04/08: "The Winds of War" - Ahmadinejad spins release of hostages

=



04/07: "The Winds of War" - military action or a nuclear Iran
http://www.timebomb2000.com/vb/showthread.php?t=236733



<b><center>April 7, 2007

Ahmadinejad spins release of hostages, but it’s unclear what happened; nation still a formidable Gulf power</b>
Tribune
http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/87382 </center>
It is certainly a relief that the Iranian regime has decided to release the 15 British sailors and marines who were seized by Iranian Revolutionary Guards forces March 23.

It would have been preferable if the regime had immediately released the British servicepeople, who, if they ventured into Iranian waters, almost certainly did so inadvertently. But this outcome is preferable to what would have been increasing pressure for Britain, or perhaps even the United States, to put more pressure on the Iranian regime through military and paramilitary means.

The entire incident, however, leaves us with more questions than answers.

What was the motivation for Iranian forces to seize the British sailors and marines in the first place? Does the resolution of the incident suggest a split within the Iranian regime, between hard-liners led by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and pragmatists, led by Ali Larijani, head of the Supreme National Security Council and representing the interests of most of the mullahs? Or are any splits merely superficial?

Britain’s Sky News said its sources revealed that Qatar and Syria were instrumental in bringing about a resolution. What interest would those two countries have in common, and what leverage, if any, would they have over Iran? Could Saudi Arabia, which has been increasingly active diplomatically in the region, have played a role?

Unfortunately, for all his sometimes unpredictable and inflammatory hard-line tendencies, and whether or not he was pressured into releasing the hostages, Ahmadinejad played the resolution of this crisis shrewdly and expansively. He referred to the release as a “gift” to the British people while insisting that Iran had been deeply wronged by an incursion into territorial waters.

As Robert Hunter, a senior adviser at the RAND Corp. and former U.S. ambassador to NATO said, whatever the truth of the matter, “he made Iran sound like the civilized party in this affair.”

Hunter believes that Great Britain played things just about right, consistently denying it had done anything wrong, refusing in public to negotiate, exercising patience rather than hurling threats, and (probably) arranging for the release of an Iranian diplomat who had been captured in Iraq.

As Hunter also suggested, now is a good time to step back and think seriously about our priorities in the region.

The United States is likely to be a permanent presence in the Persian Gulf, and Iran will inevitably be a regional power. We need to start talking to determine how those interests, some of which will coincide and some of which will conflict, can be worked through without warfare or nuclear weapons.

=





<B><center>Charade in Iran a timely warning</b>

By Greg Sheridan
April 08, 2007 12:00
http://www.news.com.au/sundaytelegraph/story/0,22049,21518957-5001031,00.html </center>
THE release of the 15 British naval hostages - 14 men and one woman - by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, defused a dangerously escalating international stand-off.

The British sailors had been on routine anti-smuggling inspections in Iraqi waters, on March 23, when they were seized by the Iranian navy.

The Iranians claimed the British were in Iranian waters.

This was a ludicrous claim which was never given any credence.

Although the sea border between Iran and Iraq is not formally recognised, there is a de facto border, which is accepted internationally.

The absurdity of the Iranian claim was evident when Tehran released a map showing where the incident had taken place - in Iraqi waters.

When this was pointed out to the Iranians, Tehran issued a new map, showing the incident occurring in their waters.

The Iranian action in taking the Brits hostage was illegal.

Even if the Brits had strayed into Iranian waters, they have a right of innocent passage and any normal person would simply tell them to withdraw.

But this was never about a naval misunderstanding.

We have witnessed some part of an intense and bitter struggle between Iran and the forces of international terrorism on one side, and Britain, the US and other coalition members in Iraq, including Australia, on the other side.

Indeed, there is an Australian naval vessel, the HMAS Toowoomba, doing exactly the same work in the same area, and the Australian sailors could be subject to the same Iranian terror tactics as the Brits were at any time.

One of the most gruesome aspects of the hostage drama was the way the Iranians forced the British woman into Islamic dress, and further forced her and some of the men to make flesh-creeping, false confessions, which they televised.

British Prime Minister Tony Blair was adamant that no deal had been done with the Iranians in exchange for the release of the British.

I am an admirer of Blair, but I just don't believe him on this.

An Iranian diplomat in Iraq, who had been kidnapped by shadowy Iraqi figures, was released during the hostage drama.

And I would guess that five other Iranian officials, taken into coalition custody in northern Iraq, may soon be heading home.

There is no doubt that Iran is the world's biggest state sponsor of terrorism.

The Americans and the British have also charged Iran with directly supporting terrorism in Iraq.

This has taken the form of sending Iranian agents into Iraq, sending weapons and funding insurgents.

And there is no moral equivalence between Iranian terrorists in Iraq and British sailors in Iraqi waters, at the invitation of the Iraqi Government, in pursuit of a UN mandate.

The Iranian Government is fanatical and dangerous. Iran's president says he wants Israel wiped off the map.

The Iranian regime is perhaps also pursuing nuclear weapons.

War between Iran and the West is not remotely inevitable.

But the trend is that a strike of some kind by the Americans, or the Israelis, on Iran's nuclear facilities has become somewhat more likely.

With the US overstretched, with Blair in his last months in office, with Iraq still aflame and the Middle East nervousness everywhere, no sane person would want conflict between the West and Iran.

But the brazenness of the Iranian kidnap of British service personnel demonstrates once more how lawless, unpredictable and dangerous the Iranian regime is.

The dangers of allowing the Iranians to possess nuclear weapons would be immense.

But then, every course in the Middle East confronts immense dangers.

=





<b><center>Iran president to announce nuclear 'good news'</b>

Published: 4/7/2007
http://www.turkishpress.com/news.asp?id=170273 </center>
TEHRAN - </b>President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is expected to unveil what he has described as "good news" on Iran's nuclear programme on Monday amid international calls for a suspension of uranium enrichment</u>.
April 9 is Iran's national nuclear technology day and marks the first anniversary of its enrichment of uranium to the level needed to produce fuel for civil reactors.

Ahmadinejad will visit Iran's enrichment facility in the central city of Natanz to mark the anniversary.

"Ceremonies marking the national day of nuclear technology will be organised in the presence of President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad in Natanz," said a statement from Iran's atomic energy organisation.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly promised that he is preparing a major announcement on Iran's nuclear programme and his presence at the enrichment plant for the anniversary has fuelled speculation that it will be the venue.

The semi-official Fars news agency speculated that the president would confirm the belated launch of a cascade of 3,000 centrifuges at the plant.

"In February they were supposed to announce the installation and launch of 3,000 centrifuges, but it did not happen so it is expected that the good news involves the installation and launch of the centrifuges," the news agency said.

At low levels of 3.5 percent or so, uranium enrichment provides the fuel for nuclear reactors, but at highly extended levels of well over 90 percent it can also produce the fissile core of an atomic bomb, the source of Western concerns about Iran's intentions.

According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, there are at least 1,000 centrifuges in Natanz at different stages of installation.

Only around a third of them have yet been fed with uranium hexafluoride gas feedstock.

Iran has vowed to gave 3,000 centrifuges up and running at the facility by May 2007 despite repeated ultimatums from the UN Security Council to suspend its efforts to master the nuclear fuel cycle.

The Security Council has already imposed two packages of sanctions against Iran over its failure to heed the ultimatums.

The second resolution tasked the European Union's top diplomat Javier Solana with holding talks with Iran about the possibility of renewed negotiations.

But Iran insists it will only enter talks without preconditions and not, as the Security Council demands, following a prior suspension of uranium enrichment.

Chief nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani reiterated on Thursday that there could be no freeze on enrichment activities ahead of talks.

Washington has repeatedly refused to rule out military action if diplomacy fails to secure a change of heart from Tehran.

Iran has retaliated against the UN sanctions by withholding immediate notification of its plans to build or modify nuclear facilities, saying notice would come only six months before improved facilities are brought into service.


04/07/2007 12:05 GMT

=




<B><center>CIA tortured me, Iranian diplomat says</b>

Envoy held for several months in Iraq U.S. denies any role

Apr 07, 2007 09:49 AM
Reuters
http://www.thestar.com/News/article/200609 </center>
TEHRAN – An Iranian diplomat freed two months after being kidnapped in Iraq has said he was tortured by U.S. forces while in captivity, Iran's Fars News Agency reported today.

Iran has previously blamed the U.S. military for his abduction but U.S. officials have denied any role. Today the U.S. military again denied playing any part in kidnapping the diplomat, or in his alleged torture.

The Iranian's comments follow the release of 15 British troops from Iran, where they say they were ill-treated.

"Jalal Sharafi, in an interview with Fars, explained how he had been kidnapped and tortured severely by American forces with the help of (Iraqi) agents ... under the supervision of the CIA," Fars News Agency reported.

"He showed reporters the marks left by torture on his body that are now being treated by doctors," said Fars, which is considered close to Iran's Revolutionary Guards.

Gunmen in Iraqi army uniforms kidnapped Sharafi in February. An Iraqi government official said at the time Sharafi had been seized by 30 gunmen wearing the uniforms of an Iraqi army unit that often works with the U.S. military in Iraq.

When Sharafi was released on Tuesday, Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshiyar Zebari said the diplomat was in good health and said he did not know who had held him.

U.S. military spokesman Lieutenant-Colonel Christopher Garver said in Baghdad: "Multi-National Force Iraq was not involved in his kidnapping or any kind of claims of torture that he is now stating that he was subjected to."

U.S. forces in Iraq have arrested a number of Iranians, including five men detained in the northern Iraqi city of Arbil and who Washington said had links to Iran's Revolutionary Guards and were helping Iraqi militants.

Iran denies the charge, says they are diplomats and has demanded they be freed. It has also said it is still waiting for a reply to its request for consular access to the five. Washington says it is considering the request.

Iran, Britain and the United States insist there is no link between the release of the 15 British sailors and marines after 13 days' detention and the cases of Iranians held in Iraq.

Some analysts say the Revolutionary Guards who seized the 15 Britons may have been acting partly to send a message that Iran would not sit idle while its citizens were detained in Iraq.

While in captivity the Britons told Iranian television they were being treated well, but on return to Britain said they faced "constant psychological pressure". Britain insists they were in Iraqi waters when seized.

Sharafi said he was abducted by agents with identification cards from Iraq's Defence Ministry and who were driving U.S. military cars. He said he was taken to a base near Baghdad Airport where he was questioned in Arabic and English, Fars reported.

"Questions asked by CIA agents were about the presence and influence of Iran in Iraq. They asked questions about the amount of aid Iran provided to the government of (Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri) al-Maliki, Shi'ite, Sunni and Kurdish groups," he said.

"When they were faced with my answers about the official relationship of Iran with the Iraqi government and officials they increased the tortures, many days they tortured me day and night," he said.

Fars quoted him as saying his interrogators also "tried to encourage me to cooperate with them by showing a soft face".

Similar comments were carried by Iran's IRNA news agency.

=





<b><center>Russia Anxious About Military Action Against Iran Near Its Border </b>

By RIA Novosti
Apr 7, 2007
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/original/article_21273616.shtml </center>
MOSCOW -- Russia is concerned about a possible attack on Iran and insists that military action near its border is totally unacceptable, the first deputy foreign minister said Tuesday.

Russia, which is separated from Iran in the south by three tiny South Caucasus nations and shares a sea border with the Islamic Republic, has been actively promoting a diplomatic solution to the Iranian issue.

"Any military action near our border is totally unacceptable," Andrei Denisov said. "We are strongly against it and we are doing our best to prevent it from happening."

Media reports in late March said Washington was preparing to strike at Iran in early April but Denisov denied the information.

"Our partners say movement of military structures in the Persian Gulf is part of a planned rotation," the diplomat said.

http://www.metimes.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20070407-020757-6920r



The United States offered to mount aggressive air patrols over Revolutionary Guards bases during Iran's stand-off with Britain but was rebuffed by London, The Guardian newspaper reported Saturday.

Citing unnamed diplomatic sources, the daily said that Pentagon officials offered a series of military options, but Britain told them to keep out of the affair and instead tone down armed forces activity in the Gulf.

One of the options involved combat aircraft patrolling over Iranian bases to show how serious the incident was, the newspaper said in a front page story.

On March 20, three days before the 15 British marines were seized at gunpoint in the Gulf, a second US aircraft carrier group arrived in the region.

At London's request, the two carrier groups, totaling 40 ships plus aircraft, changed their exercises to make them appear less confrontational, the newspaper said. Britain also asked the United States to ensure it kept the rhetoric low-key, The Guardian said.

It reported that a consensus was emerging among British, Iraqi and Iranian officials as to what happened when the Royal Navy sailors and Royal Marines were seized - namely that it was not something planned by Tehran.

London maintains they were mounting a routine anti-smuggling patrol in Iraqi waters, while Tehran insists they trespassed into Iranian waters.

"My best guess is that this was a local incident which became an international incident," a British source closely involved in the stand-off told the newspaper.

A senior Iranian source close to the Revolutionary Guards told The Guardian: "If this had been between Iranian and American soldiers it could have been the beginning of an accidental war."

The source claimed that British forces had illegally entered Iranian waters three times in three months leading up to the capture, which was decided upon by a regional commander.

A day after their release a number of the British navy crew told a news conference Friday that they were stripped, blindfolded and handcuffed as part of "psychological" intimidation during their detention.

The group said they feared for their lives if they resisted and that they were threatened with seven years in jail if they did not confess to trespassing into Iranian waters.

Royal Navy Lieutenant Felix Carman told of the tactics he said were used by their captors to get information and confessions - a stark contrast to Iranian television footage of the group lounging around in tracksuits playing chess.

"It was mainly psychological, emotional. The isolation was a major part of this; a complete suffocation in terms of information from the outside world," he added, describing questioning as "aggressive" and handling as "a bit rough."

"When we first went to prison we were put up against the wall, hands bound, blindfolded and people were cocking weapons in the background, which as you can imagine is an extremely nerve-wracking occasion."

Royal Marine Joe Tindell, 21, said he thought they were about to be executed and were having their throats cut one by one.

Carman said that on the second morning of their detention they were flown to Tehran and taken to a prison. "Throughout our ordeal we faced constant psychological pressure," he said. "Later we were stripped and then dressed in pyjamas. The next few nights were spent in stone cells, approximately eight feet by six feet, sleeping on piles of blankets. All of us were kept in isolation."

The naval crew were captured while carrying out what they said was a routine anti-smuggling operation.

Amid claims they surrendered too easily, Royal Marines Captain Chris Air said the Iranians "came with intent" and to resist would have caused loss of life and a major international incident. "From the outset it was very apparent that fighting back was simply not an option. Had we chosen to do so then many of us would not be standing here today."

Air, 25, stressed that they were "well inside" Iraqi waters when captured.

Carman, 26, backed him up, describing their detention as "clearly illegal." He said their television appearances were a stunt for the cameras and they chose their words carefully to highlight that they were giving an Iranian version of events.

The only woman in the group, Leading Seaman Faye Turney, 26, was separated from the men straight away and later told that the others had gone home four days earlier, the 15 said in a joint statement. "She coped admirably," Air said, condemning the Iranians for using her as a "propaganda tool."

Turney was not present at the news conference at Royal Marines Base Chivenor in Devon, southwest England, where the 15 spent their first night of freedom after being reunited with their families.

The sailors' comments were blasted by Iran, which accused British Prime Minister Tony Blair of "putting pressure" on them.

"The propaganda and the staged show cannot cover up the British military's violation of the Islamic Republic of Iran sea border and their repeated illegal entry," foreign ministry spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini said.

Iran's ambassador to Britain, Rasoul Movahedian, called on London to respond to their release with a goodwill gesture - namely using their influence in Washington and Baghdad to help free five Iranians held in Iraq.

"Now is the time for the British government to proceed in a positive way," he told Saturday's edition of the Financial Times newspaper. "If they want to be helpful and use their influence we will welcome that."

However, British newspapers Saturday praised the conduct in captivity of the freed sailors, but turned their guns on British and Iranian leaders for their handling of the crisis.

Most national dailies carried the sailors' testimony on their front pages, the morning after their first public statement.

The Daily Mirror attacked critics who said the sailors were wrong to surrender without a fight and appear compliant on Iranian television, backing decisions which it said kept them alive and saw them home.

"Armchair warriors who criticized the 15 freed sailors and marines should personally apologize to each and every one of them," its editorial said.

Rival tabloid The Sun said the naval personnel did the right thing by avoiding a "suicidal firefight" when outgunned that "might have started World War III."

The Daily Express said Ahmadinejad "did his best to humiliate this country but he must realize that he will not get away with this again." The tabloid said there was a sense of unease and growing anger over Iran's "despicable actions."

Its rival the Daily Mail reckoned the "inescapable conclusion" of the crisis was that British Prime Minister Tony Blair had reduced Britain to a "state of international impotence."

"It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that this so-called backward nation [Iran] has run propaganda rings around our hapless foreign secretary and government," the tabloid sai.

"Unfair it may be, but countless people round the world will look at the benign way our captive servicemen were ostensibly treated and compare that to the haunting pictures that have come out of Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib jail."

Meanwhile The Guardian said both the captured sailors and the soldiers killed in southern Iraq had borne the brunt of an "interventionist foreign policy which has failed."

The detainees "behaved both honorably and rationally" in the face of "grotesque treatment," and their testimonies "may build public outrage about the incident, which has been strangely lacking until now," it said.

That reticence was "perhaps really part of a wider public resentment at Britain's whole involvement in Iraq" - a "British defeat" of which "this episode has been part ... But if Britain has lost, it is because of politicians and the battles they have chosen to fight," The Guardian argued.

"Between a narrow doctrine of national interest, and Mr. Blair's haphazard lunging at demons, can a middle way be found for military philosophy: an enlightened balance between internationalism and an awareness of Britain's limits?"



Copyright © 2007 News World Communications, Inc. All rights reserved.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286867&selected=Analyses


A senior aide to radical Iraqi Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr revealed on Thursday that al-Sadr had sacked two senior lawmakers representing his al-Sadrite Bloc in parliament after they met with Gen. David Petraeus, the commander of U.S. military forces in Iraq. The two deputies, Salam al-Maliki and Qusai Abdul-Wahab, reportedly attended a dinner gathering at the home of former Prime Minister Ibrahim Jaafari also attended by Petraeus -- though in an interview with U.S.-funded Alhurra television, al-Maliki denied meeting Petraeus or any U.S. official.

The firings only add to the growing crisis within the ruling Shiite Islamist coalition, the United Iraqi Alliance, which has recently seen the departure of its fourth-largest component party, Fadhila. But beyond the matter of Shiite unity, the move highlights what appears to be the gradual implosion of the al-Sadrite movement.

Until now, the problems appeared to be confined to the armed wing of the al-Sadrite Bloc -- the Mehdi Army -- where there has been talk of rogue elements and commanders who are conducting independent operations. Then there is the matter of the joint U.S.-Iraqi security plan, which is designed to crack down on al-Sadr's militia, and has increased pressure on al-Sadr to the point that he has been forced to go into hiding. We are told by sources close to the al-Sadr family that he is in Iran.

Al-Sadr's absence from the scene is only exacerbating his growing apprehension about the loyalties (or lack thereof) of his own people. Losing control over fighters and militia commanders is bad, but losing control over parliamentary deputies could prove to be even worse. This issue is even more critical for al-Sadr, given his own position as the head of the radical Shiite Islamist movement in Iraq.

Al-Sadr is neither a cleric nor a politician. He not only lacks clerical credentials, never having completed his seminary studies, but also does not hold public office. What this means is that he cannot truly be a spiritual leader of his movement along the lines of other Shiite clerics who lead political groups. At the same time, he also is not a political leader, in the hands-on sense, because he has to rely on other officials to further his political goals.

These two factors are likely threatening al-Sadr's position as the leader of his movement. What has thus far prevented a complete loss of control is the fact that his followers have great respect for the al-Sadrite family -- especially his father, Ayatollah Mohammed Sadiq al-Sadr -- and he is the sole heir to his father's legacy and that of the wider al-Sadr clan. But he cannot rely on his family brand name to continue to hold on to his position.

Over time, religious elements within al-Sadr's group could begin to challenge him on his religious qualifications -- that is, if they have not already begun to do so. Meanwhile, it is only natural for the political elements -- people who are more educated than al-Sadr himself -- to ask themselves why they need to take orders from a seminary dropout, especially when his militia is out of control and a liability for the movement as a whole. This would explain reports that he is in the Iranian religious seminary town of Qom seeking to enhance his religious credentials.

Unfortunately for al-Sadr, the revolt already appears to be beginning. Several militiamen are violating his orders and engaging in sectarian violence, or have been co-opted by Iranian intelligence, while his political allies are trying to salvage their own positions by cutting deals with the U.S. military.

This would explain al-Sadr's move to fire the two deputies and try to replace them with someone more loyal. Al-Sadr has replaced Cabinet members before in hopes of consolidating his position, but it did not solve the problems within the movement. There is a chance that he could succeed this time, but it looks as if he might be trying to plug holes in a sinking ship.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286921


U.S. aircraft struck insurgents in Ad Diwaniyah, Iraq, on April 7 as part of a crackdown on Shiite militias in the town south of Baghdad. Operation Black Eagle, which began on April 6, is a joint operation by U.S. and Iraqi troops targeting gunmen loyal to radical Shiite leader Muqtada al-Sadr. The U.S. military claims that it has killed three militiamen, captured 27, and discovered a location where improvised explosive devices were being assembled. A spokesman for al-Sadr's militia said that its fighters destroyed three U.S. vehicles.

http://www.stratfor.com/products/premium/read_article.php?id=286906


Summary

The Afghan government recently has come under increased pressure to negotiate with the Taliban. Anti-Taliban elements also have established a new political group, indicating another move toward reintegrating segments of the Taliban into the Afghan government. Kabul's move to engage the pragmatists in the Pashtun jihadist movement has had an unsettling effect, both within the ranks of the Taliban and among their Tajik-led rivals. It is unlikely that President Hamid Karzai will be able to balance these two forces, and his own government could be overwhelmed by a new north-south fault line.

Analysis

Afghan President Hamid Karzai said April 6 that he and other government officials have been in contact with Taliban representatives for some time. This announcement -- a bow to increasing pressure to work with the jihadists -- comes a day after Mullah Abdul Salam Zaeef, former ambassador of the ousted Taliban regime, criticized Kabul's negotiations with moderate Taliban, calling the talks a "conspiracy" designed to sow dissent within the ranks of the Pashtun jihadist movement.

Meanwhile, former Afghan President Burhanuddin Rabbani -- a Tajik Islamist -- announced April 3 the launch of a new political coalition called the United National Front. In addition to former communists, this group includes former mujahideen who participated in the 1979-89 fight against Soviet forces, the 1992-96 intra-Islamist civil war and the 1996-2001 struggle against the Taliban regime.

Some of the more prominent figures in this new group are former Defense Minister Mohammad Qasim Fahim, Parliament Speaker Younis Qanooni and Prince Mustafa Zahir, the grandson of ailing former King Mohammad Zahir Shah. One of the group's key goals is to amend the 2003 constitution to allow for proportional representation in parliament, and to create a prime minister position.

These Tajik-led, mostly northern forces have watched the resurgence of the Taliban over the last few years, as well as the government's intense struggle to contain them. They understand that Kabul's renewed efforts to rein in the insurgency via negotiations eventually will lead to the empowerment of the majority Pashtun community, since the Taliban constitute the only potent political force among the Pashtuns.

Since the fall of the Taliban regime, the Tajiks, Uzbeks, Hazaras and other opponents of the Pashtun jihadists have been content with Karzai's weakness -- and, by extension, the weakness of the Pashtun community. This has allowed them to consolidate their hold in their respective regions and gain a share of the national pie. But now that weakness is becoming a liability for these northerners, given that an enfeebled central government cannot act as a secure buffer between them and the Taliban in the country's south. Hence, they are moving to galvanize their ranks and erect legal and constitutional barriers to counter a revived Pashtun presence in the south and in Kabul.

These old Taliban enemies are not the only ones concerned about Kabul's moves to re-engage Taliban fighters. The Taliban themselves also are worried that recent offers of talks and a share in the government will cause fissures in their ranks, which already are divided. Moreover, Karzai is not the only one pushing for negotiations; this discussion is taking place even within government circles in NATO member states such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and others.

There increasingly is evidence that the Taliban have realized that they cannot expect to dominate Afghanistan again like they did during 1996-2001, when they extended their writ almost to the country's northern border with Tajikistan. Despite former Taliban ambassador Zaeef's April 5 criticism of the government's actions, he also said that the problem is not Karzai or his government. "The problem is with foreigners," he added, "and [the Taliban] are fighting them and [calling] their war a freedom fight." This statement represents a slow movement on the part of the Taliban away from the rhetoric that Karzai's regime is illegitimate and must be defeated.

In other words, we are seeing the re-creation of Afghanistan's north-south divide. Even more problematic from a stability point of view, the Karzai regime likely will not be able to balance these two forces, and the government could be the first casualty of a new war between the Pashtun majority and the Tajik-led minorities.

http://kcbs.com/pages/342400.php?contentType=4&contentId=402189


BAGHDAD (AP) -- U.S. warplanes attacked suspected militiamen wielding shoulder-fired rockets Saturday in the second day of fierce fighting against Shiite gunmen south of Baghdad, U.S. and Iraqi officials and witnesses said.

At least one civilian was killed and five were seriously wounded when an American tank fired on their house in Diwaniyah, 80 miles south of Baghdad, Iraqi police and hospital officials said. The victims were pulled from the rubble and evacuated to Diwaniyah hospital, police said. The U.S. military had no immediate comment Saturday on any casualties among civilians or soldiers in Diwaniyah.

Listen The Washington Post’s Baghdad Bureau Chief Sudarsan Raghavan comments

In Baghdad, two American soldiers were killed and seven were wounded by two separate roadside bombs Friday. One U.S. soldier was killed and four were wounded in an attack with an armor-piercing explosively formed projectile, or EFP, the military said in a statement.

The U.S. has blamed Iran for supplying Shiite militias in Iraq with the powerful weapons, which hurl a molten, fist-sized copper slug capable of piercing armored vehicles. Saturday's statement did not say whether the soldiers were on foot or in a vehicle. Another roadside bomb killed an American soldier and wounded three Friday in western Baghdad, the military said.

Iraqi troops killed a Libyan al-Qaida figure Saturday in a raid on his Baghdad hideout just before the man could detonate an explosives belt he was wearing, a military spokesman said. Abu Baraa al-Libi, a little-known junior al-Qaida leader, was killed in a raid in Ghazaliyah, a western Baghdad neighborhood where Sunni insurgents are known to be active, said Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi, spokesman for the Baghdad security plan. One of his assistants was killed with him, he said.

U.S. forces also killed one suspect and captured eight others in raids in Baghdad and south of Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar, the military said. The man killed was identified as the leader of a terror cell that planted car bombs targeting U.S. troops and civilians, the U.S. military said.

On Saturday, Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said ministers from Iraq's neighboring countries, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and industrialized nations will meet in Egypt early next month. The meeting, which was supposed to be held in Turkey, follows an international conference held in Baghdad last month in which envoys from Iran and the U.S. spoke directly to one another for the first time in years. The meeting will be held in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik on May 3-4, Zebari said.

American troops swept into the troubled, predominantly Shiite city of Diwaniyah before dawn on Friday, killing three militia fighters and capturing 27 in the first day of the assault, the military said. The attack - named ``Operation Black Eagle'' - targeted gunmen loyal to anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. Fighting continued Saturday.

On Friday, a spokesman for al-Sadr's political movement in Baghdad denied there was any exchange of fire in Diwaniyah. ``There is only an unprovoked attack by invading American troops,'' spokesman Haider al-Natiq told Al-Arabiya television. But on Saturday, al-Sadr's office in Diwaniyah suggested the fighting was not one-sided and claimed gunmen destroyed three American vehicles and seized a robot used to explode roadside bombs. U.S. officials could not confirm that claim.

Dozens of people have been killed in Diwaniyah during the past weeks and the attacks have been blamed by residents on the Mahdi Army, al-Sadr's militia. Many women, accused by the hard-line and fundamentalist militiamen of violating their interpretation of Islamic morality, are among the dead. Also targeted are police, residents who work for coalition forces at a nearby Polish army base, journalists and the wealthy, who have been kidnapped for ransom and then killed.

In other violence, a roadside bomb exploded next to a joint American-Iraqi army patrol early Saturday on a highway leading into Annah, 175 miles northwest of Baghdad. Two Iraqi soldiers were killed and two were wounded, the Iraqi military said. Police in Fallujah, west of Baghdad, reported finding four bodies in the center of the city. The corpses showed signs of torture and had been shot in the head.

Also Saturday, the U.S. military announced 14 suspects and a large weapons cache were captured earlier in the week in western Baghdad's Yarmouk neighborhood. It said security operations continued in the area. At least 14 men were detained and explosives, bomb-making materials, handguns and mortars were found.

(Copyright 2007 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/07/opinion/07akram.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


AS the spring fighting season opens, Afghanistan faces many challenges: terrorism, the Taliban, Islamic extremism, drugs and criminals, warlords and factional friction, weak government and an inadequate national and international security presence.

This is a good time to make an objective assessment of the Afghan and regional environment and to put together a strategy to overcome those challenges. This strategy should be comprehensive, combining military containment with political reconciliation, administrative control and rapid socio-economic development. It must build peace through a bottom-up approach — village by village, district by district — by offering incentives and disincentives to secure the support and cooperation of local populations.

Winning the hearts and minds of the people is even more important than killing or capturing insurgents. Military tactics that cause collateral civilian casualties and damage property may kill 10 terrorists, but they will create 100 more. Most important, no strategy will succeed without accelerated reconstruction and economic development. It must offer hope to the people — hope for peace, jobs and better lives for themselves and their children.

Pakistan’s frontier regions have seen tremendous support for extremism during the three decades of conflict in Afghanistan. After the Taliban’s ouster in late 2001, thousands of Qaeda and Taliban fighters crossed into Pakistan. We are committed to eliminating their influence. This is essential for Pakistan’s goals of rapid modernization and increased trade and energy links with Central Asia.

Thus any strategy for stabilization in Afghanistan’s south and southeast must go hand-in-hand with efforts in Pakistan’s frontier region. Contrary to criticisms from some in Kabul and Washington, Pakistan has made significant contributions to such stabilization.

First, the Pakistan Army and intelligence services have captured more than 700 Qaeda terrorists and destroyed most of the group’s command-and-control structure on our side of the border. As Vice President Dick Cheney has noted: “We have captured and killed more Al Qaeda in Pakistan than any place else.”

In this, we have paid dearly: in 90 military operations, Pakistan has lost some 700 soldiers. The terrorists have launched several suicide attacks against our leaders, our security forces and civilian targets. But this has not deterred us. Al Qaeda is on the run. It will certainly not be allowed to regroup on our soil.

Second, we have captured and handed over to Afghanistan more than 1,500 Taliban militants in the past three years, including a large part of the leadership. Of course, we can do only so much considering that the Taliban’s centers for recruitment, financing and command are in Afghanistan, as the United Nations secretary general’s reports have attested.

Third, Pakistan is making new efforts to control its difficult 1,500-mile border with Afghanistan. Today 80,000 Pakistani troops are deployed in the tribal areas and along the border. Some 1,000 border posts have been established. About 20 miles of the roughest border terrain, where many clandestine crossings take place, will soon be fenced.

We are also starting stricter measures to regulate legal border traffic between Pakistan and Afghanistan — about 300,000 people cross each day — by, among other means, introducing biometric cards to improve identity checks. (I must note that it is not very helpful when border guards on the Afghan side cut up and throw away these cards.)

Of course, the movement of militants goes in both directions. Control of the border is a joint responsibility of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the international coalition forces. The onus cannot be placed on Pakistan alone.

Indeed, there is intense cooperation, through such formal partnerships as the military Tripartite Commission — made up of Pakistan, Afghanistan and NATO — its new Operational Coordination Working Group and a recently established Joint Intelligence Operations Center in Kabul. Apart from real-time intelligence sharing, Pakistan would benefit from Western-supplied electronic and other equipment to crack down on illegal border movement more effectively.

Fourth, Pakistan will act shortly to remove any last basis for allegations about so-called “sanctuaries” and “safe havens” for the Taliban in Pakistan. After crossing into Pakistan, Taliban elements often merge into the large population at camps for Afghan refugees. It is difficult to distinguish Taliban militants from the rest of the thousands of Afghans. It is mostly in these camps that the Taliban finds recruits.

To resolve this problem, we have reached an agreement with the Afghan government to move four large camps — Pir Alizai and Gidri Jungle in Baluchistan Province, and Jallozai and Kachi Garhi in the North-West Frontier Province — to Afghanistan. Pakistan will also repatriate the last of the three million Afghan refugees who have found protection inside its borders within the next three years. We have been their host for 30 years without any appreciable international assistance, which has placed a tremendous burden on our economy and contributed to the rise of militancy.

Finally, Pakistan has a comprehensive strategy to promote peace and progress in our frontier regions. The objective is to win over the local population and to isolate the militants. The agreement that the Pakistani government reached with tribal elders in North Waziristan last September was essentially an exchange of peace for economic development.

Contrary to the assertions of some Afghans, there is no proved relationship between that agreement and the rise of violent incidents in Afghanistan last year. Rather, the military strikes in recent weeks by tribal forces against Uzbeks and other foreign militants in South Waziristan should confirm the effectiveness of our approach.

Pakistan has advocated a similar approach in working with tribal leaders on the Afghanistan side of the border, in which Kabul would reach agreements through local assemblies, or jirgas. This idea was the essence of the three-party meeting of Pakistan, Afghanistan and the coalition forces organized by President Bush in September. It led to the first meeting of the Pakistan and Afghanistan jirga commissions in January in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad. The sides agreed to stop the blame game and increase cooperation to address common problems of border control and refugee repatriation.

In the long run, joint efforts by Afghanistan and Pakistan are about more than terrorism: each country desperately needs rapid reconstruction and development on its side of the border. We are grateful for the United States commitment of $750 million over the next five years for Pakistan’s tribal areas. We hope for more help from other donors for this vital objective.

A key part of Pakistan’s effort is to create “reconstruction opportunity zones” in the tribal areas. Pakistan’s private sector will invest in industry and manufacturing, while Washington has promised special tariff- and duty-free access in the United States market for products from these areas. The European Union should provide such access as well. In turn, we would provide help to Afghanistan in creating similar economic zones on its side of the border.

Creating a peaceful, stable and prosperous Afghanistan is as much in the interest of Pakistan as of the United States and the Afghans themselves. The cooperative framework that has been established by Afghanistan, Pakistan, the United States, NATO and the international community will be vital for success. But we must ensure that bond is not eroded by mutual recrimination or frustration with occasional setbacks.

Munir Akram is Pakistan’s ambassador to the United Nations.



Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Little things that make you say "Humm..."
----------------------------------------------------
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htsub/articles/20070406.aspx

U.S. SSGN Base In the Indian Ocean
April 6, 2007: The U.S. is building a support base, at the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia, for the SSGN (an SSBN converted to carry 154 cruise missiles, and a hundred or more SEAL commandos) that has joined the Pacific fleet. SSGNs, like the SSBNs, have two crews, so that the boats can be kept at sea for the maximum amount of time (every 90 days, the SSGN comes into port to change crews). Commandos can also be carried aboard the SSNs, but the SSGN boats have additional facilities for the SEALs to plan, exercise, and train for missions. Few details of what the support base will contain, but it will obviously enable the SSGN to hang out for longer periods in the Indian Ocean, on an island due south of the Persian Gulf, and Iran.

Figure it this way, you've got an airfield that can easily handle C-5s and B-747s so the SSNG, or for that matter any other submarine asset in the USN or allied nations, in the area doesn't have to go home to change crews or do whatever replenishment, maintenance, or reloading, the base and or a tender can handle at the support base. Forward deployment has a lot of advantages. Heck during WW2, the USN did this with Midway Island for their diesel electrics operating against Japan.

A bit more "in your face" for the Iranians, or anyone else in the area. Now if they set-up to handle something like either "Quickreach" for airlaunch or ground launching facilities for "SLVs" then it could get really interesting.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6540543,00.html


BAGHDAD (AP) - U.S. warplanes blasted a militia team firing rocket-propelled grenades Saturday, the second day of heavy fighting in a major offensive to drive Shiite Mahdi Army militiamen out of Diwaniyah, a farm-belt city south of Baghdad.

North of the capital, in the increasingly dangerous Diyala provincial capital of Baqouba, police reported finding 21 more bodies dumped in the streets, victims of the intense sectarian warfare. All were shot execution-style and many had been tortured. At least 62 bodies have been found in or near the Baqouba since Tuesday.

A total of 58 people were killed or found dead across Iraq on Saturday in the eighth week of the U.S.-Iraqi security crackdown on the capital and surrounding cities and towns.

Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, meanwhile, said that government officials from Iraq's neighbors, the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and representatives of the Group of Eight industrialized nations would meet in Egypt early next month.

The session - originally set for Istanbul, Turkey - is a follow-up to the international conference held in Baghdad last month during which envoys from Iran and the U.S. spoke directly for the first time in years.

The Egyptian meeting will be held at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheik on May 3-4, Zebari said.

Maj. Gen. Othman Farhood al-Ghanemi, commander of the Iraqi army's 8th Division, said the U.S.-Iraqi operation to retake Diwaniyah took shape after a three-month crescendo of violence in which at least 58 people were killed or kidnapped.

In violence leading up to the offensive, many women reportedly were killed after the hard-line fundamentalist militiamen accused them of violating their strict interpretation of Islamic morality.

Al-Ghanemi told The Associated Press that militants were armed with rocket-propelled grenades, Katyusha rockets, Strela anti-aircraft rockets and AK-47 assault rifles. Before the offensive, militants attacked Iraqi and U.S.-led coalition forces 17 times with roadside bombs - some of them armor-piercing explosively formed projectiles.

The U.S. military accuses Iran of providing militants with the deadly EFPs.

``Although the army now is in the city, gunmen still have an armed presence. This will take time to finish. We are backed by friendly multinational forces and had it not been for them we would not have been able to detect and dismantle so many roadside bombs today,'' the general said.

Al-Ghanemi said the tipping point in Diwaniyah was March 20, when militiamen attacked and set fire to police roadblocks in 15 southeast neighborhoods and turned them into no-go zones for the authorities.

Much of the Diwaniyah police force is said to be controlled by the Badr Brigade, a rival militia of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the country's most powerful Shiite political party. SCIRI, as it is known, controls the Qadisiyah provincial council.

Police were ordered off the streets Saturday and some residents said the Iraqi military did not trust them. But Brig. Sadiq Jaafar, the city police chief, said his men were sent indoors because they were too poorly equipped to be of use in the fighting.

An Iraqi army official, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to release the figures, said three civilians and three Mahdi Army fighters died in the Saturday battle. At least 29 people were wounded - 21 civilians, six Iraqi soldiers and two American soldiers.

The official said U.S. and Iraqi forces captured 36 militiamen.

In its account of the second day of fighting, the U.S. military reported only one Iraqi death, that of the militiaman hit in the airstrike. It said three U.S. soldiers received minor cuts in a roadside bombing that destroyed their Humvee.

``Fighting was less steady than yesterday's actions. Our assessment is that our operations are being effective,'' said Maj. Eric Verzola, spokesman for the 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry Division.

Iraqi police and hospital officials said at least one of the civilian dead and five of the wounded were victims of American tank fire on their home. They had to be pulled from the rubble of their home, and evacuated to Diwaniyah hospital, police said.

The U.S.-Iraqi drive into Diwaniyah - named ``Operation Black Eagle'' - began before dawn Friday.

The Mahdi Army, the focus of the offensive, is run by radical Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, who had ordered Baghdad militiamen to lay down their weapons during the security crackdown in the capital.

Many of the Diwaniyah fighters were thought to have left Baghdad and were using the American preoccupation with the capital to cement their hold on parts of the southern city.

Al-Sadr's office in Diwaniyah said militia fighters had destroyed three American vehicles and seized a robot used to explode roadside bombs.

Diwaniyah sits on a Euphrates River tributary and in some of Iraq's most fertile farmland. The predominantly Shiite city, 80 miles south of Baghdad, has two major factories, one that makes automobile batteries and a second producing tires. The population is between 400,000 and a half-million.

In Baghdad, two U.S. soldiers were killed and seven were wounded in two separate roadside bombs attacks. One attack employed an EFP, which hurl a molten, fist-sized copper slug capable of piercing armored vehicles.

Iraqi troops killed a Libyan al-Qaida figure Saturday in a raid on his Baghdad hideout just before he could detonate an explosives belt he was wearing, military spokesman Brig. Gen. Qassim al-Moussawi said.

Abu Baraa al-Libi, a little-known junior al-Qaida leader, blew himself up in the raid in Ghazaliyah, a western Baghdad neighborhood heavily populated with Sunni insurgents. Al-Moussawi said a second al-Qaida fighter also was killed.

U.S. forces killed a suspected Sunni insurgent and captured eight others in raids in Baghdad and south of Ramadi, the provincial capital of Anbar province, the military said. The dead man was identified as the leader of a terror cell that planted car bombs targeting U.S. troops and civilians.

Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Gen. Abdul-Karim Khalaf told reporters Saturday that the Baghdad security plan was being expanded - in addition to Diwaniyah - to Mosul in the far north and Basra in the deep south.

---

AP reporters Qassim Abdul-Zahra and Bassem Mroue contributed to this report.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2007/04/07/ap3591689.html


The top U.S. diplomat for Africa urged Somalis on Saturday to leave behind 16 years of bloody conflict and focus on national reconciliation, warning the country has become "a haven for terrorists."

Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer made a surprise visit to the Horn of Africa country on the sixth day of a fragile cease-fire between the government and Islamic insurgents. The truce ended a surge in fighting that left hundreds dead and forced thousands of residents to flee Somalia's capital.

"Somalia, unfortunately, has become a haven for terrorists, and that continues to be a prime concern of the United States of America," Frazer said at a news conference after meeting President Abdullahi Yusuf Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi.

Speaking later in neighboring Kenya, Frazer said her talks with Somali leaders focused on the need to "build support and legitimacy for the transitional federal government and to isolate the extremists."

Frazer is the highest-ranking American envoy to visit Somalia since 1993, when rebels brought down two U.S. Black Hawk helicopters in Mogadishu, and then engaged U.S. soldiers in a 12-hour fire fight that left some 300 Somalis dead. The U.S. withdrew a year later.

Frazer had been scheduled to come to Somalia in January, but the trip was called off due to security concerns.

Late last year, American special forces helped Somali troops and their Ethiopian backers push out the Islamist fighters, who had taken over the capital and surrounding region. The U.S. says the Islamists were harboring al-Qaida members.

Frazer said the insurgents were not interested in talking with the government and were receiving support from neighboring Eritrea and the "global jihadist network."

"Eritrea is the country of most concern, but it is not the only country," she said.

Frazer said Washington believes Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys, the leader of the routed Islamic movement, and Hassan Turki, another top member, were still in Somalia, along with the newly chosen head of Somalia's al-Qaida cell, Aden Hashi Ayro. Ayro was one of targets of a U.S. airstrike in January in Somalia.

Frazer flew in Saturday to the government stronghold of Baidoa, an agricultural town 155 miles southwest of Mogadishu, amid extremely tight security. She did not travel to Mogadishu, and left later in the day for Nairobi, Kenya.

The United States is a major financial supporter of the weak transitional Somali government and a small force of African Union peacekeepers, having pledged more than $120 million.

On Friday, a European Union conflict expert said in an e-mail obtained by the AP that Ethiopian and Somali forces may have committed war crimes during heavy artillery shelling against the Islamic insurgency and that foreign donors could be complicit.

The warning was made in an urgent e-mail to Eric van der Linden, the chief EU official for Kenya and Somalia, who confirmed the message's authenticity to the AP.

President Yusuf and his Cabinet ministers have repeatedly called for civilians to leave their homes because insurgents have fired mortars at Ethiopian and government troops from densely populated neighborhoods.

A local human rights group said more than 1,000 civilians were killed or injured in the four days before the cease-fire - the heaviest fighting in Mogadishu in 15 years.

Frazer condemned the insurgent attacks on the government, and expressed concern over the large number of civilian casualties.

"I think everybody used excessive force, when you talk about the number of civilian casualties it is obvious," she said.

_

Associated Press reporter Chris Tomlinson contributed to this report from Nairobi, Kenya.

Copyright 2007 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed