Helena Cobban, an experienced Middle East journalist, is concerned that an attack on Iran might come before December 6, the day the Iraq Study Group report will become an official document.

Her reasoning is based on a few ominous signs:

• the recent sudden resign of "realist" Rice counsellor Phil Zelikow, who might have learned of some coming action that he does not want to be part of;
• the general time with Congress out of session and changing leadership and no major policy pressure (which may change after the ISG paper) and no more elections for Bush in the way;
• the unprecedented travel activities of Bush / Cheney / Rice and others in the Middle East;
• the sudden peace offer by Olmert to the Palestinians which an Arab journalists (explained by Badger) sees as a historic repeat:

In a nutshell, Atwan says the 1991 war was accompanied by a promise to the Palestinians of an international conference to solve their problems (the Madrid Conference), which however produced nothing for them; and the 2003 attack was preceded by the famous Bush promise of a sovereign contiguous state for the Palestinians by 2005. In other words, these promises are attempts to rally Arab support ahead of major wars.

Add to these signs the current fluff of pro-Sunni/anti-Shia outbreaks in Lebanon, Egypt and by Saudi Arabia.

I am not sure that the publication of the ISG report with a measured demand for negotiations with Iran and Syria is something that is perceived by Cheney as limiting the chances to bring on an attack on Iran. It may not have such a weight, but I have to defer to Helena’s experience in analyzing politics on that.

What makes me a bit leaning to her concern are the relative big and fast changes in the $/Euro rate, and the determined upward movements in oil and gold over the last days.

What do these markets know that we do not know?

Graceful:

Displaying grace or beauty in form or action; elegant; easy; agreeable in appearance; as, a graceful walk, deportment, speaker, air, act, speech.

—

"I know there’s a lot of speculation that these reports in Washington mean there’s going to be some kind of graceful exit out of Iraq," he said. "This business about a graceful exit just simply has no realism to it at all."
Bush agrees to speedy turnover in Iraq

So how does an ungraceful exit look?

A mouthpiece for the Saudi leadership, Nawaf Obaid, has placed an unofficial announcement of official Saudi intervention in Iraq in the Washington Post – and the Saudi 800 pound gorilla offers a deal: Stepping Into Iraq.

To get attention Obaid starts off with a serious blast against Bush 43:

In February 2003, a month before the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, warned President Bush that he would be "solving one problem and creating five more" if he removed Saddam Hussein by force. Had Bush heeded his advice, Iraq would not now be on the brink of full-blown civil war and disintegration.

One hopes he won’t make the same mistake again by ignoring the counsel
of Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States, Prince Turki
al-Faisal, who said in a speech last month that "since America came
into Iraq uninvited, it should not leave Iraq uninvited."
[…]

Now the Saudis fear the U.S. will leave Iraq and in effect deliver it to Iranian influence. They will not sit still over this and warn against any withdrawal at all. The warning is not primarily directed at Bush (see the intro paragraph above). But it is definitly intended to impress especially Democrats who are supporting the voters demand of a phased withdrawal.

Cont. reading: The Gorilla Steps In And Offers A Deal

Divide and conquer is the method tried so far by the U.S. administration to get a permanent grip on Iraq. To this means the Coalition Provisional Authority did distribute seats to the Iraqi Interim Government differentiated by religious and ethnic lines. It enforced a tripartition into Kurd, Sunni and Shia groups.

This strategy did allow for exessive U.S. influence until the Shia did win the election Sistani had demanded. The government under Maliki turned out to be depending on al-Sadr’s vote and therefore a bit too independent from U.S. influence and at the same time too powerless to control the country. But to replace it through a strongman coup would have ripped apart the Bush propaganda tale of democracy, so a democratic way had to be found.

Now, a new variant of divide and conquer is in the making. According to the NYT’s Helen Cooper the kernel of the current diplomatic rush is this:

• Achieve a split within the Shia part of the Iraqi society, specifically between al-Sadr and the SCIRI/Dawa parts of the government.
• Through regional friends press the Sunni (Baathist) parties to ally with the SCIRI/Dawa block and to give Maliki a more tame parliamentary majority.

Cont. reading: Divide and Conquer – Variant II

News and views …

The White House is objecting this morning to descriptions of the Iraq conflict as a civil war.  National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said, "The violence is primarily centered around Baghdad and Baghdad security and the increased training of Iraqi Security Forces is at the top of the agenda when [Bush and Maliki] meet later this week."
NBC First Read, Nov. 27, 2006

In the three months since thousands of U.S. forces poured into Baghdad to quash escalating violence, far more American troops have died in the volatile western Anbar province than in the capital city.
More U.S. Troops Dying in Anbar Province, AP, Nov. 25, 2006

Last week I suggested that the Taliban extremists in Afghanistan are more of a local tribal resistance. Bombing them will only entice more people to fight on their site.

A Pakistani General agrees:

Lieutenant General Aurakzai said NATO was ignoring the political and military realities on the ground.

"The reason Taliban numbers have swelled is because moderates are joining the militants," he said.

Cont. reading: Another Anglo-Afghan War

Needed: A Big Stick is what the Washington Post editors prescribe today.

The subtitle already differentiates the authors from the normal crowd of human beings, those in contact with reality:

Iran and Syria are waging war in the Middle East. Will the West fight back?

It is hard to imagine what news sources these people have.

Cont. reading: Unreal

News & views …

Some 24 hours ago a private and a state run TV station in Baghdad reported Vice President Dick Cheney to be in Baghdad, but there was no further confirmation.

The American Embassy said it could not confirm the visit, but that Cheney could be in the country to visit troops for the Thanksgiving holiday.

A military spokeswoman said that she could not confirm that Cheney was in the city.

Then there was this meeting which might have started before, during or after the car bombs exploded in Sadr city:

Cont. reading: Visit or Not

Are these coordinated attacks? I certainly do not know, but some people in Baghdad will think so and they will act based on their reasoning on this coincidence.

In the deadliest attack on a sectarian enclave since the beginning of the Iraq war, suspected Sunni-Arab militants used five car bombs and two mortar rounds on the capital’s Shiite Sadr City slum to kill at least 160 people and wound 257 on Thursday, police said.
…
Earlier Thursday, U.S. and Iraqi forces searching for a kidnapped American soldier also had swept through an area of Sadr City, killing four Iraqis, wounding eight and detaining five, police said.

The raid was the fourth in six days that coalition forces have raided Sadr City, which is home to the Mahdi Army, the militia loyal to al-Sadr.
Attack on Baghdad Shiite slum kills 160

Even to suggest some coordination in this is of course heretic. But then one reads such popular comment and starts to wonder:

In a post-Sept. 11 world, I thought the prudent use of violence could be therapeutic. The United States had the power to change things for the better, and those who would do the changing — the fighting — were, after all, volunteers.
The Lingo Of Vietnam

Within that argument, what might there be that is not allowed to happen?

… to the barflies.

Grilled Republican chickenhawk á la Congress stuffed with earmarks, hmmm …

Internal Middle East politics and the accompanying media manipulation, especially in Lebanon, is quite difficult to comprehend.

So was he married or not?

Robert Fisk writes in The Independent:

Gemayel, son of ex-president Amin Gemayel and nephew of the murdered president-elect, Bashir Gemayel – murder tends to run in the family in Lebanon – was no charismatic figure, just a hard-working unmarried Christian Maronite minister whose unrewarding task had been to call émigré Lebanese home to rebuild their country after Israel’s bloody bombardment.

The Angry Arab replys:

Robert Fisk has a new cause: to support unconditionally the Sanyurah government. Do you notice that he uses the same language of the Bush administration when he talks about Lebanon? And Fisk says this about Gemayyel: "a hard-working unmarried Christian Maronite minister". In fact, his father kept pushing him to be less lazy, and he was married with two kids.

The BBC has a picture taken at Bashirs funeral with a text that says:

Distraught family members – father and former President Amin Gemayel, and his wife Patricia Daif – joined the procession.

This Arab CV site states:

His Excellency Deputy Pierre Amin Gemayel – Married to Patricia Daif
Christian Maronite

The (current) Google cached version of an Al Jazeerah text explains:

Pierre Amin Gemayel was born on 1972 in Bekfaya.

He had his education from La Sagesse University. He was married to Patricia Daif.

But the current not-cached version of that Al Jazeerah link does not include those lines.

The Globe and Mail report based on AP has attached an AFP photo with the subline:

This file photo shows Pierre Gemayel, son of former Lebanese President and leading Christian opposition figure Amine Gemayel, waving to well-wishers with his bride Patricia Daif in 1999.

If the always truthiness reporting media can not agree on the simple fact of married or not, how can they agree on who assassinated the guy?

We manipulate, you decide …

Mr. DeJoia has a very distinctive comprehension of Democracy. His definition seems to be similar to the one used by the White House.

When mining companies started calling tribal offices last year, Navajo President Joe Shirley Jr. issued an edict to employees: Don’t answer any questions. Report all contacts to the Navajo attorney general.
[…]
After the measure took effect in April 2005, mining concerns kept calling the Navajo capital, Window Rock, Ariz., hoping to secure support for their projects. So Shirley signed Executive Order 02-2005, which instructs tribal employees to avoid any "communications with uranium company representatives."

The directive infuriated mining executives. "You tell me, what kind of a democracy is that?" asked John DeJoia, a Strathmore vice president. "They’ve got tremendous resources out there. They’re a very poor nation. That could change."
Mining firms again eyeing Navajo land

(BTW: This LAT series about Uranium mining and the Navajos is quite good.)

The strategy that fails in Iraq is not winning in Afghanistan either and like in Iraq, there is only one idea on the table how to put lipstick to the pig of defeat.

Officials: Afghanistan Needs More Troops

Cont. reading: Pashtunwali

This assassination could very well be the starting point of a new civil war in Lebanon.

Lebanese cabinet minister assassinated in Beirut

BEIRUT – Lebanese anti-Syrian cabinet minister and Christian leader Pierre Gemayel was shot dead in a Christian suburb of Beirut on Tuesday.

Security sources said gunmen opened fire as his convoy drove through the Christian Sin el-Fil neighborhood. Gemayel was rushed to hospital, where he later died of his wounds.
[…]

Gemayel, the minister of industry and son of former President Amin Gemayel, was a member of the Phalange party and supporter of the anti-Syrian parliamentary majority, which is locked in a power struggle with pro-Syrian factions led by Hezbollah.

Of course Syria will be blamed as Haaretz already implicates by using the pro-/anti-Syria attributes.

Could
Syria have done this? Sure I could have. But why would it do so. Its diplomatic position was getting better by each day. Hizbullah had planed big peaceful demonstrations for tomorrow to demand a demographicaly fair share of the power.

So let me ask: Cui bono? Who could benefit from this?

An easy one: What is wrong with this NYT headline and the lede?

Israeli Map Says West Bank Posts Sit on Arab Land

An Israeli advocacy group, using maps and figures leaked from inside the government, says that 39 percent of the land held by Israeli settlements in the occupied West Bank is privately owned by Palestinians.

So what is wrong here? Of course all of the West Bank "posts" sit on Arab Land. All that land is owned by the Palestinian people.

As an occupation power Israel has no legal right to annex or appropriate any land there. It did not own any land there before 1967 and does not now. Down in the article the point is made, though in a very twisted way:

Much of the world also considers Israeli settlements on occupied land to be illegal under international law. International law requires an occupying power to protect private property, and Israel has always asserted that it does not take land without legal justification.

"Much of the world" is indeed everybody but Israel. I do not know of any country that has acknowledged any legality of the land grab. The UN certainly has not done so.

International law requires the occupation power to respect ALL property, not only private one. There is no legal justification for the occupation power to build settlements – none, zero – whatever some Israeli kangaroo court might say. It simply does not have jurisdiction about that question.

The NYT is very much shilling for the Israeli government here. Oh, there is bit wrong about the settlements, but only about 39%. The majority is fine and legal and will not be given up anyway.

That is not reporting, but arguing the thief’s case: "I did take the car away, but only the wheels were private property. The rest should not be judged."

Update (thanks bea): The Peace Now report is here (pdf).

Pentagon May Suggest Short-Term Buildup Leading to Iraq Exit

Insiders have dubbed the options "Go Big," "Go Long" and "Go Home." The group conducting the review is likely to recommend a combination of a small, short-term increase in U.S. troops and a long-term commitment to stepped-up training and advising of Iraqi forces, the officials said.

Three Colonels, all eager to be promoted to Generals, were ordered to write up a paper on a military strategy regarding the war on Iraq. Their Commander in Chief had made it clear that his preferred political strategy is "stay the course".

So why is it even newsworthy to report the results (a military strategy that fits the given political one) of that paper?

Lipstick to a pig.

News & views …

(To me these Open Threads are not newsdumps but newsstorages – unsorted for sure and as messy as my real-life toolbox. But there is always just the thing one needs in there.)