This article we write as a response to two OP-ED page articles that appeared in the New York Times of July 17, 2008, and we felt that both these articles were nothing but technical reactions to what goes on in the real world and as such they actually missed the main point of what they were writing about.

I am giving here the references to those articles and let me present my argument.

The US is still truly the only present-day super-power, as such the President of the US is in effect still King-of-the-World for his time in office - albeit because of the realities of a globalized world this is coming to an end.
It is the stubbornness of President Bush to continue to rely on petroleum from afar as the energy input to the world economy that has rapidly sent-off the US to more and more of a diminished stature. having said this, at least for another 20 years, the President of the US will still be King of the global zoo.
But as the acts of the US President impact so much more people then the people of the US, these other people should also be entitled to express what they would expect from a US President.
But why should one really look at this with disdain? With a little more charm, the US could actually be encouraged to assume global leadership - the fact that this has not happened is not because of the rising powers - the likes of China, India and Brazil, but rather because of the remnant of the old leaders that run countries like the US, Russia and Germany. These are people that still remember the Cold War that positiond a US led West against a Soviet bloc, and Angela Merkel is indeed the lady that experienced those times and she looks at George W. Bush as the embodiment of the Kennedy-Reagan dynasty that can stand up to the Putin-Medvedev regime at Europe’s border.
That is the soil from which grew the Christoph Peters article.

On the other hand, the Michael I. Meyerson article, written by a Professor of Law, delves into the legalities of a US that came about by freeing itself from the oppression of the British Crown and made thus sure that no foreign-born will assume American leadership. We think this was a bit Shakespearean in the sense we encounter in Macbeth. Even there the villain was a regular local boy and the trees that came to the fortress were from his countryside. Anyway, as the Professor says - we must accept the law - shut up or put up. If we do not get to change the law, if an Einstein comes along we will still have to accept a Bush.

OK, so what do I complain about? The answer is simple - even within the limitations that Professor Meyerson makes clear, and which get loosened for a McCain born abroad from US parents on National mission, the reality today is that the US Presidency has a huge impact today with the PEOPLE of the world, and not just with their governments. Even though the stature of the US has been largely diminished during the Bush eight years in power, and many governments now thumb their noses in the face of the US - the likes of North Korea, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, Libya, Zimbabwe, South Africa…..the list is growing, yet the people in those countries are actually looking up to the United States as a model of what they would like to be when they grow up. So, it is imperative, if the US wants to improve its IMMAGE abroad, the President must make sure that he also has the backing of the people ABROAD and not just the people in the US.

As a point of information, nobody yet talks about this in the written press, but these days the basketball National team of Iran, that will be competing in the Olympics after they won the Asian championship, is now touring US campuses and just had their game at the University of Ohio. I understand that these very tall young Iranians have only praise for the US teams and we can assume that their faith in Ahmedi-Nejad has been shaken somewhat. We know that Senator Obama cannot go and speak to the Iranian people in front of the remains of the Cyrus palace, he is going to Kabul, Baghdad, and Ramallah and will not be able to speak to the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Palestine. He will just speak to Americans in those locations, and this will be thus only for American consumption. Let me say that this will not be much of a learning experience - he will learn there as little as McCain did when touring in the center of 100 bodyguards when he declared that Iraq was safe for him. The best Obama will be able to say that his trip was made safe by the Americans and therefore time has come to declare victory and look for energy in our own wind, water, sun, soil and air - the elements that nature allowed us to work with.

OK, so what am I saying? Obama will continue to Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and the UK. I would hate to see him endanger his safety at a mob scene in Tel Aviv or Jerusalem or Amman, but when it comes to Berlin, Paris, London that is something else, and here we get to the Christoph Peters article.

I would love to see 100.000 or even one million Germans waving German and US flags listening to the now famous Obama oratory - right there at the Brandenburg Gate - call it Berlin III if you wish - this after the Kennedy and Reagan previous pep-talks. Who will come out there will be the German people who actually have little in common with their East-German product Chancellor. The German people who do not like the Bushes do love US leadership when it is in the hands of a promising new fresh face. They want to hear what he has to say and this will become the ice-breaker for the US present isolation.

The people are no diplomats - they are allowed to be honest. What Angela Merkel was afraid off is not the wrath of one outgoing George W. Bush, but of the multitude of her own people who did not forget her trying to play second fiddle when she could have known better. But really - Merkel is not the issue here - the issue is a new US under a potential new President who will have the chance to say this time much more then “Ich bin ein Berliner” - he will be able to say if he can pull himself to say this in plain language: I SEE BEFORE ME THE CHALLENGES OF A NEW WORLD - THE BEGINNING OF A POST-PETROLEUM ECONOMY - AND I AM WITH YOU IN THE EFFORT TO BUILD THIS NEW WORLD. I PROMISE YOU AND AMERICA THAT WE WILL TAKE ACTIONS TOGETHER, AND WE WILL HAVE NEW PROSPERITY THAT WILL COME FROM SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON RELIANCE ON RENEWABLE SOURCES OF ENERGY. The Europeans at least will hear that there is a future even in a globalized world. If nothing else, there is still a chance for a Trans-Atlantic Union as it was in the Kennedy and Reagan days. This will allow the world of the future to have three One-billion-pluss people groupings/economies and the formation of a leadership that can handle this by agreements, rather then by competition that explodes in proxy wars.

God willing, with a million in attendance at the Gate, if Sarcozy, does the same for him on Champs Elise, and Brown allows for the Hide Park Gardens - this will have impact on the chronically deficient US electorate. The folks back home in Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, and Florida, will see that the US does not have to be retired yet, and that the face of this best product of an integrated America is the face that the world was waiting for. Are we into an American Messianic Age that comes after eight years of self-destruction?

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/opinio…

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR to The New York Times
Obama at the Gate, CHRISTOPH PETERS, Published: July 17, 2008, from Berlin.

Thilo Rothacker

“ANGELA MERKEL, Germany’s chancellor, has made known her displeasure at the possibility that Barack Obama might use an appearance before the Brandenburg Gate here to present himself to the world as a politician of balance and integrity. Such an event would doubtless be heavy with symbolism as well as heavily attended, and one should always be wary meddling in another nation’s elections.

Yet Chancellor Merkel’s reaction seems quite odd when you consider that in 2003 she herself, as the new and internationally all-but-unknown leader of the German opposition, sought to take her place on the world stage — and scored a public relations coup — by writing an article for The Washington Post in which she assured George W. Bush of her support for the Iraq war…”

“… I’m certain that most Germans, even if it were a bit unfair to Senator McCain (which it isn’t, as he received immediate assurance from German officials that he could likewise give an address at the Brandenburg Gate), would be happy if emblematic pictures of Barack Obama, speaking before the gate to 100,000 flag-waving Berliners, would help him open a new chapter in the history of America’s relationship with the rest of the world.”

The NYT says - Christoph Peters is the author of the novel “The Fabric of Night.” This article was translated by John Cullen from the German. We found also - CHRISTOPH PETERS’s debut novel Stadt, Land, Fluss (1999) was awarded the Aspekte-Lieraturpreis for the best German-language literary debut. In 2001 he published a highly acclaimed collection of short stories. Peters lives in Berlin. He is today considered the best fiction writer in the German language.

 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/17/opinio…

OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR to The New York Times
Citizen McCain, MICHAEL I. MEYERSON, Published: July 17, 2008, Baltimore.

“ARTICLE II of the Constitution declares that “No person except a natural-born citizen … shall be eligible to the office of president.” This undemocratic provision could prevent voters from selecting their top choice, be it Arnold Schwarzenegger, the Austrian-born governor of California, or Jennifer Granholm, the Canadian-born governor of Michigan.

We cannot just wish away inconvenient constitutional language. Clearly, a child born in a foreign country to two non-American parents cannot ascend to the nation’s highest office. But does the Constitution also prohibit John McCain — who was born to two Americans in the Panama Canal Zone in 1936, while his father served in the Navy — from becoming president?

The Constitution does not define the phrase “natural-born citizen,” and there was virtually no discussion of it by those who drafted or ratified the Constitution. The language originated in a letter that John Jay, the future chief justice of the United States, wrote to George Washington during the Constitutional Convention.

“Permit me to hint, whether it would not be wise and seasonable to provide a strong check to the admission of foreigners into the administration of our national government; and to declare expressly that the command in chief of the American Army shall not be given to nor devolve on, any but a natural-born citizen,” Jay wrote.

In a short note to Jay, Washington replied cryptically, “I thank you for the hints contained in your letter.” Two days later, the requirement that the president be a “natural-born citizen” was formally proposed to the Convention. The proposal passed unanimously without debate…”

“…Unless the Constitution is amended, we must accept that we are barred from electing the next Albert Einstein to the White House. But ambiguous constitutional language should not be interpreted to deprive Americans of the right to vote for children of their fellow citizens who, by happenstance or due to their parents’ military obligations, chance to be born overseas.”
Michael I. Meyerson, a professor of law at the University of Baltimore, is the author of “Liberty’s Blueprint: How Madison and Hamilton Wrote The Federalist, Defined the Constitution and Made Democracy Safe for the World.”
House Speaker Pelosi Calls Bush “a Total Failure”
 http://www.truthout.org/article/house-sp…
Laurie Kellman of The Associated Press: “President Bush has been a ‘total failure’ in everything from the economy to the war to energy policy, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday. In an interview on CNN, the California Democrat was asked to respond to video of the president criticizing the Democratic-led Congress for heading into the final 26 days of the legislative session without having passed a single government spending bill.”

Obama’s Foreign Trip Designed to Highlight New Approach
 http://www.truthout.org/article/obamas-f…
Margaret Talev of McClatchy Newspapers: “Barack Obama will spend next week touring the Middle East and Western Europe, a trip that’s galvanized much of the world’s attention because of his charisma, race and family background and the 180-degree shift he’s promising from the Bush administration’s foreign policy. The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee will meet with top leaders of five nations considered key allies of the United States - Jordan, Israel, Germany, France and England - as well as with Palestinian leaders.”

The Mullahs’ Dead End?
By Jamie Glazov, FrontPageMagazine.com | Monday, July 14, 2008

An anti-aircraft gun, pictured in front of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. Israel and the United States differ on how to act on their fears about Iran’s nuclear interests, according to Mother Jones.
(Photo: Behrouz Mehri / AFP)

Frontpage Interview’s guest today is Hassan Daioleslam, an Iranian human rights activist and political scholar. Daioleslam was born in Tehran in 1957. After finishing his primary and high school in Tehran, he entered the Polytechnic University of Tehran in 1974. In the years after the 1979 Iranian Islamist Revolution in Iran, he became a student movement leader standing up against Khomeini’s repression and mass executions. He eventually left the country and settled in France. During the 1980s and early 1990s, Daioleslam was active with Iranian secular movements, human rights activities and the defense of Iranian political prisoners.

In 2001, Daioleslam moved to the United States and concentrated on political research. Since 2005, he has been collaborating with two independent Iranian journalists inside Iran focusing on the Iranian Regime’s lobby in the U.S. His reports have been largely published by major Farsi websites and several US journals. Daioleslam has frequently appeared as an expert guest on the Voice of America-TV as well as on other outlets of Persian media.

FP: Hassan Daioleslam welcome back to Frontpage Interview.
Daioleslam: I am delighted to be back.

FP: In our last interview we discussed the new calls for negotiating with Iran. You talked about the fact that negotiating with the Iranian government is really not new and that it has been going on for the last three decades to no avail. So if we should not negotiate with the Mullahs and if as you have argued before, military action against Iran is a disastrous option, what course of action is left? What could the US do to curtail the Iranian nuclear ambitions and stop its drive to dominating the Middle East?
Daioleslam: Before suggesting a realistic and viable approach, we must first understand the situation in Iran. There are a range of suggested solutions there. Unfortunately, many of them are based on a very poor or wrong understanding of the state of the Iranian government. Probably the main reason for that is the sophisticated misinformation campaign of the Iranian lobby in the US. A clear example of such misinformation campaign is the war mongering boastings of Trita Parsi, the president of the Iranian lobby NIAC that suggests Iran is so powerful now that the US has to share the Middle East with them – as if Middle East is someone’s to give and someone’s to get. An accurate understanding of the internal state of affairs of the Iranian regime places numerous winning cards in the hands of the international community to stop the Mullahs’ drive to expansionism and nuclear weapons.

FP: So what is the situation in Iran? Ahmadinejad has a good grip on the country, yes?
Daioleslam: The Iranian regime is experiencing its most difficult situation of the past thirty years. As some Iranian analysts are arguing, the regime is at a turning point that will eventually decide the fate of the Clerical rule. The governmental figures use words such as: “economic disintegration,” “political impasse,” “leadership crisis,” “unprecedented social unrests,” and “total corruption” to describe the conditions in the country.

FP: Could these words be just excessive rhetoric rather than the reality of the situation?
Daioleslam: Good question. Let me quote some of the Iranian politicians. Recently, there was a very interesting dialogue between two famous politician and analysts in Iran. Saeed Hadjarian was interviewed by Abbas Abdi. They are considered as the pillars of “reformist” faction. Let’s read an excerpt of the dialogue:

A. Abdi: It has been a while that the people I encounter ask me about the future, they want to know what will happen. Apparently, for many, the future of the country is uncertain. Do the people ask you the same question?

Hadjarian: Yes. They have no clue about their tomorrow and feel insecure. The government can’t control anything. There is actually anarchism in the country. The government is being disintegrated. It is like the end of the time. We have descended in the hell.

Another Iranian commentator, Ahmad Zeidabadi, compared the regime’s difficulties to a “seven head dragon”.

Ibrahim Yazdi, the former foreign minister and one of the most experienced Iranian politicians, went even further and recently talked about the regime’s total impasse:

“I believe that the regime as a whole is going to a total impasse. There is something wrong that whatever they do, the situation gets worst. The Economic situation is worsening and Ahmadinejad is bringing the economic disintegration.

The situation is so bad that the regime should quickly opt for a historical and fundamental turn.”

FP: How does this situation affect the outcome of the Iranian nuclear issue?
Daioleslam: There are two distinct views about the Iranian choices and the path it will eventually take. There are those who believe that the regime is in such a weak position that it will finally surrender to the international pressure. Ibrahim Yazdi for example said:

“At the end of the war with Iraq, Iran was in such a bad position that finally accepted the UN resolution. We are in the same position now because the catastrophic political and economic situation will force the regime to surrender to internal exigencies in much worst conditions. Briefly, if we take into account the two experiences of war with Iraq and the US embassy hostage taking, we should be concerned that the regime would eventually surrender to the UN resolutions in such bad terms that the national interests would be jeopardized.”

There is also another view which I personally believe will dominate. This point of view is that the regime cannot or should not retreat. Any retreat is like a breach in a dam and will only stop with the regime’s total surrender. This is the dominant belief among the Iranian leadership. As Rafsanjani has recently declared: “if we retreat on this issue, we will allow our enemy to interfere with all the issues of our country.”

FP: Ok, so some critics argue that, because of this situation, there may be some flexibility from the Iranians on the nuclear impasse. The deal that the West is offering Tehran is very sweet and might be hard for them to turn down.
Daioleslam: Let me explain this further. In order to understand the Iranian regime’s dilemma, we should go back to 2002-2003 when the regime passed a fundamental turning point. The result was the emergence of the Revolutionary Guards as the dominant force in Iran, symbolized later by Ahmadinejad’s ascendance to power. That turning point is the root cause of the actual gloomy conditions in Iran and the mullahs’ incapacity to accommodate the demands of the international pressure.

FP: Elaborate on this please.
Daioleslam: Ok, I will try. Let’s start with a question. Why in 2005, did the Iranian leadership replace Mohammad Khatami, a smiling and internationally greeted president with a radical and repelling personality as Ahmadinejad? Note that in Iran, despite the masquerade of elections, presidents are selected rather than elected. It is naïve to believe that Ahmadinejad’s triumph was the result of a popular democratic process. The 2005 elections were particularly rigged. For the first time in the three decade history of the Clerical rule, all the candidates (except the lucky winner) publicly talked about massive intervention of the Guards and organized cheating.

So, the question is why the Iranian regime underwent such a radical transformation. Why was there a need to unify the power under the Guards’ control?

FP: Are you suggesting that Ahmadinejad was Tehran’s answer to a challenge?
Daioleslam: Exactly. In 2002- 2003, the Iranian clandestine nuclear program was uncovered and the regime was under immense pressure. At the same time, Iraq was invaded by the coalition forces and Tehran was faced with US massive presence. These two new elements were on top of the most important threat that regime was facing: the internal unrests and a growing social and political dissent movement.

To face these three challenges, regime had two choices: First choice was to come clean in nuclear dossier, get along with new regional geopolitics and finally liberalize the political atmosphere inside the country. We know that Tehran did not follow this path. The Ayatollahs opted for the second choice:

- Confronting the new regional order and using it as a stepping stone for their expansionism,

- Buying time to advance the nuclear program, and

- Crushing the social and political movements.

All three of these elements required means of implementing them: Mullahs’ armed forces- The Pasdaran Army (Revolutionary Gaurds); Hence Ahmedinejad’s presidency. The current catastrophic economic, political and social conditions, international isolation and placing the whole region at the verge of a dangerous war, are all consequences of this strategic choice by Tehran.

FP: Are these conditions irreversible, or can the regime get out of this?
Daioleslam: Let’s for the sake of argument imagine that tomorrow, the West gets tenfold more generous and even offers the whole Middle East on a tray to the Iranian regime. And then in return, requests that Iran abandon its nuclear program. Since the nuclear program has been largely under the Guards’ control and because of the missile program directly related to the nuclear program, the first step in verification should have to be total access to the suspected Iranian military bases and weapon facilities controlled by the Guards. Tehran will undoubtedly refuse. In Iran the Revolutionary Guards are the dominant power players. They have operations in many Middle Eastern countries. They have strategic military build ups in Iraq, Lebonan and several other countries. They have direct and active partnerships with radical groups in the region. They have direct involvement with Iraqi government. Can they possibly open their doors to the Western observers and inspectors?

Furthermore, for the past five years, Iran with the help of their lobby machinery in the US, has played the role of victim, targeted and harassed by the Israel-US hawks. How can they afford to lose this card and become guilty of pursuing a secret and advanced nuclear weapon program?

If the scope of Iranian weapon program becomes visible, the Western public opinion will push for a Libya or North Korean scenario: to bring and end to their whole nuclear program. Iran will not genuinely agree to any meaningful inspection of their facilities.

FP: One could argue that the incentives are so high that the Iranian regime would accept all these consequences.
Daioleslam: In order to predict what kind of incentive would bring the Iranian to a negotiating table, we should first understand how much Iran has spent on their nuclear project. I mean political cost, economic cost and diplomatic cost. The nuclear program has been the single most important project in Iran for almost three decades. It has bled the oil rich country to poverty. What can the West pay Tehran for stopping a program that is so heavily invested in? For Ayatollahs, this project is a weapon of power projection in Islamic world and not a weapon of deterrence.

FP: What about the argument that Iran should be given security guarantees in return for stopping the nuclear program?
Daioleslam: Iran’s main threat comes from the Iranian people. What kind of international guarantee could reconcile the Iranians with their rulers? Iran’s surrender to the international exigencies will weaken the regime against the Iranian people. A clerical rule, confined to its borders and under strict international inspection is a naked king before its subjects. More than anyone else, mullahs know that.

Remember the end of war with Iraq. Immediately after Iran was forced to accept the cease fire, a huge demand for social and political freedom grew in the country. Khomeini responded by massacre of political prisoners and then, to fill the vacuum of the war, he issued the infamous fatwa against Salman Rushdie. The repeat of this scenario would be almost impossible for the regime.

FP: Based on your argument, the Iranian regime on one hand is incapable of retreating from its nuclear aspirations and accommodating the international community. On the other hand Tehran is suffering from a catastrophic economic, social and political situation. What is the impact of this dilemma on the Iranian leadership?
Daioleslam: Confusion. Weakness. Chaos. The lack of authority in the government is so obvious that even if the West comes to Tehran for surrender, we would not know whom we should surrender to! Just a few days after the 5+1 proposal, there was a fight between different factions each claiming to have the final authority to respond to the proposal.

FP: Is this state of disorientation well perceived in the Western capitals?
Daioleslam: I believe that the decision makers are aware of the economic, social, political and the leadership crisis in Iran. Of course it does not prevent the Iranian lobby to stick to its traditional campaign of projecting a powerful and unified Iranian leadership. To give an example, let’s go to the predictable CFR Iran expert, Ray Takeyh, a champion of distorting the Iranian reality. He recently wrote in the Washington Post:

“Although Iran’s theocratic regime is perennially divided against itself, it has sustained a remarkable consensus on the nuclear issue. In today’s political climate, neither Western sanctions nor offers of incentives will fracture state unity.”

Of course, a newspaper reader in Iran sees that instead of this imaginary “unity”, there is a disintegrated leadership.

FP: Is the crisis in leadership an additional hurdle for a hypothetical deal with Iran?
Daioleslam: Absolutely. Many in Iran compare the current situation in Iran to the last year of Iran’s war with Iraq in 1998. At that time, Iran was forced to accept the UN resolution “drank the cup of poison” as Ayatollah Khomeini described it. Now, Iran has to drink a more potent poison while the regime lacks Khomeini’s authority to minimize the political and social consequences. The patient is weaker, the poison more fatal and no one in the Iranian leadership capable of drinking it.

FP: Mr. Daioleslam, thank you for joining us.
Daioleslam: Thank you for the opportunity to share my views with your readers.

Jamie Glazov is Frontpage Magazine’s managing editor. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in U.S. and Canadian foreign policy.

———————–

News

Iran Red Lines. What are the US and Israel’s Views on Iran?

Thursday 10 July 2008, by: Laura Rozen, Mother Jones.

An anti-aircraft gun, pictured in front of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. Israel and the United States differ on how to act on their fears about Iran’s nuclear interests, according to Mother Jones.

Mother Jones has learned that a parade of high-level Israeli officials are on their way to the White House over the next two weeks to discuss Iran policy. Here’s where the two countries differ on what to do next.”

While the Israeli government considers the Bush administration highly sympathetic and sensitive to its security concerns, there are growing signs that Washington and Jerusalem may be diverging in their analysis of the urgency of the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program and its defensive military preparations for countering a possible strike, and their subsequent prospective timelines for considering possible military action against Iran. While Israeli national security experts say that Israel would not act without coordinating with the US, and there are other significant factors weighing against prospective Israeli military action on Iran before the Bush term ends, there are also emerging differences between the US and Israel on the accepted intelligence over when Iran would be considered to have a nuclear breakthrough, as well as what would constitute a “redline” that would prompt military action, Washington analysts say. In addition, the US, unlike Israel, feels more deeply constrained by the considerable investment it has made in blood and treasure in stabilizing Iraq, which could be risked by the tumult that could follow military action on Iran.
“My sense is the Pentagon would be worried or opposed to an Israeli attack,” says David Wurmser, former Middle East adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney, who left the White House job late last summer. “They are afraid it would inflame the situation in Iraq, which could undermine the US position there.
“Ultimately, my gut tells me that most of the administration on most levels would push back very hard,” on Israeli pressure on Washington to authorize it to strike Iran, Wurmser added. “What those in the administration who don’t want Israel to act probably won’t want is for it to be taken to the highest level. They would always be afraid that [the president] might not be so tough on the Israelis. If the Israeli [government] really intends to do something, they would go to the highest level without a lot of people knowing.”
Last week, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen visited Israel, during which Mullen is reported to have told Israeli leaders that, speaking for the highest levels of the Bush administration, they did not have a green light from Washington for military action on Iran. Now, Mother Jones has learned, a parade of senior Israeli government officials is making its way to Washington over the coming two weeks, to discuss the Iran issue with top Bush administration officials. Among those scheduled to arrive, Mother Jones has confirmed with Israeli sources in Washington and Israel: Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak, who departs Israel Monday for meetings in Washington with President Bush, Vice President Cheney, and Pentagon officials; and the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi, who comes the following week on his first visit to Washington in that position. A former Pentagon intelligence official who spoke with Mother Jones also alleges that Meir Dagan, the chief of the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad, held secret meetings with officials in the White House on Wednesday. Neither the Israeli embassy nor National Security Council would comment on whether Dagan had been at the White House.
US sources who did not wish to be identified describe a disagreement between the US and Israeli intelligence communities over the timetable of Iran’s alleged weaponization and research and development efforts. Nuclear analysts at Livermore nuclear facility crunched the numbers and looked at the information on Iran’s centrifuges and concluded that they are sticking to the public estimates in the 2007 US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear program, which forecast Iran could have enough enriched material for nuclear weapons capability in the mid next decade. The Israelis allegedly presented the US with Iranian weaponization evidence that they consider very credible, which the US intelligence community allegedly did not consider credible. Analysts also say Israel and the US are drawing different definitions and redlines about what they consider would be Iran’s nuclear “breakout” capability.
“The last report from the [International Atomic Energy Agency] IAEA suggested that the Iranians are making considerable advances, and could reach a stage of having a mass of material for breakout capability before terribly long,” says Patrick Clawson, an Iran policy expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. How long? “It’s hard to say. Iran already has fuel rods shipped by the Russians. If they decided to just take that material and run it through centrifuges, that activity would be very obvious.
“What most people concentrate on is when Iran would have 600 to 700 kilos of its own low enriched uranium, which is enough to make enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb,” Clawson added. How long is that projected to take? Clawson: “If everything works perfectly, two months. If everything doesn’t work perfectly, a bit longer. The answer would be the space of a few months.
“It certainly appears from the last [IAEA] report that Iran is on track to have enough kilos [of low enriched uranium to enrich to weapons grade] within a year-well within,” Clawson added.
Next page: “Adding to Israeli concern…”
Adding to Israeli concern, Clawson and Wurmser said, is uncertainty over whether the next US administration will be willing and able to get organized on Iran policy quickly enough to meet Israeli concerns about Iran’s nuclear progress as the calendar advances.
“Even beyond the question of whether McCain or Obama wins, the Israelis are afraid that no new administration is really going to be able to get its act together quickly to be able to mobilize a plan and do something,” Wurmser said.
Wurmser put the odds of Israel striking Iran before Bush leaves office at “slightly, slightly above 50-50.”
Wurmser said that different pressures weigh for and against Israeli military action either before or after the US election in November, but before Bush leaves office. “Israelis may think politically they don’t want to get in a situation to do something that causes a reaction against US forces in Iraq, which causes the Republicans to lose the election.” But acting after the elections would deeply complicate Israeli relations with the incoming administration.
Wurmser posits a third possibility. “The Israelis may have new information,” and that may explain the up-tempo in the high-level US Israeli discussions on Iran. “But a second thing that might explain it is, this is not real. This is pressure to get Bush to act before he leaves.”
“A lot turns on details about the assessment not just of Iran’s nuclear progress, but also on parts of the Iran program that may not be publicly disclosed and on the projected status of Iran’s air defenses or other countermeasures,” says one former Bush administration official who asked to speak on background. “I think this also may be a more demanding option operationally than may be apparent from the public debate.
“I’ve been skeptical of the war talk until recently because I was informed enough to know better,” the former official added. “Now I’m not gloomier, just less informed.”
Robert Gallucci, a former longtime State Department nonproliferation expert who now serves as dean of Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service, said a recent consultation with US government scientists persuaded him that Iran is not likely to have significant nuclear breakout capability for about five years.
“The test is when Iran could plausibly accumulate significant quantities of highly enriched uranium or plutonium so you have to worry about not only nuclear weapons development, but also the possible threat of transfer to a terrorist organization,” Gallucci said Friday.
“I came away [from recent consultations with government scientists] believing that is actually some distance away in time - beyond five years,” Gallucci said.
Gallucci said he was talking about when Iran could conceivably produce five or ten or more nuclear weapons. (Iran denies it is seeking a nuclear weapons capability at all, and the 2007 US NIE concluded that Iran had halted its weaponization program in 2003.) Are Israel’s threat assessments based on the projection of when Iran could produce one nuclear weapon? “I tend to want to answer that and say there are two ways to come up with a difference [between US and Israeli assessments]. Technically, Israel and the US could have a different assessment of the obstacles that the Iranians might run into and how quickly they could overcome them.”
“There could also be a tolerance [difference],” Gallucci said. “We’re prepared to say, ‘It’s unlikely they could do this in this amount of time.’ The Israelis could be saying, ‘Thank you very much, we’re a little closer to the problem than you are.’ American national security types are not certain of how quickly Iran could do it, but are just as uncertain about whether Iran would do it or not.”
——–
Laura Rozen is national security correspondent for Mother Jones. She can be reached at  lrozen at motherjones.com.

As per e-mail and Conference website at http://www.aspo-usa.org/aspousa4/

2008 Sacramento Peak Oil Conference, September 21-23, 2008.
Hyatt Regency Sacramento, California
ASPO-USA is A Non-profit, Non-partisan Research & Public Education Initiative Addressing America’s Peak Oil Energy Challenge.

—————–

Agenda Spotlight: Sunday afternoon, Sept. 21

On Sunday you will be able to choose from the following concurrent sessions:

- Reporting the Peak Oil Story
National journalists Neil King (Wall Street Journal) and Bart Anderson (Energy Bulletin), Rob Collier, Stuart Leavenworth, Lisa Margonelli, and Tom Whipple

- Investing in the new Energy Economy
Investment specialists Rick Schechter, Jim Puplava, Jim Hansen and Atticus Lowe

- Tracking the Public Data
Nate Hagens, Kyle Saunders, Jeff Vail, Euan Mearns, Robert Rapier, and Gail Tverberg of The Oil Drum

- Scenarios Planning for State and Local Government
Connecticut State Representative Terry Backer, Bryn Davidson, Dan Bednarz, John Kaufmann, and Dick Lawrence

The day will conclude with a social reception and an evening presentation on “The Oil Story in Iran and Iraq” by Peter Wells.

—————

Two Full Days of Plenary Sessions, on Monday, Sept. 22 and Tuesday, Sept. 23
will each be followed by social receptions and evening presentations.

Monday, Sept. 22 Demand, Meet Supply
Presentations will include “Petroleum 101″, and “Alaskan Oil: Prudoe Bay Discovery and Outlook for North Slope Oil”; a “Peak Oil Global Overview - An American Wakeup Call”; extent and aging of Global Energy Infrastructure;and the economic impacts of $100 and €70 Crude Oil.

Our luncheon presentation will feature Jim Buckee on “Big Oil & Resource Nationalism”, and a surprise evening presentation (Hint: The words “Exponential” and “growth” will be mentioned.)

Tuesday, Sept. 23 Where Now? Choices for the Long Haul
Presentations will address Natural Gas and Coal as Liquid Fuels Substitutes; Fossil Fuel Limits on IPCC Scenarios; and the costs of renewable energy vs. coal.

Our luncheon and afternoon sessions will focus on the Future of Aviation and Ground Transportation, Sustainable Mobility, and the Transition of Fuels to Flows as the future becomes electric.

From:  rcervigni at worldbank.org
Subject: Climate Change in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) - New World Bank web site.
Date: June 27, 2008

We are pleased to announce the launch of the World Bank web site on climate change in the Middle East and North Africa region (MENA).

The site contains information on ongoing and planned World Bank activities aimed at helping MENA countries enhance their resilience to Climate Change, and move to a low carbon development path.

The URL for the site is: http://www.worldbank.org/mena/climatecha…

Raffaello Cervigni
Senior Natural Resource Economist
Regional Coordinator, Climate Change
Sustainable Development Sector Department (MNSSD)
Middle East and North Africa Region
The World Bank
Room H 8-225
1818 H Street, N.W.
Washington D.C. 20433 USA
Office: 202 458 8473
Fax: 202 614 1688
Cell Phone: 202 378 4432
E-mail:  rcervigni at worldbank.org

 http://www.alternet.org/blogs/waroniraq/…

Shelling Out For Shell: No-Bid Iraq Oil Contracts Rewards for “Free” Advice to Ministry.
Posted by Laura Flanders, http://firedoglake.com/, June 20, 2008.

Free trade … Free oil contracts…There it is again, that cute word “free.”

Of 46 international oil companies, including firms from China, India and Russia that had their eye on the first major oil deals in post-Saddam Iraq, guess who got the gig? Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total and BP!

The western giants got the first-of-a-kind no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s biggest fields NOT because the US invaded Iraq for oil. Oh NO. Exxon-Mobil, Shell, Total et al, got the first-of-a-kind, no-bid deals because, (according to the Iraqi Oil Ministry) of the years of “free” consultations those companies have been giving to the ministry. The Ministry also cited a certain “comfort level” in their joint operations. That’s the ministry’s word.

So how’s your comfort level? The companies have been advising “without charge” thanks to you. They get to give their consults away because we the taxpayers have been picking up the tab. We’ve paid for the imperial influence peddlers, which is to say — the US military. We’ve paid the Pentagon — and the private mercenaries who keep the Green Zone “comfortable” for Big Oil and the Ministry. We the tax-payers have been shelling out for Shell: to the tune of over $ 750 million a day.

And all that “free consulting” costs blood too: the blood of well over a million men and women and children and the health of a nation’s water and soil.

It’s not for naught. The companies are blissed out. Iraqi oil production is expected to go to 3 million barrels soon and 6 million barrels later. Imagine the revenues at today’s $140 per barrel. It’ll be great for profits. And don’t forget: profit’s just another word for money someone didn’t have to pay for.

So take pride in the oil companies, who you helped offer so much, so comfortably, for “free.” But don’t expect a piece of the profit. Expecting back would be disturbing the comforts of the cronies of big oil. Besides, the companies are counting on you not thinking about it too much. Free sounds great. Don’t let the facts mess with your comfort levels.

————–

Cenk Uygur - Why Doesn’t the Press Ever Talk About the Oil?
Posted first by Huffington Post then, June 19, 2008, as http://www.ourfuture.org/progressive-opi…

Today, the major American oil companies came back into Iraq by getting… you guessed it… no-bid contracts! In fact, the four major oil companies that were thrown out by Saddam Hussein 36 years ago made their triumphant return to occupied Iraq.

Well, congratulations, you now have it back! Mission accomplished!

One of the principal problems with American media now is that they have become far too credulous. They take government slogans and propaganda and print it in their papers and repeat it on their networks as if they have some golden touch of credibility. It’s not just that they can’t see that the government might be lying about its real aims, it’s that they view the government as the most legitimate source of news. This turns the point of the press on its head. You’re supposed to challenge the government, not help it by printing out its press releases.

There is a reason to challenge the government. It isn’t to be unpatriotic. It’s to help the country by keeping a check on government power. It doesn’t hurt the country to be a watchdog on power, it helps it.

One of the best examples of this new credulous model of journalism is how the motivation for this Iraq War has been shamelessly left unchallenged. Yes, we now see plainly in front of our face that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that there were no links between Iraq and Al Qaeda (although this was evident before the war). But the press couldn’t ignore this if they tried. But what they haven’t asked is — if those weren’t the real reasons we went into Iraq, then what were?

And one of the verboten topics is oil. Do you notice how it is almost never mentioned in the press as a real reason we went into Iraq. When is the last time you heard any major media outlet talking about it? Was there ever a magazine cover that asked — Was it About the Oil? Can you imagine Wolf Blitzer asking this question of a government official?

Do Americans realize that the whole rest of the world, including Iraq, is absolutely convinced we went in for the oil? That doesn’t mean it’s true, but maybe we might want to look into it.

And now Exxon-Mobil is sitting back on top of its perch. Saddam is gone, and they once again control the oil in Iraq. And they got there through no-bid contracts. In case, you’re wondering if there was a shortage of companies who wanted to bid on these projects, there were over 40 of the largest oil companies in the world who wanted to bid and were not allowed. Gee, I wonder if we should consider whether this war was about the oil.

This is how the American people have become some of the most naïve and gullible folks in the world. Because their press enables it, almost encourages it, with its undue and sycophantic deference to the government.

Finally, this isn’t even about answering questions, it’s about asking them. Was oil a factor in making the decision to go into Iraq after 9/11 even though that country had nothing to do with 9/11? Was it the main factor? How would that effect administration decisions? Was it contracts that administration officials one day might get with these companies or had at what one point with them? Is it campaign contributions from these companies? Or was it earnest but misguided desire to have boots on the ground in an oil producing country because administration officials were legitimately concerned about the rising demand and pinched supply of oil?

For the love of God, at least ask these questions. Are we sure that the people in the American press are even aware of these questions? And if they are, is it a matter of courage to ask these obvious and fundamental questions? Or should we be wondering about their motivations as well?

Big Oil: Gettin’ While the Gettin’s (Still) Good. Editorial, NYTimes, June 19, 2008. “There is no doubt that a lot of people have been… genuinely hurt by $4-a-gallon gas. But… the Energy Information Administration says that even if both coasts were opened, prices would not begin to drop until 2030. The only real beneficiaries will be the oil companies that are trying to lock up every last acre of public land before their friends in power… exit the political stage… Separate studies by the House Committee on Natural Resources and the Wilderness Society… show that roughly three-quarters of the 90 million-plus acres of federal land being leased by the oil companies onshore and off are not being used to produce energy. That is 68 million acres altogether, among them potentially highly productive leases in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska. With that in mind, four influential House Democrats — Edward Markey, Nick Rahall, Rahm Emanuel and Maurice Hinchey — have introduced ‘use it or lose it’ bills that would force the companies to begin exploiting the leases they have before getting any more. Companion bills have been introduced in the Senate, where suspicions also run high that industry’s main objective is to stockpile millions of additional acres of public land before the Bush administration leaves town. This cannot be allowed to happen.”

Western Oil Giants Securing No-Bid ‘Foothold’ in Iraqi Oil Fields. By Andrew E. Kramer, NYTimes, June 19, 2008. “Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations… on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession… [when] Saddam Hussein rose to power. Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields… The deals, expected to be announced on June 30, will lay the foundation for the first commercial work for the major companies in Iraq since the American invasion, and open a new and potentially lucrative country for their operations… There was suspicion… that the U.S. had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract… It is not clear what role the U.S. played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.”

McCain Touts ‘Clean’ Coal and Nuclear Power. By Perry Bacon, Jr., WashPost, June 18, 2008.“Sen. John McCain touted strongly the use of so-called clean coal technology and low-cost electricity, with zero carbon emissions and long-term price stability — that’s the working definition of nuclear energy,’ McCain said at… Missouri State University. He proposed the creation of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030, a huge increase since there are only 104 reactors in the country today… Sen. Barack Obama, has been more cautious on the value of nuclear power than McCain, expressing concern about its safety and how to handle its waste. ‘It is unlikely that we can meet our aggressive climate goals if we eliminate nuclear power from the table,’ reads a statement… on Obama’s website. ‘However, there is no future for expanded nuclear without first addressing four key issues: public right-to-know, security of nuclear fuel and waste, waste storage, and proliferation.’ Both Obama and McCain are touting their proposals… But differences have emerged this week… Obama aides are sharply attacking McCain for his embrace of off-shore drilling, which he had previously opposed, while McCain today again touted his proposal to suspend the federal gas tax, which Obama has ridiculed.”