The Blue State

Iraqi Prime Minister wants Petraeus fired

The UK's Telegraph reports that the feuding between US General David Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki is getting so out of hand and personal that al-Maliki is threatening to arm Shiite militias unless the general leaves:

Although the call was rejected, aides to both men admit that Mr Maliki and Gen David Patraeusengage in frequent stand-up shouting matches, differing particularlyover the US general's moves to arm Sunni tribesmen to fight al-Qa'eda.

OneIraqi source said Mr Maliki used a video conference with Mr Bush tocall for the general's signature strategy to be scrapped. "He told Bushthat if Petraeus continues, he would arm Shia militias," said theofficial. "Bush told Maliki to calm down."

At another meeting with Gen Petraeus, Mr Maliki said: "I can't dealwith you any more. I will ask for someone else to replace you."

This might explain why President Bush and Nouri al-Maliki have been meeting more frequently than usual as of late.

Also, Nouri al-Maliki could just be frustrated about how close the US is to Saudi Arabia.  Aside from the Bush Administration announcing a new $20 billion arms sale with the Sunni-led Saudis, al-Maliki is furious at the Saudi royal family for publishing evidence that he was once an Iranian intelligence agent.

At the moment, the Saudis are trying to prevent the U.S. from leaving because it would allow the new Shiite government in Iraq to develop a more cozy relationship with Iran.  Iran and Saudi Arabia are in the midst of a Mideast proxy war.  The U.S. war in Iraq certainly helped Iran, and now the Saudis fear Tehran's influence might soon reach the Saud Arabian border.

Analysis: Hillary's "Preconditions" Rule Actually is Bush-Light

The feud between Clinton and Obama rages on.  Clinton believes the US should have preconditions before talking to US foes.  On the other hand, Obama contends that a policy of preconditions before diplomacy is "Bush-light."

Yesterday, Hillary Clinton shot back:

“You know, I have been called a lot of things in my life, but I havenever been called George Bush or Dick Cheney certainly,” Clinton toldCNN’s John King.

Actually, when you do the research, Clinton's idea of preconditions before diplomacy is analogous to what we have seen over the last six years, and it has produced negative results:

• In 2003, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun slammed President Bush, and pleaded with him to meet with North Korea without preconditions: "We can solve a difficult problem.  It is important to meet in person without any preconditions and have dialogues."  Ironically, it was not until this month when the Bush Administration agreed to meet with North Korea without preconditions that the Pyongyang-based government agreed to suspend its plutonium enrichment.
• In 2006, the New York Times reported that President Bush required Syria and Iran to follow certain preconditions before the US would meet with them: "The president then laid out preconditions for talks with the Syriangovernment. Nor did Mr. Bush give any ground on Iran, insteadreiterating his long-held stance that the Iranian government mustsuspend the enrichment of uranium before Washington will join talks." Obviously, that has not worked.  Iran is still building up its nuclear program, and Syria is still a breeding ground for Islamic extremism.
• Last month, Bill Richardson, former Energy Secretary under Bill Clinton, encouraged the Bush Administration to abandon its demand of preconditions and meet with Iran bilaterally: "That is why a full-court press on engaging Iran – with nopreconditions, and no illusions - is in the American national securityinterest."  That puts Hillary at odds with Richardson, not just Obama.

Lastly, Hillary Clinton's policy of preconditions contradicts that of her husband's administration.  In 1994, US negotiators met bilaterally with North Korea and signed the 1994 Agreed Framework, which dismantled Kim Jong IL's plutonium-based nuclear weapons program.  Had it not been for that bilateral agreement, experts conclude that North Korea would have up to 50 nuclear bombs today.  So sometimes meeting with our foes even without preconditions can produce positive results.

Both Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush seem to disagree.

Lieberman favors military action against Iran

On CBS' Sunday news show Face the Nation, Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told host Bob Schieffer that he would favor military force against Iran in retaliation for their involvement in Iraq:

"I think we've got to be prepared to take aggressive military actionagainst the Iranians to stop them from killing Americans in Iraq,"Lieberman told Bob Schieffer . "And to me, that would include astrike into... over the border into Iran, where we have good evidencethat they have a base at which they are training these people comingback into Iraq to kill our soldiers."

"I think you could probably do a lot of it from the air, but they can'tbelieve that they have immunity for training and equipping people tocome in and kill Americans," Lieberman said.

This is even more hard-line of a position than Condoleezza Rice's approach.  As I reported last month, there is an ongoing debate within the Bush cabinet over how to handle the Iranian situation.  Condoleezza Rice, her State Department and most other Bush cabinet officials favor diplomacy.  Dick Cheney and his allies favor aggressive coercion.  Lieberman appears to be backing the Cheney doctrine.

It might be nice to hear what Lieberman thinks would be the consequences of such military action against Iran.  I can think of a few:

• Wider Iranian involvement in Iraq.
• Reduced reputation in the international community.
• More defense spending in the long run.
• Oil at $85 a barrel.
• More hostility in Lebanon.
• Increased extremism in moderate states like Jordan.

Then again, maybe this is what Lieberman and Cheney want.  After all, the more Iranian aggression against U.S. interests, the more of an excuse they will have to keep the American public in a state of fear.  So this would work out well for them.

US death toll in Iraq reaches 3,500

A roadside bomb in Baghdad killed a U.S. soldier, the military announced today, bringing the total number of U.S. deaths in Iraq over the 3,500 mark.  Unfortunately, one day earlier, the British death toll also reached a sad milestone -- 150.  And on Friday morning, 14 civilians were killed and 30 were wounded in Basra.

As U.S., Britain and innocent civilians lose lives, Iran only gains from our presence:

The U.S. military said al-Sadr took refuge in Iran during his absence. Al-Sadr's aides deny that he was outside Iraq.

"I must maintain friendly and good relations with Iran, but nothing else," al-Sadr said.

And emboldening Iran is enhancing America's security?

Editorial: Rice's influence now trumps that of Cheney

I wrote on Friday about the bitter disagreement within the Administration over how to tackle the Iran issue.  On one side, there is Condoleezza Rice and the State Department, who favor diplomatic pressures.  Then on the other end of the pendulum, Dick Cheney and the American Enterprise Institute, who are dead-set against bilateral talks with the Iranians.  The real question is who will President Bush side with -- Cheney or Rice?  In Friday's column, I noted that Rice had the upper hand.  Within the last few hours, there is more evidence of that.

The Administration has disbanded a council called the Iran Syria Policy and Operations Group, which had originally been designed to coordinate aggressive actions against the Iranian government.  This is a major setback for Cheney:

The interagency group, known as the Iran Syria Policy and OperationsGroup, met weekly throughout much of 2006 to coordinate actions such ascurtailing Iran's access to credit and banking institutions, organizingthe sale of military equipment to Iran's neighbors, and supportingdemocratic forces that oppose the two regimes.

State Departmentand White House officials said the dissolution of the group was simplya bureaucratic reorganization, but many analysts saw it as evidence ofa softening in the US strategy toward the two countries.

Just because Condoleezza Rice's side is winning out does not mean the threat of military force has been eliminated.  After all, Rice is pretty hawkish herself.  But unlike Cheney, Rice probably understands that efforts to undermine the Iranian government will only make president Ahmadinejad more motivated to obtain nuclear weapons, mostly out of fear that we would invade.

Cheney trying to undercut Bush on Iran

There is a strong disagreement within the Administration over policy with Iran.  Dick Cheney favors a confrontationalist approach, while Condoleezza Rice, although she is still very far to the right, favors diplomacy.  According to the Washington Note, Dick Cheney is worried that Bush favors the Rice-approach, and it prepared to undercut the President:

Multiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice PresidentCheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands ofthe American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more thanone national security consulting house and explicitly stating that VicePresident Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towardsCondoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President istaking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.

This White House official has stated to several Washington insidersthat Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around thePresident if he and his team lose the policy argument.

The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudgingIsrael at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran'snuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount asmall-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles(i.e., not ballistic missiles).

By "end run strategy," it likely means that Cheney's people will speak to Israel on behalf of the U.S. government, even if their message is opposite the policy of the Bush Administration.

This strategy also includes using Chalabi-like tactics to control what the media reports about Iran.  For example, a story this week in the UK's The Guardian cited unnamed Administration officials who speculated that Iran will try and push the U.S. out of Iraq this summer.  Could this story have been planted in order to influence Israel's policy towards Iran?  Remember, Israel, more so than any other nation in the world, is particularly uneasy about Iran's meddling in Iraq.

Apparently this is much more serious than just a few rumors.  It is drawing a close eye of Congress.  In a letter sent to the White House on Tuesday, a bipartisan group of lawmakers demanded that the Bush Administration release a clear a report regarding U.S. strategy towards Iran.  The letter urgently asked for a response "as soon as possible."

The problem is that Cheney, who is ideologically miles apart from Condoleezza Rice on U.S.-Iran policy (and that is saying something!), is not running for president in 2008.  He has nothing to lose by acting insubordinate to Bush.  So what will Bush do -- fire him?  Not likely.   Since Bush refused to fire Gonzales -- why would he fire Cheney, even if he undercuts the President?

To put it in layman's terms: Cheney is like an 8th grader in the last week of school.  He knows that anything he tries to pull will go unpunished.

Bush gives secret order for covert war with Iran

Intelligence officials leaked to the Blotter that President Bush has given a classified order to the CIA allowing them to wage covert war in Iran:

The CIA has received secret presidential approval to mount a covert"black" operation to destabilize the Iranian government, current andformer officials in the intelligence community tell the Blotter onABCNews.com.

The sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of thesensitive nature of the subject, say President Bush has signed a"nonlethal presidential finding" that puts into motion a CIA plan thatreportedly includes a coordinated campaign of propaganda,disinformation and manipulation of Iran's currency and internationalfinancial transactions.

This is analogous to the 2002 order that Bush gave the CIA prior to the official start of war in Iraq.

For the last four years, Ahmadinejad has used the U.S. war in Iraq as means to create a nationalist reaction in Iran.  Doing that has distracted public attention away from the Iranian economy, which is in shambles.  In fact, earlier today the Iranian government raised the price of gasoline in their country by 25% -- one of the largest state-sponsored gasoline increases since petroleum was discovered in mass.  The Iranian public is angry, to put it mildly.  What better way to divert attention away from those economic issues than by scaring the Iranian public into thinking that the U.S. is going to attack?  This CIA order is a blessing in disguise for president Ahmadinejad because it gives him yet another excuse to consolidate power and purge his government of dissent.

Iraq giving oil contracts to Iranian firms

Overall, the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq turned out to be a net-plus for Iran.  Not only did the Iranian government benefit from the new Shiite power vacuum in Iraqi politics, but Iranian firms will be making millions off the Iraqi oil industry. 

Word surfaced early this morning from an Iraqi Oil Ministry spokesman:

"Today, the Iranian firms have been invited tobid in building refineries which the ministry has already announced itwas planning to build," Asim Jihad told Reuters.

More than anything, this was a move by Iran to flex its geopolitical muscle.  Iraqi Shiite leaders probably had a hand in this because, as a spokesman from the Dubai-based Gulf Research Center said, these Iranian firms are not equipped to build top-notch refineries:

"It doesn't make sense," he said. "First of all Iran doesn't have theknow-how and the technology. Secondly, they are suffering from theirown problems. They are short of supplies themselves and are looking atrationing oil products."

So in summary, we have the Iraqi government -- a government we helped install -- awarding Iranian companies with oil contracts.  So much for invading Iraq to send a message to Iran!

This comes on the heels of a GAO report that finds between 100,000 and 300,000 barrels of Iraqi oil each day are lost due to illegal smuggling.

Saudis can thank US for strengthening Iran

As you might recall, Vice President Dick Cheney visited Iraq yesterday to urge the Iraqi parliament not to go on its scheduled two-month summer recess.

But as Time Magazine's Robert Baer writes, the most important part of Cheney's oversees trip is his meeting with the Saudi royal family:

The real work is to be done in Saudi Arabia, where Cheney will try tocalm Saudi nerves over Iran. U.S. officials who visit the Gulf tell methat their Saudi interlocutors all ask the same questions: When theUnited States is forced to cede Iraq to Iran, what happens next? Or,more fatefully, what happens to the Arabs when one day the U.S.reconciles with Iran?

And it's not as if the Iranians have been helping ease Saudinerves. On Tuesday the Iranian deputy foreign minister offered to givethe United States a "face saving withdrawal." When the Iranians talklike this, the Saudis draw on their worst nightmares, like an Iranianhelicopter evacuating the last American troops off the roof of ourembassy in Baghdad. The nightmare ends with an isolationist U.S.handing the Gulf over to a "pragmatic" Iran.

This confirms the concerns that the war in Iraq helped Iran establish what academics call a Shia Crescent, which spans from Tehran through Baghdad to Beirut.

Translation: the Iraq war has helped benefit Iran's political influence in the region, and their government's ability to purge dissent from the young liberal minority.

Mission Accomplished!

Bush was absolutely right the other day when he said:

 

"Should the foreign minister of Iran bump into Condi Rice, Condi won't  be rude; she's not a rude person. I'm sure she'll be polite,"  Bush said at a news conference after meeting with European Union leaders.

 

"She'll also be firm in reminding the representative of the Iranian  government that there's a better way forward for the Iranian people than  isolation," Bush said.

After reading this article I have no idea what (if anything) wasaccomplished, but she wasn't rude! And that's what counts.

But other evidence from the conference, and the Iraqi capital, suggested thatthe last 24 hours in America and Iran's severely frayed relationship have beenanything but straightforward. Iraqi officials present at Ms Rice's briefconversation with Mr Mottaki over lunch yesterday recounted the followingstrange diplomatic exchange:

“As-salama aleikum (peace be upon you),” Mr Mottaki is believed to havesaid.

“Hello,” replied Ms Rice. “Your English is better than my Arabic."

At which point the Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Aboul Gheit, is said tohave joined in, encouraging the two countries to talk: “We want to warm theatmosphere some.”

To which Mr Mottaki replied: “In Russia, they eat ice cream in winterbecause it’s warmer than the weather," a somewhat obscure comment that MsRice is said to have agreed with.

Surely Bush's legacy willinclude the placement of the right people on the right positions.