The Dreyfuss Report

Iran Split on Nukes

By Robert Dreyfuss

One thing I heard over and over again during my visit to Tehran in June was that the two sides in Iran's political divide were intent on sabotaging any US-Iran deal concluded by the other side. If President Ahmadinejad moves toward an agreement with the West over Iran's nuclear program, anaylsts told me, the centrist-reformist opposition would denounce it and work to unravel it. On the other hand, if former Prime Minister Mir Hossein Mousavi won the election, reformists told me, he would move toward exactly such a deal -- and the right-wing, including Ahmadinejad, would howl and oppose it.

Well, Ahmadinejad won, Mousavi lost -- at least, that's how the story goes -- and voila! the prediction has come true. Ahmadinejad wants a deal, and Mousavi is trying to wreck it.

Yesterday, on his web site, Mousavi issued a militant criticism of Ahmadinejad's diplomacy. Mousavi bitterly denounced the plan, supported by Ahmadinejad, to ship the bulk of Iran's enriched uranium to Russia and France for use in fabricating fuel for a medical-use reactor. That accord, announced October 1, in the first US-Iran talks in thirty years, was widely seen as a breakthrough. But Mousavi is having none of it. He said:

Read More »

October 30, 2009

J Street, Obama, and Israel

By Robert Dreyfuss

I spent yesterday afternoon at the J Street conference, the meeting of the "pro-Israel, pro-peace" lobbying group that was founded last year. (A piece that I'd written on J Street and AIPAC appeared in Mother Jones in August.)

The conference was very well attended, with something like 1,500 people taking part. Many of them were liberal, mainstream Jewish activists who would appear to be J Street's real target audience. The J Street philosophy is that there is a kind of "silent majority" of US Jews who aren't happy with Israel's expansionist polices and intransigence, and who don't believe they're represented properly by right-leaning groups such as the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Milling around, I spoke to a number of those in attendance. A couple of rabbis, from Massachusetts and California, said that the conference was an opportunity to meet with like-minded, liberal, pro-peace Jews. "When I stand up in my pulpit, with any kind of criticism of Israel, over settlements, Gaza, to say anything other than, 'Go, bomb them when you want,' it's considered anti-Israel," saud Rabbi Joshua Levine-Grater from Pasadena. "So it's thrilling to be here, to say, 'We love Israel, we believe in Israel's security, but the status quo isn't acceptable."

That about sums up J Street's message. But it isn't enough to get even grudging support from Israel itself. Michael Oren, the American who serves as Israel's ambassador to the United States, rebuffed a J Street invite to attend or speak, saying that he was upset about "certain policies that caused concerns, aroused concerns," telling the Jerusalem Post: "I conveyed these concerns to J Street," but adding that his concerns were not "sufficiently allayed."

Read More »

October 28, 2009

The Iraqi Time Bomb

By Robert Dreyfuss

More and more, it seems that the Obama administration has utterly forgotten about Iraq. With its laser-like focus on Afghanistan and its diplomacy with Iran, it's rare that Iraq gets any attention. (That's true, too, even in The Dreyfuss Report.) A whole team of State Department and NSC staff is mobilized on the Iran issue, Afghanistan and Pakistan have their special envoy, Richard Holbrooke, and even the Sisyphus-like effort to deal with the Palestine-Israel problem has its own special envoy, George Mitchell. But Iraq is an orphan. At times, it's like the White House has put Iraq in a box called "George Bush's blunders," and it doesn't plan on looking into the box. There's no go-to person in the Obama administration for Iraq. Ambassador Christopher Hill, who's relatively new on the job, isn't an Arabist or an Iraqi specialist, and he's taking -- perhaps appropriately -- a hands-off attitude toward the swirl of Iraqi politics.

But the devastating attacks in Baghdad -- twin car bombs that killed more than 150 people and wrecked the Iraqi Ministry of Justice and the provincial council complex -- are a sign that Iraq is still simmering. The bombings were very similiar to the August 19 attacks that destroyed the Iraqi foreign ministry and finance ministry. Then, as now, the bombers struck at the very heart of the Iraqi government.

In January, Iraq will hold elections to determine whether Prime Minister Maliki remains in power. The parliamentary elections have spurred numerous Iraqi factions to maneuver in advance of the vote -- and most of those factions have armed wings, paramilitary forces and, in the case of the Kurds, whole national armies at their disposal. So far, despite the urgency of the problem, the current Iraqi parliament bas been unable to devise a formula for holding those elections and to pass a law governing them, though there are reports today that a compromise deal has been reached.

Read More »

October 27, 2009

Obama's Afghan Compromise?

By Robert Dreyfuss

With 14 more dead Americans today, in three helicopter crashes, it's beginning to look like President Obama will, after all, opt for a significant escalation of the war -- at least, according to the Wall Street Journal. On Saturday, the paper reported the first substantial leak about the president's plans after the weeks-long policy review:

"The Obama administration is moving toward a hybrid strategy in Afghanistan that would combine elements of both the troop-heavy approach sought by its top military commander and a narrower option backed by Vice President Joe Biden, a decision that could pave the way for thousands of new U.S. forces.

"The emerging strategy would largely rebuff proposals to maintain current troop levels and rely on unmanned drone attacks and elite special-operations troops to hunt individual militants, an idea championed by Mr. Biden. It is opposed by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in Kabul, and other military officials.

Read More »

(136) Comments

October 26, 2009

That Afghan Runoff Election

By Robert Dreyfuss

Don't expect any miracles after President Karzai's decision to accept a second round in the much-disputed Afghan elections. (The latest totals give Karzai 49.7 percent of the vote from the August election, just under the 50 percent needed to avoid a runoff. Earlier, Karzai had claimed 54 percent of the vote.)

First of all, it's unlikely that a second round of elections will be much fairer, or better run, than the fraud-marred first round. Turnout, which was estimated to be about 30 percent in the August round, may fall further. In Pashtun areas, and in areas where the Taliban is strong, turnout was often 5 percent -- or less.

Second, the extreme international pressure on Karzai makes him seem puppet-like, in spite of his defiance. He was called or visited by virtually the entire US government, and British Prime Minister Brown called Karzai three times in three days. Senator Kerry, who traveled to Afghanistan, met repeatedly with Karzai. In deciding to go along with a second round of elections, perhaps Karzai was acceding to the inevitable. But to many Afghans, his decision will look like what it is: a humiliating capitulation to US-UK pressure and intimidation. That can hardly enhance Karzai's ability to present himself as a credible national leader.

Read More »

October 21, 2009

Who Is the "Taliban"?

By Robert Dreyfuss

David Rohde's series "Held by the Taliban," which began running in the New York Times on Sunday makes gripping reading. (You can read Part I here and Part II here.) But so far, at least, it seems that Rohde isn't clear on what the Taliban is. And his confusion is important, because one's view of the Taliban is critical for US policy going forward. If the Taliban is one and the same with Al Qaeda, religious fanatics dedicated to a global jihad against the West above all, with no willingness to compromise, then that's one thing. But if the Taliban is a compex social organism whose leaders are separate and distinct from Al Qaeda, and if it's possible to persuade some or most of the Taliban's leadership and commanders to sit down and talk, then that's something else.

At first, Rohde seems to imply that his view that the Taliban was not as militant and vicious as Al Qaeda was foolish:

"I came to a simple realization. After seven years of reporting in the region, I did not fully understand how extreme many of the Taliban had become. Before the kidnapping, I viewed the organization as a form of 'Al Qaeda lite,' a religiously motivated movement primarily focused on controlling Afghanistan.

Read More »

(136) Comments

October 18, 2009

McGovern: 'Need An Exit Strategy'

By Robert Dreyfuss

Earlier this month, for a forthcoming article in Rolling Stone about President Obama's Afghanistan policy, I interviewed Representative Jim McGovern (D.-Mass.), who's called on the White House to declare its "exit strategy." A majority of the Democratic caucus in the House of Representatives backed McGovern's call, and polls show that something like two-thirds or three-quarters of Democrats around the country believe that the war in Afghanistan isn't worth fighting.

As McGovern points out in the interview below, in Congress some Democrats are reluctant to challenge President Obama. But McGovern says: "The further we get sucked into this war, the harder it will be to get out of it."

Q. What do you think about General McChrystal's call for more US forces in Afghanistan?

Read More »

October 14, 2009

Iran Flexes Muscle in Iraq

By Robert Dreyfuss

Several top Iraqi politicians have been making the rounds in Iran lately, getting support from Tehran in advance of elections scheduled in Iraq for January. Among the politicians: Ammar al-Hakim, the son of the late Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, the head of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq (ISCI), and Ibrahim al-Jaafari, the former Iraqi prime minister who leads a breakaway faction of the Islamic Call (Dawa) party in Iraq.

Their tour, which reflects Iran's intimate relationship to many Iraqi politicians, is a sign that Iran is paying close attention to Iraqi politics. Over the summer, top Iranian officials, including Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's Leader, urged Shiite Iraqis to re-unite into a unified movement for the elections. Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who leads another faction of Dawa, initially wanted to join the Shiite bloc, but he demanded too much as a condition for joining, and he eventually opted out. The new Iraqi bloc includes Hakim's ISCI, the Sadrists, Jaafari's Dawa faction, and other Shiite groups. (Maliki still maintains close ties to Iran, however.)

The issue of Iran's influence in Iraq is critical for President Obama's policy toward both countries. The ongoing US talks with Iran, if they make progress, could create space for Iran and the United States to work together on stabilizing Iraq in 2010, when at least 70,000 US troops are scheduled to leave Iraq. But if the US-Iran talks falter, Iran could use its influence in Iraq to create conflict, greatly complicating the planned US pullout. And, of course, if the US-Iran conflict escalates toward confrontation and war, Iran can use its military, intelligence, and political power in Iraq to inflict casualties on American troops there.

Read More »

October 13, 2009

Feingold: Need an Afghan 'Timetable'

By Robert Dreyfuss

For a forthcoming (later this week) article on Afghanistan for Rolling Stone, I interviewed Senator Russ Feingold, one of the few members of the Senate who's been willing to speak up to criticize the current policy in the war. The senator has proposed a "flexible timetable" for withdrawing US forces. Here's a slightly edited transcript of the interview:

Q. What do you think our approach ought to be in Afghanistan?

Feingold: "The whole problem is, the question, what should we do in Afghanistan? That's not the question. The question is, how should we effectively fight Al Qaeda? It's a global threat, and how does Afghanistan fit into that? Too often, it's what do we do with Afghanistan, and by the way how do we deal with Al Qaeda?

Read More »

October 12, 2009

Will Obama Cave to McChrystal?

By Robert Dreyfuss

President Obama didn't make encouraging noises on Afghanistan yesterday, at least not if you're looking for the president to reverse course and step out of the quagmire. In his meeting with members of Congress, including the ever-impatient John McCain, the president seemed to indicate that he's not planning any cut in US forces, nor -- at least according to the New York Times -- is he planning to refocus the US effort on a narrower, counterterrorism mission:

"President Obama told Congressional leaders on Tuesday that he would not substantially reduce American forces in Afghanistan or shift the mission to just hunting terrorists there, but he indicated that he remained undecided about the major troop buildup proposed by his commanding general."

That commanding general, of course, is one Stan McChrystal, appointed by Obama last spring, who's now front and center in a military squeeze play to force Obama to escalate the war. As the Wall Street Journal editorial page notes, in a lengthy editorial called "Obama and the General":

Read More »

October 7, 2009