Today, in connection with Afghan President Hamid Karzai’s visit to the Oval Office, Hillary published an op-ed, “What Hamid Karzai Has to Offer,” in POLITICO. The full article can be read here.
Hillary argues that, while the Obama Administration may finally have recognized that it must tolerate Karzai as Afghanistan’s elected President, it has yet to sort out what it wants to do in partnership with him. As she writes,
“Sorting this out must start with sober recognition of an essential truth: America’s war against Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan was not, is not and will never be Karzai’s war.”
Karzai will never be a fully fledged “wartime ally” of the United States. What he offers are “assets that could be valuable for post-conflict stabilization”—including his tribal standing among Pashtuns, his relative openness to the Taliban, and his ability to work with non-Pashtun players and communities.
But, to capitalize on those assets,
“Washington should work with Karzai to bring the Taliban together with other Afghan factions, while also keeping the most strongly anti-Taliban elements at the table. This means a serious diplomatic strategy to win cooperation from Afghan factions’ most important external backers”—including the Islamic Republic of Iran.
To that end,
“Washington should be supporting Karzai’s efforts to persuade Iran to accept the Taliban’s inclusion in a political settlement, while also using Afghan groups, to which Tehran has ties, as a check on the Taliban’s power and reach.”
On this point, it is revealing to read what Karzai himself had to say about Iran during his joint press conference with President Obama at the White House today:
“On the question of Iran and my meeting with President Ahmadinejad in Tehran and his visit to Kabul, Afghanistan’s position there is very clear from the very first day. And we have been clear with our brothers and counterparts in Iran on that as well, and with our other neighbors. Afghanistan is a partner and a friend with the United States.
The United States is our greatest contributor to stability and reconstruction as the provider of nearly 80 percent of the support that Afghanistan receives. And Afghanistan’s desire to engage in a strong, steady, long-term relationship with America is one that we have expressed clearly and publicly and repeatedly.
We’ve also spoken with our American counterparts from the very beginning that Iran is our neighbor and a brother, and we want to have the best of relations with them. They’ve had contributions to Afghanistan’s reconstruction. We wish that Afghanistan remains friendly to both, and is not a place where we are seen as a playground by our neighbors in any way.
So the United States has been very clear and supportive and understanding of Afghan position. And this has been reflected in the discussions between us. And in the declaration, the joint communiqué, there was a reference to Afghanistan having friendly relations with its neighbors, and Iran is one of our neighbors. But we are distinct and clear on our relation with America and with Iran, as well. We wish both countries the best. And if there anything we can do to make things better, call us.”
Under the best of circumstances, engaging Iran as part of a regional strategy for Afghanistan—a strategy, which of necessity, must also encompass Iran’s arch rivals, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia—would be a daunting diplomatic challenge. At a time when Washington is working overtime to expand both multilateral and unilateral U.S. sanctions against the Islamic Republic, the chances of successful U.S.-Iranian engagement over Afghanistan are extremely poor. But, failure to pursue this kind of regional strategy for Afghanistan runs a real risk that the withdrawal of U.S. forces from Afghanistan over the next few years will leave an environment all too conducive to a “proxy war” among Afghanistan’s neighbors and other key regional states.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
A former CIA officer, John Kiriakou, says he was told in the summer of 2002 that the US would invade Iraq, to obtain site for world’s largest airbase, even if the Congress opposed the invasion. Approaches to the Un etc. would be window dressing.
http://www.truthout.org/interview-with-former-cia-officer-john-kiriakou59396
Alan,
I have long thought Obama should achieve normal relations with Syria, as a means of facilitating better relations with Iran. Bashar al-Assad would welcome good relations with the US. Provided no stupid attempt is made to force Syria to give Israel a clear field to attack Lebanon in another murderous frenzy.
Obama selected a good candidate to be the next US ambassador in Damascus, but the Israel lobby is doing its best to block the confirmation, even before hearings begin.
Dan,
I am very deeply concerned, to avoid having Britain’s ability to act in its own best interests compromised by the Zionist lobby, anywhere near the extent this dangerous situation has been allowed to develop in the US. I retain my confidence in the good judgment of William Hague and David Cameron.
The Iraq War clearly was the creation of a small cabal of mainly Jewish zealots, who subverted the national security interests of the American people in a very deliberate campaign of deception, and regrettably Tonay Blair was to a fair degree a witting stooge of these very dangerous people.
Cyrus,
I agree. One wonders why Senators Lieberman of Connecticut and Lautenberg of New Jersey rushed off to Israel last year, to tell the Israelis that Leon Panetta’s warning to Israel, not to attack Iran, could be safely ignored “and the American people would understand”! How is this for subverting the national interests of the US?
Cyrus – of course they are, it’s been their modus operandi since 1973.
It’s exactly why Obama should do a deal with Iran, because then he completely removes Israel’s capacity to blackmail him.
@ James Canning regarding restraining an Israeli attack:
Indeed I have to wonder whom Israel is REALLY threatening when it speaks of bombing Iran — Iran, or the US and the rest of the world? They’re essentially threatening to light a firecracker in the world’s gas can. Its not just the Iranians who would suffer the consequences. Basically by threatening to attack Iran, Israel is blackmailing the US and the rest of the world.
Dan,
Thank you for the link to Seymour Hersh’s video.
Eric
James
There is also a relevant article by Gilad Atzmon which is interesting.
Britain must de-Zionise Itself Immediately
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/britain-must-de-zionise-itself-immediately-by-gilad-atzmon.html
James
I wish I could share yours and Fiorangela Leone’s optimisms about David Cameron & William Hague’s policy towards Iran.
Unfortunately, both Cameron & Hague are known to be Israeli stooge.
As you probably know, Israel lobby has bribed the conservatives to the tune of £10 million pounds.
There is a brilliant video documentary by Peter Oborne about “Inside Britain’s Israel Lobby” which you may have already watched.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23997.htm
The president of France has told the president of Brazil that France supports Brazil’s effort to work out an exchange of the Iranian LEU for the 20% U needed for the Tehran medical research reactor. And why, pray tell, does Obama not offer support for Brazil’s efforts? Or Turkey’s? And why is Hillary Clinton failing to offer support? Do we conclude Clinton is a stooge of Haim Saban?
Dan,
Thanks. Does anyone know the name of the CIA officer in charge of the Iraq desk who said in October 2002 that the US was going to invade Iraq and the purpose was to obtain a site for the biggest airbase in the world? And that part of the scheme was to get the US bases out of Saudi Arabia. (These were moved to Qatar.)
James
I cannot agree more with your post.
The Zionist criminal leaders of Israel have already proven to the world that they are capable of committing genocide by killing innocent and defenceless Palestinian women and children with impunity.
For their perverted ideology, they would not hesitate to kill Iranians too if they get a chance.
I believe the focus of the entire world must be on restraining these criminals to attack Iran and to prevent them wiping Palestine off the map.
Rehmat,
Surely David Cameron accepts Iran’s rights under the NPT to enrich uranium, to a level of purity under 5% appropriate for the nuclear power plants. If he does not, then clearly there is a problem.
kooshy,
I remain optimistic about William Hague, and his innate good sense as to the best way forward in the Middle East. After all, it is very much in the best interests of Israeli itself, for the chronic ulcer of Israel/Palestine to be cured. Let’s remember Tony Blair extracted from G W Bush a promise to deal with the Israel/Palestine problem, in exchange for British support of the invasion of Iraq. Bush, of course, reneged on the agreement.
Dan,
Since Iranian policy in the Gulf is to keep the shipping lanes open for all nations, unless a war erupts, the focus of US policy surely ought to be on restraining an insane Israeli attack on Iran.
Fiorangela –Eric
Although the initial link to Hersh’s story was posted by Dan and not me, I also watched the video and came to same conclusion as Eric’s.
I understood if you are captured you get an initial field interrogation to determine if you are Taliban , if the POW is not Taliban is turned to Afghans and 3 feet later Bam.
If the POW is a Taliban is kept for further strategic interrogation, in light of Gate’s recent displeasure with increased budget it makes sense, I have read similar decision was made during the Nam. If true indeed a brutal sad day in the history of this country, more and more now I believe that the Huntington was correct and we are going to see a wider war between the east and the west (NATO) and this one has started by the ruling Christian west.
The incoming British Foreign Secretary, William Hague 59, has assured the British Friends of Israel: “I am a natural friend of Israel”, and to prove it he asserted that “it would be a mistake to ever rule out military action against Iran (Jewish Chronicle)”. The Jewish Chronicle is the largest Israeli Hasbara (propaganda) mouthpiece in Britain. In February 2010 – its editor Stephen Pollard condoned extra-judicial murder.
In order to provide a new “Somking Gun” to the new British government against Islamic Republic – the London-based Zionist think tank, International Institute for Strategic Studies, have published a report accusing that “Iran’s missile development program was expanding in tandem with its drive to acquire an atomic capability”. Remember tose 2002 dossiers from MI6 and Mossad on Iraqi WMD!
David Cameron is dead against Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and was a supporter of the illegal wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in 2003. He is reportedly “part Jewish”.
Cameron said: “If I become Prime Minister, Israel has a friend who will never turn his back on her…
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/05/13/hague-i-will-fight-iran-for-israel/
‘US knows better than to attack Iran’
On the last day of a major military manoeuvre in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman, Iran’s Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said :
Washington’s constant war threats against Tehran are “illegal” and attests to the “disoriented state of mind” of US officials.
The Strait of Hormuz is of critical importance to global energy security as it is the only sea route through which oil from Kuwait, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, as well as most of United Arab Emirates, can be transported.
Iran has threatened to shut down the key oil shipping passage in the event of a military attack from the United States or Israel.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126267§ionid=351020101
Kooshy,
I had the very same question as Fiorangela regarding the logical connection between Hersh’s two paragraphs that Fiorangela quoted. Having watched the video myself (thanks to you), I don’t know that there’s much anyone merely watching the video can add.
Sadly, I think I can guess the missing piece of the logical puzzle: the apparent unspoken but clear understanding among American troops that, one way or the other, captured enemy soldiers are not going to go free. Tha is probably not what the American commander had in mind (or so I hope), but rather is a “gloss” put on his either/or order by troops in the field. Thus, if the captured soldiers are Taliban, the American soldiers hold them for later interrogation – of the “strategic” persuasion, which one suspects, notwithstanding Hersh’s emphasis on the difference in its objectives (“long-range intelligence”) from those of “tactical” intelligence conducted in the field, is probably more accurately distinguishable by contrasting the methods used to extract information. On the other hand, if the captured soldiers are not Taliban, they are not to be taken prisoner – and yet, in light of the unwritten “gloss” I suspect has been placed on the commander’s either/or order, they remain enemy soldiers who are not going to go free.
What a dilemma indeed! What’s an American soldier to do? Well, according to Hersh, and as one might expect since we continue to live in the land of the free, an American soldier has a choice: either shoot them yourself, or turn them over to Afghan government troops, turn the other way, and listen for a gunshot a few seconds later.
These enemy troops might be better off claiming to be Taliban.
kooshy, the article you posted re UK FM William Hague’s attitude toward Iran and obeisance to Israel (business as usual on both counts)is depressing. I thought maybe, just maybe Mommie would sternly caution wayward child US to behave or else.
alas, Mommie is a prostitute.
One of the comments to the article reflects a variation of a sentiment that I’ve observed on numerous fora popular among Jews in the US:
” RodW · 6 hours ago
I think Israel is actually posing a threat to the Diaspora by making its puppets do some of these things. A move like that won’t be popular with a great swathe of Britons, whether native or immigrant.”
It seems to me many Jewish people in the US are trying to draw lines of distinction between what their Jewish heritage and/or religion means to them, what Israel represents, and the ‘doctrinal’ basis and agenda of zionism. They are important distinctions to make, yet zionism is intent on blurring them.
In very many respects, the Jewish people have been as ill-used by Jewish elite in many historical situations, just as my own Italian ancestors were ill-used by the various elite who took power in Italian city-states, and as some US political and economic elite exploit rank-and-file Americans from time to time. Perhaps it’s the human condition.
Fiorangela – foreign policy is a bit of an unknown here in the UK just now. Hague (the new Foreign Minister) is well right of centre, and the new Defence Minister, Liam Fox, is diabolically hawkish on Iran. However, the junior coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, were the only party to set out their opposition to the siege of Gaza in their manifesto, and were the only party to vote against the war in Iraq. Their policy line on Iran has always been for a diplomatic solution, although in West-speak we all know that means sanctions.
Quite how the coalition deal will combine these various viewpoints remains to be seen. My feeling is that Cameron is keen on using the Liberal Democrat guys to counter the more right-wing opposition within his ranks; whether that extends to Iran I’m not sure. Historically, elements of the British aristocracy (the basis of the Conservative party) have been supportive of Palestinians, so it’s not as obvious as one may think, although I imagine relations with US trumps all others.
Dan Cooper, thanks for the link re Hersch on Afghanistan.
Maybe I’m just not too bright; I don’t get the connection between these two paragraphs:
“”What they’ve done in the field now is, they tell the troops, you have to make a determination within a day or two or so whether or not the prisoners you have, the detainees, are Taliban,” Hersh added. “You must extract whatever tactical intelligence you can get, as opposed to strategic, long-range intelligence, immediately. >>>And if you cannot conclude they’re Taliban, you must turn them free.<<>>means is,<<>>battlefield executions are taking place,”<<>>if they can’t prove they’re Taliban, bam.<<< If we don't do it ourselves, we turn them over to the nearby Afghan troops and by the time we walk three feet the bullets are flying. And that's going on now."
Hersch has neither demonstrated ie. by example of known 'bams' nor established a logical relationship between,
"if they are NOT Taliban"
and
"bam, we shoot 'em."
What am I missing?
I read Hillary’s brief article in full at Politico, and it provides no details about how the Taliban could be accomodated in a political settlement or about why Iran would accept the Taliban, with whom Iran almost went to war in the late 90s.
In other words, Hillary is trying to blackmail Karzai to be more submissive to American wars for US-Israeli imperialism. For more than eight years, Washington looked the other way while being informed of it Viceroy in Kabul – how corrupt he is and how American and its ally forces are being humiliated by ill-armed Taliban, by both western and Americans journalists and diplomats. Now, since the final nail in the coffin of American imperialism like the British and Russians in the past – is about to be struck by Taliban – Washington, as usual, is trying to put the failure of its war folly on its own puppet.
By now, it’s clear to most of political-aware people that American invasion of defenseless Afghanistan had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda or liberating Afghan women from fundamentalist Taliban rule or democracy or the so-called “War on Terrorism”. What it really boil-down to is – America’s greed for region’s natural resources including poppy for the Jewish monopolized drug industry , and Hindu-Jewish desire to dismember Pakistan – the only Muslim country with nuclear power.
Since the pumping of oil and gas would depend on Pakistan foreign relations – it could create problems if some day in the future a patriotic Islamist leadership take hold of the country’s affairs. Pakistan having the largest Muslim population after Indonesia and its history of support for Palestinian cause since its establishment on August 14, 1947 – and with its nuclear arsenal – would certainly pose more threat to Zionist entity than Islamic Iran. Naturally, the West’s solution to such senario would be to separate the part of the country (Balochistan) that provides the link to Central Asia from the rest of Pakistan and turn it into a banana republic under another pro-Zionist puppet regime……..
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/afghanistan-blaming-the-puppet-eh/
Fiorangela
“Many, many comments here have noted that Israel plays the larger role in influencing US policy toward Iran, but a new perspective from Mother England might cause some changes in US perspective.”
“One can hope.”
Hi , don’t set the hope bar too high
Incoming British FM Won’t Rule Out Attacking Iran
Hague Vows to Be ‘Friend of Israel’
http://news.antiwar.com/2010/05/12/incoming-british-fm-wont-rule-out-attacking-iran/
Ahmadinejad advises US to leave region:
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said the era of occupation and plundering other nation’s national resources is over. “You’d better listen to the Iranian nations’ advice: Abandon your stubbornness; live with other nations based on justice and friendship, like human beings; leave the region; leave Afghanistan; leave Iraq; withdraw to your borders and mind your own business,” the president said.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=126248§ionid=351020101
US Troops Executing Prisoners in Afghanistan: Seymour Hersh
By David Edwards
“I’ll tell you right now, one of the great tragedies of my country is that Mr. Obama is looking the other way, because equally horrible things are happening to prisoners, to those we capture in Afghanistan,” Hersh said. “They’re being executed on the battlefield. It’s unbelievable stuff going on”.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25424.htm
Russia praises Turkish-Brazilian proposal on Iran
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=58406
Iran’s top nuclear negotiator Saeed Jalili could hold talks with EU foreign affairs chief Catherine Ashton in Turkey, the Iranian foreign ministry spokesman said on Tuesday.
Iran: Brazil and Turkey make new nuclear proposal
Ashton asked Ankara to contact Iranian authorities and try to organise talks on behalf of the six world powers.
http://www.worldbulletin.net/news_detail.php?id=58352
If we believe the public pronouncements of the administration, the plan is to surge troops into Afghanistan exactly at the same time the US makes a tangible commitment to hostility with Iran with a sanctions resolution.
I don’t believe the public pronouncements. The US is more likely trying to gain negotiating leverage of some sort. The surge into Iraq was accompanied by a marked decrease in hostility with Iran. Note Ray McGovern recently:
According to press reports, the NIE-update will not be ready until August, and the Obama administration won’t release its key judgments, as was done in late 2007.
If the Obama administration chooses not to release the 2010 NIE, it is more clear than it already had been that the Bush administration chose to release the 2007 NIE, which it had to have known would decrease any pressure on Iran through the end of his term. This was accompanied by increase restraint on Shiite militias and Sadr taking a Sabbatical to study religion in Iran. (And to the reduction in violence that allows US politicians to this day to say the surge was a success.)
If Obama does ratchet up the hostility with Iran, he is drastically more confrontational with Iran than Bush was by the end of his second term. This is not but Obama was elected for, it would have tremendous negative consequences for the US regional position – a fact of which the US is well aware. It is more likely that at the “last second” the US and Iran will “strike a deal” that averts any tangible escalation. It is also likely that one excuse or another will “delay” sanctions until that point.
Fiorangela,
I too look forward to the comments William Hague will make to the White House, concerning the best way forward in the Middle East. And is it such a good thing to have Tony Blair serving as the Israel/Palestine representative of the Quartet?
I’m eager to read Hillary and Flynt’s analysis of how the new British government AND policy assertions will affect US-Iran-British foreign policy.
Many, many comments here have noted that Israel plays the larger role in influencing US policy toward Iran, but a new perspective from Mother England might cause some changes in US perspective.
One can hope.
One might add that both India and Russia say Iran is a necessary party to working out how to being stability to Afghanistan.
Bravo! The former British foreign secretary has openly stated that help from Iran is essential for stability to be achieved in Afghanistan. In fact, he even said so in an article in the New Statesman last month.
Why, then, is Hillary Clinton so hostile to Iran? Is she unable to comprehend the fact Iranian help is indispensible?