Iran’s Green Revolution

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Minarets of Menace
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Iran’s Green Revolution: Made in America?

Soros, the CIA, Mossad and the new media destabilization of Iran

James Corbett, The Corbett Report
June 23, 2009

It's the 2009 presidential election in Iran and opposition leader Mir-Houssein Mousavi declares victory hours before the polls close, insuring that any result to the contrary will be called into question.

Western media goes into overdrive, fighting with each other to see who can offer the most hyperbolic denunciation of the vote and President Ahmadenijad's apparent victory (BBC wins by publishing bald-faced lies about the supposed popular uprising which it is later forced to retract).

On June 13th, 30,000 "tweets" begin to flood Twitter with live updates from Iran, most written in English and provided by a handful of newly-registered users with identical profile photos.

The Jerusalem Post writes a story about the Iran Twitter phenomenon a few hours after it starts (and who says Mossad isn't staying up to date with new media?).

Now, YouTube is providing a "Breaking News" link at the top of every page linking to the latest footage of the Iranian protests (all shot in high def, no less).

Welcome to Destabilization 2.0, the latest version of a program that the Western powers have been running for decades in order to overthrow foreign, democratically-elected governments that don't yield to the whims of Western governments and multinational corporations.

Ironically, Iran was also the birthplace of the original CIA program for destabilizing a foreign government. Think of it as Destabilization 1.0: It's 1953 and democratically-elected Iranian leader Mohammed Mossadegh is following through on his election promises to nationalize industry for the Iranian people, including the oil industry of Iran, which was then controlled by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company.

The CIA is sent into the country to bring an end to Mossadegh's government. They begin a campaign of terror, staging bombings and attacks on Muslim targets in order to blame them on nationalist, secular Mossadegh. They foster and fund an anti-Mossadegh campaign amongst the radical Islamist elements in the country. Finally, they back the revolution that brings their favoured puppet, the Shah, into power. Within months, their mission had been accomplished: they had removed a democratically-elected leader who threatened to build up an independent, secular Persian nation and replaced him with a repressive tyrant whose secret police would brutally suppress all opposition.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Persians of Interest
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

The campaign was a success and the lead CIA agent wrote an after-action report describing the operation in glowing terms. The pattern was to be repeated time and time again in country after country (in Guatemala in 1954, in Afghanistan in the 1980s, in Serbia in the 1990s), but these operations leave the agency open to exposure. What was needed was a different plan, one where the Western political and financial interests puppeteering the revolution would be more difficult to implicate in the overthrow.

Enter Destabilization 1.1. This version of the destabilization program is less messy, offering plausible deniability for the Western powers who are overthrowing a foreign government. It starts when the IMF moves in to offer a bribe to a tinpot dictator in a third-world country. He gets 10% in exchange for taking out an exorbitant loan for an infrastructure project that the country can't afford. When the country inevitably defaults on the loan payments, the IMF begins to take over, imposing a restructuring program that eventually results in the full scale looting of the country's resources for Western business interests.

This program, too, was run in country after country, from Jamaica to Myanmar, from Chile to Zimbabwe. The source code for this program was revealed in 2001, however, when former World Bank chief economist Joseph Stiglitz went public about the scam. More detail was added in 2004 by the publication of John Perkin's Confessions of an Economic Hitman, which revealed the extent to which front companies and complicit corporations aided, abetted and facilitated the economic plundering and overthrow of foreign governments.

Although still an effective technique for overthrowing foreign nations, the fact that this particular scam had been exposed meant that the architects of global geopolitics would have to find a new way to get rid of foreign, democratically-elected governments.

Destabilization 1.2 involves seemingly disinterested, democracy-promoting NGOs with feelgood names like the Open Society Institute, Freedom House and the National Endowment for Democracy. They fund, train, support and mobilize opposition movements in countries that have been targeted for destabilization, often during elections and usually organized around an identifiable color.

These "color revolutions" sprang up in the past decade and have so far successfully destabilized the governments of the Ukraine, Lebanon, Georgia and Kyrgyzstan, among others. These revolutions bear the imprint of billionaire finance oligarch George Soros. The hidden hand of Western powers behind these color revolutions has threatened their effectiveness in recent years, however, with an anti-Soros movement having arisen in Georgia and with the recent Moldovan "grape revolution" having come to naught (much to the chagrin of Soros-funded OSI's Evgeny Morozov).

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Jason Jones: Behind the Veil - Ayatollah You So
thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Jason Jones in Iran

Now we arrive at Destabilization 2.0, really not much more than a slight tweak of Destabilization 1.2. The only thing different is that now Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and other social media are being employed to amplify the effect of (and the impression of) internal protests. Once again, Soros henchman Evgeny Morozov is extolling the virtues of the new Tehran Twitter revolution and the New York Times is writing journalistic hymns to the power of internet new media... when it serves Western imperial interests.

We are being asked to believe that this latest version of the very (very) old program of U.S. corporate imperialism is the real deal.

While there is no doubt that the regime of Ahmadenijad is reprehensible and the feelings of many of the young protestors in Iran are genuine, you will forgive me for questioning the motives behind the monolithic media support for the overthrow of Iran's government and the installation of Mir-Houssein "Butcher of Beirut" Mousavi.

The NWO's Twitter Phenomenon of 2009
Last summer Twitter became the buzz of the New York and San Francisco Web crowds; it is now the apogee of Internet hype. Today it has collected a total of $57 million, has 8 million users and is a veritable supernova. - Fortune, Twitter: Buzz First, Profits Later, April 8, 2009

Russia

Who is Behind Moldova’s Twitter Revolution?

By José Miguel Alonso Trabanco, Global Research
April 12, 2009

It looks like a new episode of geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West is unfolding in Moldova.

It seems that those who anticipated the end of color revolutions have been proven wrong. So far, color revolutions have succeeded in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan. On the other hand, they have failed in Belarus, Uzbekistan and Myanmar. Their common denominator is a wave of protests and sometimes riots whose purpose is to overthrow a local government, often held during electoral times or shortly afterwards.

It has not gone unnoticed that the so called color revolutions have been backed (and engineered?) by enthusiastic Western supporters including NGO’s, diplomats, businessmen, governmental institutions and heads of state. In those countries where such political mobilizations have prevailed, pro-Western leaders have been enthroned as a result thereof.

If one pays close attention to a map, it is impossible not to wonder if it is simply a coincidence that color revolutions have erupted in countries close to Russian and Chinese borders. It has to be pointed out that no color revolution has ever occurred in any country whose government is staunchly pro-Western.

Today, it is indeed quite likely that events taking place in Moldova are none other than the evident signs of the latest color revolution. Only a few days ago, elections were held there and the official announcement of preliminary results of the electoral process showed that the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova (affiliated to the Party of the European Left) had received nearly 50% of the votes.

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) certified that Moldovan parliamentary elections were free and fair. Nevertheless, protests attended by tens of thousands started shortly afterwards. However, these demonstrations can hardly be described as peaceful since media reports confirm that organized violence has targeted government facilities, including the parliament building as well as a presidential office. The script bears some similarities with Ukraine’s Orange Revolution, which started with large protests demanding new elections once opposition politicians were discontent with electoral results.

It is telling that protestors have been photographed waving the flags of both Romania and the European Union. They have also requested the ouster of Moldova’s current government, denouncing it as a “totalitarian regime” and demanded parliamentary elections to be re-scheduled.

So far, Moldovan law enforcement has been overwhelmed and is unable to control these riots even though it has resorted to tear gas and water cannons. Moldovan senior government officials have stated that they regard these episodes of civil unrest as unlawful and that they will act accordingly. Furthermore, the Romanian ambassador in Moldova has been declared persona non grata and visa requirements for Romanian nationals have been established. Also, pro-Moldovan protesters rallies have taken place in many cities throughout Romania.

Although no color has been chosen to name this color revolution, these events have already been termed as the Twitter Revolution because on-site reports indicate that protest organizers have made extensive use of social-networking tools in order to fuel discontent.

To determine whether or not any event is geopolitically significant, the timing is an element which always needs to be taken into account. The post Soviet space is one of the most active arenas of great power strategic competition and there are some meaningful recent precedents such as:

The fact that Ukraine and Georgia have not been accepted as NATO members in spite of intense diplomatic pressure by prominent NATO members.

Unlike other post Soviet states, Moldova’s government had declared that Chişinău would remain neutral and that it would thus refuse to side with great powers, which more or less resembles the position taken by fellow former Soviet Republic Turkmenistan whose foreign policy must meet criteria of strict neutrality.

The Russo-Georgian war in which Moscow inflicted a military defeat on strongly pro-Western Georgia.

The announcement by the Kyrgyz government that the Manas air base will be closed.

The European Union launched its Eastern Partnership project, designed by Poland and Sweden to reach out to Ukraine, Belarus, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova and Armenia. This was seen in Moscow as an attempt to co-opt these countries and marginalize them away from Russian influence.

Ukraine’s decision to hold anticipated elections. It might be added that pro-Western Viktor Yuschchenko’s candidacy does not look particularly promising.

Russia Today report on Moldova: demonstrations were "inspired from abroad."

The above demonstrates that the geopolitical rivalry between Russia and NATO has been intensifying. In fact, Russian senior politicians are already claiming that civil unrest in Moldova is been orchestrated by western intelligence survives. They have also emphasized that the ultimate goal is to accomplish regime change in Chişinău so NATO member Romania can swallow Moldova.

It is no secret that hardline nationalists in Bucharest would like to achieve Anschluss with Moldova. Yet Western governments have refrained from voicing a strong support for the anti-government crowd in Moldova. However, it is necessary to explore what Western interests could consist of in this tiny post Soviet republic.

Why Moldova?

Moldova was one of the poorest and less developed republics of the Soviet Union, as well as the most densely populated. It is a landlocked country contiguous to Romania and Ukraine. Soviet planners had decided that Moldova would specialize in food production. Nevertheless, Moldova was not entirely homogeneous. The country’s industrial infrastructure was built in Transnistria, a region mostly populated by people of Slavic ethnicity (i.e. Russians and Ukrainians). This region was responsible for a large of percentage of Moldova’s GDP (40%) and it also contributed with almost the entire power generation of the Moldovan SSR. Toward the end of the Cold War, Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceauşescu had stated that the Kremlin had annexed Bessarabia (aka Moldova), which implied that he considered it as a part of Romania.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union changed little. The overall Moldovan economy is not specially outstanding since it exports wine, fruits and other beverages and food products. Moldova is a net importer of coal, oil and gas since if has no natural deposits of any of these resources. According to the CIA World Factbook, Moldova ranks 138th in a list of countries arranged by GDP.

Transnistria declared its independence from Moldova following the Soviet collapse because it was fearful of an increasingly nationalistic Moldova and the reemergence of pro-Romanian sentiment. This triggered a war between Chişinău and Transnistrian separatists. Russian forces were then deployed in order to end hostilities. The conflict has been frozen ever since. Nevertheless, the presence of Russian military personnel (which numbers nearly 3000) has allowed Transnistria to keep its de facto independence from Molvoda even though it still formally belongs to the latter. Indeed, Transnistria has its own authorities, military, law enforcement, currency, public services, flag, national anthem, constitution and coat of arms. Nearly half of Transnistrian exports are shipped to Russia.

Russia has supported Transnistria because it is inhabited by a considerable proportion of ethnic Russians loyal to Moscow; this must not be born in mind because people is Russia’s scarcest resource. Furthermore, Transnistria is located in the easternmost region on Moldova and, more importantly, it borders Ukraine. Last but not least, Transnistria’s small economy is based on heavy industry, textile production and power generation, which represents an additional atractive. As a result of Russian involvement, Chişinău has been careful not to be antagonistic toward Moscow.

Moldova’s current president, Vladimir Voronin (the name can be misleading but he is, in fact, an ethnic Romanian), was elected in 2001 as the candidate of the Party of Communists of the Republic of Moldova. Regardless of his party’s name, his administration can be described a pragmatic; for instance, he decided to continue privatization plans first put forward by his predecessor.

Back in 2002, he angered nationalists by designating the Russian language as a second official language. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to brand him as pro-Russian because his foreign policy has been seeking to balance Russian and Western interests without having to take sides. For example, his administration has expressed a desire to establish closer ties with the EU (which even runs a permanent mission in Chişinău) and cooperation with NATO and Russia, excluding membership in the Atlantic alliance or in the Russian-led CSTO. Furthermore, Voronin’s government has stressed Moldova’s need to preserve its independece instead of being absorbed by Romania.

In short, he is neither pro-Russian (like Alexander Lukashenko) nor pro-Western (like Mikheil Saakashvili). Rather, his political position is closer to those of Ukraine’s Kuchma, Georgia’s Shevardnadze or even Turkmenistan’s Niyazov and Berdymukhamedov.

Nonetheless, it is not far-fetched to assume that NATO in general and the U.S. in particular are interested in regime change in Moldova. The main goal would be to overthrow the current Moldovan government and have it replaced by rulers more antagonistic toward Moscow. If such attempt succeeds, a new government in Moldova could be harangued into expelling Russian troops from Transnistria in an effort to rollback Russian military presence away from Eastern Europe, an effort meant to diminish Russian influence in the post Soviet space and to undermine Russia’s prestige there and elsewhere. Moreover, it could be a Western reminder to Moscow that the slightest Russian distraction will be taken advantage of by NATO. A hypothetical pro-Western Moldova could even be later incorporated into NATO member Romania, moving the alliance borders eastward bypassing ordinary acceptance protocols for new members.

It remains to be seen if the Kremlin was caught by surprise and it is unclear how it will ultimately react to an eventual regime change in Chişinău, particularly if any new government attempts to take over Transnistria by force, much like Georgia did last year concerning South Ossetia. What is clear, however, is that Moscow does not want to be trapped into a conflict which could drain financial, military, diplomatic and political resources. Yet, Russian decision makers do not like what they are witnessing in Moldova; it is a script that had seen at play before.

Therefore, it is reasonable to assert that Russia will resort to its intelligence assets it operates overseas in order to counter anti-Russian moves in Moldova before any deployment of troops is seriously considered. It is still too early to accurately foresee what defining developments will take place in Moldova and how they will unfold. If the current Moldovan government survives, the Twitter Revolution there could backfire. If that is indeed the case, Moldova’s rulers could end up openly embracing Moscow as a result of real or alleged Western covert support for anti-government forces.

Russian accusations regarding the involvement of Western intelligence agencies has not been proved because all clandestine operations operate on the principle of plausible denial. Nonetheless, there are circumstantial facts which seem to demonstrate foreign intervention. For instance, some Western semi official institutions and NGO’s openly acknowledged their activities in Moldova. For example:

The USAID website concerning the agency’s activities in Moldova mentions that some of them include “Moldova Citizen Participation Program”, “Strengthening Democratic Political Activism in Moldova” and “Internet Access and Training Program”. The latter is noteworthy because online social networks have been employed in order to increase anti-government activism. USAID’s website specifies that “[its program] provides local communities with free access to the internet and to extensive training in all aspects of information technology“. It goes on to explain that “Target groups include local government officials, journalists, students, local NGO representatives, professors and healthcare providers…”

Those examples are particularly revealing if one takes into consideration that those organizations were prominent participants in previous color revolutions. That is, both the players and the Modus Operandi remains largely unchanged. A notorious protagonist and organizer of the Twitter Revolution is journalist Natalia Morar who used to work as press secretary for “The Other Russia,” a strange coalition of anti-Putin political groups which encompasses hardline nationalists, communists and pro-Western activists.

In short, bearing in mind all of the above, it looks like a new episode of geopolitical confrontation between Russia and the West is unfolding in Moldova. This battle is not over yet and whatever its outcome turns out to be, its strategic implications will be deep because they will send strong shockwaves throughout Eastern Europe and the post Soviet space. The stakes are certainly being raised in this new round of the Great Game. A few years ago, notorious neocon pundit Charles Krauthammer observed that “This [Ukraine's Orange Revolution] is about Russia first, democracy second.” The same phrase applies to Moldova’s Twitter Revolution.

Is the U.S. Pulling the Strings in Iran?
Color Revolutions, Old and New
Belgrade was the prototype for Washington-instigated color revolutions to follow.

German-French Alliance

Making Europe the Partner of America in the “Long War:” Enter the Franco-German Entente (Excerpt)

Global Research
Originally Published on August 29, 2007

The victory over Iraq [in the Gulf War] was not waged as ‘a war to end all wars.’ Even the ‘New World Order’ cannot guarantee an era of perpetual peace.” - George H. Bush Sr., 41st President of the United States (March 6, 1991)

Former U.S. national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski explained that although Japan was important to American geo-strategy, Europe as a geopolitical entity (via the EU and NATO) constitutes America’s bridgehead into Eurasia.

“Unlike America’s links with Japan, NATO entrenches American political influence and military power on the Eurasian mainland,” and that “the allied European nations [were] still highly dependent on U.S. protection, any expansion of Europe’s political scope is automatically an expansion of U.S. influence,” Brzezinski explained in regards to Europe and Japan.

Brzezinski was paying more than just lip service to America’s allies in continental Europe; he was stressing that they were crucial, albeit as subordinates, to American global interests.

The strength of NATO would rest on the vitality of the European Union, an Anglo-American and Franco-German device. To emphasis this Brzezinski wrote that “the United States’ ability to project influence and power in Eurasia relies on close transatlantic ties.” Brzezinski also added that France and Germany, the Franco-German entente, would be America’s vital partners in NATO expansion and securing Eurasia, but a united Europe was an essential prerequisite. In regards to the Franco-German entente, Brzezinski wrote in 1998:

“In the western periphery of Eurasia, the key players will continue to be France and Germany, and America’s central goal should be to continue to expand the democratic European bridgehead.” This was essentially the forecast of the “EU expansion” that has gone hand-in-hand with earlier NATO expansion since the end of the Cold War. According to Brzezinski, it would be up to the Franco-German entente to led Europe: “ America cannot create a more united Europe on its own—that is a task for the Europeans, especially the French and the Germans.”

None of the Pentagon’s geo-strategic plans can go forward without the EU and NATO. For this to happen it is essential that a strategic consensus between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente be forged. The Anglo-American alliance has pursued this track and deeper integration with the Franco-German side, while also taking an adversarial stance against the Franco-German entente. Iraq is a symbolic testimony to this rivalry, while Lebanon and NATO expansion in the Eastern Mediterranean is a parallel testimony to the strategic cooperation between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente. A contradictory and confusing message is sent from these tracks, but there is always more to the picture. However, it is clear that Franco-German and Anglo-American interests must be synchronized for America to expand its global control.

The Endgame: A “Single Market” Under One World Administration?

“I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer...” -Major-General Smedley D. Butler, U.S. Marine Corps Commander (War Is a Racket, 1935)

After the Second World War, it was believed that from the nucleolus of Britain and American that a “New World Order” would be formed. Britain and America even had a combined military staff and combined chiefs of military staff. Visions for a singular global polity have vividly been tied to the Anglo-American establishment. In 1966, Professor Carroll Quigley, a noted American historian, wrote in his book Hope and Tragedy: A History of the World in Our Time that economics and finance vis-à-vis banking conglomerates were the engine in this drive and the real forces controlling national policies. Carroll Quigley wrote in regards to the Anglo-American alliance:

“I have objected, both in the past and recently, to a few of its policies (notably to its belief that England was an Atlantic rather than a European Power and must be allied, or even federated, with the United States and must remain isolated from Europe), but in general my chief difference of opinion is that it wishes to remain unknown, and I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.”

For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia,” insists Brzezinski. He also contends, “Now a non-Eurasian power [i.e., the U.S.] is preeminent in Eurasia—and America’s global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” In 1997 Brzezinski also stated that, in order to co-opt the Franco-German entente, a “Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement, already advocated by a number of prominent Atlantic leaders, could also mitigate the risk of growing economic rivalry between a more united EU and the United States.”

There is opposition in North America to what is believed to be the emergence of a projected “North American Union.” This North American entity would further amalgamate Canada, the United States, and Mexico, but the mechanisms for a grander global confederacy have already been drawn. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and the creation of the EU were stepping stones towards this aspiration. Economics is the key that fuses these polities.

A summit between the EU and U.S. has shed light on plans for economic amalgamation. The term used at the summit was “single market” by “renewing the Trans-Atlantic partnership.” This is the same term used to describe the “common market” as it intensified Western European integration, which eventually gave birth to the European Union. At the summit, President Bush Jr. met with Jose Manuel Barroso, the President of the European Commission, and Federal Chancellor Merkel. Frau Merkel, while officially there on behalf of the EU, represented the interests of the Franco-German entente while President Bush Jr. represented Anglo-American interests. Jose Manuel Barroso as the President of the European Commission represented both Anglo-American and Franco-German interests, because the EU is a joint Anglo-American and Franco-German body. America is a de facto EU power due to its alliance with Britain, one of the three major EU powers along with France and Germany.

An agreement was reached between the EU and U.S. to integrate the markets and regulations of America and Europe even further. This agreement was another layer to add to the strategic consensus that was reached at NATO’s Riga Summit. Both sides also stated that economics is the driving spirit in their relationship and that politics mattered very little. The liberal and conservative leaders of America and Europe are merely two sides of the same coin.

Decades after the end of the Cold War the globe is wrapped within a state of almost perpetual war dominated by the military might of America. The last lines in The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives reveal the ultimate objective of Anglo-American policy: “These efforts will have the added historical advantage of benefiting from the new web of global linkages that is growing exponentially outside the more traditional nation-state system. That web—woven by multinational corporations, NGOs (…) already creates an informal global system that is inherently congenial to more institutionalized and inclusive global cooperation [a reference to global government].”

Brzezinski goes on to predict that: “In the course of the next several decades, a functioning structure of global cooperation, based on geopolitical realities, could thus emerge and gradually assume the mantle of the world’s current ‘regent’ [a reference to the U.S.],” and “Geostrategic success in that cause would represent a fitting legacy of America’s role as the first, only, and last truly global superpower.” All around the globe nation-states are being absorbed into larger and larger political and socio-economic entities. This is part of the story of globalization, but it has its dark side. This is the globalization of the few and not of the many.

The Fight for Civilization and the Gathering Storm

“When all is said and done, the conflict in Afghanistan will be to the war on terrorism what the North African campaign was to World War II: an essential beginning on the path to victory. But compared to what looms over the horizon—a wide-ranging war in locales from Central Asia to the Middle East and, unfortunately, back again to the United States—Afghanistan will prove but an opening battle.” -Robert Kagan and William Kristol, The Gathering Storm (The Weekly Standard, October 29, 2001)

One cannot help but remember what was elucidated in 2001 during the start of the “Global War on Terror” by two members of the Project for the New American Century (PNAC), stating that Afghanistan was only part of a “wide-ranging war.” Both Robert Kagan and William Kristol are deeply linked to U.S. foreign and military policy extending from writing presidential speeches to having a former spouse as the U.S. ambassador to NATO. It is not coincidental that a portion of their editorial from October of 2001 in The Weekly Standard has actually materialized. These men should be taken for their words when they say that Afghanistan is merely the “opening battle” compared to what is waiting in the horizon.

Referring back to Robert Kagan and William Kristol:

“This war will not end in Afghanistan. It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that basks in contented consensus.”

The “international coalition” being referred to is NATO and the international military network based around the U.S. and the “unbearable strain” is war, but of an unknown scale. On August 10, 2007 Lieutenant-General Douglas Lute, the “War Czar” overseeing the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and any expanded theatre, publicly talked about restoring a mandatory military draft. The march to war is not waning, but driving the world towards the abyss.

Afghanistan was the first volley in an advance phase of the global conflict that was in its preparatory stages decades ago during the Iraq-Iran War, the Gulf War, and the Kosovo War. Where this global conflict, this “long war” will lead us is unknown, but all humanity is in this together. The American people will sooner or later feel the pain of war as their freedom is effected. Autocracy is a prerequisite to grand empires. Brzezinski has pointed out that “America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad,” and “never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy.” Deviancy is being normalized all over the globe because of this global project. Those that are behind such projects must be reduced to social leprids, as outcasts, denounced by all societies.

Resistance in the Middle East: The Power of the People

“The Iraqi Resistance is by definition democratic as it is the spontaneous expression of a people who took its destiny into its hands, and is by definition progressive as it defends the interests of the people.” -Hana Al-Bayaty (March 18, 2007)

Anglo-American planners have underestimated the capacity of the power of ordinary people and the human spirit. In the Middle East it has been the resistance of ordinary people that has brought militant globalization to a standstill. Popular resistance movements have bogged down the military might of the remaining global superpower.

A nation is only as legitimate as the people(s) who live in it define it. America is not at war with individual nations, but with the people(s) of these nations. Nor are the American people at war with these nations, it is the American ruling establishment and elites that are at war with these people(s).

The forces of resistance are the forces of the will of the people, without the support of the people none of them could last or stand up to some of the most powerful war machines in human history.

The wars in the Middle East are as much about choice as they are about the right to live. What is at stake is self-determination and liberty. These wars represent the drive to impose an overall monopoly of controls over other nations by a few who have hijacked the foreign policies of America and Britain to serve their own goals.

The Iraqi Resistance and the other resistance movements of the Middle East are movements of the peoples and by nature egalitarian. Would anyone in the so-called West dare label the French, Czechoslovakian, Greek, Libyan, Chinese, Malaysian, and Soviet resistance movements against Germany, Italy, and Japan during the Second World War as terrorist movements? However, the occupying Axis governments labeled these movements as terrorists. Did not France and the other areas occupied by Germany and the Axis Powers not have governments that said the Axis Powers were welcomed forces bringing stability as do the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan? For example, in France there was the Vichy Government; when Germany was defeated the leaders of the Vichy Government in France were executed as traitors.

The U.S. government misleadingly claims that it is bringing democracy to these lands, but since when was democracy forced from the top down to the bottom? Is this not the opposite of democracy; things being forced down from the top to the bottom? Democracy is an expression of the masses that manifests itself upwards and not from the opposite direction.

No force on earth can defeat the popular will of the people; this is why domestic populations are manipulated into supporting wars. It is only division that allows small groups to take temporary reign over the people(s). However, for every scheme and plan to create division and anarchy amongst the people(s) of the world there is a plan to unite them and strengthen them. This is one of the greatest fears of many in positions of power. This is the fear of any awakening of large societal groups and populations.

There is no greater ally to the movements of resistance in the Middle East and beyond than unadulterated public opinion in the rest of the world. The people(s) of Britain, Israel, and the U.S. are also victims of their own governments who manipulate their fears and create animosity between them and other nations. This in itself is a great crime. What differences exist between nations are only a means to test the best of them.

Fear and hate are the weapons of the real terrorists, the masters of deception, and those who belittle others for profit and personal gain. These are the terrorists who give orders in positions of political leadership in the White House and elsewhere at the expense of their own people and the rest of humanity.

The world is now embarking into the abyss of perpetual war and a period in which the contemplation of the use of nuclear weapons is being made. A stand must be made by individuals of good conscience and will. It seems possible that it will be a matter of time before the citizens of Europe, North America, and other lands will be compelled or necessitated to join the peoples of occupied lands in resistance.

War must be averted on two fronts; in the shorter-term (as differentiated from “short-term”) or near future, war must be averted from emerging in the Middle East, and in the longer-term in Eurasia. Only the resistance of the people and public opinion can stop war from enveloping the globe. Public opinion must translate into public action if humanity it to be spared from a massive war—a war that could prove to become a nuclear armageddon.

Countdown to 1984?

“In brief, the U.S. policy goal must be unapologetically twofold: to perpetuate America’s own dominant position for at least a generation and preferably longer still; and to create a geopolitical framework that can absorb the inevitable shocks and strains of social-political change...” -Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

In a twist of Orwellian fate, the earth seems closer to appearing like a rendition of the world in George Orwell’s novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. However, the road ahead is not scripted. The future is only anticipated and planned, but never certain in a universe of infinite probabilities. Time will tell where the road ahead will guide us. Those that see themselves as masters of destiny have had their ideas proven wrong in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, Somalia, and Lebanon. It may look as if opposition to a war agenda is like tiny raindrops beating against an unrelenting mountain, but mountains can be eventually eroded by those tiny raindrops. There exists a “sensitive dependence on initial conditions,” commonly called the “butterfly effect,” whereas the flaps of a butterfly’s wings in Brazil may set off a tornado in Texas. Individual actions can offset the march to war that is unfolding on this planet.

The Franco-German Entente and Anglo-American Alliance: Rivalry and Partnership
NRC Strengthens Ties to France - One of Canada's Most Important Scientific Partners
France Proposes Tighter EU-NATO Cooperation
Sarkozy Calls for UN-led 'New World Order'
France, together with Germany, is the driving force behind the ESA
Canada, France Congratulate CARICOM On Single Market
Canada-France Joint Action Plan: Baby Steps to Potential EU Trade Deal
Canada's Role in the Atomic Bomb Programs of the U.S., Britain, France, India
Canada can be called the true mother of the Indian nuclear bomb
France, India fire up military cooperation, nuclear ties
Germany and France: Old foes reunited in new push for power in Europe
Germany - New Super Power ??
Is USA going to maintain its Super Power Status?
Germany ist gut: the birth of a soft superpower
US has lost superpower financial status: German minister
Who Will Be the Next Superpower?
The Kings of the East
The Rising European Superpower: Prophesied in the Bible?
Will the European Union Achieve SUPERPOWER Status?
THE LONELY SUPERPOWER
Germany's Siemens AG and Russia's gas giant Gazprom sign agreement on strategic partnership
During the 1990s, Germany's Wintershall made considerable investments in Russia's industry
Why the US Will Still be the Only Superpower in 2030, v2.0
Obama's Berlin Speech: "We need a strong European Union"
Development and Future of the European Union
Turkey and the European Union: Whither the Middle Path?
Federal Europe: The Next Superpower?
Europe - A Coming New World Super Power

Israel, the U.S. and the Arab World

Obama in Egypt: One Speech, Many Audiences

McClatchy Newspapers
May 31, 2009

President Obama has a sweeping goal for his speech Thursday in Cairo, Egypt: to begin remaking the dynamic between the United States and Muslims abroad.

He'll declare a clean break from the Bush administration's "war-on-terror" approach to foreign affairs and forcefully endorse establishing a Palestinian state.

He'll talk about his respect for Islamic culture and call for an era of partnering with Muslim nations in areas of common interest, including curbing extremists before they destabilize Muslim nations and threaten the West.

Having publicly demanded that Israel stop building settlements in the largely Palestinian West Bank, he'll also ask Arab nations to recognize Israel's existence.

Tying together all the elements of such a speech is no easy proposition, for his worldwide audience - Muslim and non-Muslim - reflects competing priorities.

Consider:

Lebanese go to the polls just three days after he speaks, Iranians will be preparing for pivotal elections June 12, and both contests pit moderate parties against radical forces.

Afghans and Pakistanis are girding for more U.S. military and political engagement.

Palestinians and Israelis have conflicting stakes.

In the United States, Republicans will be looking for opportunities to paint the Democratic president as anti-Israel or soft on terrorism.

"No matter how broadly he speaks, what he says will be parsed through the lens of those disagreements," said Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Middle East Democracy and Development Project at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center for Middle East Policy.

Obama said he won't lay out details for resolving the Arab-Israeli crisis. "I want to use the occasion to deliver a broader message about how the United States can change for the better its relationship with the Muslim world," the president said Thursday.

Obama would like to rally Muslim countries to join in efforts to contain Iran's nuclear program. But while many Arab governments also see Iran as a threat, the issue divides Muslims, in part because Israel is pressing for military action.

The speech will fulfill, with about a month's delay, Obama's campaign promise to make a major address in a Muslim city in his first 100 days in office.

His choice of Egypt is symbolically important in terms of U.S. interests. It reached peace with Israel long ago, and it's been an ally against terrorist groups such as Hezbollah and in terms of seeking to contain Iran's power.

But many Egyptians fear their autocratic president, Hosni Mubarak, and polling by the Gallup organization finds that most Egyptians don't think that the United States is serious about promoting democracy in the region.

Muslims tell pollsters that one of the most important things Westerners can do to improve relations with them is to stop seeing them as inferior, said Dalia Mogahed, the Egyptian-born executive director of the Gallup Center for Muslim Studies and a member of the White House Advisory Council on Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships, which provided input for Obama's speech.

"If I were to convey the three major themes that I think would be important to cover in the speech, they would be the idea of respect, cooperation, and a demonstration of empathy," she said.

White House aides have emphasized that Obama will gear his remarks in Cairo to the masses, more than to governments, and to all Muslims, not just Egyptians.

That worldwide audience includes Arabs, but also Muslims altogether removed from the region, living in places with different interpretations of Islam, such Indonesia, where Obama lived as a boy.

His speech will be compared to the address then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice made in Egypt in 2005, calling on Arab nations to become more democratic and for Egypt to lead the way.

The Bush administration's push for rapid democratization backfired, empowering radical groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah. "I believe he is not going to say much about democratization and liberalization," said Amr Hamzawy, an Egyptian political scientist based at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Mogahed said Muslims consider Obama, the son of a black Muslim immigrant raised by his white single mother, "a testament to what people say they admire the most about the United States, which at the end of the day is meritocracy."

His audience will want details about the future, however. Will former Guantanamo detainees be tried in civilian or military courts? Will Obama use U.S. leverage to ensure that Israel doesn't attack Iran, to compel a halt to settlement construction, and to adopt a more humanitarian approach to Gaza?

"The speech just can't be only about culture and religion," Mogahed said.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

North Korea

North Korea Declares It Is Ready for War

Daily Mail
May 29, 2009

North Korea has fired yet another short-range missile off its eastern coast today as it faced off against the U.S. and the South in an increasingly tense nuclear stand-off. The U.S. and South Korea raised the military alert levels on the peninsula yesterday as defiant North Korea declared it was ready for war.

The joint command for the 28,500 U.S. troops that support South Korea's 670,000 soldiers raised its alert a notch to signify a serious threat from the North, the South's Joint Chiefs of Staff said. It is the highest threat level since the North's only other nuclear test in October 2006.

Kim Jong-Il's secretive regime warned that it would launch an attack if any of its vessels were intercepted as part of a U.S-led initiative to search ships for nuclear materials. It has also abandoned the 1953 truce with South Korea that ended the Korean conflict and has preserved a fragile peace for decades. And there were ominous signs that the pariah state had restarted efforts to make weapons-grade plutonium.

The moves are part of an increasingly hard line being taken by North Korea since it conducted an underground atomic test earlier this week.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton yesterday warned the country over its 'provocative and belligerent' threats. Mrs Clinton also underscored the U.S.'s commitment to defend its allies South Korea and Japan - which are in easy range of North Korean missiles. She said that the intent of U.S. diplomats was to 'try to rein in the North Koreans.'

But with United Nations dithering over new sanctions, the North Korean government warned: 'Any hostile act against our peaceful vessels, including search and seizure, will be considered an unpardonable infringement on our sovereignty. 'We will immediately respond with a powerful military strike. Those who provoke (North Korea) once will not be able to escape its unimaginable and merciless punishment.'

The statement was in direct response to South Korea joining the Proliferation Security Initiative - an American-led campaign to search ships carrying suspicious cargoes to prevent the trafficking of weapons of mass destruction.

A spokesman for an organisation calling itself the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea said: 'The South Korean puppets were ridiculous to join in (this) racket and... declare a war against compatriots.'

U.S. spy satellites have detected steam coming from the Yongbyon reactor suggesting that North Korea has reactivated its nuclear reprocessing facility. In 2007, it agreed to disable the plant in exchange for aid.

Experts say that the North could harvest enough plutonium there to make at least one nuclear bomb every year. There are also fears that the Communist country is trying to sell nuclear know-how to Syria and other rogue states.

And in a sign of the tensions in the region, Russia - whose far eastern regions border North Korea - yesterday took precautionary security measures amid fears of an escalation to nuclear war.

Britain condemned the latest 'unnecessary and provocative' act of defiance, which 'will only serve to isolate the regime further.'

The crisis began last month when North Korea fired a long-range rocket over Japanese airspace. It responded to international criticism of the launch by walking away from long-running negotiations on its nuclear disarmament.

On Monday, North Korea exploded a nuclear bomb the size of the one dropped on Hiroshima. It has also fired six short-range missiles.

Diplomats from the five permanent Security Council members - plus Japan and South Korea - have been meeting behind closed doors in New York for three days to discuss a new resolution against North Korea.

Washington wants a quick and unified response that will make it clear to Pyongyang that it has to 'pay a price' for its actions. But while the U.S. and Japan favour tough sanctions, Russia and China are more wary about pushing North Korea too far.

The White House accused North Korea of 'sabre-rattling' for attention. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said North Korea was continuing to violate international treaties in the wake of the nuclear detonation and threats to attack South Korea for joining a U.S.-led security program. 'Threats won't get North Korea the attention it craves,' Gibbs told reporters at the White House. 'Their actions are continuing to further deepen their own isolation from the international community and from their rights and obligations that they themselves have agreed to live up to.'

Korea at DEFCON 1?
I see the imminent possibility of a black hole into which all disappears and only chaos reappears.
Interactive: Timeline
Key events involving North Korea's nuclear issues.
North Korea could opt for devastating land assault
Fears of military conflict have increased this week, particularly regarding disputed waters off the western coast, after North Korea conducted an apparent nuclear test on Monday and then renounced the armistice that has kept relative peace between the Koreas. It has held since the two sides fought to a standstill — with the U.S. and the U.N. backing the South and China and Russia supporting the North — in the 1950-53 Korean War.
North Korea Preparing to Launch 2 More Missiles, U.S. Warns
South Korean and U.S. Troops Placed on High Alert

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

Russian-Georgian War

U.S. and Russian Warships Line Up in Dispute Over Georgia

The Guardian
May 28, 2009

U.S. and Russian warships took up positions in the Black Sea today in a risky war of nerves on opposing sides of the Georgia conflict.

With the Russians effectively controlling Georgia’s main naval base of Poti, Moscow also dispatched the Moskva missile cruiser and two smaller craft on “peacekeeping” duties at the port of Sukhumi on the coast of Abkhazia, the breakaway region that the Kremlin recognised as independent yesterday.

The Americans, wary of escalating an already fraught situation, cancelled the scheduled docking in Poti of the U.S. Coast Guard vessel, the Dallas, and instead sent it to the southern Georgian-controlled port of Batumi, 200km (124 miles) from the Russian ships, where it delivered humanitarian aid.

“Let’s hope we don’t see any direct confrontation,” said Dmitri Peskov, the spokesman for the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, as the Russians challenged the U.S. policy of using military aircraft and ships to deliver relief supplies. "The decision to deliver aid using Nato battleships is something that hardly can be explained," said Peskov. "It's not a common practice."

He said Russian naval forces were taking "some measures of precaution" around the Black Sea as the worsening dispute caused by Russia's recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia independence brought strong criticism from the key European countries most reluctant to sever relations with Russia.

The German chancellor, Angela Merkel, spoke to President Dmitri Medvedev today, the first western leader to talk to the Kremlin since Medvedev announced the recognition of the two secessionist regions of Georgia. She made it plain she had voiced her strong disapproval to the Russian leader. "I made clear above all that I would have expected that we would talk about these questions in [international] organisations before unilateral recognition happened," she said. "There are several UN Security Council resolutions in which the territorial integrity of Georgia was stressed, which Russia also worked on."

The French foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, said Russia had broken international law and, along with other senior European officials, worried that Russia's decision to redraw Georgia's borders would encourage Moscow to act similarly with other former parts of the Soviet Union such as Ukraine. "We cannot accept these violations of international law ... of a territory by the army of a neighboring country," he said.

Germany and France, who opposed the U.S. and Britain in April in blocking Georgian negotiations to join Nato, have been the most reluctant to punish Russia for the Georgian conflict of the past three weeks and are desperate to try to revive the Russia-Georgia peace plan mediated by the French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, a fortnight ago.

Paris and Berlin agree the unilateral recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia by Russia left the peace plan ineffectual. A summit of EU leaders in Brussels on Monday is to ponder Europe's options.

With mounting warnings of western economic or trade sanctions against Russia, an EU official admitted that threats to block Russian membership of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) were meaningless. The push for Russian admission being driven not by Moscow but by western business interests keen to tap the large Russian market, he said.

Peskov warned that trade sanctions against Moscow would hurt the west as much as Russia. He admitted that South Ossetia, a mountainous region of 70,000 people, would struggle to establish itself as an independent state, but stressed that Russia's constitution made it possible for Russia to expand. "My country will extend the arm of cooperation and friendship to ease the transition period [for South Ossetia]," he said.

EU officials complained that Moscow was seeking to control the distribution of international relief. EU aid officials were demanding entry to the Russian controlled regions, but were being barred unless they handed over the aid to the Russian authorities for distribution.

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

German-French Alliance

500 German Troops to be Deployed in France

AFP
January 17, 2009

Germany wants to send 500 soldiers to France in what would be its first deployment to the country since the end of World War II in 1945, Der Spiegel magazine reports in an article to be published Monday.

According to the news weekly, Chancellor Angela Merkel told the German defence ministry last week to station the soldiers in the border town of Colmar.

The soldiers will cooperate with their French counterparts in a joint force known as the Franco-German Brigade.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy and Merkel were expected to give further details at the Munich Conference on Security Policy at the end of February, after an initial decision to keep the brigade running was announced in November.

Der Spiegel also reported that Sarkozy would post a French infantry unit to Donaueschingen, southwest Germany, while a regiment based in the nearby town of Immendingen would return to France.

The Franco-German Brigade was set up in 1989 by the then French President Francois Mitterrand and German chancellor Helmut Kohl to increase military cooperation between the two former enemies.

It includes some 5,000 soldiers -- 2,800 of which are German. Until now, they have been stationed only in southwest Germany.

A handful of German officers, however, are already based in Strasbourg, east France, directly engaged with the NATO mission Eurocorps.

However, no independent German military unit has been stationed in the country since the end of hostilities in World War II over 60 years ago.

Germany to Station Troops in France for First Time Since WWII

Spiegel Online
February 2, 2009

Germany to Station Troops in France for First Time Since WWII

Germany will station troops in France as part their joint crisis reaction force, Angela Merkel and Nicholas Sarkozy have said. In a joint opinion piece published ahead of the Munich Security Conference on Friday, the two leaders call for greater European and world cooperation on security.

The leaders of Germany and France urged greater European and trans-Atlantic unity on global security on Wednesday and underscored their call by announcing that German troops will be stationed in France as part of the joint Franco-German Brigade, a rapid reaction force.

"Anyone who knows our common history will be aware of the historical significance of this new step in the Franco-German friendship," German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicholas Sarkozy said in a joint opinion piece published on Wednesday in Germany's Süddeutsche Zeitung and France's Le Monde.

SPIEGEL reported last month that a German army battalion of 500 troops would be stationed in the town of Colmar in France's Alsace region. French media have reported Strasbourg, Metz or Bitche as possible locations.

It will be the first stationing of German troops in France since World War II. The Franco-German brigade was set up in 1989 and has around 5,000 troops that, until now, have been stationed at seven locations in Germany. It has served in Afghanistan and in the Balkans.

"Europeans Must Speak with One Voice"

Merkel and Sarkozy said international coordination on security policy was essential to tackle the Middle East conflict, the dispute over Iran's nuclear program, terrorist attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as well as the international financial and economic crises.

"Security policy must be interpreted in a new and broader way," Merkel and Sarkozy said, adding that cooperation on military security needed to be complemented with a joint approach on the global financial architecture, energy supply and population migration.

They said it was essential that Europe and the US deepen their cooperation given the new risks they face in the 21st century.

"That means joint analysis, decision-taking and implementation. Unilateral steps would contradict the spirit of this partnership. But it also means that we Europeans must speak even more with one voice, which requires a strong measure of discipline from the member states," the leaders wrote.

"And we must further bundle and increase our capabilities, both civilian and military. The synergy between both is the trademark of European security policy," they added.

A Rocky Relationship

The statement is a show of unity between the French and German leaders who have had a rocky relationship over the last two years with disagreements on a range of issues including the financial crisis and French plans for a Mediterranean Union.

And despite repeated displays of harmony with warm embraces, smiles and kisses on the cheek for the cameras, there have been persistent reports that the two simply don't gel on a personal level.

Their joint statement comes ahead of the 45th Munich Security Conference which runs from Friday to Sunday, an important annual gathering of senior politicians, military top brass and security analysts.

US President Barack Obama is dispatching top members of his new administration to attend the conference including Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Adviser James Jones and Richard Holbrooke, Obama's point man for Pakistan and Afghanistan. US General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, is also attending. The conference will be closely watched for signs of a shift in US foreign policy under Obama.

Merkel and Sarkozy said Iran was openly speculating that the international community would stand by and let it proceed with its nuclear program.

"We will not permit an Iranian nuclear bomb because that would constitute a threat to world peace," they said. "And we are ready, in line with the expected involvement of the new American government, to stop the Iranian threat with increased dialogue but also -- if necessary -- with very determined sanctions."

2004 Poll: Over Half of France and Germany had Unfavorable View of Americans

Iran

Iran's Nuclear Program

The Associated Press
May 25, 2009

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad proposed on Monday a face-to-face debate with President Barack Obama at the United Nations if he is re-elected next month as Iran's president. But he balanced the offer with a sharp rebuke to Washington and its allies over Iran's nuclear program. He reiterated that Iran would never abandon its advances in uranium enrichment in exchange for offers of easing sanctions or other economic incentives.

The nuclear issue "is closed," he told a news conference.

Obama has urged a "serious process of engagement" after Iran's elections in an effort to end a nearly 30-year diplomatic chill. However, last week the American leader said the U.S. was prepared to seek deeper international sanctions against Tehran if it did not respond positively to the attempts to open negotiations on its nuclear program. Obama set a year-end deadline for Iran to show it wanted to engage with Washington.

The tough talk on nuclear negotiations following Iran's test last week of a long-range missile appear aimed at burnishing Ahmadinejad's hard-line credentials in the election campaign against another conservative and two pro-reform candidates.

His offer to debate Obama could also be campaign posturing before the June 12 vote. But it does put Ahmadinejad on record as supporting a potentially groundbreaking encounter following Obama's offer for dialogue.

Ahmadinejad said that, if re-elected, he would be open to "debate global issues as well as world peace and security" during the U.N. General Assembly in September.

There was no immediate reaction from Washington.

On the nuclear issue, Ahmadinejad ruled out talks with the U.S. He said Iran's stand is "crystal clear" and Tehran would only discuss the subject within the framework of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Ahmadinejad has often denounced the West for trying to pressure Iran to give up it uranium enrichment program, a process that can produce fuel for both nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. Tehran insists it is only to fuel peaceful reactors, but the West worries could lead to nuclear weapons development...

Return to The Lamb Slain Home Page

The Six Issues That Divide Netanyahu from Obama

The Six Issues That Divide Netanyahu from Obama

By Tony Karon, Time
May 18, 2009

President Barack Obama welcomes Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House on Monday, at a moment when the White House and the Israeli leadership are undeniably at odds over the path to Middle East peace.

While the Obama Administration remains steadfastly committed to Israel's security, its ideas on how to achieve that security differ markedly from those of the hawkish Netanyahu government.

As Obama moves to revive the stalled Middle East peace process, Monday's meeting has been widely predicted to be a tense affair, but that may be overstating the drama. Netanyahu, like any Israeli Prime Minister, has an overwhelming incentive to get along with Israel's single most important ally; Obama, for his part, needs to fashion a peace process that produces results, for which he requires Netanyahu's cooperation. So Monday's encounter won't be a showdown as much as the opening exchange of a difficult conversation that could continue for months.

Herewith, a short guide to the issues that divide Obama and Netanyahu:

A Two-State Solution?

The idea of creating an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel on the territory it occupied in 1967 is the overwhelming international consensus, accepted even - according to opinion polls - by a majority of Israelis. The Obama Administration is not content to simply articulate that vision, as President George W. Bush did; instead, it seeks to move briskly toward realizing such a solution before the evolving facts on the ground make it untenable.

Netanyahu, however, has refused to endorse the principle of Palestinian statehood, insisting that sovereign independence for the Palestinians would endanger Israel's security. The Palestinians, Netanyahu has argued until now, will have to settle for a more limited form of self-government within borders still effectively controlled by Israel. Despite some speculation that he might make a rhetorical concession on the statehood issue on Monday, a top aide told the Israeli media Netanyahu would not do so - at least, not yet. (See pictures of Israel's recent war in Gaza.)

The Administration has made clear that it expects Israel to work toward a two-state solution. Netanyahu is expected to agree to talk to the Palestinians, to ease their circumstances and build their economy. But he maintains that trying to reach a final-status agreement right now is misguided and counterproductive, arguing that the priority is to build Palestinian administrative, security and economic capacity - and to tackle Iran, which he sees as a spoiler to any peace effort. (See pictures of Israel at 60.)

Next: What Gets Priority?

Iran First?

Netanyahu will argue that Washington's goals are best achieved if it gives priority to curbing Iran's nuclear and geopolitical ambitions before separating Israel from the Palestinians. He claims his Arab neighbors agree that reining in Iran is the region's priority, because it threatens their own stability. Given Tehran's support of Hamas, he'll say progress toward peace between Israel and the Palestinians is impossible until Iran has been pushed back. (See pictures of Jerusalem divided.)

Obama will agree that curbing Iran's regional influence and limiting its nuclear activities is an urgent priority. But the U.S. President won't buy Netanyahu's sequencing. Resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains a matter of urgency, Obama will argue, and he'll point out that the moderate Arab neighbors with whom the Israelis want to stand against Iran are also the ones most urgently insisting on the immediate implementation of a two-state solution with the Palestinians, whose unresolved plight strengthens radicals against moderates. Netanyahu will say no progress is possible on the Palestinian front until Iran is defanged; Obama will argue that rallying Arab support against Iran's ambitions requires resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Next: The Timetable

What's the Hurry?

Netanyahu will argue that whether the outcome is two states or something less, this is not the moment to try to conclude the peace process. The Palestinians are hopelessly divided, with the moderate Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas lacking the political authority to deliver on any peace promises. Indeed, the PA President's term of office expired in January, and polls show he'd lose to Hamas in an election held now. Instead of final-status negotiations, Netanyahu will advocate building the Palestinians' administrative and security capacity, and promoting economic development, in enclaves currently under Abbas' control. Without this infrastructure of stability - and the neutralizing of Hamas - he'll argue, no progress is possible. (See pictures of Hamas-Fatah conflict.)

Obama will make clear that whatever stability has been created thus far in the West Bank is premised on the achievement of Palestinian statehood, and will collapse without rapid movement along that path. Politically, President Abbas' Fatah movement suffers from the fact that its moderation and almost two decades of negotiation has seen only an expansion of Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Fatah cannot remain committed to a peace process without end if it is to reverse its declining political fortunes among its own people. The same may be true for the U.S.-trained security forces that have helped subdue the West Bank. Hamas has proven to be an intractable reality of Palestinian political life, and Obama may argue that a workable peace process would require its consent. Most importantly, he'll note that time is running out for Abbas and the Arab regimes that have cooperated with Israel and have come away empty-handed in the eyes of their own people.

Next: The Settlements

Freeze the Settlements

Obama will tell Netanyahu that stability is undermined, potentially fatally, by Israel's continued expansion of its settlements in the West Bank, and by its moves to extend control over East Jerusalem, captured by Israel in the 1967 war but claimed by the Palestinians as their future capital. But Netanyahu's government includes strong settler representation, and while he'll unenthusiastically promise to dismantle outposts built in violation of Israeli law, he's unlikely to court a confrontation with the settlers unless there are substantial political rewards. He'll insist on maintaining the "natural growth" of Israel's settlements, and reiterate his view that sharing Jerusalem with the Palestinians is a nonstarter. (See pictures of Israeli settlers resisting eviction.)

Next: Gaza

Unfreeze Gaza

The Gaza war earlier this year forced the Israeli-Palestinian issue to the top of the Obama Administration's agenda, and although the fighting has ended, no formal cease-fire has been agreed, and the Israeli blockade - and Palestinian political infighting - has prevented any of the $4.5 billion pledged for reconstruction by international donors from actually reaching the territory. The potential remains high for a renewed outbreak of fighting, and Obama will press Netanyahu to ease Israel's blockade to allow in construction materials and normalize economic traffic. Netanyahu remains committed to overthrowing Hamas in Gaza, and he wants Obama to pursue the same course. And his government will insist on securing the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit before easing up on Gaza.

Next: Dealing with Iran

How to Handle Iran

While supporting Obama's diplomatic efforts, Israel wants to see time limits imposed to prevent Iran playing for time while increasing its nuclear capabilities. Netanyahu has repeatedly warned that if diplomacy fails, Israel stands ready to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities. Obama agrees that negotiations with Iran should not be open-ended, but will allow a longer time frame than that preferred by the Israelis for diplomacy to succeed. Israel's leaders believe Iran will not back down and that negotiations are necessary primarily to win support for stronger sanctions or military action.

Israel has agreed to refrain from attacking Iran without first consulting the U.S. following reported warnings from the White House to avoid surprising Obama, whose military and security advisers have long argued that military strikes on Iran would cause more problems than they would solve. Once the diplomatic process with Tehran gets under way, the two sides may also disagree on where to draw the bottom line on uranium enrichment on Iranian soil.