A Cuckoo proposal from the Swiss?

This was sent by a friend and I have no way of verifying. You can judge for yourself. We do know politics is all about money. (See 1 below.)

A report suggests the Swiss are offering Iran a way out of the nuclear corner they have gotten themselves into and it appears to be Cuckoo one. (See 2 below.)

Meanwhile, Sec. Rice is using the leverage of a possible agreement with N Korea and extends a carrot to the Iranians. (See 3 below.)But then John Podhoretz has a different take on the proposed N Korean negotiations. (See 6 below.)

Ever helpful, Putin chimes in on the Palestinian Mecca deal. Putin states he is working within the Quartet but the agreement between Hamas and Fatah happens to ignore key demands of the Quartet and TRM, ie. recognition of Israel, prior agreements and end of violence and terrorism. What Putin and the EU appear eager for is a deal that, at best, can only create the appearance of honey while the killer bee's remain hidden. This would permit the EU to re-start aid in the mistaken belief this would buy calm and tranquility. But then the EU's Amb. to the U.N. warns the Palestinians to renounce terrorism.(See 4 below and 8.)

Caroline Glick points out the schism within the ranks of America's Jewish community, ie. apologists versus defenders. From my perspective the apologists fear defense of Israel brings attention to them and causes them angst among the power structure with which they would like to be connected. (See 5 below.)

George Friedman discusses Russia in terms of Putin's recent speech. Russia's involvemnent in the region and Putin's contention that we are the trouble maker takes a very convoluted course as Friedman demonstrates. (See 7 below.)

Dick


1)(This is an interesting bit of information that you don't hear much about.)

A. Enron's chairman did meet with the President and the Vice President in the Oval Office.
B. Enron gave $420,000.00 to the President's party over three
years.
C Enron donated $100,000.00 to the President's inauguration
festivities.
D. The Enron chairman stayed at the White House 11 times.
E. The Corporation had access to the administration at its highest level and even enlisted the Commerce and State Departments to grease deals for it.
F. The Taxpayer-supported Export-Import Bank subsidized Enron for more than $600 million in just one transaction.

Scandalous!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
But most interesting of all, the President under whom all this
happened WASN'T George W. Bush...............It was Bill Clinton!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then Hillary is more ethical!

2) An intelligence source reveals a six-point proposal was delivered by Swiss Emissaries to the Iranian government ten days ago.

The six points are:

1. Iran will be allowed to produce a predetermined quota of enriched uranium against its pledge not to exceed this limit or produce it up to weapons grade.

2. International nuclear IAEA inspections will be expanded to encompass nuclear weaponization activity.

3. In return for Tehran’s acceptance of 1.and 2., the IAEA will supply Iran with advanced nuclear technology and Russia will release nuclear fuel rods to power its Bushehr atomic reactor.

4. UN Security Council sanctions against Iran will not be stiffened.

5. The US and Europe will promise to desist from any military attack on Iran.

6. America and Europe will close down their clandestine support programs for Iran’s disaffected minorities, such as the Arabs of Khuzistan and the Kurds.

Reportedly, Swiss go-betweens were received by aides of former president Hashem Rafsanjani, whose word as one of supreme ruler Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ‘s closest advisers counts for much in the Iranian capital. Those aides, according to Swiss sources, were “more than interested” in the proposal and intimated that if Washington could be won over, negotiations could go forward to solve the controversy over Iran’s nuclear program.

They also disclosed Swiss diplomats who brought the proposal to Tehran had involved themselves in mediation efforts in the past two years to persuade Syrian president Bashar Assad and Hamas leaders in Damascus to agree to talks with Israel. Israel rejected both initiatives.

Bush administration officials suspect the outgoing French president Jacques Chirac is quietly sponsoring the Bern government’s initiative.

Iranian sources disclose Tehran attaches high hopes to the Swiss plan. The two sides are working on a “non-paper” which European Union’s foreign policy executive Javier Solana will be asked to present in Washington.

3) Rice: Iran should see N. Korea as example in nuclear standoff.


Following a six-party deal on North Korea's nuclear program signed Tuesday, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said that Iran should see North Korea as an example when considering its own nuclear standoff with Western nations.

"Why should it not be seen as a message to Iran that the international community is able to bring together its resources?" she said at a news conference.

The White House on Tuesday said the deal on North Korea's nuclear program was an important first step, but warned that the international community could still impose international sanctions if North Korea reneged on the agreement.

"We think it's a very important first step toward the denuclearization of North Korea and the Korean peninsula," White House spokesman Tony Snow said, adding that if the deal was not adhered to, "There's still the possibility of sanctions through the international community."

North Korea agreed Tuesday to take first steps toward nuclear disarmament and shut down its main reactor within 60 days before eventually dismantling its atomic weapons program.

Under the deal, the North will receive initial aid equal to 50,000 tons heavy fuel oil for shutting down and sealing its main nuclear reactor and related facilities at Yongbyon, north of the capital, to be confirmed by international inspectors. For irreversibly disabling the reactor and declaring all nuclear programs, the North will eventually receive another 950,000 tons in aid.

But making sure that Pyongyang declares all its nuclear facilities and shuts them down is likely to prove arduous, nuclear experts have said.

North Korea has sidestepped previous agreements, allegedly running a uranium-based weapons program even as it froze a plutonium-based one - sparking the latest nuclear crisis in late 2002. The country is believed to have countless mountainside tunnels in which to hide projects.

The agreement was read to all delegates in a conference room at a Chinese state guesthouse and Chinese envoy Wu Dawei asked if there were any objections. When none were made, the officials all stood and applauded.

Under the agreement, North Korea and United States will also embark on talks aimed at resolving disputes and restarting diplomatic relations, Wu said. The Korean peninsula has remained in a state of war for more than a half-century since the Korean War ended in a 1953 cease-fire.

If Pyongyang goes through with its promises, they would be the first moves the communist nation has made to scale back its atomic development after more that three years of six-nation negotiations marked by delays, deadlock and the North's first nuclear test explosion in October.

Under the agreement reached Tuesday, the United States will also begin the process of removing North Korea from its designation as a terror-sponsoring state and also on ending U.S. trade sanctions, but no deadlines was set, according to the agreement. Japan and North Korea also will seek to normalize relations.

The North will be required to list all its nuclear program - including plutonium it has already extracted from the Yongbyon reactor, the agreement says.

After the initial 60 days, a meeting will be held of foreign ministers from all countries at the talks - China, Japan, Russia, the United States and the two Koreas.

Under the agreement, five working groups are to meet within 30 days: denuclearization; normalization of U.S.-North Korea relations; normalization of North Korea-Japan relations; economy and energy cooperation; and peace and security in northeast Asia.

Another meeting of the nuclear envoys was scheduled March 19 to check on the groups' progress.

In September 2005 during the six-nation talks, North Korea was promised energy aid and security guarantees in exchange for pledging to abandon its nuclear programs. But talks on implementing that agreement repeatedly stalled on other issues.

4) Putin: I hope Mecca deal brings end to blockade on Palestinians.


Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday hailed the Palestinian unity government agreement that was concluded last week with Saudi brokerage in Mecca, and said he hoped the deal would set conditions for lifting the international boycott placed on Palestinians.

After meeting with Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas in Amman, Putin told reporters he hoped to see an end to the bloodshed that has resulted from the Palestinian infighting, adding, "We also hope that the agreement will lead to the formation of an efficient Palestinian government that creates the conditions for lifting the blockade imposed on the Palestinian people."

Putin spoke prior to his departure for home at the end of a regional tour that took him also to Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

He praised the Saudi role in brokering the Mecca deal, which he said should help "re-launch the peace process with a view to reaching a settlement with Israel."

The Russian president urged the release of Israel Defense Forces soldier Gilad Shalit, who was abducted by Palestinian militants in the Gaza Strip several last summer.

"The release of the Israeli soldier will be an important step," he said.

He pointed out that Russia was "working actively" within the framework of the Middle East Quartet for the sake of the Palestinian question.

Official: Palestinian PM to resign in two days to form new cabinet
Meanwhile, a Palestinian official said Tuesday that Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh and his Hamas-led cabinet would resign in the next two days to make way for a unity government with the rival Fatah faction.

Haniyeh is expected to lead the new government, according to the terms of a deal agreed between Hamas and Fatah in Saudi Arabia last week which aimed to end factional warfare in Gaza and ease an economic embargo on the Palestinian Authority.

"The prime minister will submit his cabinet's resignation within two days so that he can begin constitutional measures to form the unity government," the official, who declined to be named, told Reuters.

In Jordan, Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas told Russian President Vladimir Putin the step would take place in the next two or three days "if there are no unpleasant surprises".

Haniyeh earlier said it was too soon to say when he will resign, and officials said he and Abbas of Fatah still had to finalize issues from the Saudi-brokered deal including naming an interior minister and deputy prime minister.

Haniyeh met leaders of 13 Palestinian factions on Tuesday, seeking to win support for the power-sharing deal with Abbas.

"Constitutional measures will begin to implement the agreement on the ground," said Palestinian cabinet spokesman Ghazi Hamad after the meeting.

"There are consultations between President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh. We are working speedily and we do not want to waste any time," he said, adding the two men could meet in the next two days.

Abbas and Hamas have also still to settle their differences over the fate of Hamas's 5,600-member "executive" police force. Fatah is pushing for the force to be broken up, whereas Hamas wants to keep the force together.

Fighting between Hamas and Fatah killed more than 90 Palestinians between late December and early February.

The Quartet of Middle East mediators - the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations - cut off direct funding of the Palestinian Authority after Hamas came to power last year.

Hamas, an Islamist movement, has rejected the Quartet's conditions for restoring aid: recognition of Israel, renunciation of violence and acceptance of existing interim peace agreements.

The unity agreement Hamas signed with the long-dominant Fatah faction in Mecca last Thursday made no explicit commitment to recognize Israel.

Russia and some EU countries have welcomed the Mecca agreement, but the United States has withheld judgment.

Israeli officials said the government was considering suspending contacts with Abbas if the unity government did not meet all three Quartet demands.

The move could increase pressure on Abbas and hinder U.S. efforts to revive long-stalled peace talks. U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice plans a three-way summit with Abbas and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in Jerusalem on February 19.

5) Telling friend from foe.
By Caroline B. Glick


One of the most difficult things in life is to draw the line between friend and foe. Take the Palestinian terror groups.

Last week in Mecca, the Fatah terror group, which mixes the murder of Israelis with negotiations with Israelis, officially joined forces with the Hamas terror group, which murders Israelis while refusing to negotiate with us.

Although the agreement makes it clear that both are at war with Israel, on Sunday the Olmert government decided to reserve judgment on the terror unity deal. And Monday morning Vice Premier Shimon Peres warned that saying bad things about the Mecca deal would only weaken Fatah terror boss Mahmoud Abbas, whom we should strengthen because he likes to negotiate while killing.

Given how hard it is for Israel to identify its Arab foes, it is little wonder that identifying Jewish foes is a near-Herculean task.

Last month the American Jewish Committee took an important first step in this direction by publishing a paper by Prof. Alvin Rosenfeld from the University of Indiana entitled, "'Progressive' Jewish Thought and the New Anti-Semitism." Explaining the difference between criticism of Israel and demonization of the Jewish state, Rosenfeld wrote, "To call Israel a Nazi state… as is commonly done today, or to accuse it of fostering South African-style apartheid or engaging in ethnic cleansing or wholesale genocide goes well beyond legitimate criticism." Rosenfeld noted that these descriptors of Israel, which aim to single out Israel "as a political entity unworthy of secure and sovereign existence" are today "part of a standard discourse among 'progressive' American Jews, who seem to take for granted that the historical record shows Israel to be an aggressor state guilty of sins comparable to Hendrik Verwoerd's South Africa and Hitler's Germany."


HAVING described the phenomenon, Rosenfeld proceeded to identify prominent American Jews, including New York University Prof. Tony Judt, playwright Tony Kushner, Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, Noam Chomsky, and Adrienne Rich as leading Jewish lights in the leftist assault on the Jewish people's right to self-determination in our homeland.

Rosenfeld's paper evoked strong reactions in the American Jewish community. A New York Times write-up of the controversy entitled, "Essay Linking Liberal Jews and Anti-Semitism Sparks a Furor," described how the same "progressive" Jews and their supporters are up in arms over being painted as anti-Semites. Judt opined that the point of the article was to silence them.

This of course, is pure nonsense. All the Jews in America couldn't silence Judt and his colleagues even if they wished to. As anti-Israel Jews, they will never lack prestigious forums from which to propagate their hatred for Israel.

Far from seeking to silence these hostile Jewish voices, Rosenfeld's essay simply serves to draw lines between friend and foe where such lines are important. The views of Kushner, Judt and Cohen are no less anti-Jewish than similar statements by non-Jews.

Rosenfeld's efforts, while important, are insufficient. The likes of Judt and Kushner use their professed Jewishness as a tool to advance the cause of Israel's denunciation. Others hide behind protestations of Zionism to undermine Israel's right to defend itself against enemies actively working toward its destruction.


CASE IN point is the Union of Progressive Zionists. The UPZ is the US campus representative of the Labor and Meretz parties as well as of Hashomer Hatzair and Habonim Dror. In its mission statement, the UPZ claims to be "a network of student activists organizing on campuses across North America for social justice and peace in Israel/Palestine. The UPZ was created to provide guidance, education and resources to students who seek to impart a progressive voice into the campus debate on Israel."

Mission statement in hand, the UPZ joined the Israel on Campus Coalition (ICC) - a pro-Israel umbrella group established to build support for Israel and fight the rise in anti-Israel incitement on college campuses. Yet, while operating under the ICC umbrella, UPZ is actually promoting hostility toward Israel and so advancing the cause of those who maintain that Israel has no right to exist. In recent months, under the aegis of the ICC, the UPZ has hosted members of the radical leftist Israeli organization "Breaking the Silence" on a number of college campuses. "Breaking the Silence" was established by former IDF soldiers for the declared purpose of "exposing" the "irreversible corruption" of Israeli society by the IDF's counterterror operations in Judea and Samaria.

Armed with photographs which purposely present a distorted image of IDF operations, soldiers and Israeli civilians in Judea and Samaria, the group works to demonize and criminalize the IDF and so undermine Israel's right to defend itself against the Palestinian jihad. That is, it seeks to advance an aim which is diametrically opposed to the goals of the ICC.

Ilan Benjamin, an Israeli chemistry professor at University of California at Santa Cruz, attended the UPZ-sponsored "Breaking the Silence" event on his campus. In a letter to the ICC Benjamin wrote, "the presentation was neither fair nor balanced, but was rather unabashedly anti-Israel." He continued, "There was almost no mention of why the Israeli army is inside Arab towns. [The program's speaker] dismissed the notion that security checkpoints prevent a large percentage of the suicide bombers… [S]tudents who attended the event did not get a crucial point of information necessary for a critical understanding of the conflict, namely, that Israel is in a state of war with a terrorist organization imbedded in civilian neighborhoods."


THE CONTRADICTION between the UPZ and "Breaking the Silence's" protestations of Zionism and the aim of their programming is so blatant that even the Israeli Consulate in Los Angeles weighed in on the issue. In a report to the Foreign Ministry published in Yediot Aharonot, Ehud Danoch, the consul-general warned: "The willingness of Jewish communities to host these organizations and even sponsor them is unfortunate. This is a phenomenon that must not be ignored."

But the ICC has decided to ignore the phenomenon. Last month, the Zionist Organization of America, which is also an ICC member, requested that the ICC's Steering Committee expel the UPZ on the grounds that through its sponsorship of "Breaking the Silence" it contravened the ICC's explicit mission of defending Israel.

The Steering Committee, which includes representatives of the American Jewish Committee, the Anti-Defamation League, AIPAC, Aish HaTorah, the Jewish National Fund, Hillel, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and the Shusterman Foundation, voted unanimously to reject ZOA's request. (Aish HaTorah later renounced its vote and joined ZOA in calling for UPZ's eviction from the Coalition.) In their decision, the member organizations argued that there is no "cause under the ICC's membership criteria to remove UPZ from the Coalition."

Although unjustifiable, the ICC's refusal to expel the UPZ is understandable. Obviously, it is hard to get beyond labels. The UPZ's self-definition as a Zionist group makes it even harder to attack than self-professed Jews who declare their anti-Zionism. This is the case despite the fact that the damage the actions of both groups cause to Israel's position in the world is more or less the same.

There is also UPZ's "progressiveness" to consider. Given that for four generations, American Jews tied their fortunes almost solely to the Left, expelling leftist groups from Jewish umbrella groups involves openly recognizing the painful fact that today the Left makes little place for the pro-Israel community in its ranks.

As Rosenfeld put it, "Because... the ideological package that informs progressive politics today links anti-Zionism to anti-capitalism, anti-imperialism, anti-globalization, anti-racism, etc., one is expected as a matter of course to be against Zionism." Or as he quotes political scientist Andrei Markovits, "If one is not at least a serious doubter of the legitimacy of the State of Israel… one runs the risk of being excluded from the entity called 'the left.'"


THE LEFT'S abandonment of Israel is compounded by the fact that the Palestinian jihad, which is rooted in a Palestinian rejection of the notion of coexisting with Israel, has rendered irrelevant the "progressive Zionist" goal of forcing Israel to withdraw its forces and citizens from Judea and Samaria in order to establish a Palestinian state in the areas, as well as in Gaza and eastern Jerusalem. Instead of accepting this paradigm-shattering truth, "progressive Zionists" have chosen the path of radicalization.

Rather than calling on the Arabs to abandon jihad and accept Israel, they have turned to criminalizing Israel for defending itself from the jihadist forces bent on the wholesale slaughter of its citizens.

Like Israel, if American Jews are to have any chance of properly defending themselves, they must first openly identify the trends. As political loyalties and alliances shift, a small people like the Jews must be willing to distinguish friend from foe. This is true whether the friend or foe in question is an Arab or a Jew; a self-proclaimed progressive or a self-proclaimed conservative.

6) A PUTRID PAYOFF
By JOHN PODHORETZ

FOR decades, intelligence agencies have assured the world that Kim Jong Il, the dictator of North Korea, is a psychopathic lunatic with a massive collection of pornography and a habit of kidnapping people from Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea to serve his whims.

He has made decisions about where to spend his government's money in a time of government-made famine that has caused the deaths of at least 1 million of his countrymen and women. He has built giant skyscrapers that are so structurally unsound they cannot be inhabited.

Psychopathic monster he almost certainly is. Almost everyone who has spent time in North Korea reports that it is, without question, the most horrifying place on this planet - a world in which the totalitarian fantasy imagined by Madeline L'Engle in the great 1962 children's book "A Wrinkle in Time" has been made flesh and bone.

But a lunatic Kim is not. He is a master geopolitician. Though we don't yet know the terms of the tentative deal announced yesterday under which North Korea has supposedly agreed to end its nuclear program, chances are very good that once again Kim has forced the world's powers - including the United States - to pay him a massive bribe that will help him maintain his stranglehold on power.

Since 1985, North Korea has used its reputation for insanity to manipulate not only the United States, but even the Evil Empire to its West. In that year, the Soviet Union agreed to provide the North Koreans with light nuclear reactors if the Norks agreed to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Showing stunning sangfroid against the ruthless bunch in Moscow, Kim's father signed the treaty and then simply refused to abide by any of its provisions. He spent five years refusing to allow a single inspector into the country, and when he did finally allow their entry in 1990, he deceived them and lied to them.

And how did North Korea pay for its recalcitrance? It didn't. In 1991, the United States agreed to remove its short-range nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula in exchange for a promise from North Korea (and South Korea) not to do anything nuclear.

Our weapons were pulled. The South abided by its word. The North Koreans continued to develop their nuclear program regardless - until 1993, when Kim the Elder announced his nation was pulling out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Why? Because, in complete contravention of its deal with the Soviets in 1985 and its deal with us and South Korea in 1991, it had built a nuclear reaction in Yongbyon.

At this point the Clinton administration took over, and at the end of 1994 announced its bribe - the so-called "Agreed Framework." This time, there would be no reactor for peaceful purposes built by the Soviet Union. Instead, the United States would build two reactors! And provide fuel oil and food aid. All of this totaled a $4 billion payout to Kim Jong Il.

The deal was much celebrated, and remains so even now. But in 1998, Kim struck again. He fired an intercontinental missile - the sort that carries a nuclear payload - over Japan.

Bill Clinton, who had promised that "North Korea will freeze and then dismantle its nuclear program" in 1994, had egg on his face. Talking tough, his people demanded that North Korea admit inspectors to reveal just how far Kim had gotten with his nuclear ambitions.

Kim wouldn't agree unless he was paid off to the tune of $300 million. With tragically naive hopes of helping to stave off famine, the U.S. dispatched a huge food-aid package that did nothing to stem the death toll. For four years now, ever since the North Koreans confirmed that they had finally and at long last built nuclear weapons the world (and especially the U.S.) had been paying them not to build, the United States and four other nations have been involved in a diplomatic dance with Kim called the "six-party talks."

Those talks have now borne fruit, because it appears that the Bush administration has now gone down the same path as everybody else - paying Kim a bribe in exchange for promises of change. We'll hear a lot about how this deal will be enforced with great determination. But it probably won't be, because Kim has the whip hand. Everyone is sure he's crazy, and everyone is fearful he will start a regional war in Asia if he doesn't get his way.

Why on earth should Kim keep up his end of any bargain? He's running one of the most successful extortion rackets in the history of the world. Why would he give up now?


7) Russia's Great-Power Strategy
By George Friedman

Most speeches at diplomatic gatherings aren't worth the time it takes to listen to them. On rare occasion, a speech is delivered that needs to be listened to carefully. Russian President Vladimir Putin gave such a speech over the weekend in Munich, at a meeting on international security. The speech did not break new ground; it repeated things that the Russians have been saying for quite a while. But the venue in which it was given and the confidence with which it was asserted signify a new point in Russian history. The Cold War has not returned, but Russia is now officially asserting itself as a great power, and behaving accordingly.

At Munich, Putin launched a systematic attack on the role the United States is playing in the world. He said: "One state, the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way ... This is nourishing an arms race with the desire of countries to get nuclear weapons." In other words, the United States has gone beyond its legitimate reach and is therefore responsible for attempts by other countries -- an obvious reference to Iran -- to acquire nuclear weapons.

Russia for some time has been in confrontation with the United States over U.S. actions in the former Soviet Union (FSU). What the Russians perceive as an American attempt to create a pro-U.S. regime in Ukraine triggered the confrontation. But now, the issue goes beyond U.S. actions in the FSU. The Russians are arguing that the unipolar world -- meaning that the United States is the only global power and is surrounded by lesser, regional powers -- is itself unacceptable. In other words, the United States sees itself as the solution when it is, actually, the problem.

In his speech, Putin reached out to European states -- particularly Germany, pointing out that it has close, but blunt, relations with Russia. The Central Europeans showed themselves to be extremely wary about Putin's speech, recognizing it for what it was -- a new level of assertiveness from an historical enemy. Some German leaders appeared more understanding, however: Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier made no mention of Putin's speech in his own presentation to the conference, while Ruprecht Polenz, chairman of the Bundestag Foreign Affairs Committee, praised Putin's stance on Iran. He also noted that the U.S. plans to deploy an anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic was cause for concern -- and not only to Russia.

Putin now clearly wants to escalate the confrontations with the United States and likely wants to build a coalition to limit American power. The gross imbalance of global power in the current system makes such coalition-building inevitable -- and it makes sense that the Russians should be taking the lead. The Europeans are risk-averse, and the Chinese do not have much at risk in their dealings with the United States at the moment. The Russians, however, have everything at risk. The United States is intruding in the FSU, and an ideological success for the Americans in Ukraine would leave the Russians permanently on the defensive.

The Russians need allies but are not likely to find them among other great-power states. Fortunately for Moscow, the U.S. obsession with Iraq creates alternative opportunities. First, the focus on Iraq prevents the Americans from countering Russia elsewhere. Second, it gives the Russians serious leverage against the United States -- for example, by shipping weapons to key players in the region. Finally, there are Middle Eastern states that seek great-power patronage. It is therefore no accident that Putin's next stop, following the Munich conference, was in Saudi Arabia. Having stabilized the situation in the former Soviet region, the Russians now are constructing their follow-on strategy, and that concerns the Middle East.

The Russian Interests

The Middle East is the pressure point to which the United States is most sensitive. Its military commitment in Iraq, the confrontation with Iran, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and oil in the Arabian Peninsula create a situation such that pain in the region affects the United States intensely. Therefore, it makes sense for the Russians to use all available means of pressure in the Middle East in efforts to control U.S. behavior elsewhere, particularly in the former Soviet Union.

Like the Americans, the Russians also have direct interests in the Middle East. Energy is a primary one: Russia is not only a major exporter of energy supplies, it is currently the world's top oil producer. The Russians have a need to maintain robust energy prices, and working with the Iranians and Saudis in some way to achieve this is directly in line with Moscow's interest. To be more specific, the Russians do not want the Saudis increasing oil production.



There are strategic interests in the Middle East as well. For example, the Russians are still bogged down in Chechnya. It is Moscow's belief that if Chechnya were to secede from the Russian Federation, a precedent would be set that could lead to the dissolution of the Federation. Moscow will not allow this. The Russians consistently have claimed that the Chechen rebellion has been funded by "Wahhabis," by which they mean Saudis. Reaching an accommodation with the Saudis, therefore, would have not only economic, but also strategic, implications for the Russians.

On a broader level, the Russians retain important interests in the Caucasus and in Central Asia. In both cases, their needs intersect with forces originating in the Muslim world and trace, to some extent, back to the Middle East. If the Russian strategy is to reassert a sphere of influence in the former Soviet region, it follows that these regions must be secured. That, in turn, inevitably involves the Russians in the Middle East.

Therefore, even if Russia is not in a position to pursue some of the strategic goals that date back to the Soviet era and before -- such as control of the Bosporus and projection of naval power into the Mediterranean -- it nevertheless has a basic, ongoing interest in the region. Russia has a need both to limit American power and to achieve direct goals of its own. So it makes perfect sense for Putin to leave Munich and embark on a tour of Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf countries.

The Complexities

But the Russians also have a problem. The strategic interests of Middle Eastern states diverge, to say the least. The two main Islamic powers between the Levant and the Hindu Kush are Saudi Arabia and Iran. The Russians have things they want from each, but the Saudis and Iranians have dramatically different interests. Saudi Arabia -- an Arab and primarily Sunni kingdom -- is rich but militarily weak. The government's reliance on outside help for national defense generates intense opposition within the kingdom. Desert Storm, which established a basing arrangement for Western troops within Saudi Arabia, was one of the driving forces behind the creation of al Qaeda. Iran -- a predominantly Persian and Shiite power -- is not nearly as rich as Saudi Arabia but militarily much more powerful. Iran seeks to become the dominant power in the Persian Gulf -- out of both its need to defend itself against aggression, and for controlling and exploiting the oil wealth of the region.

Putting the split between Sunni and Shiite aside for the moment, there is tremendous geopolitical asymmetry between Saudi Arabia and Iran. Saudi Arabia wants to limit Iranian power, while keeping its own dependence on foreign powers at a minimum. That means that, though keeping energy prices high might make financial sense for the kingdom, the fact that high energy prices also strengthen the Iranians actually can be a more important consideration, depending on circumstances. There is some evidence that recent declines in oil prices are linked to decisions in Riyadh that are aimed at increasing production, reducing prices and hurting the Iranians.

This creates a problem for Russia. While Moscow has substantial room for maneuver, the fact is that lowered oil prices impact energy prices overall, and therefore hurt the Russians. The Saudis, moreover, need the Iranians blocked -- but without going so far as to permit foreign troops to be based in Saudi Arabia itself. In other words, they want to see the United States remain in Iraq, since the Americans serve as the perfect shield against the Iranians so long as they remain there. Putin's criticisms of the United States, as delivered in Munich, would have been applauded by Saudi Arabia prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq. But in 2007, the results of that invasion are exactly what the Saudis feared -- a collapsed Iraq and a relatively powerful Iran. The Saudis now need the Americans to stay put in the region.

The interests of Russia and Iran align more closely, but there are points of divergence there as well. Both benefit from having the United States tied up, militarily and politically, in wars, but Tehran would be delighted to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq that leaves a power vacuum for Iran to fill. The Russians would rather not see this outcome. First, they are quite happy to have the United States bogged down in Iraq and would prefer that to having the U.S. military freed for operations elsewhere. Second, they are interested in a relationship with Iran but are not eager to drive the United States and Saudi Arabia into closer relations. Third, the Russians do not want to see Iran become the dominant power in the region. They want to use Iran, but within certain manageable limits.

Russia has been supplying Iran with weapons. Of particular significance is the supply of surface-to-air missiles that would raise the cost of U.S. air operations against Iran. It is not clear whether the advanced S300PMU surface-to-air missile has yet been delivered, although there has been some discussion of this lately. If it were delivered, this would present significant challenges for U.S. air operation over Iran. The Russians would find this particularly advantageous, as the Iranians would absorb U.S. attentions and, as in Vietnam, the Russians would benefit from extended, fruitless commitments of U.S. military forces in regions not vital to Russia.

Meanwhile, there are energy matters: The Russians, as we have said, are interested in working with Iran to manage world oil prices. But at the same time, they would not be averse to a U.S. attack that takes Iran's oil off the market, spikes prices and enriches Russia.

Finally, it must be remembered that behind this complex relationship with Iran, there historically has been animosity and rivalry between the two countries. The Caucasus has been their battleground. For the moment, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there is a buffer there, but it is a buffer in which Russians and Iranians are already dueling. So long as both states are relatively weak, the buffer will maintain itself. But as they get stronger, the Caucasus will become a battleground again. When Russian and Iranian territories border each other, the two powers are rarely at peace. Indeed, Iran frequently needs outside help to contain the Russians.

A Complicated Strategy

In sum, the Russian position in the Middle East is at least as complex as the American one. Or perhaps even more so, since the Americans can leave and the Russians always will live on the doorstep of the Middle East. Historically, once the Russians start fishing in Middle Eastern waters, they find themselves in a greater trap than the Americans. The opening moves are easy. The duel between Saudi Arabia and Iran seems manageable. But as time goes on, Putin's Soviet predecessors learned, the Middle East is a graveyard of ambitions -- and not just American ambitions.

Russia wants to contain U.S. power, and manipulating the situation in the Middle East certainly will cause the Americans substantial pain. But whatever short-term advantages the Russians may be able to find and exploit in the region, there is an order of complexity in Putin's maneuver that might transcend any advantage they gain from boxing the Americans in.

In returning to "great power" status, Russia is using an obvious opening gambit. But being obvious does not make it optimum.

8) EU warns Palestinians over terror
By Yitzhak Benhorin

EU's ambassador to UN urges Palestinian Authority to spare no effort to stop terrorism.

WASHINGTON - The European Union reissued calls for the unconditional cessation of violence and terror by Palestinian groups against Israel , German Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Matussek said Tuesday in a speech to the Security Council.


The EU condemned the terror attack in Eilat and urged the Palestinian leadership to do everything to stop terrorism and bring those responsible for terror attacks to justice.


At the Security Council’s monthly conference on the situation in the Middle East and “the Palestinian question”, the German ambassador
said the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was the greatest threat to the Mideast, and possibly the entire world.


Speaking on behalf of the EU, Matussek said the Europeans were determined to be involved in the peace process. He called on Israel to immediately transfer withheld tax monies to the Palestinian Authority and boost the Palestinian economy by opening border crossings.



While praising Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas for their confidence-building moves, the EU expressed its concern over “settlement activity” and construction around Jerusalem which violates international law and the Road Map plan for peace.



Muslims slam Israel
The EU will not recognize any changes to the 1967 borders except those approved by both sides, Matussek declared, referring to Israel's borders before the Six-day War during which the Jewish state captured the West Bank.


UN representatives of Muslim and non-aligned nations attacked Israel for the exchange of fire with the Lebanese army along the border, as well as for the construction work at the Mugrabi Gate area in Jerusalem.



Alvaro de Soto, the UN special envoy for the Middle East, said during his monthly report to the council on development in the region, expressed concern over Israel’s construction and archeological excavations by the Mugrabi Gate. He drew attention to the extreme reaction in the Arab and Muslim world, noting that “even the Israeli defense minister said it constituted a security threat.”



Israel's UN Ambassador Dan Gillerman, however, said the Mugrabi Gate works were totally blown out of proportion. Gillerman warned, however, that contrary to Jerusalem, the situation in Lebanon poses a true cause of concern and obligates immediate action. Hizbullah’s rearmament and the Tuesday morning bus bombing in Lebanon represent “the true situation in the Middle East,” Gillerman said.



Turning his attention to the Mecca Agreement between the rival Palestinian factions Hamas and Fatah, Gillerman said, "The international community ruled clearly that any Palestinian government should fully adopt the tree conditions: recognizing Israel, stopping and denouncing terror attacks, accepting and implementing all agreements signed with Israel."