Beirut Ramping Up

An informed observer writes from Beirut:

Beirut Ramping Up

Yesterday afternoon the political fight came to a head, turning to armed conflict throughout key neighborhoods in Beirut. Loud explosions, automatic machine gun fire, rocket propelled grenade, and pistol shots resounded throughout the night.

The fight moved from a vicinity of half a kilometer from . . . Sodeco around 5pm, outwards throughout the city. In the middle of the night, the sound was drowned out by a thunder storm which unexpectedly set in as quickly as the fight which broke out.

Although, the sky was clear in the day, and the temperature cool, the unusual storm caught many of the inhabitants off guard. The loud thunder drowned out the explosions, the downpour took over and things seem to quiet down until 5 this morning.

"Things were quiet in the neighborhood until about 5 and then it went off", explains an AUB student living in the neighborhood of Hamra.

A foreign journalist living in Hamra explained that clashes have been ongoing since this morning, and the streets have reportedly come under control of the members of the opposition forces Hezbollah and Amal militia despite ongoing exchange of gunfire being resounding throughout the neighborhood.

Television pictures this morning reveal and predominantly deserted Beirut. Shops are closed, no cars on the street. Damage so far: bullet holes in cars, shattered shop fronts, freshly pockmarked buildings, and some smoke out of Hariri's Moustaqbal Newspaper headquarters.

Reports of dead are varying between 7 and 15, but a tally will probably be difficult to track unless the fighting factions announce the numbers.

The city yesterday was at 60% blocked, making moving between neighborhoods very difficult. The percentage today is rising although there are no firm numbers. Moving between East and West Beirut has become even more difficult as announcement of the sea road being cut off by opposition Amal forces.

At 3pm yesterday . . . [a] political advisor . . . received a call in the car announcing the opposition's plan to besiege the government seat in the Serrail. This morning, this unconfirmed rumor seems to be becoming a reality, as reports are saying the Serrail is surrounding by opposition forces. Unconfirmed reports are saying that the security forces of the Serrail have handed over their weapons, who knows.

On a wider scale, there are reports of fighting in the northern city of Tripoli as well as fighting in the Bekaa valley.

Although the fight which has broken out is predominantly political, it is difficult to separate the sectarian aspect of the conflict whereby so far the greatest clashes are occurring between Sunni and Shia groups. Despite the political wording in both Nasrallah's and Hariri's, the undertone was such that if you are not with us you are against us, and so bring it on... The night clashes echoed the stances.

Also, something to track is the wider regional Arab response. Depending on today's local political positions and regional positions may help the picture of what is to come.

WHAT LED TO THE PRESENT CRISIS:

In the beginning of the week, the Lebanese government removed the head of security from the airport, a government employee who was a supporter of the opposition was sacked, and Hezbollah controlled surveillance cameras were removed from the airport. The impact of the decision has been explosive, yesterday Nasrallah explained in his speech that the decision should be revoked and that anyone tampering with their surveillance system was essentially acting for the benefit of Israel.

The Hariri well, I don't have it under hand, however it would seem that this morning's results mean that what televised offer he made, it was rejected.

SIDE LINE:

ONE NON-OFFICIAL REPORT Describing a TACTIC on the ground

A pro-opposition source called to explained that the tactic on the ground is to take control of key neighborhoods and news outlets of the various loyalist/ or pro-government factions. From here on, it is a matter of time before government seat will fall.

Lebanon take 2 Steps toward Civil War; Beirut in Chaos

On late Friday, the Lebanese army moved into some neighborhoods that had been taken during the day by the Hizbullah militia.

Hizbullah routed Sunni militiamen loyal to Saad Hariri and set fire to the offices of al-Mustaqbal newspaper, his press outlet. (The Lebanese Army declined to intervene, the same mistake it made in 1975).

Likewise, the Futur or Mustaqbal television station is off the air after employees fled for "security reasons." But the fighting hasn't just been between Sunni and Shiite. There has been other ethnic violence, too. Members of the Syrian National Socialist Party (probably mostly Eastern Orthodox Christians) attacked the Mustaqbal archives building. (SNSP is pro-Syrian and is allied with Hizbullah). In Tripoli pro-Hariri and anti-Hariri Sunnis clashed. (Some Sunnis up there are loyal to the rival Karami family while others belong to the Baath Party of Lebanon-- both clashed with the Hariri forces).

Liz Sly of the Chicago Tribune is a veteran correspondent in Beirut and her observations are very valuable. She points to the collapse of the red line earlier drawn by Hassan Nasrallah whereby his militia would never attack other Lebanese.

Lebanon is on the brink of civil war.

Sadr City Residents Warned to Leave;

AFP reports, "25 killed as Rockets Shatter Basra Calm." Shiite guerrillas fired a barrage of rockets at the British base out at the airport in Basra, killing two civilians. There was retaliatory fighting in Basra that left more dead.

Tina Susman of the LAT has some fun with the Bush administration's fixation on Iran as a source of weapons and trouble in Iraq. She notes a major embarrassment last week when a cache of supposedly Iranian weapons seized in the Shiite holy city of Karbala turned out to be no such thing. The US military had just taken the word for it of local Karbala police. She says that this week when the Pentagon gave its overview of captured weapons, all of a sudden there was no mention of Iran at all.

The Iraqi military has warned civilians to leave the vast slum of Sadr City, apparently in preparation for a massive government assault on the Mahdi Army militia based there. Since slum dwellers notoriously lack the means to leave their slums, this call seems more likely to be for the sake of appearances than a realistic expectation. When thousands are massacred in the course of a military attack on a densely packed civilian area, the authorities will be able to say that they gave fair warning. Although the US demonizes the Mahdi Army, Many Sadr City residents view it as in part a charitable organization, and they also are often grateful for the security it provides. It is not as if the federal government is providing security.

Saddam Hussein was the Iraqi leader who invented the technique of ethnically cleansing rebellious populations as a way of making his rule stick. He did it to the Marsh Arabs in the south and also to Kurds in the north. The US has already either conducted or allowed ethnic cleansing in Falluja and West Baghdad. It now seems set to empty out the east of the capital.

Apparently the fractious, RPG-wielding slum dwellers are getting in the way of the planned Green Zone golf course, so they have to be removed.

You know some British colonial administrators were still planning new cricket fields in India in 1946.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that the Iraqi parliament took up the conflict between PM Nuri al-Maliki and the Sadr Movement and President Jalal Talabani's initiative to resolve it. At the same time, the two sides seemed to get farther apart, with al-Maliki continuing to insist on the disarming of the Mahdi Army militia. Talabani's plan called for a first step of the militiamen pledging not to carry arms in public in Baghdad and troubled areas in the south. The Talabani plan may soon be voted on by parliament, but it is opposed by the Sadr Bloc of MPs.

Al-Hayat also reports on a planned meeting of al-Maliki with Vice President Tariq al-Hashimi of the Iraqi Islamic Party, a component of the (Sunni fundamentalist) Iraqi Accord Front. Al-Hashimi is said to be set to rejoin the government. The proposed list of cabinet members from the IAF has not been accepted by al-Maliki. Dissent has broken out, however, in the Dialogue Council of Khalaf al-`Ulyan, one of the three components of the Iraqi Accord Front.

McClatchy reports political violence for Thursday.

' Baghdad

1 Katyusha rocket slammed into the Green Zone at 9 am Thursday. No casualties were reported.

2 Katyusha rockets slammed into the street next to al-Nasr cinema, Sadoon Street, central Baghdad killing 2 civilians, injuring 2 others and causing material damage to several civilian cars.

A roadside bomb exploded in Humat al-Watan intersection near Shaab stadium, east Baghdad. It targeted an Iraqi Army patrol injuring 5 servicemen.

An adhesive IED in a Kia minibus exploded killing 1 civilian, severely injuring 5 others. The incident took place in Zayuna neighbourhood, near the traffic fly over at around 3 pm Thursday.

A roadside bomb exploded behind the National Theatre in Karrada, central Baghdad injuring 3 civilians.

A parked car bomb exploded targeting a police patrol in Mansour neighbourhood, west Baghdad, near Samad restaurant in Rowad intersection at 5 pm Thursday. The explosion killed 3 policemen and 4 civilians and injured 2 policemen and 17 civilians amongst whom were 2 women and 1 child. The location is a central commercial centre and the explosion resulted in burning 4 civilian cars completely as well as the police vehicle in addition to extensive material damages to 10 stores and completely destroying the restaurant.

A roadside bomb exploded in Jihad neighbourhood, near Mohammed Rasool Allah Mosque at 7 pm injuring 7 civilians.

4 unidentified bodies were found in Baghdad today by Iraqi Police. 1 in Nahdha; 1 in Dola’I and 2 in Abu Disheer.

Salahuddin

Suicide bomber wearing an explosive belt detonated targeting mulla Nathim al-Juboor, head of Dhuluiayah Sahwa, a US supported militia, in Khazraj area, 5 km to the north of the town of Dhuluiayah. The mulla was in a motorcade with the Chief of Police and the District Commissioner of Dhuluiyah on a tour of reconstruction projects. This is the second assassination attempt he survives with only superficial injuries.

Basra

Violent clashes broke out between the security forces and gunmen in al-Askari neighbourhood, Zubair district 35 km t the west of Basra city after many Katyusha rockets were fired targeting a Notional Police camp in Zubair. The fighting continues and no casualties report was available at time of publication.'

Sick Guest Op-Ed: More on Hillary Clinton and Obliterating Iran

Gary Sick, a political scientist at Columbia University and former National Security Council staffer under Carter and Reagan, writes:

Hillary Clinton's warning that the United States could "obliterate" Iran if that country should "foolishly consider" launching an attack on Israel is, of course, pandering to a broad American constituency that wants to hear tough rhetoric about Iran. It is also intended to appeal to a constituency that needs constant reassurance that America's relationship with Israel is secure. And, by addressing a strategic hypothetical that would by any measure be many years in the future ("in the next ten years" in her words), it seems intended to convince doubters that a woman is tough enough - perhaps more than tough enough - to be commander in chief.

Although her use of the word "obliterate" was both excessive and ill-advised, it might be seen as a challenge to Obama to match her toughness, or even as simply pandering shamelessly to a constituency that thrives on political red meat. That is not very flattering to her, but it might be regarded as politics as usual. What makes this statement particularly troublesome is that it cannot be dismissed as mere off-the-cuff responses to a TV interviewer. Rather, it appears to be part of a broader, considered policy that would likely be at the heart of the Middle East strategy of President Hillary Clinton.

The Clinton campaign, while explaining her remarks to skeptics, made it clear that this was no slip of the tongue. Glenn Kessler of the Washington Post reports that the "obliterate" remarks are part of a more extensive plan, first advanced in the debate prior to the Pennsylvania primary, for a new defensive alliance with the Arab states and Israel, in which the United States would extend not only a "security umbrella" over Israel but also "provide a deterrent backup" that would extend U.S. nuclear guarantees to Arab states who renounce nuclear weapons. The apparent author of this strategy is Martin Indyk.

Martin Indyk came into Bill Clinton's administration as director for Middle East affairs on the National Security Council and later represented the United States as ambassador to Israel (twice) as well as a stint as Assistant Secretary for Near East Affairs at the Department of State. He was present at every stage of the Clinton administration's Middle East policy, but he is most frequently remembered, at least by Persian Gulf specialists, as the author of the so-called "dual containment" policy.

"Dual containment" basically postulates that the way to deal with recalcitrant states in the Persian Gulf (i.e. states that are unsympathetic to U.S. interests and objectives) is to isolate them and "contain" them, relying on sanctions and superior military power. It was also quite explicit in linking "containment of Iraq and Iran in the east" with "promotion of Arab-Israeli peace in the west." This was a new twist in U.S. policy which had previously maintained that the Persian Gulf/oil could be separated from the Arab-Israeli dispute. The policy was therefore viewed by many as attempting to wall off the troublesome Persian Gulf region so that the United States could focus on the Arab-Israel issue, or, as it later evolved, on Israel alone. It was also a unilateral policy: collaborators would be nice, but in their absence the United States could and would act alone.

Although the name "dual containment" is no longer used, especially after the invasion of Iraq removed one of the policy's targets, it is nevertheless true that the dominant premise of the policy - that you deal with your enemies and rivals unilaterally by isolation and threats rather than engagement - is one Clintonian policy that has been adopted unabashedly by the Bush administration. It has defined U.S. policy in the region for the past decade and a half.

Dual containment was first announced by Indyk in May 1993, in the early months of the Bill Clinton administration. The previous administration of George Bush pere had held out the promise that "Good will begets good will," to entice Iran to intervene on behalf of the American hostages in Lebanon; Iran did so, but by the time the hostages were successfully released, Bush was deep into a presidential campaign and could not fulfill his commitment. Then, of course, he lost the election and the Iranians were told that they would have to forget about any U.S. promises.

Still, Iran had taken a serious decision to try to open channels to the United States, and when Bill Clinton was elected, they put out new feelers (in which I had a small role). These were ignored in favor of dual containment. Iran tried again with unilateral economic offers in 1995, but the Clinton administration responded by enacting far-reaching economic sanctions against Iran.

Dual containment and its accompanying sanctions were adopted with the stated objective of changing Iran's behavior on a number of issues: nuclear, Arab-Israel peace process, and terrorism, among others. After a full quarter of a century, with the United States doing everything in its power to coerce and threaten Iran economically and militarily, Iran's policies have changed to some degree, but it would take a real ideologue to claim that they have evolved on anything other than an Iranian schedule according to Iranian political objectives. In short, U.S. policies have failed utterly in their key objectives. Yet our answer - and the answer of the Clinton campaign from what we can tell - is more of the same. Clinton-Indyk give lip service to engagement, but then so does Bush-Cheney.

The "new defensive alliance" with Arab states of the Middle East that Sen. Clinton has been proposing in the past few weeks is so similar to the anti-Iran alliance that the Bush administration has been trying to sell to the Sunni Arab states (with Israel as a silent partner), that I must admit I cannot see the difference. In fact, the "Bush Doctrine" toward Iran and the Arab states was nothing but a continuation of the "Clinton-Indyk Doctrine" that preceded it, and it now appears that if Hillary should win the presidency, we will come full circle back to Clinton-Indyk redux.

I have known Martin Indyk since we were at Columbia together, and I respect him as a professional. But I thought dual containment was a terrible idea from the first time I heard it, and Martin knows it. By emphasizing threats and sanctions above even the most minimal engagement, I think this concept was the origin of many of our worst mistakes and missed opportunities over the past 15 years.

Characteristically, this latest version never stops to ask how the regional states may react to our unilateral unfolding of an "umbrella," much less our anticipation that they will respond with gratitude and formal recognition of Israel. That is what Indyk specifies as the price. This sounds like the kind of unrealistic expectations that we have built into our Middle East policies repeatedly over the past dozen years.

As my friends know well, I have been a stout defender of Hillary Clinton's campaign from the very beginning, while maintaining my admiration for Barack Obama. (In the most recent case, I was impressed by the fact that Obama refused to rise to the bait, while she accepted the hypothetical and ran with it.) I respected the depth of her politically skilled network, her grit and determination, and her ability to take a punch. My major argument, of course, was Clinton's experience. But experience is a two-edged sword.

The chance for a fresh start - for "change" in the current political lexicon - was to me the great hope of this presidential campaign. But Clinton's recent remarks, and the underlying policy from which they apparently sprang, are evidence that, at least on this issue, we might only look forward to more of the same under a Clinton presidency. In that sense, I think we would be losing one of the great chances of this generation to begin to fashion a more sensible policy in a region that I care about greatly.

Gary Sick
Columbia University

Happy 60th to Israel

Israel is celebrating its 60th anniversary, and let me take this opportunity to wish my Israeli readers a happy anniversary. The Middle East is always viewed through the lens of politics and strife, but having lived and visited a lot over there I'd like to suggest that it is forgotten how few people are actually actively involved in politics. And while there is strife in some times and places, there is also a lot of cooperation and forgiveness and mutual help.

The Israelis have come from mind-boggling adversity to build a country. But more than that, they have helped to build our modern world. Israeli science and technology has played a powerful behind- the- scenes role in the development of pivotal inventions such as computer chips. All human beings benefit from such advances, and we should all be grateful for the contributions the Israelis have made to improving the quality of human life.

For instance, it was reported just a couple of weeks ago that an Israeli team at Tel Aviv University

"claim they have found a way to construct efficient photovoltaic cells costing at least a hundred times less than conventional silicon based devices, and with similar or better energy conversion efficiency. The reactive element in the researchers' patent pending device is genetically engineered proteins using photosynthesis for production of electrical energy."

If this claim proves true, it is a big step toward saving us all from massive climate change and from the economic disaster of depending on ever more scarce and expensive hydrocarbons. Certainly, it is likely that the Israelis will play a big role in such alternative energy breakthroughs, since their own survival depends on them.

And here are some good news stories from Israeli medicine:

Israeli medical invention helps Palestinian boy with Cerebral Palsy (VIDEO)



Israeli Team Develops Robots to Save Lives:

' Leo Joskowicz, a scientist and professor at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, has developed a special robot able to assist surgeons with the positioning of needles and other medical tools during procedures. . . Especially in the realm of neurosurgery, doctors have come a long way in their ability to heal and repair certain areas of the brain. However some openings that must be accessed are too small for the naked eye to make an accurate entry point. If a surgical tool is misplaced, the brain may start hemorrhaging or permanent brain damage can occur.

Now that the robot is designed with its image-guided system, surgeons are able to remain non-invasive while carrying out successful surgeries. Patients' pain is now much more minimal and chances for full recovery are likelier than ever. The robot was developed over a two-year period through funding from the Israel Ministry of Trade and Industry. Thanks to Joskowicz and his team, people all over the world have a second chance at life.'

"Drop Foot gets a Lift, Thanks to Israeli invention:

'An Israeli-developed and manufactured wireless, computer-controlled device that enables safe walking for people with a foot paralyzed due to stroke, brain injury, cerebral palsy, spinal cord injury or multiple sclerosis has received approval from the US Food and Drug Administration.

The heart of the system, developed by NESS of Ra'anana, is a sensor in the shoe which identifies the walking stage of the paralyzed foot. It then transmits a wireless signal to a microprocessor attached underneath the knee. The NESS L300 system releases a suitable and perfectly-timed electronic pulse to the nerves and muscles that activate the paralyzed foot so as to facilitate the user's next step. The electronic stimulus replaces the nerve signal that would otherwise have arrived from the brain. '

The below list of inventions is written in technicalese and so not very useful for public information purposes, but but it has the virtue of offering a lot of information in one place.

My warm greetings to my Israeli friends on this auspicious anniversary, and my hopes that before too long a just and equitable peace can be achieved among all the peoples of the region. Israelis, like their neighbors, deserve to live productive lives in conditions of security. Periods of strife, after all, do eventually tend to pass. Europe was in turmoil for much of the first half of the twentieth century, but for some decades now has lived in peace. The same thing can happen in the Middle East.

Violence in Beirut

Violence in Lebanon
Courtesy al-Hayat

Update: CNN is reporting that the Lebanese military is reluctant to intervene in street fighting between pro-Hizbullah forces and supporters of the Seniora government. Aljazeera is also reporting that the Lebanese military has drawn back from flashpoints. It showed one clip of troops facing crowds of young men throwing stones, who were dispersed by tear gas. The overnight street fighting, which the Aljazeera correspondent said does not involve barricades but is rather fluid, was the worst seen in Beirut since the Civil War ended in 1989.

Hizbullah leader Nasrallah has just announced that he feels the Seniora government has declared war on his movement by denying them access to a network of electronic monitoring and surveillance based at the airport. (Apparently Hizbullah uses it for its struggle against Israel, but the government became concerned that they were also using it to track pro-government individuals).

A member of Saad Hariri's government on Aljazeera just said that Hizbullah had the opportunity to help elect a president (Gen. Michel Suleiman) who could have participated in the decision-making and would have been more sympathetic to Hizbullah, but they instead played the role of spoiler. The Lebanese parliament has been unable to elect a president, who by the unwritten national pact has to be a Maronite Catholic, for the past few months.

The Bush administration has been arming the Seniora government and encouraging it to take on the Hizbullah militia, which it sees as a major site of Iranian influence in the region.

From several hours ago:

First, the General Confederation of Labour Unions (CGTL) in Lebanon called a strike to protest the failure of the government to agree to a substantial rise in the minimum monthly wage. Then the strike turned violent, as the Hizbullah joined in. People closed off roads and set out burning tires. The airport was badly affected, stranding 200 passengers. Aljazeera says that the airport is closed on Thursday Arab satellite channels were showing streets crowded with Lebanese army and police, with staccatto machine gun bursts in the background. About 10 people were lightly wounded.

It isn't really clear what the relationship is between the labor unions and their strike for better wages, and the military confrontations with the strikers. [On Thursday pro-government forces said that Hizbullah had taken advantage of the strike to press its own agenda.]

I do know that on the other side, the Bush administration has worked hard to polarize Lebanese society and security, rather than working for a national unity government.

Zawahiri endorses McCain Plan to Bomb Iran; McCain seeks Endorsement of Catholic-Haters; 8 Percent of Pakistanis Back McCain

Senator John McCain, who seeks endorsements from haters of Roman Catholics, is alleging that Hamas has "endorsed" Barack Obama. He darkly suggests that this means something.

It is a despicable, dirty campaign trick. Who do you think the Ku Klux Klan will be endorsing? And if the Grand Dragons plump for McCain, does that tell us anything about McCain except that he is pasty faced? You can't logically read off anything at all from an unsolicited endorsement.

Actually it occurred to me to ask who is endorsing McCain in the Muslim world.

Well, it turns out that al-
Qaeda No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahiri has declared that he is actually on McCain's side in wanting to destroy Iran. Al-Zawahiri is hurt that McCain keeps confusing hyper-Sunni al-Qaeda with radical Shiism: "Ayman al-Zawahiri said al-Qaeda wants to see the destruction of Iran - a Shiite nation battling the terrorists . . . "The dispute between America and Iran is a genuine struggle, and the possibility of the US striking Iran is real," al-Zawahiri said. . ." Al-Zawahiri hopes that the US struggle with Iran will destroy the latter and weaken the former, putting al-Qaeda in a position to administer the coup de grace.

In essence, al-Zawahiri is endorsing McCain's plan to "bomb, bomb, bomb/ bomb, bomb Iran."

Then, it turns out that 8 percent of Pakistanis support McCain. 30 percent support Hillary Clinton, and she leads in this Muslim country over Obama (13%). But surely it is Pakistani liberals who are favoring Hillary, the sort people who supported Benazir Bhutto.

So which Pakistanis are supporting McCain? Presumably the conservative Muslims who can't accept the leadership of a woman. And wouldn't some of those be, like, part of the so-called 'transcendent challenge'?

But lets consider the people from whom McCain has actively sought an endorsement. Many of them seem to engage in a lot of hate speech against Catholics, Muslims and others.

John McCain's spiritual guides:



John Hagee, whose endorsement John McCain actively sought, compares the Roman Catholic Church to Hitler and depicts it as drinking the blood of the Jews through history:



John McCain praised Rod Parsely as a spiritual guide; he is caught on camera below:



Parseley accuses the federal government of enabling a genocide against African-Americans.

Sunni Kuwaiti Cleric Differentiates between Iraqi Shia Nationalists and those Supporting Iran

The USC Open Source Center translates a statement by a Sunni Salafi cleric in Kuwait that allows that some Arab Shiites in Iraq are "honorable" but not those allied with Iran.


Kuwaiti Shaykh Differentiates Between Iraqi Shia Supporting, Opposing Iran
Jihadist Websites -- OSC Summary
Wednesday, May 7, 2008 . . .

Terrorism: Kuwaiti Shaykh Differentiates Between Iraqi Shia Supporting, Opposing Iranian 'Plan'

On 24 April, a forum participant "Al-Ikhwani al-Salafi" posted to a jihadist website a question addressed to Kuwaiti pro-jihad [Sunni] Shaykh Hamid al-Ali about the differences among the Shia in Iraq. Shaykh Hamid al-Ali responds by stating that it is very important to differentiate between those supporting and opposing the Iranian 'plan' in Iraq. This is because differences with the former can be resolved through dialogue, whereas the Iranian plan needs dealing with in another manner.

A translation of the questions and answer follows:


"In the name of God the Merciful, the Compassionate.

"Shaykh Hamid al-Ali responds to a question in regards to the honorable Arab Shia.

"I spoke of two or three topics concerning the honorable Arab Shia who stand against the Safavid expansion. I asked the [Sunni] Association of Muslim Scholars regarding the revealing of names of the honorable Shia, who are a few in number. This is because, according to the principle that says 'ask the knowledgeable,' I asked Shaykh Hamid al-Ali, may God protect him, about the Arab Shia. His response was brief and clear. I will leave the comments to you.

"The question: Honorable shaykh, God knows how I love you in God. I want your opinion with regards to the honorable Arab Shia.

"First, what is your opinion concerning some of the Shiite leadership in Iraq such as Al-Husni al-Baghdadi, Shaykh Al-Mu'ayyid, and Shaykh Al-Khalissi. This is especially since Al-Sistani and Al-Hakim are angry with the three of them and they have been expelled from Iraq. Meanwhile, their followers are being sent to prison because of their stances regarding the American occupation and the Safavid Iranian occupation.

"Shaykh Al-Mu'ayyid forbids the vilification and slandering of the companions of the Prophet. Hence, is it legitimate to support them or pray for their guidance, especially since the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars stated that those people shared a similar stance as theirs? Is cooperation with them in fighting the Iranian and American occupation legitimate?

"Second, what is the shaykh's opinion on the Arab Shiite Southern Tribes Council that is funded by the Sunni Association of Muslim Scholars and headed by Shaykh Harith al-Dari? Iran has killed 37 Shiite tribal chiefs because they were against its perverse attitudes. Is not fighting Iran and America a proof of their honesty? Is what the Association of Muslim Scholars is doing in opening lines of communication with them legitimate?

"Please respond to me because many people inside and outside Iraq are interested in the subject.



"Response of Shaykh Hamid al-Ali:

"I mentioned in the Al-Jazirah meeting that it is imperative to differentiate between the Shiite ideology and the Safavid political plan.

"Regarding the honorable Shia in Iraq who have stood against the Safavid [i.e. Iranian] plan, our differences with them are ideological and can be resolved through dialogue, as always has been the case throughout the history of our nation.

"As for the advocates of the Safavid [Iranian] plan, and I do not know to which of the Shiite scholars you referred in Iraq, this plan is a destructive danger and there is another way of dealing with it. If they really are against the Safavid plan, the people of Iraq should benefit from all communities in the society who are against the American and Safavid occupiers. Without doubt, Shaykh Harith al-Dari is a trustworthy personality, is honorable, and has solid and good stances; hence, his opinion should be taken with regards to the Shia who are against the Safavid occupation. God is All-Knowing.

"The words of Shaykh (Hamid al-Ali) have come to a close. Those who do not believe need to ask him once more online."

Obama strides Closer to Victory

Barack Obama pulled closer to clinching the nomination last night, widening his lead over Hillary Clinton in voted delegates and in the popular vote. He overwhelmingly took Indianapolis and narrowed her earlier lead to only 2%, about 20,000 votes out of the hundreds of thousands cast. Obama even got 35% of working class whites in Indiana, which suggests that while Clinton is stronger with that constituency, Obama has an appeal there as well. He is clearly raising far more money than she, so voters are voting for him with their pocketbooks.

CBC writes of the two primaries last night,

' Exit polls in both Indiana and North Carolina showed the economy was the most important issue to voters, followed by the Iraq war. Concerns about Obama's controversial former pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and Clinton's attempts to paint him as an out of touch elitist, did not seem to be important to many voters.'

In other words, our corporate media keep giving us irrelevancies like someone's pastor or ad hominems (a Yalie who made $108 million in recent years is calling someone an 'elitist'?).

And the voters keep voting on the issues. They were unimpressed with Clinton's fantasies about 'totally obliterating' Iran. They appear to have liked Obama's talk of a timetable for US withdrawal from Iraq, something the majority of the Iraqi parliament also wants. They were unimpressed with Clinton's pandering on a gasoline 'tax holiday'; a solid majority was unimpressed with attempts to damn Obama by association. Take out the over-65 crowd, and Obama did well with whites. He did overwhelmingly well with new voters.

A CBS/NYT poll over the weekend had showed that Obama had rebounded from the Rev. Wright controversy, was 11 points ahead of McCain, and that the general split on the gasoline tax holiday was 49 against, 45 for. The 18 cent federal gas tax pays for highway upkeep.

How tricky reading poll results is can be seen in this summary from AP. The article says 50% of voters in each state thought the Rev. Wright controversy important, and that of those who said that, 30% in Indiana voted for Obama and 40% in North Carolina. But that means 65% of voters in Indiana either didn't care or didn't let it affect their vote, with that proportion being 75% in North Carolina. It wasn't a determinative issue.

AP dismisses Iraq as "the top issue" for only 20% of voters. But actually for a fifth of voters to say that is their top issue at a time of severe economic woes for most people is quite remarkable. And if we asked if it was among their top three issues we'd find it was so for 100%.

US Soldier Killed in al-Anbar; Sadrist MP Resigns; Army Arrests Police

The killing of a US soldier in al-Anbar province by Iraqi guerrillas was announced on Wednesday morning.

The Scotsman reports:

' IRAQI soldiers yesterday detained dozens of policemen and closed down a hospital suspected of treating Shiite militiamen in a Baghdad stronghold of cleric Muqtada al-Sadr's Mahdi Army. '

It doesn't seem to me like a good sign when you have to arrest your police because they are disloyal to the government.


Another contingent of 3500 US troops is being withdrawn from Iraq, drawing back down the 30,000 that had been sent in winter, 2007, as part of Bush's troop escalation or 'surge.' Although from September of last year through February, these extra troops had some impact on reducing (not eliminating) civilian casualties in Baghdad, as they have withdrawn the numbers of Iraqis killed each month as spiked.

AFP also reports:

' On the political front, an Iraqi lawmaker whose party is loyal to anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, resigned on Tuesday protesting the violence in Baghdad's Sadr City where street battles claim a daily death toll.

"I announce the suspension of my membership in protest at what is happenning in Sadr city," Hassan Al-Rubaie said. "The religious and political leaderships in Iraq are responsible for the violations that happen in Sadr City."

He acted even as President Jalal Talabani made a fresh appeal to the militia to lay down its arms and allow essential supplies to get into the Sadr City, parliamentary officials said.'

I take away from these grafs that Iraqi politics is in danger of collapsing. Not that many members of parliament come to the sessions, and if you start having any number of resignations, even getting a quorum may be difficult. There doesn't seem to be a mechanism for holding by-elections, so the seat that was resigned will probably remain empty until the next parliamentary elections.

Also, President Talabani's statement unwittingly reveals that essential supplies are not getting into Sadr City and suggests that al-Maliki and the US are holding the civilian population hostage as a way of putting pressure on the Mahdi Army.



Saddam Hussein was germophobic in the extreme. I personally wonder whether this neurosis did not underlie his various genocides. He probably thought the people he was killing were diseased and making his country dirty. It was also a motivation for building all those presidential palaces, which were intended to be islands of cleanliness in a dirty country. He admitted as much to US troops and gave fear of their being polluted as his reason for not having allowed UN inspectors into them. I.e., his germophobia helped get him overthrown and hanged. In absolute dictatorships, the neuroses of the great leader become the neuroses of the nation.

Nir Rosen on selling war on Iran.

Astore at Tomdispatch on air power.

Khatami's Charges Provoke Row in Iran; how Important is Iranian and Hizbullah Training

Former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami has caused a firestorm of criticism in Iran. AFP writes:

' In his speech, Khatami referred to the ambition of Iran's revolutionary leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to export the 1979 Islamic revolution around the world, but expressed fear this wish was being distorted. "What did the imam (Khomeini) mean by exporting the revolution?" he asked in the speech Friday to university students in the northern province of Gilan, according to the Kargozaran newspaper. "Did he mean that we take up arms, that we blow up places in other nations and we create groups to carry out sabotage in other countries? The imam was vehemently against this and was confronting it," he added. His speech has been seen by some observers as accusing the Iranian authorities of encouraging militants to destabilize the Middle East, in particular Iraq and Lebanon. '

Some hard liners want to try Khatami for treason.

Al-Hayat reports in Arabic that Sunni tribes have offered to mediate between the al-Maliki government and the Sadr Movement.

It also refers to Monday's Pentagon-provoked story saying that Hizbullah of Lebanon is training Shiite radicals at camps in Iran.

I am suspicious of this story not because it is necessarily untrue (how would I know?) but because it shares with typical Bush administration propaganda the 'gotcha' technique in which questions of proportionality, significance and causality do not arise.

Thus, Dick Cheney repeatedly claimed that he had evidence that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, whom he simplistically linked with al-Qaeda, got hospital treatment in Baghdad. Cheney said that would have been impossible unless Saddam was actively hosting him. And if Saddam was giving hospital treatment to al-Zarqawi, then ipso facto the Baath regime was allied with and supporting al-Qaeda.

But Cheney's entire argument is false from beginning to end. First of all, the Iraqi secret police put out an APB on al-Zarqawi when they thought he had entered their country, and were clearly afraid of him. There is no evidence that the regime afforded al-Zarqawi hospital care. Even if he had gotten treated, it was not proof of Saddam's complicity with him or with al-Qaeda. These little tiny details were built up into a narrative that was intended to carry the audience along without their being able to ask any questions about it. How good was the proof for what Cheney alleged? Was al-Zarqawi really al-Qaeda back then? How important was he? How big an impact did his presence in Iraq have?

There were also repeated allegations from Cheney and others that Saddam was training al-Qaeda operatives at Salman Pak. Wrong.

Under torture, Ibn al-Sheikh Libi told the US that Saddam was training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of poison gas. It was a lie. That is the problem with putting people in so much pain that they will tell you anything. Cheney and Rice parroted this falsehood over and over again.

After the war and occupation began, Pentagon spokesmen actually alleged that 90% of the violence in Iraq was committed by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his group. But what, was he an Arab version of the Flash, able to run from Mosul to Baghdad in a few minutes? And when he was killed, nothing changed, so he wasn't all that important.

Since Cheney and Rice wanted to go to war with Iraq so as to open its petroleum resources to exploitation by American firms, it really was immaterial to them if the things they were saying were true or not. They have never evinced any shame or regret. They are happy. They accomplished their goal.

We should not allow this sort of thing to happen again. The Pentagon story about Iran is fishy for these reasons:

The main pro-Iran militia in Iraq is the Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Iran is happy with Badr's vast influence. Badr has conflicts with the Mahdi Army. Why should Iran undermine its own client by favoring the latter? And note that the US never condemns Badr, which until recently was actually part of the Iranian military.

The information on the supposed Hizbullah training in Iran seems to have come from two or three captured Lebanese Shiites. That is a very small number. The US has 24,000 accused insurgents in captivity. If it only has a handful of Lebanese Shiites, then they just aren't very important. The Principle of Proportionality holds.

Moreover, the allegations may have been produced by US torture of the captives and so may not be reliable.

Then even if it were true, how important is it? The Mahdi Army is tens of thousands of slum kids. Sadrism goes back to the 1990s in Iraq and is a mass movement. Iran had nothing to do with them historically. Moreover, how important is all this? Have, like, 4 Lebanese guys really trained all that many Mahdi Army militiamen? How many exactly? How much more effective would they be as a result? Wouldn't the political support of millions of Iraqi Shiites in the South really be the source of Muqtada al-Sadr's power and authority?

What is being alleged is too small to produce a really big, nation-wide effect in Iraq. The Mahdi Army fought the US military for two long hard months in spring of 2004, and for another month in August. Iran was not around.

Occam's Razor dictates that we do not need Iran as a hypothesis for explaining the Sadr Movement or its activities in Iraq. Behind the scenes opinion polling suggests that the Sadr Movement has become more and more popular with the electorate. This, despite Iran's having helped buy the election for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq in 2005. Having gotten their clients in power, why would Iran now try to blow up Badr commanders who have become provincial governors or deputy governors.

The Sadrists are not even very strong in Basra city, which is one reason al-Maliki attacked them there. Iran was backing Badr in Basra.

If training is so important, then why does the Mahdi Army still defeat the highly trained and equipped Iraqi Army, which has had lots more training, often from high powered American and European and Jordanian trainers. Are you saying Iranian trainers are better? How would you fix that?

So, have a few hundred militiamen maybe gotten some basic guerrilla training from fellow Shiites somewhere? That isn't the right question. The question is, how significant would that be if true. Remember, they are getting real time battle experience against US Marines, which is much more valuable than mere rudimentary boot camp. But, how could you rule it out? And, could such a thing really steer the fortunes of Iraq as a country? I think not.

McClatchy reports political violence in Iraq on Monday:

' Baghdad

Two policemen were wounded when gunmen opened fire targeting a police patrol in Bab al Sheikh neighborhood in downtown Baghdad on Sunday evening.

At least six civilians were killed and 31 others wounded in the American strikes on Sadr City in northeast Baghdad on Monday morning, medical sources in the hospitals of Sadr city said.

Five people were killed including three members of one family (parents and their child) and eight others were wounded when the American forces bombed Amil neighborhood in west Baghdad. The US military said in an e-mailed statement that the American soldiers responded to an attack from one of the buildings, killing three insurgents.

Two civilians were wounded in a bomb explosion near the oil marketing office in Zayuna neighborhood in east Baghdad around 8:30 p.m.

Police found four unidentified bodies throughout Baghdad in the following neighborhood (1 body in Husseiniyah, 1 body in Palestine Street, 1 body in Bayaa and 1 body in Amil)

Diyala

Gunmen kidnapped three truck drivers while they were coming from Khanaqin town towards Qara Tabba area, 93 miles northeast of Baquba city on Monday morning.

Seven Iraqi soldiers were wounded in a roadside bomb that targeted their patrol in Qara Tabba area around 12:00 p.m.

Three policemen were wounded in a roadside bomb explosion that targeted their patrol in Baladroz town 28 miles east of Baquba around 11:15 a.m.

Three members of the Kurdish security forces known as Bashmarga were wounded in a roadside bomb explosion that targeted their patrol on the road between Qara Tabba village and Hibhib village north of Baquba, lieutenant General Hameed Hussein fro n the Neshmarga brigade said, Clashes took place after the explosion but no casualties reported.

Gunmen attacked a check point of the Iraqi army in al Maiyah area in Mandili city, 40 miles east of Baquba city around 7:30 p.m. the gunmen killed ten soldiers then beheaded them. One civilian was wounded in the incident.

Kirkuk

A policeman from Kirkuk Emergency Police was killed and seven others were wounded in a roadside bomb that targeted their patrol near the street leading to the airport on Monday morning.

Nineveh

A roadside bomb exploded in al Masarif neighborhood in downtown Mosul city on Monday afternoon. No casualties reported.

Police found an unidentified body in al Ma’arif neighborhood in downtown Mosul city on Monday afternoon.

Gunmen opened fire randomly in al Mamoun neighborhood in downtown on Monday afternoon injuring one civilian. '

OSC: Al-Arabiya discusses Iraq government, Al-Sadr Trend criticism of Iran role

The USG Open Source Center translates a discussion on al-Arabiya's Panorama program about Iranian intervention in Iraq.

May 5, 2008 Monday

Al-Arabiya discusses Iraq government, Al-Sadr Trend criticism of Iran role

["Panorama" programme moderated by Muntaha al-Ramahi discusses Iran's intervention in Iraq, the Iraqi Government's escalatory tone against Iran, Al-Sadr Trend's criticism of Iran - live]

Dubai Al-Arabiya Television in Arabic at 1915 gmt on 4 May carries within its live "Panorama" news programme a 25-minute discussion, moderated by anchorwoman Muntaha al-Ramahi, on the Iraqi Government's and the Al-Sadr Trend's recent criticism of Iran's interference in Iraq. The guests on the programme are Abd-al-Karim al-Inizi, member of the Iraqi Parliament representing the Unified Iraqi Coalition, via satellite from Baghdad; political analyst Ambassador Mohammed Shariati, via satellite from Tehran; and former Iraqi Minister of Transportation Salam al-Maliki, via telephone from Basra.

Al-Ramahi begins by saying that although "intermittent clashes" continue between the Iraqi security forces assisted by US forces and the supporters of Shi'i leader Muqtada al-Sadr, both sides criticize Iran and "hold it responsible for the incidents in Iraq." She adds that the current Iraqi Government's position has changed towards Iran, and that it has begun "to directly accuse Iran of fanning violence in Iraq." She notes that a huge amount of Iranian weapons has been revealed in addition to documents that indict Iran in this regard. Al-Ramahi says that observers were surprised to hear Salih al-Ubaydi, spokesman for the Al-Sadr Trend, strongly criticize Iran. She notes that the recent criticism coincides with former Iranian President Khatami's criticism of the Iranian regime, in which he stressed that exporting violence to other countries, which he did not name, is "treason against Islam and the Iranian Revolution."

Al-Ramahi poses the following questions: Why has the Iraqi Government decide to open the file of Iran's intervention in Iraq at this time in particular? Why did the Al-Sadr Trend, which is protected by Iran, criticize Iran? Did Khatami mean Iran's intervention in Iraq or in other countries?

The programme then presents a three-minute report by Najah Muhammad Ali. Ali says that when the United States accused Iran of interfering in Iraq to undermine its stability, Iran's supporters in the Iraqi Government, including the president and the prime minister, did not hesitate to defend Iran. However, he says that the situation changed following Operation Charge of the Knights in Basra and the international conference that was held recently in Kuwait. He adds that Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki and his supporters have launched an unprecedented campaign against Iran without naming it. Moreover, he says that the Iraqi Government has been declaring on a daily basis the arrest of fighters supported by Iran and the discovery of Iranian weapons. Ali notes that the Al-Sadr Trend has launched a similar campaign against Iran. He adds that the Iraqi Government accuses Iran of being responsible for the security developments in Baghdad, particularly in Al-Sadr City. Moreover, he says that the US Army and Iraqi security officials accuse the Al-Mahdi Army of being behind the attacks on the Green Zone. Ali says that the Kuwait international conference failed because Al-Maliki failed to convince the Arabs to reopen their embassies and to write off Iraq's debts. Hence, he says that Al-Maliki had to criticize Iran in order to gain Arab support, and that the Iraqi Foreign Ministry's statement on the three disputed islands between Iran and the UAE falls within this context. Ali notes former Iranian President Khatami's remarks in which he said that "exporting violence to other countries is treason against Islam and the Islamic Revolution." He concludes by wondering if the Iraqis in the post-Saddam government "have become fed up with remaining under the Iranian cloak," or if Iran's intervention in Iraq has crossed all limits.

Asked to comment on the current situation and on the position towards Iran, Al-Inizi says that the new Iraqi policy in the new Iraqi regime "relies on the principle of convincing others to cooperate, because cooperation will be in the interest of all parties." He notes that although hundreds of terrorists have entered Iraq, Iraq has not accused any Arab regime of being behind them because it believes in the need to cooperate with all neighbouring countries and to convince them of the need to cooperate. He says that he believes the current escalation towards Iran is a "deviation from the norms of Iraq's policy" and a result of US diplomatic efforts to drive a wedge between the Iraqi Government and its neighbour, Iran.

Al-Ramahi notes that the Al-Sadr Trend, which is supposed to be supported by Iran, also criticizes Iran.

Addressing Shariati, Al-Ramahi asks him to comment on the change in Iraq's position towards Iran. Shariati says that the official Iranian position continues to support Nuri al-Maliki's government. He refers to the statements made by the Iranian ambassador in Iraq, in which he expressed support for the disarming of militias in Iraq but urged dialogue. With regard to the Al-Sadr Trend, Shariati says we must "discriminate between a sector of the Iraqi people and a political idea that is suspicious of the occupation. We must respect this position."

Al-Ramahi refers to Khatami's remarks, and says that political observers consider them as "clear criticism of the conservative trend led by Ahmadinezhad." She asks if Khatami's remarks indicate that "Iran is involved in files outside Iran." Shariati says that reformists consider some of Iran's foreign policy unacceptable. However, he says that Khatami talked about deviations from the course of the Iranian Revolution but did not mention Iraq, Lebanon, or any other country. He notes that when Khatami was president he did not receive Muqtada al-Sadr due to reservations about his actions and role in Iraq.

Asked if Khatami meant Iraq in particular, Shariati says that he certainly did not mean Iraq because the situation there is unclear.

Asked if Khatami meant Lebanon or Palestine, Shariati says: "We believe we should have diplomatic relations, and hold parallel relations with groups, and that these groups must not be involved in internal conflicts because the involvement of the groups supported by Iran in internal conflicts would embroil Iran and its foreign policy."

Addressing former Iraqi Minister Salam al-Maliki, Al-Ramahi asks him to comment on the change in the Al-Sadr Trend's position. Al-Maliki says that the issue of Iran's intervention in Iraq and its support for the Al-Sadr Trend does not exist in reality. He admits that there are accusations, but argues that the Al-Sadr Trend's positions in the political process are "independent."

Interrupting, Al-Ramahi says that Salam al-Malik's remarks are surprising, because even Iranians talk about Iran's intervention in Iraq. Al-Maliki says that there is clear intervention, but that he is talking about the Al-Sadr Trend's position and Iran's support for the Al-Sadr Trend. He adds that the Iraqi Government must determine whether the Iranian role is positive or negative. He says that the Iraqi Government's spokesman said that the government needs to verify the situation, but that military officials have openly accused Iran of intervention. Al-Maliki stresses that problems must not be resolved through the media. He says that the problem is that the Iraqi Government "has not yet drawn its foreign policy in a clear manner." He argues that the United States encouraged Iran to interfere in Iraq in light of its hostile position towards Iran which prompted it to defend itself and its presence. Al-Maliki stresses that Iran's role must be in support of the Iraqi people, and that any problem with any neighbouring country must be resolved through diplomatic means, not media outlets. He stresses that Al-Sadr Trend is not supported by Iran because Muqtada al-Sadr's decisions are not influenced by foreign pressure; that Iran's role in Iraq is not new; and that it was encouraged by the United States.

Asked about Iran's support for the Al-Sadr Trend and how Iran can have "positive intervention" in Iraq, Shariati begins by noting that the headquarters of the Islamic Supreme Council and the Al-Da'wah Party were in Iran before the fall of Saddam Husayn. He argues that some internal disputes in Iraq are not the result of Iran's intervention. With regard to the militias' issue, he says that Iran must interfere and use its influence over all trends.

Al-Ramahi notes that the Iraqi Government criticizes Iran's intervention even though it encompasses parties that are supported by Iran. Shariati says that Iran has relations with various parties, and that it "must make use of its influence to calm the Iraqi arena." Shariati leaves the programme at this point.

Addressing Al-Inizi, Al-Ramahi says that even Iranians say that Iran must use its influence in Iraq to achieve stability and security. Hence, she notes that Iraq is being used by Iran as a card to acquire certain gains with regard to its relations with the West. She asks if the time is suitable for Iran to calm the situation in Iraq. Al-Inizi says that the Iraqi policy is based on cooperation with neighbouring countries and on convincing them to support the Iraqi Government. He says that the current escalation towards Iran indicates the success of the US policy that aims to use Iraq as a tool in its conflict with Iran. He urges the Iraqi Government not to fall into the trap, and to work hard with Iran in order to achieve security, political, and economic cooperation.

Asked why he accuses the United States of pushing the Iraqi Government towards adopting an escalatory position against Iran, Al-Inizi says that Iran was among the first to support the Iraqi Government and that it has strategic alliances with the ruling political forces. Hence, he argues that it is in Iran's interest to see the government of its allies succeed. Therefore, he says that Iraq must not be part of the US-Iranian conflict, and that Iraq must convince the Iranians that any intervention must be positive and constructive.

Al-Ramahi argues that Iraq's "escalatory tone" will not convince Iran to play a different role. Al-Inizi agrees and says that the Iraqi Government has deviated from the norms of its foreign policy. He urges Iraq to address neighbouring countries with a language that encourages cooperation, and to maintain positive and constructive relations with Iran.

Al-Ramahi says that Iran supports the disarming of militias in Iraq, but rejects the use of force. She asks if this has resulted in the change in the Al-Sadr Trend's position. Al-Maliki

says that the Iranian Government has not accused the Al-Sadr Trend of being a militia. He notes that the issue of militias, including the Al-Mahdi Army, is complicated because some groups carry arms to defend the Iraqi people and expel the occupiers, which is legitimate, while other groups seek to undermine stability.

With regard to the Al-Mahdi Army, Al-Ramahi says that the Iraqi Government, Iran, and the US forces want to disarm it. She asks if a settlement can be reached in this regard. Al-Maliki notes the absence of dialogue. He says that the Al-Sadr Trend believes in dialogue to resolve all problems, and that the problem is that the Iraqi Government is not holding dialogue. He notes that everyone is calling for disarming all militias, but that the existence of occupation forces that attack civilians and the absence of dialogue with the government complicate the situation.

Concluding the episode, Al-Ramahi thanks her guests.

Source: Al-Arabiya TV, Dubai, in Arabic 1904 gmt 4 May 08

Obama: Clinton on Iran Obliteration: Bush Clone

Barack Obama criticized Hillary Clinton on Sunday for her threat to "totally obliterate" Iran if it attacked Israel. He said on Meet the Press,

'MR. RUSSERT: Hillary Clinton was asked about if Iran launched a nuclear attack against Israel, and this is the answer she gave. Let's listen.

(Videotape)

SEN. HILLARY CLINTON (D-NY): (From "Good Morning America") Well, the question was, "If Iran were to launch a nuclear attack on Israel, what would our response be?" And I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. And I want them to understand that.

We would be able to totally obliterate them.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: "Obliterate them."

SEN. OBAMA: Yeah.

MR. RUSSERT: What do you think of that language?

SEN. OBAMA: Well, it's not the language that we need right now, and I think it's language that's reflective of George Bush. We have had a foreign policy of bluster and saber-rattling and tough talk, and, in the meantime, we make a series of strategic decisions that actually strengthen Iran. So--and, you know, the irony is, of course, Senator Clinton, during the course of this campaign, has at times said, "We shouldn't speculate about Iran." You know, "We've got to be cautious when we're running for president." She scolded me on a couple of occasions about this issue, and yet, a few days before an election, she's willing to use that language. But in terms of... terms of...

MR. RUSSERT: But would you...

SEN. OBAMA: ...in terms of...

MR. RUSSERT: Would you respond against Iran?

SEN. OBAMA: It--Israel is a ally of ours. It is the most important ally we have in the region, and there's no doubt that we would act forcefully and appropriately on any attack against Iran, nuclear or otherwise. So--but it is important that we use language that sends a signal to the world community that we're shifting from the sort of cowboy diplomacy, or lack of diplomacy, that we've seen out of George Bush. And this kind of language is not helpful. When Iran is able to go to the United Nations complaining about the statements made and get some sympathy, that's a sign that we are taking the wrong approach."

I had complained at the time that this diction is monstrous. I mean, it is surreal to have Democrats discussing whether it is appropriate for the US to "totally obliterate" another country. It would be one thing if she had threatened the Iranian military. Targeting civilians, who would be included in the "total" obliteration, is a war crime.

Clinton stood by her remarks: "I don't think it's time to equivocate. [Iran has] to know they would face massive retaliation. That is the only way to rein them in." The premise that "they" only understand the language of massive violence is in fact a rightwing premise more characteristic of W. and Ariel Sharon than of the Democratic Party tradition.

Clinton's remarks would not be unusual if she had confined herself to saying that the US would forcefully retaliate for any WMD attack on Israel (though the US has no treaty obligations that would require such a response, unlike in the case of NATO). It was the "totally obliterate" phrase that that was objectionable, insofar as it implied the commission of a crime against humanity.

Iraq First Lady Narrowly Escapes death; Baghdad Equivocates on Role of Iran

A roadside bomb almost killed Iraq's first lady on Sunday in Baghdad, striking her car and wounding three of her bodyguards.

Bush is asking for another $70 bn. for next year, most of it for the Iraq War. Will the next president have the courage to put the war in the regular budget and not disguise the costs as a "supplemental"? (Even a lot of smart people get fooled by this, talking about how the budget deficit shrank, even as they neglected to include the war expenses.)

CSM reports on the way the Iraqi government is in between the US and Iran and says it lacks hard proof of Iranian interference. It is forming a commission to look into the matter. Iraqi government spokesman Ali al-Dabbagh said at his first Sunday news conference that there is no hard evidence that the Iranian government is sending in arms to destabilize Iraq.

The headline writer of the Washington Post took the low road. Dabbagh met a second time on Sunday with reporters to clarify the issue of Iranian arms in Iraq. He said that there were certainly Iranian weapons in Iraq, but the question was where they came from. The Post headline tries to make it look as though Dabbagh was accusing the Iranian government; he was simply leaving open the possibility. Check into who wrote the headline. It will be revealing.

After all, Iran has a well developed criminal black market in arms (Ronald Reagan once got involved in it). So the presence of Iran-made weapons proves nothing about Iranian government intentions. The ayatollahs in Tehran have been openly siding with the al-Maliki government against the Mahdi Army militia.

Tom Engelhardt on the Iraq War as endless war.

Yahoo and Microsoft are forbidding Iranians to sign up for email services as Iranians. They have erased that country from their list of possible nationalities.

John Mearsheimer corrects the NYT review of Benny Morris's 1948. The review repeats a lot of old discredited chestnuts about the 1948 war. The Arab governments did not call on the Palestinians to leave, guys. There is no transcript of any such transmission in any archive. Nor would it make sense to deprive their armies of sympathetic locals who could offer food and information. Etc., etc. But Zionist propaganda, like other nationalist propaganda, has immense staying power in the face of contrary evidence.

McClatchy reports political violence on Sunday in Iraq:

' Baghdad

- Around 8 p.m. two roadside bombs targeted the Iraqi traffic police headquarters in Yarmouk neighborhood, killing one traffic policeman and injuring four others.

- Around 10 p.m. Mrs. Hiro Talabani, Iraq's first lady, survived a roadside bomb explosion that targeted her convoy near the Iraqi national theater in central Baghdad, injuring 4 bodyguards.

- Around 2:45 p.m. a magnetic bomb attached to a car exploded near the Green Zone injuring one civilian.

- Imam Ali Hospital in Sadr city received 5 dead bodies, including three children, and 17 injured, including children within the last 24 hours.

- Three mortar shells hit the Green Zone.

- Gunmen killed Dr. Ayaad Jafar, the assistant of head of Baghdad University, and injured two of his sons in Al Adel neighborhood.

- Two mortar shells slammed near Al Hurriyah square in Karrada injuring two civilians.

- A rocket hit a residential area in Karrada and didn't explode.

- A roadside bomb targeted an Iraqi army vehicle in central Baghdad injuring two soldiers.

- A roadside bomb targeted civilians in Zayuna injured two children and one man.

- Iraqi police found three dead bodies throughout Baghdad, one in Zayuna, one in Mansour, one in Shurta Rabia.

Diyala

- A member of Al Sahwa (Awakening), a U.S. sponsored militia, was killed and another member was injured while trying to defuse a roadside bomb near one of Al Sahwa headquarters near Al Wajihiya area, 12 miles east of Baquba.

Salahuddin

- Gunmen bombed a policeman's house near Balad city, killing two women.

Nineveh

- Gunmen killed Sarwa Abdul Wahab, a journalist, a lawyer and a member of the Mosul branch of the Independent Electoral Commission in Iraq. She was leaving her house with her mother in Al Bakr neighborhood in Mosul.

- Gunmen killed two civilians in two different incidents in Mosul.

- A roadside bomb targeted a civilian car in Mosul killing one civilian.

Basra

- Iraqi police said an Iranian coast guard boat killed an Iraqi fisherman near Al Fau. A local fishermen association said three fishermen were killed in the attack. '

US wounds 30 at Hospital; Kills 14 in Separate Incidents; Iraq MPS Dicker with Iran over Sadr

McClatchy reports that a US missile strike aimed at a suspected Mahdi Army HQ blew out the windows in a hospital next door in the densely populated slum of Sadr City. Flying glass produced by a missile is like lots of little missiles:

'The rocket strike near Sadr Hospital injured 30 people, shattered the windows of ambulances and sent doctors and hospital staff fleeing the scene, hospital officials said. That hospital and another major facility in Sadr City had already taken in 25 dead bodies between Friday afternoon and 10 a.m. Saturday, when the strike occurred, hospital officials said. None of the injuries was life threatening. The U.S. military is facing growing criticism over what residents describe as mounting civilian casualties in Sadr City, a densely populated slum of some 2.5 million people, which has seen heavy clashes over the past six weeks between U.S. and Iraqi forces and militiamen loyal to the hard-line Shiite cleric Muqtada al Sadr.'

It adds, "American troops also killed 14 people in separate incidents in and around Sadr City as bloody street battles continued to mark the U.S. effort to rid the area of suspected Shiite Muslim militants, military officials said."

Iran is threatening to pull out of scheduled talks with the US over the strikes on civilian neighborhoods by US missiles.

Al-Hayat reports that the Iraqi parliamentary delegation now in Iran, sent by PM Nuri al-Maliki, will ask Tehran's help in reestablishing the relationship between the elements of the United Iraqi Alliance (the Shiite coalition that includes the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq and the Da`wa (Islamic Mission) Party, including the Sadrists. They are seeking to make up ahead of the provincial elections now scheduled for October. The delegation is demanding that Sadr dissolve his Mahdi Army militia and obey the central government's commands, in return for which he will be guaranteed a prominent role in the central government. This source on the delegation said that Muqtada is in Qom and that the delegation will attempt to conduct a direct dialogue with him.

Another member of the delegation, though, contradicted this account, saying that they had only come to see a high ranking official (presumably Qasim Sulaimani of the Quds Force). This member denied that they would seek discussions with Sadr.

Sadr spokesman Falah Shanshal said that no agreements reached between Maliki and the Iranians would be recognized by the Sadr Movement if Muqtada al-Sadr was not part of the parleys.

In other news, Al-Sharq al-Awsat reports in Arabic that The Iraqi National List of Iyad Allawi is demanding that PM Nuri al-Maliki apologize to Allawi for suggesting that he was behing the January, 2007 millenarian uprising in Najaf. Al-Maliki's people say that apologizing will be "difficult." (Maliki's accusation is bizarre).

McClatchy reports political violence on Saturday:

'Baghdad

- Around 8:30 am a roadside bomb targeted traffic policemen at Nafaq Al-Shurta (Shurta tunnel) neighborhood (west Baghdad). One civilian was killed and eight were injured (including 6 traffic policemen).

- Around 10 am, the Sadr hospital in Sadr city was hit by an American missile. Thirty people were injured and a number of ambulances were damaged, a hospital official said. The U.S. military said that a targeted strike destroyed a "criminal element command and control center." The center was near the hospital and the U.S. military said that only the windows were damaged at the hospital.

- Around 3pm, a roadside bomb targeted an American patrol at Amil neighborhood near Amil petrol station(west Baghdad). No casualties reported.

- Around 3pm, a roadside bomb targeted an American patrol at Mohammad Al-Qasim high way near Shaab neighborhood(north east Baghdad).No casualties reported.

-- Around 3pm, a roadside bomb targeted an American patrol at Shaab intersection (north east Baghdad). No casualties reported.

- Police found 4 dead bodies in Baghdad today: 2 were found in Karkh bank; 1 in Bayaa and 1 in Hurriyah. While 2 were found in Risafa bank; 1 in Shaab and 1 in Ur.

Mosul

- Saturday morning, clashes took place between gunmen and Iraqi army at Sumer neighborhood in Mosul city. One gunman was killed in those clashes.

- Around noon, a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol at Tal Al-Ruman(south west Mosul).Three people were injured (including two policemen).

Kirkuk

- Saturday morning a roadside bomb targeted a police patrol near the third bridge in downtown Kirkuk city. Three policemen were injured.


Diyala

- Saturday morning a 7-year-old child was injured when he picked up a flashlight in the street. The flashlight was rigged with explosives and it exploded. The child, Mohammed Omran, was killed in the Shurta neighborhood in downtown Khanaqin (north east Baquba). '