Snowden, Syria, and Obama

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/surveillance_09-06.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?hp&_r=0

Snowden leaked that the NSA gave companies court orders to fork over their security keys so that they could access confidential financial and personal info. The made the companies sign gag orders so they couldn't complain, and we are talking about the major players like MSFT and GOOG (in fact Google is now suing the gov't for the right to tell the public about how they were forced to give access to user info). Also, the NSA just blatantly cracked other firms' encryption. Ironically the US Gov't has recently complained about China doing that to our companies. The NSA hasn't denied anything, and said that the disclosure has hurt national security. As we discussed before in the original Snowden story, maybe this invasive action is tolerable when there is a court-issued warrant (from a real court with real oversight, not some shadowy FISA BS), but they can't just arbitrarily cast a dragnet on everyone.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_09-06.html

Was it a mistake for Obama to involve Congress in the Syria decision? Apart from the hard core hawks like McCain, many in the GOP have incentive to make Obama look ineffective on Syria. House leaders "support" Obama's plan, but won't round up votes for him. Congressional Dems now feel pressured to go to bat for the president, and if the Syria op goes bad, it may cost them in the midterms. The majority of Americans are apathetic or against military escalation in Syria, as are the majority of the world's people (or so it seems after the G20 summit). So it's unlikely that Obama will even be able to assemble a coalition at home and abroad to match the support for the Iraq invasion, as sad as that is (Saddam: imaginary WMDs, Assad: real WMDs and he used them). So now will Obama "go it alone" (+France), which is the type of unilateral action that he denounced when the Bushies did it. Or when is it OK to go it alone if you know you're right? Well, if you are right, it shouldn't be too hard to persuade/bribe/intimidate others into tacit approval or full support. And for all of Obama's big talk and int'l adoration, his administration has actually been pretty horrible on diplomacy. Talk is cheap now that Assad has deployed WMD. The trick is you talk to him BEFOREHAND, when better options still existed, stakes were lower, and emotions were cooler. But we tend to dither until problems get out of hand. Maybe that is also a side effect of Iraq's failed pre-emptive war strategy and resultant anti-Americanism, now we are skeptical/hesitant to swiftly engage anyone, even if it's not militarily.

I have mixed feelings about a military strike, unless we want to do it purely as formality to show that there are *some* consequences to using WMD (just lob some missiles at easy targets and that's it, no escalation plans, no what-ifs). But like Iraq, right now we don't really have an exit strategy, or any strategy, or even agreed-upon objectives (regime change, reduce Assad's ability to use WMD again, protect civilians? Not necessarily mutually exclusive). That's why it's so frustrating to see big Dems like Pelosi rubber-stamping this. Another problem is Iran has called for terror groups to strike at US targets and affiliates if we do anything to Syria, so we have to weigh the risk-benefits (and sorry Syrian victims, unfortunately your lives are less valuable to us).

Russia has moved some warships into the Eastern Med. I also don't understand that... why does Russia care so much what happens to Assad? I know he is a big trading partner and buys a lot of weapons from them (and is serving as a distraction for the US to prevent our "hegemony" in the Mideast), but is it worth losing face if Assad ends up going madman and doing something worse? According to Putin, it's not just him and China though, as India, Brazil, Argentina, and Italy have also opposed military action.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html

But as usual, Syria is really a proxy battleground and the underlying issues are much bigger. Syria's people are unfortunately a test case to evaluate what are the int'l norms for violating sovereignty for humanitarian, political, or security reasons. Supposedly we're going to have to face similar issues with Iran as it gets closer to a functional bomb, and as the people demand more freedom from the theocracy and may revolt. What the interested parties do vis-a-vis Syria is signaling to the other parties on what will happen should Iran go down a similar path. Unfortunately the US is not sending out great signals at the moment: dithering on justification and appropriate response to WMD usage and other atrocities. Plus all this pre-warning and debate is giving Assad plenty of time to prepare and hide or shield his military assets, as well as giving Iran's proxies preparation for potential retaliations. The trick was to diffuse Syria way before we ever got to this point, but that ship has sailed long ago. You think Kennedy and Khruschev could have resolved the CMC if troops had already killed each other?

FUBAR....

--------

I was listening to someone on NPR about the Russian perspective and it was really interesting.  Aside from the fact that Russia has a fair amount of Russian interests at stake in Syria, they view the crisis much more on the side of Assad than they do the rebels because of their past with Chechnya.  A sub-unit of their country, Islamic terrorism, etc.  So for the ruskies this looks a lot more like a conflict they are familiar with and don't want to see the "terrorists" win.

I'm not sure why Obama is giving this to the congress.  I think, as a rule, it should.  But in his own speech at the G20 he said that these types of conflicts don't poll well.  If Rwanda were today it wouldn't poll well.  So given that he knows it is generally unpopular, why put it to a vote?  Just so posterity can be SURE that his action was against the will of the people?  

Also an onion article, I paraphrase:  "Obama debating to either proceed with missile strikes, or to strike with missiles".  It doesn't seem like there are any alternatives being considered, perhaps rightly so, but it doesn't help the idea that the congress is controlling this mess.  If they vote 'no' then what happens?

The fact that Snowden is not considered a whistle blower is ridiculous.  I don't see how anyone can, with a straight face, say that we the people don't have a right to this kind of information.  The fact that there are secret courts, massive spying networks, privacy tools currently available have been backdoor'ed or defeated entirely, is insane.  And the response is "why doesn't he let a court decide if he is really a whistle blower?"  As if history is full of examples of prosecuted whistle blowers who had nothing bad happen to them.  Get real.

--------

Thx, M.

I 100% agree with you on Snowden. The "official" definition of whistleblower is BS, modified by the people who stand to lose from whistleblowers. And as you said, the whole "give yourself up and you will get your chance to be heard" has probably never worked out. This NSA garbage is blatant abuse of power, and the only difference with Nixon is that the NSA hasn't been caught obstructing justice yet (because they have courts that exist to protect them, unlike Nixon). Another side effect of the terror-industrial complex. But I think the bigger tragedy is that democratically minded, progressive, and smart leaders like Obama and Feinstein are not only failing to hold the NSA accountable, but actively defending them. There was a scene from this season of Sorkin's "The Newsroom", ironically about investigating a wild claim that the US used WMD on Pakistani "terrorists". The producer was frustrated that his peers couldn't fathom this president's capacity for criminality because they liked and admired him so damn much. To me, THAT is Obama's greatest sin (not the fact that he is a Kenyan born Muslim).

Ya I can understand that Russian perspective, and China may have it too regarding their internal dissidents. But unless they really consider unarmed women and kids as "terrorists" who deserve to be gassed (assuming the evidence is solid and not the BS that Colin Powell presented to the UN), I think they are kind of full of it. Remember when Russia invaded Georgia, because Georgia was trying to put down a rebellion in South Ossetia that was trying to unify with Russia? So in that crude analogy, Georgia = Syria, Ossetian rebels = Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels, and Russia = the US ("peacekeepers"). So it was OK for Russia to invade then, but they oppose the US+France doing it now? There are plenty of reasons to protest Obama's plan, but Russia doesn't really have the cred to say anything.

A friend sent this interesting read on Syria (below). It is basically saying that the worst thing Obama can do is pledge a "limited" response to Assad's war crime (my bad, as that was what I suggested with some ceremonial Tomahawk strikes). That way Assad knows exactly what the cost of using WMD is, and he can make the rational choice as to when it will be worth it to use them. Uncertainty breeds fear and caution (and sometime clarity), and that is what we want to attack him with. It was no accident that Saddam and Osama looked pretty sickly and pathetic when we found them. Hiding for your life and never knowing when SEALs are going to bust down your door takes a helluva toll on a person. It might even motivate them to capitulate. So the author is saying that we shouldn't reveal our hand. We should build up massively on Syria's borders, run some major military exercises and flex our muscles, and that will scare the crap out of Assad. Maybe Obama should lose the cool veneer and act a bit unstable for the cameras. Dictators fear cowboys like Bush more than vulcans like Obama. Idiots and bullies think that violence solves problems. Clever leaders know that there are many other levers of persuasion.

And what about cyber warfare? We crashed Iran's centrifuges and we spy on our own innocent civilians. Why can't we shut down Assad's military IT and wipe our his finances? Heck we could make his warplanes fire on each other instead of strafing towns.

Syria and Byzantine Strategy

September 4, 2013 | 0900 GMT

Stratfor

In March 1984, I was reporting from the Hawizeh Marshes in southern Iraq near the Iranian border. The Iran-Iraq War was in its fourth year, and the Iranians had just launched a massive infantry attack, which the Iraqis repelled with poison gas. I beheld hundreds of young, dead Iranian soldiers, piled up and floating in the marshes, like dolls without a scar on any of them. An Iraqi officer poked one of the bodies with his walking stick and told me, "This is what happens to the enemies of Saddam [Hussein]." Of course, the Iranians were hostile troops invading Iraqi territory; not civilians. But Saddam got around to killing women and children, too, with chemical weapons. In March 1988, he gassed roughly 5,000 Kurds to death. As a British reporter with me in the Hawizeh Marshes had quipped, "You could fit the human rights of Iraq on the head of a pin, and still have room for the human rights of Iran."
The reaction of the Reagan administration to the gassing to death of thousands of Kurdish civilians by Saddam was to keep supporting him through the end of his war with Iran. The United States was then in the midst of a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and as late as mid-1989 it wouldn't be apparent that this twilight struggle would end so suddenly and so victoriously. Thus, with hundreds of thousands of American servicemen occupied in Europe and northeast Asia, using Saddam's Iraq as a proxy against Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran made perfect sense.
The United States has values, but as a great power it also has interests. Ronald Reagan may have spoken the rousing language of universal freedom, but his grand strategy was all of a piece. And that meant picking and choosing his burdens wisely. As a result, Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, featuring chemical weapons, was overlooked.
In fact, the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, coterminous with the life of the Reagan administration, was a boon to it. By tying down two large and radical states in the heart of the Middle East, the war severely reduced the trouble that each on its own would certainly have caused the region for almost a decade. This gave Reagan an added measure of leeway in order to keep his focus on Europe and the Soviets -- and on hurting the Soviets in Afghanistan. To wit, only two years after the Iran-Iraq War ended, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Peace between Iran and Iraq was arguably no blessing to the United States and the West.
Likewise, it might be argued that the Syrian civil war, now well into its second year, has carried strategic benefits to the West. The analyst Edward N. Luttwak, writing recently in The New York Times, has pointed out that continued fighting in Syria is preferable to either of the two sides winning outright. If President Bashar al Assad's forces were to win, then the Iranians and the Russians would enjoy a much stronger position in the Levant than before the war. If the rebels were to win, it is entirely possible that Sunni jihadists, with ties to transnational terrorism, will have a staging post by the Mediterranean similar to what they had in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan until 2001, and also similar to what they currently have in Libya. So rather than entertain either of those two possibilities, it is better that the war continue.
Of course, all of this is quite cold-blooded. The Iran-Iraq War took the lives of over a million people. The Syrian civil war has so far claimed reportedly 110,000 lives. Even the celebrated realist of the mid-20th century, Hans Morgenthau of the University of Chicago, proclaimed the existence of a universal moral conscience, which sees war as a "natural catastrophe." And it is this very conscience that ultimately limits war's occurrence. That is what makes foreign policy so hard. If it were simply a matter of pursuing a state's naked interests, then there would be few contradictions between desires and actions. If it were simply a matter of defending human rights, there would similarly be fewer hard choices. But foreign policy is both. And because voters will only sustain losses to a nation's treasure when serious interests are threatened, interests often take precedence over values. Thus, awful compromises are countenanced.
Making this worse is the element of uncertainty. The more numerous the classified briefings a leader receives about a complex and dangerous foreign place, the more he may realize how little the intelligence community actually knows. This is not a criticism of the intelligence community, but an acknowledgment of complexity, especially when it concerns a profusion of armed and secretive groups, and an array of hard-to-quantify cultural factors. What option do I pursue? And even if I make the correct choice, how sure can I be of the consequences? And even if I can be sure of the consequences -- which is doubtful -- is it worth diverting me from other necessary matters, both foreign and domestic, for perhaps weeks or even months?
Luttwak himself offers partial relief to such enigmas through a meticulous and erudite study of one of the greatest survival strategies in history. In The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (2009), he demonstrates the properties by which Byzantium, despite a threatened geographic position, survived for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. This Byzantine strategy, in its own prodigiously varied and often unconscious way, mirrored Morgenthau's realism, laced as it is with humanism.
The Byzantines, Luttwak writes, relied continuously on every method of deterrence. "They routinely paid off their enemies….using all possible tools of persuasion to recruit allies, fragment hostile alliances, subvert unfriendly rulers…" He goes on: "For the Romans…as for most great powers until modern days, military force was the primary tool of statecraft, with persuasion a secondary complement. For the Byzantine Empire it was mostly the other way around. Indeed, the shift of emphasis from force to diplomacy is one way of differentiating Rome from Byzantium…" In other words, "Avoid war by every possible means in all possible circumstances, but always act as if it might start at any time [his italics]." The Byzantines bribed, connived, dissembled and so forth, and as a consequence survived for centuries on end and fought less wars than they would have otherwise.
The lesson: be devious rather than bloody. President Barack Obama's mistake is not his hesitancy about entering the Syrian mess; but announcing to the Syrians that his military strike, if it occurs, will be "narrow" and "limited." Never tell your adversary what you're not going to do! Let your adversary stay awake all night, worrying about the extent of a military strike! Unless Obama is being deliberately deceptive about his war aims, then some of the public statements from the administration have been naïve in the extreme.
A Byzantine strategy, refitted to the postmodern age, would maintain the requisite military force in the eastern Mediterranean, combined with only vague presidential statements about the degree to which such force might or might not be used. It would feature robust, secret and ongoing diplomacy with the Russians and the Iranians, aware always of their interests both regionally and globally, and always open to deals and horse-trades with them. The goal would be to engineer a stalemate-of-sorts in Syria rather than necessarily remove al Assad. Reducing the intensity of fighting would thus constitute a morality in and of itself, even as it would keep either side from winning outright. For if the regime suddenly crumbled, violence might only escalate, and al Qaeda might even find a sanctuary close to Israel and Jordan.
Such a strategy might satisfy relatively few of the cognoscenti. Though, the American public -- which has a more profound, albeit badly articulated sense of national survival -- will surely tolerate it. The Congressional debate that preceded the Iraq War did not save President George W. Bush from obloquy when that war went badly. The lack of such a debate would not hurt Obama were he to successfully execute the methods described in Luttwak's book.

The dangerous sectarian nature of the Syrian civil war

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hezbollah-launching-offensive-profoundly-change-164121898.html

I haven't brought up Syria before because I am not well versed in the details, and frankly it's just depressing. But some recent turn of events have made things even more complicated and impactful.

- The civil war is about 2 years old, almost 100K Syrians (and some famous Western journalists) have died, and about 20% of the population is internally or externally displaced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

- Israel has bombed a supposed weapons shipment to Hezbollah near the border. They may have also bombed a weapons facility in Damascus last month. We are used to thinking that Jihadi groups are also anti-government because most dictators in the Muslim World are kind of secular. But in Hezbollah's case ("The Party of God" formed to oppose the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon), they are explicit allies of Iran (a Shia theocracy and Shia majority nation) and Syria (neither of those). But Hezbollah is Shia and they support Assad against the rebels who are majority Sunni. So things are taking a nasty sectarian turn.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/

- The regime or the rebels may have used chemical weapons in combat, which would violate the "red line" established by Obama as a trigger for escalation. But it's doubtful. However, America's #1 concern there is probably the containment of those WMDs. Even if Assad is toppled, who will control and distribute his stockpile?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166580524/chemical-weapons-and-the-syrian-civil-war

- We know that Iran and Russia (and China sort-of) support Assad's regime because they are strategic/trade allies, and Assad as seen as a counter to Israel and US "domination" of the region. So they have blocked stronger EU-led actions against Assad in the UN, and continue to ship high tech weapons to Damascus in spite of global condemnation.

- The EU embargo on weapons trade with Syria just expired, so the UK and France are considering arming the rebels (but which rebels is a big question). The UN has opposed this, and the US doesn't want to go down that route for obvious reasons, but has likely provided advisers and non-lethal resources to some rebels. We are trying to prop up non-Jihadi, pro-Western rebels, because unfortunately some of the most powerful and effective rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are Sunni extremists who have recently allied themselves with Al Qaeda (and therefore got on the global terror list and cut off from Western aid). So clearly we don't want to arm them and help them win, but we also want Assad to fall. Of course rebel groups are fighting each other too, as we saw in Libya. The West is caught in a terrible spot: Assad is a jerk and supported by orgs and nations we don't get along with. He is slaughtering his people, but he is also keeping Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood out of power there. It's like Egypt but compounded by WMD containment fears.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-syria/

- As if that wasn't bad enough, the top link from Yahoo describes how Hezbollah is now actively sending in fighters to Syria to defend Assad, a noteworthy escalation (Muslim fighters flocking to Syria, like Afghanistan and Iraq before). This may help Assad cling to power but turn the populace against Islamic groups, though most of them have already picked sides. The Shia Alawites are the ruling minority; wealthier, urban, and aligned with Assad. So Iran, some of Iraq, and Hezbollah obviously support that side, and Saudi, Israel, and Al Qaeda oppose them (interesting "allies" indeed). Al Qaeda leaders have also urged other Muslims to go to Syria and topple Assad. The poorer, oppressed majority are Sunnis, who want Assad out either because they are pro-reform or hate Shia/Alawites or follow Salafi-Jihadi fundamentalist Sunni Islam like Al Qaeda. As we've seen in Iraq, both sides may think of the other as heretics, and both have a history of ethnic cleansing (BTW the Syria conflict is also inflaming sectarian tension in fragile Iraq now too). So Assad and the Shia see this as an existential struggle, because they fear that if the Sunnis take over, they will be slaughtered.

- So who should the West back and arm? It's a confusing mess. Some have said we should intervene on a humanitarian basis and protect civilians. Enforce a no-fly zone maybe. A few problems with that (that completely escape folks like McCain): Syria's air defenses are much better than Libya's or Serbia's. Syria has WMDs and delivery systems for them, unlike Libya or Serbia. Syria is next door to our allies in Iraq and Israel, unlike Libya or Serbia. You get the picture. I am not sure what the "right thing to do" is, but if we intervene militarily, it's going to be ugly with a lot of consequences. What I also fear is an escalating multi-nation sectarian war. We know that various groups are financially and militarily backing or opposing the various Syrian forces. And those backers don't like each other: Iran, Saudi, Israel, the EU, Russia, China, US, and NGOs connected to Jihadi terrorism. This proxy war may eventually evolve into an overt war. And if that happens, Iraq will look tame in comparison.

Was Ahmadinejad misquoted about Israel?

http://greatreporter.com/mambo/content/view/1531/1/

24/. Media Misquotes Threat From Iran's President

A mistranslated quotation attributed to Iran's President Ahmadinejad, which threatened that, "Israel must be wiped off the map," has been spread around the world. Ahmadinejad's actual statements, however, were significantly less threatening.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word " Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime . This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

----------

24/. Media Misquotes Threat From Iran's President

A mistranslated quotation attributed to Iran's President Ahmadinejad, which threatened that, "Israel must be wiped off the map," has been spread around the world. Ahmadinejad's actual statements, however, were significantly less threatening.

So what did Ahmadinejad actually say? To quote his exact words in farsi:

"Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."

That passage will mean nothing to most people, but one word might ring a bell: rezhim-e. It is the word " Regime", pronounced just like the English word with an extra "eh" sound at the end. Ahmadinejad did not refer to Israel the country or Israel the land mass, but the Israeli regime . This is a vastly significant distinction, as one cannot wipe a regime off the map. Ahmadinejad does not even refer to Israel by name, he instead uses the specific phrase "rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" (regime occupying Jerusalem).

"Regime occupying Jerusalem" is just a circumlocution which still identifies Israel. That he refuses to dignify the nation by calling it by name seems more, rather than less, ominous. When you raise a farm animal they always recommend not giving it a name, because it makes the process of slaughtering it more emotionally charged (except Andrew and his cow "Hamburger"!). Referring to it as a regime rather than a nation/country allows him to dehumanize the state in the same way Americans do with nations we don't like: Castro's regime, Saddam's regime, the North Korean regime ... "regime" is a word you use to describe an evil government of bad people.

So this raises the question.. what exactly did he want "wiped from the map"? The answer is: nothing. That's because the word "map" was never used. The Persian word for map, "nagsheh", is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase "wipe out" ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran's President threatened to "wipe Israel off the map", despite never having uttered the words "map", "wipe out" or even "Israel".

This seems kind of asinine to me. "Wipe off the map" is a colloquialism, and I'd be surprised if it directly translated into Arabic. There's always a challenge in translating about how you convey connotations - doing a literal, word-for-word translation often omits much of the meaning of the original statement. But making a big deal about how the word "map" was NEVER USED seems juvenile, at best.

For example, think about the Greek phrase "come home with your shield, or on it". It's understandable with a simple word-for-word translation, but there's additional contextual information you have to know about the culture in order to understand not just what the speaker said, but what the speaker meant. Translating those sorts of phrases is non-trivial.

THE PROOF:

The full quote translated directly to English:

"The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

Word by word translation:

Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (said) een (this) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupying) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (must) az safheh-ye ruzgar (from page of time) mahv shavad (vanish from).

"Must vanish from the page of time" ... it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch to imagine this phrase is a similar colloquialism to "wipe off the map". Vanishing from the page of time doesn't seem like a nice thing to have happen to you. It's a slightly different verb construction which may give it a different connotation: "must be wiped from the map" is in the passive voice, and implies an actor who performs the wiping. This sort of passive voice in most official documents tends to imply that the speaker identifies with that unnamed actor, though without directly taking responsibility for the statement (seeing the passive voice in any corporate/political communication should set off a red flag). "Must vanish from the page of time" doesn't have the same implication of an actor who would make the regime vanish, so it's a bit less threatening.

But that sort of analysis is pretty deeply rooted in English. It's not obvious what the connotation of the phrase would be to a native Iranian. The translation of that phrase into the colloquialism "wiped off the map" depends on a lot of contextual knowledge on the part of the translator. It may be the proper way of translating the meaning, and it may be an overstatement. But it's certainly not the sort of thing you can prove or disprove as simply as getting out your Arabic-English dictionary and doing some simplistic word-for-word translation.

Here is the full transcript of the speech in farsi, archived on Ahmadinejad's web site

www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

This is the passage that has been isolated, twisted and distorted so famously. By measure of comparison, Ahmadinejad would seem to be calling for regime change, not war.

Perhaps the author should distinguish between regime change and war. I've only seen a couple instances of "regime change" in my lifetime, but they weren't happy, frolicking sorts of affairs. Sounds like the speaker is using the same set of linguistic tricks our own dear president did in justifying the regime change which happened to Iran's neighbor. It's somewhat mysterious to me why the author believes Iran's proposed regime change for Israel would be any less bloody.

------------

While I don’t personally believe that an Iran driven Israeli regime change would be peaceful, it is not hard to imagine someone wanting a regime change WITHOUT destroying the country. For instance, I imagine a great many Americans want a regime change in…America! The GOP and religious right and so on could I think easily be considered a new regime in America. So with Israel, there are particular policies that one may adhere to that would be extremely distasteful to Iran (expanding borders for example). The unfortunate thing is that Iran is still a theocracy and so it is basically a given that they hate Jews, as well as any other religion that is not their own. So when they say regime change that is probably a p.c. way of saying die infidel die. But the fact of the matter is that the American media didn’t offer the real words and then explain to you why they mean what they mean, they skipped step B through Y and went to Z, Iran wants to destroy Israel. So it seems to me the American media definitely got away with telling a half truth, sometimes more damaging than a full lie. I’ll throw this sentence to my Iranian buddy at work and see what he things it means. Not word for word, but a description of the meaning that it is meant to convey. I’ll see what he comes up with.

---------

This was a link from M's site so I have no familiarity with the source, nor do I speak Farsi (btw the predominant language in Iran is Farsi, not Arabic, because Persians are not of Arab descent). Maybe we shouldn't read into things so much or bother with semantics/interpretations. I think the more interesting question is, did someone deliberately embellish the translation of the quote so as to make Ahmadinejad appear more anti-Semitic, more crazy, and more repugnant to Western sensibilities? If so, then someone has an agenda to demonize Iran and its leader, presumably to increase popular support for anti-regime activities. And contrary to your assertions, "regime" does not imply evil government, and regime change does not have to be violent (more to come on this below). If not, then the author is a propagandist (to the other extreme) to try to mask Ahmadinejad's liabilities. So Iran's leader is a vocal anti-Semite who threatens his enemies. That makes him no worse than our allies Mahmoud Abbas or some Saudi leaders (who still haven't officially recognized Israel). Premier Khruschev threatened to "bury" America (and unlike Iran, the Soviets actually had the ability to do so), but did he? Nixon probably said nastier things about the Jews on his White House tapes, yet his administration gave Israel plenty of economic and military aid. Words are not actions.

I don't think it is useful to "psychologize" Ahmadinejad, armed with more assumption than evidence, to decipher the hidden connotations of him not calling Israel by name. It could have just been a slip of the tongue or a euphemism (like in America we call Israel "The Jewish State" but we are not trying to dehumanize them by doing so).

Regime change can be bloody but doesn't have to be. The Soviet Union was supposed to be the godless, belligerent "Evil Empire" bent on world domination and such. They had a bloodless regime change. East Germany called it quits nonviolently. There were also bloodless regime changes and movements towards greater democracy and less military rule in South Africa, South Korea, and Indonesia. The British and French granted several of their Caribbean and African colonies independence without any fighting. Do I think the fairly right-wing government in Israel will go down without a fight? Definitely not, but regime change does not equal war. Under Clinton, the official State Department policy towards the 3 Axis of Evil nations was "regime change". Did we fire a single shot? There are peaceful diplomatic and economic ways to encourage regime change. Do I think Iran would favor those choices over military aggression if they had the chance? Who knows and it's just speculation anyway. Bottom line, calling for regime change in another nation is not a declaration of war. Sometimes regimes are toppled violently, but often from the inside and not due to a foreign invasion.

"Regime" is just a word for a ruling body. In the Western mass media it has come to have a negative connotation, but really we can't assume that in all cases. There's nothing in that word that suggests "evil", whether Iran refers to the regime in Jerusalem or when Bush refers to the regime in Tehran. But it does seem that our press and politicians use "regime" to characterize unfriendly governments more often than allies. Though to me it's silly to blanket-label governments as good or evil. All governments do some good and some bad at various times. How do we draw the line when a regime is good or evil? Is it all in the eye of the beholder? Maybe in that case, we should keep "regime" as a neutral word as it was originally intended.

Webster:
re·gime /rəˈʒim, reɪ-, or, sometimes, -ˈdʒim / Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ruh-zheem, rey-, or, sometimes, -jeem] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation –noun

1.	a mode or system of rule or government .

2.	a ruling or prevailing system.

3.	a government in power.

4.	the period during which a particular government or ruling system is in power.

5.	Medicine/Medical. regimen (def. 1).

This year, 60 Minutes had a lengthy interview with Ahmadinejad that some members of the Jewish American community were very upset at ABC for airing. The host prodded Ahmadinejad several times to qualify what he meant in his previous speech when he supposedly said "wipe Israel off the map". But he didn't respond. If he and the rest of Iran are such anti-Semites, then why didn't he say anything derogatory on American mass media when he would reach the greatest audience to disseminate his "hate"? When he was invited to Columbia to speak (and NYC is home to more Jewish people than Tel Aviv), he again refrained from any anti-Israeli conversation. If he was such a racist and extremist, why would he back down from two of the biggest speaking forums in his life? Instead he discussed other socio-political issues.

Look, I make no apologies for Ahmadinejad. I think he's a poor leader and an ineffective politician, but he has a brain. He may say ridiculous things like, "There are no gays in Iran", but he is not a wacko. It takes some guile and skill for an engineering professor to become mayor of Tehran, climb the political ladder, tame the Ayatollahs, and eventually become president, even though his popularity numbers are poor and on the decline, and he may not win re-election unless he delivers on his promise to improve their economy. He got slammed in the recent Iranian election, where candidates loyal to Ahmadinejad were summarily voted down. To his peril probably, Ahmadinejad has focused his administration on standing up to Israel and America, mostly in the form of nuclear research as a matter of national prestige. The more we tell them "no", the more they want to continue. The more we criticize and try to isolate them, the harder it is for moderate, reformist voices to be heard.

We haven't approached diplomacy seriously or maturely, and that move has been counter-productive to our "regime change" agenda. Even Reagan invited Gorby to Santa Barbara against the wishes of the hawks in his party, but history validated his decision. And we won't even have a meet-and-greet among Iranian and US ambassadors? Ahmadinejad has invited Bush to discuss and debate on multiple occasions, but to no avail. Unlike North Korea and Saddam's Iraq, Iran under Ahmadinejad has also engaged in a lot of clever and productive diplomacy to improve ties with Russia, China, and Europe, as well as reach out to Sunni Muslim nations. His government has also bolstered Syria and Shia groups in Iraq and Lebanon, in constructive or damaging ways depending on whom you ask. Even Iraqi PM Maliki said that Iran was a positive influence on his country. Iran has millions of dollars worth of contracts with the Iraqi government, such as setting up a telecom network, and thousands of Iranians make pilgrimages to holy Shia sites within Iraq, contributing to the tourism economy. But when a reporter asked Bush about Maliki's statement, he replied, "If he truly believes that, then the PM and I need to have a heart-to-heart discussion."

----------

And it's not just "biased" Muslims who are protesting the alleged Ahmadinejad misquoting. The Guardian is one of the best investigative reporting sources in the world.

If Iran is ready to talk, the US must do so unconditionally

It is absurd to demand that Tehran should have made concessions before sitting down with the Americans

Jonathan Steele
Friday June 2, 2006
The Guardian

It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war. At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you." Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent.

Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out. Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism. He was not talking about war.

Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated. The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished.

He was not making a military threat. He was calling for an end to the occupation of Jerusalem at some point in the future. The "page of time" phrase suggests he did not expect it to happen soon. There was no implication that either Khomeini, when he first made the statement, or Ahmadinejad, in repeating it, felt it was imminent, or that Iran would be involved in bringing it about.

But the propaganda damage was done, and western hawks bracket the Iranian president with Hitler as though he wants to exterminate Jews. At the recent annual convention of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a powerful lobby group, huge screens switched between pictures of Ahmadinejad making the false "wiping off the map" statement and a ranting Hitler.

Misquoting Ahmadinejad is worse than taking Khrushchev out of context for a second reason. Although the Soviet Union had a collective leadership, the pudgy Russian was the undoubted No 1 figure, particularly on foreign policy. The Iranian president is not.

His predecessor, Mohammad Khatami, was seen in the west as a moderate reformer, and during his eight years in office western politicians regularly lamented the fact that he was not Iran's top decision-maker. Ultimate power lay with the conservative unelected supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Yet now that Ahmadinejad is president, western hawks behave as though he is in charge, when in fact nothing has changed. Ahmadinejad is not the only important voice in Tehran. Indeed Khamenei was quick to try to adjust the misperceptions of Ahmadinejad's comments. A few days after the president made them, Khamenei said Iran "will not commit aggression against any nation".

The evidence suggests that a debate is going on in Tehran over policy towards the west which is no less fierce than the one in Washington. Since 2003 the Iranians have made several overtures to the Bush administration, some more explicit than others. Ahmadinejad's recent letter to Bush was a veiled invitation to dialogue. Iranians are also arguing over policy towards Israel. Trita Parsi, an analyst at Johns Hopkins University, says influential rivals to Ahmadinejad support a "Malaysian" model whereby Iran, like Islamic Malaysia, would not recognise Israel but would not support Palestinian groups such as Hamas, if relations with the US were better.

The obvious way to develop the debate is for the two states to start talking to each other. Last winter the Americans said they were willing, provided talks were limited to Iraq. Then the hawks around Bush vetoed even that narrow agenda. Their victory made nonsense of the pressure the US is putting on other UN security council members for tough action against Iran. Talk of sanctions is clearly premature until Washington and Tehran make an effort to negotiate. This week, in advance of Condoleezza Rice's meeting in Vienna yesterday with the foreign ministers of Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia, the factions in Washington hammered out a compromise. The US is ready to talk to Tehran alongside the EU3 (Britain, France and Germany), but only after Tehran has abandoned its uranium-enrichment programme.

To say the EU3's dialogue with Tehran was sufficient, as Washington did until this week, was the most astonishing example of multilateralism in the Bush presidency. A government that makes a practice of ignoring allies and refuses to accept the jurisdiction of bodies such as the International Criminal Court was leaving all the talking to others on one of the hottest issues of the day. Unless Bush is set on war, this refusal to open a dialogue could not be taken seriously.

The EU3's offer of carrots for Tehran was also meaningless without a US role. Europe cannot give Iran security guarantees. Tehran does not want non-aggression pacts with Europe. It wants them with the only state that is threatening it both with military attack and foreign-funded programmes for regime change.

The US compromise on talks with Iran is a step in the right direction, though Rice's hasty statement was poorly drafted, repeatedly calling Iran both a "government" and a "regime". But it is absurd to expect Iran to make concessions before sitting down with the Americans. Dialogue is in the interests of all parties. Europe's leaders, as well as Russia and China, should come out clearly and tell the Americans so.

Whatever Iran's nuclear ambitions, even US hawks admit it will be years before it could acquire a bomb, let alone the means to deliver it. This offers ample time for negotiations and a "grand bargain" between Iran and the US over Middle Eastern security. Flanked by countries with US bases, Iran has legitimate concerns about Washington's intentions.

Even without the US factor, instability in the Gulf worries all Iranians, whether or not they like being ruled by clerics. All-out civil war in Iraq, which could lead to intervention by Turkey and Iraq's Arab neighbours, would be a disaster for Iran. If the US wants to withdraw from Iraq in any kind of order, this too will require dialogue with Iran. If this is what Blair told Bush last week, he did well. But he should go all the way, and urge the Americans to talk without conditions.

j.steele@guardian.co.uk

http://www.counterpunch.org/tilley08282006.html

----------

Well, after having our profs incessantly make fun of the G. I wouldnt exactly
call the paper one of the best. Its better than most here in the UK, but thats
like saying CNN is better than Fox; true but still reveals just how crappy the
state of journalism in the UK is. The only paper here Id marginally trust to tie
their own shoes is the FT...

I agree our Iran position is basically retarded. I
think I saw an analysis that made a lot of sense to me; basically that Iran is
maybe Israel's largest security concern at the moment (which isn't to say that
it is unmanageable - the Israelis are worried but don't have the same hard-on
for war that the admin does right now, probably because they have to live with
the consequences). However, it is not our largest security concern (Iraq,
Afghanistan rank much higher obviously), and that the admin is basically
conflating the two problems.

Iran is a somewhat problematic player in the regional arena that concerns the US
a lot, but, played right, could work towards our ends (they aren't interested in
letting a bunch of crazies run Iraq either, because then they'd have no
influence), with the proper carrot and stick. However, treating Iran as our
greatest exisential threat more or less precludes this kind of nuance. So we're
shit up a creek in Iraq without their help and have no leverage on them except
war. Great. Obama's thoughts in this regard I thought were actually quite
interesting (I think he's best in class of the major three democrats wrt foreign
policy actually).

Q. The Bush administration has little influence on Iranian behavior in Iraq. How
would you elicit cooperation from Iran and Syria that the Bush administration
has failed to obtain? Would we offer assurances that we would not be engaged in
a policy of regime change. What would you do?

A. I think you foreshadowed my answer. You’ve got the Bush administration
expecting Crocker to make progress on the very narrow issue of helping Shia
militias at the same time as you’ve got Dick Cheney giving a speech saying it is
very likely that we may engage in military action in Iran and the United States
Senate passing a resolution, suggesting that our force structure inside Iraq is
dependent in someway on blunting Iranian influence. You can’t engage in
diplomacy in isolation. There’s got to be a broader strategic context to it.

The Iranians and the Syrians are acting irresponsibly inside Iraq. They perceive
that it is a way to leverage or impact or weaken us at a time when they’re
worried about United States action in a broader context. I’ve already said, I
would meet directly with Iranian leaders. I would meet directly with Syrian
leaders. We would engage in a level of aggressive personal diplomacy in which a
whole host of issues are on the table. We’re not looking at Iraq, just in
isolation. Iran and Syria would start changing their behavior if they started
seeing that they had some incentives to do so, but right now the only incentive
that exists is our president suggesting that if you do what we tell you, we may
not blow you up.

My belief about the regional powers in the Middle East is that they don’t
respond well to that kind of bluster. They haven’t in the past, there’s no
reason to think they will in the future. On the other hand, what we know, is
that, for example, in the early days of our Afghanistan offensive, the Iranians
we’re willing to cooperate when we had more open lines of dialogue and we were
able to identify interests that were compatible with theirs.”

Q. So what assurances would you offer them to get them to be more cooperative –
try to convince them that the U.S. would not pursue regime change?

A. There are a series of serious problems that we have. Iraq is one. Their
development of nuclear weapons is another. Their support of terrorist activities
– Hezbollah and Hamas are a third. On all these fronts, we’ve got severe issues
with their actions. We expect them to desist from those actions, but what we are
also willing to say is as a consequence of their changes in behavior, we are
willing to examine their membership in the W.T.O., we are willing to look at how
can we assure that they’ve got the kinds of economic relationships that can help
grow their economy.

We are willing to talk about certain assurances in the context of them showing
some good faith. I think it is important for us to send a signal that we are not
hell bent on regime change, just for the sake of regime change, but expect
changes in behavior and there are both carrots and there are sticks available to
them for those changes in behavior. Where those conversations go is not yet
clear, but what is absolutely clear is that the path that we are on now is not
going to make our troops in Iraq safer. Iran has shown no inclination to back
off of their support of Shia militias as a consequence of the threats that
they’ve been receiving from the Bush and Cheney administration. If anything, it
probably accelerates their interest in trying to make a situation in Iraq as
uncomfortable as possible for us.”

Q. Would you be seeking a comprehensive rapprochement or if Iran insisted on
pursuing their weapons programs, which is entirely possible, would you still try
to carve out some sort of side arrangement that would pertain to stability? And
what would you be prepared to offer?

A. I can’t anticipate what their response would be. What I can anticipate is
that the act of us reaching out to them in a series [sic] way, empowered by the
Oval Office, not that we’ll have Crocker over here doing something, while we do
something else, but a serious, coordinated diplomatic effort will, if nothing
else, change world opinion about our approach to Iran and will strengthen our
ability should they choose not to stand down on the nuclear issue, for example,
or to continue to engage in hostile activity even if directly inside Iraq, that
it greatly strengthens our position with our allies – both in the region and
around the world and strengthens our capacity to impose tougher economic
sanctions and take other steps, not in isolation, but as part of a broader
international effort.

---------

Well let's distinguish between populist media and professional publications, and probably your profs prefer the latter. Clearly the latter is superior in quality of research, writing, academic expertise, etc. The Guardian may not be a great paper, but it is a good source of investigative journalism, something sadly lacking from most mainstream US news sources apart from maybe the Post or the NYT. TV news is BS as you said. But the Guardian will actually report on controversial, under-reported stories, and they don't pull punches. Maybe they sensationalize, exaggerate, and muckrake at times, but at least they cover more interesting stories than "What did Britney do today?"

Another difference worth noticing is between public and for-profit media. NPR/PBS will actually send underpaid correspondents and film crews to distant shitholes in Zimbabwe, Myanmar, or Chiapas to cover a story if the editors deem it newsworthy. CNN wants to manage costs so they may prefer to send their reporters 10 miles to the White House press room to get "official statements" from some government hack, instead of pursuing the story at its source. Buzzworthy stories like Iraq or Darfur might warrant an actual business trip here and there. But sorry for going off on a tangent.

Yeah totally, and we've pulled the same crap with Hamas, Castro, and other undesirables. What kind of BS infantile Condi Rice diplomacy is this? "If Iran stops its nuclear research and support of terror groups, then we will talk. We refuse to even meet with you until you make all the concessions that we asked for." Then there would be nothing more to negotiate! It's like expecting a commitment of marriage before you go on a first date. Even I know that is not how diplomacy works. It's like if the Iranians demanded that we pull out of Iraq, cut off aid to Israel, and dismantle our Mideast/Central Asian bases before they agree to sit down for talks with us. But maybe the Bushies don't want to negotiate at all, and just conjured up this "excuse" to blame the lack of communication on the "uncooperative, stubborn Iranians bent on nuclear ambitions".

Cheney, Giuliani, and others have not minced their words and basically declared that war is the best option, although it's hard to separate election-year grandstanding with actual foreign policy proposals. Iran-hating has become ever hotter for the GOP candidates (and the Dems to some extent) than illegals-bashing. That quack Tom Tancredo even went so far as to pronounce that he might threaten the destruction of Mecca and Medina to deter Iranian nuclear research and terrorism from "Islamofascists" (here's an interesting op-ed about that moronic term: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/06/opinion/edislam.php). As you said, Obama sounds promising because he actually isn't scared to admit that he'd want to TALK with Iran, offer quid-pro-quo concessions, and work out our differences peacefully. Though his stance on Pakistan in the war on terror leaves much to be desired (see below).

The Iranians are definitely not saints, but we mustn't underestimate their clever diplomacy. They have played the stalling, PR, and misdirection games well with the UN and IAEA, buying them time to continue research, delay meaningful sanctions/punishments, and throw the dogs off the scent. They also have China and Russia in their corner (plus Japan and other powerful nations are major importers of Iranian hydrocarbons). They may not sing Iran's praises, but they are definitely not so enthusiastic about stricter sanctions (as is the case with Sudan too). And unlike Iraq, we can't go it alone to halt Iran's nuclear progress. How do we attack nuclear knowledge anyway? We can try to bomb a facility, but we can't bomb it out of their memory. All the data is backed up and they can just rebuild and continue somewhere more fortified deeper in the mountains. Except now we've started a war, they've sent agents on reprisal attacks against us and our allies, and all the diplomatic options are off the table. At best our bombing will delay their nukes, and may even accelerate research (even moderate Iranians will see that the American threat is real, nationalism will dominate, and they'll push forward with even greater haste and motivation).

But if any of you have seen the movie "Michael Clayton", you'd appreciate this reference. Clooney is a "problem fixer" for a high-powered NYC law firm, and his life was threatened because he uncovered a secret about a company's big lawsuit. He tells them, "I am not the guy you kill; I am the guy you buy. Are you so stupid that you can't see that?" Iran is not a nation we attack; it's a nation we bribe. I know that sounds "un-American", but it may be the best option. As you said, the stick won't work with Iran because of their influence in Iraq, geographic/strategic advantages, and oil wealth. The carrot will work because they are clearly in need of economic assistance, enhanced trade, security assurances, and such. They are scared of outside attack and more scared of their own people revolting (hence the state-sponsored repression). Like East Germany or North Korea, no regime can survive if it spends the bulk of its energy policing and deceiving its own people. The theocracy can't last in its current form, and we can help the people without propping up the government. We can facilitate reforms and a peaceful transition for Iran to become a constructive, responsible, non-nuclear member of the international community. But our policy of isolation and name calling accomplishes just the opposite.

If political forces in Washington and Tel Aviv merge our two distinct national security priorities into one, we do so at both our perils. As you said, Israel's Mideast security priorities are: prevent Iranian influence and armaments from growing to dangerous levels, keep Hamas/Hizbullah down and out of the political process (and by extension, keep the Palestinians impoverished/fragmented), and then relative stability/coexistence with Saudi Arabia/Syria/Iraq. Our priorities are: counter Islamic extremism/Al Qaeda, fix Iraq, fix Afghanistan, two-state solution in Palestine, and then regime change in Iran. We are still bosom buddies despite our conflicting interests. Olmert and Israel fumbled in their invasion of Lebanon, and much of the Muslim world saw that war as a struggle between Iranian and American proxies for regional dominance. America's diplomatic shielding of Israel from UN censure makes us appear partisan and hypocritical to the Muslims we are trying to persuade to renounce violence and embrace reforms. During the first year of our occupation, Iraqis would often refer to US forces as "Jews". I am not saying the mess we've made in the Middle East since WWII is all Israel's fault, but I think we all realize that US foreign policy in the region would be vastly different (and probably better) if we totally divorced ourselves from Israel's national priorities (as the EU has).

In closing, I do like Obama and he has always opposed the Iraq War. But I worry about his ability to withstand the GOP and Hillary's attacks yet still appear electable (since image is more important than substance to the typical American voter). He was so desperate to counter the critics and demonstrate that he can be "tough minded" on foreign policy, that he uttered such an idiotic, ridiculous thing: he wouldn't seek the Pakistani government's approval to launch military operations within that nation in pursuit of terrorists. I still don't think he has recovered politically from this gaffe (maybe his "flip flopper" moment?). In Karachi they burned American flags in response.

He should know better to watch his tongue when discussing Mideast issues. His Dem rivals are eager to pounce on any misstep from "Mr. Clean", and even casual statements can inflame temperamental Muslim sensibilities, as was the case with the Mohamed cartoons. It was a stupid idea to begin with that wasn't even worth mentioning. As I said before, an uninvited US attack within Pakistan may accomplish short-term strategic goals, but will ultimately serve to increase anti-American extremism and violent blowback.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/08/03/obama.pakistan.ap/index.html

Obama terror vow angers Pakistan

ISLAMABAD , Pakistan (AP) -- Pakistan has criticized U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama for saying that, if elected, he might order unilateral military strikes against terrorists hiding in this Islamic country.

Top Pakistan officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination.

"It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News on Friday. "As the election campaign in America is heating up we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Also Friday, a senior Pakistani official condemned another presidential hopeful, Colorado Republican Tom Tancredo, for saying the best way he could think of to deter a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. would be to threaten to retaliate by bombing the holiest Islamic sites of Mecca and Medina.

Obama said in a speech Wednesday that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, a key ally of the United States in its war on terror. Watch Obama's speech on fighting terrorism »

Many analysts believe that top Taliban and al Qaeda leaders, including Osama bin Laden, are hiding in the region after escaping the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001.

President Gen. Pervez Musharraf has come under growing pressure from Washington to do more to tackle the alleged al Qaeda havens in Pakistan. The Bush administration has not ruled out military strikes, but still stresses the importance of cooperating with Pakistan.

"There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans. They are plotting to strike again," Obama said. "If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, we will."

The Associated Press of Pakistan reported Friday that Musharraf was asked at a dinner at Prime Minister Shaukat Aziz's house on Thursday about the potential of U.S. military operations in Pakistan. Musharraf told guests that Pakistan was "fully capable" of tackling terrorists in the country and did not need foreign assistance.

Deputy Information Minister Tariq Azim said no foreign forces would be allowed to enter Pakistan, and called Obama irresponsible.

"I think those who make such statements are not aware of our contribution" in the fight on terrorism, he said.

Pakistan used to be a main backer of the Taliban, but it threw its support behind Washington following the September 11, 2001 attacks.

Since then, Pakistan has deployed about 90,000 troops in its tribal regions, mostly in lawless North and South Waziristan, and has lost hundreds of troops in fighting with militants there.

But a controversial strategy to make peace with militants and use tribesmen to police Waziristan has fueled U.S. fears that al Qaeda has been given space to regroup.

In Pakistan's national assembly on Friday, Minister for Parliamentary Affairs Sher Afgan said he would bring on a debate next week on recent criticism of Pakistan from several quarters in the U.S., including Tancredo's remarks.

It was a matter of "grave concern that U.S. presidential candidates are using unethical and immoral tactics against Islam and Pakistan to win their election," Afghan said.

Tancredo told about 30 people at a town hall meeting in Osceola, Iowa, on Tuesday that he believes that a nuclear terrorist attack on the U.S. could be imminent and that the U.S. needs to hurry up and think of a way to stop it.

"If it is up to me, we are going to explain that an attack on this homeland of that nature would be followed by an attack on the holy sites in Mecca and Medina. Because that's the only thing I can think of that might deter somebody from doing what they otherwise might do," he said.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/pakistan/Story/0,,2141482,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=12

Pakistan criticises Obama after warning on military strikes

Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Saturday August 4, 2007
The Guardian

Pakistan criticised the Democratic election contender Barack Obama yesterday over his warning that as president he might order military strikes against al-Qaida targets in the country's border areas.

As protesters burned the US flag in Karachi, Khusheed Kasuri, Pakistan's foreign minister, said: "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say. As the election campaign in America is heating up, we would not like American candidates to fight their elections and contest elections at our expense."

Article continues

---

---

The response from Pakistan was mirrored in criticism from Hillary Clinton and other Democratic rivals.

Mr Obama, in a speech on Wednesday, said President George Bush had chosen the wrong battlefield in Iraq and should have concentrated on Afghanistan and Pakistan.

He said he would not hesitate to use force to destroy those who posed a threat to the United States, and if the Pakistani president, Pervez Musharraf, would not act, he would.

That speech may have played well with Democratic activists and the public at large. But before any poll could be held to test reaction, Mr Obama showed uncertainty on Thursday in an interview with the Associated Press.

He appeared to be caught off guard when he was asked if he would use nuclear weapons against al-Qaida in Pakistan.

Mr Obama replied: "I think it would be a profound mistake for us to use nuclear weapons in any circumstance." He added: "... involving civilians".

Demonstrating a degree of unpreparedness, he went on to say: "Let me scratch that. There's been no discussion of nuclear weapons. That's not on the table."

Ms Clinton pounced, portraying herself as more savvy and dependable on foreign affairs.

"Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," she said.

"Presidents, since the cold war, have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

Joe Biden, another Democratic rival, described Mr Obama as naive, while Chris Dodd, who has only an outside chance of securing the nomination, said he was inconsistent.

Ms Clinton and John Edwards are almost neck and neck with Mr Obama in Iowa, where a caucus in January will provide the first election test.

Success in Iowa could be crucial, providing the impetus for the primaries in New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. A poll in the Washington Post yesterday of voters likely to attend the caucus put Mr Obama at 27%, Ms Clinton at 26% and Mr Edwards at 26%.

Mr Obama and Ms Clinton, after largely avoiding criticising one another in campaigning over the last six months, have been exchanging personal jibes almost daily for the last two weeks over foreign policy.

Both will be attending a debate in Chicago today at a convention that brings together bloggers mainly from the left. Mr Obama will almost certainly receive a warmer welcome than Ms Clinton because of her 2002 vote for the Iraq war and their foreign policy positions.