Raze the Shepherd Hotel for settlements? Symptomatic....

A private Israeli company is razing the historic Shepherd Hotel in East Jerusalem and will construct a housing area in its place. The move has angered Palestinians, who hope that East Jerusalem, where the hotel was located, will be the capital of the future state of Palestine. Of course, the mayor of Jerusalem, an influential voice in Israeli politics, just stated that the city will never be divided, that the entire city of Jerusalem, including the eastern section, was, is and will always be the capital of the state of Israel.

Many Israelis were pleased to see the destruction of the Shepherd Hotel. The building was built in the 1930's and was the home of Haj Muhammad Amin al-Husayni, at that time the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, and later an avowed supporter and ally of Adolf Hitler during World War II. After the British exiled al-Husayni from the Palestinian Mandate in 1937, they used it as a military office building. When the Jordanians occupied and administered the area from 1948 to 1967, control reverted to the Mufti's estate, which rented it to the hotel operators.

In 1967, the Israelis seized the area of East Jerusalem in the Six Day War and have occupied it ever since. The Israelis condemned the Shepherd Hotel building and passed control of it to the government Custodian of Absentee Property. It was later sold to a Jewish American developer.

It was the condemnation and later sale of the building that the Palestinians cite as an illegal seizure of Palestinian property. The Palestinian position is quite clear, although ignored. According to the spokesman for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, "Israel has no right to build in any part of East Jerusalem, or any part of the Palestinian land occupied in 1967."

The destruction of the hotel is not in and of itself that problematic. Although the building is described as historic and does make for an interesting story, it pales in comparison to other buildings in the area. It is Jerusalem, after all, holy to three of the world's major religions. The destruction is, however, symptomatic of continued Israeli consolidation of its claim to, and hold over, the entire city of Jerusalem.

Since taking the entire city in 1967, the Israelis have consistently expanded their presence into traditional Arab areas. Minister of the Knesset (and later prime minister) Ariel Sharon developed a unique tactic called "block busting" for Israeli expansion. Sharon would buy an apartment in an Arab neighborhood and move in. The government would then condemn and confiscate the surrounding apartments "for security reasons," thus changing the Arab character of the building and area. Once that happened, the Arab landowners sold their property in droves to get away from the Jewish expansion.

'Adnan al-Husayni (yes, related to the late Grand Mufti), Palestinian "governor" of the Palestinian Authority's governorate of Jerusalem, said the demolition was the latest in a line of demolitions of historic buildings and accused Israel of "trying to erase any Palestinian identity" from the city. I can see his point.

The Israeli government counters that its Arab citizens are allowed to buy or rent property in Jerusalem's neighborhoods that have a Jewish majority. The claim is a bit disingenuous. Many of the areas are reserved for veterans, and since virtually all Israelis serve in the military, theoretically it is open to all. Not quite, since Israel's Arabs are exempt from mandatory military service.

To her credit, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said the razing of the hotel "undermines peace efforts to achieve the two state-solution," and "contradicts the logic of a reasonable and necessary agreement...on the status of Jerusalem."

The status of Jerusalem is the key issue to a lasting agreement between the Palestinians and Israelis. Statements by either side have not been helpful toward that goal.

Al-Sadr returns, stronger than ever

Al-sayid Muqtada al-Sadr (center)

Radical and virulently anti-American Shi'a cleric Muqtada al-Sadr retuned to Iraq after a three-year stay in Iran. Ostensibly, al-Sadr was in Qom, Iran to continue his Islamic studies and attain the title of ayatollah; he had been a hawjat al-islam prior. His return to the Shi'a holy city of al-Najaf, site of the martyrdom of the first Shi'a imam 'Ali (son in law and cousin of the prophet Muhammad), was greeted with almost uncontrollable revelry in the streets.

This is a bad omen. It was not unexpected, in fact, many of us Iraq analysts had predicted it. I have said that at some point in the not too distant future, Muqtada al-Sadr will emerge as the key power broker in Iraqi politics. That time may be drawing nigh.

Why is this 37-year old such an influential figure? Muqtada al-Sadr is a sayid. Sayid is the Arabic word for mister, or sir. In Shi'a Islam, it also denotes a person who is a direct descendant of the prophet Muhammad through his daughter Fatimah and cousin 'Ali. It entitles him to wear the black turban.

The Shi'a believe that leadership of the faithful should have been via the prophet's bloodline, and al-Sadr clearly qualifies. His family lineage is traceable back to the sixth iman, Ja'afar al-Sadiq, and the seventh imam, Musa al-Khadhim. The shrine of the seventh imam is located in the northwest section of Baghdad, appropriately named al-Khadhimiyah*. While Westerners sometimes dismiss the cache of the credibility of this direct lineage, Iraqis do not.

Al-Sadr left Iraq in 2007 as the American troop surge was beginning, ostensibly to enter into advanced religious training in Iran. While he did in fact enroll in studies in Qom, I suspect the reason for his departure was the fact that tens of thousands of American combat troops were headed for Iraq and would have taken on and destroyed what was left of his militia, the jaysh al-mahdi (Army of the Mahdi, or JAM).

Regardless of al-Sadr's qualifications or alleged integrity, his is politically astute. He realized that President George Bush was serious about ending the internecine violence in Iraq and had deployed enough troops to stop it. The new forces were not support troops, but trained and experienced combat units that were capable of taking the fight to the enemy, be it against the al-Qa'idah in Iraq (AQI) elements in the "Sunni triangle" northwest of Baghdad, or Iranian-sponsored Shi'a militias like the JAM in Baghdad and to the south.

In al-Anbar governorate, the Sunni tribal leaders had become disenchanted with the rigid and arrogant foreign AQI leadership and decided to ally with the Americans, allowing the shaykhs to retain control of their traditional tribal areas. While generally religious, these shaykhs were not fanatics like the AQI youth from outside the country. The shaykhs were not in favor of a new social order, preferring life as it was before the war. The best way to attain that was to ally with the Americans and expel the AQI.

The "Anbar Awakening" was not lost on al-Sadr. With the Sunnis making their peace with the Americans, and thousands of American combat troops arriving in the country, the focus was sure to turn to the JAM and one Muqtada al-Sadr. Rather than have his followers decimated by the better trained and equipped Americans, he ordered his militia to stand down. He himself departed for Iran to pursue religious studies. In other words, he ran.

However, as I said, al-Sadr well understands Iraqi politics, particularly Iraqi Shi'a politics. When you say "Shi'a politics," you also have to consider Iran and its influence on Iraq's Shi'a majority. Despite the 1980-1988 bloody war between Iraq and Iran, most Shi'a on both sides of the border view that conflict as a war triggered by the Sunni Ba'thist regime of Saddam Husayn, and not a war between Shi'a brethren. The Shi'a bond is strong, as evidenced by the close relations between the Iranians and Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki, senior Iraqi cleric Grand Ayatollah 'Ali al-Saystani and of course, Muqtada al-Sadr.

Despite the close relationship between the Iranians and the Iraqi Shi'a, the Iraqi Shi'a have differences as well. How they resolve these differences may well determine the future of the country. After all, it was Prime Minister al-Maliki's troops that effectively eliminated the JAM as a fighting force during internal struggles in 2008. There has always been tension between the non-violent al-Saystani and the confrontational al-Sadr.

In the recent maneuverings to form an Iraqi government, al-Sadr joined a coalition with al-Maliki and the Kurds against a secular group that actually won more seats in the election. Without al-Sadr's support, it is almost certain that al-Maliki would have been forced from office; he is beholden to al-Sadr for his position. Both al-Maliki and al-Sadr have close relations with Iran.

It would appear that the key power brokers in Iraq are now Iran and Muqtada al-Sadr. Not bad for someone who turned tail and ran and whose militia was decimated by his current ally.

As the United States prepares to withdraw all of its forces, against my advice, who will emerge as the most powerful man in Iraq? I say Muqtada al-Sadr. It did not have to be this way; I advocated killing him in 2003 when we had the chance.

__________
* In 1987 and 1988, I worked out of an office in the headquarters of the Iraqi Directorate of Military Intelligence (DMI) located in al-Khadimiyah less than a mile from the Musa al-Khadhim shrine. In 2006, Saddam Husayn was executed at that same DMI facility.

What century are we in? - Part Two: Iran

Scene from the movie The Stoning of Soraya M. (a true story)

Some months ago, I wrote an article titled "Saudi Arabia - What century are we in here?" It was about the Saudis sentencing a Lebanese television personality to death for the crime of witchcraft. Yes, witchcraft - you cannot make this stuff up.

Continuing in my "Iran obsession*" series, I now ask the same question about Iran.

Only public outcry has saved a woman from being executed by stoning in the Islamic Republic. A court in Tabriz sentenced an Azeri woman convicted of adultery to 99 lashes, which she received. Later, she was accused of complicity in the murder of her husband, but was acquitted. After the acquittal, the judge re-sentenced her for her earlier crime of adultery, this time imposing the sentence of death by stoning.

To gain a perspective on just how brutal this method of execution is, I recommend the movie The Stoning of Soraya M. (available at Netflix or Blockbuster [watch trailer]). The movie is based on a true story. Soraya Manutchehri was stoned to death in Iran in 1986.

Stoning as a punishment did not exist in Iran until 1983, when the current Islamic penal code was ratified. Stoning is legal punishment for consensual adultery between married adults. Unmarried sex partners normally receive sentences of 99 lashes. Is this what the Iranian people wanted when they overthrew the Shah and brought in the ayatollahs?

Following international outcries over stoning after the establishment of the Islamic Republic, the government allegedly placed a moratorium on the practice in 2002. Despite that, it is believed that scores of men and women have been stoned to death. Women tend to be stoned more often as the burden of proof for adultery is always on the woman, regardless whether the accused is the husband or wife. In other words, the wife must prove herself innocent or prove her husband guilty.

After the release of the movie in 2008, the Iranian Islamic judiciary submitted a new penal code to the legislature (Islamic Consultative Assembly). The new code has never been ratified and stoning remains on the books. Until the new penal code is adopted, we will continue to hear stories of stoning in Iran.

In the words of a close friend who lives in the region, "What a country."

__________
* A reader recently accused me of being obsessed with Iran. I am, with good reason. See my article, Obsessed with Iran? Me?

Recess appointment of ambassador to Syria

The author with the Syrian deputy minister of defense in 1994

President Obama took advantage of the recess appointment option and appointed Robert Ford as the American ambassador to Syria. The option allows the President to bypass the normal advice and consent of the Senate by appointing officials to fill positions when the Senate is in recess.

By way of disclosure and background, I was the Air Attaché at the U.S. Embassy in Damascus from 1992 to 1995. I consider myself to be fairly familiar with Syria, the embassy in Damascus and the political relationship between Syria and the United States.

Some thoughts on the appointment.

The ambassador to Syria is always a career foreign service officer, not a political appointee. Political appointees go to the more popular places (read: Europe), or to special countries. For example, Saudi Arabia generally prefers a political appointee. The Saudis believe they are important enough to the United States that they deserve an ambassador who can call the President directly, not go through the bureaucracy at the State Department. I have personally heard an American ambassador to Riyadh attempt to intimidate Defense Department officials with the statement, "You realize, of course, that Bill [Clinton] is in my speed dial...."

We have had diplomatic relations with what is now Syria since before there was a Syria - we had a legation in Aleppo during the Ottoman Empire days; it was established in 1835 (the original sign is displayed in the ambassador's office in Damascus). With the exceptions of a short period in 1957 and again between 1967 and 1974, we have maintained diplomatic relations with Syria.

In 2005 after Syria was accused of complicity (rightly so, in my estimation) in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, the United States recalled our ambassador to Washington "for consultations." It is important to note that although we have not had an ambassador in Damascus since then (until the recent recess appointment), we have still maintained diplomatic relations, just not at the ambassadorial level.

The senior State officer at the embassy serves as the Chargé d'Affaires. I think this is a good solution. The Syrians keep their ambassador ('Imad Mustafa, a very effective spokesman and social fixture) in Washington, and with the exception of the ambassador, we have a full embassy staff in Damascus. It is maintaining diplomatic relations while making a principled statement.

Remember what an embassy is. It is not only a venue for our diplomats to represent the United States, but a presence for other departments and agencies of the government. Depending on the country, an American embassy will have attachés and representatives from the Defense Department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Federal Aviation Administration, etc., and yes, not surprisingly, the Central Intelligence Agency.

It is no secret that we always have problems understanding what is happening in countries where we do not have a presence. Iran, North Korea, Iraq from 1990 to 2003, Afghanistan between 1979 and 2001 - anyone see a pattern here? No embassy, no reliable information. The ability to put American eyes on a situation is invaluable.

I don't like recess appointments. I realize they are perfectly legal and that every president since George Washington has used them. I prefer to have the debate - do we want to send an ambassador, or do we want to maintain an embassy without an ambassador? I think the Senate should have had the debate, then a vote up or down. If the Senate abdicates its advice and consent obligations, they leave the President no choice but to determine policy on his own.

That said, I think Mister Obama is being naive. From what I have seen so far in his two years in office, he has not figured out how to deal with the Byzantine bazaaris who are the Syrians; thus far they have outmaneuvered him. I suspect that the President believes Syrian President Bashar al-Asad will take this recess appointment as a gesture that the United States wants improved relations and will reciprocate in some manner.

I remain skeptical, since al-Asad will assess it as a sign of weakness. The United States is coming to him. They are rewarding his behavior in Lebanon, continued support for Hizballah, his harboring Palestinian terrorists, etc.

This is not about Ambassador Ford. From what I have read and heard, he's a fine choice. I just would have preferred that we as a country had the debate, that the U.S. Senate would have provided advice to the President and then withheld its consent.

We need an embassy in Damascus; we don't need an ambassador.

Obsessed with Iran? Me?

A reader recently complimented me on one of my articles, but added that I appear to be obsessed with Iran. I looked back at some of my recent articles and understand how someone might make that assessment. However, in my defense, there is reason to be concerned about Iran, especially in light of the Obama Administration's seeming willingness to downplay or even overlook the issues.

Iran is involved, either directly or indirectly, with almost every foreign policy issue facing the United States today. Let's first point out the fact that the current Iranian regime has American blood on its hands. It goes back as far as the Iranian Revolution in 1979 and continues today. The venues for these attacks on Americans not only includes the obvious battlegrounds in Iraq and Afghanistan, but extends to Lebanon and Scotland as well.

Let's review some American foreign policy issues that involve Iran.

Nuclear weapons
The most pressing issue is Iran's nuclear program. I do not think anyone seriously believes that Iran's program is aimed at generating electric power for a country with an almost unlimited supply of oil and natural gas. From a political standpoint, the Iranians have skillfully outmaneuvered the United States on this issue.

The Iranians continually agree to an endless series of talks that have yet to produce any positive results. At each meeting, they agree only to have another meeting, all the while continuing to enrich uranium far beyond the levels required for the mythical energy program. At some point, they will announce that they have nuclear weapons. I suppose they will even then continue to agree to talk, but at that point about how the weapons are a stabilizing factor in the region.

Iraq
The Iranians continue to work against American interests in Iraq, as they have since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003. Hundreds of American troops have been killed by weapons made in, or supplied by, Iran to militants trained in and funded by Iran. They are the principal supporters of the radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his jaysh al-mahdi (Army of the Mahdi, or JAM). The JAM was active against American forces until the 2007 surge, after which al-Sadr determined that he would suffer unacceptable losses to the additional American combat troops.

Iran continues to support al-Sadr's ambitions to become the key political power broker in Iraq, recently encouraging him to join with Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki in a broad Shi'a coalition (allied with the Kurds) to form a new Iraqi government, despite the fact that al-Malii's party did not win the most seats in the elections.

The Iranians have key allies in the new Iraqi government. Al-Maliki is often referred to by his detractors as nuri al-irani (Nuri the Iranian), and his office as al-sajad al-irani (the Persian carpet). Iraqi President Jalal Talabani, a Kurd, has been close to the Iranians for years.

The recent statement by al-Maliki that all American troops must leave Iraq by the end of 2011 was no doubt encouraged by the Iranians. He said, "The last American soldier will leave Iraq...this agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed."

The Iranians do not want any American military presence in the Gulf, especially on the ground in Iraq. American troops in Iraq sit between Iran and its principal ally Syria, and contribute to the impression in Tehran that the country is almost surrounded by pro-American governments. As long as western economies rely on the continual flow of Middle East/Persian Gulf oil, it is imperative that the United States maintain a military presence in the region. Iraq is the ideal location for that presence.

Syria
Iran's closest ally in the region may one day be Iraq, but currently it is Syria. The two countries have been allied since Syria supported Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq war; it was the only Arab country to side with Iran. Since then, the two have signed a mutual defense pact and cooperate in a variety of fields, including military and industrial efforts.

Lebanon
Syria allows Iran to use its airspace and territory to resupply Hizballah in Lebanon. Hizballah was created in 1982 through the encouragement, training and funding of an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unit that would later become the Qods Force. Iran continues to provide money, weapons and training to Hizballah. Since the end of the 2006 war between Israel and Hizballah, Iran has replenished Hizballah's rocket inventory, and provided more-capable rockets and missiles.

Gaza
Much as it supports Hizballah in Lebanon, Iran also provides money, weapons and training to Hamas and Islamic Jihad in Gaza. In the past, Hamas and Islamic Jihad launched crude, inaccurate homemade short range rockets into border towns in southern Israel. Today they have Iranian-made Katyusha and Grad rockets capable of reaching cities just south of Tel Aviv.

Afghanistan
According to U.S. military officials, Iran is providing weapons and training to the Taliban in Afghanistan. Since the creation of the Taliban, there has been a rivalry between the Shi'a Iranians and the fundamentalist Sunni Afghan Taliban. At times that rivalry almost erupted into violence. Following the American invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in 2001, the Iranians have decided to support the Taliban against the Americans. The Iranian regime's hatred of the United States supersedes its dislike and distrust of the Taliban. As in Iraq, Iran has the blood of American troops on its hands.

Turkey
Turkey is an American ally and a member of NATO. Until the recent Gaza flotilla incident in which several Turks were killed attempting to breach the Israeli blockade, it was a close military ally of Israel. The Iranians have made diplomatic inroads with the Turks, playing on the common religion and Middle East affiliation. The Turks (along with Brazil) have responded by allegedly brokering an agreement in which the Iranians export some of their enriched uranium to Turkey.

Turkey has also proposed it join with Iran and many of the newly independent Central Asian states, many of them Turkic, in a Caspian partnership. With Iran's coaching, Turkey appears to be looking more to the east instead of to the west.

South America
Iran is developing better relations with Venezuela, Bolivia and Brazil. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez is permitting the Iranians to deploy medium range ballistic missiles to his country. (See my recent article, Nose under the tent - Iranian missiles in Venezuela)

Several South American countries have recently recognized a Palestinian state. As of this writing, Venezuela, Brazil, Argentina, Bolivia and Ecuador have already made the announcement. Paraguay, Uruguay, Chile and Peru are expected to do so in early 2011. I am sure these recognitions are encouraged by the leaders in Tehran. Why? Bad for Israel, and by extension the United States, is good for Iran.

Russia and China
Our relations with Russia and China are often colored by our relations with Tehran. It took months of backroom deals to get the two permanent members of the United Nations Security Council to agree to sanctions on Iran. Both countries have spotty records on adhering to the sanctions; China is actually quite blatant about ignoring them.

Human rights
Iran's record on human rights is abysmal. It runs the gamut: religious persecution, stoning and flogging of adulterers, amputations as punishment for theft, hanging homosexuals, shooting demonstrators in the wake of a corrupt election, sponsoring some of the world's most notorious terrorists, and on and on. Let's not forget the three American hikers (two still in custody for over a year) to go on trial for espionage.

Obsessed with Iran? You bet I am. I just wish President Obama would be obsessed with what the Iranians are doing rather than overlooking it all in a failed attempt to "engage." I am all for talking, but at some point, you have to assess that it is falling on deaf ears. We're well beyond that point.

Obsess, Obama, obsess.

Nose under the tent - Iranian missiles in Venezuela

Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has agreed to permit Iran to deploy medium range ballistic missiles to his country. According to press reports, the Iranians will construct a missile base in Venezuela housing several versions of North Korean-made Scud short range missiles and the Iranian-produced Shahab 3 medium tange ballistic missile. The Shahab 3 has a range of about 900 miles, not enough to reach the United States mainland.

The fact that the missiles cited in the press reports cannot reach the United States is not the issue. What is important is the fact that the Iranians are deploying missiles to the Western Hemisphere at all. Since the missiles do not appear to pose an immediate threat, Chavez and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hope that the Obama Administration will not attempt to block the missile deployment in an effort reminiscent of what President John Kennedy did during what many are calling a similar crisis, the attempted Soviet delivery of ballistic missiles to Cuba in 1962.

While Iran is not Russia, and Venezuela is not Cuba, this initial deployment of Iranian missiles and their Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) crews is merely the first step, or as we say in the Middle East, the "nose under the tent."

I should also have added that Barack Obama is not John Kennedy. The Iranians have assessed that the Obama Administration, correctly, in my opinion, is weak and naive on foreign policy. The Obama diplomatic "engagement" strategy toward Iran and Syria has yielded no positive results for the United States. I suspect that Ahmadinejad believes that the American administration has no stomach for confrontation and will do nothing more than demand additional sanctions as Iran continues to develop a nuclear weapons capability. In other words, Ahmadinejad sees a window of opportunity, specifically a period in which a weak American administration focused on controversial domestic issues is unwilling to take a tough stance on Iran's grand ambitions.

Once the initial deployment of Iranian missiles, which will be portrayed as not posing a threat to the United States, is a fait accompli, it only requires minimum effort on the part of the Venezuelan and Iranian governments to introduce longer range missiles currently in the Iranian inventory. These missiles do pose a threat to the southeastern United States, including Washington, DC.

The chance to deploy IRGC troops into America's "back yard" is possibly too great a temptation for Ahmadinejad to pass up. He opposes the presence of American forces in the Middle East and is attempting to turn the tables on the United States. If you ascribe grand strategic thinking to the Iranian president, you could make the case that he is beginning this deployment in a attempt to catalyze an agreement with Obama much like Kennedy did with Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev. In 1962, the United States removed some missiles from Turkey and the Soviets halted the deployment of missiles to Cuba.

Perhaps Ahmadinejad thinks that he can "engage" with Obama for the withdrawal of American forces from the Persian Gulf if he halts Iran's missile deployment to the Caribbean. Why would he not think that? He has successfully outmaneuvered the Obama Administration at virtually every turn. There has been no slowdown in Iran's quest for a nuclear weapon because of anything done by the American government. The most serious impediment to Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon is a computer virus at some Iranian uranium enrichment facilities and the assassination of two of its top nuclear scientists. Most Middle East analysts, myself included, attribute those incidents to the Israelis.

There are additional troubling aspects of the Iranian-Venezuelan agreement. The missiles will be manned by Iranian military and IRGC officers, in conjunction with Venezuelan military officers. The Venezuelans will receive intensive training in missile technology. The Iranian missiles can be used by the Venezuelans for what is called "national needs." Although that has not been defined, Iranian SRBM's and IRBM's in Venezuela pose a serious threat to American allies in the region, such as Columbia, as well as some American territories (Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands).

Again, if you ascribe grand strategic thinking to Ahmadinejad, you might believe that increased cooperation with Venezuela has other benefits for Iran as well. A few months ago, the Russians backed out of a deal to sell the advanced S-300 air defense system to Iran, citing United Nations sanctions. The Russians are, however, marketing that same weapon system to the Venezuelan armed forces. Perhaps these air defense systems might find their way from Venezuela to Iran? Never underestimate the Iranians; this is exactly the type of Byzantine maneuvering that is common in the bazaars of the region.

Where is the concern?

For those of us who vaguely remember the Cuban missile crisis (I was 11 years old) and our quick lessons in the Monroe Doctrine, the mere thought of offensive missiles in the Western hemisphere is troubling. It is especially troubling when the culprit is the volatile and fairly unpredictable regime of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The Iranian leaders believe that the American administration is naive and weak - they may be right. Thus far there has been almost no reaction to the impending deployment of strategic missiles into South America, the deployment of missiles to a country that has demonstrated open hostility to the United States. No reaction is tacit acceptance. Just like the Iranians believe the United States has tacitly accepted their eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons, they believe there is no real action on the horizon to prevent them from stationing offensive weapons only 1000 miles from the United States.

This is another direct challenge to the United States, and yet another test of President Obama's leadership. Where is the concern from Washinton?

Increased attacks on Yemen-based al-Qa'idah targets

Site of a December 17, 2009 U.S. air strike against al-Qa'idah training camp
(referenced in released cable below)

BLU-97 submunition found at the site. The 6-inch long explosive device

with a shaped charge can be carried by air and sea delivered missiles.

The United States appears to have increased its attacks on al-Qa'idah targets in Pakistan and Yemen. I am often critical of President Barack Obama for his policies in Afghanistan. While I agree that we must, as the President says, "dismantle, disrupt and defeat" al-Qa'idah, I do not believe that Afghanistan is the best venue to accomplish that objective. Al-Qa'idah has all but quit Afghanistan and moved to Pakistan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia. They are in the process of being defeated in Iraq and Saudi Arabia, while still posing a threat in, and from, Yemen and Somalia.

The President has yet to explain how taking on the Afghan Taliban fits into a "dismantle, disrupt and defeat al-Qa'idah" strategy. I do not accept assertions that if the Taliban are successful in re-establishing themselves as the government, it will result in the return of al-Qa'idah to the country. That remote possibility can be deterred with the simple threat that if the Taliban allows al-Qa'idah to return, so will overwhelming, crippling, devastating, terrifying - you pick the adjective - American air strikes.

That said, I applaud the President for his continued use of drone-launched missile strikes against al-Qa'idah and other militant groups in Pakistan. The number of strikes since Obama took office in January 2009 has increased substantially; there have been over 100 strikes this year alone. On December 17, three American missile attacks reportedly killed 54 militants. This is effective use of American technology with minimal risk to American lives.

And in Yemen...

Earlier this month, President Obama stated, "Where al-Qa'idah and its allies attempt to establish a foothold, whether in Somalia or Yemen or elsewhere, they must be confronted by growing pressure and strong partnerships." This effort has been ongoing for at least a year. Owing to the recent unauthorized release of classified U.S. State Department cables, the scope of the "pressure and partnerships" is clear. American military forces are launching missile strikes into Yemen against the al-Qa'idah-affiliated group known as al-Qa'idah in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

Initial American strikes were conducted using sea-launched cruise missiles, accurate, but not accurate as air-delivered precision guided munitions (PGM). Apparently (accordind to the released cables), later attacks have employed the more accurate PGM's.

The latest attacks in Yemen were on December 16 against two al-Qa'idah targets: a suspected training camp north of Sana' and a location where "an imminent attack against a U.S. asset was being planned." Although local media in Yemen attributed the attacks to the Yemen Air Force, they were in fact launched by American forces.

More illuminating information on the effort in Yemen can be found in the Wikileaks archives, Here are some excerpts.

- From a Secret Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals Embassy Sanaa cable (SANAA 001669), September 15, 2009:

2. (S/NF) In a September 6 meeting with Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, President Saleh insisted that Yemen's national territory is available for unilateral counter terrorism (CT) operations by the U.S. ... Saleh repeatedly requested more funds and equipment to fight al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), while at the same time placing responsibility for any future AQAP attacks on the shoulders of the USG now that it enjoys unfettered access to Yemeni airspace, coastal waters and land. ...

- From a Secret Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals Embassy Sanaa cable (SANAA 002251), December 21, 2009:

1. (S/NF) SUMMARY. The ROYG views the December 17 CT operations as a success and a benefit to Yemeni national interests, and appears not overly concerned about unauthorized leaks regarding the U.S. role and negative media attention to civilian deaths. ROYG officials continue to publicly maintain that the operation was conducted entirely by its forces, acknowledging U.S. support strictly in terms of intelligence sharing. Deputy Prime Minister Rashad al-Alimi told the Ambassador on December 20 that any evidence of greater U.S. involvement, such as fragments of U.S. munitions found at the sites - could be explained away as equipment purchased from the U.S. While the ROYG has touted the operation as a victory in terms of the number of al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) members killed or captured, it hasn’t yet decided how, or even if, it should begin to modify its public messaging to address criticism over collateral damage, or the likelihood that the extent of U.S. involvement may become impossible to deny. END SUMMARY.

2. (S/NF) In a December 20 meeting with the Ambassador, Deputy Prime Minister for Security and Defense Rashad al-Alimi said that the ROYG, including President Saleh himself, views the December 17 CT operations in Abyan and Arhab as a success, despite negative press reports (septel) and leaks to the U.S. press regarding a U.S. role in the operation. Alimi said he was joined by other ROYG officials in their positive view of the operation against al-Qaida in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and a desire for continued collaboration on CT operations. Referring to an internal ROYG meeting chaired by President Saleh on December 19, Alimi assured the Ambassador that Saleh wants these operations against AQAP to continue “non-stop until we eradicate this disease.”

3. (S/NF) Alimi told the Ambassador that Saleh was undisturbed by press reports citing U.S. officials asserting American involvement in the operations, saying that the ROYG “must maintain the status quo” with regard to the official denial of U.S. involvement in order to ensure additional “positive operations” against AQAP. Alimi seemed more concerned with the political opposition and Southern Movement’s use of the Abyan operation as an example of the government’s heavy-handed response to groups the ROYG deems a threat. The Ambassador cautioned Alimi that the ROYG may need to nuance its position regarding U.S. involvement in the event more evidence surfaces, complicating its ability to adhere to the official line that ROYG forces conducted the operations independently. Alimi appeared confident that any evidence of greater U.S. involvement, such as U.S. munitions found at the sites - could be explained away as equipment purchased from the U.S. However, Alimi informed the Ambassador that senior ROYG officials continue to the discuss media strategy and the public posture of the ROYG.

5. (S/NF) Given that local and international media will continue to look for evidence of a U.S. role in the December 17 strikes against AQAP, the ROYG must think seriously about its public posture and whether its strict adherence to assertions that the strikes were unilateral will undermine public support for legitimate and urgently needed CT operations, should evidence to the contrary surface. Thus far, the ROYG has deployed influential local leaders to the affected area in Abyan to explain the need for the strikes in an effort to quell potential unrest; however, it has not attempted to provide any context for the civilian casualties, which might help to counter overblown claims of ROYG disregard for the local population ) in this particular case, southerners.

- From a Secret Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals Embassy Sanaa cable (SANAA 000004), January 4, 2010:

1. (S/NF) SUMMARY: Commander of the U.S. Central Command General David Petraeus congratulated President Saleh on recent successful operations against AQAP, and informed him that U.S. security assistance to the ROYG would increase to USD 150 million in 2010, including USD 45 million to equip and train a CT-focused aviation regiment under the Yemeni Special Operations Forces. Saleh requested that the U.S. provide 12 armed helicopters and train and equip three new Republican Guard brigades. Saleh rejected the General's proposal to have USG personnel armed with direct-feed intelligence present inside the area of CT operations, but agreed to have U.S. fixed-wing bombers circle outside Yemeni territory ready to engage AQAP targets should actionable intelligence become available. END SUMMARY.

5. (S/NF) President Obama has approved providing U.S. intelligence in support of ROYG ground operations against AQAP targets, General Petraeus informed Saleh. Saleh reacted coolly, however, to the General's proposal to place USG personnel inside the area of operations armed with real-time, direct feed intelligence from U.S. ISR platforms overhead. "You cannot enter the operations area and you must stay in the joint operations center," Saleh responded. Any U.S. casualties in strikes against AQAP would harm future efforts, Saleh asserted. Saleh did not have any objection, however, to General Petraeus' proposal to move away from the use of cruise missiles and instead have U.S. fixed-wing bombers circle outside Yemeni territory, "out of sight," and engage AQAP targets when actionable intelligence became available. Saleh lamented the use of cruise missiles that are "not very accurate" and welcomed the use of aircraft-deployed precision-guided bombs instead. "We'll continue saying the bombs are ours, not yours," Saleh said, prompting Deputy Prime Minister Alimi to joke that he had just "lied" by telling Parliament that the bombs in Arhab, Abyan, and Shebwa were American-made but deployed by the ROYG.

Bottom line

I applaud the President's decision to use American military power in this manner. This is how we need to deal with al-Qa'idah in general and AQAP in particular, including radical American-born cleric Anwar al-'Awlaqi. AQAP has been complicit in the Fort Hood shootings, the attempt to bring down an airliner bound for Detroit last Christmas, and the recent attempt to down two airliners with explosive devices hidden in printer cartridges.

I will repeat my earlier advice to the President: You cannot reason with these people, you can not negotiate with them. You have to hunt them down and kill them. What you are doing in Yemen is an excellent start.

Israeli espionage devices in Lebanon - I'm shocked!

Israeli communications monitoring device discovered in Lebanon

Lebanese security officials have discovered more Israeli clandestine monitoring and "espionage devices" in the country, and have complained to the United Nations. This is comical on several levels. First, the fact that Israel is conducting intelligence collection operations in Lebanon should come as no surprise to anyone. Lebanon is home to one of Israel's most serious threat organizations, Hizballah, so of course the Israelis are collecting information on it.

Second, complaining to the United Nations about another country's intelligence operations is laughable. One only need look at the other United Nations' efforts in Lebanon, such as the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL). UNIFIL has been "interim" since 1978; thirty two years has a sense of permanence. It would be one thing if the force was actually effective, but its presence has not prevented repeated wars between Israel and various groups in Lebanon.

Israeli monitoring devices are not a new phenomenon. Israeli military intelligence has been placing them in Lebanon, as well as Syria, for decades. When I served as the air attaché at the American embassy in Damascus, it was not uncommon for us to hear of Israeli monitoring devices being discovered. Normally, when the devices are discovered or are tampered with, they detonate, either by a triggering mechanism on the device, or are detonated remotely via an electronic signal.

Over the last month, the Lebanese have revealed the discovery (some by Hizballah) of at least four devices, two near the southern city of Tyre (Sur), and one on Mount Sanin and one on Mount Baruq. The location of these monitoring and observation makes sense to any intelligence officer.

Tyre is a major city in the heart of the area controlled by Hizballah (and theoretically under UNIFIL supervision) and only 10 miles north of the border with Israel. The Israelis consider this to be Hizballah's primary area of operations. Most of the rocket attacks on northern Israel in the 2006 war were launched from this area. Mount Sanin and Mount Baruq are among the highest points in the mountains that run north and south on the western edge of the Biqa' Valley, another Hizballah stronghold.

Most of the tactical communications systems used by Hizballah employ line-of-sight radio waves. To intercept these communications and exploit them for intelligence requires either airborne platforms or devices placed on high terrain. Mount Sanin and Mount Baruq would serve nicely, especially when combined with permanent monitoring stations located in Israel along the Lebanese border.

There is another likely purpose for these devices. Israeli military intelligence and Mossad both operate human intelligence networks in Lebanon; these assets have access to essential information. The problem is getting the information from the assets to the case officers in Israel. These devices may also provide clandestine communications capabilities for these assets.

The Israelis will continue to use these devices, planting them when and where they can. Until the threat from Hizballah is neutralized, they really have no choice.

Syria: American foreign policy failure

Speaker Nancy Pelosi with Syrian President Bashar al-Asad

It was just five years ago that the so-called Cedar Revolution in Lebanon* forced Syrian President Bashar al-Asad to withdraw his forces from the smaller country, handing the Syrian leader a major foreign policy defeat. In the aftermath of the February 14, 2005 assassination of former, and well-respected, Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq al-Hariri, the Lebanese body politic unified in a manner rarely seen in the multi-confessional and multi-factional country. Thousands marched in the streets to demand the removal of the Syrian military forces that had been in the country since 1976 when they intervened in the Lebanese civil war.

The perpetrators of the assassination are thought to be the Hizballah terrorist organization with Syrian military intelligence support and complicity. It's not hard to believe that these two groups were responsible. It was no secret that there was no love lost between al-Hariri and al-Asad. Al-Hariri had resigned his office a few month earlier in protest to Syrian hegemony over the country.

At the time of the murder, nothing of significance happened in the country without Syrian knowledge or approval. Syrian military intelligence maintained an extensive network throughout the country to ensure Damascus was involved in all facets of Lebanese life. Hizballah merely executed the al-Hariri assassination on Syrian orders; the group has a lot of experience with truck bombs, after all. Evidently there is reason to place credence in the belief that Hizballah was involved. The United Nations tribunal on Lebanon is believed to be on the verge of handing down indictments against senior Hizballah officials for the murder. Of course, Hizballah denies it, and Syria claims the evidence was fabricated.

The removal of Syrian troops was surprising to many Syria-watchers, myself included. I remember clearly the day that Syrian troops entered Beirut in 1976. The spring of 2005 was the first time in almost 30 years that Lebanon was free of a huge Syrian military presence.

This should have been a golden opportunity for American foreign policy. For the first time in decades, there was a serious crack in Syrian hegemony over Lebanon. Many Lebanese factions had united against a common enemy. The alliance included former friends and foes alike: virtually every group and party in the country except Hizballah and resident Syrians joined to protest the continuing Syrian presence. The overwhelming belief was that the real culprits in the al-Hariri assassination reside in Damascus.

In the intervening years, the Bush Administration and the Obama Administration adopted different strategies to deal with Syria; both have failed. Immediately after the al-Hariri assassination, the United States recalled its ambassador, believing (correctly in my opinion) that Damascus was complicit in the murder. The Bush Administration continued to try to isolate the Syrians until the end of its term.

When President Obama took office in January 2009, he instituted a policy of engagement toward Syria, hoping that a more positive tone might yield better results. The goal of Obama's Syria policy was, and is, to restart the moribund Israel-Syria track of the Middle East peace process. That sounds easy, but is not. In order for progress to be made toward peace between Tel Aviv and Damascus, several difficult objectives must be met. For Syria, nothing will happen without a commitment by the Israelis to return the occupied Golan Heights to Syrian control.

Israel will extract a price for the return of the Golan which it has occupied since seizing the area in 1967. In addition to spending millions of dollars on agricultural infrastructure, it has built a huge intelligence gathering station at Har Avital (Tal Abu Nada to the Syrians). It will not easily give up its ability to monitor events in southern Syria, nor will it want to give up its control of the headwaters of the Jordan River.

For the Israelis, any agreement will require that Syria stop providing weapons to Hizballah, and stop permitting Iran to use its airspace and territory to provide the terrorist group the money, weapons and training it needs to survive. The Syrians and Iranians have resupplied Hizballah since the 2006 Israel-Hizballah conflict with more and better weapons than before.

In the years after the 2006 war, not only has Hizballah emerged as the main political power in Lebanon, Syrian influence is on the rise. Many of the former leaders of the Cedar Revolution that opposed Syrian interference in Lebanese affairs have "converted" and now toe the Syrian line. Most notable among the pro-Syrian leaders is none other than current Prime Minister Sa'ad al-Hariri, son of the slain Rafiq al-Hariri.

The Obama Administration named a new ambassador to Syria in its attempt to engage the Syrians. Robert Ford was nominated by the President in February 2010, but the Senate has yet to consider the nomination. I doubt it will make much difference. The opportunity has passed, and Syria has outmaneuvered the United States again. It remains firmly in the Iranian camp, and casts a large shadow over Beirut, despite al-Asad's claims, "We (Syrians) don't want to intervene, we don't want to interfere in an internal Lebanese situation."

_______________
* The term "Cedar Revolution" is a western press invention. The Lebanese refer to it as the "Independence Intifadah."

Doing what Iran does best - agreeing to talk

Iran's Saeed Jalili and EU's Catherine Ashton

Two days of talks in Geneva. The stunning result: an agreement to talk.

In what has become the normal tactic of the Iranian regime, Iran agreed to, yes, you guessed it, to meet again next month to talk. The representatives of the P5+1 (the five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany) will meet Iranian envoys in Istanbul in January. If that meeting is anything like the last two days in Geneva, the result will be the same. There will be no progress in halting Iran's continuing uranium enrichment program and thus no progress in halting its development of nuclear weapons.

This has been going on for years. Iran agrees to an endless series of meetings that have no positive results, all the while buying time to continue to enrich uranium. At some point, the Iranians will have amassed enough fissile material to produce a weapon and no longer need to have these meetings. They will present the world with a fait accompli with the announcement that they possess nuclear weapons.

Let's look at the meetings in Geneva. The participants, people who were principals at the table in the meetings, cannot even agree on what happened at the meetings. These are the people we believe are going to be successful in convincing Iran to stop its nuclear activities?

According to the European Union's High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Catherine Ashton, the meetings were "detailed and substantive," and that the discussions in January will address "practical ideas and ways of cooperating toward a resolution of our core concerns about the nuclear issue."

Really? Not according to Saeed Jalili, Iran's envoy to the talks.

Jalili told reporters that the two sides had not agreed on the topics to be addressed at the Istanbul meeting. While Iran's focus is the nuclear weapons of the other countries at the table as well as Israel's suspected nuclear stockpile, he said, "I am telling you clearly and openly that halting uranium enrichment will not be discussed at the Istanbul meeting."

Then why bother? Isn't that the purpose of the talks?

Further, do we really believe that the P5+1 negotiators, specifically Catherine Ashton, will make so powerful an argument that the Iranians are likely to give up what has become one of the key elements of its national strategy? Hardly. The Istanbul talks, just like the Geneva talks, are meaningless, nothing more than political theater to make it appear that the participants are relevant in the region.

A solution? It depends on whether the United States, not the P5+1, has resigned itself to the inevitability of a nuclear-armed Iran. Given the feckless manner in which the United States is facing the issue, it certainly appears that it has. If not, it is time that President Obama come out and say so. It doesn't have to be complicated, it won't even require a teleprompter. Pick some simple words like, "We will not permit the Iranians to develop a nuclear weapon. I have ordered the State and Defense Departments to make sure that they do not." How hard can it be?

Failing that, the Iranians will continue to outmaneuver the United States and the P5+1 at every turn. Although sanctions may be beginning to work, by the time they might be effective enough to change Iran's behavior, Iran will already have a nuclear weapon.

For now, we continue to accept Iran's agreement to talk, and Iran continues to enrich uranium. Why does this not fill me with confidence?