Obama lays out plan for confronting Iran

This article shows Obama pandering to Israel and showing very little regard for Palestinian rights. He also is quite aggressive on Iran again stressing the anti-Israel rhetoric emanating from Iran.This is from ynetnews.

Obama lays out plan for confronting Iran

In exclusive interview, prospective Democratic candidate pledges to continue 'unshakeable' US commitment to Israeli security, pursue 'aggressive diplomacy' vis-à-vis Iran, and make every effort to achieve peace for Israel 'without dictating terms'
Orly Azoulay

WASHINGTON - When he launched his US presidential campaign, only few people knew that Democratic candidate Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein. His political rivals, however, made sure to reveal this fact and attempted to paint him as a pro-Arab Muslim.



Over the past few weeks, his rivals have spread rumors that Obama attended a madrasa (Islamic religious school) in Indonesia, which served as a terrorist training camp.




On Tuesday Obama provided written answers to questions presented by the Yedioth Ahronoth daily newspaper. In this exclusive interview, he presents his views on Israel, the Palestinians and Iran.






Senator Obama, Two years ago you visited Israel for the first time. What were your

impressions of this visit and did you learn something about our country that you did not know?



My travels in Israel in 2006 left a lasting impression on me. I have long understood Israel's great dilemma, its need for security in a difficult neighborhood and its quest for peace with its neighbors. But there is no substitute for meeting the people of Israel, seeing the terrain, experiencing the powerful contrast of a beautiful, holy land that faces the constant threat of deadly violence. The people of Israel show their courage and commitment to democracy every day that they board a bus, or kiss their children goodbye, or argue about politics in a local cafe.



For many years, Israel has considered the occupant of the White House a very good friend. Will this friendship continue if you become president?



Absolutely yes. I will carry with me to the White House and unshakeable commitment to the security of Israel and the friendship between the United States and Israel. The US-Israel relationship is rooted in shared interests, shared values, shared history, and in deep friendship among our people. It is supported by a strong bipartisan consensus that I am proud to be a part of, and I will work tirelessly as president to uphold and enhance the friendship between the two countries.



During your campaign, you have said you would start new aggressive efforts to make peace between Israel and the Palestinians. What is your plan and why do you believe you could succeed when so many American presidents have failed?



I know how much Israelis crave peace. I know that Prime Minister Olmert was elected with a mandate to pursue it. I pledge to make every effort to help Israel achieve that peace, although I will not try to dictate its terms.



The principles that will guide me are 1) that Israel's security must be guaranteed; 2) that the status quo is unsustainable over time, and the best long-term guarantee of Israel's security is a negotiated two-state solution with the Palestinians, if it can be achieved; and 3) that Israel has to remain a Jewish state and the Palestinian state must be viable.



But success is not guaranteed. Israel must have confidence that the Palestinian leadership is both committed to peace and is able to follow through on its commitments. So the approach we have to take with respect to negotiations is that you sit down and talk, but you have to suspend trust until you can see that the Palestinian side can follow through. That is a position I have consistently taken and will take with me to the White House.




You have said you would be ready to talk to "enemy leaders." Some Israelis are skeptical that just by speaking with the leaders of Iran, you could prevent them from producing a nuclear weapon. If diplomacy fails, would you support using force against Iran, as Israel did against Iraq in 1981?



I don't believe that diplomacy alone will stop the Iranians from pursuing nuclear weapons. I believe it will require all facets of our national power to achieve this important goal. The gravest threat to Israel today comes from Iran, where a radical regime continues to pursue the ability to build a nuclear weapon, and continues its support for terrorism across the region. (Iranian) President (Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust, and his disturbing denunciations of Israel; recently he referred to Israel as a "deadly microbe" and a "savage animal." Threats of Israel's destruction cannot be dismissed as rhetoric.



The threat from Iran is real, and my goal as President will be to eliminate it. Ending the war in Iraq will be an important step toward achieving this goal, because it will increase our flexibility and our credibility when we deal with Iran. Make no mistake; Iran has been the biggest strategic beneficiary of the war in Iraq, and I intend to change that.



My approach to Iran will be based upon aggressive diplomacy. I will not take the military option off the table. But I also believe that under this administration, we have seen the threat grow worse, and I intend to change that course.



The time has come to talk directly to the Iranians, and to lay out our clear terms: an end to their pursuit of nuclear weapons; an end to their support of terrorism; and an end to their threats against Israel and other countries in the region. To achieve this goal, I believe that we must be prepared to offer incentives: like the prospect of better relations and integration in the international community; as well as disincentives: like the prospect of increased sanctions.




I would seek these sanctions through the United Nations, and encourage our friends in Europe and the Gulf to use their economic leverage against Iran outside of the UN. I believe we will be in a stronger position to achieve these tough international sanctions if the United States shows that we are willing to come to the table. And I would continue the work that I have started in the Senate by enacting my legislation to make it easier for states to divest their pension funds from Iran.



Some people in Israel and some Jewish American leaders have expressed concern that you would be more sympathetic to the Arab side because of your Muslim background. How do you respond to this argument?



First it is important to establish the facts. Here are the facts: I am not a Muslim and I never have been. I never attended a madrasa. I did not take my oath of office on a Koran. I am a committed Christian. I lived in Indonesia for four years as a child, where I attended secular schools. I took my oath of office on our family Bible.



People who know the facts are not worried about my commitment to Israel's security and the U.S.-Israel relationship. I have overwhelming support among the Jewish community that knows me best, which is the Jewish community in Chicago. It may be that my family roots in Africa and my childhood experience in Indonesia give me some insights that allow me to practice effective diplomacy in the Muslim world. I certainly hope so. And that ability can be used to benefit American interests and Israel's security, and, I hope, help build a better relationship between both our countries and the Muslim world.



Senator Obama, there are some in Israel who are leaking stories that Israel would have reason to be concerned if you are elected president. How would you respond to this anxiety among some critics that your election might not be good for Israel?




I understand that I am not as well-known as some other candidates, so people might have questions about my positions on many issues. What I have found is that when Israelis, and Jewish Americans, and others who care about Israel learn about my view, my record, and my proposals, they are extremely supportive. I have a strong record of supporting Israel in every office I have ever held, and nothing will change about that when I am president.








Back

Tensions Rise Between "Awakening" and Iraqi Govt. Forces

Developments such as this may explain why the U.S. is not anxious to have a large drawdown of troops from Iraq. The funding of former insurgents to fight Al Qaeda has worked relatively well in damping down attacks by Al Qaeda linked groups but has at the same time increased conflict with Shia dominated government and police forces. It remains to be seen if this conflict can be controlled or if it will escalate.This is from AntiWar.


Tensions Rise Between 'Awakening' and Iraqi Govt Forces

by Ahmed Ali and Dahr Jamail
BAQUBA - US backed Sahwa forces threaten to destabilize US-backed Iraqi government forces in Iraq's volatile Diyala province.

The "Awakening Councils," known locally as the Sahwa, have left their centers in cities and districts around the capital of Diyala province, located 40 km northeast of Baghdad.

After seeing better security and stability brought about by the Sahwa, most of whom are former resistance fighters, residents are concerned what their absence will now mean.

The Sahwa are protesting against kidnappings, rape, and killing of Sunnis by the Shia-controled police in Baquba.

On the other hand, Shia politicians of Diyala, like those in Baghdad, have always shown their resentment against the fighters of the Sahwa. They often accuse the fighters of being "terrorists".

Many residents see this as more of the sectarian view of the predominantly Shia government of Baghdad that does not want to share power with Sunni groups.

According to the US military, 82 percent of the 80,000-strong Sahwa are Sunni.

"Police vehicles are used to kidnap Sunni people, and when asked, the police chief and government members say it is difficult to control the mistakes of all of the police and army," Abu Saad, a member of a local Sahwa group in Baquba told IPS. "We have to put an end to the bad conduct of the police and army. They have done enough bad things to the people of this city. The suffering of this city is because of them."

An employee who works in the provincial government office told IPS on condition of anonymity that corruption is compounding the problems between the Sahwa and government security forces.

"The politicians and leaders are more concerned about collecting and saving money rather than about the security and needs of the people," he said. "There is a hidden race towards money, and this money is used for their personal needs and to support militias. This is why there is a Shia person on the top of every office."

Locals have become increasingly resentful about the corruption and lack of government action to improve security and infrastructure in the city. "The members of the government in Diyala themselves do not want the city to be secure," said a local trader, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "They want to keep ruling the province one-sidedly. People do not trust them, and suspect their allegiance."

The trader added, "Shia politicians of the Baghdad government want to keep their domination over Diyala, even though it is mostly Sunni." In 2003 estimates showed that Diyala province was roughly 85 percent Sunni.

As a result of rallies against the provincial police chief, Major General Ghanim al-Qureyshi, who the Sahwa say is a part of the corruption and anti-Sunni behavior of the government security apparatus, the fighters of the Awakening Councils have earned more support from residents.

"We are currently protecting Sunni people from the government police and army," Sahwa member Abu Laith told IPS. "An Iraqi police Hummer entered the New Baquba district and kidnapped a Sunni person recently. Before it left the district, the fighters of the Sahwa blocked the way and freed the kidnapped person, and arrested the four persons who were dressed up as policemen."

Laith, like most residents of Baquba, believes that most of the Iraqi police and army are members of various Shia militias.

"After a day, US troops came and took the four policemen to prison," Laith said. "When we asked (Diyala police chief) Qureyshi about them, he replied that he does not know. Of course we know he is lying."

The Sahwa in Diyala refuse to cooperate with the government, but maintain ties with coalition forces. The US forces are backing the Sahwa now more firmly than before.

This has brought a growing divide between the US armed and funded Sahwa, and the US-backed predominantly Shia government in Baghdad. Reconciliation seems remote within this seemingly contradictory strategy of the occupation forces, that many here call a "divide and rule" strategy.

US backing of the Sahwa members, who are each paid at least 300 dollars per month, is provoking resentment among Shias.

"The commander of the Sahwa, Abu Hader, has been given huge authority, and his bodyguards are Americans," a resident of the New Baquba district, speaking on condition of anonymity told IPS. "American snipers are posted over his house for his protection."

People of the New Baquba district feel safe with Abu Hader, he said. "He cares for the displaced people by giving them money and food, he cares for widows who lost husbands during these last few years, and he gives to and hires the unemployed."

In a move sure to enrage the government of US-installed Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has opposed the Sahwa from the beginning, many groups are forming their own battalions, and conducting their own training, independent of the government.

"A group of the Awakening Councils fighters traveled to Sulaymaniya province in the north for training to become officers for the newly-formed battalion," Abu Ahmed, a member of the local Sahwa told IPS. "The Americans have finally replied to the cries and sufferings of Sunnis, who were unfairly treated through the period of occupation."

(Inter Press Service)