Elliot Abrams appointed US Special Envoy to Iran

 Brian Hook, US special envoy, who has been overseeing the last 3 and a half years of US hostility towards Iran has resigned. No official reason has been announced for his resignation.

Some reports suggest that the resignation is related to the US pushing next week for an arms embargo on Iran. The US move is expected to fail. Hook is being replaced by Elliot Abrams.

Hook described his time as envoy to Iran as a success. He pointed out that although there were no successful negotiations during his tenure the US had severely damaged the Iranian economy through sanctions and he left Iran weaker than when his term began. Abrams is likely to keep up the constant bellicosity towards Iran characteristic of Hook's tenure as envoy.

Elliot Abrams

Abrams has served in foreign policy positions under the presidencies of Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, and now Donald Trump.

He is regarded a a Neo-conservative. During the Reagan administration he was involved in the Iran-Contra scandal as described on the appended video. In 1991 he was convicted of two charges of unlawfully withholding information from Congress but was later pardoned by George H. W. Bush.

Abrams was also associated with a failed coup against form Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez.

Trump appointed Abrams as special representative to Venezuela. As a recent article notes: "Under Trump, Elliot was slated to return to his roots in taking on socialist leaders in Latin America. His appointment came just two days after Trump announced the U.S. would recognize opposition-controlled National Assembly leader Juan Guaidó as acting leader of Venezuela, severing ties with President Nicolás Maduro in January of last year."

So far the Maduro regime has been able to successfully resist the Guaido coup attempt supported by Abrams and the US. No doubt the same type of maximum pressure campaign will be used against Iran. Although the US claims that its aim in Iran is not regime change as in Venezuela the tactics involved will certainly cause the present Iranian regime economic problems that will no doubt cause political difficulties within Iran and could very well facilitate regime change.

The US wants the UN arms embargo on Iran to be extended after it runs out this fall. Abrams is no doubt seen as someone who can help make that happen..

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iran cautions US against making any moves on fuel shipments to Venezuela

(May 17) Iran's news agency Nour has issued an announcement cautioning the US from making any moves against fuel shipments that are en route from Iran to Venezuela.

US moving warships to the Caribbean

The US move is regarded as threatening by President Maduro of Venezuela whose government the US has been trying to oust. The US has recognized their choice for the coup Juan Guaido as the legitimate interim president after he declared himself to be such. Many countries have also followed in the US path.

Nour news said that the US was acting "just like pirates" and would face repercussions if it moved against the ships bound for Venezuela. Nour is said to be close to the Iranian Revolutionary Guards (IRG) and the statements could be a sign of IRG policy.

Nour is quoted as saying: “If the United States, just like pirates, intends to create insecurity on international waterways, it would be taking a dangerous risk and that will certainly not go without repercussion."

US announcement

US officials had issued what they termed an advisory against Iran-flagged tankers, accusing them of deceptive practices to get shipments sent in violation of US sanctions they also condemned Syria and North Korea in the advisory. However none of these countries are bound to follow US sanctions. Only US based ships or US-owned vessels at most would be bound. US sanctions are simply a form of US bullying made possible by its global power.

US may want to raise uncertainty about its actions. Actually, attacking or boarding the vessel physically would very much escalate tensions between the US and Iran. There is no legitimate reason to stop Venezuela from selling oil wherever it wants. The US does not want it to sell oil anywhere.

At least one tanker has set sail with gasoline from Iran has set out for Venezuela. Ali Rabiei an Iranian government spokesperson said to state media: “Venezuela and Iran are both independent states that have had and will continue to have trade relations with each other. We sell goods and buy goods in return. This trade has nothing to do with anyone else. We have to sell our oil and we have ways to do it."

According to time five tankers are now on their way from Iran to Venezuela: "Five Iranian tankers likely carrying at least $45.5 million worth of gasoline and similar products are now sailing to Venezuela, part of a wider deal between the two U.S.-sanctioned nations amid heightened tensions between Tehran and Washington."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iran calls US Gulf naval operation dangerous and provocative

(April 19)The first official Iranian response to US allegations that Iranian speed boats have been dangerous and provocative in approaching close to US vessels came Friday from the Iranian Defense Ministry.

Iranian response to US accusations

The Ministry claimed that the US charges were baseless and that it was the US "illegal and provocative" US presence in the area that it causing insecurity.

Defense Minister Brigadier General Amir Hatami told reporters in the capital Tehran: “What leads to insecurity in the Persian Gulf region is actually the illegal and aggressive presence of the Americans who have come from the other end of the world to our borders and make such baseless claims."

The US military claimed that 11 vessels from Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Navy (IRGCN) came dangerously close to US Navy and Coast Guard ships in the Gulf calling their moves "dangerous and provocative" A US military statement said:"The IRGCN's dangerous and provocative actions increased the risk of miscalculation and collision, [and] were not in accordance with the internationally recognised Convention on the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea."

The US said that it was carrying out integration operations with six military vessels and helicopters in international waters. The Iranian ships stayed in the area about an hour. They were warned to stay away by the US ships.

US actions are provocative

These actions may be in international waters but they are just off the coast of Iran. Surely if the Iranian military carried out similar operations just off the US coast there would at the very least be a similar attempt to monitor and even harass the Iranian ships.

The US would surely be aware that if they were to carry out such exercises near the Iranian coast that the Iranians would send out ships or planes to investigate the actions. Fortunately so far nothing further has happened to exacerbate the situation. However, it is clear that continuing US presence close to the Iranian coast is bound to create a situation where there can be more instances of this sort. The US thinks it can defect any responsibility by noting that it is vessels are in international waters. This may make their operation legal but it hardly makes it not provocative.

I have not seen any explanation of why the Iranians think the US action is illegal but it remains provocative.

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Iran criticizes what it terms US obstruction of IMF loan request

(April 7) Iran's Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, Ali Shamkrani criticized US obstruction of a loan from the International Monetary Fund(IMF) that Iran was seeking to fight the COVID-19 pandemic that has had a serious impact on the country.

	1 of 2

Shamkrani's tweet

On Sunday the Supreme National Council official tweeted: "The sanction of health items is an illegal & inhumane act & a symbol of #Trump's open hostility to the Iranian people. US opposition to granting #Iran's requested facilities from @IMF to provide items needed to deal with #CoronaVirus is a real case of crimes against humanity." Shamkrani added a hashtag in Farsi that said Trump was more dangerous than the coronavirus. The loan was rejected by the IMF.

The Covid-19 pandemic in Iran is said by Iranian officials to have taken over 3,600 lives and infected more than 58,000 since February 19.

US action

The Central Bank of Iran was reported last month to have asked the IMF for a $5 billion dollar loan its first loan request since 1962. Iran said that it need the loan to deal with the costs of fighting the COViD-19 pandemic. The costs of Iran's fight against the virus are exacerbated by the fact that it faces crippling sanctions imposed by the US in May of 2018 after the US withdrew from the international deal on Iran's nuclear program.

Calls have mounted for the US to ease the sanctions to allow Iran more resources to combat the pandemic. US has shown no sign of doing so. Now it has used it influence to pressure the IMF to turn down the loan. The US has taken similar actions against Venezuela as it attempts to overthrow the government of Nicolas Maduro. The IMF claimed that it was not clear who represented the Venezuela government Maduro or the coup leader Juan Guaido recognized by the US and many allies as the interim president of Venezuela.

Senior officials in the Trump administration claimed that Iran had billion-dollar accounts still at its disposal. The US argued that if Iran were allowed to get IMF financing it could divert the funds to help its economy, or finance militants rather than fighting the pandemic. Of course, it is US sanctions that have to a large extent weakened the Iranian economy. An anonymous US official claimed that Iranian officials had a long history of diverting funds for humanitarian goods into their own pockets and to finance their terrorist proxies. He provided no evidence of this. The remarks fit a pattern of demonizing Iran. The US probably does not worry so much about aid funds being diverted so much as freeing up funds that would have been used to fight the pandemic for other uses such as helping the economy. That the economy would be made stronger from such help is a negative for the US which is using sanctions to ensure it stays weak.

UPDATE: I have corrected the headline as it seems the IMF has not yet made a decision on the application

Previously published in the Digital Journal

Group of US senators sponsor bill to bring US back into Iran nuclear deal

(February 23) A group of US Senators led by Senator Ed Markey, Dianne Epstein, Chris Van Hollen, Elizabeth Warren, Tammy Duckworth, all Democrats and Bernie Sanders an Indpendent have introduced the Iran Diplomacy Act.

The Iran Diplomacy Act

The act, bill S.3314, calls upon the US to return to its commitments under the P5 + 1 nuclear deal with Iran. However the bill is non-binding so it becomes just one of a series of bills objecting to Trump's policy on Iran. Trump will almost certainly disapprove of the bill as he has from the beginning objected to the Iran deal. It remains to be seen if the bill can pass the Senate and then the House.

US appears to want to sabotage the original pact

Senator Markey argues that the US pullout from the deal created a nuclear crisis where none existed before. Other argue that the US and Iran should both return to the deal as originally written. Iran is clearly willing to do so should the US decide to do so as well. However, the US has not only withdrawn from the pact but also seems bent upon keeping other parties from complying with the terms of the pact.

Senator Markey said: "President Trump’s Iran policy is a prime example of how he has created new nuclear crises where none existed or where they had successfully been tamed through diplomacy. IIf President Trump is serious about his declaration that ‘Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,’ he should recommit to the agreement which verifiably shut off all of Iran’s pathways to a nuclear bomb and abandon his failed Iran strategy that has brought us to the brink of war, not once but twice.”

Senator Feinstein claimed that under the Iran nuclear agreement there was a deal that restricted Iran's capability of developing nuclear weapons. She claimed the agreement was the best chance for peace in decades of hostilities. She argued that Trump's decision to withdraw increased tensions and has led to the potential of increased nuclear proliferation. Feinberg hoped that the Iran Diplomacy Act would help the US return to the deal.

Senator Elizabeth Warren argued that the US should work with its allies and partners to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Instead of doing this through the agreement President Trump withdrew from a successful deal. He re-imposed sanctions that hurt the Iranian populace and risked provoking a war with Iran. Warren said the bill put diplomacy first and avoids another possible war in the Middle East.

New EU foreign affairs chief to meet with Iran's Foreign Minister

Josep Borrell the new EU foreign affairs chief, will meet with Javad Zarif Iran's Foreign Minister this Monday according to an Iranian news report. Since Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal and re-imposed sanctions on Iran, the Iranians have responded by gradually rolling back their commitment to the deal. Iran has not been satisfied by attempts of other signatories to rescue the deal. The deal is described by Wikipedia: "The Iran nuclear deal framework was a preliminary framework agreement reached in 2015 between the Islamic Republic of Iran and a group of world powers: the P5+1 (the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council—the United States, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and the European Union."

Previously published in the Digital Journal

On January 2 US tried to assassinate a second top Iranian commander but failed

On January 2, the US launched an airstrike at the Baghdad International Airport that killed the Iranian General Qassem Suleimani and also an Iraqi militia leader but the US attempted another assassination the same day but failed.

The attempted assassination of General Abdul Reza Shahlai

A recent article reports what US officials said about the failed operation: "The officials said a military air attack targeted Abdul Reza Shahlai, a high-ranking commander in Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), but the mission was not successful. The officials spoke to the Associated Press news agency on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a classified mission."

The reason given for the attack

The Treasury Dept. claims that Shahlai has a long history of targeting the US and its allies around the world. A recent article describes two of his attacks.The first was on US soil: "Shahlai was a ringleader in the last state-sponsored attempt to carry out a terrorist attack on US soil. In 2011, he and and a small number of fellow IRGC officers tried to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s then-ambassador to the United States, Adel Al-Jubeir, at a Washington restaurant. " The attack was foiled. and a cousin of Shahlai was arrested, charged, and is serving 25 years. Soleimani was involved in the plot as well. A second attack was in Iraq: "Shahlai was also involved in the kidnapping and murder of five American soldiers outside Karbala, Iraq, on January 20, 2007."

However, these past actions do not justify the attack as self defense. The US would need to show there was an immediate threat. However, the US has failed to give any specifics or even suggest so far that there Shahlai was planning any specific attacks.

Officials are declining to offer specifics, but the Treasury Department accused him of “a long history of targeting Americans and US allies globally.” Officials are also not talking about what specifically the justification for the attack was. On the other hand in the case of the Soleimani assassination there has been a claim that he was planning imminent attacks as discussed by Trump on the appended video. However, if such an attack were planned one would think that the embassies would have been put on high alert but that was not done. No doubt the administration would claim that no detailed information could be revealed as it needed to be kept secret and classified. On Fox News Trump said: "We will tell you probably it was going to be the embassy in Baghdad. I can reveal that I believe it would have been four embassies."

Shahlai was in Yemen so he would have had to be involved in some imminent attack there but this has not even been suggested as yet let alone any evidence presented for it. The US did not reveal the failed attempt for more than a week. This makes one wonder if the US had planned to take out a number of key Iranian leaders not just Soleimani and the commander of the an Iraqi militia. It also shows that the US appears to be willing to target someone simply on the basis of what they have done in the past even though they have no evidence of the person being an immediate threat.

Most mainstream media critical of Trump's response to Iran's downing of a US drone

(June 22) Mainstream US media is for the most part united in criticism of Trump's decision to call off planned attacks on Iran in response to the downing of a US drone.

In an article in Antiwar.com Jason DItz notes that earlier in the week US media outlets had articles representing different approaches as to how to handle increase US-Iran tensions. However, by Friday this had changed after the downing of a US Global Hawk drone by Iran on Thursday. Iran claimed it the drone had passed over its territory and was on a spying mission whereas the US claims it was an unprovoked attack over international waters.

After attack many thought the US would respond militarily

No doubt hawks within the US administration thought there would be a strong US military response and perhaps the beginning of a war with Iran the type of situation they desired. However, at the last minute it is claimed that Trump decided to not respond via a planned attack.

Trump defends his decision

Trump defended his decision by noting that the planned response could kill up to 150 Iranians and would not be proportional as the drone downing killed no Americans. Trump makes a valid point but the press or most of the press seems to ignore this. Trump also tried to portray the attack as a serious mistake and not intentional. Of course Trump assumes that the drone was not over Iranian air space. This is questionable. Most likely the plane was on a spy mission as claimed by the Iranians and the Iranians have managed to recover wreckage from the drone before Americans were able to. This suggests it was perhaps within Iranian air space.

Many media articles critical of Trump's failure to respond militarily

Although Trump's decision could be seen as reducing tension and avoiding raising them resulting in dangerous and damaging conflict with Iran, articles such as that in USA Today are negative accusing Trump of not following through saying: "Trump's decision to order military action against targets in Iran – only to cancel the operation at the last minute – follows a familiar pattern: Threaten, pull back, confuse friends and foes alike." Of course one of his threats was to withdraw all US troops right away from Syria but as has happened numerous times Trump's dovish moves are challenged by hawks within his administration and he gives in.

He has followed the hawks marching orders often on Iran sending more troops and threatening Iran if US interests are attacked. His fault now seems not so much to be his inconsistency but his not giving in to the hawks who want war. The media in effect supports the trend towards violence and warfare rather than reduction in tensions. Kari Schake in the Atlantic even speaks of damaging America's credibility. Yet if Iran is correct than they were simply protecting their territory from US spying. Of course it is not allowed for US media to look at events that way.

NBC news criticized Trump for indecision and said that it would embolden Iran. It might embolden Iran to take any further action necessary to defend its territory. A recent article in the Hill notes that an Iranian general claimed that the US was warned about the drone several times but there was no reply. NBC news adds quotes from selected critics of Trump's decision not to attack: ""Trump has given the impression he lost his nerve, when he should've responded swiftly but measuredly already a couple weeks ago," said Michael Makovsky, president of the Jewish Institute for National Security of America who was a senior aide to Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in President George W. Bush's administration."

CNN's Samantha Vinograd added to the chorus claiming that the Trump decisions hurts US credibility and shows that Trump cannot make up his mind. Some CNN reporters claim that lawmakers are on edge and the situation is more perilous. Somehow the fact that a US response could very well provoke a counter-response from Iran never seems to enter their heads. US actions are apparently never provocative nor do they make the situation more perilous.

It is true that Trump often makes bellicose statements and does not always follow through. This may be seen as a fault but sometimes it is a blessing. That may very well be the case with his decision not to attack Iran and perhaps provoke a violent response and the demand for a further response from the US. It seems that not just hawks but the mainstream media sponsor a more warlike US position.

Tucker Carlson on Fox News

One exception to the criticism of Trump can be found in Tucker Carlson's response on Fox News that praises Trump for avoiding war and does discuss the proportionality argument. The appended video shows Tucker's response

Previously published in the Digital  Journal

Iran claims to have exposed a CIA-run cyber espionage network

(June 18) Iran claimed on Monday that it had exposed a large cyber espionage network that it alleges was run by the US Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and several US spies had been arrested in several countries as a result of the discovery.

US-Iran tension are growing

The US has accused Iran of attacking two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman last Thursday. The US has sent a carrier strike group and bombers to the area and announced plans to deploy 1,500 troops to the Middle East. After the tanker attacks the US is sending another 1,000 troops as a recent Guardian article notes: "The US is sending an additional 1,000 troops to the Middle East in response to “hostile behavior by Iranian forces and their proxy groups”, Patrick Shanahan, the acting defence secretary, announced on Monday." This is a recipe for more conflict. No doubt hawks within the Trump administration such as Bolton are hoping for a war with Iran after more clashes. Iran denies having any role in the tanker attacks. Some analysts doubt US claims of Iran's responsibility for the tanker attacks and others even see them as false flag attacks meant to provoke an attack on Iran.

Last year Trump withdrew the United States from a 2015 international nuclear deal with Iran. Trump is also ratcheting up sanctions seeking to end Iran’s international sales of crude oil and strangle its economy. The US is also trying to bully other countries into following US sanctions against Iran.

Iran uncovers CIA cyber espionage network

Ali Shamkhani, the secretary of the Iranian Supreme National Security Council said: “One of the most complicated CIA cyber espionage networks that had an important role in the CIA’s operations in different countries was exposed by the Iranian intelligence agencies a while ago and was dismantled. We shared the information about the exposed network with our allies that led to the identification and arrest of CIA intelligence agents.” Shamkhani did not specifiy how many CIA agents were arrested nor in what countries. He also claimed that some information about events had been released by the US so it is was fitting that Iran publish information to make the public aware of what had happened.

This is not the first time US has launched cyber attacks on Iran

As an Ars Technica article from February of 2016 reported more than just the Stuxnet attack on Iran's centrifuges was planned: "The Stuxnet computer worm that destroyed centrifuges inside Iran's Natanz uranium enrichment site was only one element of a much larger US-prepared cyberattack plan that targeted Iran's air defenses, communications systems, and key parts of its power grid, according to articles published Tuesday. The contingency plan, known internally as Nitro Zeus, was intended to be carried out in the event that diplomatic efforts to curb Iran's nuclear development program failed and the US was pulled into a war between Iran and Israel, according to an article published by The New York Times. At its height, planning for the program involved thousands of US military and intelligence personnel, tens of millions of dollars in expenditures, and the placing of electronic implants in Iranian computer networks to ensure the operation targeting critical infrastructure would work at a moment's notice."

As the New York Times noted recently the US has implanted malware in Russia's power grid. No doubt they have done the same in Iran.

Previously published in the Digital Journal.

US officials blame Iran for attacks on tankers

(May 13) A pair of Saudi oil tankers have been reported to have been sabotaged off the coast of the UAE. However, what happened is not at all clear.

There has been a US military buildup in the area

The US has been citing unspecified threats by Iran in the area widely repeated in media such as the Wall Street Journal earlier this month: "U.S. intelligence showed that Iran has made plans to target U.S. forces in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East, triggering a decision to reinforce the American military presence in the region in an effort to deter any possible moves by Tehran, U.S. officials said Monday."

A convenient excuse to launch attacks against Iran?

While officials are only saying there was sabotage. There has been no elaboration on what exactly happened to the ships or how.

A Reuters report appears to be inconsistent. It says four ships were sabotaged but then says there were two and describes them: "The UAE said on Sunday that four commercial vessels were sabotaged near Fujairah emirate, one of the world’s largest bunkering hubs lying just outside the Strait of Hormuz. It did not describe the nature of the attack or say who was behind it. The UAE on Monday identified the vessels as two crude oil tankers owned by Saudi shipping firm Bahri, a UAE-flagged fuel bunker barge and a Norwegian-registered oil products tanker.The owner of the Norwegian vessel, Thome Ship Management, said the vessel was “struck by an unknown object”. Footage seen by Reuters showed a hole in the hull at the waterline with the metal torn open inwards."

In spite of lack of knowledge of incident US blames Iran

Reuters dutifully reports: "A U.S. official familiar with American intelligence said Iran was a leading candidate for having carried out the attacks but the United States does not have conclusive proof.“It fits their M.O. (modus operandi),” said the official on condition of anonymity, suggesting Iran’s statements distancing itself from the incident were an attempt “to muddy the waters.”

Notice the careful wording. The US does not have "conclusive proof". This implies that they have some proof. However, no proof is offered just that such an action whatever it was is consistent with Iran's modus operandi. Yet there is not even any clear idea of what happened. The statement also claims that Iranian denials are attempts to "muddy the waters". The whole statement by the anonymous US official is nothing but an attempt to smear Iran and provide an excuse for a US reaction.

Reports of explosions at UAE port probably false

Several reports claim that there were explosions at a UAE report including this one: "Powerful explosions have been reported in the Emirati port of al-Fujairah, where seven oil tankers are said to have caught fire. The blasts took place early on Sunday morning, according to the Lebanon-based Al Mayadeen television channel, which reported the development hours later. It said the seven oil tankers were completely burnt and that firefighters were still trying to extinguish the blaze."

Iran felt compelled to deny that it had anything to do with the explosions and suggested they could have been done by saboteurs from a third country interested in creating an unstable situation. However, the UAE has denied that the explosions even took place.

The situation in the area is becoming increasingly dangerous and the US actions have upped tensions. It is possible that there could be outright conflict created if the US tries to punish Iran for something that they may not have done. There is even the possibility of a false flag operation or some third party such as the Saudis or Israel trying to get the US to attack Iran. This could be encouraged by hawks within the Trump administration.

Previously published in Digital Journal

US general threatens Iran with military action

U.S. Centcom commander General Joseph Votel told the U.S. House Armed Services Committee that Iran was the greatest destabilizing force in the Middle East. He said the U.S. must be prepared to use "military means" to both confront and defeat the threat.

Iran is no doubt a hindrance to U.S. plans in the Middle East and those of its allies such as Saudi Arabia and Bahrain. However, it was the U.S. that overthrew the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein and also the government of Iran even earlier and installed a regime more in line with western oil interests.

Ironically the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003, eventually helped out Iran through the establishment of a Shia-denominated government rather than the Sunni-dominated regime of Hussein. A recent article notes:... the U.S. continues to sell massive amounts of weaponry to Iran’s rivals, most especially Saudi Arabia. U.S. military operations in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East have both destabilized the region and created marketplaces for U.S. weaponry and opportunities for economic exploitation by multinational corporations.No doubt the U.S. considers all of this an attempt to stabilize the region.

From 1953 to 1978 the U.S. had a strong ally in the Shah of Iran. The U.S. sold him the most advanced U.S. weaponry including F-14 Tomcat fighters and HAWK missile systems. With the 1979 Iranian Revolution all that changed and the U.S. actually supported the bad guy Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. Now again according to General Mattis the U.S. Secretary of Defense Iran is "the single most enduring threat to stability and peace in the Middle East".

Mattis claims that Iran continues to export terrorism and militant activity. In 2012 Mattis had said that the three primary threats that the U.S. faced in the Middle East were "Iran, Iran, Iran". He said the behavior of Iran had not changed since. Mattis said: "At the time when I spoke about Iran I was a commander of U.S. central command and that (Iran) was the primary exporter of terrorism, frankly, it was the primary state sponsor of terrorism and it continues that kind of behavior today."

Votel told the House Armed Services Committee that Iran was operating in a gray zone just short of open conflict with the U.S. He said the Iranian threat included aid to surrogate groups operating against the U.S. as well as cyber-warfare. Of course there is no mention of Stuxnet a worm that disabled many of Iran's centrifuges and was no doubt a joint effort of the U.S., Israel and perhaps others. Criminal cyber-activity by the good guys is to be applauded. However, the bad guys need to be held to account. Mattis says: “We need to look at opportunities where we can disrupt through military means or other means their activities. We need to look at opportunities where we can expose and hold them accountable for the things that they are doing.” There is no suggestion that use of "military means" might be against international law. Some excuse can always be found.

Limited Progress at Iraq multi-national meeting

So Iraq does not allow the "coalition" (one of the "others")to intrude upon its affairs! It must take practice to deliver such drivel with a solemn face. Without foreign intervention in Iraq's affairs Maliki would not be standing before the gathered grandees delivering his message.

Tina Susman
U.S., Iran no closer after Iraq's multi-national meeting
March 10, 2007


BAGHDAD -- Iran, the United States, and a host of regional powers agreed today on the need to help Iraq improve its security, but their much-touted meeting produced no discernible warming in U.S.-Iranian relations and failed to settle plans for future talks.

The chief of the Iranian delegation to the talks, Abbas Araghchi, a deputy foreign minister, used a news conference to demand that the United States set a timetable for withdrawing its troops from Iraq.


"We think the presence of foreign forces in Iraq cannot help the security of Iraq in the long term," he said, blaming "mistakes and wrongdoings in Iraq" by the United States for the country's current problems.

The chaos enveloping the capital was evident as the meeting was under way. At least two mortars landed with thunderous booms just outside the wall of the ministry. In the Shiite stronghold of Sadr City, in northeastern Baghdad, a car bomb killed at least 7 people and injured 43.

Prime Minister Nouri Maliki opened the meeting with a sharp message to his neighbors and benefactors to stop using Iraq as a battleground.

Though Iraq's insecurity was the topic of the conference, much of the attention was focused on the presence of U.S. and Iranian officials, who were sharing a public form for the first time in more than two years.

Neither country had indicated it would seek out a bilateral meeting during today's one-day event, but Maliki's government made clear it had hoped to at least instigate a thaw in their icy relations.

Washington accuses Iran of fueling Iraq's war by providing weapons to Shiite militias attacking U.S. troops. Iran's Shiite-led government denies the charges. It has accused the United States of orchestrating the abduction of one of its Baghdad-based diplomats, and of unjustly arresting several Iranian officials in Iraq.

The United States is also at odds with Syria, another meeting attendee, which it accuses of intentionally leaving its borders porous to allow easy crossing into Iraq for terrorists opposed to the U.S. occupation.

In his statement, U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad alluded to the U.S. differences with both Syria and Iran, without mentioning their names.

"The coalition does not have anyone in detention who is a diplomat," he said, using the word "coalition" to refer to the nations that have troops supporting the United States in Iraq.

Khalilzad said Iraq's neighbors could only be considered allies of Iraq if they halted the flow of fighters, weapons "and other lethal support to militias and other illegal armed groups," a reference to Shiite militias and Sunni Arab insurgents.

In addition to the United States, Iraq, Iran and Syria, those at the gathering included representatives of the permanent U.N. Security Council states, leaders from the mainly Sunni Arab league states, and all six of Iraq's neighbors.

Maliki's opening statements appeared aimed at both Iran and the United States; and at the Arab League, which last week said it would use the conference to demand that Maliki's Shiite-led government give minority Sunnis more power in government.

"Iraq does not allow itself to intrude on others' affairs, or its territory to be a launching pad for attacks against others. We ... expect to have the same stance from others," he said.

The prime minister also demanded that "regional or international states," which he did not identify by name, "refrain from having a share or an influence in the Iraqi state of affairs, by trying to induce a certain sect, nationality or party."

The meeting was attended by lower-level officials, whose prime task was to lay the groundwork for a second, high-level meeting, as early as next month.

But Iraq's foreign minister, Hoshyar Zebari, said no date was set for future talks. He said delegates agreed to establish working groups to focus on cooperation on security matters, Iraq's growing refugee problem, and fuel and energy imports into Iraq.

susman@latimes.com