United States Defense Secretary Leon Panetta believes there is a growing possibility Israel will attack Iran as early as April to stop Tehran from building a nuclear bomb, according to reports. 

 The Washington Post first reported that Panetta was concerned about the increased likelihood Israel would launch an attack over the next few months. CNN said it confirmed the report, citing a senior
Obama administration official, who declined to be identified. 

 

"Panetta believes there is a strong likelihood that Israel will strike Iran in
April, May or June – before Iran enters what Israelis described as a 'zone
of immunity' to commence building a nuclear bomb," Washington Post columnist
David Ignatius wrote.

"Very soon, the Israelis fear, the Iranians will have stored enough enriched
uranium in deep underground facilities to make a weapon – and only the
United States could then stop them militarily," Ignatius wrote.

Ignatius did not cite a source. He was writing from Brussels where Panetta was
attending a NATO defense ministers' meeting. 

READ MORE

Arctic Ambassador Klavs Holm

Earlier this month, Denmark appointed Klavs A. Holm as the new Arctic Ambassador, an office which will become permanent. At the same time, Danish Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal announced the closure of the embassies in Iraq, Benin, and Zambia. This move gives a strong signal that Denmark is putting forth a more visible diplomatic presence in the circumpolar north while refocusing its priorities in the Global South, where it will open embassies in Myanmar and Libya. Ambassador Holm will represent all three parts of the Danish Commonwealth: Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. He will also coordinate the implementation of the government’s Arctic strategy, released last August.

Holm previously served as the Danish Ambassador in London, Paris, and Singapore. He also represented Denmark to the EU, in Brussels, where he worked on Arctic issues. The current ambassador for Public Diplomacy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will have his work cut out for him, as Foreign Minister Søvndal made clear when he visited Thule Air Force Base last December. When asked what assignments the new Arctic Ambassador would have, he responded, “If you ask for specific tasks, we can name climate change, which means that shipping in the Arctic is increasing in scope. There are very specific tasks to perform in relation to search and rescue in these remote areas. The area is large, and first and foremost, we must prepare the new agreements.” Specifically, he added, “It is clear that we need the Americans to not block civilian usage of Thule. Now, there will be a negotiation process to clarify how far we can go” (translated from the Danish). Search and rescue will thus be an important topic for Holm, as will mining and indigenous peoples – two issues which overlap heavily in Greenland. China has lately expressed strong interest in investing in Greenland’s mineral deposits, the Wall Street Journal reports, which might be cause for Holm to visit Beijing.

Denmark can now be added to the short list of countries which have Arctic ambassadors, which includes Sweden, Finland, and Russia. The United States and Canada are noticeably absent from this list, though there have been calls in the latter country to bring back the position (see here and here). Canada had an Arctic Ambassador from 1994 to 2006, but the role was abolished, as former Foreign Minister Peter McKay then stated, “We didn’t feel we were getting good value for money from that position.”

News Links

“New Danish Arctic Ambassador,” IPS

“Søvndal udnævner ambassadør for det aller nordligste,” Politiken (in Danish)

UNITED NATIONS – On the final day of a three month deadline set by the Quartet – Brussels, Washington, Moscow and the UN – for Israelis and Palestinians to resume bilateral peace talks, Israeli attorney Daniel Seidemann convened an exclusive briefing with the UN Correspondents Association to unveil a grim message he will deliver to President Obama at the beginning of next week: the two-state solution is dead and you are to blame.

Mr. Seidemann, a legal expert on Palestinian-Israeli relations in Jerusalem, has spent the past twenty years lobbying senior-level officials in Washington, Paris, London, Moscow, Cairo and both halves of Jerusalem to broker a two-state compromise which would, if not cure the cancerous conflict eating away at Middle East relations, at least put it into remission.

Cause of Death

“A surge of settlement activity the likes of which we have not witnessed since the early 1970s,” Mr. Seidemann explained, has enabled me “to project with a fair degree of authority what the map of Jerusalem will look like in two years time.”

From that projection two “unprecedented” conclusions can be drawn, he said. First, “the map of Jerusalem will be so Balkanized geographically and demographically that a political division of the city will no longer be possible.”

Second, the White House is for the first time in history completely beholden to Israeli leadership. “During the last six months, my Prime Minister Netanyahu has said in word and in deed, ‘President Obama you have no leverage over me on this issue. I know and you know you will not engage me publicly and probably not privately on these issues until probably after the November elections. I am at liberty to act with impunity.”

The United States’ February 18, 2011 veto of “its own language” on a Security Council resolution condemning settlement activity, together with the defunding of UNESCO a day after Palestine achieved full statehood membership there, reflect Washington’s “colossal trend of self-marginalization” in the peace talks, he said.

Next week, Mr. Seidemann plans to tell President Obama in person that if he chooses to cow to Israeli pressure and ignore the settlements issue until after the November elections, “by the time you get back there may not be anything left to talk about.”

But “short of catastrophe,” he added, “there is not going to be any engagement from Washington until after the elections. And maybe then none.”

A War of Rebirth?

“What I have described here is a state of acute disequilibrium in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” Mr. Seidemann said while calling attention to the brewing war next door in Syria. “Having two states of disequilibrium simultaneously creates pressure along the tectonic plates. These things correct themselves in one of two ways: either a new robust political paradigm – which is not in the cards over the next several months – or an armed conflict. I have a feeling that there is a war waiting to break out there to realign things. It just hasn’t decided where it will break out and over what.”

Photo courtesy of REUTERS/Ammar Awad (A general view of a Jewish settlement known to Israelis as Har Homa and to Palestinians as Jabal Abu Ghneim is seen near Jerusalem November 16, 2011. Israel said on Tuesday it will invite bids soon for constructing 814 homes in occupied land it considers part of Jerusalem, pursuing a decision to speed up building in settlements after Palestinians won full membership in the U.N. cultural agency).

Theodor Lessing’s book Der Jüdische Selbsthass (Jewish Self-hatred) was the first work to discuss the concept of Jewish self-hatred, which as the British Journal of Social Psychology states “is often used rhetorically to discount Jews who differ in their lifestyles, interests or political positions from their accusers.” In Austria, this accusation is sometimes labeled against expatriates, Austrians living abroad and daring to point out the petty and indolent political discourse in the “island of the fortunate,” as Pope Paul VI labeled Austria in the 1970s.

I heard this accusation thrown against me more than once in discussions about domestic politics, Austrian manners, and the infamous Austrian ‘soul’ (“Die oesterreichische Seele”). The most circle-the-wagons response I got was “if things are so bad, why don’t you then stay in your fancy New York apartment indefinitely?” My reply is always the same. I never said things are ‘bad,’ but that I am a skeptic of many things Austrians are traditionally proud of, such as the corporatist social partnership or the free-riding, much cherished Austrian neutrality. What I always like to point out is that I am a skeptic of Austria in the true Socratic meaning of the word, i.e. someone who is free from all prejudices and attempts an inquiry into accepted opinions about the nature of things. At this point, people usually change the subject, which I assume is not because I won an argument but because they are fed up and think my case to be hopelessly lost not to believe in the “Brave New Austrian World.”

And indeed I sometimes ask myself why it is so hard to believe in a prosperous, well-run, little democracy in the heart of Europe. In that sense, I am the antithesis to distinguished historian Guenther Bischof’s observation:

Over the years, they (Austrian expats) experience a high degree of assimilationism, once they turn their backs on Austria. While the prewar refugees from Austria often maintained a high degree of emotional attachment to their homeland, which they were forced to leave, this younger crop of careerists sports hardly an iota of nostalgia or much emotional involvement for their birthplace. They want to be successful and leave Austria behind.

I am very much emotionally attached to my country, yet I think for a young person, there are simply bigger fish to fry in the world than the Austrian state eagle. The truth is that Austria has experienced a miraculous economic recovery from the Second World War—the last true big upheaval in Austrian history—and since has been successful in creating a prosperous, well-run social democracy strongly embedded within an European Union of like minded countries.

The political battles in Austria are petty because there is not much to fight about. A little change in the tax code here, a little adjustment in the social security system there; it is no coincidence that Arno Geiger’s great postwar novel on Austria is called Es geht uns gut (We are doing well). In many ways, we are again in Stefan Zweig’s pre-war Vienna of his autobiography Die Welt von Gestern (The World of Yesterday), where “bureaucrats could set their watches to the day when they retire.”

The result is that the country does not produce statesmen or politicians; it principally produces administrators and bureaucrats because the environment does not require visions or new ideas, but merely the slight improvement of the already existing. Helmut Schmidt’s statement in the 1980s that “wer Visionen hat, soll zum Arzt gehen” (whoever has visions should go and see a doctor) was not a sardonic but factual statement. Western Germany had very little room to maneuver on the international stage because it was locked between two competing blocs in the middle of a Cold War that at any moment could lead to a nuclear exchange. Austria, because of its small size, will always be dependent on exterior factors and is ‘locked’ within the European Union and its bigger neighbors.

The best evidence for this is the young political elite of Austria, which primarily consists of young Doppelgaenger (a double of a living person) of long serving politicians. “Er ist tuechtig!” (He is strenuous), or “Er hat noch keinen Fehler gemacht!” (He has not made a mistake yet) are the most often heard praises for young politicians in all parties, which might as well be applied to any Austrian bureaucrat since the days of emperor Joseph II. Yet, as the tagline of the western film The Man Who Shot Liberty Vance states, “When the legend becomes fact, print the legend.” In the case of Austria, that means even superbly organizing a proper Catholic thanksgiving celebration can cause you to be labeled “a political talent” as was the case with former Vice Chancellor Josef Proell, who as a young party member did precisely that. In most other countries, this would make you a good events planner, but in Austria, it makes you a political hopeful, i.e. for non-Austrians and after stripping the legend, an administrative hopeful.

Where are Austria’s grand strategists and statesmen? For example, it is a sheer impossibility to devise a daring new foreign policy for the Balkans or Eastern Europe (which was hijacked by the Austrian private sector more than 20 years ago) or dispatch the best and brightest of Austria to Brussels, the true ‘great uncle’ of small European powers, to push Austrian ‘interests’. (When did anyone ever hear any Austrian politician mention the word ‘Austrian interests’?) I am not even mentioning the rise of China, nuclear Iran, the war in Afghanistan, terrorism in Pakistan, the power transition in North Korea, or the current upheaval in Russia. “Such outward things dwell not in Austrian desires,” to paraphrase Shakespeare’s Henry V, and never seems to be a concern for any party. The exception of course is the United States to which small Austria defiantly proclaims, “Austria is not the 51st state of the United States.”

At the end of the day, bashing Austria as an expat is merely like trying to find the one thing that is wrong with a Jane Austin novel; the elegant form often hides the weakness of the content. Even the Americans recognize Austria’s obsession with outward appearance as a diplomatic cable from the US Embassy in Vienna indicates, “More than most countries, Austria places great importance on conferences and ceremonials.” Yet as the US motivational speaker Wayne Dyer once said, “Transformation literally means going beyond your form.” In that sense, expats bashing Austria are just expressing their frustration that little will change over the years in our Alpine republic. But then again, why should it; Uns gehts ja so gut (we are doing so well!)

What's Next, Prime Minister? — From The Evening Standard, London

At least 23 and perhaps as many as 26 of the 27 members of the European Union have agreed to an inter-governmental agreement that may or may not save the euro from the bond market vigilantes. A full-blown treaty failed because there was not unanimous support for the idea – Britain stood alone in saying flat out that it wasn’t signing up for that. Prime Minister Cameron had little choice either on the grounds of national interests or domestic politics. However, the EU is a much different place than it was just last week.

Mr. Cameron went to Brussels demanding that the UK have a veto over any financial services regulations. While this may seem a bit extreme, one must remember that France and Italy have protected their farming sector with the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy for decades. And the euro’s greatest benefit to Germany was the protection of its neighboring export markets – a single currency ensured that German manufactured goods were still relatively affordable outside Germany, the Low Countries and Scandinavia. Britain simply wanted to protect the 10% of its GDP that comes from financial activity.

President Sarkozy of France explained why he could not accept that, saying “You cannot have an opt-out and then ask to participate in all the discussion about the euro that you did not want to have, and which you also criticized.” His European policy has always been to form a core group within Europe that excludes the more free-market British, Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans – this will maximize French power.

The details of the “fiscal compact” are pretty clear. The BBC reported them as “a cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries’ annual structural deficits, ‘automatic consequences’ for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP; the tighter rules to be enshrined in countries’ constitutions; European Stability Mechanism (ESM) to be accelerated and brought into force in July 2012 adequacy of 500bn-euro (£427bn; $666bn) limit for ESM to be reassessed; Eurozone and other EU countries to provide up to 200bn euros to the IMF to help debt-stricken eurozone members.”

The agreement itself is far less important than Britain’s position in the EU. As the Economist noted, “Whether the agreement does anything to stabilise the euro is moot. The agreement is heavily tilted towards budget discipline and austerity. It does little to generate money in the short term to arrest the run on sovereigns, nor does it provide a longer-term perspective of jointly-issued bonds. Much will depend on how the European Central Bank responds in the coming days and weeks.”

Frankly, I don’t think it will work in the long-term. Greater austerity is not going to get the Greek or Portuguese economies growing anytime soon, but Hoover’s ghost haunts the eurozone now. And as a result, saving the whole thing is going to cost Germany more in the end than it would have a year or more ago.

Instead, Britain now finds itself alone on matters of budgeting and taxation within the EU. The 17 eurozone members and at least six others will be part of the inter-governmental agreement (just shy of a treaty in international legal terms), and Sweden, Hungary and the Czech Republic may sign up to it after parliamentary debates.

Why was Mr. Cameron so uncooperative? Quite simply because he had no choice. As noted, 10% of the UK’s GDP is finance based. Moreover, though, he leads a coalition that ranges from Conservatives who still think of Europe as the enemy, Conservatives who are tolerant of the EU’s existence, and Liberal-Democrats who are rabidly pro-Europe. His room for maneuver was very small, and his margin of error even smaller.

No matter what he did, he risked splitting these various factions. By vetoing a new treaty, he opted to distance the Conservative Party from the junior coalition Liberal Democrats. Not only is he Prime Minister, he is also leader of the Conservatives, so this should come as no surprise.

For their part, the Liberal Democrats are putting a brave face on it, but there is a clear sense that they know their policies have suffered a huge, perhaps lethal, setback. Leader of the LibDems and Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg initially put the blame on the French and Germans rather than on Mr. Cameron. However, he has made it clear that he doesn’t like the result no matter who is to blame. He said on the Andrew Marr program on the BBC, “I’m bitterly disappointed by the outcome of last week’s summit, precisely because I think now there is a danger that the UK will be isolated and marginalised within the European Union. I don’t think that’s good for jobs, in the City [the UK's financial district] or elsewhere, I don’t think it’s good for growth or for families up and down the country.” Since then, he has been more vocal in his protests.

Less diplomatic were statements from LibDem bigwigs Lords Oakeshott and Ashdown. Lord Oakeshott stated on the record that LibDem Business Secretary Vince Cable had “given a very serious warning last Monday in the cabinet against elevating these financial regulation points into a make or break deal.” Former leader of the LibDems, Lord Ashdown, put it in the blunt terms of the special forces soldier he once was stating that the veto “tipped 38 years of British foreign policy down the drain.”

Where does all this leave us? The British governing coalition is clearly divided and may not survive the remaining three-and-a-half years this parliament has to run. Europe will move forward toward fiscal union, but without the UK. Moreover the other 9 EU members that aren’t part of the eurozone may discover that having Brussels handle their economic policy to suit German and French desires is less than appealing. There will be legal battles over the use of EU-wide institutions to enforce rules that do not apply to the entire EU. And in the end, the problem of heavily indebted countries failing to achieve meaningful economic growth remains the central issue in European finance.

2011 can’t end soon enough.

By Tom Schoenberg for Bloomberg Businessweek

A Virginia man admitted to aiding what prosecutors said was a “decades-long” operation by Pakistan’s spy agency to influence U.S. policy on Kashmir through unregistered lobbying and campaign contributions to members of Congress.

Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, 62, pleaded guilty today in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia, to one count of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. and one count of impeding the administration of tax laws. He faces as long as eight years in prison when he’s sentenced on March 9. U.S. District Judge Liam O’Grady agreed to let Fai remain free until sentencing.

Fai admitted to helping funnel at least $3.5 million from Pakistan’s government through the Washington-based Kashmiri American Council to sway the attitudes of U.S. lawmakers on the disputed territory with campaign contributions and other lobbying activities.

The council, which was headed by Fai at the time of his arrest in July, is “actually run” by elements of the Pakistani government, including Pakistan’s military intelligence service, the Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, or ISI, prosecutors said.

Pakistan and India, which have split control of the territory since 1948, fought wars over Kashmir in 1965 and 1999.

‘Paid Operative’

“For the last 20 years, Mr. Fai secretly took millions of dollars from Pakistani intelligence and lied about it to the U.S. government,” U.S. Attorney Neil MacBride said in a statement. “As a paid operative of ISI, he did the bidding of his handlers in Pakistan while he met with U.S. elected officials, funded high-profile conferences, and promoted the Kashmiri cause to decision-makers in Washington.”

Fai, a Pakistani immigrant and U.S. citizen living in Fairfax, Virginia, was charged in July with conspiracy to violate the Foreign Agents Registration Act and lying to federal agents. He was charged along with Zaheer Ahmad, 63, a U.S. citizen who remains at large, according to prosecutors. The pair failed to disclose their affiliation with Pakistan’s government as required by law, prosecutors said.

On Nov. 23, the government separated Fai’s case from Ahmad’s and added the charge of impeding the Internal Revenue Service.

As part of his plea, Fai agreed to pay about $200,000 to the IRS and forfeit about $143,000 the government seized from five bank accounts in Virginia and Washington, according to court papers. Fai also agreed to cooperate with any federal investigation.

Fai’s Admission

Fai said little during today’s plea hearing. He answered “No sir” when O’Grady asked if he disagreed with any of the information contained in the statement of facts submitted by the government outlining the conspiracy and his ties to the ISI.

Fai admitted that during an interview with Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in July, he “falsely denied” that he or the council received money from the ISI or the government of Pakistan, according to the statement of facts.

A search of Fai’s home, office and a storage facility turned up documents detailing the council’s Washington strategies, including budget requirements for contributions to members of Congress and trips to Kashmir for lawmakers, money for opinion pieces distributed to the media, as well as money for seminars and conferences, prosecutors said in a court filing. One document found in the search called for $100,000 for contributions to members of Congress in 2009, prosecutors said.

Annual Budget

Fai, who admitted the conspiracy took place from 1990 until July 18, said he submitted annual budget requests of about $500,000 to $700,000 to officials of the government of Pakistan, including the ISI.

Since the mid-1990s, Ahmad, an American living in Pakistan, has moved government funds through a network he ran to Fai and the council, which also has offices in London and Brussels, prosecutors said.

The council’s goal is to build support for Pakistani interests in Kashmir and offset lobbying by India over the disputed territory, the U.S. said in court papers.

Fai has donated more than $10,000 to federal politicians in the past five years, according to data compiled by the Washington-based Center for Responsive Politics.

Among his political contributions, Fai, in 2008 and again in 2010, gave $2,000 to U.S. Representative Dan Burton, an Indiana Republican, according to the center. He also gave $5,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee in 2006, followed by a $1,000 contribution in 2008. He gave $250 to President Barack Obama’s campaign in 2008 and $250 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee in 2009.

The case is U.S. v. Fai, 11-00561, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Virginia (Alexandria).

Filed under: American Muslims, Pakistan, Pakistanis, United States, US-Pakistan Relations Tagged: Foreign Agents Registration Act, Inter-Services Intelligence Agency, Kashmiri American Council, Pakistan, Pakistani-American, Pakistanis, Syed Ghulam Nabi Fai, U.S. v. Fai, United States