Friendly Leaks

Update below.

Helen Cooper and Mark Landler of the New York Times (NYT) want to know that, as result of intense and secret exchanges of American and Iranian officials for almost four years (!), both sides have agreed on one-on-one negotiations about Iran’s nuclear program. That’s what unnamed U.S. administration officials say.

Apart from talks being overdue, the new leaks to NYT’s David Sanger and his team have obviously an agenda (as they previous had).

“It [the agreement] has the potential to help Mr. Obama make the case that he is nearing a diplomatic breakthrough in the decade-long effort by the world’s major powers to curb Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, but it could pose a risk if Iran is seen as using the prospect of the direct talks to buy time,”

as Cooper and Landler write. Likewise unnamed “Iranian officials have insisted that the talks wait until after the presidential election.” Anyway, while, according to the NYT the White House immediately has denied a final agreement, Tehran has not mentioned the “breakthrough” yet.

Cooper and Landler stress again that it was Iran shunning any bilateral talks in the previous years.

“For years, Iran has rejected one-on-one talks with the United States, reflecting what experts say are internal power struggles. A key tug of war is between President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Larijani, Iran’s former nuclear negotiator and now the chairman of the Parliament.

Iran, which views its nuclear program as a vital national interest, has also shied away from direct negotiations because the ruling mullahs did not want to appear as if they were sitting down with a country they have long demonized as the Great Satan.”

But for the record. Obama’s overture in the beginning of 2009 had in fact reached Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei when he responded in his largely misreported (in the West) Nowruz speech in Mashhad,

“We do not have any experience with the new US President and Government. We shall see and judge. You change, and we shall change as well. If you do not change, our people became more and more experienced, stronger, and more patient in the past 30 years.”

So, what has Khamenei experienced in the four years of Obama’s first term? Not really condemned assassinations of some of Iran’s nuclear scientists and sabotage of its nuclear facilities (ordered by whatever secret service), a new dimension of cyberwar, and the promised crippling sanctions which are meant to bring the country to its knees (and it probably has). And last but not least permanent threats by Israel to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities, something what is only considered inappropriate at the moment because of Mr. Obama’s election campaign.

The real intention for all this is no longer Iran’s nuclear program (if it ever has been. Intelligence communities in both the US and Israel consistently agree for years that Iran has not even made a decision to develop nucear weapons). It is regime change at any cost. So, for any Iranian, another overture by Obama would be irrelevant. If he wins the elction, it will be his last term and he could further tighten the screws on Iran, even assist Israel in a military attack. If Mitt Romney wins, well, it might even come worse. The regime in Tehran has soon to prepare for their own presidential elections which will put it at new risks especially in times of the dire economic situation. This seems not to be the time for breakthroughs after negotiations.

21 October 2012 @ 9:32 am

Update. Either side denied straightaway that one-on-one negotiations between the two adversaries are planned, be it before or after the American presidential election.

Posted in Iran, USA | Tagged , , | Leave a comment

Bahrainization of Kuwait

Update (October 21) below.

Has the Arab Spring eventually arrived in Kuwait? Well, not really. The current ongoing and longstanding parliamentary crisis won’t lead to more democracy in the autocratically ruled, oil-rich, tiny emirate. It’s not based on popular movements, although the country has seen in the previous 1 1/2 years some protests and demonstrations of largely outlawed bedouns, some 100’000 stateless residents in the country.

In February this year, elections had yielded a majority for Islamists, but on June 20, a top court annulled the opposition-dominated Parliament. When, on October 7, current ruler Sheik Sabah al-Ahmad al-Sabah dissolved the just re-installed 2009 Parliament (which since did not hold a session),  former MPs of the opposition immediately feared amendments of electoral laws which even would allow manipulation of poll results. It is clear now that these concerns were well-justified. The Emir addressed the Kuwaiti citizens yesterday in a televised speech and announced that “he had instructed the government to prepare a draft law including partial amendment to the electoral system to protect national unity, bolster the democratic practice and achieve equality among all Kuwaitis,” as Arab Times reports.

“We will not condone street chaos, riot or any action that stymies public life and work. We will not allow seeds of seditions to be grown in our dear ountry. We will not allow violence and chaos to spread among our youth. We will not let anybody mislead our dear youth with illusions and lies. We ill not allow the hijacking of the nation’s will through empty calls and false heroism.”

What a rant. For the first time ever, the Emir of Kuwait had directly and publicly  been addressed, warned, even verbally attacked by worried and angry lawmakers who were assembling in diwaniyas and outside the Palace of Ministry of Justice cautioning the Emir, a grave legal offense in Kuwait. Protests were cracked down, of course. Currently, four actvists and even three former opposition MPs remain under arrest.

Recalling the brutally cracked-down uprising of the Shi’a majority in Bahrain in early 2011, which has been part of the Arab Spring but had led to mixed feelings among President Obama’s administration, the to-be-reelected American president has to make sure that his strategically important ally in the corner of the Persian Gulf does not descent in chaos. The date for new elections, which, according to the current law have to be conducted in December at the latest, have not been set. While the Sabah family autocratically rules the country for centuries, parliament had been established after Kuwait gained independence in 1961. But parties are not allowed and the Emir appoints the Prime Minister, can dissolve parliament and may even amend the constitution.

The whole parliamentary system seems not to to function well in Kuwait. While the various governments had resigned since 2006 nine times, parliament had been dissolved on six occasions, mainly by the Emir himself. Democracy could not be developed over the years but is rather used as decoration in a society which likes to fervidly discuss, is to a large extent corrupt, mainly oppresses an expatriate workforce on which it heavily relies; and is now split between the traditional submissive obedience toward any authorities and, in particular, the ruling family and frank rebellion. Either mannerism seem to be very much tribal indeed.

20 October 2012 @ 10:38 am

Last modified October 20, 2012.

Update October 21. While the opposition calls for boycott of upcoming new elections in Kuwait (now the date of the poll is set to Dec 1) and new rallies, Arab Times’ Editor-in-Chief Ahmad al-Jarallah calls for “Obedience to His Highness the Amir” (emphasis as such). Once again, obedience to “the captain of the ship”, that’s what is conveyed to the people of Kuwait only one day after Sheik al-Sabah’s speech. “Kuwait is blessed with a democracy which does not exist even in the most democratic country in the Arab world” (my emphasis), Editor-in-Chief Ahmad al-Jarallah claims. How democratic is it when the autocrat amends the electoral laws in order to get parliament assemblies in favor of the government? And, which country does al-Jarallah mean? “Kuwait is not a police (…) state,” al-Jarallah stresses. We’ll see.

Posted in Kuwait | Tagged , , , , | Leave a comment

Parchin High Explosives Test Site Activity Ongoing

David Albright’s latest piece (with Robert Avagyan) on Parchin indicates that he has returned to his main interest (as was suggested by Professor Dan Joyner at the University of Alabama School of Law in a recent post on Arms Control Law).

Albright, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), has been obsessed with this site for some seven years and his monitoring and reporting of satellite images of the site has attracted new interest even by IAEA Director General Yukiya Amano who cryptically answered “yes” when asked yesterday, by Reuters, “whether Iran was continuing to dismantle a site that is part of the Parchin complex, which U.N. inspectors can now only monitor via satellite imagery.” And furthermore, according to the same source, “They are undertaking quite intensive activities at Parchin.” Well, when reading the title of Albright and Avagyan’s piece, one may in fact fear that illicit high explosive tests are a current problem at Parchin (they are not), not something which has probably been conducted ten years ago.

Dan Joyner’s, well, uncouth  suggestion to Albright not to talk about business (international law) he is not an expert of but rather “stick to obsessing over satellite pictures of tarps at random military bases in Iran” aroused quite a comment storm on his blog, including a fierce rebuttal by Andrea Stricker, one of Albright’s few employees at ISIS, and Albright’s unfortunate rants, who even denounced Joyner’s expertise in NPT matters. There were quite a lot demands coming from what Albright later called Iranian regime “apologists” to substantiate his claims. Joyner himself was called by Albright “the Ayatollah’s lawer”, an unbelievable decompensation.

Well, Albright has a reputation of not being able to constructively respond to justified criticism of his agenda on Iran. His rants and threats in an interview with Sam Husseini and then and now his pathetic mentioning undoubted sex offenses committed by Scott Ritter, who had dared to deny that Albright has ever been a UN weapons inspector, when he criticizes one of Joyner’s “revealing” sources to “attack him” tells quite a lot about Albright’s apparent lack of any sense for academic disputes. When it comes to war and peace, it’s all about evidence, not speculation; something which non-academics may have problems to comprehend.

I have written about Albright’s questionable (as they are not peer-reviewed) and even dangerous analyses about Iran’s nuclear program before, then quoting two highly recommended pieces, one by  Scott Kemp and Alexander Glaser at Princeton and another Professor Muhammad Sahimi at Stanford published at antiwar.com. Sahimi recalled this piece yesterday at Joyner’s blog, and, what has now to be expected, how Albright responded to it then.

18 October 2012 @ 7:52 am

Last modified October 18, 2012.

Posted in Iran, NPT | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The European Union

While currently not living in a member state of the EU, I am rather pleased that not rather questionable individuals such as former German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, who had been on the list of potential laureates many times and probably even this year, had been awarded but the great idea behind the creating of such a confederation after two devastating world wars of the last century which had mainly been unleashed by Germany. The Prize today may point to the dire prospect of the entire continent, though.

After the nonsensical decision of the Oslo Committee in 2009 (Barack Obama) and a very much appreciated one last year (to, among others, Yemeni heroine Tawakkul Karman), and considering the dramatic economical problems caused by the single currency, the Euro, the award must again be regarded as the Nobel Prize Committee’s appeal to solving the current crisis. It is true that the EU prevented another war after 1945 in Europe (not those in former Yugoslavia in the 1990s) and might have endorsed many democratic movements in non-member states which are now craving to join. The current Euro crisis may well lead, however, to a split-up in the very near future. Whether the Committee’s appeal today will be able to prevent this is highly questionable.

Whether the €930,000 prize money will help the people in Greece or Spain, well, probably not.

12 October 2012 @ 10:20 am

Last modified October 12, 2012.

Posted in EU, Norway | Tagged , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Absurd Verdict

A federal U.S. district court yesterday ordered, besides al-Qaeda, absurdly also Afghanistan Taliban guerrillas,  Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran to pay $6 billion compensation to the 11 September 2001 victims. As plaintiffs in The Havlish v. Iran 2004 lawsuit report the verdict even mentions Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

“A May 14, 2001 memorandum from inside the Iranian government demonstrat[ing]es that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, was aware of the impending attacks and instructing intelligence operatives to restrict communications to existing contacts with al Qaeda’s Ayman al Zawahiri and Hizballah’s Imad Mughniyah.” (Emphasis added.)

So, Iran is mainly blamed because some of the hijackers seem to have passed through the country on their way to carrying out the attacks. Quite pathetic in particular when considering the origin of most (Saudi Arabia; the alleged mastermind, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, is a Kuwaiti) and from where some of them had hatched the attacks (Hamburg in Germany).

And given the fact that President George W. Bush himself had been briefed about a possible terror attack by Osama bin Laden’s group on American soil more than  one month before the strike.

The judgment had been issued already in December last year by Judge George Daniels. Global Research’s Julie Lévesque has documented the case, see here.

5 October 2012 @ 8:04 am.

Last update October 5, 2012.

Posted in Afghanistan, Iran | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment