are responsible for overseeing the military aspects of the nuclear program and have assumed commanding roles in the broader Iranian economy. The newest element of the sanctions would require countries to inspect ships or planes headed into or out of Iran if there were suspicions that banned materials were aboard. But as in the case of sanctions against North Korea, there is no authorization to board ships forcibly at sea, a step officials from many countries warned could touch off a larger confrontation. Another new element bars all countries from permitting Iran to invest in nuclear enrichment plants, uranium mines and other nuclear-related technology. That appeared to be aimed at halting rumored Iranian ventures with Venezuela and Zimbabwe, or with companies in Europe. The agreement came months later than the administration had hoped, and after a hectic week of diplomacy, capped by a last-minute phone call by Mrs. Clinton to Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey V. Lavrov, to confirm whether Moscow was on board, a senior American official said. The United States believed that it was close to a deal last week, said the official, who did not want to be identified by name while discussing internal negotiations. But it could not resolve the final points with Russia over conventional, nonnuclear arms sales to Iran, and with China over its energy investments there. The American ambassador to the United Nations, Susan E. Rice, said, “We will seek a vote as soon as the conditions are right and Council members have had an opportunity to consider it.” Several officials said that moment would not come until next month, at the earliest. Even if the proposed sanctions survive without being watered down, administration officials concede that they are unlikely to alter Iran’s behavior, unless they are combined with considerable additional pressure. The previous three sets of sanctions were simply ignored by many of Iran’s trading partners. “The devil has been in the implementation,” Patrick Clawson, the deputy director for research at the Washington Institute for Near East Studies. The draft resolution faces resistance from Brazil and Turkey, which have seats on the Council and brokered the deal to transfer some of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey sharply criticized the continued push for sanctions by the United States. Mr. Erdogan worked with President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil to reach the accord with Iran on Monday. Maria Luiza Ribeiro Viotti, Brazil’s ambassador to the United Nations, said, “Brazil is not engaging in any discussion about this draft resolution, because we are sure there is a new situation.” Turkey and Brazil have considerable business dealings with Iran, and are seen as eager to flex their muscles on the international stage. The ambassadors from the five permanent members of the Council, speaking with reporters at the United Nations, said that they respected the compromise that the countries had reached with Iran but that it did not address their core concern: Iran’s continuing efforts to enrich uranium. Vitaly I. Churkin, the Russian ambassador, said that the draft resolution contained “language we can live with, because it is focused adequately on nonproliferation matters.” Li Baodong, the Chinese envoy, said the resolution should signal to Iran that it needs to cooperate with the United Nations’ atomic energy agency. “The purpose of sanctions is to bring the Iranian side to the negotiating table,” he said, while praising the initiative taken by Brazil and Turkey. Iran’s announcement that it would ship what is believed to be roughly half of its nuclear fuel to Turkey for further enrichment appeared to be a bid to undercut the American efforts to bring along China and Russia. The offer resembled an accord made with the West last October that fell apart when Iran backtracked. Iran has said its nuclear program is intended to produce civilian energy, but American and European officials have pointed to work that seems unrelated to simply producing power. A senior administration official said that one of the most critical sections of the proposed sanctions was modeled on a resolution passed last year against North Korea, after its second nuclear test. That resolution authorized all nations to search cargo ships heading into or out of the country if there were suspicions that weapons or nuclear technology were aboard. In North Korea’s case, there have already been some modest successes. In one case, North Korea sent one of its ships back to port, rather than risk having it boarded and inspected.

U.S. Is Skeptical on Iranian Deal for Nuclear Fuel

By DAVID E. SANGER and MICHAEL SLACKMAN WASHINGTON — The United States, Europe and Russia responded with extreme skepticism to Iran’s announcement on Monday that it had reached an agreement to ship roughly half of its nuclear fuel to Turkey, saying they would continue to press for new sanctions against Tehran. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran gave a victory sign after the signing of a nuclear swap deal in Tehran on Monday. With him were President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil, left, and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey, right. Nonetheless, officials from several countries said that the deal, negotiated with the leaders of Turkey and Brazil, was a deftly timed attempt to throw the sanctions effort off track. The terms were similar to those of an accord made with the West last October that fell apart when Iran backtracked. Since then, Iran has added considerably to its stockpile of low-enriched uranium, meaning that it would keep on Iranian territory about half of its current supply — or about enough fuel for one nuclear weapon if it chose to make one. The earlier deal was attractive to Washington because it would have deprived Tehran of enough known fuel to make a weapon, leaving breathing space for negotiations. Rejecting the new deal, however, could make President Obama appear to be blocking a potential compromise. And the deal shows how Brazil and Turkey, which for their own economic interests oppose sanctions, may derail a fragile international consensus to increase pressure on Iran. The sanctions are aimed primarily at an issue that the deal does not address: Iran’s refusal to halt further enrichment, as the United Nations Security Council has demanded for four years, or to answer international inspectors’ questions about evidence suggesting research into possible weapons designs and related experiments. The inspectors have also been blocked from visiting many suspect facilities and laboratories, and from interviewing key scientists and engineers. The deal agreed to Monday in Tehran calls for Iran to ship 2,640 pounds of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored for one year. In exchange, Iran would have the right to receive about 265 pounds of uranium enriched to 20 percent by other countries for use in a reactor that makes isotopes for treating Iranian cancer patients. But the White House noted that even while striking the deal, Iran insisted on Monday that it would continue its new effort to enrich fuel at a higher level, taking it closer to bomb-grade material. “While it would be a positive step for Iran to transfer low-enriched uranium off of its soil as it agreed to do last October, Iran said today that it would continue its 20 percent enrichment, which is a direct violation of United Nations Security Council resolutions,” Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, said in a statement. Mr. Gibbs made clear that the administration would continue to press forward with sanctions until, as he said, Iran demonstrates “through deeds — and not simply words — its willingness to live up to international obligations or face consequences, including sanctions.” A senior administration official who has been deeply involved in the Iran standoff said the agreement announced Monday “is not a solution for the core of the Iranian enrichment program.” Sergei B. Ivanov, the deputy prime minister of Russia, was similarly skeptical at a lunchtime speech in Washington. He said he expected the sanctions resolution to “be voted in the near future,” and said that the new Iranian accord should not be “closely linked” to the sanctions effort. “Iran should absolutely open up” to inspectors, he said. That statement was significant because Russia had been reluctant to join sanctions several months ago. China, which has also been hesitant, issued no statement. White House officials were clearly angered at the leaders of Turkey and Brazil, whom Mr. Obama had met personally in Washington during last month’s Nuclear Security Summit to urge them to be careful not to give the Iranians a pretext to avoid complying with United Nations demands. Mr. Obama followed up those meetings with detailed letters in the last week of April outlining specific concerns, a senior administration official said. But those letters appeared to have limited influence on the outcome. Turkey’s ambassador to the United States, Namik Tan, described the agreement as a “confidence-building measure,” and said he was disappointed in the Obama administration’s reaction. “I would have expected a more encouraging statement,” he said. “We don’t believe in sanctions, and I don’t believe anybody can challenge us, and certainly not the United States,” Mr. Tan said. “They don’t work.” Iranian officials applauded the deal as a breakthrough, with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad saying at a news conference in Tehran that the agreement would be “to the benefit of all nations who want to live freely and independently.“ Iranian officials said they would send a letter confirming the deal to the International Atomic Energy Agency of the United Nations within a week. “This shows that Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons, but rather peaceful nuclear technology,” said Ramin Mehmanparast, the Foreign Ministry spokesman, in a televised news conference. “Such interactions must replace a confrontational approach.” Diplomats in Vienna said the atomic agency had not been formally notified about the deal, but added that Tehran’s agreement to a swap outside its own territory was potentially significant. Yet many analysts suggested that the deal was meant to transfer blame for the conflict to the West, while derailing sanctions that had appeared possible within weeks. “Iran has a history of forging a deal and then going back on it,” said Emad Gad, an expert in international relations at the Ahram Center for Political and Strategic Studies in Cairo. “It lets the situation get really tense and then reaches an agreement.” There appear to be reasons to be skeptical. In Tehran, the Foreign Ministry spokesman told a person attending the news conference that Iran would not, for example, suspend its program to enrich uranium to 20 percent — closer to weapons grade. Iran has said that its nuclear program is peaceful, while the West has charged that it is aimed at building weapons. As international pressure for new sanctions grows, Iran is preparing for the June 12 anniversary of last year’s disputed presidential election, which led to months of protests and conflict. The earlier agreement fell apart under political pressure in Iran when nearly every political faction criticized it as compromising Iran’s right to nuclear energy. Then and now, Iran’s negotiating team argued that the deal was in the nation’s interest because it effectively confirmed Iran’s right to enrich uranium. If successful, the agreement would enhance and underscore the continued rise of Turkey and Brazil as global forces. Ferai Tinc, a political analyst writing in the Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, said, “Ankara was neither a full supporter of Iran nor an advocate of violence and sanctions against it, but stood strongly for promoting a diplomatic resolution.“

Recount in Iraq Preserves Victory for Maliki Rival

By ANTHONY SHADID New York Times BAGHDAD — A dispute over the counting of ballots in Iraq’s parliamentary elections in March came to a tentative end on Sunday, with the country’s election commission saying that a partial recount had preserved the narrow victory of the leading rival to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki. The announcement removed a stumbling block in the long-delayed process of forming a new government that will preside over Iraq as the American military withdraws. With the recount over, the country’s highest court can begin ratifying the results, a crucial step in opening the way for negotiations over the next prime minister. “We hope that no one else appeals so that we can be done with this,” Qassim al-Abboudi, a spokesman for the commission, said at a news conference. Mr. Maliki’s electoral bloc had demanded the recount after finishing narrowly behind a largely Sunni and secular coalition led by Ayad Allawi, a former interim prime minister. Mr. Maliki’s supporters claimed that numerous cases of fraud had tarnished the vote and that a recount might reverse the results for as many as 20 seats, making his coalition the winner. But in the news conference on Sunday, Mr. Abboudi said the recount in the populous province around the capital, Baghdad, did not change the initial results. Two candidates lost their seats to candidates from the same party, leaving the breakdown the same as it was in March: 91 seats for Mr. Allawi, 89 for Mr. Maliki. Mr. Maliki’s supporters suggested that the prime minister would abide by the recount, which found no widespread fraud. Mr. Maliki “wants to speed up the political process,” said a spokesman, Ali al-Mousawi. “As far as I know, he will respect the results.” His newly conciliatory stance may be due to shifting political ground in the last few weeks, when he formed a post-election alliance with another Shiite bloc, making it the largest coalition in Parliament. It also made Mr. Allawi’s wafer-thin lead in seats over Mr. Maliki more symbolic than practical, because most politicians believe that the new, broader Shiite alliance will take the lead in naming a prime minister. The new Shiite bloc is just four seats short of a majority in the 325-member Parliament. Mr. Allawi has continued to insist that the right to form a government belongs to his group. “I really don’t know how it will end,” he said in an interview. “But what I know is that we are not going to accept that the will of the Iraqi people is going to be confiscated.” Despite Mr. Allawi’s sagging fortunes, Mr. Maliki still faces an uphill battle to return as prime minister. He remains unpopular with the followers of Moktada al-Sadr, a populist cleric whose candidates finished second only to Mr. Maliki’s among Shiite voters. 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, whose positions will be divided among the winners. Negotiations over the new government could last for months, adding to the atmosphere of uncertainty here. “If the government forms before September, that will put us in great shape,” said Qassem Daoud, a former minister and candidate who lost his race in March. Efforts to disqualify candidates for ties to the Baath Party of Saddam Hussein have also haunted the election, although Iraqi and American officials said last week that the campaign had ended for now. Ahmad Chalabi, the chairman of the committee that barred the candidates in a process that proved arbitrary and unpredictable, said he expected a court to ensure that all the winning candidates would enter Parliament. The protracted uncertainty over the election has raised worries that insurgents might try to reverse security gains in the country over the past two years, particularly as the United States withdraws almost half its troops from Iraq by the end of the summer. The insurgent group that serves as a front for Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia announced Sunday that it had replaced two senior leaders killed in a raid last month, in a sign that insurgents were seeking to reconstitute themselves after a series of defeats. And last week, more than 100 people were killed and hundreds more were wounded in attacks that included ambushes of police and military checkpoints in Baghdad and devastating bombings in three cities.

Iran warns off US reconnaissance plane

Iranian warship and speed boats take part in a naval war game in the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, southern Iran April 22, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Fars News TEHRAN (Reuters) - Iran's military warned off a U.S. reconnaissance aircraft trying to approach Iranian naval maneuvers, Fars News Agency reported on Tuesday. The incident involving the two old foes happened on Monday, the semi-official news agency quoted the armed forces chief as saying. Iran's navy last week launched eight days of exercises in the Gulf and the Gulf of Oman, in a region crucial for global oil supplies. "A U.S. reconnaissance aircraft which had intended to approach our operational war games left ... upon the timely warning of our air defense forces," Fars quoted army commander Ataollah Salehi as saying. He was speaking to reporters as the military test-fired two surface-to-sea missiles in the Gulf of Oman, it added. There was no immediate U.S. comment on the report. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said last week Iran was challenging U.S. naval power in the Middle East with an array of offensive and defensive weapons. Salehi said: "It's past the epoch when America would change the regime in a country by just dispatching a warship." Iran's latest maneuvers coincide with rising tension between Iran and the West, which says Tehran's nuclear work is aimed at making bombs. Iran denies this. The United States is pushing for a fourth round of U.N. sanctions on the Islamic state over its refusal to halt sensitive nuclear activities as demanded by the U.N. Security Council. Iran often announces advances in its military capabilities and tests weaponry in an apparent attempt to show its readiness for any strikes by Israel or the United States. REVOLUTIONARY GUARDS In exercises held in the Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz between April 22 and 25, official media said the elite Revolutionary Guards tested missiles and a new speedboat capable of destroying enemy ships. The Pentagon last month said U.S. military action against Iran remained an option even as Washington pursues diplomacy and sanctions to halt the country's atomic activities. Israel, widely believed to have the Middle East's only atomic arsenal, has described Iran's nuclear program as a threat to its existence and has not ruled out military action. Iran, a predominantly Shi'ite Muslim state, has said it would respond to any attack by targeting U.S. interests in the region and Israel, as well as closing the Strait of Hormuz. About 40 percent of the world's traded oil leaves the Gulf region through the strategic narrows. Salehi said foreign forces had received the message sent by the maneuvers, saying this was shown by the fact that their war ships kept a distance of about 300-400 km from the drills. He did not specify whether he was referring to U.S. vessels. Iran was "very serious about the protection of its interests," the armed forces chief added.

Uncertain future for National Guard

By: Jen DiMascio May 6, 2010 04:46 AM EDT Once a home for weekend warriors, the National Guard is now in high demand. About 66,000 members of the Guard are deployed overseas, and the administration this week approved sending 6,000 guardsmen to the Gulf Coast to help with the oil spill. Guardsmen are already in Tennessee to help with flooding and in Boston to assist in water purification, and politicians are clamoring for the Guard’s presence along the country’s Southwest border. Since World War II, “we’ve probably never been more ready or able to meet the challenges of our state mission or our federal mission,” Gen. Craig McKinley, chief of the National Guard Bureau, told reporters at a Defense Writers Group breakfast this week. It’s a remarkable turnaround for the Guard. In 2006, Congress and the National Governors Association rose up to protest the Pentagon’s planned equipment cuts for the Guard, which, because of chronic underinvestment and repeated deployments to Iraq, was struggling to meet its missions at home. At that time, the Guard’s stateside readiness rates were in the 40 percent range, McKinley said. Today, he said, they’ve climbed to more than 75 percent. And while the Army National Guard is hitting an apex perhaps never before seen in its history, the future remains uncertain. If the U.S. begins to withdraw from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan at a time of rising deficits, the military may feel pressure to reduce the size of the Guard. The coming years are even more hazy for the Air National Guard as the Air Force begins to limit its reliance on manned aircraft. McKinley sees an opportunity for the Army Guard to continue to deploy thousands of soldiers abroad — if its force of 358,000 soldiers is maintained. But as the nation draws down its presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, there may be pressure to bring down the size of the Guard, he said. “Can we afford to sustain it at these levels? Can we keep people fully trained and equipped if they’re not being used in a rotational model?” McKinley asked. Retired Maj. Gen. Gus Hargett, president of the National Guard Association of the United States, thinks the Guard should maintain its size or even expand while the size of the active-duty Army is reduced — a more economical alternative, he contends. “It’s a debate that’s good for the country,” Hargett said. “We should decide what we want to invest in.” Capitol Hill advocates for the Guard, such as Missouri Republican Sen. Kit Bond, agree. “They cost only 7 percent of what an active-duty [service] costs,” Bond said, adding that the Guard historically loses out in the military’s budget fights. “The Pentagon is active-duty-centric.” He and Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who lead the National Guard Caucus and are members of the Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee, have worked during the past few years to reverse perennial Guard shortages and to elevate the chief of the National Guard Bureau, previously a three-star general, to a four-star general who is able to meet with other military leaders on budget matters. The other argument for a strong Guard, advocates say, is its unique dual mission: helping the active-duty military in foreign battles and serving the nation’s governors in disasters at home. “I think there’s a sweet spot here — there’s a point in here, in an asymmetric century, you’re going to need a force here at home that can rapidly respond to events,” McKinley said. In the past 8½ years, the Guard has been on more missions in more places than in any other time in its history, said John Goheen, an NGAUS spokesman, adding that the Guard is still serving on missions that are largely forgotten. They’re deployed on the Sinai Peninsula and in Kosovo. They’re helping to teach foreign countries how to build their own guard units in Asia and Africa. “And think about how inexpensively they do it; it’s pretty astounding,” Goheen said. Governors also turn to the Guard in times of crisis. On the Gulf Coast, Guard teams are likely to speed equipment to civilian agencies and help BP and other oil companies with the cleanup. Defense Secretary Robert Gates has deployed the Guard under Title 32, which allows it to work for governors with the costs borne by the U.S. government. “We’ll be a part of that community-based force that knows the roads, that knows the back roads, that knows the estuaries, that knows the parish leadership,” McKinley said. But if the Army National Guard has enjoyed a rare renaissance, the Air National Guard is struggling with a massive transition from flying fighter jets to new missions that could include working on unmanned aircraft, in space or cyberspace. “Where we’re going to wind up? I wish I knew,” said McKinley, who led the Air Guard before taking control of the Guard bureau. “I fought it initially, but I think we’re transforming ourselves into a force that doesn’t need, necessarily, manned aircraft to do what we did from World War II on.” The changes started with congressionally mandated base realignments in 2005 and have picked up since. As the military begins to buy the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and place the F-22 Raptor in certain units, the number of bases that once housed now-aging fighter jets will dwindle. That’s raised hackles on Capitol Hill, especially for members who want to protect the Guard’s fighter bases for homeland defense. “We’ve got to ask ourselves who flies the air protection,” Hargett said. While the Air Force makes the case that it can afford only so many aircraft, Hargett added, “I don’t think they’ve looked at the alternatives. ... Until they recognize that, I don’t think they’ll come up with a real requirement.” McKinley said although the transition will be painful, it’s time for the Guard to recognize that it needs to evolve. He praised units in North Dakota and New York that have moved on to fighting wars using drones — or “remotely piloted aircraft,” as the Pentagon describes them. Plus, the Air Guard is girding for a fight over the Air Force’s decision to pluck C-130s out of reserve units for active-duty use — a decision that was made without consulting the Guard or Congress. And if the Air Force doesn’t consolidate its plans soon, Hargett anticipates lawmakers will step in. “I expect if they haven’t solved the C-130 issue, Congress will push back on it,” he said.

Evidence Mounts for Taliban Role in Car Bomb Plot

By MARK MAZZETTI and SCOTT SHANE New York Times WASHINGTON — American officials said Wednesday that it was very likely that a radical group once thought unable to attack the United States had played a role in the bombing attempt in Times Square, elevating concerns about whether other militant groups could deliver at least a glancing blow on American soil. Officials said that after two days of intense questioning of the bombing suspect, Faisal Shahzad, evidence was mounting that the group, the Pakistani Taliban, had helped inspire and train Mr. Shahzad in the months before he is alleged to have parked an explosives-filled sport utility vehicle in a busy Manhattan intersection on Saturday night. Officials said Mr. Shahzad had discussed his contacts with the group, and investigators had accumulated other evidence that they would not disclose. On Thursday, interrogators from the United States and Pakistan were questioning four members the banned militant group Jaish-e-Muhammad, in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad, in connection with the Times Square plot, according to a Pakistani security official. The official did not identify the militants. On Wednesday, Mr. Shahzad, the 30-year-old son of a retired senior Pakistani Air Force officer, waived his right to a speedy arraignment, a possible sign of his continuing cooperation with investigators. As his interrogation continued, Department of Homeland Security officials directed airlines to speed up their checks of new names added to the no-fly list, a requirement that might have prevented Mr. Shahzad from boarding a flight to Dubai on Monday night before his arrest at Kennedy International Airport. The failed attack has produced a flurry of other proposals to tighten security procedures, including calls by members of Congress to more closely scrutinize passengers who buy tickets with cash, as Mr. Shahzad did. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Senator Scott Brown, Republican of Massachusetts, proposed stripping terrorism suspects of American citizenship, and Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg asked Congress to block the sale of firearms and explosives to those on terrorist watch lists. American officials, speaking about the continuing inquiry only on condition of anonymity, gave few details about what Mr. Shahzad had told investigators, and said their understanding of the plot would evolve as a dragnet spanning two continents gathered more evidence. One senior Obama administration official cautioned that “there are no smoking guns yet” that the Pakistani Taliban had directed the Times Square bombing. But others said that there were strong indications that Mr. Shahzad knew some members of the group and that they probably had a role in training him. In a video on Sunday, the Pakistani Taliban claimed responsibility for the attempted bombing. One issue that investigators are vigorously pursuing is who provided Mr. Shahzad cash to buy the S.U.V. and his plane ticket to Dubai, in the United Arab Emirates. “Somebody’s financially sponsoring him, and that’s the link we’re pursuing,” one official said. “And that would take you on the logic train back to Pak-Taliban authorizations,” the official said, referring to the group. American officials said it had become increasingly difficult to separate the operations of the militant groups in Pakistan’s tribal areas. The region, they said, has become a stew of like-minded organizations plotting attacks in Pakistani cities, across the border into Afghanistan, and on targets in Western Europe and the United States. Besides the Pakistani Taliban and Al Qaeda, groups operating in the tribal areas are the Haqqani Network and the Kashmiri groups Lashkar-e-Taiba and Jaish-e-Muhammed. There is no doubt among intelligence officials that the barrage of attacks by C.I.A. drones over the past year has made Pakistan’s Taliban, which goes by the name Tehrik-i-Taliban, increasingly determined to seek revenge by finding any way possible to strike at the United States. The C.I.A.’s drone program in Pakistan, which was accelerated in 2008 and expanded by President Obama last year, has enjoyed strong bipartisan support in Washington in part because it was perceived as eliminating dangerous militants while keeping Americans safe. But the attack in December on a C.I.A. base in Afghanistan, and now possibly the failed S.U.V. attack in Manhattan, are reminders that the drones’ very success may be provoking a costly response. Last March, when the Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud boasted that his group was planning an attack on Washington that would “amaze everyone in the world,” many American officials dismissed his claims as empty bravado. His network, they said, had neither the resources nor the reach to pull off an attack far beyond its base in the mountains of western Pakistan. But the attempted attack on Saturday has forced something of a reassessment, especially as American officials see militant groups determined to score a propaganda victory by pulling off even the crudest of attacks. If the Pakistani Taliban was involved in the Times Square bombing plot, the organization is only the latest militant group to expand beyond a local political agenda and strike the United States. The Christmas Day attempt to bomb a Detroit-bound airliner, for instance, was traced to Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, whose primary targets had previously been the Saudi and Yemeni governments. But for such a group, trying for the biggest prize in the jihadist universe — a successful attack on American soil — could have significant payoffs, said Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism expert at Georgetown University. The message may be, “ ‘The U.S. is pounding us with drone attacks, but we’re powerful enough to strike back’; it’s certainly enough to attract ever more recruits to replace those they’re losing,” Mr. Hoffman said. The Pakistani Taliban has used a relentless campaign of violence to undermine Pakistan’s secular government. The group has been blamed for the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, as well as bombings in Islamabad, Lahore and elsewhere. As casualties from the Taliban mounted in Pakistan in 2008, officials there pleaded with Washington to begin striking the group with C.I.A. drones. American counterterrorism officials had never considered the group to be a top priority, but last year the Obama administration approved targeted attacks on Pakistani Taliban leaders, in part to win Islamabad’s tacit approval for drone strikes elsewhere in the tribal areas. Mr. Mehsud himself was killed in a C.I.A. drone attack in August. Some American officials bristled at the idea that the United States had not taken the Pakistani Taliban threat seriously. “We’ve been pounding their leadership, including figures like Baitullah Mehsud, and their training camps and other facilities,” one American counterterrorism official said. “Those actions have probably taken other people like Shahzad off the board.” Denis McDonough, the chief of staff for the National Security Council, said the Times Square attempted bombing showed that Pakistan and the United States faced a common enemy, calling it “a pretty stark reminder that the same collection of terrorists that are threatening them are threatening us.” The administration has been in intensive contact with the Pakistani government, delivering the message that “there are clear links to Pakistan and that we would fully expect them to do what they should do,” the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley, said. Pakistani officials have arrested about a dozen people they believe may be linked to the plot, the authorities have said. On Wednesday, the American ambassador, Anne W. Patterson, met with Pakistan’s president, Asif Ali Zardari, and Foreign Minister Shah Mehmood Qureshi, and spoke by phone with the interior minister, A. Rehman Malik. The administration’s special representative for Afghanistan and Pakistan, Richard C. Holbrooke, also spoke by phone with Mr. Qureshi. “The key here is that we’re touching the right bases politically, and we’re getting the right signals back,” a senior official said. The tracking of Mr. Shahzad and his links to Pakistan began with a fortunate match of phone numbers, a law enforcement official speaking on condition of anonymity said Wednesday. One number that he had provided when he last entered the United States, in February, was stored in a Customs and Border Protection database. It turned out to match a number on the list of calls to and from a prepaid cellphone that investigators knew belonged to the purchaser of the S.U.V. found on Times Square. Only when they matched the phone numbers did investigators learn “that that was the guy we were looking for,” said the official, who requested anonymity to discuss the investigation. The name match allowed security officials to discover Mr. Shahzad aboard the flight to Dubai minutes before takeoff on Monday night. He had been added to the no-fly list at 12:30 p.m. that day, when airlines were directed to check the list for updates. But Emirates airline did not look at the updated list, and sold Mr. Shahzad a ticket for cash at 7:35 p.m. on Monday. Airlines had been required to check the no-fly list for updates only every 24 hours. The new rule requires that they check within two hours of receiving notification that a high-priority name has been added to the list, Homeland Security officials said.

Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps expands role in sanctions-hit oil sector

Washington Post By Thomas Erdbrink Wednesday, May 5, 2010 TEHRAN -- Taking advantage of the very sanctions directed against it, Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps is assuming a leading role in developing the country's lucrative petroleum sector, Western oil executives and Iranian analysts say. The Guard's engineering companies, replacing European oil firms that have largely abandoned Iran, have been rewarded with huge no-bid contracts. Experts warn that U.S. efforts to prevent international investment in Iran's oil industry are giving the Guard more clout. Iran is the second-largest oil producer in the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries. "The Revolutionary Guards are smiling at the idea of new sanctions against Iran," said a Western executive who represents one of the world's largest oil companies. "Sanctions against the industry or preventing foreign companies from selling gasoline to Iran will mean more money, power and influence for the Guards," he said. In the past, the Guard's role in Iran's petrochemical sector was restricted to related infrastructure projects, including building roads and canals. But now Guard-affiliated companies oversee the development of most oil projects, and they have taken the lead in key parts of the gigantic South Pars liquefied natural gas project in the Persian Gulf town of Asalouyeh, with Chinese companies increasingly acting as subcontractors. "It will take them longer, and they will be less efficient, but the Iranian oil and gas sector will continue to grow despite the international obstacles," said the oil executive, who has spent years in Tehran. In Washington, a senior U.S. official who spoke on the condition of anonymity said it was not unusual for some government insiders to figure out how to benefit in countries under international sanctions. But the Iranian government is clearly worried about the prospect of new sanctions, he said, noting its intense diplomatic efforts to avert them. The Revolutionary Guard Corps, which was established to protect Iran's Islamic system, is obliged in peacetime to use its capabilities to advance the nation, its commanders say. Under President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Guard has vastly increased its business activities. Working through its construction-sector arm, the Guard operates Tehran's international airport, builds the nation's highways and constructs communications systems. It also manages Iran's weapons-manufacturing business, including its controversial missile program. Iran's leaders view the Guard's involvement in the oil industry as normal and say the elite military branch is merely helping to develop a nation under sanctions. The Guard's construction arm acts as a commercial company, but it is unclear how its revenue is handled. Commanders say the Guard's income is transferred to the national treasury, but no public records detail the amounts. Western oil companies still trying to work with Iran are faced with tough decisions. Iran recently gave Royal Dutch Shell and Spain's Repsol a week to finalize a deal allowing them to develop parts of the Pars gas field or pull out of the project. Iran also recently shelved a $7 billion deal with Turkish Petroleum International Co. to develop another part of the South Pars field after the Turks failed to commit. Iran's Ministry of Petroleum is negotiating with a domestic consortium made up largely of Guard affiliates, the Aftabnews Web site reported. No other parties have bid on contracts to develop the field, essentially because no domestic companies are capable of handling the enormous project. The Guard, whose Khatam ol-Anbia arm is the biggest construction contractor in the country, publicly boasts of its growing experience in huge oil projects. "Today, the Revolutionary Guards are proud to have such knowledge and capability that we can easily replace big foreign companies like Total and Shell in taking over big projects at Asalouyeh," senior commander Yadollah Javani told the semiofficial Iranian Labor News Agency last weekend. Western analysts say that on major projects, however, the Guard typically subcontracts the most complex work to foreign companies, most of them now from China.

Iran moves to challenge U.S. in Mideast

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates speaks during a news briefing on the new Nuclear Posture Review at the Pentagon in Washington April 6, 2010. WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Iran is challenging U.S. naval power in the Middle East with an array of offensive and defensive weapons, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said on Monday. "Iran is combining ballistic and cruise missiles, anti-ship missiles, mines, and swarming speedboats in order to challenge our naval power in that region," Gates told a conference of U.S. Navy advocates outside Washington. Gates did not elaborate on the perceived Iranian threat. His remarks were part of a review of budget and shipbuilding trade-offs facing the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps, and they came the same day that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke at the United Nations in New York. Gates said last week he was satisfied with the pace of U.S. planning to thwart Iran's nuclear program, which the United States and other Western nations suspect is aimed at developing atomic weapons. Iran says the program is to generate electricity. Pentagon planners have been drawing up military options in case President Barack Obama opts to use force against Tehran. U.S. leaders repeatedly have said that would be an option of last resort if sanctions and diplomacy failed. Iran's naval forces include several anti-ship coastal defense missile batteries as well as submarines, missile boat and naval aviation units, according to an unclassified version of a Pentagon report on Iranian military power sent to Congress last month.