By Arkenor, 1 year and 4 months ago

Bad “Meet”: Saudi Arabia in dust up with the State Department

This could get interesting.

Saudi Arabia has demanded that the US retract a claim that King Abdullah met Israeli President Shimon Peres in 2008, in a rare rebuke towards its ally.

An unnamed Saudi official said the claim by US Under Secretary at the State Department, William Burns, was “completely false and fabricated”.

Mr Burns said this week King Abdullah and Mr Peres met at a UN interfaith conference in New York last November.

Saudi Arabia and Israel do not have diplomatic relations.

The unnamed Saudi official was quoted by Saudi Arabia’s state-run SPA news agency.

The official said that the US state department had to “deny the claim and provide clarification for the reasons behind such fabrication that does not serve the relations between the two friendly countries”. – BBC

The problem with that is, at the conference back in November, this was reported:

Israeli President Shimon Peres has praised the king of Saudi Arabia for his Middle East peace initiative.

At an interfaith meeting at the United Nations, Mr Peres told King Abdullah he hoped his would be the “prevailing voice of the whole region”.

When Mr Peres took to the floor, he broke off from his prepared speech to address King Abdullah directly.

“Your Majesty, the king of Saudi Arabia,” he said. “I was listening to your message. I wish that your voice will become the prevailing voice of the whole region, of all people. It’s right. It’s needed. It’s promising. BBC

I would suppose it depends what your definition of “met” is. In any case, the strength of the Saudi objection is pretty unseemly and aggressive. Whatever happened, I hope the administration sticks to whatever the truth is, and does not allow itself to be bullied. William Burns should have known better than to mention any meeting, as it is no secret that it is a very sore topic with Saudi Arabia, but now that it has been said, the new administration can not be seen to say that the sky is green just to placate their oil-dealers.

Considering Saudi Arabia is trying to promote it’s own peace plan for the region, this childish nonsense of refusing to talk to people, much as Bush refused to talk to Iran and Syria, needs to end.

By Arkenor, 2 years and 8 months ago

The National Intelligence Estimate: Turns out Iran was telling the truth.

The National Intelligence Estimate, available to read in full online, is not going to be a popular read in neocon circles. Lets have a look at it’s key findings in full:

Key Judgments

A. We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran’s announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran’s previously undeclared nuclear work.
• We assess with high confidence that until fall 2003, Iranian military entities were working under government direction to develop nuclear weapons.
• We judge with high confidence that the halt lasted at least several years. (Because of intelligence gaps discussed elsewhere in this Estimate, however, DOE and the NIC assess with only moderate confidence that the halt to those activities represents a halt to Iran’s entire nuclear weapons program.)
• We assess with moderate confidence Tehran had not restarted its nuclear weapons program as of mid-2007, but we do not know whether it currently intends to develop nuclear weapons.
• We continue to assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Iran does not currently have a nuclear weapon.
• Tehran’s decision to halt its nuclear weapons program suggests it is less determined to develop nuclear weapons than we have been judging since 2005. Our assessment that the program probably was halted primarily in response to international pressure suggests Iran may be more vulnerable to influence on the issue than we judged previously.

B. We continue to assess with low confidence that Iran probably has imported at least some weapons-usable fissile material, but still judge with moderate-to-high confidence it has not obtained enough for a nuclear weapon. We cannot rule out that Iran has acquired from abroad—or will acquire in the future—a nuclear weapon or enough fissile material for a weapon. Barring such acquisitions, if Iran wants to have nuclear weapons it would need to produce sufficient amounts of fissile material indigenously—which we judge with high confidence it has not yet done.

C. We assess centrifuge enrichment is how Iran probably could first produce enough fissile material for a weapon, if it decides to do so. Iran resumed its declared centrifuge enrichment activities in January 2006, despite the continued halt in the nuclear weapons program. Iran made significant progress in 2007 installing centrifuges at Natanz, but we judge with moderate confidence it still faces significant technical problems operating them.
• We judge with moderate confidence that the earliest possible date Iran would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon is late 2009, but that this is very unlikely.
• We judge with moderate confidence Iran probably would be technically capable of producing enough HEU for a weapon sometime during the 2010-2015 time frame. (INR judges Iran is unlikely to achieve this capability before 2013 because of foreseeable technical and programmatic problems.) All agencies recognize the possibility that this capability may not be attained until after 2015.

D. Iranian entities are continuing to develop a range of technical capabilities that could be applied to producing nuclear weapons, if a decision is made to do so. For example, Iran’s civilian uranium enrichment program is continuing. We also assess with high confidence that since fall 2003, Iran has been conducting research and development projects with commercial and conventional military applications—some of which would also be of limited use for nuclear weapons.

E. We do not have sufficient intelligence to judge confidently whether Tehran is willing to maintain the halt of its nuclear weapons program indefinitely while it weighs its options, or whether it will or already has set specific deadlines or criteria that will prompt it to restart the program.
• Our assessment that Iran halted the program in 2003 primarily in response to international pressure indicates Tehran’s decisions are guided by a cost-benefit approach rather than a rush to a weapon irrespective of the political, economic, and military costs. This, in turn, suggests that some combination of threats of intensified international scrutiny and pressures, along with opportunities for Iran to achieve its security, prestige, and goals for regional influence in other ways, might—if perceived by Iran’s leaders as credible—prompt Tehran to extend the current halt to its nuclear weapons program. It is difficult to specify what such a combination might be.
• We assess with moderate confidence that convincing the Iranian leadership to forgo the eventual development of nuclear weapons will be difficult given the linkage many within the leadership probably see between nuclear weapons development and Iran’s key national security and foreign policy objectives, and given Iran’s considerable effort from at least the late 1980s to 2003 to develop such weapons. In our judgement, only an Iranian political decision to abandon a nuclear weapons objective would plausibly keep Iran from eventually producing nuclear weapons—and such a decision is inherently reversible.

F. We assess with moderate confidence that Iran probably would use covert facilities— rather than its declared nuclear sites—for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon. A growing amount of intelligence indicates Iran was engaged in covert uranium conversion and uranium enrichment activity, but we judge that these efforts probably were halted in response to the fall 2003 halt, and that these efforts probably had not been restarted through at least mid-2007.

G. We judge with high confidence that Iran will not be technically capable of producing and reprocessing enough plutonium for a weapon before about 2015.

H. We assess with high confidence that Iran has the scientific, technical and industrial capacity eventually to produce nuclear weapons if it decides to do so.

So, the facts I take away from that are that Iran did put it’s nuclear weapon programme on hold in 2003, just like they said they did. It is true that they still have the capability to eventually develop a weapon if they choose to, but not until 2015 at the earliest, if they restarted their programme this year, which they show no sign of doing.

Thus, though there may be a long-term threat, there is certainly no imminent one. Almost certainly there will be a change of Government in Iran before then, and I would hope that this is going to result in a reduction of belligerent language from Bush, Sarkozy, Brown, and Merkel. The Iranian drive for nuclear weapons was always driven by a sense of vulnerability, rather than an intent to wage wars of aggression, and threats do nothing to assuage that.

As the report says, the Iranians are guided by a cost-benefit approach. We should offer non-aggression and defence pacts, aimed to reduce Tehran’s level of paranoia (Is it paranoia if they really are out to get you?), and try to increase trade and trust between our peoples. It appears we now have several years to try the friendly carrot approach, and please, let us make good use of them.

In a related incident, Iran has offered the GCC (The Gulf Co-operation Council, comprising Bahrain, the UAE ,Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia) a mutual defence and trade pact. I hope they agree, as this would also do a great deal to make Iran feel safer from random aggression, and help integrate them more positively into the local international community.

These developments leave me feeling fairly hopeful. We have a window now to pursue a peaceful path of diplomacy, and it would be a crime to waste it.

By Arkenor, 2 years and 9 months ago

More on Lebanon State of Emergency

There’s a bit more coming in from Associated Press on the Lebanese situation:

BEIRUT, Lebanon (AP) — President Emile Lahoud said Friday that Lebanon is in a “state of emergency” and ordered the army to take over security powers, hours before he was stepping down without a successor and leaving the divided country in a political vacuum. The government rejected the move, raising tensions.

Lahoud’s announcement immediately raised further confusion amid Lebanon’s political turmoil, which many fear could explode into violence between supporters of the government and the opposition.

The president cannot declare a state of emergency without approval from the government, but Lahoud’s spokesman said the Western-backed government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora is considered unconstitutional.

“The president of the republic declares that because a state of emergency exists all over the land as of Nov. 24, 2007, the army is instructed to preserve security all over the Lebanese territory and places all the armed forces at its disposal,” presidential spokesman Rafik Shalala said.

The statement instructed the army “to submit the measures it takes to the Cabinet once there is one that is constitutional,” he said.

Saniora’s government, which has been meeting in Beirut as the announcement was made at the presidential palace in suburban Baabda, rejected the announcement.

“It has no value and is unconstitutional and consequently it is considered as if it was not issued,” said a government spokesman, who asked not to be identified because an official announcement has not yet been made by the prime minister.

The spokesman said the constitution stipulates that the Cabinet – not the president – has the authority to declare a state or emergency and to give the army the authority to take over security.

“Any decision not issued by the Cabinet has no constitutional value,” the spokesman told The Associated Press.

With the Prime Minister and his cabinet declaring this emergency rule unconstitional, this could get pretty bad, pretty fast. Lebanon is a cultural melting pot, still recovering from a long and unpleasant civil war. I’ll keep looking for info.

7:35 GMT update. It’s made it to the BBC.

Under Lebanon’s unwritten constitutional agreement the presidency is earmarked for a Maronite Catholic, the prime minister’s post is reserved for a Sunni Muslim and the parliament speaker’s post for a Shiite Muslim. The civil war that stretched from 1975 to 1990 was primarily fought on ethnic and religious lines, which is the reason for such a power sharing agreement.

That the Middle East’s only christian leader has declared emergency law over the objections of his islamic Prime Minister does not look good. Hezbollah have yet to respond, so far as I can tell, but they are unlikely to take this well.

8:51 pm GMT: I am slightly chastened by Mustapha of Beirut Spring

An important clarification for outside observers who are overstating Mr. Lahhoud’s statement.

The outgoing Lebanese President did NOT declare a state of Emergency or Martial law. The statement that caused the confusion was this: “the threats that require a state of emergency prevail over Lebanon”.

What Mr. Lahhoud effectively did was assign the Army to take care of the security on the ground. A redundant procedure given that the Seniora government had already done that.

If anything, the statement by the soon-to-be ex-President reveals his incapacity to do anything more serious. All comparisons with Pakistan, Jordan, or Egypt, where the Army heavy-handedly represses the people, should immediately be removed from your heads.

I don’t know much about Mustapha, or his general angle on things, but even though he no longer lives in Lebanon he certainly understand the dynamics better than I, so I’d better pay some attention to what he says. It could be we’re getting all wound up over nothing, though I think perhaps the President could use a refresher course in using temperate language, if that be the case.

I thought having the military in charge of internal security was an important part of what martial law is. I wonder if a curfew has been enacted. I guess the only way to find out whether this is a nothing story, or something critical for Lebanon, is to wait and see. I still have a very bad feeling about it all.

By Arkenor, 2 years and 9 months ago

Lebanon in State of Emergency?

Just a heads up. There’s a lot of chatter in the last few minutes about an AP newswire received by actual news organisations. ie, not me.

Lebanese President Emile Lahoud declared a state of emergency and ordered the army to take control less than four hours before his terms ended. (AP)

I’m trying to find something a bit more concrete, but if it’s true it is absolutely dreadful news. Why was emergency rule needed? Will Israel or Syria use it as a pretext for invasion?

Theres nothing on the news sites or TV yet, other than a few just quoting that wire. Lets hope it’s just a hoax or mistake.

7:10 pm GMT. A bit more information coming in.

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
BEIRUT

President Emile Lahoud has ordered the army today to take over security powers in Lebanon, saying the country is in a state of emergency.

That came hours before Lahoud was stepping down without a successor and leaving the divided country in a political vacuum.

The announcement immediately raised further questions amid Lebanon’s political turmoil.

The president cannot declare a state of emergency without approval from the government, but Lahoud’s spokesman said the government of Prime Minister Fuad Saniora is considered unconstitutional.

Presidential spokesman Rafik Shalala says the army is instructed to preserve security all over the Lebanese territory and places all the armed forces at its disposal.

There was no immediate reaction from the Saniora government, which has been meeting at government house in Beirut as the announcement was made at the presidential palace in suburban Baabda.

I wonder how the White House will respond, given their generally forgiving response to Musharraf’s emergency rule. Of course, Lebanon isn’t a close ally in the War on Terror, so we can expect some stern words. I’m still looking for a bit more info on why martial law has been seen to be necessary. Has there been an attempted coup?

Google