11/06/06 - Zarqawi mort, Al Qaeda continue

Al Qaeda has already named Abdallah Bin Rashid al Baghdadi, head of its shura council in Iraq, as Abu Musab al Zarqawi’s successor

"DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources reveal Western intelligence agencies dealing with terrorists in the region know nothing about the new man. Al Qaeda has already vowed to fight on after Zarqawi’s death in a statement on its web site.

DEBKAfile discloses: Zarqawi’s death leaves Wariya Arbili as the most senior al Qaeda player in Iraq. He is chief of al Qaeda’s second largest affiliate in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna, an organization which controls large tracts of the country - especially in parts of Kurdistan - with a foothold in Kirkuk and Mosul as well as Tal Afar to the north and sections of the Sunni triangle.

Earlier, DEBKAfile disclosed: Zarqawi’s death leaves Wariya Arbili as the most senior al Qaeda player in Iraq. He is chief of al Qaeda’s second largest affiliate in Iraq, Ansar al-Sunna, an organization which controls large tracts of the country - especially in parts of Kurdistan - with a foothold in Kirkuk and Mosul as well as Tal Afar to the north and sections of the Sunni triangle.

DEBKAfile’s counter-terror sources reveal that a quarrel which flared recently between Arbili and Zarqawi led to Osama bin Laden naming a new worldwide operations chief with authority over both. He is an Iraqi from the north, known only by his nom de guerre, Abdulhadi al-Iraqi, and he replaces Abu Farj al-Libi who was captured by Pakistani forces.

Bin Laden’s choice of an indigenous Iraqi ops chief pointed to the high importance the al Qaeda leader attaches to the Iraq warfront for the future of his organization. Abdulhadi now faces the urgent task of bringing order to al Qaeda’s ranks, which are packed with foreign adherents, and Iraqi affiliates to avert a bloody power struggle among commanders."


Zarqawi's death not a severe blow to al-Qaida, experts say
KR 08/06/06

"The death of terrorist leader Abu Musab al Zarqawi, while a major tactical success, is unlikely to have a significant impact on the struggle against al-Qaida and its far-flung terrorist network of spin-offs and imitators, current and former U.S. counterterrorism officials said Thursday..."


Al-Qaida likely to alter marketing efforts

With the demise of charismatic terror leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida will be looking for a new sales approach in its worldwide fundraising campaigns.

Al-Zarqawi had become a key part of al-Qaida's marketing: He was a terror operator who stole headlines with jarring, gruesome attacks carried out by a network of foreign and Iraqi fighters. For more than three years, he evaded an international manhunt.

Counterterrorism officials have said al-Zarqawi served as a worldwide jihadist rallying point and a fundraising icon.

"The terrorist celeb, if you will," said Rep. Mike Rogers, R-Mich., a former FBI agent who serves on the House Intelligence Committee. "It is like selling for any organization. They are selling the success of Zarqawi in eluding capture in Iraq."

Although the United States and its major allies have made progress in shutting down some sources of terror financing, they face many challenges. Terrorist financiers have moved beyond using the traditional banking system to fund violence.

Al-Qaida has struggled too.

In a letter last year, al-Qaida's No. 2, Ayman al-Zawahri, took al-Zarqawi up on his offer to send some money because many lines had been cut off. He and Osama bin Laden are thought to be hiding along the rugged Afghan-Pakistan border.

Al-Zawahri asked for about 100,000, — without specifying a currency. "We'll be very grateful to you," he said.

A U.S. counterterrorism official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in compliance with office policy, said Thursday the next chief of al-Qaida in Iraq won't be the same type of leader that al-Zarqawi was, given his charisma, his Rolodex covering at least four continents and his credibility among terror operatives and aspirants.

But no one knows who will emerge as the new leader of al-Qaida in Iraq.

Speaking to reporters in Iraq on Thursday, Maj. Gen. William Caldwell said, "If you had to pick somebody" as the probable new leader, it would be an Egyptian named Abu al-Masri.

Other intelligence experts have mentioned a mysterious Iraqi named Abdullah Rashid al-Baghdadi. This year, he was reportedly made the political leader of five insurgent groups that formed the Mujahedeen Shura Council, or Consultative Council of Holy Warriors. The coalition includes al-Qaida in Iraq.

His selection would change the focus of al-Qaida in Iraq. Ken Katzman, a terrorism expert with the Congressional Research Service in Washington, said al-Baghdadi's interests lie in Iraq.

"His interests aren't in a global jihad," Katzman said.

The counterterrorism official said the group may decide to settle on an Iraqi perhaps to give the group a less foreign feel. Al-Zarqawi was a Jordanian, Osama bin Laden was a Saudi before his citizenship was revoked, and al-Zawahri is an Egyptian.

And still another candidate could emerge.

President Bush and other government leaders cautioned that al-Zarqawi's death was not likely to end Iraq's violence. A series of bombings killing nearly 40 people in Baghdad on Thursday confirmed that assessment.

Significant internal threats remain. Al-Qaida in Iraq has a decentralized command structure of regional emirs who no doubt are plotting attacks, former regime elements loyal to
Saddam Hussein are resisting efforts to form a new government and sectarian militias are looking out for their radical interests.

But House Intelligence Chairman Peter Hoekstra, R-Mich., said al-Qaida's operational command structure will be severely handicapped without a leader.

"As they are developing a new leadership and improving their operational security, that is energy that can't be put into the fight against the government in Iraq," he said.

While praising the elimination of al-Zarqawi, some are also looking beyond Iraq.

The House Intelligence Committee's top Democrat, Rep. Jane Harman (news, bio, voting record) of California, said: "Even though he was the al-Qaida leader in Iraq, the threats around the world will not diminish because he is not there.""


11/06/06 - Négociations USA-Iran, les deux parties dans le flou

Distrust could thwart American deal with Iran
The News 11/06/06

"Iran’s initial response to the great powers’ offer to defuse the crisis over its nuclear programme has revived the dwindling optimism about the possibility of preventing an almost inevitable confrontation with Washington..."

"...Despite its “positive” reaction to the US offer, Tehran remains suspicious about the Bush administration’s sudden interest in diplomacy to resolve the crisis over its nuclear programme.

Iranian leaders believe that the key US objective of this generous offer is to buy it some time to further undercut Iran’s influence in Iraq and to redeploy the bulk of its forces in the war-stricken Arab country before the military strike.

Iran also suspects that President George W. Bush might be seeking a Libya-like diplomatic victory to enhance the chances of his Republican Party in the mid-term elections, due to be held later this year..."


US refuses to rule out attacks
Times 10/06/06

"America has refused to give Iran guarantees that it will not use military force against its nuclear sites, according to a leading US official (Richard Beeston writes).

John Bolton, the US envoy to the UN, said that incentives offered to Iran this week in return for suspending its uranium enrichment work did not include military commitments. President Bush has insisted on keeping “all options open” in dealing with Iran, which many suspect is secretly building an atomic weapon under the guise of a civilian nuclear programme.

Javier Solana, the EU’s foreign policy chief, delivered a package of incentives agreed by America, Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia. The US has also agreed to resume official talks with Tehran for the first time in a quarter of a century.

In return, Iran is expected to halt its uranium enrichment. If it refuses, it faces the threat of punitive sanctions."


Bolton rejects ‘grand bargain’ with Iran
FT 09/06/06

"Time is running out for the diplomatic effort to resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear programme and Washington has no intention of striking a comprehensive “grand bargain” with Tehran, the US’s ambassador to the United Nations has warned.

Speaking to the Financial Times, John Bolton made clear many of his reservations about the current outreach to Iran, which Condoleezza Rice, US secretary of state, has persuaded President George W.Bush to endorse.

Referring to a report by the United Nations nuclear watchdog that Iran has stepped up uranium enrichment – a process that can create both nuclear fuel and weapons grade material – Mr Bolton said: “They’ve got both feet on the accelerator, which is why we have a sense of urgency that these diplomatic efforts can’t continue indefinitely. Each day that goes by gives Iran more time to continue to perfect its efforts for mass production.”..."

"...Mr Bolton, who describes himself as “not much a carrots man”, was quick to play down expectations of a dramatic breakthrough and highlighted many of the problems facing the diplomatic process.

“It would be a mistake to think these negotiations are a first step towards some kind of grand bargain [involving US recognition],” he said. “We are only addressing the nuclear issue and stopping their pursuit of nuclear weapons.”

He said US security guarantees for Iran were “not on the table”, and argued instead that regime change could remove a nuclear threat: “Our experience has been that when there is a dramatic change in the life of a country, that’s the most likely point at which they give up nuclear weapons.”

He added: “I think there will certainly be discussion of the question at the G8 summit” on July 15-17, by which time he said Iran had to make its response to the offer known.

“Some people thought for three years they [Iran] wanted to do a deal and there’s no deal out there, at least no deal that they’ve adhered to,” he said. “Maybe the deal that they want is the best of both worlds.”

Mr Bolton also voiced doubts that International Atomic Energy Agency inspections would be able to prove that Iran’s programme was purely peaceful, and said that sanctions against Iran if it declined the offer were “a step in the process”. But he also conceded that he could not predict whether the Security Council would back such a measure.

He said the EU, which conducted negotiations with Iran from 2003, had been embarrassed by a declaration by a former Iranian official that during that time the Islamic republic had worked on nuclear techniques.

“It shows why even as they sit contemplating this recent offer they’re still spinning centrifuges and now they’re putting gas in them,” he said.é


Hard-line cleric urges Iran to reject Western incentives package
USA Today 09/06/06

"A top hard-line cleric on Friday came out against a Western incentive package aimed at persuading Iran to suspend uranium enrichment, reflecting conservative pressure on the government to reject the offer.

It was not immediately clear if Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati's comments in any way represented the Iranian government. Jannati is the head of the powerful Guardian Council, a constitutional watchdog arbitrating between the parliament and the government. He is not considered a government official.

Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who has the final say in all state matters, has overruled hard-liners previously in the nuclear dispute.

"The package they have presented is a package (that is) good for them. It's not good for Iran," Jannati said in his Friday prayer sermon..."


Iran Restarted Nuclear Activities, Atomic Agency Says
NYT 08/06/06

"Iran restarted important nuclear activities on the same day this week that six world powers offered it incentives aimed at encouraging the complete suspension of the nuclear work, the International Atomic Energy Agency reported on Thursday.

On Tuesday, Iran restarted the pouring of a raw form of uranium into a set of 164 centrifuge machines to produce enriched uranium, the I.A.E.A., the nuclear monitoring agency based in Vienna, said..."


11/06/06 - L'ouverture de Bush sur l'Iran sépare Israel des néocons

Bush Overture To Iran Splits Israel, Neocons
Forward 09/06/06

"The Bush administration's offer to open direct talks with Iran and reward Tehran if it stops enriching uranium is exposing a policy rift between neoconservatives on one hand, and the Israeli government and Jewish organizations on the other.

Neoconservative analysts are blasting the administration, saying that holding talks with the Islamic regime would serve only to embolden it and undermine the anti-fundamentalist opposition in Iran. They argue that America's ultimate goal should be to change Tehran's theocratic regime.

"The administration can't have it both ways. They can't embrace the regime and still talk about liberty for the Iranian people," said Iran analyst Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative Washington think tank widely associated with the push for regime change in Iraq. A former Pentagon official, Rubin added that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "can spout whatever platitudes she wants to spout, but at this point, when it comes to liberty and freedom, she has no credibility."

Israeli officials and several influential Jewish groups, meanwhile, have refrained from criticizing the new American approach — which some experts are depicting as the most dramatic foreign policy shift of the Bush presidency — saying that they support more pragmatic ways to block Iran's apparent dash toward a nuclear weapon. For Israel and Jewish groups — despite Iranian calls for Israel's destruction — the fundamental goal is not regime change, but to block Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The split appears to fly in the face of recent high-profile efforts to paint the pro-Israel lobby as a seamless network dominated by Jewish organizations and neoconservatives coordinating their activities with the Israeli government. Most notably, such a view was advanced by two highly respected academics — John Mearsheimer, a top international relations theorist based at the University of Chicago, and Stephen Walt, former academic dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government — in a research paper released in March. The Walt-Mearsheimer paper has triggered an escalating debate on the influence of Israel and Jewish organizations that has spilled over onto the opinion pages of major publications, including The New York Times and The Washington Post.

Recently, with such scrutiny mounting, Israeli leaders asked American Jewish organizations to lower their profile on the Iran issue, the Forward has learned.

In one notable example, a delegation of leaders from the American Jewish Congress met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert shortly before returning to the United States. When asked how he thinks Jewish groups should pursue the Iran issue, Olmert reportedly implied that he would prefer a low profile, according to one source familiar with the proceedings.

"We don't want it to be about Israel," Olmert is said to have replied, explaining that although Iran's president focuses his belligerent rhetoric on Israel, both Jerusalem and Washington have an interest in convincing the international community that a nuclear armed Iran would be a menace to the region and to the entire world.

President Bush updated Olmert shortly before Rice announced the new American policy at a May 31 press conference, Israeli and American sources said. Rice announced that Washington would be willing to join its European allies in direct talks with Iran if Tehran "fully and verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities." Rice made clear that America would not attempt to hinder an Iranian civilian nuclear program.

Immediately following Rice's comments, her Israeli counterpart, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, issued a statement, saying, "Israel appreciates the steps and measures by the United States in continuing to lead the international coalition and in taking all necessary steps to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability."

One Israeli official told the Forward that Jerusalem is satisfied with the apparent international recognition that "this is the critical time to clarify whether Iran is really pursuing a peaceful nuclear program or a belligerent one." The official dismissed the argument made by some opponents of Rice's move that all the overture by the United States would do is allow Iran to buy time while pursuing nuclear weapons and fending off international sanctions. America's move, the Israeli official said, only would hasten and embolden the international community as it approaches a likely showdown with Iran in the United Nations.

Israel's support for Rice and Olmert's request for Jewish groups to take a lower profile are being well received by many Jewish groups. Already, some Jewish groups had been asking the White House to stop suggesting that American efforts to block Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons are motivated primarily by a desire to protect Israel.

Jewish organizations have no interest in becoming "the lobby for war with Iran," one communal official said.

In the past, when the administration chose to pursue diplomatic options instead of an immediate push for international sanctions, it drew public criticism from some Jewish organizations. This time around, while some Jewish groups are uncomfortable with the administration's shift on direct talks with Iran, only the right-of-center Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs openly criticized the move.

Last year, when the Bush administration agreed to give Russia a chance to negotiate a plan that would allow Iran to enrich uranium under international supervision, the main pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, issued a rare public rebuke of the White House. But this week, in response to the recent American announcement, Aipac issued a measured statement to the Forward, saying that if the administration blocks Iran's production of enriched uranium by offering talks, that would be a "positive development." The statement, however, cautioned against losing sight of Iran's habit of deceiving America and its allies.

Aipac sources said this week that they don't expect the administration's policy shift to hinder their efforts to pass the Iran Freedom Support Act, a bill aimed at tightening U.S. sanctions on Iran, which has overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives but must still be voted on in the Senate. This week Aipac sent a fund-raising letter to thousands of its supporters saying "we need your help to stop Iran." A spokesman for Aipac said that the letter is part of the organization's routine fund-raising efforts and not connected to the administration's new strategy.

Some officials with Jewish groups share the concern expressed by many neoconservative critics of the new American approach, that any negotiations simply would buy Iran time to advance its nuclear weapons program.

"For the Iranians, diplomacy is a form of delay, so it is dangerous," said David Twersky, director of international affairs for the American Jewish Congress. However, he added, "it will also be dangerous to act precipitously, prematurely. The United States cannot go by itself and say, we are imposing sanctions."

Most Jewish groups accept the administration's argument that the overture would make it easier for Washington to put together the international coalition necessary for effective sanctions against Iran.

"Looking down the abyss at the choices, which, in their starkest terms, are either accepting Iran as a nuclear power or attacking militarily, I think people are looking to see whether or not a third way can be found to achieve the same purpose," said Jess Hordes, the Anti-Defamation League's Washington affairs director.

This sentiment was being echoed among some friends of Israel on Capitol Hill. "In the abstract, who wants to talk to the Iranian regime and who wants to give it legitimacy and to prolong the game they are playing?" said Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democratic member of the House International Relations Committee. "But that's the price we might have to pay in order to get the world community to take a tougher stand on Iran down the line.""


07/06/06 - Patriotisme économique et relations économiques franco-indiennes

French kisses and hisses for India
By Federico Bordonaro, Asia Times 07/06/06

"...The Arcelor-Mittal issue and its recent developments are only comprehensible in the broader framework of France's perception of globalization and the European integration process.

Broadly speaking, Paris conceives of Europe as a "power multiplier", a platform to project its influence globally, both politically and economically. Hence France supported the creation of a "strong Europe" as a tool to gain independence from US power in a "multipolar world" at a time of globalization.

Since the European Union is becoming an huge common market without a strong political leadership, and as the new Eastern European EU members seem unlikely to accept a strong Franco-German leadership over the Union, France tends to perceive the present situation as a dangerous one. In Paris's view, EU-promoted liberal rules support the expansion of major financial and industrial complexes linked to the Anglo-American world. This is why France prefers Arcelor to merge with the Russian steel giant Severstal rather than with Mittal - which is linked to the powerful US investment bank Goldman Sachs, among other firms.

Contrary to a widespread belief, France's "economic patriotism" is not disguised protectionism; rather, it is a policy based on a new partnership between the French state and French corporations according to market rules, aimed at avoiding hostile takeovers and at ensuring the success of its big groups while fostering national economic security. In other words, Paris actively supports the creation of national champions and even mergers, as long as the French groups remain largely in control of the newborn corporation.

By such means, France is trying to avoid losing control of its national champions in sectors such as energy, defense, information technology (IT), and other strategic markets such as the steel industry. Hence international political considerations play a decisive role in industrial and financial operations. Inevitably, the long struggle for Arcelor will have political and diplomatic consequences; however, it is to be expected that such tensions will not undermine Franco-Indian bilateral projects in other sensitive sectors..."