The Dreyfuss Report

McChrystal Admits: We Don't Understand the Afghans

By Robert Dreyfuss

One of the most shocking things about General Stan McChrystal's leaked "Commander's Initial Assessment" about the war in Afghanistan is how bluntly he admits that the US occupation authorities, ISAF (the NATO International Security Assistance Force), and Centcom know little about the country they've invaded.

You'd think that, as the war in Afghanistan enters its ninth year, we'd know a little about the place. But no. As McChrystal writes (page 2-4):

"ISAF has not sufficiently studied Afghanistan's peoples, whose needs, identities, and grievances vary from province to province and from valley to valley."

Read More »

October 6, 2009

Obama's Deal with Iran

By Robert Dreyfuss

It's both funny and sad -- okay, mostly funny -- to watch the right-wingers, neocons, and pro-Israel hawks gnashing their teeth and nay-saying about the Iran talks. Fact is, the results of yesterday's meetings were pretty darned good, for seven hours work: the US and Iran sat down for an extended one-on-one, Iran agreed to allow IAEA inspectors to look at the Qom facility that caused all the hubbub, and Iran also acceded to a plan to ship most of its enriched uranium to Russia and France, where it will be turned into fuel rods for a reactor that is used to medical purposes. (That latter step means that Iran is getting rid of most --estimates are, as much as 75 per cent -- of the low-enriched uranium that, according to the hawks, it was storing up to make a bomb.)

Going in, the hawks screeched that talking to Iran is worse than useless. So, now that the talks have actually accomplished something? Umm--they're still useless, or worse.

The Wall Street Journal, in an hysterical editorial entitled "Springtime for Mullahs," writes:

Read More »

October 2, 2009

US Strategy in Iran Talks

By Robert Dreyfuss

On Wednesday, several top US officials who will be leading the American delegation to the talks with Iran gave a background briefing to reporters in Geneva on their perspective for the talks. It makes interesting reading, and I'm excerpting some highlights here, with my own comments:

The central question is: Will the United States (and the P5 + 1) acknowledge that Iran has the right to enrich uranium, but under appropriate international oversight by the IAEA? Will the United States insist that Iran suspend, or freeze, its enrichment program as part of the talks? And will the United States insist that Iran does not have that right, and never will? Judging by the following exchange, the answers are: Not yet, yes, and maybe. Read on:

QUESTION: I just wanted you to clarify, you're saying suspension is the obvious confidence building measure, but you seem to leave the door open to say it's not the only one. So essentially there might be a settlement in which Iran never stops enriching.

Read More »

(122) Comments

September 30, 2009

Can the US-Iran Talks Succeed?

By Robert Dreyfuss

The US-Iran talks start Thursday in Geneva and, while a lot of other countries will be there too -- the UK, France, Russia, China, and Germany are all part of the so-called P5 + 1 -- it's really the United States and Iran who will have to make a deal. Even the latest flareup over the secret Iranian enrichment facility doesn't change the basic fact: that Washington and Tehran, after three decades without diplomatic relations, will be talking. It's a startling and important reversal of US policy, as promised by candidate Barack Obama in 2008, abandoning the charged rhetoric of the Bush administration, which lumped Iran incongruously into the Axis of Evil in 2002 and looked aghast at the idea of negotiating with Iran.

Robert Gates, the secretary of defense, did his part yesterday to lower the temperature of the rhetoric by stating explicitly that the US does not have a military option to deal with Iran's nuclear program. He didn't exactly take the military option "off the table," as the unfortunate phrase goes, but he did say:

"The reality is, there is no military option that does nothing more than buy time. The only way you end up not having a nuclear-capable Iran is for the Iranian government to decide that their security is diminished by having those weapons, as opposed to strengthened."

Read More »

September 28, 2009

Iran Bombshell: US Reveals Secret Facility

By Robert Dreyfuss

It isn't clear why, exactly, the United States and its allies revealed today what they know about a secret uranium enrichment facility in Iran. The New York Times, which broke the story, says:

"American officials said that they had been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to disclose the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the complex."

What "Western intelligence agencies" did to breach the secrecy isn't stated. But the revelation is devastating for Iran, guaranteed to raise suspicions about Iran's intentions, inflame the passions of bomb-Iran hawks, and vastly complicate the talks between Iran and the P5 + 1 world powers scheduled to start on October 1.

Read More »

September 25, 2009

Will McChrystal Quit?

By Robert Dreyfuss

Yesterday morning, at a meeting of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, a former top US military officer suggested that General Stanley McChrystal might resign from his post if President Obama doesn't go along with his pending request for more troops for Afghanistan.

Brig. Gen. Mark T. Kimmitt, a former Bush administration official and Centcom officer, in answer to a question from the panel's moderator, said that he hoped that the differences between the White House and its generals didn't escalate to such a dramatic level. But, he said, if Obama doesn't give McChrystal the resources he needs, then the four-star general might quit. "Most commanders would offer their resignation" if they perceive that the commander-in-chief isn't giving them what they need, he said. In that case, McChrystal might have to say: "I'm not capable of doing it. Maybe somebody else is."

At the conclusion of the panel, I asked Kimmitt about his comments, and he emphasized that he isn't predicting that McChrystal might quit. McChrystal, he said, is presenting Obama with three choices: a maximum option, that would involve up to 40,000 more troops, a middle option, and a low option. Under all three, Kimmitt said, McChrystal believes that he can do the job. On the other hand, if he doesn't get the low option, probably something like an additional 15,000 troops, the general might consider quitting.

Read More »

September 22, 2009

Obama Hints He'll Resist McChrystal

By Robert Dreyfuss

Contrary to my own expectations, President Obama seems to be hesitant about announcing yet another escalation in Afghanistan.

General McChrystal has thrown down the gauntlet, saying that he needs more troops in the coming year or else the war "will likely result in failure." In his 66-page report, he added:

"Failure to gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum in the near term (next 12 months) -- while Afghan security capacity matures -- risks an outcome where defeating the insurgency is no longer possible."

Read More »

September 21, 2009

Obama Zaps E. Europe Star Wars

By Robert Dreyfuss

The right-wing regimes of the "new Europe" -- that is, the post-Soviet governments in eastern Europe that emerged, during the Bush administration, as the staunchest backers of American empire -- are yelping over the decision by the Obama administration to cancel Bush-era plans to build a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic.

For Obama, who was never enthusiastic about the plan, it's a strong indication that he's serious about rebuilding relations with Russia. And the decision may have implications for Iran policy, too.

In an article entited: "U.S. to Shelve Nuclear Missile Shield," the Wall Street Journal reports today:

Read More »

September 17, 2009

"Safe Haven Myth" Bites the Dust

By Robert Dreyfuss

One of the most intelligent and thoughtful comments on Afghanistan so far comes from Paul Pillar, the former chief analyst for the US intelligence community and a renowned expert on terrorism, who writes in today's Washington Post that the real issue in Afghanistan is: What is a "terror haven"? Pillar's argument ought to be required reading for anyone thinking about what "success" in Afghanistan means, since the chief fall-back argument for anyone who supports a long-term counterinsurgency strategy there is that the United States cannot allow the country to become a safe haven for Al Qaeda.

Pillar asks:

"The debate has largely overlooked a more basic question: How important to terrorist groups is any physical haven? More to the point: How much does a haven affect the danger of terrorist attacks against U.S. interests, especially the U.S. homeland?"

Read More »

September 16, 2009

US-Iran Talks Start October 1

By Robert Dreyfuss

The hawks, neoconservatives, and Israeli hardliners are squealing, but the US and Iran are set to talk. The talks will begin October 1, among Iran and the P5 + 1, the permanent members of the UN Security Council and Germany.

Mohammed ElBaradei, the outgoing head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), was ebullient, even as he urged Iran to "engage substantively with the agency," saying:

"Addressing the concerns of the international community about Iran's future intentions is primarily a matter of confidence-building, which can only be achieved through dialogue. I therefore welcome the offer of the US to initiate a dialogue with Iran, without preconditions and on the basis of mutual respect."

Read More »

September 14, 2009