History > 2006 > USA > International (II)

The Aalulbayt Global Information Center in Qum, Iran,

manages Web sites with information from Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani of Iraq.

Newsha Tavakolian/Polaris, for The New York Times        June 8, 2006

 Iraqi Ties to Iran Create New Risks for Washington        NYT        8.6.2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08iran.html

U.S. Drafting Sanctions as Iran Is Defiant

August 31, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 31 — With Iran defying today’s deadline to halt production of nuclear fuel, the United States and three European allies are assembling a list of sanctions they would seek in the United Nations Security Council, beginning with restrictions on imports of nuclear-related equipment and material.

Iran’s president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, declared today that “the Iranian nation will not accept for one moment any bullying, invasion and violation of its rights.’’

His words echoed weeks of defiant pronouncements coming out of Tehran, and American and European diplomats have been preparing their sanctions proposals on the assumption that Iran would not comply with a Security Council demand that it stop nuclear enrichment work by today.

Eventually, the punitive measures American and European officials say they will seek might expand to restrict travel by Iran’s leaders and limit the country’s access to global financial markets, according to diplomats involved in the talks who spoke only on condition of anonymity.

Aside from the effort in the Council, the Bush administration is also seeking to persuade European financial institutions to end new lending to Iran. Some Swiss banks have already quietly agreed to limit their lending, American officials say.

But even as an agreement shapes up among the United States, Britain, France and Germany, the push for sanctions faces a high hurdle in the Council, given Russia and China’s possession of veto power and their opposition to discussion of serious punishment for Iran.

In addition, the sanctions effort may also be hampered by a report to be issued Thursday by the International Atomic Energy Agency, in which inspectors will describe only slow progress by Iran in enriching uranium.

The report, according to diplomats familiar with its contents, will describe how Iran has resumed producing small amounts of enriched uranium since temporarily stopping in the spring, but has not increased the rate of production.

Furthermore, the report is expected to say that the purity of the uranium enrichment would not be high enough for use in nuclear weapons, but only for power plants. Iran has long insisted that its program is for peaceful purposes only.

“The big question is why they appear to be moving so slowly,” said one European official who has been involved in monitoring Iran’s progress. One explanation, the official said, is that the Iranians have not wanted to escalate tensions by appearing to be racing ahead in the production of uranium.

Alternative explanations, offered by some American officials, are that the country’s scientists have run into technical problems or that they are hiding some facilities. The mystery has been deepened by Iran’s recent restrictions on where international inspectors can roam, and its refusal to allow them to see facilities that Iran has not declared to be related to its nuclear program.

The atomic agency’s report is also expected to detail questions that Iran has failed to answer about suspected nuclear activities that it has declined to show to international inspectors.

European and American officials say, for example, that Iran has refused to elaborate on Mr. Ahmadinejad’s claim earlier this year that the country has an active research project under way using an advanced type of enrichment centrifuge that it obtained from the Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan.

In an interview, R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, said that when the agency’s report comes out on Thursday the American argument will focus on Iran’s official refusal this month to stop enriching uranium despite an international ultimatum.

“The only criterion that matters is whether they met the conditions that the Security Council said they had to meet,” he said. “And they haven’t done it.”

For their part, Iran has mixed its denunciations of the United States with an active lobbying campaign to win support in other parts of the world. President Ahmadinejad has also asserted that Tehran is willing to enter negotiations, using its recent response to a package of incentives offered earlier this summer as a “framework’’ for the talks.

Abbas Araghchi, a deputy minister in Iran’s foreign ministry, met with Japanese officials in Tokyo today to lobby them to oppose sanctions.

“We are confident of the peaceful nature of our program,’’ Mr. Aragchi said, according to The Associated Press. “So if there is also goodwill and sincerity in the other side, we are sure that we can reach a good solution, a good conclusion through negotiations.’’

The United States and Europe, however, have said that Iran must halt its enrichment before talks can begin, a condition Iran has rejected.

The list of proposed sanctions, according to American and European officials, would begin with low-impact measures like an embargo on the sale of nuclear-related goods to Iran, and the freezing of overseas assets and a ban on travel for Iranian officials directly involved in the nuclear program.

American sales to Iran have been restricted ever since the Iran hostage crisis. But European and Russian companies have sold technology for Iran’s budding civilian nuclear program, and American officials said Wednesday that it was unclear whether the sanctions would force Russia to stop helping Iran complete its nuclear reactor at Bushehr.

The Bushehr project is worth hundreds of millions of dollars to Russia, and the government of President Vladimir V. Putin is expected to argue that sanctions should not affect civilian projects that are already under way. “Stopping Bushehr would be the biggest impact of a nuclear-related sanction,” said Robert J. Einhorn, a senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies and former assistant secretary of state for nonproliferation under President Bill Clinton.

American officials expect the debate within the Council to take weeks and say it could extend through the opening of the United Nations General Assembly in mid-September, an event that will include a speech by President Bush and meetings with other heads of state. The administration is preparing to use those meetings to press for the sanctions resolution, just as it used the same meeting four years ago to begin to build its case for demands against Iraq.

But Russia and China, among other countries, are concerned about any American-led escalation of a confrontation. Unlike the Bush administration’s effort four years ago, however, American officials appear to be shying from using intelligence information to build their case. Instead, they are citing Mr. Ahmadinejad’s public statements and Iran’s refusal to comply with the Council resolution passed in July, with support from Russia and China, that demanded full suspension of enrichment by Aug. 31.

“Russia and China can’t claim they didn’t agree to impose some nonmilitary sanctions” if Iran refused to comply, Mr. Einhorn noted. American officials said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had received assurances in June that Russia would, at a minimum, sign on to a first phase of weak sanctions.

But it is unclear whether Russia or China will sign on to sanctions if they believe that commits them to voting in favor of further pressure.

Yet that is exactly the American strategy, as described by administration and European officials. If Iran still has not suspended uranium enrichment in a few weeks, the sanctions proposed by the United States and Europe would progress to a broader travel ban and freezing of assets for government members, a senior administration official said.

Continued noncompliance would bring a ratcheting up of sanctions to include restrictions on commercial flights and on World Bank loans.

Iran has hinted at various times in recent months that it would respond to sanctions with actions of its own, from cutting oil production to threatening to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, as North Korea did.

Other American officials said they feared that sanctions could prompt Iran to spur the insurgency in Iraq or sponsor terrorism by Hezbollah. But Mr. Burns said on Wednesday, “We’re not going to be intimidated by the Iranians.”

He is expected to travel to Berlin next week to begin work on drafting a Security Council resolution, administration officials said.

But despite the private assurances American officials say they have received, the public comments of senior Russian and Chinese officials have remained ambiguous. Russia’s defense minister said last Friday that it was premature to consider punitive actions against Iran, adding that the issue was not “so urgent” that the Council should consider sanctions and expressing doubt that they would work in any case.

Nazila Fathi contributed reporting from Tehran.

    U.S. Drafting Sanctions as Iran Is Defiant, NYT, 31.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/31/world/middleeast/01irancnd.html?hp&ex=1157083200&en=bdb439ee22f38322&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.S. military sees Iran's nuke bomb 5 years away

Published August 31, 2006
THE WASHINGTON TIMES
By Rowan Scarborough

The U.S. military is operating under the assumption that Iran is five to eight years away from being able to build its first nuclear weapon, a time span that explains a general lack of urgency within the Bush administration to use air strikes to disable Tehran's atomic program.

Defense sources familiar with discussions of senior military commanders say the five- to eight-year projection has been discussed inside the Pentagon, which is updating its war plan for Iran. The time frame is generally in line with last year's intelligence community estimate that Iran could have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon by the beginning or middle of the next decade.

But the sources said that while the five-year window provides President Bush additional time to decide on whether to launch military strikes, they suspect it underestimates Iran's determination to build a bomb as quickly as possible.

Iran faces a United Nations Security Council deadline today to stop enriching uranium or face economic sanctions.

Advocates of stopping Iran's nuclear ambitions point to gaps in what the U.S. intelligence community really knows about Iran's secretive process. They also point to the fact that Iraq was much closer to building the bomb than the U.S. thought in 1991, when Operation Desert Storm air strikes destroyed much of Baghdad's atomic capability.

Some of this impatience was revealed in a bipartisan report Aug. 23 from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The report, which dealt with Iran's support for terrorism and quest for weapons of mass destruction, chastised the U.S. intelligence community for not devoting sufficient resources to Tehran. It also indirectly criticized current intelligence reporting on Iran as too timid.

"An important dimension of the detection of Iran's WMD program is how intelligence analysts use intelligence to characterize these programs in their analysis," the report said. "Intelligence community managers and analysts must provide their best analytic judgments about Iranian WMD programs and not shy away from provocative conclusions or bury disagreements in consensus assessments."

Concerning intelligence resources for Iran, the report said, "The national security community must dedicate the personnel and resources necessary to better assess Iran's plans, capabilities and intentions, and the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) must identify, establish, and report on intelligence goals and performance metrics to measure progress on critical fronts."

Retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Thomas McInerney, a prominent proponent in Washington of air strikes against Iran, said that whether the estimate is five years or 10 years, the time span instills complacency in war planning. He said that Mr. Bush is now following the State Department's diplomatic path, without a clear policy.

"Everyone is in the Jergens lotion mode -- 'woe is me.' Wringing our hands," the former fighter pilot said.

Gen. McInerney advocates using B-2 stealth bombers, cruise missiles and jet fighters to conduct a one- or two-day bombing campaign to take out Iran's air defenses, military facilities and about 40 nuclear targets, which includes a Russian-built reactor and an enrichment plant.

The Washington Times has previously reported that Israel has drafted plans for air strikes using long-range versions of the F-15 and F-16 fighters. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has often threatened to destroy Israel, which is within range of Iran's Shahab-3 ballistic missile.

The Times also reported that U.S. Central Command is updating a target list for Iran.

The House report said Iran owns the largest ballistic missile arsenal in the Middle East, and is also working on a missile re-entry vehicle that could carry a nuclear warhead.

    U.S. military sees Iran's nuke bomb 5 years away, WT, 31.8.2006, http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20060831-121633-7741r.htm

Iranian Leader Wants to Debate Bush

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
August 29, 2006
Filed at 10:18 a.m. ET
The New York Times

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Tuesday challenged the authority of the U.N. Security Council as Iran faces a deadline to halt its uranium enrichment and he called for a televised debate with President Bush on world issues.

The Security Council has given Iran until Thursday to suspend enrichment, a process that can produce either fuel for a reactor or material for weapons.

''The U.S. and Britain are the source of many tensions,'' Ahmadinejad said at a news conference. ''At the Security Council, where they have to protect security, they enjoy the veto right. If anybody confronts them, there is no place to take complaints to.

''This (veto right) is the source of problems of the world. ... It is an insult to the dignity, independence, freedom and sovereignty of nations,'' he said.

Ahmadinejad rejected any suspension of enrichment, even if U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan asked for it during an upcoming visit to Iran.

''The use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is the right of the Iranian nation. The Iranian nation has chosen this path. ... No one can prevent it,'' he said.

Iran last week responded to a Western incentives package aimed at getting Tehran to roll back its nuclear program. Iranian officials said the Islamic country did not agree to halt enrichment -- the key demand -- before engaging in further talks.

Ahmadinejad called the response an opportunity for the two sides to resolve the issue and he didn't rule out the possibility of direct talks with the United States.

''The opportunity the Iranian nation has given to other countries today is a very exceptional opportunity for a fair resolution of the issue,'' he said.

The Iranian president also called Israel a threat to peace and stability in the Middle East.

''The Zionist regime has deprived the Palestinian nation and other nations of the region of a single day of peace. In the past 60 years, it has imposed tens of wars on the Palestinian nation and others,'' he said.

    Iranian Leader Wants to Debate Bush, NYT, 29.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Iran-Nuclear.html?hp&ex=1156910400&en=b6ae619741af54dd&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Weapons

Israel Asks U.S. to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast

August 11, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID S. CLOUD

WASHINGTON, Aug. 10 — Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of short-range antipersonnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon, two American officials said Thursday.

The request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly, along with other arms, a senior official said.

But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions. The rockets, while they would be very effective against hidden missile launchers, officials say, are fired by the dozen and could be expected to cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated areas.

Israel is asking for the rockets now because it has been unable to suppress Hezbollah’s Katyusha rocket attacks in the month-old conflict by using bombs dropped from aircraft and other types of artillery, the officials said. The Katyusha rockets have killed dozens of civilians in Israel.

The United States had approved the sale of M-26’s to Israel some time ago, but the weapons had not yet been delivered when the crisis in Lebanon erupted. If the shipment is approved, Israel may be told that it must be especially careful about firing the rockets into populated areas, the senior official said.

Israel has long told American officials that it wanted M-26 rockets for use against conventional armies in case Israel was invaded, one of the American officials said. But after being pressed in recent days on what they intended to use the weapons for, Israeli officials disclosed that they planned to use them against rocket sites in Lebanon. It was this prospect that raised the intense concerns over civilian casualties.

During much of the 1980’s, the United States maintained a moratorium on selling cluster munitions to Israel, following disclosures that civilians in Lebanon had been killed with the weapons during the 1982 Israeli invasion. But the moratorium was lifted late in the Reagan administration, and since then, the United States has sold Israel some types of cluster munitions, the senior official said.

Officials would discuss the issue only on the condition of anonymity, as the debate over what to do is not resolved and is freighted with implications for the difficult diplomacy that is under way.

State Department officials “are discussing whether or not there needs to be a block on this sale because of the past history and because of the current circumstances,” said the senior official, adding that it was likely that Israel will get the rockets, but will be told to be “be careful.”

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, declined to comment on Israel’s request. He said, though, that “as a rule, we obviously don’t fire into populated areas, with the exception of the use of precision-guided munitions against terrorist targets.” In such cases, Israel has dropped leaflets warning of impending attacks to avoid civilian casualties, he said.

In the case of cluster munitions, including the Multiple Launch Rocket System, which fires the M-26, the Israeli military only fires into open terrain where rocket launchers or other military targets are found, to avoid killing civilians, an Israeli official said.

The debate over whether to ship Israel the missiles, which include the cluster munitions and use launchers that Israel has already received, comes as the Bush administration has been trying to win support for a draft United Nations resolution that calls for immediate cessation of “all attacks” by Hezbollah and of “offensive military operations” by Israel.

Arab governments, under pressure to halt the rising number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, have criticized the measure for not calling for a withdrawal of Israeli troops from southern Lebanon.

While Bush administration officials have criticized Israeli strikes that have caused civilian casualties, they have also backed the offensive against Hezbollah by rushing arms shipments to the region. Last month the administration approved a shipment of precision-guided munitions, which one senior official said this week included at least 25 of the 5,000-pound “bunker-buster” bombs.

Israel has recently asked for another shipment of precision-guided munitions, which is likely to be approved, the senior official said.

Last month, the advocacy group Human Rights Watch said its researchers had uncovered evidence that Israel had fired cluster munitions on July 19 at the Lebanese village of Bilda, which the group said had killed one civilian and wounded at least 12 others, including 7 children. The group said it had interviewed survivors of the attack, who described incoming artillery shells dispensing hundreds of cluster submunitions on the village.

Human Rights Watch also released photographs, taken recently by its researchers in northern Israel, of what it said were American-supplied artillery shells that had markings showing they carried cluster munitions.

Mr. Siegel, the Israeli Embassy spokesman, denied that cluster munitions had been used on the village.

The United States Army also employs the M-26 rocket and the Multiple Launch Rocket System in combat, and the Pentagon has sold the weapon to numerous other allies, in addition to Israel. The system is especially effective at attacking enemy artillery sites, military experts say, because the rockets can be quickly targeted against a defined geographic area. Each rocket contains 644 submunitions that kill enemy soldiers operating artillery in the area.

But Human Rights Watch and other groups have campaigned for the elimination of cluster munitions, noting that even if civilians are not present when the weapons is used, some submunitions that do not detonate on impact can later injure or kill civilians.

The M-26 “is a particularly deadly weapon,” Bonnie Docherty, a researcher with Human Rights Watch, who helped write a study of the United States’ use of the weapons in the 2003 Iraq invasion. “They were used widely by U.S. forces in Iraq and caused hundreds of civilian casualties.”

After the Reagan administration determined in 1982 that the cluster munitions had been used by Israel against civilian areas, the delivery of the artillery shells containing the munitions to Israel was suspended.

Israel was found to have violated a 1976 agreement with the United States in which it had agreed only to use cluster munitions against Arab armies and against clearly defined military targets. The moratorium on selling Israel cluster weapons was later lifted by the Reagan administration.

This week, State Department officials were studying records of what happened in 1982 as part of their internal deliberations into whether to grant approval for the sale to go forward.

    Israel Asks U.S. to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast, NYT, 11.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/11/world/middleeast/11military.html?hp&ex=1155355200&en=4887d0ebeb1cdf33&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.S. Issues Terror Warning in New Delhi

August 11, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:30 a.m. ET
The New York Times

NEW DELHI (AP) -- The U.S. Embassy in New Delhi warned Friday that foreign militants, possibly al-Qaida members, may be planning to carry out bombings in India's two major cities in the coming days.

In an e-mail sent to American citizens living in India, the embassy said New Delhi, the capital, and Bombay, the country's financial and entertainment hub, were the likely targets, and the attacks were believed to be planned for either before or on India's Independence Day, August 15.

The embassy confirmed that it had sent the e-mail, although Indian officials refused to comment on the warning.

Word of the alleged plot came a day after British police said they had thwarted a terrorist plan, possibly just days away, to blow up U.S.-bound jetliners over the Atlantic. Investigators described a plan on the scale of 9/11 that would use common electronic devices to detonate liquid explosives to bring down as many as 10 planes.

The U.S. Embassy's warning for India said the ''likely targets include major airports, key central Indian government offices, and major gathering places such as hotels and markets.''

It urged American citizens to maintain a low profile and be especially alert and attentive to their surroundings between Aug. 11 and Aug. 16.

    U.S. Issues Terror Warning in New Delhi, NYT, 11.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-India-US-Terror-Warning.html?hp&ex=1155355200&en=53694bf7a91ef6bf&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The Negotiator

Rice’s Hurdles on Middle East Begin at Home

August 10, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 — As fighting was breaking out last month between Hezbollah and Israel, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice worked through the night at her guest quarters on Russia’s Baltic coast to draft America’s response to the unfolding crisis.

The strategy she outlined that night, the eve of the Group of 8 meeting, dispensed with traditional diplomatic flourishes. It included no call for an immediate cease-fire and expressly stated that Israel had a right to defend itself.

The approach, which President Bush approved the next morning and has served as the basis for American strategy during the crisis, was more than a policy blueprint. It was also Ms. Rice’s answer to opposing camps within the Bush administration. Ms. Rice, one senior administration official said, “staked out a position that was sufficiently unlike the usual State Department” approach to satisfy conservatives in the government, including Vice President Dick Cheney, who were pushing for strong American support for Israel.

As Ms. Rice has struggled with the Middle East crisis over the last four weeks, she has found herself trying to be not only a peacemaker abroad but also a mediator among contending parties at home.

Washington’s resistance to an immediate cease-fire and its staunch support of Israel have made it more difficult for Ms. Rice to work with other nations, including some American allies, as they search for a formula that will end the violence and produce a durable cease-fire.

On her recent trips to the Middle East, Ms. Rice was accompanied by two men with very different outlooks on the conflict: Elliott Abrams, senior director at the National Security Council, and C. David Welch, a career diplomat and former ambassador to Egypt who is assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs.

Mr. Welch represents the traditional State Department view that the United States should serve as a neutral broker in the Middle East. Mr. Abrams, a neoconservative with strong ties to Mr. Cheney, has pushed the administration to throw its support behind Israel. During Ms. Rice’s travels, he kept in direct contact with Mr. Cheney’s office.

One administration official described how during the trip — including a July 29 discussion in Ms. Rice’s Rabin suite at the David Citadel Hotel, with its panoramic view of Jerusalem’s Old City — Mr. Welch and Mr. Abrams served as counterfoils, with Mr. Welch arguing the Arab view and Mr. Abrams articulating the Israeli stance.

Ms. Rice selected Mr. Abrams for the National Security Council staff in 2002 when she was national security adviser. His return to government service was unexpected. After President George H. W. Bush pardoned Mr. Abrams in 1992 for his role in the Iran-Contra affair during the 1980’s, Mr. Abrams said he would never work as policy maker again.

State Department officials say that Mr. Abrams serves as a buffer for Ms. Rice with some neoconservatives who are critical of her policies. “The genius of Elliott Abrams is that he’s Elliott Abrams,” one senior administration official said. “How can he be accused of not sufficiently supporting Israel?”

Several State Department officials have privately objected to the administration’s emphasis on Israel and have said that Washington is not talking to Syria to try to resolve the crisis. Damascus has long been a supporter of Hezbollah, and previous conflicts between the group and Israel have been resolved through shuttle diplomacy with Syria.

Two weeks ago, Ms. Rice instructed Stephen A. Seche, the chargé d’affaires at the United States Embassy in Damascus, to approach Syria’s foreign minister, Walid al-Moallem in Damascus. The two met, but Mr. Moallem “gave no indication that they would be moderately constructive,” a senior administration official said, and there have been no overtures since.

The tensions in the region and within the administration have left Ms. Rice visibly weary and she has at times spoken in unusually personal, emotional terms. After the meeting in her suite, Ms. Rice, Mr. Abrams, Mr. Welch and Richard Jones, the United States ambassador to Israel, had dinner with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. There, Ms. Rice showed a rare flash of impatience with him. When Mr. Olmert responded to her request to suspend airstrikes for 48 hours by saying that Israel had warned residents to evacuate, Ms. Rice shook her head, according to two American officials.

“Look, we’ve had this experience, with Katrina, and we thought we were doing it right,” she reportedly said. “But we learned that many people who want to leave can’t leave.”

Though Ms. Rice was not directly involved in the government’s response to Hurricane Katrina, she told colleagues last summer that she had been appalled at the slow reaction and had urged Mr. Bush to do more to alleviate the hardship of residents, many of them black, who were trapped in the flooded city.

Ms. Rice got the suspension she sought from the Israelis, but it proved short-lived. Her plane had barely left Israeli airspace when Israel resumed aerial strikes, though the bombing slowed for 48 hours.

Ms. Rice has been sharply criticized by some conservatives for pushing Israel too far to end its military operations in Lebanon. “Dump Condi: Foreign policy conservatives charge State Dept. has hijacked Bush agenda,” read the headline July 25 in an online version of Insight Magazine, published by The Washington Times.

“She’s being hammered by those who believe that this crisis will only be resolved by a strategic victory by Israel, backed by the United States,” said Aaron David Miller, a scholar at the Woodrow Wilson Center who was a senior adviser for Arab-Israeli relations at the State Department under the last three presidents. “That belief says that unless Hezbollah is handed a strategic retreat, the war on terror will suffer a huge defeat.”

But, Mr. Miller said, “she’s also being hammered by the Europeans and Arabs for what they believe to be her inactivity.”

The popular image of Ms. Rice as America’s impeccably clad, composed, dashing diplomat — an image she and her aides have encouraged — has given way to a more somber figure struggling, like many of her predecessors, to resolve a Middle East conflict.

Ms. Rice’s carefully scripted talking points have sometimes fallen flat. Her comment that the Israel-Lebanon war represented the “birth pangs of a new Middle East”— coming at a time when television stations were showing images of dead Lebanese children — sparked ridicule and even racist cartoons. A Palestinian newspaper, Al Qud, depicted Ms. Rice as pregnant with an armed monkey, and a caption the read, “Rice speaks about the birth of a new Middle East.”

She became angry when a reporter asked her, after Israel’s promised 48-hour suspension of airstrikes ended 36 hours early, how she felt when she found out. “I have had more questions about how I felt,” she said. “The question is what we do. And what we did was to seek clarification from the Israeli government about whether or not they were adhering to the agreement here.”

Before leaving for her trip to the Middle East, she told an acquaintance, with a tone of resignation, that every secretary of state, sooner or later, had to mediate a dispute in the region. “Now, I guess it’s my turn.”

    Rice’s Hurdles on Middle East Begin at Home, NYT, 10.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/10/washington/10rice.html?hp&ex=1155268800&en=428c231c62573ff2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

US urges Israeli restraint in new offensive

Wed Aug 9, 2006 6:21 PM ET
Reuters
By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States urged Israel to use the "utmost care" in avoiding civilian casualties and not to escalate hostilities after its government decided on Wednesday to expand its ground offensive in Lebanon.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack reiterated the U.S. stand that Israel had a right to defend itself from Hizbollah fighters in southern Lebanon but said the United States was very concerned about the humanitarian situation.

Israel's security cabinet on Wednesday ordered an expanded ground offensive to strike harder against Hizbollah and curb its cross-border rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities.

"Israel must take the utmost care in avoiding civilian casualties," McCormack said.

White House spokesman Tony Snow had a similar message.

"As I've said, we do not -- we want an end to violence and we do not want escalations," Snow told reporters in Texas.

Pressed whether this comment was aimed specifically at Israel, Snow replied: "It's a message to all parties."

Both Snow and McCormack said the United States, which has been accused of giving Israel a green light to continue attacking Lebanese targets, was working hard to bridge differences at the United Nations to come up with a resolution acceptable to all that would end the fighting.

The key issues remain the timing and sequencing of an Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon. The United States and Israel fear a quick retreat would allow Hizbollah to continue its rocket attacks.

"The operating principle is that you don't want to leave a vacuum in southern Lebanon," McCormack said.

"You don't hand the keys back to the terrorists who started all of this," he said, referring to Hizbollah.

COMPOSITION OF FORCE

Lebanon has proposed sending 15,000 of its troops to the south and has called for expanding the U.N. force already there. The United States and Israel want a new international force to enter the area. Only then would Israeli troops leave.

Indicating that the United States might be flexible over what form an international force would take, McCormack said the United States was "open to a variety of different mechanisms."

Until now, the United States has been looking at having the kind of multinational force it brought together for Afghanistan and Iraq rather than one under a U.N. "blue helmet" that the Lebanese would like.

"What matters more than the title or a name of a force is what it does and what it can do and what it is mandated to do and what is its mission," McCormack said.

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had hoped the U.N. resolution would be voted on last week and has been speaking to key parties to push the negotiations forward.

McCormack described discussions at the United Nations as "intense" and filled with emotion as they tried to resolve differences in a French-U.S. draft of a resolution.

"In multilateral diplomacy, everybody has their wish list, everybody has their agendas that they want to work from," he said. "Those agendas aren't always and very rarely are completely consonant."

On Wednesday, Rice spoke by telephone to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as well as U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan and British Foreign Secretary Margaret Beckett.

    US urges Israeli restraint in new offensive, R, 9.8.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-08-09T222056Z_01_N09468772_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-USA.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-politicsNews-3

Politics

Anti-U.S. Feeling Leaves Arab Reformers Isolated

August 9, 2006
The New York Times
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

DAMASCUS, Syria, Aug. 8 — Moderate reformers across the Arab world say American support for Israel’s battle with Hezbollah has put them on the defensive, tarring them by association and boosting Islamist parties.

The very people whom the United States wanted to encourage to promote democracy from Bahrain to Casablanca instead feel trapped by a policy that they now ridicule more or less as “destroying the region in order to save it.”

Indeed, many of those reformers who have been working for change in their own societies — often isolated, harassed by state security, or marginalized to begin with — say American policy either strangles nascent reform movements or props up repressive governments that remain Washington’s best allies in the region.

“We are really afraid of this ‘new Middle East,’ ” said Ali Abdulemam, a 28-year-old computer engineer who founded the most popular political Web site in Bahrain. He was referring to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s statement last month that the situation in Lebanon represented the birth pangs of a “new Middle East.”

“They talk about how they will reorganize the region in a different way, but they never talk about the people,” Mr. Abdulemam said. “They never mention what the people want. They are just giving more power to the systems that exist already.”

His plight is shared by reformers across the Arab world.

Fawaziah al-Bakr, who promotes educational change and women’s rights in Saudi Arabia, helped organize women to protest the Israeli attacks. “Nobody is talking about reform in Saudi Arabia,” she said. “All we talk about is the war, what to do about the war. There is no question that the U.S. has lost morally because of the war. Even if you like the people and the culture of the United States, you can’t defend it.”

The statement by Ms. Rice — during a fleeting stopover in Beirut last month — is being juxtaposed with the mounting carnage to rally popular opposition against all things American.

In Lebanon, Israel continues bombing despite the fact that the violence could destabilize the government of Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, elected last year in a vote that the United States hailed as a democratic example for the Middle East. Iraq was the previous such example, reformers note bitterly.

In Bahrain, Mr. Abdulemam fears that a proposed new anti-terrorism law could severely curb the freewheeling discussions on BahrainOnline.org, his Web site, perhaps even shutting it down, because among other things the law bans attacking the Constitution. Recently, the government cut off access to Google Earth, he said, probably because too many citizens were zeroing in on royal palaces.

Members of Islamist political organizations, in particular, consider American actions a godsend, putting their own repressive governments under pressure and distancing their capitals from Washington, reformers say.

The Americans “wanted to tarnish the Islamic resistance and opposition movements, but in reality they only served them,” said Sobhe Salih, a 53-year-old lawyer in the Muslim Brotherhood, which was swept into the Egyptian Parliament in an election last fall after capturing an unprecedented 20 percent of the seats. “They made them more appealing to the public, made them a beacon of hope for everyone who hates American policies.”

Glance at any television screen — they are everywhere — and chances are that the screen will be showing mayhem in Lebanon, Baghdad or Gaza. It usually takes a minute or so to decipher which Arab city is burning. Popular satellite news channels like Al Jazeera say repeatedly that the carnage arrives via American policy and American weapons.

Before 2003, the hardest step for any Islamist movement was recruitment, noted Mohamed Salah, an expert on Islamic extremist movements who writes for the pan-Arab daily Al Hayat from Cairo. Moving someone from being merely devout to being an extremist took a long time. No longer, he said. Moderate Arab governments, which have pursued peace with Israel for nearly 30 years, have seen that policy undermined among their publics by Hezbollah’s ability to strike at Israel.

“Recruitment has become the easiest stage because the people have already been psychologically predisposed against the Americans, the West and against Israel,” Mr. Salah said.

Moderate reformers say they are driven to despair by what they see as inconsistencies in Washington’s Middle East policy. For example, in Lebanon lives a black-turbaned Shiite cleric who runs a secretive militia close to Iran. His name is Sheik Hassan Nasrallah and Washington approves of Israel’s bombing campaign to stamp out his organization, Hezbollah.

There is another black-turbaned Shiite cleric who runs a different secretive militia close to Iran. His name is Abdel Aziz al-Hakim, and he lives in Iraq. He is an American friend.

“In Iraq the same kind of group is an ally of the United States, while in Lebanon they are an enemy whom they are fighting,” said Samir al-Qudah, a Jordanian civil engineer. “It has nothing to do with reform, but where America’s interests lie.”

The overwhelming conclusion drawn by Arabs is that Washington’s interests lie with Israel, no matter what the cost.

“Those calling for democratic reform in Egypt have discovered that once Israeli interests are in conflict with political reform in the Middle East, then the United States will immediately favor Israel’s interests,” said Ibrahim Issa, the editor of the weekly Al Dustour, who faces a jail sentence on charges of insulting President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt.

Reformers invariably add that a credible effort to solve the issue of Arab land occupied by Israel, which they believe is the taproot of extremism, does not even seem to be on Washington’s radar.

Sheik Nasrallah is particularly adept at exploiting public anger at civilian deaths in Lebanon by talking about how fickle the United States can be as a friend.

“I want you never to forget that this is the U.S. administration, Lebanon’s friend, ally and lover,” he mocked in a speech on Thursday. He also issued a pointed warning to other Arab leaders that if they spend more time defending their thrones than the people of Lebanon, they might find themselves pushed off those thrones.

Reformers also worry that the chaos in Iraq has fueled public perception that a despot can at least keep violence and sectarian differences at bay. In Syria, war news drowned out dismay over the jailing of activists in a crackdown by the Syrian government this spring.

Omar Amiralay, a Syrian documentary filmmaker, was in a taxi recently when the radio broadcast a news bulletin about a suicide bombing in Baghdad that killed some 35 people.

“The Americans should just let Saddam out of jail for a week,” he quoted the driver as saying, only half joking. The dictator would slay one million Iraqis and “everything would be peaceful again.”

Mr. Amiralay is convinced that change will come only with an eruption from within, but people have no time to think about that now. “Uncertainty has become the order of the day,” he said.

There is a general sense in the region that the Bush administration soured on pushing democracy because of the successes of Islamist parties in the most recent Egyptian and Palestinian elections — the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and Hamas, an offshoot of the Brotherhood, in the Palestinian territories.

For the first time in a while, political analysts are again comparing governments like that of Mr. Mubarak of Egypt to that of the late Shah of Iran — an isolated despot who ignored the broad wishes of the population while currying favor with the American administration. Some rulers are clearly nervous.

King Abdullah of Jordan initially criticized Hezbollah when the fighting erupted nearly a month ago, but in an interview with the BBC on Tuesday he was dismissive of American plans for a “new Middle East.” The monarch said he could “no longer read the political map” of the region because of black clouds gathering from Somalia to Lebanon.

That kind of attitude may prove beneficial, reformers say, allowing more breathing space for public debate as leaders try to quiet public anger. But they doubt moderates will find much of a platform.

“There is no room on the street for a moderate like me,” said Mr. Qudah, the civil engineer in Jordan. “We are all against Israel attacking Lebanon, but I am also against hitting cities in Israel where there are civilians. If I tried to say the things in public that I am telling you on the phone, I might be beaten. In a war like this, the extremists alone own the streets.”

Mona el-Naggar contributing reporting from Cairo for this article.

    Anti-U.S. Feeling Leaves Arab Reformers Isolated, NYT, 8.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/world/middleeast/09arabs.html?hp&ex=1155182400&en=ad37896a38404cd8&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Cuba dismisses US call for democracy

Sat Aug 5, 2006 2:40 AM ET
Reuters
By Anthony Boadle

HAVANA (Reuters) - Cuba quickly dismissed another U.S. call for Cuban democracy as Fidel Castro's government began to break the silence that followed his surgery and provisional hand-over of power to brother Raul.

Neither Castro brother has been seen in public since Fidel's operation on Monday for internal bleeding, but two members of the cabinet gave assurances that all was well with the Communist island and its 79-year-old leader.

In Miami, Cuban exile leaders who earlier in the week declared the beginning of the end of the Castro era began to come to grips with the idea that their nearly half-century wait for Fidel's demise may not be over.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a message beamed to Cuba on Friday night, told the island's residents that "much is changing there" and now was the time to push for democracy.

"We will stand with you to secure your rights -- to speak as you choose, to think as you please, to worship as you wish, and to choose your leaders, freely and fairly, in democratic elections," she said in a broadcast on the U.S.-funded Radio Marti network.

But Cuba's Minister of Culture, Abel Prieto, told reporters at a Havana event that Rice's message, which followed a similar statement by President George W. Bush on Thursday, would fall on deaf ears.

"Nobody in Cuba is going to listen to a message that comes from a functionary of a foreign government. That has no value for Cubans," he said in some of the first government comments since Castro's surgery.

"RHETORIC FOR MIAMI"

"I think all these messages are pure rhetoric for Miami," he said.

Prieto also said the Cuban government was functioning well with Fidel Castro recovering and his 75-year-old brother at the helm, despite suggestions from the United States that things were in flux. Castro has led Cuba for 47 years, since he swept to power in a 1959 revolution.

"I don't feel any uncertainty. The people love Fidel a lot and that has been seen in these days," he said.

Cuba's minister of health, Jose Ramon Balaguer, told reporters during a visit to Guatemala that Castro was on the road to recovery.

He said an overworked Castro had a "complicated operation from which he is recovering satisfactorily."

In a radio interview, Balaguer said Castro "will be back with us soon."

United Nations General Secretary Kofi Annan, during a trip to the Dominican Republic on Friday, said there were "indications" Castro was recovering and wished the Cuban president well.

None of this was good news for the Miami Cuban exile community, which danced in the streets on Monday when Castro's surgery and hand-over of power was announced.

Alfredo Mesa, executive director of the Cuban American National Foundation, said the exiles, of whom there are 650,000 in the Miami area, were beginning to lose their early hope that Castro was dead and change was at hand for their homeland.

"Right now, it's more 'let's be judicious in our response and see,' because there's nothing to celebrate about a succession of power to Raul Castro," he told Reuters.

    Cuba dismisses US call for democracy, R, 5.8.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=TopNews&storyID=2006-08-05T064010Z_01_N01421207_RTRUKOC_0_US-CUBA.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-TopNews-5

In Broadcast to Cubans, Rice Tries to Calm Fear of Invasion

August 5, 2006
The New York Times
By ANTHONY DePALMA

In a televised message beamed into Cuba, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice offered the full support of the United States in a transition to democracy while promising to respect the sovereignty of the Cuban people.

Carried on TV Martí, the government-financed service that broadcasts to Cuba from the United States, Ms. Rice tried to calm fears that Washington planned to intervene directly in Cuba in the wake of President Fidel Castro’s illness and his decision to hand off power provisionally to his brother Raúl, who is 75.

“The United States respects your aspirations as sovereign citizens,” Ms. Rice said. “And we will stand with you to secure your rights — to speak as you choose, to think as you please, to worship as you wish and to choose your leaders, freely and fairly, in democratic elections.”

She called for release of political prisoners, restoration of fundamental rights and a transition that would quickly lead to multiparty elections.

The only word about health of President Castro, 79, came yesterday from the Cuban health minister, who said he was recovering well from complicated abdominal surgery and would return to office soon.

But news agencies were unable to verify the information, because the Cuban government has been turning back foreign journalists.

The lack of independent information has led to speculation about the true state of Mr. Castro’s health. But the Cuban news media scoffed at the notion that anything was wrong, though neither Castro brother has been seen in public all week.

The official government paper, Granma, derided President Bush’s statement of support to the Cuban people on Thursday, calling it “tin pot rhetoric.”

Reuters, which operates a bureau in Havana, tried to send in several reporters this week to reinforce the two full-time journalists it has working in Cuba.

“They entered on tourist visas and then sought formal accreditation,” said Alistair Scrutton, Reuters’s editor for Latin America. “The Cuban authorities told us that they should leave, and they’ve done so.”

Joel Simon, executive director of the Committee to Protect Journalists, based in New York, said in an interview that the group had heard from several journalists who had been stopped by the authorities at José Martí International Airport in Havana because they were trying to enter the country with tourist visas.

“We don’t have a specific number, but we certainly heard that it was widespread,” Mr. Simon said.

The German news agency Deutsche Presse-Agentur reported that more than 150 international journalists had been blocked from entering since the transfer of power to Raúl Castro on Monday night.

The German agency quoted an unidentified Cuban official at the international press center in Havana as saying that while there was great interest around the world in what was happening in Cuba, “nowhere on the planet can a journalist report with a tourist visa.”

At the Cuban interests section of the Swiss Embassy in Washington, Joaquín Gutiérrez, the second secretary, said the office had been inundated with request for journalist work visas. He said that the applications were being processed and sent to Havana, and that it would take up to a month to get a reply.

Cuban officials have routinely denied requests for journalist visas from some American news organizations if they have written negatively about President Castro or the situation in Cuba. Other requests for visas simply go unanswered.

The New York Times has applied repeatedly for journalist visas to Cuba in the last two years, with infrequent success.

    In Broadcast to Cubans, Rice Tries to Calm Fear of Invasion, NYT, 5.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/world/americas/05cuba.html

Widening war complicates US policy goals

Wed Aug 2, 2006 9:08 AM ET
Reuters
By Carol Giacomo, Diplomatic Correspondent

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush has described the Israel-Hizbollah crisis as another opportunity to remake the Middle East in his democratic vision.

But as civilian casualties from the Israeli-Hizbollah conflict in Lebanon mount, the situation looks increasingly chaotic, and a damage-control operation will make it harder to advance U.S. foreign policy interests, analysts say.

"I think the chances of this having a silver lining are diminishing," said Ellen Laipson, former vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council.

"The phrase 'this is an opportunity' is such a best-case scenario. Haven't we learned from the Iraq experience? Be careful of setting out a strategic goal that is so unrealistic," Laipson said.

Bush's agenda was already loaded -- escalating turmoil in Iraq and Afghanistan, nuclear programs in Iran and North Korea -- when rocket attacks by the Lebanon-based Hizbollah guerrilla group three weeks ago provoked Israeli retaliation.

Initially, the world focused on Hizbollah, which is backed by Iran and Syria, as the aggressor. But Israeli air attacks caused hundreds of civilians deaths and stoked a new backlash against the Jewish state and America, its chief ally.

Israeli forces thrust further into Lebanon on Tuesday, fueling fears of a wider war that could engulf Syria.

Regional outrage over Israeli airstrikes forced Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to call off two stops on a Middle East trip.

The conflict did not prevent the U.N. Security Council from adopting a resolution demanding Iran halt a key aspect of its nuclear program.

But it revived tensions between European allies demanding an immediate cease-fire, and the administration, which wants to give Israel more time to degrade Hizbollah's capabilities.

"This administration has pursued an us-versus-them policy in every strategy and opportunity; in every opportunity, it pursued a strategy which created more of them and less of us," said Ivo Daalder of the center-left Brookings Institution. "You don't bomb people into liking democracy."

But Danielle Pletka of the conservative American Enterprise Institute said Hizbollah is a well-organized, well-equipped proxy for Iran, so the conflict with Israel is a front in the U.S. war on terror.

The conflict has refocused attention on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Critics say the fighting might not have ignited if Bush pursued his predecessors' sustained Mideast engagement.

Five years ago, Democratic Rep. Tom Lantos of California proposed legislation calling for deployment of Lebanon's army along borders with Israel and Syria, but he said former Secretary of State Colin Powell "fought it tooth and nail."

If Bush had backed the initiative, Lebanon could have removed Hizbollah when the guerrilla group was "a tiny fraction of its current strength, and you would not have seen this warfare we've seen for two weeks now," Lantos said.

The war is also raising questions about the limits of U.S. support for Israel.

"The United States will remain committed to defending Israel. ... But, it need not, and cannot, be at the expense of our Arab and Muslim relationships," Sen. Chuck Hagel said this week.

The Nebraska Republican also warned that extended military action alone would not destroy Hizbollah, but would "tear apart Lebanon ... and deepen hatred of Israel" in the Middle East.

    Widening war complicates US policy goals, R, 2.8.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-08-02T130830Z_01_N0197291_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-USA-POLICY.xml&src=080206_1248_TOPSTORY_rockets_hit_israel

Diplomacy

U.S. Insists Cease-Fire Must Await Plan to Disarm Hezbollah

August 2, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — The United States firmly reiterated its position on Tuesday that there can be no cease-fire in the Middle East until there is a solid plan in place to disarm Hezbollah.

“The United States is working for a cease-fire, for an end to the hostilities that will not allow a return to the status quo ante,” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday night on “The O’Reilly Factor,” on Fox News Channel. “If we don’t work for a cease-fire that will be lasting and enduring, then we’re going to be right back here in several months talking about another cease-fire.”

Ms. Rice had seemed to be ready to hasten the diplomatic effort to end the crisis as she prepared to leave Jerusalem for home on Monday, saying a solution was possible this week. But after she had dinner at the White House with Mr. Bush on Monday night, and France effectively postponed a United Nations session to work out the details of a international peacekeeping force, the administration strongly reiterated its message: a cease-fire will not be hastened without a plan to make it a lasting one.

On Tuesday, European officials, joined by some United States counterparts, said the diplomacy could easily extend into next week.

Also on Tuesday, thousands of Israeli troops streamed into southern and eastern Lebanon as part of a clearly widening offensive.

Despite some criticism that the Israeli Army had been less effective than expected, Israeli officials said that the offensive could help push Hezbollah farther back into Lebanese territory, clearing the way for an international peacekeeping force. American officials said that could accelerate the diplomacy by making conditions more conducive to a cease-fire.

Indicating that the United States did not have endless patience, Ms. Rice said in an interview on “News Hour With Jim Lehrer” on Tuesday that she was seeking a solution in “days, not weeks,” differing with the Israeli deputy prime minister, Shimon Peres, who said in an earlier interview on the program that the military campaign was a matter of “weeks, not of months.”

“This does not go so precisely toward the immediate cessation of hostilities we are seeking,” a European official said of the new Israeli incursion.

The official, who requested anonymity to avoid upstaging her nation’s leaders, complained that the United States position almost guaranteed that Hezbollah would continue to press the fight, and would undermine any efforts by the Lebanese government to persuade the group to disarm.

But United States officials have said anything short of a plan to ensure the disarming of Hezbollah before Israel halted fighting would leave the group in a position to lob missiles at Israel, and perhaps solidify the gains it has made in the Arab imagination for standing up to the regional superpower and surviving.

Israeli officials said they had received “no pressure” from the United States to hasten their campaign against Hezbollah.

But officials said they were in no sense delaying the talks at the United Nations, and while they acknowledged differences with Paris and other foreign capitals, they insisted that compromise talks were progressing.

Bush administration officials and Western diplomats described a day of busy talks in Washington, at the United Nations in New York and in European capitals that held at least a prospect of progress, or what both American and European officials called a “convergence” of views.

The officials requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record on these issues.

The United Nations announced that a meeting of countries that could contribute troops to a force in southern Lebanon that had been postponed Monday had been rescheduled for Thursday.

But France said it would boycott the meeting. Asked why, a spokesman referred to a statement Monday by the French ambassador to the United Nations, Jean-Marc de la Sablière, criticizing the timing of the effort.

“France is in favor of setting up an international force to implement a political settlement,” Mr. de la Sablière said then. “It is important to have this political settlement before having the force deployed. So it is premature to have such a meeting.”

The comment pointed up crucial differences over Lebanon that have emerged between France and the United States.

France has circulated a Security Council resolution that calls for an immediate halt to the fighting, followed by a negotiated cease-fire and a political agreement, before any international force is deployed. Israel says an international military force should be put in place first. And the United States says there can be a cease-fire and political arrangements only after the formation of an international force to back them up.

Warren Hoge contributed reporting from the United Nations for this article.

    U.S. Insists Cease-Fire Must Await Plan to Disarm Hezbollah, NYT, 2.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02diplo.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The President

Bush’s Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father

August 2, 2006
The New York Times
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — When they first met as United States president and Israeli prime minister, George W. Bush made clear to Ariel Sharon he would not follow in the footsteps of his father.

The first President Bush had been tough on Israel, especially the Israeli settlements in occupied lands that Mr. Sharon had helped develop. But over tea in the Oval Office that day in March 2001 — six months before the Sept. 11 attacks tightened their bond — the new president signaled a strong predisposition to support Israel.

“He told Sharon in that first meeting that I’ll use force to protect Israel, which was kind of a shock to everybody,” said one person present, given anonymity to speak about a private conversation. “It was like, ‘Whoa, where did that come from?’ “

That embrace of Israel represents a generational and philosophical divide between the Bushes, one that is exacerbating the friction that has been building between their camps of advisers and loyalists over foreign policy more generally. As the president continues to stand by Israel in its campaign against Hezbollah — even after a weekend attack that left many Lebanese civilians dead and provoked international condemnation — some advisers to the father are expressing deep unease with the Israel policies of the son.

“The current approach simply is not leading toward a solution to the crisis, or even a winding down of the crisis,” said Richard N. Haass, who advised the first President Bush on the Middle East and worked as a senior State Department official in the current president’s first term. “There are times at which a hands-off policy can be justified. It’s not obvious to me that this is one of them.”

Unlike the first President Bush, who viewed himself as a neutral arbiter in the delicate politics of the Middle East, the current president sees his role through the prism of the fight against terrorism. This President Bush, unlike his father, also has deep roots in the evangelical Christian community, a staunchly pro-Israeli component of his conservative Republican base.

The first President Bush came to the Oval Office with long diplomatic experience, strong ties to Arab leaders and a realpolitik view that held the United States should pursue its own strategic interests, not high-minded goals like democracy, even if it meant negotiating with undemocratic governments like Syria and Iran.

The current President Bush has practically cut off Syria and Iran, overlaying his fight against terrorism with the aim of creating what Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls “a new Middle East.” In allying himself so closely with Israel, he has departed not just from his father’s approach but also from those of all his recent predecessors, who saw themselves first and foremost as brokers in the region.

In a speech Monday in Miami, Mr. Bush offered what turned out to be an implicit criticism of his father’s approach.

“The current crisis is part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East,” Mr. Bush said. “For decades, the status quo in the Middle East permitted tyranny and terror to thrive. And as we saw on September the 11th, the status quo in the Middle East led to death and destruction in the United States.”

Now, as Mr. Bush faces growing pressure from Arab leaders and European allies to end the current wave of violence, these differences between father and son have come into sharp relief.

“There is a danger in a policy in which there is no daylight whatsoever between the government of Israel and the government of the United States,” said Aaron David Miller, an Arab-Israeli negotiator for both Bush administrations, who has high praise for James A. Baker III, the first President Bush’s secretary of state. “Bush One and James Baker would never have allowed that to happen.”

Other advisers who served the elder Mr. Bush are critical as well, faulting the current administration for having “put diplomacy on the back burner in the hope that unattractive regimes would fall,” in the words of Mr. Haass.

Whether the disagreement extends to father and son is unclear. The president has been generally critical of the Middle East policies of his predecessors in both parties, but has never criticized his father explicitly. The first President Bush has made it a practice not to comment on the administration of his son, but his spokesman, Tom Frechette, said he supports the younger Mr. Bush “100 percent.”

Brent Scowcroft, the former national security adviser, who has been openly critical of the current president on Iraq, did not return calls seeking comment. He wrote an opinion article in The Washington Post on Sunday calling on the United States to “seize this opportunity” to reach a comprehensive settlement for resolving the conflict of more than half a century between Israel and the Palestinians. Mr. Baker also did not return calls.

The differences between father and son are partly to do with style.

“Bush the father was from a certain generation of political leaders and foreign policy establishment types,” said William Kristol, the neo-conservative thinker who worked for the first Bush administration and is now editor of The Weekly Standard. “He had many years of dealings with leading Arab governments; he was close to the Saudi royal family. The son is less so. He’s got much more affection for Israel, less affection for the House of Saud.”

That affection, Mr. Bush’s aides say, can be traced partly to his first and only trip to Israel, in 1998. It was a formative experience for Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas. He took a helicopter ride — his guide, as it happened, was Mr. Sharon, then the foreign minister — and, looking down, was struck by how tiny and vulnerable Israel seemed.

“He said that when he took that tour and he looked down, he thought, ‘We have driveways in Texas longer than that, “ said Ari Fleischer, the former White House press secretary. “And after the United States was attacked, he understood how it was for Israel to be attacked.”

Others say Mr. Bush cannot help looking at Israel through the prism of his Christian faith. “There is a religiously inspired connection to Israel in which he feels, as president, a responsibility for Israel’s survival,” said Martin S. Indyk, who was President Clinton’s ambassador to Israel and kept that post for several months under President Bush. He also suggested that Republican politics were at work, saying Mr. Bush came into office determined to “build his Christian base.”

But the White House press secretary, Tony Snow, dismissed that idea, telling reporters last week that Mr. Bush does not view the current conflict through a “theological lens.”

Mr. Bush has to some extent played the traditional peacemaker role in the region, especially in dealing with relations between Israel and the Palestinians. He called for the creation of an independent Palestinian state, set out a “road map” to achieving a lasting peace and was critical of some of Mr. Sharon’s policies.

But he has drawn a sharp distinction between the Palestinian people and Israel’s conflicts with what he regards as terrorist organizations. He came into office refusing to meet with Yasir Arafat, the Palestinian leader, and cut off Mr. Arafat entirely in early 2002, after the Israeli Navy captured a ship carrying weapons intended for the Palestinian Authority. That foreshadowed the way he is now dealing with Hezbollah.

His father’s pre-9/11 policies were more concerned with the traditional goals of peace, or at least stability, in the Middle East. Relations between the first President Bush and his Israeli counterpart, Yitzhak Shamir, hit a low point when Mr. Bush refused Israel $10 billion in loan guarantees to resettle Soviet Jews. And Mr. Baker, as secretary of state, was once so frustrated with Israeli officials that he scornfully recited his office phone number and told them to call when they were serious about peace in the Middle East.

But Mr. Bush has enjoyed singularly warm relations, particularly after 9/11. “It is this event, 9/11, that caused the president to really associate himself with Israel, with this notion that now, for the first time, Americans can feel on their skin what Israelis have been feeling all along,” said Shai Feldman, an Israeli scholar at Brandeis University who has been in Tel Aviv since the hostilities began. “There is huge, huge appreciation here for the president.”

    Bush’s Embrace of Israel Shows Gap With Father, NYT, 2.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/washington/02prexy.html?hp&ex=1154577600&en=42c7531c0d1cc236&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Exiles in Miami Rejoice After Castro Cedes Presidency

August 1, 2006
The New York Times
By TERRY AGUAYO and CHRISTINE HAUSER

MIAMI, Aug. 1 — Cuban exiles reacted with exuberance at the news that Fidel Castro had temporarily ceded power to his brother late Monday night, taking to the streets, dancing and honking their car horns in celebration that decades of dictatorship in Cuba was coming to an end.

But today, the initial joy turned mostly to uncertainty as Cubans paused and considered the unanswered questions: why did Mr. Castro himself not appear to announce his illness? Was he alive or dead? What would the future bring for families with loved ones in Cuban prisons, or for those with executed relatives in the grave?

These and other questions were discussed today over strong Cuban coffee at the Versailles, a popular street side cafe in Miami’s Little Havana. On normal days, the Versailles bustles with activity along busy Eighth Street, or Calle Ocho, as it is known to exiles.

“Oh my God, this is really something!” said Felipe Mendez, 69, who left Cuba in 1980. “We are all waiting to see what is going to happen,”he said. “I am afraid it will be a while before we know. But we are excited to know something drastic may be happening.”

A statement read on Cuban television, and today posted on Web sites, said that Mr. Castro had turned over power to his brother after his health “was subjected to extreme stress and broke down.”

The statement, published in English today on the Miami Herald Web site, said that the incident provoked an “acute intestinal crisis with sustained bleeding that obliged me to face a complicated surgical operation.”

Mr. Castro himself did not appear on the broadcast, a detail that many here thought was unusual, saying that in the past he has personally announced issues about his health. It marked the first time that Mr. Castro, who is almost 80, had relinquished power in 47 years of rule.

Mr. Castro handed power to the defense minister, Raul Castro, who has been the constitutional successor.

At the Versailles, Cubans came and went, sipping coffee, listening to the speculation and sharing their thoughts. Some had hopes for the future, others remembered relatives and friends oppressed or executed. Many speculated that Mr. Castro was already dead and that the authorities wanted time to prepare people for the loss in a slow transition.

Many of those gathered at Versailles today had made the escape, like thousands before and after them, from Cuba across treacherous waters of the Florida Straits to the Florida shores. The exodus has made south Florida the place with the largest population of Cuban exiles.

Mario Valle, 66, a retired business owner who came from Cuba in 1973, said Cuban exiles have been waiting for the news for a “very, very, very long time.”

“I thought I was going to die last night,” he said. “There is no other solution for Cuba other than Fidel’s death.”

For those born in Miami, the events had resonance through the generations. “It means a lot to my family,” said Christian Lopez, a 23-year old man who was born in Miami to exiled parents. “I have been waiting for this my whole life.”

Like others, Mr. Lopez surmised that Mr. Castro was either dead or dying “but they are not ready to make it public.”

Many were cautiously optimistic.

“I am taking it with a grain of salt,” said Marcos Gonzalez, 60. “It is not a final thing yet but it may be the beginning of the end.”

In Cuba itself, many kept up a brave face. Musicians kept playing for foreign tourists at outdoor cafes and signs put up on the plaza’s colonial buildings during the recent Cuban holiday said, “Live on Fidel, for 80 more,’’ according to The Associated Press.

In Miami, Cubans exiles live in a tight community knitted together by shared memories and experiences. Many have left family members behind, started from scratch in the United States, or had friends or family executed or imprisoned for speaking up against the government. Some have not seen family members for 40 years.

Monica Suarez, a 57-year old housewife, who came to the United States from Cuba 32 years ago, said she hoped dark days under Mr. Castro, one of the world’s longest running rulers, were soon over. “You can only expect us to celebrate,” she said. “He has been a tyrant who has oppressed our people for 47 years.”

Terry Aguayo reported from Miami for this article and Christine Hauser from New York.

    Exiles in Miami Rejoice After Castro Cedes Presidency, NYT, 1.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/americas/01cnd-miami.html?hp&ex=1154491200&en=3e3d68e47fa69f14&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The President

Bush Calls Attack on Qana ‘Awful,’ but Refrains From Calling for Immediate Cease-Fire

August 1, 2006
The New York Times
By JOHN M. BRODER

WASHINGTON, July 31 — President Bush used the word “awful” to describe the lethal Israeli air attack on an apartment building in Qana, Lebanon, that killed dozens of civilians over the weekend, but he continued to resist calling on Israel to accept an immediate cease-fire.

Facing one of the most awkward moments in recent relations with Israel, he described the current Middle East crisis as part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror. He said the United States remained steadfast in its support of Israel’s right to defend itself against cross-border attacks by Hezbollah militants. But he also said the administration was working urgently through the United Nations to fashion what he called a “sustainable” cessation of hostilities.

He sought to broaden the context of the current fighting, saying that Iran and Syria must end their support of terrorism in the Middle East and beyond.

“For decades, the status quo in the Middle East permitted tyranny and terror to thrive,” Mr. Bush said at an appearance before members of the Coast Guard in Miami. “And as we saw on Sept. 11, the status quo in the Middle East led to death and destruction in the United States, and it had to change.”

He did not refer directly to the airstrike on the village of Qana in his public appearance in Miami, but in a later interview with Fox News Channel, he said that he wanted to see the killing in southern Lebanon end.

“And look, it’s a terrible situation when innocent people lose their lives,” Mr. Bush said. “And yesterday’s situation was awful. We, I understand that. But it’s also awful that a million Israelis are worried about rockets being fired from their, from their neighbor to the north.”

Mr. Bush has not spoken directly with Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, about the Qana bombing and did not plan to do so, a White House spokesman said Monday.

Support for Israel remained strong in Congress but as the military and civilian crisis grew, Senator Chuck Hagel, Republican of Nebraska, said that American friendship with Israel had to be balanced by concern for relations with Muslim nations. He urged Mr. Bush to become more deeply engaged in the region and broker an end to the fighting quickly.

“The sickening slaughter on both sides must end now,” Senator Hagel said in a floor statement. “President Bush must call for an immediate cease-fire. This madness must stop.”

White House officials said they believed that the president was not yet facing serious erosion of domestic political support for his approach to the Middle East, but that they hoped the administration’s diplomacy would bear fruit over the next few days.

If the White House seemed shaken on Sunday, by Monday it had turned back forcefully to the line it had held since the crisis began nearly three weeks ago.

“In terms of the overall outlines of the strategy, they are the same,” Tony Snow, Mr. Bush’s spokesman, said in a telephone interview. “Nor are you going to change your approach to what you think a real effective solution to the problem in Lebanon is, which is to have Hezbollah cease operating as an independent force.”

President Bush told Fox News that one element of the emerging plan for a cease-fire was to restore Lebanese military control over its southern border with Israel, which the nascent government in Beirut had essentially ceded to armed Hezbollah fighters.

“We want that young democracy in Lebanon to succeed,” Mr. Bush said. “And one way to help it succeed is to help the Lebanese Army move to the south, and then, with help from forces from elsewhere, begin to bring some security to the region, for the sake of the Lebanese people and the Israelis.”

President Bush planned to meet with Secretary Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen J. Hadley on Monday night to discuss strategy for dealing with the crisis.

Helene Cooper and Jim Rutenberg contributed reporting for this article.

    Bush Calls Attack on Qana ‘Awful,’ but Refrains From Calling for Immediate Cease-Fire, NYT, 1.8.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/01/world/middleeast/01prexy.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Bush Ties Battle With Hezbollah to War on Terror

July 31, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID STOUT

WASHINGTON, July 31 — President Bush described Israel’s battle with Hezbollah as part of a much wider struggle against terrorism today, as he once again embraced a pillar of his foreign policy: his faith in the power of democracy to bring peace to the region.

“The current crisis is part of a larger struggle between the forces of freedom and the forces of terror in the Middle East,” Mr. Bush said in a speech at the Coast Guard Command in Miami.

“For decades, the status quo in the Middle East permitted tyranny and terror to thrive,” the president said. “And as we saw on Sept. 11, the status quo in the Middle East led to death and destruction in the United States, and it had to change.”

Mr. Bush mourned the loss of “innocent life,” both in Israel and in Lebanon, where Israel’s attempts to subdue Hezbollah have killed scores of civilians. But he said, as he has repeatedly, that “Israel is exercising its right to defend itself,” and he said again that any cease-fire must be lasting.

In linking the conflict between Israel and Hezbollah to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Bush sounded the same theme he has often embraced to describe the American-led campaign in Iraq: part of a struggle to root out hatred and tyranny and replace them with peace and democracy.

He repeated his insistence that the drive to plant democracy in lands where tyranny and terror have deep roots is pragmatic as well as idealistic. “This task is long; it is difficult work,” he said. “But it is necessary work.”

There was no immediate reaction to Mr. Bush’s speech here in the sweltering capital, with most members of Congress having gone home to campaign. Just before his speech, Mr. Bush toured the Port of Miami aboard a Coast Guard boat. He hailed the United Nations Security Council’s passage of a resolution giving Iran a month to suspend its uranium-enrichment program, or face sanctions, as “a common message, a unified message.”

The lectern from which Mr. Bush spoke had a small air-conditioning unit, enabling him to look cool and comfortable in the sunshine. The president was applauded repeatedly by an audience that included his brother, Gov. Jeb Bush, when he ticked off staples of his domestic agenda: low taxes, free trade and general encouragement of the entrepreneurial spirit. The president carried Florida by a comfortable margin in the 2004 election, four years after capturing Florida’s electoral votes — and with them, the presidency — by a razor-thin margin.

“When democracy spreads in the Middle East, the people of that troubled region will have a better future, the terrorists will lose their safe havens and their recruits, and the United States of America will be more secure,” Mr. Bush said. “The hard work of helping people realize the benefits of liberty is laying the foundation of peace for generations to come.”

Mr. Bush was in Florida for a political fund-raising event. He delivered his speech as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was flying home from the Middle East after declaring that there was an “emerging consensus” for a cease-fire between Israel and Hezbollah that could be reached this week.

But the president and his top aides have resisted pressure to call for an immediate cease-fire, and Mr. Bush made it clear today that he has not wavered. “She is working urgently to get a sustainable cease-fire, a cease-fire which will last,” Mr. Bush said of Ms. Rice. “We’re going to work with our allies to bring before the United Nations Security Council a resolution that will end the violence and lay the groundwork for lasting peace in the Middle East.”

Mr. Bush said that for any peace to be lasting, the Lebanese government must have sole control over its own territory, and that a multinational force must be sent to Lebanon at once to help deliver humanitarian aid. Hezbollah now has both a political presence in the Lebanese government and a military presence in southern Lebanon, which it uses as a base to stage raids on neighboring Israel and rain rockets on its villages.

The president said that a lasting peace also depended on Iran’s ending its financial and military support for terrorist groups, including Hezbollah, and that Syria must end its support for terrorism and “respect the sovereignty of Lebanon.” Syria has long exercised influence in Lebanese affairs and had troops in Lebanon for many years.

    Bush Ties Battle With Hezbollah to War on Terror, NYT, 31.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/world/middleeast/31cnd-prexy.html?hp&ex=1154404800&en=3eb0d0e2793d09c6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush sticks to call for sustained peace in Mideast

Mon Jul 31, 2006 11:12 AM ET
Reuters
By Caren Bohan

MIAMI (Reuters) - President Bush said he would seek U.N. action this week on ending the fighting in southern Lebanon but resisted an immediate ceasefire despite growing pressure a day after a deadly Israeli air strike.

"I assured the people here that we will work toward a plan at the United Nations Security Council that addresses the root causes of the problem so that whatever comes out of the Security Council will be able to last and that the people of Lebanon and Israel will be able to remain in peace," Bush said.

"We want there to be a long-lasting peace, one that is sustainable," he told reporters at a restaurant where he was meeting with Cuban American business leaders.

International pressure for an immediate ceasefire increased after Israel's bombing of the Lebanese village of Qana on Sunday that killed at least 54 civilians.

After that attack, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Sunday brokered a 48-hour partial break in the Israeli air campaign against Hizbollah and was returning from the Middle East to push for a U.N. Security Council resolution on a permanent ceasefire.

While calling on Israel to show more restraint, the United States has said the fault for the bombing lies with Hizbollah and Bush underscored that view in a visit later at the port of Miami.

"As we work with friends and allies, it's important to remember this crisis began with Hizbollah's unprovoked terrorist attack against Israel," Bush said.

"Israel is exercising its right to defend itself and we mourn the loss of innocent life, he said.

Bush also accused Iran on Monday of supplying weapons and financial support to Hizbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon and called on Tehran to stop the practice.

"Iran must end its financial support and supply of weapons to terrorist groups like Hizbollah," Bush said, adding: "Syria must end its support for terror and respect the sovereignty of Lebanon."

Bush will meet with Rice when he returns to Washington later on Monday. She said she believed a truce could be reached this week between Israel and Hizbollah guerrillas.

    Bush sticks to call for sustained peace in Mideast, R, 31.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-07-31T151208Z_01_WAT006137_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-MIDEAST.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-politicsNews-2

Bush says Iran, Syria must end support for Hizbollah

Mon Jul 31, 2006 10:38 AM ET
Reuters



MIAMI (Reuters) - President Bush accused Iran on Monday of supplying weapons and financial support to Hizbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon and called on Tehran to stop the practice.

"Iran must end its financial support and supply of weapons to terrorist groups like Hizbollah," Bush said, adding: "Syria must end its support for terror and respect the sovereignty of Lebanon."

    Bush says Iran, Syria must end support for Hizbollah, R, 31.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsnews&storyID=2006-07-31T143511Z_01_WAT006137_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-MIDEAST.xml&src=073106_1041_TOPSTORY_us_seeks_ceasefire

Snub signals Lebanese fury at Israel's US ally

Mon Jul 31, 2006 9:42am ET
Reuters
By Nadim Ladki - Analysis

BEIRUT (Reuters) - When Fouad Siniora, Lebanon's gentle, U.S.-backed prime minister, plucks up the courage to snub Condoleezza Rice, it is clear that anger at American support for Israel's onslaught has boiled over in Beirut.

Siniora, a pro-Western politician thrust into the job after last year's assassination of former premier Rafik al-Hariri, leads a coalition government that the United States hoped would drag Lebanon out of Syria's orbit and into its own.

But on Sunday the Sunni Muslim prime minister, enraged by an Israeli air strike that killed 54 civilians, including 37 children, told the U.S. Secretary of State she was unwelcome in Beirut unless she came with an immediate ceasefire.

Remarkably, he later thanked Hizbollah, long a political thorn in his side, for its sacrifices to protect Lebanon.

George Joffe, lecturer at the Cambridge Center for International Studies, said Siniora's decision not to meet Rice was a turning point in the conflict -- and for Lebanon.

"For him now to turn around to those (Americans) who were in effect his guarantors against the Syrians and say he will not talk to them until they agree to an immediate ceasefire seems to say an awful lot about the change of opinion in Lebanon.

"For Lebanese, whether they are Christian, Sunni or Shi'ite, that is a very significant set of events," Joffe said.

After Hariri's killing, Lebanese protests and U.S.-led pressure forced Syria to end its 29-year military presence in Lebanon in April 2005. Next on Washington's agenda for "freedom and democracy" in Lebanon was the disarming of Hizbollah.

Now, with a whirlwind of destruction engulfing Lebanon, the United States insists it is no use halting the Israeli offensive unless Hizbollah guerrillas, backed by Syria and Iran, are driven from the border and prevented from menacing Israel.

Its attitude -- and its refusal to talk to Israel's foes -- has caused fury in Lebanon and across the Arab world.

"Washington is feeling the pain of its own self-inflicted diplomatic castration, as a consequence of siding so strongly with Israel," Rami Khouri wrote in Beirut's Daily Star.

IMMEDIATE CEASEFIRE

Siniora has been pleading for a ceasefire first, and then negotiations, ever since Hizbollah touched off the conflict by seizing two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12.

Many Lebanese, including the prime minister, were upset by a Hizbollah ploy that embroiled Lebanon in an unwelcome war.

But Israeli bombing, which has killed up to 750 people, displaced 750,000 and destroyed countless roads, bridges and other installations, has forged unusual unity among politicians whose disputes had paralyzed Lebanon's government for months.

Fifty-one Israelis have also been killed in the conflict.

Anger at what Beirut sees as U.S. encouragement for the Israeli assault has, at least for now, papered over divisions between Siniora's anti-Syrian partners and Lebanese allies of Damascus who had bitterly contested moves to disarm Hizbollah.

The war has strengthened the hand of Hizbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah and turned his Shi'ite ally, Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri, into a pivotal contact point with Siniora.

"We are in a strong position and I thank the Sayyed for his efforts," Siniora said on Sunday, hailing "all who sacrifice their lives for Lebanon's independence and sovereignty".

Keen to silence its domestic critics, Nasrallah had sought to reassure the Lebanese that its battlefield "victory" against Israel would not change the fragile balance in Lebanon.

"Victory will be for all of Lebanon, all its religious communities, regions, movements... for any honorable Arab, Muslim and Christian who stood against the aggression," he said.

Hizbollah also contributed to the sense of unity by allowing the cabinet, in which it has two loyalists, to endorse Siniora's proposals for a ceasefire and deployment of an international force in south Lebanon, the group's Shi'ite heartland.

But Hizbollah, the only faction to keep its weapons after the 1975-90 civil war, on the grounds it needed them to fight Israeli occupation, has vowed to keep them.

In today's climate of hostility to U.S.-Israeli policies, with Israeli troops again on Lebanese soil, few in Lebanon will ask Hizbollah to give up the rockets which it is still firing across the border despite 20 days of Israeli bombardment.

That might only change in the context of a deal that binds Israel to give up the disputed Shebaa Farms border area, free Lebanese detainees and respect Lebanese air space and waters.

    Snub signals Lebanese fury at Israel's US ally, R, 31.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=topnews&storyid=2006-07-31T134019Z_01_L31562755_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&src=073106_1041_TOPSTORY_us_seeks_ceasefire

Rice Says Mideast Cease-Fire Is Within Reach

July 31, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER

JERUSALEM, Monday, July 31 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, under pressure amid the mounting civilian death toll in the Middle East, said that today she believes a cease-fire can be reached this week to end the hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah.

At the end of a turbulent 8-day trip, Ms. Rice laid out what she called an “emerging consensus” for a ceasefire package. Under the proposal, Israel and Lebanon ­presumably representing Hezbollah -- would agree to a ceasefire as part of a larger pact that would include installing international peacekeepers throughout southern Lebanon.

The Lebanese government would work to disarm Hezbollah, and the United States and other countries would funnel money and send military officials to help train the Lebanese army, so that it can work to prevent future attacks on Israel.

The package described by Ms. Rice calls for armed groups to be prohibited where the international force is deployed, and an international embargo against the delivery of weapons to anyone other than the government of Lebanon and the international force.

She said the United States would call for United Nations Security Council action this week on the package.

“I have been deeply grieved by the tragic losses we have witnessed, especially the death of children, Lebanese and Israeli,” Ms. Rice told reporters before heading back to Washington. “Too many families have been displaced from their homes. Too many people urgently need medical care, or are living in shelters.”

    Rice Says Mideast Cease-Fire Is Within Reach, NYT, 31.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/world/middleeast/31cnd-rice.html?hp&ex=1154404800&en=a22b6b2340d47743&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Rice sees Lebanon truce soon

Mon Jul 31, 2006 4:09 AM ET
Reuters
By Sue Plemming

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said on Monday she believed a ceasefire to end fighting between Israel and the Hizbollah guerrilla group in Lebanon could be forged this week.

Washington has refused to call for an immediate truce to end the 20-day conflict, but an Israeli raid on Sunday that killed 54 civilians triggered worldwide demands for an end to the Jewish state's war against Hizbollah.

The attack on the southern village of Qana prompted Lebanon to call off scheduled talks with Rice on Sunday and tell her she was not welcome until an unconditional ceasefire was in place.

Rice stayed on in Jerusalem and won a 48-hour suspension from Israel of its aerial bombardment of south Lebanon. Israel also agreed a 24-hour window for residents to leave the battered area and let aid workers reach the worst hit villages.

"This morning, as I head back to Washington, I take with me an emerging consensus on what is necessary for both an urgent ceasefire and lasting settlement. I am convinced we can achieve both this week," she told reporters in Jerusalem.

There was no immediate Israeli government reaction to her comments.

The U.N. Security Council deplored Sunday's bombing, the deadliest single attack in Israel's nearly three-week-old war, but did not demand an immediate ceasefire, despite U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's call for one.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli said Israel's decision to suspend air strikes would allow a probe into the Qana attack, which occurred at a time of heightened global alarm at the hundreds of civilian casualties in the war.

He also said Israel had the right to "take action against targets preparing attacks against it", a restatement of U.S. policy that Israel has the right to defend itself.

Israeli fighters launched air strikes in eastern Lebanon near Syria overnight on Sunday but Jerusalem said the attacks came before the start of the 48-hour suspension.

DIPLOMATS MEET

The Jewish state ordered its forces into combat on July 12 when Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid and killed eight. It wants to stop the guerrilla group blasting rockets into the north of the Israel.

At least 545 people have been killed in Lebanon, although the health minister estimates the toll at 750 including bodies still stuck under the rubble with rescue workers unable to remove them under fire. Fifty-one Israelis have been killed.

Key diplomats in the Lebanese-Israeli conflict plan to meet at the United Nations this week on steps to end the violence, beginning with a meeting on Monday of potential contributors to an international force to go to southern Lebanon.

France has already seized the initiative and distributed its draft over the weekend on elements for a sustainable ceasefire and preparations for an international stabilization force, which the council will discuss on Monday or Tuesday.

Washington's main ally in its refusal to call for an immediate truce, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, also said on Monday he thought there was a "real chance" of getting a U.N. resolution to bring a complete halt to fighting.

The 15-nation Security Council unanimously adopted a statement expressing "extreme shock and distress" at the Qana killings but did not call for an immediate truce.

Annan said he was already "deeply dismayed" his previous calls for an immediate ceasefire had not been heeded.

BUILDING FLATTENED

Rescue workers called off the search in Qana for bodies or survivors after hours of digging through the rubble with their hands, lifting out the twisted, dust-caked corpses of children.

The attack flattened a three-storey building. Many of the people inside were killed as they slept. Israel said it was unaware civilians were in the building and accused Hizbollah guerrillas of firing rockets into northern Israel from Qana.

A Lebanese Foreign Ministry official told an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council that more than 60 people were killed though police in Lebanon put the death toll at 54.

President Bush, blaming Hizbollah and its main allies Syria and Iran for the war, says the root causes of the conflict must be tackled before there can be lasting peace.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert voiced "deep sorrow" over Qana but vowed the war against the guerrillas would go on.

Hizbollah fired more than 140 rockets at Israel on Sunday, wounding six people, Israeli police said.

There was no official comment from Hizbollah on Israel's decision but the group's al-Manar television said the suspension was an "American and Zionist attempt to absorb the world's fury" over Qana. Earlier, Hizbollah had vowed to retaliate.

(Additional reporting by Jerusalem, U.N. bureaus)

    Rice sees Lebanon truce soon, R, 31.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-31T080703Z_01_L30823603_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-newsOne-2

Rice Says She Will Push for U.N. Resolution on Cease-Fire

July 31, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 3:39 a.m. ET
The New York Times

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday she will seek international consensus for a cease-fire and a ''lasting settlement'' in the conflict between Lebanon and Israel through a U.N. Security Council resolution this week.

''I am convinced that only by achieving both will the Lebanese people be able to control their country and their future, and the people of Israel finally be able to live free of attack from terrorist groups in Lebanon,'' Rice told reporters here before departing for Washington.

Rice's marathon effort at shuttle diplomacy was marked by frustration, but she did manage to win a suspension -- at least for now -- of the aerial bombing by Israel, which has killed and maimed scores of innocent Lebanese men, women and children.

For eight days, Rice has been in meetings around the globe, trying to find a consensus to end the 20 days of fighting between Israel and Lebanon-based Hezbollah. She said the U.N. resolution that she will call for will include a cease-fire, political components to address issues that have repeatedly sparked fighting between the two countries and the authorization of an international force to help secure Lebanon.

Rice did not provide significant details on how the U.N. resolution she will seek would address the difficult political problems between the two states. Lebanon and Israel have disputed their border and other issues for decades.

Rice also welcomed Israel's decision to conditionally suspend air attacks on southern Lebanon for 48 hours, and hoped the suspension would be renewed.

''These are important, yet temporary measures,'' she said. ''An urgent and more permanent end to this violence is something that we all want, and that we all must work together to achieve.''

Rice moved quickly Sunday after an Israeli bomb strike on a house in southern Lebanon killed 56 people, mostly children and women, and won the bombing suspension.

The bombing had scarred her weeklong mission to halt the fighting between Israel and Hezbollah, prompting her to scrap a planned meeting with Lebanon's prime minister and arrange to return to Washington for consultation with President Bush.

Rice now goes home hoping to handle diplomatic negotiations from there for a ''truly lasting settlement.''

During her frenetic schedule of meetings with international leaders, she said she found consensus that armed groups -- such as Hezbollah -- must be prohibited in areas where the international force is ultimately deployed. She also said that Hezbollah should be disarmed, which will no doubt be a formidable task.

She also called for an international embargo against the delivery of weapons to any entity but the government of Lebanon. The United States has blamed Iran and Syria for supporting and supplying Hezbollah, which it considers a terror group.

Rice said she also found agreement on an international stabilization force that would support the urgent humanitarian work for the embattled Lebanese people and assist the country's armed forces to police Lebanon's 233-mile-long border with Syria.

Bush spoke with Rice by telephone twice on Sunday before the bombing suspension announcement and once afterward, his spokesman said.

A State Department official traveling with Rice and speaking on condition of anonymity said the secretary had been urging steps toward a break in the violence ''for some time'' and that the decision to push for a bombing suspension ''was made in light of steadily deteriorating condition in the area.''

Bush, at a White House T-ball game for youngsters, said, ''Today's actions in the Middle East remind us that friends and allies must work together for a sustainable peace particularly for the sake of children.''

Rice acknowledged to reporters the ''pretty political and dicey circumstances'' in which she found herself.

''Too many innocent people -- Lebanese and Israeli -- have suffered,'' Rice said. ''Too many people have lost their lives. Too many families are homeless. And too many children have been killed, injured or are living in fear for their lives.''

The bombing attack came at an especially inopportune time for Rice. Arriving Saturday for a second visit in a week to the Middle East, she hoped to broker an agreement that could serve as a foundation for a U.N. Security Council resolution.

International pressure is growing for the United States to call for a quick truce, even as Israeli officials say its military may need up to two weeks more to accomplish its objectives against Hezbollah, a Lebanese Shiite political party with its own militia.

A French-sponsored draft resolution, circulating this weekend among council members, calls for an immediate halt to fighting and seeks a wide new buffer zone in south Lebanon monitored by international forces and the Lebanese army.

In Beirut, Prime Minister Fuad Saniora said the attack on Lebanese civilians in the town of Qana showed a cease-fire is the only option.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, who agreed to the bombing suspension, expressed ''great sorrow'' for the deaths, but blamed Hezbollah for using the area to launch rockets into Israel.

Fighting that began after Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers has left more than 750 people dead; the vast majority are Lebanese civilians.

The Bush administration has stood by Israel's efforts to go after Hezbollah. But administration officials also have tried to find ways to support the fragile Lebanese democracy, which the U.S. sees as part of its vision for ''the new Middle East'' of healthy, elected governments.

    Rice Says She Will Push for U.N. Resolution on Cease-Fire, NYT, 31.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Rice.html

News Analyis

From Carnage in Lebanon, a Concession

July 31, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER

JERUSALEM, Monday, July 31 — Taken aback by the carnage from the Israeli bombing of Qana, Lebanon, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice wrung the first significant concession from Israel late on Sunday in its nearly three-week-old war against the Hezbollah militia: an immediate 48-hour suspension of aerial strikes.

Especially notable about the suspension was that Ms. Rice’s deputy, Adam Ereli, and not the Israelis, announced it after she held intensive talks with both Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and the Israeli foreign minister, Tzipi Livni.

The American decision to break the news on what was essentially an Israeli tactical change reflected the increased concern in the Bush administration about the rising civilian death toll in Lebanon and the havoc it is wreaking with America’s already shaky relations with the Arab world.

Indeed, while Mr. Ereli took pains to assure reporters that American officials had confirmation of the temporary suspension directly from Mr. Olmert’s office, Israeli officials had said nothing publicly about the suspension as of early Monday.

Ms. Rice, who had been making little progress in her talks with the Israelis this weekend, clearly needed to come away with something in response to the Qana bombing, which killed dozens of people, many of them children, and incited a new level of world anger against the Israeli military campaign in southern Lebanon.

Even so, one fact is unchanged: the United States is still not calling for an immediate cease-fire.

Ms. Rice’s maneuvering highlights the deepening crisis in which she now finds herself — by far the biggest in her tenure as America’s top diplomat.

By refusing to call for an immediate cease-fire, even in the face of the Qana bombing, Ms. Rice was teetering on the edge of a public relations disaster, particularly in the Arab world. All day on Sunday, scenes of dead children being pulled out of the wreckage at Qana dominated the airwaves.

But American officials continued to say that, despite the civilian death toll, an immediate cease-fire would do little good unless underlying issues were first addressed, including the ultimate disarmament of Hezbollah.

In the meantime, Israeli officials continued to say, publicly, that they needed more time to diminish Hezbollah’s military abilities, and America’s insistence on reaching agreement on a political package before calling for a cease-fire worked to give Israel that time.

But that left the impression that Ms. Rice and the Bush administration were willing to stomach the killing of innocent children to reach their larger aims.

After learning about the Qana bombing, Ms. Rice canceled her planned trip to Beirut on Sunday, and instead is heading back to the United States on Monday. A State Department official said Ms. Rice would travel to New York on Wednesday or Thursday to push for a Security Council resolution that would include a cease-fire as one of its components.

The contents of the diplomatic package are basically set, and Bush officials said Ms. Rice would lay out its terms on Monday. Under the proposal, Israel and Lebanon would agree to a cease-fire as part of a larger pact that would include installing 15,000 to 20,000 international peacekeepers throughout southern Lebanon, American and Israeli officials said. The Lebanese government would work to disband Hezbollah, and the United States and other countries would funnel money and send military officials to help train the Lebanese Army, so that it could work to prevent future attacks on Israel. Israel would agree to talks on whether it would withdraw from a disputed border area known as Shabaa Farms, a Hezbollah demand.

“We want the Security Council to take it up soon, and we want the Security Council to take it up with as much concrete progress toward a real cease-fire as is humanly possible by the time that that meeting takes place,” Ms. Rice said. She spoke at a hastily called news conference on Sunday, just two hours after learning of the bombing at Qana. She appeared shaken, and said she learned of the bombing while she was meeting with the Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz.

She said she reiterated to Mr. Peretz her “strong concern about the impact of Israeli military operations on innocent civilians,” and added that she was “deeply saddened by the terrible loss of innocent life.” American officials scrambled to try to counter the wrenching TV scenes of the devastation at Qana. Immediately after Ms. Rice’s news conference, State Department officials worked quickly to get her statement broadcast on Arab TV stations, including Al Jazeera.

But that job was made harder when the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, who met with Ms. Rice on Saturday night and again on Sunday, released a statement saying he told Ms. Rice that Israel needed 10 to 14 more days to complete its war aims.

“Do you think that, with the close relationship he has with Bush and Condi, he would go and say something like that without their consent?” one senior Israeli official asked.

The official, who asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak publicly on the issue, said he believed that American diplomats accepted that Israel’s armed forces needed more time to clear out a buffer zone in southern Lebanon before an international peacekeeping force could enter.

Even if Ms. Rice does begin work on a Security Council resolution on Thursday, he said, the resolution would probably take days to pass.

Ms. Rice was set to travel to Beirut on Sunday afternoon for talks with Lebanese leaders when the Qana bombing curtailed her trip.

At 8:38 Sunday morning, as Ms. Rice and Mr. Peretz were meeting in a suite at her hotel in Jerusalem, Assistant Secretary of State C. David Welch received an e-mail message — on his Blackberry — from Jeffrey D. Feldman, the United States ambassador to Lebanon, alerting him to the bombing. In the message, Mr. Feldman described some of the scenes broadcast on TV in Lebanon.

Mr. Welch, Blackberry in hand, went into the hotel suite to give Ms. Rice the news, a senior American official said. It was unclear, the official said, whether Mr. Peretz was already aware of it.

“She was sickened,” said the official, who asked that his name not be used because he was not authorized to speak about the meeting between Ms. Rice and Mr. Peretz. After the meeting, the official said, Ms. Rice told her staff, “We have to get it done.” She was referring to the 48-hour suspension of the aerial bombardment, he said.

In the meeting with Mr. Olmert and a later meeting with Ms. Livni, the foreign minister, Ms. Rice pushed for a temporary suspension of Israel’s airstrikes. Around 9:45 p.m. on Sunday, American officials in Jerusalem received a call from Mr. Olmert’s office that Israel was willing to commit to the suspension, beginning immediately.

    From Carnage in Lebanon, a Concession, NYT, 31.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/31/world/middleeast/31diplo.html?hp&ex=1154404800&en=af2dcf3365f625b2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Rice secures 48-hour suspension of Mideast bombing

Sun Jul 30, 2006 7:37 PM ET
Reuters
By Sue Pleming

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice won a 48-hour suspension from Israel of its aerial bombardment of south Lebanon but ended a stymied peace mission on Monday without a call for an overall ceasefire.

The announcement came after a tumultuous day of diplomacy following Israel's air strike on a Lebanese village that killed at least 54 people, most of them children, and led Rice to cancel a trip to Beirut after being told she was not welcome.

Israel would also coordinate with the United Nations to allow a 24-hour window for south Lebanon residents to leave the area if they wished, State Department spokesman Adam Ereli told reporters. Israeli officials confirmed the deals.

"Israel will only attack targets which are about to attack Israeli targets," an Israeli government spokesman said.

Ereli made clear Israel had the right to "take action against targets preparing attacks against it", in a restatement of U.S. policy on the Jewish state's right to defend itself.

"Israel has agreed to a 48-hour suspension of aerial activity in south Lebanon to investigate today's tragic incident in Qana," said Ereli, accompanying Rice on her trip.

Rice held extended meetings with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni at which the top U.S. diplomat urged Israel to use restraint after the Qana bombing, in which 37 children died while sheltering in a basement with their families.

GOAL

The goal of the suspension, said Ereli, was to improve the flow of humanitarian aid to ease the suffering of families and children in south Lebanon caught up in the 19-day war.

"The United States welcomes this decision and hopes that it will help to relieve the suffering of the children and families of Southern Lebanon," he said.

After the Qana bombing, Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora told Rice he did not want her to come to his country for planned meetings, saying he could not hold any talks on resolving the crisis before an immediate ceasefire.

Rice will leave for Washington on Monday after a week of Middle East diplomacy, but U.S. officials said they were still in close contact with Siniora's office. Rice is expected to make a statement at 0500 GMT (8 a.m. Israeli time) before she leaves.

A U.S. official said Rice wanted to go back to Washington to focus on getting a U.N. Security Council resolution for a "sustainable and durable" ceasefire.

The aerial bombardment suspension is a victory for Rice but her failure to call for an immediate ceasefire will disappoint many U.S. allies, already concerned before the Qana bombing about the hundreds of civilian casualties in the war.

At least 542 people have been killed in Lebanon, though the health minister estimated the toll at 750 including unrecovered bodies. Fifty-one Israelis have been killed in the war.

Rice, who was with Israel's defense minister when she heard of the bombing, said she was deeply saddened by the Qana killings but did not show any public anger toward the Jewish state, a strong U.S. ally.

Nevertheless, U.S. officials said privately she had strong words with Olmert and made her distress clear.

Both Israel and the United States have said an immediate ceasefire would be meaningless unless Hizbollah could no longer carry out raids and rocket attacks and the Shi'ite militia was eventually disarmed as demanded by a U.N. resolution.

At her meeting with Olmert, Rice discussed the size and mandate for an international force that could deploy in southern Lebanon to help ensure peace.

(Additional reporting by Jerusalem bureau)

    Rice secures 48-hour suspension of Mideast bombing, R, 30.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-07-30T233749Z_01_N27241929_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-RICE.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C5-politicsNews-3

Rice tactic under scrutiny with Mideast deaths

Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:37 PM ET
Reuters
By Sue Pleming

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Analysis - Israel's bombing of a Lebanese village on Sunday will make it harder for U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to continue to justify Washington's refusal to call for an immediate ceasefire.

The Israeli air strike killed at least 54 Lebanese civilians, including 37 children, in the southern village of Qana in the bloodiest single attack of the war. Rice canceled a trip to Beirut and will return to Washington on Monday.

The Bush administration's decision not to call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon is at odds with most U.S. allies and is seen as giving a green light to Israel to continue its bombardment.

At least 750 Lebanese, according to the country's health ministry, and 51 Israelis have died in the fighting that began on July 12 after Hizbollah captured two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.

"Major Israeli assaults on Lebanon have ended following a major killing of civilians. (The bombing) makes the pressure for an immediate ceasefire that much greater," said Nicholas Pelham of the International Crisis Group.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Warren Christopher, who conducted his own Middle East shuttle diplomacy in the 1990s, said in a hard-hitting editorial in the Washington Post that Rice's strategy would not work.

Christopher, writing before the Qana bombing, said Rice's oft-repeated goal of reaching a long-term solution rather than putting an end to the immediate carnage and getting a truce was "wrongly focused diplomacy".

"My own experience in the region underlies my belief that in the short term we should focus our efforts on stopping the killing," he said.

DEFENSIVE

The Bush administration bristles at criticism it is taking sides in the conflict. Rice's staff says claims that Washington is giving Israel a nod to continue bombing Lebanon are wrong.

However, hopes that Rice might have been close to getting a ceasefire deal have dissipated since the bombing and it changes the dynamics in the negotiations, with some analysts saying it will put Lebanon in a stronger position.

"This (bombing) will have an effect -- it will hinder Israel's negotiating stance," said Dan Sheuftan, a political science professor at the University of Haifa.

"But to stop the operation, to have a situation where it is dictated a political policy by the other side -- that option is not available at the moment."

Rice says her diplomacy is geared toward getting a "sustainable and durable" solution that tackles the root causes of the conflict and that the United States is not interested in a quick fix.

She also talks of resolving the Lebanon-Israeli conflict in the interests of creating a "new Middle East" with moderate leaders such as Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas rather than the likes of Hizbollah and the governing Palestinian Islamist group Hamas.

Arabs view her "new Middle East" talk with disdain, said Middle East analyst Shibley Telhami of the Brookings Institution, and are suspicious of U.S. motives just as they were with the Bush administration's democracy campaign.

Some analysts say the U.S. support for moderate governments could backfire, as it did in the Palestinian Territories when Abbas's Fatah movement was trounced by Hamas in parliamentary elections last January.

"There's a funny way in which new realities in the Middle East are often not better realities," said Jon Alterman of the Washington thinktank, the Center for Strategic and international Studies.

(Additional reporting by Jerusalem Bureau)

    Rice tactic under scrutiny with Mideast deaths, R, 30.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyid=2006-07-30T173646Z_01_L30817640_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&WTmodLoc=NewsArt-L1-RelatedNews-1

US urges restraint after Qana

Sun Jul 30, 2006 1:20 PM ET
Reuters
By Caren Bohan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States urged Israel on Sunday to take more care to avoid civilian casualties in Lebanon after an air strike killed at least 60 people, but still resisted calls for an immediate ceasefire.

White House spokesman Tony Snow said U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was working to arrange the conditions for a "sustainable" halt to the violence as soon as possible.

"This is a horrible event, a terrible event, and we certainly want to make it clear that not only do we feel sorrow for what happened, but determination that it really is important to end the conditions that led to that," Snow told a group of reporters by telephone.

President George W. Bush is under pressure from Arab leaders as well as many in Europe who want an immediate ceasefire.

Despite Sunday's events, he still insists on a resolution that aims to end Hizbollah's military control of southern Lebanon, officials said.

Snow repeated that "Israel does have a right to defend itself" but said it should show restraint and remember that in the end it will need to have positive relations with Lebanon and work for a two-state solution for the Palestinians.

Bush was informed of the Qana attack at 6:40 a.m. EDT (10:40 GMT) by national security adviser Stephen Hadley and discussed it on the telephone with Rice and Hadley.

Snow said Bush wanted to push ahead this week toward a U.N. Security Council resolution that would set conditions for a ceasefire and establish a multinational force.

The Security Council met in emergency session on Sunday with U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan urging the body to condemn the Qana attack and call for an immediate end to hostilities.

Despite growing calls around the world for an immediate ceasefire, the United States has insisted for days that hostilities should only be halted on a basis that will last.

It backs Israeli demands for the Lebanese army, bolstered by an international force, to deploy to the south of the country currently controlled by Hizbollah which has used the territory to rain rockets down on towns in northern Israel.

Images of destruction and mass civilian casualties in Lebanon are fueling anti-American fury throughout the entire Arab world and may force Israel to end its offensive sooner than it would like, without achieving its strategic goal of inflicting massive damage on Hizbollah.

Bush has insisted that a ceasefire package must include steps to compel Hizbollah to stop attacking Israel while putting pressure on Syria and Iran to stop arming Hizbollah with rockets and other weapons. (Additional reporting by Steve Holland)

    US urges restraint after Qana, R, 30.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-30T171955Z_01_N30230498_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-USA.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-9

Rice to return to US on Monday

Sun Jul 30, 2006 12:36 PM ET
Reuters
By Sue Pleming

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called off a trip to Lebanon after Israel bombed a village there on Sunday, but she stopped short of urging an immediate ceasefire to help end the war.

Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said he did not want her to come to his country, saying that after the air strike, he could not hold any talks on resolving the crisis before an immediate ceasefire.

Set to return to Washington on Monday, Rice's renewed push to end fighting between Israel and Hizbollah was derailed by the bombing which killed 54 people sheltering in a basement, 37 of them children.

"In the wake of the tragedy that the people and the government of Lebanon are dealing with today, I have decided to postpone my discussions in Beirut. In any case, my work is here (in Israel) today," Rice told reporters of the canceled Beirut trip.

Rice insisted she had canceled the Lebanon trip and not the other way around.

With her options for shuttle diplomacy now limited, a U.S. official said Rice would back be in Washington late on Monday where she would focus on getting a U.N. resolution for a "sustainable and durable" ceasefire.

She said she was "deeply saddened" by the Israeli bombing of the village of Qana in southern Lebanon, but did not call for an immediate ceasefire.

She said instead she would work very hard to try to end the hostilities. At least 542 people have been killed in Lebanon, although the health minister estimated the toll at 750 including unrecovered bodies. Fifty-one Israelis have also been killed.

"I think it is time to get to a ceasefire. We actually have to try and put one in place," Rice said.

But Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, while voicing "deep sorrow" over the deaths, said Israel was not yet ready to stop its war against Hizbollah.

Rice, who spoke to the European Union's Javier Solana, Britain's Margaret Beckett and the United Nations's Kofi Annan about her plans, was set to have more talks with Olmert as well as his Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni later on Sunday.

DISTRESS

Rice was with Israel's defense minister when she heard of the bombing, but did not show anger toward Israel for the attack. Nevertheless, officials insisted she would have strong words with Olmert.

"We are making clear to the Israelis our distress at this," said one official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Both Israel and the United States have said a ceasefire would be meaningless unless Hizbollah could no longer carry out raids and rocket attacks and the Shi'ite militia could be eventually disarmed as demanded by a U.N. resolution.

Conscious of opinion in the region after the Qana bombing, Rice's staff asked the television network traveling with her to quickly relay her comments to Arab networks.

Washington has been accused of taking sides with Israel by not calling for an immediate ceasefire but Rice said she had pressed the Israelis hard on the need for "extraordinary care" to avoid civilian casualties.

She also indicated there were still broad differences between both sides over how to get to a ceasefire deal and what sequence of events should take place before any truce.

"We are also pushing for an urgent end to the current hostilities but the views of the parties on how to achieve this are different," she said.

At the United Nations there are also divisions over how to tackle the crisis, with countries bickering over what to include in a U.N. resolution that is expected to ask for up to 20,000 international troops to go to south Lebanon, but probably only when fighting ends.

    Rice to return to US on Monday, R, 30.7.2006,http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-30T163623Z_01_N27241929_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-RICE.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-7

Israeli Attack Kills Dozens as Rice Postpones Lebanon Trip

July 30, 2006
The New York Times
By SABRINA TAVERNISE and CHRISTINE HAUSER

QANA, Lebanon, July 30 — A series of Israeli airstrikes in this small mountain town today killed dozens of people in the deadliest single attack in the war here so far, prompting Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to cancel a trip to Lebanon, where she had been due to hold talks with government officials nearly three weeks into the fighting.

The attack in Qana appeared to propel the conflict, and the American diplomatic effort to address it, into a critical new escalation, as the Lebanese government said it could not negotiate with the bloodshed continuing and as anger in Lebanon broadened to include the United States and United Nations.

It also drew from Hezbollah vows of reprisal and highlighted Israel’s determination to continue attacking targets in Lebanon side-by-side with any political moves to end the fighting. The Israeli prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said Israel needed another 10 to 14 days to press its offensive, according to a senior Israeli official.

The strikes on Qana came as Ms. Rice was in Israel to press for a substantive agreement that could lead to a more rapid cease-fire and the insertion of an international force along the Lebanon. She is expected to return to Washington on Monday, bypassing her trip to Beirut.

At least 57 people were killed, including 37 children, in the strikes in Qana. Rescue workers and neighbors worked frantically to find survivors among the wreckage of a house, where two large extended families were hiding in a garage. Six small children, their mouths open and full of dirt, were brought out and laid on stretchers.

“I felt as if I was turning around, and the earth was going up, and I was going into the earth,” said Mohamed Chaloub, a father of five who was thrown into a doorway and managed to escape. All five of his children, including a 2-year-old child, were killed. His wife, sister and aunt were also killed.

Responding to the strikes on Qana, the White House urged Israel today to take more care to avoid civilian casualties in Lebanon. It said that Ms. Rice was working to arrange the conditions for a “sustainable” halt to the violence.

Ms. Rice, on her way back to the region from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, had praised the Lebanese government, which includes two Hezbollah ministers, for agreeing on the outlines of a possible cease-fire package.

Ms. Rice called the Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, and told him that she felt that “this would not be the day for her to come to Beirut,” according to R. Nicholas Burns, the undersecretary of state for political affairs.

“She felt she had work to do in Israel,” he told CNN’s Late Edition.

While there has been a sense that President Bush, after his meeting in Washington with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, had suddenly decided to give Israel a shorter period in which to attack Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon, Mr. Olmert said in a statement today that Israel was not “rushing in” to a cease-fire before Israel had achieved its goals.

Mr. Olmert said today that Israel regretted the death of civilians in Qana, where he said Hezbollah had fired rockets at Kiryat Shmona and Afula.

The Israeli government said in a statement on its Foreign Ministry’s Web site that the Israeli Army had attacked missile launch sites in the area of Qana, from where it said hundreds of missiles were launched towards the Israeli city of Nahariya and the communities in the western Galilee.

Israel said residents in Qana and the region had been warned several days in advance to leave the village.

Today, Mr. Siniora said Qana’s residents were not warned. He described a scene in the region illustrating the difficulties for civilian evacuations, saying the Israeli strikes had cut “the whole country into pieces,” destroyed bridges and blanketed the village with 50 airstrikes at night.

“What I have said to Secretary Rice, that we have been all the past days working in trying to find out a way to really bring an immediate cease-fire,” Mr. Siniora said on the CBS News program “Face the Nation.”

“What we have really been witnessing is something beyond description. And this is something that is unacceptable, and that’s why we are asking for an immediate and unconditional cease-fire,” he said.

“We cannot continue discussing under the sort of blood that is being put on our necks,” Mr. Siniora added.

He said that part of the problem is that “Israel is still occupying a part of Lebanon. The Shebaa Farms are still being occupied by Israel. It’s high time to find a solution.”

The United Nations has ruled that the Shebaa Farms area of the border is officially part of Syria but Hezbollah claims it is part of Lebanon.

Mr. Burns said Ms. Rice supported the Lebanese government and wanted to see it strengthened, especially by extending its sovereignty down to the southern border with Israel, a region where Hezbollah had become a “state within a state”.

“Obviously, what happened today in Qana is a tragedy and we hope very, very much this kind of incident will not be repeated in the future,” he said. “But Israel does have a right to defend itself.”

He said attention now needed to be turned to creating a “sustainable” cease-fire.

In Qana, neighbors said that they ran to the house after the first strike, around 1 a.m. local time, and that they heard screams and tried to reach people trapped inside, but the strikes persisted and they could not reach them. Later in the morning, rescue workers pulled bodies of 22 people out of the rubble, but neighbors said more bodies were inside.

The death toll climbed as rescue workers retrieved more people from the collapsed building, carrying limp bodies away on stretchers and in blankets.

Thousands protested in Beirut today and a mob of young men started breaking windows and damaging buildings. Television footage showed crowds of men attacking a United Nations building in the capital.

The Israeli government said Hezbollah had “turned the suburbs of Lebanon into a war front by firing missiles from within civilian areas.” It said 18 Israeli civilians have been killed and over 400 have been wounded by Hezbollah rocket attacks, which have disrupted the lives of tens of thousands of Israeli citizens.

The United Nations Security Council met for an emergency session today to discuss Lebanon at the request of Secretary General Kofi Annan. Mr. Annan said he hoped council members would realize “how dangerous the situation is and how it can’t escalate and get out of hand and the urgency for them to act,” Reuters reported.

Ms. Rice is working to draft a Security Council resolution that would allow for the insertion of 15,000 to 20,000 international peacekeepers along the Lebanese border with Israel and along Lebanon’s border with Syria, to prevent the rearming of Hezbollah. The force would also work with the Lebanese Army to enable it to begin patrolling the border itself.

American officials said they might seek a resolution authorizing the force as early as Wednesday. The United States has been isolated in its refusal to call for an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, arguing that the conditions were not ripe for a sustainable cease-fire.

But the international cry for a halt to Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon has been growing, especially after Israel hit a United Nations post, killing four United Nations observers. Israel denied the accusation by Mr. Annan that the post was deliberately hit, but with the death toll in Lebanon reported by officials there to be more 450 people, mostly civilians, pressure on the United States has been growing to give Mr. Olmert an earlier deadline.

Sabrina Tavernise reported from Qana, Lebanon, for this article, and Christine Hauser from New York. Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

    Israeli Attack Kills Dozens as Rice Postpones Lebanon Trip, NYT, 30.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30cnd-mideast.html?hp&ex=1154318400&en=59074a966f18b6b3&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Rice cancels Beirut trip

Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:51 AM ET
Reuters
By Sue Pleming

JERUSALEM (Reuters) - Her diplomatic mission in jeopardy after Israel's bombing of a Lebanese village, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice canceled a visit to Beirut on Sunday, saying she had work to do in Israel to get a truce.

Rice, who returned to the region on Saturday in a new push to bring the warring sides together, said she was "deeply saddened" by the Israeli bombing of the village of Qana in southern Lebanon, killing 40 civilians including 23 children.

"In the wake of the tragedy that the people and the government of Lebanon are dealing with today, I have decided to postpone my discussions in Beirut. In any case, my work is here today," Rice told reporters, adding that she had canceled the trip and not the other way around.

She spoke after Lebanon's Prime Minister Fouad Siniora said, after the latest Israeli bombing, he could not hold any talks on resolving the Middle East crisis before an immediate ceasefire.

"There is no place on this sad morning for any discussion other than an immediate and unconditional ceasefire as well as an international investigation into the Israeli massacres in Lebanon now," Siniora told a news conference in Beirut.

Hundreds of protesters chanting "Death to Israel, Death to America" stormed the U.N. headquarters in Beirut after the bloodiest single attack of the war.

Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he was in no hurry to strike a ceasefire before Israel had "reached the main objectives" set forth by the Jewish state.

WORKING ON TRUCE

Rice stopped short of calling for an immediate ceasefire, but said she would work very hard to try and end hostilities between Lebanon's Hizbollah guerrillas and Israeli forces that have killed more than 500 Lebanese and 51 Israelis.

"I think it is time to get to a ceasefire. We actually have to try and put one in place," Rice said.

The United States has been accused of taking sides with the Israelis by not calling for an immediate ceasefire but Rice said she had pressed the case that "extraordinary care" needed to be taken to avoid civilian casualties.

Rice strongly rejected any suggestion that the United States was somehow responsible for the violence and said it had been working very hard to deal with the current crisis and find a way to address humanitarian concerns.

"I am here in pretty difficult and dicey circumstances because I do believe that it is better to try and address these issues face to face with the parties," she said.

But she repeated that a ceasefire could not mean a return to the position before the 19-day war, which was triggered by Hizbollah's abduction of two Israeli soldiers on July 12.

Both Israel and the United States have said they want to ensure that Hizbollah can no longer carry out raids and rocket attacks and is eventually disarmed under a U.N. resolution.

"We have to try and do our work well so that there will not be more and more and more incidents over many, many more years," Rice said.

U.S. officials have said negotiations are very tough with Israel, which wants to finish its campaign against Hizbollah.

Rice hinted at these difficulties and said while she believed the warring parties were getting closer, they had some way to go.

"We are also pushing for an urgent end to the current hostilities but the views of the parties on how to achieve this are different," she said."

    Rice cancels Beirut trip, R, 30.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-30T105118Z_01_N27241929_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-RICE.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C2-TopNews-newsOne-2

Antimissile Weapon

U.S. and Israel Shelved Laser as a Defense

July 30, 2006
The New York Times
By WILLIAM J. BROAD

Ten years ago, in a preview of the current Middle East crisis, Hezbollah guerrillas fired hundreds of Katyusha rockets into Israel. The attacks prompted President Bill Clinton and the Israeli prime minister, Shimon Peres, to agree to develop a futuristic laser meant to destroy the rockets in flight.

But last September, after spending more than $300 million, the United States and Israel quietly shelved the experimental weapon, mainly because of its bulkiness, high costs and poor anticipated results on the battlefield.

“Frankly, its performance was not great,” said Penrose C. Albright, a former Pentagon official who helped initiate the project. “Under certain conditions you can make it work. But under salvo or cloudy conditions, you’ve got problems. In northern Israel, about 30 percent of the time, you’ve got a cloud deck.”

He and other military experts say the aborted project is a case study in the challenges of building antimissile weapons and the consequences of failure. Today, northern Israel remains defenseless against the Katyushas and other small rockets.

The project to build an anti-Katyusha shield, called the tactical high energy laser, was approved by the United States and Israel in April 1996. The next month, a California contractor, TRW, won an $89 million contract to design, build and test the laser in just 22 months. Aided by Israel and the United States Army, TRW worked hard at the White Sands Missile Range in New Mexico to make the novel idea come to life.

Skeptics on Capitol Hill faulted the effort from the start, calling it seductive but doomed because of the would-be weapon’s size, complexity and vulnerability to enemy attack.

“It was a sitting duck,” recalled Subrata Ghoshroy, who studied the project in 1996 for the House International Relations Committee and now analyzes military issues at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. The rupture of its fuel tanks, he said, would have produced clouds of corrosive acid, endangering defenders as well as nearby civilians.

Roughly the size of six city buses, the prototype weapon was made up of modules that held a command center, radar and a telescope for tracking targets, the chemical laser itself, tanks to feed it tons of fuel and a rotating mirror to bounce its beam toward speeding targets.

As often happens in the federal development of death rays, parts failed and costs soared. A March 1999 report by the General Accounting Office found that valves leaked, releasing toxic fluids, and that the laser’s test schedule was slipping.

“Technical problems and their associated program delays,” the Congressional investigators said, “demonstrate the complex nature of developing laser weapons.”

In June 2000, more than two years behind schedule, the laser flashed to life at White Sands and succeeded in destroying an armed Katyusha in flight. Soon, it shot down two dozen more rockets, though military officials say its testers never challenged its sensors and laser beam with more than two Katyushas at a time.

Pentagon officials praised the effort as the first with the potential to turn flashing beams of concentrated light into a weapon suitable for antimissile defense. Contractors hailed the laser’s ability to defeat salvo launchings. But the system was ultimately judged as too costly, feeble and unwieldy for battlefield use.

Yiftah S. Shapir, a military analyst at the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University, said one guerrilla with a rocket launcher could fire 40 Katyushas in less than a minute, easily overwhelming most any defense.

He added that shooting the laser just once would have cost roughly $3,000, and that “protecting the whole border of Israel would have required a few dozen of these systems,” their cost running to billions of dollars.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said, “The program was terminated because of its prohibitive costs.”

Some politicians have criticized the decision. Yuval Steinitz, a Likud member and former chairman of the Foreign and Defense Committee of the Israeli Parliament, called the move shortsighted. “It was a serious mistake for Israel not to give top priority to efforts to create rocket and short-missile defenses,’’ he said.

Dr. Albright, the former Pentagon official, now an analyst at Civitas Group, a defense consulting and investment firm in Washington, said the decade-long effort to develop the laser weapon had an unhappy moral.

“There’s not much you can do against rockets,” he said, “except control the launch area or go into shelters.”

Today, the experimental laser sits in storage, its maintenance costing more than $1 million a year, said Scott McPheeters, an Army official in charge of the project at the Aviation and Missile Command.

    U.S. and Israel Shelved Laser as a Defense, NYT, 30.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30laser.html?ref=middleeast

Rice Returns to Israel to Press for Cease-Fire

July 30, 2006
The New York Times
By STEVEN ERLANGER and HELENE COOPER

JERUSALEM, July 29 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice returned to Israel on Saturday evening to press for a substantive agreement that could lead to a more rapid cease-fire and the insertion of an international force along the Lebanese border with Israel.

Ms. Rice, on her way back from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, praised the Lebanese government, which includes two Hezbollah ministers, for agreeing on the outlines of a possible cease-fire package.

As she spoke of “fairly intense” negotiations to come with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel, there was a sense here that President Bush, after his meeting in Washington with Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, had suddenly decided to give Israel a shorter period in which to hammer Hezbollah forces in southern Lebanon.

Ms. Rice is working to draft a United Nations Security Council resolution that would allow for the insertion of 15,000 to 20,000 international peacekeepers along the Lebanese border with Israel and along Lebanon’s border with Syria, to prevent the rearming of Hezbollah. The force would also work with the Lebanese Army to enable it to begin patrolling the border itself.

On Saturday night, Ms. Rice had dinner with Mr. Olmert, but American officials said they would not describe the discussion.

On Monday, there will be a meeting at the United Nations to discuss which nations might contribute to such a force. American officials said they might seek a Security Council resolution authorizing the force as early as Wednesday. The United States has been isolated in its refusal to call for an immediate cessation of hostilities between Israel and Lebanon, arguing that the conditions were not ripe for a sustainable cease-fire.

But the international cry for a halt to Israeli airstrikes in Lebanon has been growing, especially after Israel hit a United Nations post, killing four United Nations observers. Israel denied the accusation by Secretary General Kofi Annan that the post was deliberately hit, but with the death toll in Lebanon reported by officials there to be nearing 450 people, mostly civilians, pressure on the United States has been growing to give Mr. Olmert an earlier deadline.

After days of heavy fighting, Israel pulled thousands of ground troops out of the contested southern Lebanese town of Bint Jbail on Saturday, but continued to hit it with artillery and rockets.

Maj. Gen. Udi Adam, the head of the Israeli Northern Command, said troops are still fighting around the town. “We didn’t intend to capture Bint Jbail. The objective — still — is to destroy as many infrastructures and terrorists in the area as possible. Bint Jbail is pretty much in ruins.”

He said that the Israelis control the area and added, “We have no intention of getting stuck in one spot.”

A senior Israeli official said Israeli troops had destroyed the intricate network of tunnels and underground barracks and storage facilities that Hezbollah had built around Bint Jbail.

The Israeli official, who spoke under government rules that he not be identified, described how Hezbollah fighters would move through the tunnels to emerge and fire antitank missiles at Israeli soldiers and armor. The official said Israeli forces had discovered significant intelligence material, including Hezbollah war plans, maps and communications.

The official said Saturday that the military had killed about 300 Hezbollah fighters, including some senior commanders, since fighting began more than two weeks ago. That differs greatly with Hezbollah’s insistence that only a few dozen of its fighters have been killed, and appears to clash with the Lebanese government’s death toll, though Israel has refused to comment on estimates of civilian deaths in Lebanon.

Officials in Israel say that 19 Israeli civilians and 33 soldiers have been killed.

Hezbollah’s television station, Al Manar, broadcast a statement by the group’s leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah, in which he threatened to continue rocket attacks against Israel and called for unity and patience from the Lebanese, saying that Israel had suffered “serious defeat” in its incursion in Bint Jbail and other southern Lebanese towns.

Brig. Gen. Alon Friedman, of Israel’s Northern Command, told Israel Radio that Hezbollah’s use of long-range Syrian rockets against Afula on Friday was evidence of its increasing distress. He said Hezbollah may be having difficulty launching its shorter-range rockets, although at least 90 hit northern Israel on Saturday, mostly in Nahariye and Maalot.

Another northern general, Brig. Gen. Ido Nehushtan, said heavy fighting was taking a toll on Hezbollah’s fighters. “We’re crippling Hezbollah,” he said. “From the military point of view, this campaign could go on for many weeks. A sustainable peace is the crucial point.”

According to Lebanese television, the main border crossing point between Syria and Lebanon was closed Saturday evening after an airstrike near the border on the Lebanese side. The airport and all ports have been shut for more than two weeks, effectively isolating Lebanon from the outside world.

In preparation for Ms. Rice’s visit, Mr. Olmert held a meeting on Saturday with Defense Minister Amir Peretz and the Israeli chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Dan Halutz.

On Saturday, Israel also rejected a call from the United Nations Emergency Relief Coordinator, Jan Egeland, for a 72-hour truce to let relief workers evacuate elderly, young and wounded people and deliver emergency aid.

An Israeli spokesman, Avi Pazner, said, “There is no need for a 72-hour temporary cease-fire because Israel has opened a humanitarian corridor to and from Lebanon.”

The Lebanese government discussed its package of cease-fire negotiating points during an international meeting on Wednesday in Rome and in a six-hour cabinet session with Prime Minister Fouad Siniora late on Thursday night and Friday morning. The government, which had been authorized by Hezbollah to negotiate on its behalf, agreed that a solution to the crisis could include beefing up of Unifil, the current United Nations force.

But the Lebanese package does not mention a new, more aggressive international force of the kind Ms. Rice is promoting.

Some in Lebanon suggested that any Hezbollah agreement to such points would be tentative and that the group was counting on Israel to reject the proposals. The Lebanese want an immediate cease-fire, an exchange of prisoners, a map of Israeli minefields in southern Lebanon and possession of the Shabaa Farms border area.

One of the Hezbollah members of the Lebanese Parliament, Hussein Haj Hassan, confirmed that there were sticking points in the government’s cease-fire package as it was presented in the cabinet meeting.

“We underscored our support for the government, but also stressed reservations about two issues in the discussion: in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from Shabaa Farms, who gets sovereignty? Mr. Siniora said the U.N.,” he said. “And over the issue of the international forces: we are not for or against, but we insist that these issues not be debated before a full cease-fire.”

Israel has ruled out a cease-fire separate from a larger deal and has rejected bargaining on prisoners. But it demanded the release of two captured Israeli soldiers, and has kept Shabaa Farms, which the United Nations determined was part of the Golan Heights of Syria, not part of Lebanon. In fact, Israel captured it from Syria in the 1967 war. Syria, which supports Hezbollah, says that the land is Lebanon’s but has refused to cede it legally.

There are lasting doubts and differences, too, over the United Nations Security Council’s demands that the Lebanese government disarm Hezbollah. Many Lebanese view the militant group’s power as a point of pride, and its fighters control the entire southern part of the country.

When asked in an interview with Reuters on Saturday about demands that the group disarm and make way for an international force in South Lebanon, Naim Kassem, Hezbollah’s deputy chief, vehemently denied that they would be met. “America and Israel have no right to get a result from their defeat,” he said in Beirut. “There is no victory for America and Israel for them to make political gains.”

On her flight to Israel, Ms. Rice praised Mr. Siniora’s efforts to find a consensus, saying, “The most important thing that this does for the process is that it shows a Lebanese government that is functioning as a Lebanese government.”

She said of Mr. Siniora, “That he is able to go back and bring his government together around a way forward is very encouraging,” and added, “He knows that he has some backing from the international community.”

“These are really hard and emotional decisions for both sides under extreme pressure in a difficult set of circumstances,” Ms. Rice said. “Obviously we are all trying to get to a cease-fire as quickly as possible.”

Ms. Rice is to meet Sunday with two senior Israeli cabinet officials, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and the defense minister, Mr. Peretz. American officials said they had not decided whether she would then return to Beirut for further talks with Mr. Siniora.

Israeli tanks moved back into Gaza on Saturday and attacked a site on the Gaza-Egyptian border where militants were making a tunnel, the army said. Palestinians said the attack cut power in the town of Rafah.

Israeli aircraft also bombed a building housing a weapons cache in Gaza City, the army said.

Steven Erlanger reported from Jerusalem for this article, and Helene Cooper from Doha, Qatar. Hassan M. Fattah and Jad Mouawad contributed reporting from Beirut.

    Rice Returns to Israel to Press for Cease-Fire, NYT, 30.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/30/world/middleeast/30mideast.html?hp&ex=1154318400&en=cfe84bcd71e005c5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Rice heads to Israel

Sat Jul 29, 2006 1:47 AM ET
Reuters
By Tom Perry

BEIRUT (Reuters) - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice headed for Israel on Saturday to discuss terms for a U.N. Security Council resolution to end its 18-day-old war with Hizbollah guerrillas in Lebanon.

Rice, who visited Jerusalem and Beirut earlier in the week, will meet Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. She will also hold talks with Lebanese Prime Minister Fouad Siniora, who has been pleading for an immediate cease-fire.

"(Rice's) instructions are to work with Israel and Lebanon to come up with an acceptable U.N. Security Council resolution that we can table next week," President Bush told a news conference in Washington on Friday.

Bush, speaking after talks with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, said an international force should be sent quickly to southern Lebanon.

The two leaders did not call for an immediate cease-fire, saying a settlement must tackle Hizbollah's influence in Lebanon. Bush has said the Shi'ite Muslim guerrillas and their main allies Syria and Iran are to blame for the conflict.

Hizbollah says it is fighting a U.S.-Israeli plan to wipe out all Israel's foes in the Middle East and has vowed to accept no "humiliating" terms to end the violence.

International concern has mounted at civilian casualties in the war and at the humanitarian crisis it has caused in Lebanon.

At least 462 people, mostly civilians, have been killed in Lebanon since the conflict erupted on July 12 when Hizbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid.

Hizbollah, which wants to swap the soldiers for Lebanese and Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, has killed 51 Israelis, 18 of them civilians hit by rockets fired into the Jewish state.

In Seattle, a woman was killed when a gunman fired at the offices of a Jewish organization that arranged a rally in support of Israel. The gunman was reported to have shouted: "I'm a Muslim American. I'm angry at Israel."

CEASEFIRE TERMS

Rice has echoed Bush's stance that the root causes of the conflict -- meaning Hizbollah's armed presence in Lebanon and its ability to menace Israel -- must dealt with before an effective truce can be secured.

"We hope to achieve an early end to this violence," Rice told a news conference in Malaysia before leaving for Israel.

U.S. officials said much work remained to get the two sides to sign up to conditions for a cease-fire. "This is evolving hour by hour," said one senior official, adding it was unclear whether the U.N. resolution would be ready by Monday.

Issues on the table include the release of the two captured Israeli soldiers as part of a prisoner exchange, the creation of the international force on the border between Lebanon and Israel, and the disarming of Hizbollah.

Israel said it killed 26 Hizbollah guerrillas in fighting in the town of Bint Jbeil in southern Lebanon on Friday, which it said took the number of guerrillas killed in the war to more than 200. Hizbollah says 31 guerrillas have died.

Israeli warplanes and artillery pounded villages near Lebanon's southern port of Tyre, killing at least 13 people, while four more died in air strikes in the eastern Bekaa valley.

Hizbollah fired scores of rockets into Israel, including at least one that the group said was a new "Khaibar 1" longer range missile. Israeli police said 13 people were wounded.

The longer range rocket landed near the town of Afula, about 50 km (30 miles) inside Israel. It matched the furthest that Hizbollah rockets had struck since the conflict began.

A blast near a convoy evacuating civilians stranded in the village of Rmeish in southern Lebanon wounded at least three people. Witnesses said an Israeli shell caused the blast. Israel said there was no indication the fire came from its forces.

Hundreds of Shi'ites had taken refuge in the Christian village, where some were reduced to drinking pond water.

U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Jan Egeland urged a 72-hour truce to enable relief workers to evacuate elderly, young and wounded people from the south and to deliver aid.

"There is something fundamentally wrong with a war where there are more dead children than armed men," said Egeland.

    Rice heads to Israel, R, 29.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-29T054634Z_01_L21898716_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-newsOne-2

Diplomacy

Bush and Blair Push Plan to End Mideast Fighting

July 29, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, July 28 — President Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain said Friday that they would present a plan to end hostilities between Israel and Hezbollah at the United Nations next week as Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice headed into an urgent round of weekend meetings in the Middle East to hash out the details.

Facing pressure from Arab and European allies to end the violence, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair, at a joint White House appearance, painted the broad outlines of a plan in which an international peacekeeping force would insert itself between the warring sides and help the weak Lebanese military take control of the southern region controlled by Hezbollah.

But aides acknowledged that the hard work of figuring out what Lebanon and Israel would accept, and how an international force would be composed, lay ahead.

Israel wants to weaken Hezbollah and push it well away from the border, and may not be ready to call off its campaign, especially when it has serious doubts that an international force would be strong enough to contain Hezbollah. And Hezbollah, which built its reputation on its willingness to fight Israel, has always rejected calls to disarm, and seems to have a flow of military and financial support from Syria and Iran.

The challenges of any cease-fire plan were evident during another day of heavy fighting that included ominous signs of potential escalation. Hezbollah fired a powerful long-range rocket that it said it had not used before.

It penetrated 30 miles into Israeli territory, and while a few other rockets have traveled that far, Israeli officials said the kind launched Friday can carry more than 200 pounds of explosives, making it much more powerful than the Katyusha rocket that Hezbollah has mainly used. Several were launched as part of a barrage of at least 100 rockets that pounded Israel on Friday.

Israel continued its own intensive airstrikes and artillery barrages in southern Lebanon, and warned civilians south of the Litani River to move north in a sign that it would move farther into Lebanese territory. At least 13 people were killed in the strikes, adding to a death toll of at least 400, according to Lebanese officials, who say most of those people were civilians.

The rising civilian death toll has placed added pressure on Mr. Bush from European and Arab allies who have called for an immediate cease-fire. But Mr. Bush has said that Israel cannot stop its attacks unless Hezbollah does first. Still, after a 90-minute meeting in the Oval Office, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair voiced concern about mounting civilian casualties, and said they were eager to see the fighting end as quickly as possible.

“Our top priorities in Lebanon are providing immediate humanitarian relief, achieving an end to the violence, ensuring the return of displaced persons, and assisting with reconstruction,” Mr. Bush said.

But both reiterated their position that any cease-fire resolution must include a long-term plan to disarm Hezbollah and evict it from southern Lebanon. The Israelis, and the Arab world as well, have taken the United States position as a tacit go-ahead to Israel to continue its campaign.

A high-level administration official involved in the talks, who was given anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, said the United States and Britain had a plan that would play out over the next several days. He said Ms. Rice, who is expected to arrive in Jerusalem on Saturday, would try to obtain an agreement between Israel and Lebanon in which they state the need for the fighting to end and that lays out terms for ending it, though he did not elaborate on what those terms might be.

But the official said that a political agreement would not be possible unless both sides were convinced that the international force would be strong enough to hold the southern territory, protect Israel and help the Lebanese government wrest control of the area from Hezbollah. The United Nations will begin talks about the makeup of the force on Monday, though the official said it was almost certain that United States troops would not be part of it.

The official said that with those elements in place, the United States, Britain and others could push for a United Nations resolution calling for an end to the conflict in a way that ensured Hezbollah would no longer be in a position to hurl rockets at Israel, which would withdraw its troops from the area. Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair stressed their new round of diplomatic efforts to forge a consensus to end the crisis, a painstaking process that could give Israel more time to hack away at Hezbollah.

“This approach will demonstrate the international community’s determination to support the government of Lebanon and defeat the threat from Hezbollah and its foreign sponsors,” Mr. Bush said. “This approach will make possible what so many around the world want to see: the end of Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel, the return of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by the terrorists, the suspension of Israel’s operations in Lebanon, and the withdrawal of Israeli forces.”

Speaking in the East Room of the White House, Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair presented a united front as they pushed a position that was at odds with European and Arab allies who have been calling for an “immediate cease-fire.” Their appearance stood in stark contrast to a meeting in Rome on Wednesday in which Ms. Rice fought, successfully, with other world dignitaries over her insistence that a joint statement declare that the gathered nations would “work immediately” toward a cease-fire.

On the eve of Mr. Blair’s trip here, there was widespread speculation in the news media that the prime minister — who has paid a steep political toll for siding so strongly with Mr. Bush on foreign policy — would distance himself from the president by joining that call. But he stood right by Mr. Bush’s side as he has so many times. They cast the conflict in terms of the broader fight against terrorism — arguing that in Lebanon, the Palestinian territories and Iraq, Islamist militants were trying to beat back democracy.

“It’s a global movement, it’s a global ideology,” Mr. Blair said. “We’re not going to defeat this ideology until we in the West go out with sufficient confidence in our own position and say, this is wrong. It’s not just wrong in its methods, it’s wrong in its ideas, it’s wrong in its ideology, it’s wrong in every single wretched reactionary thing about it.”

The United States and Britain are hoping that a United Nations Security Council resolution will force Iran and Syria to tread carefully before rearming Hezbollah, even though an existing resolution calling for the disarming of Lebanese militias has not been carried out. The Bush administration is also hoping that an international agreement will convince Hezbollah that it cannot continue to function as a military organization.

But the strategy depends on a weak Lebanese government being able to stand up to Hezbollah and on Israel pushing Hezbollah out of southern Lebanon. And it assumes that a settlement can be reached without Syrian assistance, something few diplomats, except those in the Bush administration, think is possible. The administration does not talk to Syria; it withdrew its ambassador last year after the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister. United Nations investigators have linked Syria to the killing.

United States officials hope that their main Arab allies — Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia — can pressure Syria to distance itself from Iran and endorse the peace plan. Mr. Bush said, “My message to Syria is, become an active participant in the neighborhood for peace.”

Jim Rutenberg reported from Washington for this article, and Helene Cooper from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Greg Myre contributed reporting from Jerusalem.

    Bush and Blair Push Plan to End Mideast Fighting, NYT, 29.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/world/middleeast/29mideast.html?hp&ex=1154232000&en=3604b11bd8c618b7&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Editorial

Still a Bad Deal

July 28, 2006
The New York Times
 

Many on Capitol Hill complained last year that the Bush administration got taken to the cleaners when it negotiated a nuclear cooperation deal with India. But with so much pro-India lobbying money sloshing around up there, hopes are fast fading that Congress will do anything to fix it.

The agreement will allow the United States to sell civilian nuclear technology and fuel to India for the first time since the mid-1970’s, when India diverted civil technology to a secret weapons program. Bringing the world’s most populous democracy — and 12th-largest economy — in from the nuclear cold isn’t necessarily a bad idea. The problem is that the United States got very little for it. No Indian promise to stop producing bomb-making material. No promise not to expand its arsenal. And no binding promise not to resume nuclear testing. (The White House won’t promise that either.)

This page has listed all the costs of turning the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty — which India has never joined — into Swiss cheese, including making it harder to restrain Iran and North Korea. But if that’s still too theoretical, consider this: an American think tank revealed this week that Pakistan, India’s neighbor and nuclear rival, has been building a new reactor that could produce enough plutonium for 40 to 50 weapons a year. The White House, which insists that the Indian deal won’t feed a new South Asian arms race, had to admit that it had known about the Pakistani reactor for “some time.”

An army of lobbyists earned their keep this week when the House overwhelmingly approved the Indian deal with minimal restrictions. Lawmakers insisted that they get to vote again after the administration gets a formal agreement. But that has more to do with political prerogatives than nonproliferation. And the outcome is likely to be the same.

The current Senate version, which probably won’t come up until September, is only slightly better. It prohibits the United States from selling India technology that can produce fuel for either a reactor or a nuclear weapon. That won’t stop India from producing more bomb-grade material, but at least Americans can be comforted that our equipment isn’t making it. Of course, the more American uranium India buys for its power reactors, the more Indian uranium it will have for its weapons program.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh of India is getting beaten up at home at the slightest hint that Congress might constrain any part of India’s nuclear program. That suggests that Washington and New Delhi could have done far better building their new partnership on something other than a bad nuclear deal.

    Still a Bad Deal, NYT, 28.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/opinion/28fri1.html

Bush Cites Iran's Role in Lebanon Conflict

July 28, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:58 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush declined Thursday to criticize Israel's tactics in its continuing offensive against Hezbollah guerrillas in southern Lebanon, and gave a sharp condemnation of Iran's role in the bloody fighting.

''Hezbollah attacked Israel. I know Hezbollah is connected to Iran,'' Bush said tersely at the end of Oval Office meetings with Romanian President Traian Basescu. ''Now is the time for the world to confront this danger,'' Bush said.

The president was responding to statements from top Israeli officials that fighting could continue for several weeks more. Israeli Justice Minister Haim Ramon said world leaders, in failing to call for an immediate cease-fire during a Rome summit, gave Israel a green light to push harder to wipe out Hezbollah.

Bush said he hoped to see the violence end ''as quickly as possible'' and repeated his call for Israel to try to limit the impact on civilians. But he suggested that the Israeli campaign has his support for as long as it takes to eliminate Hezbollah's influence in Lebanon and its ability to attack neighbor Israel.

''Now is the time to address the root cause of the problem and the root cause of the problem is terrorist groups trying to stop the advance of democracy,'' he said. ''Our objective is to make sure that those who use terrorist tactics are not rewarded.''

The Israeli offensive, which began after Hezbollah crossed the border and captured two Israeli soldiers, continued Thursday as Bush spoke. Israeli jets pounded suspected Hezbollah positions across Lebanon on Thursday, and guerrilla rockets continued to hit northern Israel.

In response, the al-Qaida terrorist network threatened new attacks, its first comment on fighting now in its third week. The videotape by Osama bin Laden deputy Ayman al-Zawahri also was the first sign that al-Qaida aimed to exploit Israel's two-pronged offensive -- against Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas-linked militants in Gaza -- to rally Islamic militants.

''I'm not surprised people who use terrorist tactics would start speaking out,'' the president said. ''Here's a fellow who is in a remote region of the world putting out statements basically encouraging people to use terrorist tactics to kill innocent people to achieve their political objectives. And the United States of America stands strong against Mr. Zawahri and his types.''

The United States is isolated on the crisis from most of its allies, who want an immediate cease-fire to end the fighting. Washington is willing to give Israel more time to weaken Hezbollah, whose principal backers are Syria and Iran.

Talks are continuing about the makeup of an international peacekeeping force with State Department counselor Philip Zelikow working in Brussels with European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana and his staff, White House press secretary Tony Snow said. The United States believes the Lebanese army also should be strengthened so it can disarm Hezbollah.

Amid plans for consultations at the United Nations, two U.S. Middle East envoys also were continuing diplomatic talks in the region. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice may return to the Middle East this weekend.

''Whatgever is done diplomatically must address the root cause and the root cause is terrorist activites,'' Bush said. ''I view this as a clash of forms of government.''

    Bush Cites Iran's Role in Lebanon Conflict, NYT, 28.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Mideast.html

News Analysis

2 Steps Back: Rice’s Careful Diplomacy Falters Under Renewed Assertiveness by the U.S.

July 28, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER

KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia, Friday, July 28 — For the past year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has worked assiduously to resurrect the importance of traditional diplomacy and building consensus among world leaders after America’s go-it-alone approach to Iraq.

She has managed to hold together a fragile coalition of countries seeking to curb Iran’s nuclear program by offering to end America’s three-decade-long refusal to talk to Tehran if it suspends its uranium-enrichment program. And she has a similar coalition holding together on North Korea’s nuclear efforts.

But in the space of one hour in Rome on Wednesday, the public rewards of that hard work — the view around the world that the United States may now be more willing to play nice with others — may have been undone. Once again, it seemed, the United States had reverted to its my-way-or-the-highway approach, and Ms. Rice was on the defensive.

Certainly, she won the diplomatic battle in Rome: she squeezed out of world leaders extra time for Israel’s military campaign against Hezbollah, arguing for a “sustainable” cease-fire including political elements rather than an immediate cease-fire. In the vision of Ms. Rice, who came here from Rome for a meeting with Asian leaders, that would shift the balance of power in the Middle East. The Lebanese government could finally assert its authority over its country. Syria and Iran, backers of Hezbollah, would see their influence diminish.

“I say to the Lebanese people, no one wants to see the spilling of Lebanese blood,” Ms. Rice said. “But I also don’t want to see the spilling of Lebanese blood three months from now because we allowed the situation to go back to the status quo ante.”

In reality, while many diplomats have called for an immediate cease-fire, they support the American package as the only way to cobble together a peace plan that shores up the government of Lebanon and leads to the disarmament of Hezbollah.

But Ms. Rice lost the public relations war. Reports of the Rome meeting uniformly painted her as isolated in one corner, refusing to yield to impassioned calls for an immediate cease-fire to end mounting civilian casualties in Lebanon.

It all came down to an almost one-hour fight over the wording of one passage in the final communiqué.

While other countries were pushing for a statement that said the group would work toward an “immediate cease-fire,” Ms. Rice insisted on “work immediately” toward a cease-fire. That may be a small point to most people, but it is a huge one diplomatically since it shifts the burden away from an immediate cessation of violence and more toward diplomacy, a shift that also buys Israel more time to keep up its campaign.

Ms. Rice’s insistence on that phrasing gave European and Arab leaders at the meeting the leeway to say truthfully that the United States blocked pursuit of an immediate cease-fire. “Everybody else took a free moral ride while she took the blame,” said Martin S. Indyk, the United States ambassador to Israel in the Clinton administration.

The Bush administration, Mr. Indyk said in a telephone interview from Washington, should have been more sensitive to the perception that the United States, through its backing of Israel, was in part responsible for the civilian deaths in Lebanon. He said President Bush, early in the crisis, should have sent an envoy to Arab capitals — even Syria’s — to show that the United States was trying to broker a cease-fire, even as it worked on the diplomatic package being constructed by Ms. Rice.

Lost in the uproar after the meeting in Rome is that world leaders have agreed on the framework of an eventual cease-fire package, which ultimately is likely to come out of the United Nations Security Council. That package would call for a cease-fire, recognize the sovereign authority of the Lebanese government over all of the country, including the south. It would seek to boost the Lebanese Army, which would be backed by an international peacekeeping force. It would demand that a 2004 United Nations resolution, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah and other militias, be carried out.

Still to be determined is the makeup of the international force, and what will be done about Lebanese demands that Israel withdraw from Shebaa Farms, which the United Nations has ruled is officially part of Syria but which Hezbollah claims as part of Lebanon. Middle East analysts and diplomats say that if the United States can broker a deal that gives Shebaa Farms back to the government of Lebanon, Prime Minister Fouad Siniora can use that to further isolate Hezbollah, by saying he has taken away from the militia group its excuse to attack Israel.

The Bush administration contends that such a package has more of a chance of working if Israeli forces are able militarily to degrade Hezbollah. But the path of sacrificing civilian lives now in hopes of a greater peace later holds potential peril — not only for the civilians caught between Hezbollah and Israel, but also politically, for Israel and the United States. Israel’s bombing campaign could strengthen Hezbollah, as Mr. Siniora suggested in an anguished speech to the Rome meeting.

“What fruit, other than one of pain, frustration, financial ruin and fanaticism can stem from this rubble?” he said.

For the United States, the path makes some sense, since the avenue of direct talks with Hezbollah or its backers, Iran and Syria, isn’t one administration officials are willing to take yet. But it risks further damage to America’s image internationally, and particularly in the Arab world.

    2 Steps Back: Rice’s Careful Diplomacy Falters Under Renewed Assertiveness by the U.S., NYT, 28.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/world/middleeast/28rice.html

As Mideast Churns, U.S. Jews and Arabs Alike Swing Into Action

July 28, 2006
The New York Times
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

With Israel at war again, American Jewish groups immediately swung into action, sending lobbyists to Washington, solidarity delegations to Jerusalem and millions of dollars for ambulances and trauma counseling, just as they always have.

But this time there is a parallel mobilization going on in this country by Arab-Americans and Muslim Americans in support of Lebanese and Palestinian victims of the war. These Americans, too, are sending lobbyists to Washington, solidarity delegations to the Middle East and boxes of lentils, diapers and medicine to refugees.

Both sides are worried about friends and relatives under bombardment or driven from their homes. Both are moved to act by the scenes on television of their suffering kin.

“The world in which I live is filled with people who are deeply connected to Israel,” said Rabbi Steve Gutow, a New Yorker who is executive director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an umbrella group for 125 local councils and 13 national groups. “For almost everyone I know, there’s no distance. It’s hard for me to turn the TV off at night, and I wake up in the middle of the morning and turn the TV on to find out how things are going.”

Although people in both diasporas are glued to their television screens, the parallel ends there. While the American Arab and Muslim groups say they are better organized than ever before, they say they have not made a dent in American foreign policy. Their calls for an immediate cease-fire by Israel have been rebuffed by the White House and most legislators on Capitol Hill.

“I’m devastated,” said James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute, in Washington. “I thought we’d come further. We’re doing well, so far, in terms of our capacity to deal with everything from the humanitarian crisis to identifying families and working to get people out. What is distressing is the degree to which this neoconservative mindset has taken hold of the policy debate. It’s like everyone has drunk the Kool-Aid.”

Salam al-Marayati, executive director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said, “This is probably the only issue in Washington where there’s no real debate.”

Jewish leaders say there is surprisingly little debate even inside usually contentious American Jewish circles about Israel’s decision to bomb Lebanon and send in troops to rout the militants of Hezbollah, who are launching rockets into Israel.

The most coordinated dissent by American Jews so far is a campaign by the liberal Tikkun magazine and the Network of Spiritual Progressives, both founded by Rabbi Michael Lerner in Berkeley, Calif., to raise money for newspaper advertisements calling for a cease-fire by both sides and an international peace conference.

Any criticism of Israel is “very marginal,” said William Daroff, vice president of public policy for United Jewish Communities, an umbrella organization of 155 Jewish federations in the United States. Mr. Daroff said he had also found an astounding degree of consensus among American politicians.

Last week he helped organize a Washington lobbying blitz by more than 40 Jewish leaders who, he said, spent the day essentially expressing their thanks to officials in the White House and the State Department and on Capitol Hill.

“From Nancy Pelosi on the liberal wing of the Democratic Party to Rick Santorum on the conservative wing of the Republican Party, I have literally heard unanimous approval and support for Israel’s right to defend itself,” Mr. Daroff said.

“Certainly there are concerns by all parties about civilian deaths in Lebanon,” he said, “but there’s also great understanding on the Hill that when Hezbollah uses civilians as shields and folks have a rocket launcher next to their dining room table, it makes them a target in addition to it being a violation of international law by Hezbollah.”

Arab and Muslim American leaders say they have tried to meet with the White House and many legislators but have been rebuffed.

Ahmed Younis, national director of the Muslim Public Affairs Council, said he had finally succeeded in arranging a meeting with Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, for next week. While Jewish groups field 40 lobbyists, Mr. Younis’s Muslim group is sending one Muslim leader, one rabbi and one Christian minister to meet the senator.

Jewish groups have also excelled at emergency fund-raising. United Jewish Communities, only one of several major Jewish groups, has raised $21 million in the past two weeks for its Israel Crisis Fund.

Another group, American Friends of Magen David Adom, which supplies ambulances and emergency medical care in Israel, initiated a fund-raising effort it calls Code Red.

The organization has raised $38,000 a day over the Internet for the past 10 days, said David Allen, the executive vice president, several hundred times more than it usually raises in a day. Mr. Allen said he was in talks with 10 donors who were considering giving enough for 10 ambulances in the next week, at a cost of $80,000 to $100,000 each.

Arab and Muslim groups have been raising money for humanitarian aid for Lebanese who were trapped in cities shelled by the Israelis and for those who fled.

The Council on American Islamic Relations is encouraging American Muslims to send boxes of lentils, powdered milk and diapers — rather than money — to Life for Relief and Development, a charity based in Southfield, Mich. It is discouraging direct financial contributions because many American Muslims fear they will be investigated by the American government if they donate to a Muslim charity.

Khalil Jassemm, chief executive of the organization, said the contributions had amounted to “a bit less than we had really hoped,” worth no more than $3 million. The reason, Mr. Jassemm said, could be “donor anxiety” about giving to Muslim charities.

“We need to fully analyze what’s going on,” he said, “but we think that donors are asking themselves, ‘If I do help, am I going to be in trouble?’ ”

Both sides are also working to sway public opinion. Jewish groups have held rallies in almost every major American city, Mr. Daroff said.

The Council on American Islamic Affairs has sponsored news conferences around the country in which Lebanese-Americans and others recount traumatic stories of escaping from Israeli bombardment.

“People can’t believe what they’re seeing,” said Ibrahim Hooper, spokesman for the council. “The United States is actively supporting the systematic destruction of the civilian infrastructure of Lebanon, a friendly nation, using American weapons. Not only do they not seek to stop the destruction, they actually provide the bombs to accomplish the destruction.”

The pro-Israel lobby has held sway over American policy, Mr. Hooper said, but that could be changing.

“The American Muslim community has reached a point where it has a little more political maturity, a little more ability to speak out, to reach out to elected officials and to opinion leaders,’’ he said. “I don’t think it’s going to be that American politicians can get away with making speeches pledging allegiance to Israel and nobody’s going to challenge them. I think those days are over.”

    As Mideast Churns, U.S. Jews and Arabs Alike Swing Into Action, NYT, 28.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/28/us/28homefront.html

  Poll Shows Skepticism in U.S. Over Peace in Mideast        NYT        27.7.2006
 http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/washington/27poll.html?hp&ex=
1154059200&en=5afed1095a20f963&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Poll Shows Skepticism in U.S. Over Peace in Mideast

July 27, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG and MEGAN C. THEE

Americans are overwhelmingly pessimistic about the state of affairs in the Middle East, with majorities doubtful there will ever be peace between Israel and its neighbors, or that American troops will be able to leave Iraq anytime soon, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

A majority said the war between Israel and Hezbollah will lead to a wider war. And while almost half of those polled approved of President Bush’s handling of the crisis, a majority said they preferred the United States leave it to others to resolve.

Over all, the poll found a strong isolationist streak in a nation clearly rattled by more than four years of war, underscoring the challenge for Mr. Bush as he tries to maintain public support for his effort to stabilize Iraq and spread democracy through the Middle East.

The concerns expressed over the direction of foreign policy also highlight some of the pitfalls facing Republicans as they head toward the November elections with national security front and center.

A majority of respondents, 56 percent, said they supported a timetable for a reduction in United States forces in Iraq, a question the two parties have been sparring over, with the White House and most Republicans in Congress taking the position that setting a timetable would send the wrong message. More than half of that group said they supported a withdrawal even if it meant Iraq would fall into the hands of insurgents.

Americans support the idea of putting an international peacekeeping force on the border between Israel and Lebanon to calm tensions there, the poll found, but most do not want United States troops to be a part of it.

By a wide margin, the poll found, Americans did not believe the United States should take the lead in solving international conflicts in general, with 59 percent saying it should not, and 31 percent saying it should. That is a significant shift from a CBS News poll in September 2002 — one year after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks — when the public was far more evenly split on the issue.

Yet, in the latest poll, 47 percent gave Mr. Bush good marks for handling the situation in Israel, with 27 percent disapproving and 26 percent saying they did not know. That was the highest registration of approval for the president in any of the poll’s performance measures.

Mr. Bush has experienced a slight increase in his overall job approval rating since the last New York Times/CBS News poll, in May, indicating that the steady erosion in his support over the last year has leveled off and even improved by a few percentage points. Thirty-six percent of those surveyed said they approved of the way he was doing his job, up from 31 percent in May.

But with 55 percent saying they disapproved of his performance, the numbers remain far below the comfort zone for a sitting president during a tough midterm election season. In what could be another warning sign for incumbents, more than twice as many people believe the country is heading in the wrong direction than believe it is heading in the right direction. Only 35 percent of respondents said they approved of Mr. Bush’s handling of foreign policy in general, though that was up from the 27 percent in May, and a majority expressed doubt about whether the president had the respect of foreign leaders.

Support for the president’s staunch backing of Israel goes only so far: 39 percent indicated they approved of it, but 40 percent said the United States should avoid saying anything at all about the conflict (Only 7 percent said the United States should criticize Israel, though many respondents cast blame for the conflict on both sides).

The poll was based on telephone interviews conducted July 21 through July 25 with 1,127 adults. It has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus three percentage points. The poll was taken as the war between Israel and Hezbollah raged, and during a particularly bloody period in Baghdad, events that have received heavy television news coverage.

In a common refrain among respondents regarding the Israel-Hezbollah war, Sharon Schierloh, 62, a retired factory worker from Ottawa, Ohio, said: “Let the Israelis take care of the problems in their area. We need to stay out of that because our troops are spread too thin.” She spoke in a follow-up interview after participating in the poll.

If Mr. Bush and the Republicans could not find much good news in the poll, they could at least pinpoint some signs of abatement in what had been a decidedly downward trend for them, starting with Mr. Bush’s slightly improved approval ratings.

Congressional Republicans are facing what seems to be one of the worst environments for a majority party since 1994 — when they swept control of both chambers from the Democrats — and, following the general rule, the president’s fortunes could heavily affect theirs.

Forty-three percent of those surveyed said they had a favorable opinion of the Republican Party, up from 37 percent in May. But when asked their view of how Congress was handling its job as a whole — a question whose answer tends to reflect prospects for incumbents — 28 percent said they approved, up from 23 percent in May. But 58 percent said they disapproved.

Democrats fared better, with 52 percent of those polled saying they had a positive view of the party and 41 percent saying they had a negative one. And 45 percent of registered voters polled said they would vote for the Democrat running in their district this fall as opposed to the 35 percent who favored the Republican.

Democrats also seemed to have public support on several major issues. Their push for a higher minimum wage has wide public support, according to the poll. Over all, 85 percent of respondents supported a Democratic proposal raising the minimum wage over the next two years to $7.25 an hour from $5.15 an hour, including majorities of Republicans and independents. House moderates who support a raise in the minimum wage are prevailing upon more conservative House leaders — who have been opposed to one — to allow a vote on the issue.

And 59 percent of those polled said they approved of medical research using embryonic stem cells. Mr. Bush used his veto power for the first time in his presidency last week to reject a Congressional bill expanding federal financing for such research. Democrats received higher marks on handling the economy, while Republicans received higher marks on handling terrorism. And more respondents approve of the president’s handling of terrorism than disapprove, a change from the last Times/CBS poll when opinion was split.

But there was agreement that perceptions about war and peace could have major resonance in the fall. More than twice as many respondents — 63 percent versus 30 percent — said the Iraq war had not been worth the American lives and dollars lost. Only a quarter of respondents said they thought the American presence in Iraq had been a stabilizing force in the region, with 41 percent saying it had made the Middle East less stable.

But respondents were essentially split over whether the invasion was the right thing to do.

Marina Stefan and Marjorie Connelly contributed reporting for this article.

    Poll Shows Skepticism in U.S. Over Peace in Mideast, NYT, 27.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/27/washington/27poll.html?hp&ex=1154059200&en=5afed1095a20f963&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Rice Meets With Olmert in Israel

July 25, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:55 a.m. ET
The New York Times

JERUSALEM (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Tuesday the time has come for a new Middle East and an urgent end to the violence hanging over the region.

''I have no doubt there are those who wish to strangle a democratic and sovereign Lebanon in its crib,'' Rice said. ''We, of course, also urgently want to end the violence.''

Standing beside Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert as they prepared to meet in his office, Rice reiterated the United States position that a cessation of hostilities in Lebanon must come with conditions that make an enduring peace.

''It is time for a new Middle East,'' she said. ''It is time to say to those that don't want a different kind of Middle East that we will prevail. They will not.''

Olmert welcomed Rice warmly and vowed that ''Israel is determined to carry on this fight against Hezbollah.'' He said his government ''will not hesitate to take severe measures against those who are aiming thousands of rockets and missiles against innocent civilians for the sole purpose of killing them.''

Earlier in Beirut, Rice disappointed her Lebanese hosts by saying in a face-to-face visit that the U.S. would not press Israel for a quick cease-fire without addressing the longer-term threat from Hezbollah.

With little diplomatic progress to show for her lightning trip to Beirut early Monday, the Bush administration instead focused on the announcement of $30 million in humanitarian aid for Lebanon, which has borne the brunt of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah guerrillas.

Rice's visit marked the first high-level U.S. diplomatic mission to the area since fighting erupted on July 12, violence that has complicated hopes for peace and democracy in the region.

Lebanese leaders had hoped her trip would hasten a cease-fire in the fighting between Israel and the Hezbollah militants in Lebanon that has claimed hundreds of lives, mostly Lebanese civilians.

''Thank you for your courage and steadfastness,'' she told Prime Minister Fuad Saniora, who has repeatedly asked for international help in bringing a halt to cross-border Israeli-Hezbollah shelling. Rice flew next to Jerusalem but made clear that she would not pressure Israeli leaders for an immediate cease-fire during meetings Monday and Tuesday.

''We're talking about the humanitarian situation, and we're also talking about a durable way to end the violence,'' Rice said before leaving Lebanon.

In a meeting that appeared tense, Saniora told the U.S. diplomat that Israel's bombardment had taken his country ''backwards 50 years,'' the prime minister's office said. And Nabih Berri, a veteran Lebanese politician who is Lebanon's parliament speaker and Hezbollah's de facto negotiator, rejected proposals brought by Rice almost as soon as she left.

Berri told Rice that a cease-fire must precede any talks about resolving Hezbollah's presence in Lebanon, an official close to the speaker said. Rice, reflecting the U.S. view that a quick cease-fire would not be sustainable, had proposed that the fighting stop at the same time that an international force deployed in southern Lebanon, the official said. Rice also proposed that Hezbollah weapons be removed from a buffer zone extending about 18 miles from the Israeli border, said the official. He spoke on condition of anonymity because the talks were private.

Berri proposed instead a two-phased plan. First would come a cease-fire and negotiations for a prisoner swap. Then an inter-Lebanese dialogue would work out a solution to the situation in south Lebanon.

The Bush administration has said that a cease-fire would be premature unless it addresses the threat Hezbollah fighters pose to Israel.

Asked whether Rice's meeting with Berri went poorly, Assistant Secretary of State David Welch replied, ''That's unfair.'' Welch added, however, that Berri approached the session with the position that a prisoner exchange would resolve other problems.

''That is not what we think,'' Welch said.

Underscoring the fragile security situation, Rice's car convoy whisked past armed Lebanese security guards as it shuttled across the battered capital. Though south Beirut has been heavily targeted by Israeli warplanes because of Hezbollah's presence there, no explosions were heard during her stay.

Rice said Bush wanted her to make Lebanon the first stop on her trip to the region. Her aides also sought to put a distinctly U.S. mark on diplomatic efforts. Yet she's offered no solutions publicly to end the violence and reach the long-term solution the U.S. is seeking.

''With this stop now, we -- the United States -- are firmly in the picture in leading the diplomacy, with the secretary of state doing that job,'' Welch said.

Rice's nearly two-hour meeting with Saniora went on longer than planned. She also met for about 45 minutes with Berri, who is considered friendly to Syria, which held political and military sway in Lebanon for decades before pulling out troops last year.

Going into the session at Berri's lavish office and residence, Rice said, ''I am deeply concerned about the Lebanese people and what they are enduring. I am obviously concerned about the humanitarian situation.''

Berri is an influential figure in Lebanon's complicated and factionalized political structure. Although the United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist group and has no direct dealings with it, Rice has met with Berri before. Rice could use her discussions with him to send an indirect message to Hezbollah, and to try applying pressure on Syria.

Rice also met with members of the Lebanese parliament who have been staunch opponents of Syria's influence in Lebanon. After visiting Israel, she was to fly to Rome, where she expects to meet with officials of European and moderate Arab governments.

Rice's five-hour visit to Beirut was not announced in advance because of concerns for her safety. She rode in a phalanx of SUVs through largely deserted streets patrolled by Lebanese Army troops.

Beirut, shattered during Lebanon's horrific civil war, has again become a war zone as Israel tries to extinguish what it calls the terrorist threat from Hezbollah militants.

American and other refugees have been streaming out of Beirut for more than a week. Israeli bombing has displaced an estimated half million people in Lebanon, and destroyed infrastructure worth an estimated $1 billion.

President Bush has ordered helicopters and ships to Lebanon to provide humanitarian aide, the White House announced.

Welch, the assistant secretary of state, said the U.S. was offering $30 million largely in goods, part of what was hoped would be a $100 million to $150 million U.N. aid package. He said the U.S. assistance would include medical kits for 100,000 people as well as 20,000 blankets.

''We are working with Israel and Lebanon to open up humanitarian corridors,'' Bush spokesman Tony Snow said at the White House.

Nearly 12,000 Americans have been evacuated over the past week, including more than 2,000 in the past 24 hours, said Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman.

    Rice Meets With Olmert in Israel, NYT, 25.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/world/AP-Rice.html

Diplomacy

In First Stop, Rice Confers With Leaders of Lebanon

July 25, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and JAD MOUAWAD

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 24 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived here on Monday, and she got an earful everywhere she went.

“I’m obviously right here because I’m deeply concerned about the Lebanese people,” Ms. Rice said as she sat down for a meeting with Nabih Berri, speaker of Parliament and the one man in the government with a direct line to the Hezbollah leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah.

American diplomats characterized the visit as a “dramatic” overture that demonstrated to the Arab world that President Bush was concerned about the rising civilian death toll in Lebanon.

But clearly the Lebanese people, from Prime Minister Fouad Siniora down, are angry at Israel and at America for its support of Israel.

“This is not a war against Hezbollah that is being waged, this is a war against Lebanon and its people,” said Shereen Sadeq, a demonstrator who with a handful of others followed Ms. Rice around the city. “500,000 refugees: America’s tax dollars at work,” said one demonstrator’s sign. “Be outraged,” said another.

Ms. Rice spent two hours with Mr. Siniora, one hour with Mr. Berri and about 45 minutes with a group of anti-Syrian Lebanese politicians. She promised American aid..

Mr. Siniora talked about rising casualties. Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh, a Shiite Muslim from Qamatiyah, told her that his entire village of 6,000 people had to evacuate.

The complaints began even before she arrived in Beirut. During a refueling stop in Shannon, Ireland, an under secretary of state, Karen Hughes, was sitting at a bar with other administration officials and a few reporters when a group of Lebanese-Americans recognized her and approached.

They said the plane American officials had put them on to return home had broken down on the runway in Shannon. They said they had been at the airport for more than 24 hours and had been traveling for five days without showers, and eating airport food. They said they were exhausted.

“I’m so sorry,” Ms. Hughes said, and promised to try to help. Within a few minutes a United States Embassy official, who was at the airport to look after Ms. Rice’s plane, was dispatched to find hotel rooms for the Lebanese-Americans.

The tight script of the five-hour visit to Beirut highlighted the tension.

State Department officials did not tell reporters traveling with Ms. Rice that they were headed to Lebanon until takeoff from Ireland, and the reporters were instructed to keep quiet until after she landed. She arrived at the American Embassy helipad just before 2 p.m.

Ms. Rice was whisked into a waiting 20-S.U.V. convoy, which took off at high speed through Beirut’s eerily empty streets to the Grand Serail, the former Ottoman-era military barracks that houses Mr. Siniora’s office. Her convoy engaged in tightly choreographed defensive driving, zigzagging across lanes every minute or so.

She went from the meeting with Mr. Siniora to Mr. Berri’s palatial home in West Beirut, about a mile away from where the Israeli Air Force hit Haret Hreik, a Hezbollah stronghold, earlier in the day.

One complicating factor for any negotiations is that Mr. Siniora has not been in direct contact with Hezbollah’s leader, Sheik Nasrallah, since the beginning of the crisis. For security reasons, all talks between Mr. Siniora and Sheik Nasrallah have been through Mr. Berri.

“He began the conversation with, ‘Here’s what his view of the solution is,’ ” said C. David Welch, assistant secretary of state for Near East affairs, referring to Mr. Berri. “His view of the situation starts with, there has to be a prisoner exchange.”

Israel has so far refused to consider one.

As soon as Ms. Rice left Mr. Berri’s home, two Israeli jets circled high above the clear blue skies of Beirut, heading south. In the distance, a thick black column of smoke from a bombed-out power station cloaked the mountain south of the capital.

“She left faster than she came, and no one will listen to her,” said Jad al-Ali, another protester.

    In First Stop, Rice Confers With Leaders of Lebanon, NYT, 25.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/world/middleeast/25rice.html

Editorial

No More Foot-Dragging

July 25, 2006
The New York Times

Nearly two weeks into the bloody conflict between Israel and Hezbollah, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice finally made it to the region. We’d like to believe that means Washington is now urgently committed to finding a way to halt the fighting.

Ms. Rice’s surprise first stop in Beirut was intended to show support for Lebanon’s embattled democracy. Her pledge of humanitarian assistance is welcome, but it is far too little and extremely late.

What the people of Lebanon and Israel urgently need is a cease-fire followed by the swift deployment of a well-armed force with a mandate to aggressively keep the peace. That must be accompanied by an international guarantee that Hezbollah will be forced to halt its attacks on Israel permanently and disband its militia so Lebanon can regain control of its borders and its sovereignty.

The White House has resisted calls for a cease-fire, arguing that a return to the situation that existed before the latest fighting would not bring lasting peace. While that is true, we fear that what the administration has been doing is buying Israel more time to pound Hezbollah and Lebanon. Since July 12, hundreds of Lebanese civilians have been killed and nearly a score of Israelis. For all that dying, there is little sign that Hezbollah — which fired 100 missiles into Israel on Sunday — has been so deeply wounded that it can’t rebuild quickly. Ms. Rice needs to make clear to Israel that more civilian deaths in Lebanon won’t make Israelis safer.

What is needed now is the sort of aggressive diplomacy and international coalition building that the Bush administration typically disdains. And it needs to come together in days, not weeks.

The United States and its allies must start aggressively soliciting contributors for a peacekeeping force. Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain first raised the idea to Mr. Bush more than a week ago, and was brushed off. Such a force will need to be well armed and be given a robust mandate so that Hezbollah will have little choice but to retreat. The United States has already made clear it won’t be sending its own troops, and rallying others for such a dangerous mission will not be easy.

After her sessions in Israel, Ms. Rice goes on to Rome, where she will meet with Arab and European officials. She needs to use these discussions to win support for a United Nations resolution authorizing such a force and strengthening its call — so far unheeded — for Hezbollah to disarm.

Ms. Rice has no plans, apparently, for a surprise visit to Damascus. At a minimum she must urge European and Arab allies to make that trip. They must deliver a united message that isolation and scorn is the price Syria and Iran will pay for continuing to abet Hezbollah, and that Israel will not be restrained until Hezbollah is restrained.

As eager as Arab leaders are to see Israel halt its attacks and Hezbollah contained, that tough talk will be difficult for rulers who always prefer to sit on the sidelines, and now have to answer to their increasingly angry populations. That is why Ms. Rice should be willing to make compromises of her own and travel to Damascus. All this needs to happen quickly. There has been too much foot-dragging and too much dying already.

    No More Foot-Dragging, NYT, 25.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/25/opinion/25tue1.html

Editorial

Loose Nukes

July 24, 2006
The New York Times

President Bush and President Vladimir Putin of Russia announced two new nuclear initiatives earlier this month that could make the world safer — if the presidents keep prodding their secretive and change-averse nuclear bureaucracies to follow through. On that score, unfortunately, the record is not great.

Declaring nuclear terrorism one of the biggest threats facing the world today, Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin began a new coalition of the willing that will share intelligence, develop better ways of securing bomb-making materials and train for the all too imaginable day when a terrorist makes off with a suitcase of plutonium or highly enriched uranium.

Any effort that requires governments to look harder at how they are protecting nuclear materials is a good idea. That is true whether a country has tons of plutonium stored at nuclear fuel plants or a few kilos of highly enriched uranium, which can still be found in scores of poorly guarded research reactors around the world.

The new group should develop a set of security standards for all nuclear facilities. And Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin should set the pace by being the first to sign on.

The two presidents also announced they would negotiate a civil nuclear cooperation agreement that could allow Russia to get into the multibillion-dollar business of storing spent nuclear fuel. Washington is hoping that the promise of new cash-paying customers will persuade Moscow to finally break with an old customer, Iran, and agree to United Nations sanctions if Tehran refuses to give up its nuclear ambitions. Profit is a strong motivator. But Russian officials have a long, cozy history with their Iranian counterparts, and Mr. Bush will need to keep reminding Mr. Putin that a nuclear-armed Iran would also threaten Russia’s security.

Making all this happen will require the sort of intensive presidential attention that neither the White House nor the Kremlin has been willing to invest in the past. Long-running American efforts to help Russia lock up its nuclear arsenal are still plagued by bureaucratic and political wrangling. According to a recent survey by Harvard experts, 15 years after the programs began, the United States has provided full security upgrades for slightly more than half of the buildings with nuclear materials in Russia’s far-flung weapons complex.

The pace has picked up since Mr. Bush and Mr. Putin pledged to improve cooperation last year. But there are still many problems to solve, including whether Russia will accept help to secure two huge weapons assembly facilities. That decision has been made harder by Washington’s insistence it be given access to even the most sensitive sites to make sure American tax dollars aren’t wasted.

Proliferation experts have long urged the White House to name a top adviser to oversee the dozens of nuclear security programs that stretch across the Departments of Energy, Defense, Homeland Security and State. That aide needs to have enough clout to be able to go straight to the president when a problem, either at home or abroad, needs his personal attention. It’s far past time for the White House to take that advice. And if President Bush does, maybe his friend Mr. Putin will, too.

    Loose Nukes, NYT, 24.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/opinion/24mon1.html

Rice urges ceasefire but Lebanon war rages on

Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:57 AM ET
Reuters
By Alaa Shahine

BEIRUT (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice called for an urgent ceasefire between Israel and Hizbollah but the guerrilla group's leader on Monday vowed no let-up in missile attacks against the Jewish state.

Israeli warplanes pounded south Lebanon early on Monday after Hizbollah missiles hit northern Israel over the weekend.

Hizbollah's leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah said in remarks published on Monday that Israeli attacks would not halt the guerrilla group's rocket fire.

On a mission to avert full-scale war in the Middle East, Rice said there was an "urgent" need for a ceasefire in southern Lebanon but conditions had to be right.

Speaking to reporters late on Sunday as she flew to the Middle East, Rice said she also wanted to ease the humanitarian crisis in Lebanon, which has been pounded by nearly two weeks of fighting.

"It is very important to establish conditions under which a ceasefire can take place. We believe that a ceasefire is urgent, Rice said before a refueling stop in Shannon, Ireland.

"It is important to have conditions that will make it also sustainable," Rice said.

The United States has resisted calls for an immediate ceasefire, saying any cessation of hostilities must address the root causes of the conflict, which Washington blames on Hizbollah and its allies, Syria and Iran.

Israel has said it would to back a temporary international force in southern Lebanon to ensure Hizbollah is removed from the border and to take control of Lebanon's border crossing with Syria.

"Any Israeli incursion will not have political results unless it achieves any of the announced goals, most importantly to stop the bombardment of Zionist settlements ... and I assure you that this will goal will not be achieved," he told Lebanon's As-Safir daily newspaper.

Civilians have taken the brunt of the 12-day-old conflict that has cost 369 lives in Lebanon and 37 in Israel, prompting U.N. emergency relief coordinator Jan Egeland to demand a halt to the violence to allow aid to reach the hardest-hit areas.

SOUTH LEBANON POUNDED

Israeli warplanes pounded south Lebanon in the early hours of Monday, wounding six people, including one child, at a Palestinian refugee camp in the port city of Tire.

The Israeli army said it had seized two Hizbollah guerrillas during fighting in the village of Maroun al-Ras in southern Lebanon, believed to be the first prisoners taken in Lebanon since the outbreak of violence following Hizbollah's July 12 capture of two Israeli soldiers.

The cross-border raid prompted Israel to launch a military campaign that also targeted civilian installations across Lebanon. It coincided with an offensive in the Palestinian territories to retrieve another soldier captured on June 25.

Hizbollah has said it wants to exchange the two soldiers with Lebanese and Arab prisoners in Israeli jails. And Nasrallah, whose whereabouts are unknown, said the group would not object if the Beirut government were to negotiate the swap.

During her visit, Rice is set to meet Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, before discussing the Lebanon crisis with European and Arab officials meeting in Rome on Wednesday.

Saudi Arabia, a key U.S. ally, pressed President George W. Bush to work for a ceasefire and the start of a prisoner exchange between Hizbollah and Israel.

Olmert said the proposed multinational force would assist the Lebanese army, and would be charged with disarming Hizbollah in line with U.N. Security Council resolution 1559.

It would be hard to deploy any such force in the mainly Shi'ite Muslim south without the consent of Hizbollah, which says it will keep its weapons.

U.N. peacekeepers have patrolled the south since Israel first invaded Lebanon in 1978, but their mission to help restore Lebanese government authority in the area remains unfulfilled.

Israeli air raids on Sunday killed nine civilians and wounded 100, many of them in Tire.

Two people were killed and 20 wounded when Hizbollah rockets hit houses and vehicles in Haifa, Israel's third largest city. About 50 people were wounded in similar attacks in at least 10 other towns across northern Israel.

Israel has called up thousands of reserve soldiers and has assembled troops and tanks on its northern border, but the army said its chief, Lieutenant-General Dan Halutz, had not decided whether to launch a major ground incursion.

    Rice urges ceasefire but Lebanon war rages on, R, 24.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-24T055715Z_01_L21898716_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST.xml&WTmodLoc=Home-C1-TopStories-newsOne-2

Diplomacy

U.S. Must Deal With Damascus and Hezbollah to Ease Mideast Crisis, Syrian Says

July 24, 2006
The New York Times
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR

DAMASCUS, Syria, July 23 — The Bush administration’s approach of indirectly pressuring Syria to end its support for Hezbollah is doomed to failure, a top Syrian minister said Thursday.

Buthaina Shaaban, the minister of expatriates and a close adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, said the chaos engulfing the region could be reduced only if Damascus and Hezbollah were directly involved in any negotiations. Washington has a policy of isolating Syria.

Further, she said, Washington is ignoring reality if it thinks groups like Hezbollah and Hamas can be purged by allowing Israel to bomb at will, or that extremism can be curbed in any way besides solving the Arab-Israeli dispute.

“The United States has to get realistic about addressing issues in the region instead of taking steps that only make things worse,” Mrs. Shaaban said in an interview. “They don’t have a vision about what is happening in the Middle East. They don’t have a plan for the region. They are losing credibility.”

Both President Bush and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice have warned Syria that it must rein in Hezbollah, not least by cutting the supply line for the missiles the organization fires into Israel, which they say Iran ships through Syria.

“Do you want to step on the supply line or do you want to solve the big problem in the Middle East?” Mrs. Shaaban said. “That is the main issue. Do they want to end the Israeli occupation of Arab territories, that is the question.”

One Syrian official issued a strong warning against a proposal that was gaining momentum on Sunday for an international force to guard the Lebanon-Israel border. Deploying such a force without the cooperation of Syrian and Hezbollah, the official said, will risk repeating 1983. That was a pointed reference to the 241 United States service members and 58 French soldiers killed in attacks on military installations by suicide bombers. It has long been considered likely that Hezbollah sent the bombers with Syria’s blessing.

Support for Hezbollah is clearly swelling across the Arab world, with many people enraptured that the militant organization can still launch missiles across the border nearly two weeks after Israel unleashed fearsome military muscle. Syria evidently feels the tide is running in its favor, particularly since crucial American allies like the leaders of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan are noticeably edgy about how, in contrast, much of the public in their own countries has scorned them for supporting Washington and criticizing Hezbollah.

Syrian officials have been circumspect since the fighting erupted. In an indication that Syria remains worried about being attacked, diplomats report that Syrian ministries were ordered to remain vigilant, with some staffing around the clock.

Syria’s information minister, Mohsen Bilal, has warned on several occasions that Syria will not stand by as Lebanon is pummeled by airstrikes.

The Bush administration contends that Iran and Syria may have goaded Hezbollah into capturing two Israeli soldiers in a cross-border raid on July 12, and then responding to Israel’s heavy retaliation by firing hundreds of missiles into northern Israel. Analysts suggest Iran wanted to warn Western powers that it could inflict harm if it was threatened over its nuclear ambitions, while Syria was tired of being threatened and marginalized.

President Bush and his advisers have acknowledged that Syria is critical to defusing the crisis, but refuse to talk to Damascus directly. Their strategy is to persuade Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia to pressure Syria to distance itself from Iran and Hezbollah.

But help from both Syria and Iran would be needed to make any agreement stick, the Syrian official said, “Who is going to implement what they are going to say if Syria is not involved, or Iran is not involved?”

The official said: “Syria is not going to help while it is being isolated and President Bush is attacking Syria all the time. Why should it help?”

In 1996, while Israel still occupied a swath of southern Lebanon, the Clinton administration brokered an understanding involving Israel, Lebanon and Syria that halted attacks harming civilians and established a monitoring group. The agreement held until Israel withdrew in 2000.

But so far in this crisis, the secretary of state and other Bush administration officials have rejected the concept of shuttle diplomacy, saying that it could not possibly halt Hezbollah and so would have no clear objective. At the same time, shuttle diplomacy would require Arab allies to receive an American diplomat.

Mrs. Shaaban and virtually every Syrian official or analyst interviewed pointed out that Israel and the United States kept demanding the enforcement of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 from 2004, which mandated the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon, now completed, and the disarming of Hezbollah. But, they said, the two governments simply ignore that Resolution 242 from 1967 and Resolution 338 from 1973, both mandating Israel return occupied land, including the Golan Heights to Syria, have never been carried out.

Mrs. Shaaban also pointed out that, while the United States accuses Syria of hurting Lebanon, it is Syria that is absorbing thousands of Lebanese refugees. The refugees are camping in parks around Damascus and other cities, or are housed in stadiums and empty schools. And she noted that American bombs being rushed to Israel were part of the death and destruction.

Syria, she said, is providing relief aid, while America promises to build a new democracy as it abandons the Lebanese to their fate. Relations between the United States and Syria started to fall apart in 2004 over the issue of Arab insurgents sneaking into Iraq across the Syrian border and all but collapsed in February 2005 with the assassination of a former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri. Washington, convinced that the killing was Syria’s work, withdrew Ambassador Margaret Scobey, all but stopped diplomatic contacts.

The region is drifting away from the Americans and moderate Arab states and toward those supporting Hezbollah, Syrians say, because the United States has showed callousness toward civilian deaths in Iraq, and now in Lebanon.

“It is unbelievable that the U.S. will say to Israel you have one more week to wipe out Hezbollah — can you imagine someone saying you have one more week to kill Americans?” the official asked. “You can’t imagine the impact of this on the region.”

For her part, Ms. Rice, en route to the Middle East, seemed to open the door — ever so slightly — to the idea of direct talks with Syria. She noted to reporters aboard her plane that the United States still has a chargé d’affaires in Damascus “and that can be a channel anytime.”

Helene Cooper contributed reporting from Shannon, Ireland, for this article.

    U.S. Must Deal With Damascus and Hezbollah to Ease Mideast Crisis, Syrian Says, NYT, 24.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/world/middleeast/24syria.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The White House

Saudis Urge Bush to Push for Cease-Fire in the Mideast

July 24, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG

WASHINGTON, July 23 — A delegation from Saudi Arabia asked President Bush on Sunday to push for a cease-fire in the conflict between Israel and the terrorist group Hezbollah — something the United States has refused to do.

“We requested a cease-fire to allow for the cessation of hostilities,” the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, told reporters in English in the White House driveway after meeting in the Oval Office with Mr. Bush, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and other top officials.

“That would allow for rebuilding of the forces and of Lebanon,” he said, referring to Lebanese forces.

He said he also delivered a letter from King Abdullah II of Jordan with suggestions for ending the violence.

American officials were publicly cool to the request. “Our position on an immediate cease-fire is well known,” said Frederick Jones, a spokesman for the National Security Council. “Our position has not changed.”

But officials on each side said the meeting was not tense. They said the discussion focused largely on the makeup of a possible international peacekeeping force and on ways for the Lebanese government to assert its sovereignty — a code phrase for disarming Hezbollah.

American officials had planned to ask the Saudis to press Syria to cut ties to Hezbollah and Iran, something they also planned to ask of other moderate Arab allies, including Egypt and Jordan.

American officials would not comment on whether the United States had made progress on that score. Saudi officials played down the importance of the subject at the meeting. They have questioned how much leverage they truly have with Syria and are clearly uncomfortable being seen as a proxy for the United States.

The meeting occurred hours before Ms. Rice was to leave for the Middle East to meet with Israel and moderate Arab allies. Mr. Bush returned from a weekend at his Texas ranch at midday, and she delayed her departure to attend the meeting.

The Saudis had requested a meeting before Ms. Rice’s trip to convey concerns about the public posture of the United States in the region.

Saudi officials were becoming more concerned that the refusal by the United States to call for a cease-fire, and the administration’s support for Israel as it made deeper incursions into Lebanon, were turning public opinion further against the Israelis, and, by extension, the Americans and their Arab allies.

But a senior Saudi official, given anonymity to speak of private deliberations, said the Saudis were confident after the meeting that Ms. Rice’s trip would help change perceptions in the Arab world and that the Americans understood their concerns. “They get it — there’s no difference in terms of the object,” the official said, describing it as ultimately ending hostilities.

The Saudis have been increasingly uncomfortable with the shifts in the region. A Sunni power, Saudi Arabia has seen the largely Shiite Iran become more influential and Iraq come under a majority Shiite government. It has expressed discomfort with the influence in Lebanon of Hezbollah, as a proxy for Iran and a Shiite militia.

Prince Faisal emphasized the need for Lebanon to control its territory. “There is only one problem: it is Lebanon, and the inability of Lebanon to exercise its sovereignty over its territories,” he told reporters.

Brian Knowlton contributed reporting for this article.

    Saudis Urge Bush to Push for Cease-Fire in the Mideast, NYT, 24.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/24/washington/24bush.html

U.S. Cuts in Africa Aid Said to Hurt War on Terror

July 23, 2006
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, July 22 — The Bush administration and Congress have slashed millions of dollars of military aid to African nations in recent years, moves that Pentagon officials and senior military commanders say have undermined American efforts to combat terrorist threats in Africa and to counter expanding Chinese influence there.

Since 2003, Washington has shut down Pentagon programs to train and equip militaries in a handful of African nations because they have declined to sign agreements exempting American troops from the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court in The Hague.

But the policy, which was designed to protect American troops, has instead angered senior military officials, who say the cuts in military aid are shortsighted and have weakened counterterrorism efforts in places where the threat of international terrorism is said to be most acute.

Some cite this as a case where the unintended consequences of the go-it-alone approach to foreign policy that Washington took after the Sept. 11 attacks affected the larger American efforts to combat terrorism.

The cuts have also prompted outrage in Latin America, where several nations that have refused to sign the agreements have been cut off from certain military aid programs.

Last year, the United States cut off $13 million for training and equipping troops in Kenya, where operatives of Al Qaeda killed 224 people when they bombed the American Embassy compound in Nairobi in 1998.

In 2003, the flow of $309,000 annually was suspended to Mali, where Pentagon officials contend an Algerian separatist group with ties to Al Qaeda — known as the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat, or G.S.P.C. — has established a base. Money has also been cut for Tanzania, Niger and several other African nations.

Citing Kenya as an example, Pentagon officials say it makes little sense to ask for Kenya’s support in fighting terrorism while denying it the money it needs for training and equipping troops.

“Kenya is a key partner in our counterterrorism strategy and our goals in Africa,’’ a Pentagon official who works on Africa strategy said. “This hurts us, there’s no question about it.”

Several officials interviewed for this article were given anonymity because they were discussing a continuing debate in the government and because some were discussing intelligence matters.

Some military officials also argue that the aid cuts have given China an upper hand in what they describe as a modern Great Game — a battle for influence in Africa between the powers, similar to the 19th-century rivalry in Central Asia between the British and the Russians.

Specifically, the officials cite the millions of dollars the Chinese government has spent on infrastructure projects and military training in Africa to help lock up government contracts for natural resources like oil, timber and metals.

“It’s hard to compete with China because of the agility they have in obtaining contracts and then starting projects very quickly without worrying too much about human rights,” Gen. James Jones of the American European Command, which has military responsibility for most of Africa, recently told a Senate panel. “So we have our work cut out for us.”

China has substantially expanded its presence in Africa in recent years. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, China’s trade with Africa doubled to $18.5 billion between 2002 and 2003, and the figure exceeded $32 billion in November of 2005. China has overtaken Britain to become the continent’s third most important trading partner. But it is the impact on counterterrorism efforts in Africa that most alarms military officials.

The situation in Mali is of great concern because the Salafist group is believed to have established a foothold in that desolate country’s northern region. A recent State Department report said Mali’s northern territories had turned into a “safe haven” for the group’s fighters.

The Salafist group’s ability to attack the Algerian government is believed to have diminished in recent years, but intelligence officials are now concerned that the group is expanding its ties to Al Qaeda and other groups, and has used networks in the Middle East to send fighters into Iraq.

In recent years, the Pentagon has sent Special Forces trainers into Mali as part of a broader counterterrorism initiative to strengthen the abilities of Mali’s army to deal with organizations like the Salafist group.

But counterterrorism experts see such operations as short-term solutions. They argue that without a serious investment in Mali’s army, the ramshackle military has little hope of rooting out terrorists.

“Mali doesn’t have any power production capabilities, and its military can’t extend any power up into the north,” said an American official, who recently made a fact-finding trip to the Sahara. “The terrorist organizations can run around up there because the army can’t get to them.”

Passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in August 2002, the American Servicemembers’ Protection Act prohibits certain types of military aid to countries that have signed on to the International Criminal Court but have not signed a separate accord with the United States, called an Article 98 agreement.

Specifically, the law cuts off funds that provide training to military officers of friendly nations, known as IMET funds, and funds for foreign militaries to buy new weapons and equipment.

Under the terms of Article 98 agreements, which the Bush administration has pressed more than 100 nations to sign, nations pledge not to surrender American citizens to the international court without the consent of officials in Washington.

The Bush administration has refused to endorse the court, contending that overzealous prosecutors could charge American soldiers or civilian officials with war crimes for their roles in carrying out American policies abroad.

White House opposition to the court led Congress to severely restrict military and economic aid to countries that have not signed Article 98 agreements.

In March, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said blocking military assistance to nations seeking to combat terrorism was “sort of the same as shooting ourselves in the foot,” and the Pentagon’s recent Quadrennial Defense Review calls for the government to consider separating military funding from the 2002 law.

Congress is also considering a bill to repeal some of these measures. But the policy still has advocates in Washington, especially in the White House.

In Latin America, some of the countries that have lost funding have been major Pentagon partners in the effort to eradicate cocaine production. Ecuador, for instance, has been a staging ground for American surveillance planes on counternarcotics missions and has lost millions of dollars in military aid for refusing to sign an Article 98 agreement.

The cuts have drawn the ire of American military officials with responsibility for Latin America.

“Now when I go through the region, the fact is that the foreign military financing is gone,’’ Gen. Bantz J. Craddock of the United States Southern Command told the Senate this year. “IMET is gone.”

“Other nations are moving in,” he said. “The People’s Republic of China has made many offers.”

    U.S. Cuts in Africa Aid Said to Hurt War on Terror, NYT, 23.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/world/africa/23terror.html?hp&ex=1153713600&en=d0deffb2651bb8e6&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Praise at Home for Envoy, but Scorn at U.N.

July 23, 2006
The New York Times
By WARREN HOGE

UNITED NATIONS, July 22 — In recent months, as one international crisis followed another, John R. Bolton has fulfilled the role of the United Nations’ most influential ambassador at full strength, firmly articulating the position of the United States government regarding Iran, North Korea and the Middle East.

His performance won over at least one crucial critic, Senator George V. Voinovich, Republican of Ohio. Mr. Voinovich’s opposition a year ago forced Mr. Bolton to take the job as a presidential recess appointment, an arrangement that expires at the end of this Congress in January.

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee has scheduled a hearing this Thursday on Mr. Bolton’s renomination, and a floor vote could come in September. “My observations are that while Bolton is not perfect, he has demonstrated his ability, especially in recent months, to work with others and follow the president’s lead by working multilaterally,” Mr. Voinovich said in a Washington Post opinion article on Thursday in which he confirmed that he would vote for Mr. Bolton.

He said he was impressed by how Mr. Bolton, whom he had suspected of “go it alone” tendencies, frequently invoked “my instructions” from Washington.

The Bush administration is not popular at the United Nations, where it is often perceived as disdainful of diplomacy, and its policies as heedless of the effects on others and single-minded in the willful assertion of American interests. By extension, then, many diplomats say they see Mr. Bolton as a stand-in for the arrogance of the administration itself.

But diplomats focus particularly on an area with less evidence of instructions from Washington and more of Mr. Bolton’s personal touch, the mission that he has described as his priority: overhauling the institution’s discredited management. Envoys say he has in fact endangered that effort by alienating traditional allies. They say he combatively asserts American leadership, contests procedures at the mannerly, rules-bound United Nations and then shrugs off the organization when it does not follow his lead.

Six ambassadors separately offered similar accounts of an incident in June that they said captured the situation. All were from nations in Europe, the Pacific and Latin America that consider themselves close allies of the United States, and they asked to speak anonymously in commenting on a fellow envoy.

Mr. Bolton that day burst into a packed committee hall, produced a cordless microphone and began to lecture envoys from developing nations about their weakening of a proposal to tighten management of the United Nations, his chief goal.

Gaveled to silence, he threw up his hands and said, “Well, so much for trying something different.”

It was not merely rude, the ambassadors said. One recalled that moments later, his BlackBerry flashed a message from another envoy working on management change. “He just busted us apart,” it read.

Three weeks later, on June 30, the 191-member General Assembly upended Mr. Bolton’s strategy to force change, lifting a six-month budget cap that he engineered without agreeing to significant management improvements. Dumisani Kumalo, the South African ambassador and the leader of the Group of 77, which represents 132 developing nations, said Mr. Bolton’s “putting on budget caps and being very contentious” had increased his group’s resistance.

The envoys will not, of course, have any say about whether Mr. Bolton receives the full appointment to the United Nations. But their concerns over his methods extend to issues that the senators will undoubtedly have to weigh: his ability to build coalitions and reach consensus.

Mr. Bolton, whose knowledge of the United Nations is deep from his past service as assistant secretary of state for international organization affairs, said he did not believe his manner was confrontational. “It’s not a question of personal style so much as it is a way of articulating a position that puts American interests in the best light,” he said. “And I think in some cases people are unfamiliar with that, but I don’t think that’s confrontational. I think that’s a matter of clarity.”

In particular, he said, in the June episode, he had been simply trying to provoke honest debate.

“I said to myself, maybe there’s a way to do something a little unusual here,” he said. “I know it didn’t work, but I think that’s part of what we have to do to shake things up here, to try to do something a little different, a little creative, to try to talk back and forth and engage in a colloquy as if we were on the floor of a parliament.”

He has plenty of backers who remain convinced that only that kind of tough presence can alter the institution. Perhaps his strongest and longest standing supporter is Senator Norm Coleman, the Minnesota Republican who is a leading critic of the way the United Nations functions.

“What John offers is what the U.S. needs at the U.N. today,” he said in an interview. “John is the right kind of change agent in a universe that is resistant to change. In order to get reform done, you’re going to have to push, you have to be assertive.”

Sean McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said, “He has done an extraordinary job representing the U.S. during what has turned out to be an extraordinary time at the U.N., and Secretary Rice thinks he’s doing a terrific job.”

But over the past month, more than 30 ambassadors consulted in the preparation of this article, all of whom share the United States’ goal of changing United Nations management practices, expressed misgivings over Mr. Bolton’s leadership.

Representative Bill Delahunt of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on an international relations subcommittee that focuses on the United Nations, said that in a visit here last month he had encountered “frustration and resentment over the U.S. performance at the U.N.”

And outside experts also expressed concerns.

“I actually agree with Bolton on what has to be done at the U.N., but his confrontational tactics have been very dysfunctional for the U.S. purpose,” said Edward C. Luck, a professor of international affairs at Columbia who has followed the United Nations for three decades. “To be successful at the U.N., you have to build coalitions, and if you take unilateral action the way Bolton has, you’re isolated, and if you’re isolated, you can’t achieve much.”

William H. Luers, president of the United Nations Association of the United States, an independent support group, said, “There clearly are occasions when you have to put your foot down, but if you put your foot down every day, it unravels any diplomatic assets you have.”

Asked about the allied ambassadors’ broad criticisms, Mr. Bolton said, “What I object to as a matter of tactics is compromising with ourselves before we compromise with our opponents, and by compromising with ourselves, I mean compromising with our friends, too.”

Mr. Bolton came to the United Nations on Aug. 2 last year after a bruising battle in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Democrats on the committee cited accusations that he bullied subordinates, shaped intelligence reports to reflect his policy views and tried to engineer the removal of a C.I.A. official who disagreed with him. They also noted scornful references he had made about the United Nations like his comment that 10 floors of the Secretariat building could be lopped off without being missed.

He immediately stood out from the silken diplomatic crowd with a white shaving-brush mustache, the bouncy walk of a fighter entering the ring and a blunt sense of humor that can veer abruptly from lighthearted to cutting.

In the months after his arrival, ambassadors said that despite his history of putdowns of the United Nations, they were impressed by his work ethic and knowledge of his brief and thought they could collaborate with him.

Now the reaction is different. “My initial feeling was, let’s see if we can work with him, and I have done some things to push for consensus on issues that were not easy for my country,” said an ambassador with close ties to the Bush administration.

“But all he gives us in return is, ‘It doesn’t matter, whatever you do is insufficient,’ ” he said. “He’s lost me as an ally now, and that’s what many other ambassadors who consider themselves friends of the U.S. are saying.”

A European envoy said that Mr. Bolton was a difficult ally for his traditionally pro-American group because he often staked out unilateral hard-line positions in the news media or Congress and then proved unwilling to compromise in the give and take of negotiations.

In the aftermath of a 170-to-4 vote last spring on creating a Human Rights Council, which the United States opposed, Peter Maurer, the ambassador of Switzerland, characterized the American approach as “intransigent and maximalist.”

“All too often,” he said, “high ambitions are cover-ups for less noble aims, and oriented not at improving the United Nations, but at belittling and weakening it.”

Mr. Bolton’s habit of avoiding any favorable mention of the United Nations while seizing many opportunities to disparage it is so well established that Senator Paul S. Sarbanes, a Maryland Democrat, observed to him in a May hearing of the Foreign Relations Committee, “The role of constant scold I’m not sure is the best way to induce change.”

An envoy of a country close to the United States complained that Mr. Bolton often stayed away from meetings, leaving ambassadors in the dark about American positions, then produced 11th-hour amendments and demands for reopening points that had been painfully muscled into consensus.

“We are all like cooks, and the U.S. is sitting on the sidewalk and when we have this platter cooked, the U.S. comes in and says it was the wrong dish, you were cooking chicken and we wanted meat,” said an envoy from a country close to the United States.

On June 30, Mr. Bolton stunned a group of allied ambassadors. As they waited in the office of Jan Eliasson, the president of the General Assembly, to approve a plan to review thousands of outdated and redundant directives, word arrived that Mr. Bolton had cut a side deal to postpone the effort. And he had done so with the three countries viewed as the proposal’s most vocal opponents, Egypt, India and South Africa.

Mr. Bolton explained the incident by saying, “What I was trying to do was sit down with people whose positions diverge the most with the United States and, rather than work through indirection, negotiate directly.”

But an envoy from a country that always votes with the United States said: “That came as very shocking and disappointing to us. We usually work very closely with him, but sometimes, I guess, you get surprised.”

    Praise at Home for Envoy, but Scorn at U.N., NYT, 23.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/world/23bolton.html?hp&ex=1153713600&en=32cc5e5c4ccb4b13&ei=5094&partner=homepage

U.S. Plan Seeks to Wedge Syria From Iran

July 23, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, July 22 — As Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, Bush administration officials say they recognize Syria is central to any plans to resolve the crisis in the Middle East, and they are seeking ways to peel Syria away from its alliance of convenience with Iran.

In interviews, senior administration officials said they had no plans right now to resume direct talks with the Syrian government. President Bush recalled his ambassador to Syria, Margaret Scobey, after the assassination of Rafik Hariri, a former Lebanese prime minister, in February 2005. Since then, America’s contacts with Damascus have been few, and the administration has imposed an array of sanctions on Syria’s government and banks, and frozen the assets of Syrian officials implicated in Mr. Hariri’s killing.

But officials said this week that they were at the beginning stages of a plan to encourage Saudi Arabia and Egypt to make the case to the Syrians that they must turn against Hezbollah. With the crisis at such a pivotal stage, officials who are involved in the delicate negotiations to end it agreed to speak about their expectations only if they were not quoted by name.

“We think that the Syrians will listen to their Arab neighbors on this rather than us,’’ a senior official said, “so it’s all a question of how well that can be orchestrated.’’

There are several substantial hurdles to success. The effort risks seeming to encourage Syria to reclaim some of the influence on Lebanon that it lost after its troops were forced to withdraw last year. It is not clear how forcefully Arab countries would push a cause seen to benefit the United States and Israel. Many Middle Eastern analysts are skeptical that a lasting settlement can be achieved without direct talks between Syria and the United States.

The effort begins Sunday afternoon in the Oval Office, where President Bush is to meet the Saudi foreign minister, Saud al-Faisal, and the chief of the Saudi national security council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan. Prince Bandar was the Saudi ambassador to Washington until late last year and often speaks of his deep connections to the Bush family and to Vice President Dick Cheney.

Ms. Rice is delaying her departure to the Middle East until after the meeting, which she is also expected to attend, along with Mr. Cheney and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser. The session was requested by the Saudis, American officials said.

The expected outcome of the session is unclear. “We don’t know how patient the Saudis will be with the Israeli military action,’’ said a senior official said. “They want to see Hezbollah wiped out, and they’d like to set back the Iranians.”

But in the Arab world, the official added, “they can’t been seen to be doing that too enthusiastically.’’

Several of Mr. Bush’s top aides said the plan was for Mr. Bush and other senior officials to press both Saudi Arabia and Egypt to prod Syria into giving up its links with Hezbollah, and with Iran. The administration, aside from its differences with Iran over nuclear programs and with Syria over its role in Lebanon, has also objected to both nations’ behavior toward their common neighbor, Iraq.

“They have to make the point to them that if things go bad in the Mideast, the Iranians are not going to be a reliable lifeline,’’ one of the administration officials said.

Another said, “There is a presumption that the Syrians have more at stake here than the Iranians, and they are more exposed.”

The American officials are calculating that pressure from Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan may help to get Syria on board.

But so far, there appears to be little discussion of offering American incentives to the Syrians to abandon Hezbollah, or even to stop arming it. The Bush administration has been deeply reluctant to make such offers, whether it is negotiating with Damascus or with the governments of Iran or North Korea.

Nor did President Bush sound any conciliatory notes in his radio address on Saturday. “For many years, Syria has been a primary sponsor of Hezbollah and it has helped provide Hezbollah with shipments of Iranian-made weapons,’’ he said. “Iran’s regime has also repeatedly defied the international community with its ambition for nuclear weapons and aid to terrorist groups. Their actions threaten the entire Middle East and stand in the way of resolving the current crisis and bringing lasting peace to this troubled region.”

The State Department lists Syria as a country that sends money to terrorist organizations. Syria’s ambassador to the United States, Imad Moustapha, has spent a lot of time on television in recent days, but he is often described as one of the loneliest ambassadors in Washington.

In the months after Sept. 11, Syria provided important assistance in the campaign against Al Qaeda. But relations soured as American officials complained that Syria did little to crack down on associates of Saddam Hussein who funneled money to the insurgency in Iraq through Syrian banks, or to stop the flow of insurgents across its border to Iraq. The United States imposed sanctions on Syria in 2004, and took further measures after Syrian officials were accused of involvement in Mr. Hariri’s assassination.

The idea is to try to drive a wedge between Syria and Iran, which have recently been drawn closer together by standoffs with Washington. Syria and Iran have been formally allied since the Iran-Iraq war began in 1980, but historically they were suspicious of each other.

“Historically and strategically, they are on opposing sides — the Arabs and the Persians,” Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, said in an interview on Thursday. Now, he added, “the only Arab country to ally with Iran is Syria,” a position that has angered Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Syria, like most of the Arab world, is largely Sunni. Iran and Iraq are largely Shiite.

A Western diplomat said Arab leaders had had trouble getting President Bashar al-Assad of Syria to come to the telephone when they called to express concern about Hezbollah’s actions.

In 1996, when Israel and Hezbollah were fighting each other and bombs rained down on civilian populations, Secretary of State Warren Christopher spent 10 days shuttling between Damascus, Beirut and Jerusalem before brokering a cease-fire and an agreement by Israel and Hezbollah to leave civilians out of the fighting.

Ms. Rice has said she has no intention of duplicating Mr. Christopher’s approach. “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do,” she said Friday. “I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante.”

Rather, the administration’s declared aim is to carry out United Nations Resolution 1559, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah and the deployment of the Lebanese Army to southern Lebanon. Syria, which was forced to withdraw its troops from Lebanon last year, may well balk at efforts to enforce it.

But while analysts say it is possible for the Bush administration and Israel to work out a solution without including Syria in the diplomatic wrangling, it would be difficult. Some Bush administration officials, particularly at the State Department, are pushing to find a way to start talking to Syria again.

Mr. Bush on Saturday telephoned the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, from his ranch in Crawford, Tex., to discuss the widening crisis in Lebanon, and pledged the United States would assist the Turkish government as it battled the Kurdish Workers’ Party, the violent separatist movement. Turkey has been mentioned as a potential leader of the proposed United Nations plan to deploy an international force to the region to help cool the violence.

    U.S. Plan Seeks to Wedge Syria From Iran, NYT, 23.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/washington/23diplo.html?hp&ex=1153713600&en=830c9036b765b06b&ei=5094&partner=homepage

  For the U.S., a Newfangled Compass        NYT        23.7.2006
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/weekinreview/23worth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Where Now?

For the U.S., a Newfangled Compass

July 23, 2006
The New York Times
By ROBERT F. WORTH

OVER the past week, with rockets exploding among the cafes of Beirut and in the streets of Haifa, the world has been stunned by the rising ferocity of the war between Israel and Hezbollah, the Lebanese militia. But equally surprising, to many, has been the way the conflict has illuminated the sweeping changes that are reshaping the entire Middle East.

Behind Hezbollah’s rockets lurks the specter of a newly unleashed Iran, its patron and supplier. Israel — which hoped to reap some peace after its withdrawal from Gaza — has been emboldened to lash out against its enemies more aggressively than it has in two decades. Iraq is in ruins, and the Arab states seem paralyzed. Everywhere, the struts that upheld the region’s tenuous stability are wavering, and fierce new winds are blowing.

Whatever the outcome of the current proxy war — fought on the soil of the suffering Lebanese — this broader struggle for dominance will continue to play itself out. So the question arises: What is America’s role in this volatile new world? Arab democracy may be a distant dream, but there is still much to be gained or lost in the region, from access to crucial oil fields, to fighting terrorism, to the security of Israel.

The Bush administration stuck to its playbook through Israel’s initial assault, giving a tacit blessing to its airstrikes and maintaining a studied silence: We do not negotiate with bad guys like Syria and Iran. That has left it with little leverage, and virtually no one to talk to.

Some critics of the administration emphasize the benefit of talking with Syria or Iran. Tehran in particular can inflict pain on American troops and allies in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as Israel. But it is not clear that such negotiations would succeed.

In any event, all the countries of the Middle East, having seen the American democratic experiment in Iraq go up in flames, may now be less amenable to any of the world powers that have shaped the region for so long.

“My sense is that we are seeing the Middle East entering a new era, one in which external powers count for less, and local actors — be they states or militias or individuals — count for more,” said Richard N. Haass, who headed the State Department’s policy planning operation during President Bush’s first term and is now president of the Council on Foreign Relations.

That shift is an important one, Mr. Haass said, and could make relations in the region more complex and unstable for a long time.

For most of the past century, outsiders shaped the politics of the region. Britain and France literally redrew the Middle East borders after World War I. After the United States followed Britain as the reigning Western power, policies were guided by cold war concerns, with American clients warding off Communist influence and maintaining access to oil supplies. Starting in 1967, the United States also became the chief guarantor of Israel’s security, and the lead player in efforts to broker a lasting peace — a process that came close to success in 2000, but has been in ruins ever since. Over all, stability was the chief goal, and American presidents were sometimes criticized for coddling Arab autocrats.

All that changed after Sept. 11, 2001, when the Bush administration embraced a bold new plan to transform the Middle East by promoting democracy. But by removing Saddam Hussein, who had kept neighboring Iran in check throughout his reign, the new American effort freed Iran to take on a vastly more powerful role.

That transformation is the key to the current conflict in Lebanon. For Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab states, the specter of a Shiite crescent running from Iran through Iraq to the militant Shiites of Hezbollah in Lebanon is terrifying. It is not just a matter of age-old tensions between Sunni and Shiite Islam. The status, and safety, of the Sunni Arab leadership is at stake.

“The Saudis are truly worried about the Iranians,” said Rachel Bronson, an expert on Middle East politics at the council. “They think Ahmadinejad is a nut who represents a return to messianic Khomeinism. They don’t know what he wants, and they’re worried about the nuclear program.”

That is why Saudi Arabia, along with Egypt and Jordan, performed a stunning turnabout last week by publicly condemning Hezbollah’s attack on Israel. For the United States, this would appear to be a good thing: for once, Arab leaders were saying in public what they used to only whisper in private to their American counterparts.

But the new Arab stance may not be worth much. For one thing, the Arab leaders are vulnerable to public sentiment on their streets, where Hezbollah’s attacks on Israel are enormously popular.

And the willingness of pro-Western Arab autocrats to ignore or play down their peoples’ fury at Israel hardly supports the broader American project of promoting democracy in the Middle East. But that project has already backfired in several places, with elections bringing anti-American zealots to power in Iraq and in the Palestinian government. The Arab leaders’ rallying against Hezbollah last week may be the final nail in the coffin.

“I think this is a gambit on the part of those regimes to conclusively put an end to democracy promotion in the Middle East,” said Marc Lynch, a scholar of Arab politics at Williams College. “They are saying to the Americans: ‘Look how useful we are.’ ”

Iran, meanwhile, seems to move from strength to strength. It had already won wide support across sectarian lines for its clandestine military help to Hamas, and for its quick $50 million pledge of support to the Palestinian Authority earlier this year after the United States and Europe declared a financial boycott.

“The joke in Tehran is that Ahmadinejad is even more popular in Cairo than he is there,” said Vali Nasr, an Iranian-born professor of national affairs at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “The Arab governments all know this will make them more vulnerable.”

Iran’s power is also newly apparent in Iraq, where the government is led by Shiites with close ties to Iran’s religious hierarchy. On Wednesday, Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki forcefully denounced Israel’s bombing campaign in Lebanon, a position deeply at odds with the Americans whose invasion allowed the Shiites to gain power. One of Iraq’s most powerful leaders, the Shiite cleric Moktada al-Sadr, has gone farther, hinting that he might actively support his Shiite brethren in Hezbollah.

Iran’s influence has economic ramifications, too. “If Iran emerges as a more powerful state, it will make other states in the region, and external powers like Russia and China, more willing to cooperate with Iran on energy despite U.S. objections,” said Flynt Leverett, a former director of Middle Eastern affairs at the National Security Council and a former C.I.A. analyst.

In light of all this, some argue that the United States has little choice but to open a dialogue. “If you want a stable security environment in the Middle East, you need strategic understandings with Iran and Syria,” says Mr. Leverett, who is now a senior fellow at the New America Foundation.

In that context, Syria could be critical. Like its patron, Iran, Syria has drawn attention to its power in the region by allowing terrorists to cross its border into Iraq, and by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas. But Syria is smaller and more vulnerable, and its leader — a member of the minority Alawite sect in a predominantly Sunni country — is in a far more precarious position.

By dangling the right incentives — the economic partnerships that Syria might gain if it could be removed from the list of state sponsors of terror, for example — the United States and its Arab allies might persuade Syria to end its decades of supporting terror and reconsider its close ties with Iran, Mr. Leverett said.

Iran, too, would like to see America come calling, some analysts say. “Part of this whole war in Lebanon is about the Iranians trying to get the U.S. to relieve the pressure on them,” said Steven A. Cook, an expert on Arab politics at the Council on Foreign Relations.

It is also possible that such deals are fantasies, or just too costly. Syria’s president, Bashar al-Assad, for instance, is furious about the United Nations investigation into the killing of the former Lebanese prime minister, Rafik Hariri, last year.

Investigators from the United Nations have made clear that Mr. Assad’s government appears to be implicated in the killing, and he would like to see the possibility of a trial scrapped. He would also like security guarantees, as no doubt would Iran. Even all that might not be enough.

“They might not believe us even if we did give them security guarantees,” said F. Gregory Gause III, director of the Middle East studies program at the University of Vermont. “They think the Bush administration wants to overthrow them.”

That may be the truth. If it turns out that Iran actually ordered Hezbollah to carry out the raid that sparked the current conflict on July 13, as opposed to merely supplying the weapons, some kind of reckoning is almost certain, Mr. Gause said.

With all the ill winds blowing through the Middle East — and the limited success of American efforts there — pulling away from the region might seem like a more appealing course. For the moment, though, that seems unlikely, and not just because of oil, or commitments to Israel.

“We learned from Afghanistan that we cannot just leave a volatile territory on its own,” Mr. Nasr said. “There is no broader security organization like NATO for us to try to pass the buck to. So in some ways we’re stuck with it.”

    For the U.S., a Newfangled Compass, NYT, 23.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/23/weekinreview/23worth.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Weapons

U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis

July 22, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID S. CLOUD and HELENE COOPER

WASHINGTON, July 21 — The Bush administration is rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel, which requested the expedited shipment last week after beginning its air campaign against Hezbollah targets in Lebanon, American officials said Friday.

The decision to quickly ship the weapons to Israel was made with relatively little debate within the Bush administration, the officials said. Its disclosure threatens to anger Arab governments and others because of the appearance that the United States is actively aiding the Israeli bombing campaign in a way that could be compared to Iran’s efforts to arm and resupply Hezbollah.

The munitions that the United States is sending to Israel are part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel is able to draw on as needed, the officials said. But Israel’s request for expedited delivery of the satellite and laser-guided bombs was described as unusual by some military officers, and as an indication that Israel still had a long list of targets in Lebanon to strike.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Friday that she would head to Israel on Sunday at the beginning of a round of Middle Eastern diplomacy. The original plan was to include a stop to Cairo in her travels, but she did not announce any stops in Arab capitals.

Instead, the meeting of Arab and European envoys planned for Cairo will take place in Italy, Western diplomats said. While Arab governments initially criticized Hezbollah for starting the fight with Israel in Lebanon, discontent is rising in Arab countries over the number of civilian casualties in Lebanon, and the governments have become wary of playing host to Ms. Rice until a cease-fire package is put together.

To hold the meetings in an Arab capital before a diplomatic solution is reached, said Martin S. Indyk, a former American ambassador to Israel, “would have identified the Arabs as the primary partner of the United States in this project at a time where Hezbollah is accusing the Arab leaders of providing cover for the continuation of Israel’s military operation.”

The decision to stay away from Arab countries for now is a markedly different strategy from the shuttle diplomacy that previous administrations used to mediate in the Middle East. “I have no interest in diplomacy for the sake of returning Lebanon and Israel to the status quo ante,” Ms. Rice said Friday. “I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling around, and it wouldn’t have been clear what I was shuttling to do.”

Before Ms. Rice heads to Israel on Sunday, she will join President Bush at the White House for discussions on the Middle East crisis with two Saudi envoys, Saud al-Faisal, the foreign minister, and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the secretary general of the National Security Council.

The new American arms shipment to Israel has not been announced publicly, and the officials who described the administration’s decision to rush the munitions to Israel would discuss it only after being promised anonymity. The officials included employees of two government agencies, and one described the shipment as just one example of a broad array of armaments that the United States has long provided Israel.

One American official said the shipment should not be compared to the kind of an “emergency resupply” of dwindling Israeli stockpiles that was provided during the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, when an American military airlift helped Israel recover from early Arab victories.

David Siegel, a spokesman for the Israeli Embassy in Washington, said: “We have been using precision-guided munitions in order to neutralize the military capabilities of Hezbollah and to minimize harm to civilians. As a rule, however, we do not comment on Israel’s defense acquisitions.”

Israel’s need for precision munitions is driven in part by its strategy in Lebanon, which includes destroying hardened underground bunkers where Hezbollah leaders are said to have taken refuge, as well as missile sites and other targets that would be hard to hit without laser and satellite-guided bombs.

Pentagon and military officials declined to describe in detail the size and contents of the shipment to Israel, and they would not say whether the munitions were being shipped by cargo aircraft or some other means. But an arms-sale package approved last year provides authority for Israel to purchase from the United States as many as 100 GBU-28’s, which are 5,000-pound laser-guided bombs intended to destroy concrete bunkers. The package also provides for selling satellite-guided munitions.

An announcement in 2005 that Israel was eligible to buy the “bunker buster” weapons described the GBU-28 as “a special weapon that was developed for penetrating hardened command centers located deep underground.” The document added, “The Israeli Air Force will use these GBU-28’s on their F-15 aircraft.”

American officials said that once a weapons purchase is approved, it is up to the buyer nation to set up a timetable. But one American official said normal procedures usually do not include rushing deliveries within days of a request. That was done because Israel is a close ally in the midst of hostilities, the official said.

Although Israel had some precision guided bombs in its stockpile when the campaign in Lebanon began, the Israelis may not have taken delivery of all the weapons they were entitled to under the 2005 sale.

Israel said its air force had dropped 23 tons of explosives Wednesday night alone in Beirut, in an effort to penetrate what was believed to be a bunker used by senior Hezbollah officials.

A senior Israeli official said Friday that the attacks to date had degraded Hezbollah’s military strength by roughly half, but that the campaign could go on for two more weeks or longer. “We will stay heavily with the air campaign,” he said. “There’s no time limit. We will end when we achieve our goals.”

The Bush administration announced Thursday a military equipment sale to Saudi Arabia, worth more than $6 billion, a move that may in part have been aimed at deflecting inevitable Arab government anger at the decision to supply Israel with munitions in the event that effort became public.

On Friday, Bush administration officials laid out their plans for the diplomatic strategy that Ms. Rice will pursue. In Rome, the United States will try to hammer out a diplomatic package that will offer Lebanon incentives under the condition that a United Nations resolution, which calls for the disarming of Hezbollah, is implemented.

Diplomats will also try to figure out the details around an eventual international peacekeeping force, and which countries will contribute to it. Germany and Russia have both indicated that they would be willing to contribute forces; Ms. Rice said the United States was unlikely to.

Implicit in the eventual diplomatic package is a cease-fire. But a senior American official said it remained unclear whether, under such a plan, Hezbollah would be asked to retreat from southern Lebanon and commit to a cease-fire, or whether American diplomats might depend on Israel’s continued bombardment to make Hezbollah’s acquiescence irrelevant.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel’s ambassador to Washington, said that Israel would not rule out an international force to police the borders of Lebanon and Syria and to patrol southern Lebanon, where Hezbollah has had a stronghold. But he said that Israel was first determined to take out Hezbollah’s command and control centers and weapons stockpiles.

Thom Shanker contributed reporting for this article.

    U.S. Speeds Up Bomb Delivery for the Israelis, NYT, 22.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/22/world/middleeast/22military.html?hp&ex=1153627200&en=ccb5206208860925&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Rice Seeks Long - Term Peace on Mideast Trip

July 22, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 2:44 a.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice rejected the ''false promise'' of an immediate cease-fire in the spreading war between Israel and Hezbollah on Friday and said she would seek long-term peace during a trip to the Mideast beginning Sunday.

The top U.S. diplomat defended her decision not to meet with Hezbollah leaders or their Syrian backers during her visit.

''Syria knows what it needs to do, and Hezbollah is the source of the problem,'' Rice said as she previewed her trip, which begins with a stop in Israel.

Rice said the United States is committed to ending the bloodshed, but not before certain conditions are met. The Bush administration has said that Hezbollah must first turn over the two Israeli soldiers whose capture set off the 10-day-old violence, and stop firing missiles into Israel.

''We do seek an end to the current violence, we seek it urgently. We also seek to address the root causes of that violence,'' Rice said. ''A cease-fire would be a false promise if it simply returns us to the status quo.''

The United States has resisted international pressure to lean on its ally Israel to halt the fighting. The U.S. position has allowed Israel more time to try to destroy what both nations consider a Hezbollah terrorist network in southern Lebanon.

In addition, the Bush administration was rushing a delivery of precision-guided bombs to Israel after receiving a request last week, The New York Times reported. The munitions were part of a multimillion-dollar arms sale package approved last year that Israel could tap at any time, the Times reported in an article posted on its Web site Friday night.

United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan demanded an immediate cease-fire Thursday, and denounced the actions of both Israel and Hezbollah. Lebanon's beleaguered prime minister has also asked for an immediate halt to the fighting.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to Washington, told The Associated Press that Israel has destroyed about 40 percent of Hezbollah's military capabilities.

''Most of the long-range (missiles) have been hit, a lot of the medium range, but they still have thousands and thousands of rockets, short-range and others,'' Ayalon said in an interview.

He described the Israeli military assault as a ''mop up'' operation, and said that Israel had no desire to repeat its 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon that ended in 2000.

''They overplayed their hand, they miscalculated,'' Ayalon said of Hezbollah militants based in southern Lebanon and supported by Syria and Iran.

Rice's mission would be the first U.S. diplomatic effort on the ground since the Israeli effort against Lebanon began.

Asked why she didn't go earlier and engage in quick-hit diplomacy to try to end the death and destruction that has gripped the region, she replied, ''I could have gotten on a plane and rushed over and started shuttling and it wouldn't have been clear what I was shuttling to do.''

The crisis started last week when Hezbollah, an Islamic militant group that operates in southern Lebanon, captured two Israeli soldiers. Israel retaliated by carrying out bombing across Lebanon and slapping a naval blockade on the country. Hezbollah fired hundreds of missiles into Israel.

At least 362 people have been killed in Lebanon in the Israeli campaign, according to the Lebanese health minister. Thirty-four Israelis also have been killed, including 19 soldiers.

Rice plans meetings in Jerusalem and the West Bank with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, as well as sessions in Rome with representatives of European and moderate Arab governments that are meant to shore up the weak democratic government in Lebanon's capital Beirut.

Rice's trip resumes a role the United States has long played as the key Mideast peace broker, but Rice is not expected to try to get a signed deal during her brief visit.

''I know that there are no answers that are easy, nor are there any quick fixes,'' Rice said. ''I fully expect that the diplomatic work for peace will be difficult.''

The United States is relying on Arab and other intermediaries to pressure Hezbollah and Syria. The United States considers Hezbollah a terrorist group, and has cut high-level ties to Damascus in a dispute over what it says is Syrian meddling in Lebanon.

Hezbollah also exerts political control in southern Lebanon, overshadowing the democratic central government. The U.N. and U.S. plan for long-term stability would give international help to the Beirut government to expel Hezbollah and install its own Army troops, something it has been unable to do.

Hezbollah ''extremists are trying to strangle it in its crib,'' Rice said of the Lebanese government.

President Bush, asked what he hopes Rice will achieve on her trip, said he would discuss it with her when he returns to the White House on Sunday. He was speaking at a restaurant in Aurora, Colo., as he met with 10 members of the military who recently returned from Iraq.

Announcing plans earlier for a weekend meeting that Bush and Rice will have with Saudi officials, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, ''This is part of the president's broader diplomatic outreach on the developing situation in the Middle East.''

Bush and Rice will meet at the White House with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, chief of the Saudi National Security Council.

The plans emerged following two days of meetings in New York with Annan and envoys he sent to the region this week. Annan outlined basic terms of a proposed cease-fire and the longer-range goals to remove the Hezbollah threat in southern Lebanon in a speech on Thursday.

    Rice Seeks Long - Term Peace on Mideast Trip, NYT, 22.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Mideast.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Bush, Rice to Confer With Saudi Officials

July 21, 2006
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 12:51 p.m. ET
The New York Times

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will lay out U.S. plans Friday for a diplomatic solution to the Israeli-Hezbollah fighting, and she and President Bush will meet with Saudi Arabian officials Sunday to discuss it.

Rice departs later Sunday for the Mideast, and will carry the U.S. strategy for ending the 10-day-old warfare and establishing stability in southern Lebanon, a senior administration official said.

The secretary was expected to detail her itinerary and agenda in Washington later Friday, said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because Rice had not yet made her plans public.

Rice was expected to announce formation of a humanitarian corridor in Lebanon.

Daniel Ayalon, Israel's ambassador to Washington, told The Associated Press, ''We support that fully.''

Announcing plans for the weekend meeting Bush and Rice will have with the Saudis, White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said, ''This is part of the president's broader diplomatic outreach on the developing situation in the Middle East.''

Talking to reporters aboard Air Force One as Bush was en route to an appearance in Colorado, Perino said the aim was ''to provide the president and Dr. Rice a chance to continue to strategize with a key partner in the region on a diplomatic solution that will address the root causes of violence and terror in the region.''

Bush and Rice are to meet with Saudi Foreign Minister Saudi al-Faisal and Prince Bandar bin Sultan, chief of the Saudi National Security Council.

The plans emerged following two days of meetings in New York with United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and envoys he sent to the region this week. Although Annan called Thursday for an immediate cease-fire, that is opposed by the United States. The Bush administration says the United States and the U.N. agree on the wider diplomatic goals for the region.

The United States has resisted international pressure to lean on its ally Israel to halt the fighting. Rice was likely try to point the way to a relatively quick cease-fire, but not an immediate one. She is expected in Israel on Tuesday, Israeli officials said on condition of anonymity because the schedule was not yet confirmed.

Rice is also expected to meet with European foreign ministers and representatives from Arab nations that have been unusually critical of Hezbollah. That meeting would take place somewhere in the Mideast, but the location is not set.

Rice's mission would be the first U.S. diplomatic effort on the ground since the Israeli onslaught against Lebanon began.

The Rice initiative likely would be designed to give the United States a major role in brokering peace there. She is not expected to try to get a signed deal during her brief visit, however, and she risks laying out the U.S. goals only to have either side refuse to bargain.

Annan outlined the basic terms of a proposed cease-fire and the longer-range goals to remove the Hezbollah threat in southern Lebanon in a speech on Thursday.

Hezbollah is an Islamic militant group that also exerts political control over southern Lebanon, overshadowing the weak democratic central government in Beirut. The U.N. and U.S. plan for long-term stability would give international help to the Beirut government to expel Hezbollah and install its own Army troops, something it has been unable to do on its own.

Israel called up reserve troops Friday and warned civilians to flee southern Lebanon, as it prepared for a likely ground invasion to set up a deep buffer zone.

Earlier, White House press secretary Tony Snow said the administration is working hard to end violence in the Mideast and that criticism of its measured response is coming from people who want ''egg-timer diplomacy.''

Asked on NBC's ''Today'' show whether Washington was trying to discourage Israel from notions about a ground invasion, Snow replied: ''We have not been doing military collaboration or planning with the Israelis. But what we have been doing instead is urging the Israelis to use restraint.''

    Bush, Rice to Confer With Saudi Officials, NYT, 21.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-US-Mideast.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The Homecoming

Plucked to Safety From Lebanon, American Evacuees Return and Lament the Destruction

July 21, 2006
The New York Times
By GARY GATELY

LINTHICUM, Md., July 20 — A cheering planeload of Americans evacuated from Lebanon arrived here Thursday morning, giving thanks for their escape and pleading for an end to the bombing there.

Haggard and wearing clothes they had slept in, but otherwise healthy and in good spirits, many of the roughly 150 evacuees exulted and applauded when the government-chartered DC-10 touched down at Baltimore/Washington International Airport.

Some wept tears of joy; others, tears of sadness. Some had worried that they and their loved ones would never make it out of Lebanon alive, while others feared for the safety of kin and friends left behind.

“We lived through horror; I’ve seen little kids burned alive,” said Tom Charara, 50, an aerospace engineer from Long Beach, Calif., who with his wife, Rola, and two young children went to visit ailing relatives in Beirut. “A country is being destroyed, people are being killed, and the whole world is watching.”

The flight originated in Cyprus, which the evacuees reached by helicopter and plane, as well as on freighter journeys as long as 16 hours. But inside the arrival terminal, there was calm efficiency.

Barely over an hour after the passengers shuffled into the waiting area, most had left with family members or had boarded connecting flights to other American cities. Few relied on the waiting Red Cross workers, interpreters, health aides and counselors or the bank of computers that Maryland officials had set up for e-mail.

The State Department said Thursday morning that 2,600 American citizens had been evacuated and that more than 5,000 were hoping to leave. The Baltimore airport expected as many as eight more planeloads by Sunday, said Christopher J. McCabe, Maryland’s secretary of human resources.

Thursday’s homecoming was bittersweet for many evacuees.

David Merhige, a musician from the East Village in New York, had gone to Lebanon for a cousin’s wedding, which ended up being moved north, then disrupted, because of bombing. “My trip started out amazing and beautiful, and it turned into a terrible atrocity,” he said.

Mr. Merhige, 39, recalled sitting in the relative safety of the United States Embassy in Beirut on Wednesday, with fighter planes and gunboats nearby, shaking as he thought of family members who remained.

“I had pretty much uncontrollable tears,” he said. “I don’t cry that often, but I did when I thought of the craziness I left. It’s just going to be a disaster over there.”

Several evacuees called on Israel to stop bombing Lebanon.

Stephen McInerney, a student completing a master’s degree in Middle Eastern studies at the American University in Beirut, said he had felt no danger to himself, but expressed horror at seeing so much of the city in flames and ruins.

“I felt more sadness in the past week than I ever have before in my entire life,” Mr. McInerney said. “The atrocities going on in Lebanon are out of control and are unjustifiable and unwarranted.”

Marion Brannon, a minister from North Carolina, had been working in Beirut for seven years, watching the city continue to rebuild and thrive. “Now our hearts cry out for these people,” she said. “Please pray for the peace of Lebanon.”

The Lebanese people, Ms. Brannon said, want America’s help in ending the violence.

“When they hit a target,” she said, “one woman came to me and said: ‘Please call America. Please call America for us.’ So they do view you as a nation that stands with them.”

Mohamad Barbarji, of Williamsburg, Va., had taken his wife and three children to Beirut to visit his parents and other relatives. “We heard the jets coming, and I jumped out of my bed at 3 o’clock in the morning,” Mr. Barbarji said. “And all of a sudden I heard nothing but explosions everywhere.”

His 8-year-old son, Haidar, woke again and again that first night.

On Thursday morning, back home again, the little boy trembled and fought back tears.

“I was just wishing that Lebanon and Israel would be friends in peace and love,” Haidar said. “I’m afraid for my grandparents there where there’s a war.”

    Plucked to Safety From Lebanon, American Evacuees Return and Lament the Destruction, NYT, 21.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/world/middleeast/21evacuees.html

The Conflict

Marines Return to Beirut to Aid U.S. Evacuation

July 21, 2006
The New York Times
By JAD MOUAWAD and STEVEN ERLANGER

BEIRUT, Lebanon, July 20 — United States marines landed in Beirut on Thursday for the first time in more than 20 years to help evacuate Americans from Lebanon, as Israeli officials suggested that Israeli ground troops might take a more active role in combating the Hezbollah militia. There were also more strong condemnations of Israel’s heavy use of force in Lebanon.

With the fighting continuing for a ninth day, fierce clashes erupted between Israeli troops and Hezbollah fighters inside Lebanon. Hundreds of Israeli troops were trying to destroy Hezbollah outposts and storage facilities, Israeli Army officials said.

Two Israeli soldiers and a Hezbollah fighter were killed late Wednesday as Israel discovered a warren of storage rooms, bunkers and tunnels. The death toll in Lebanon for the nine days passed 300; the vast majority were said to be civilians.

On Thursday evening, two Israeli soldiers were killed and three others wounded in further fighting. At least two Hezbollah fighters were believed to have been killed.

The Israeli defense minister, Amir Peretz, visiting northern towns hit by scores of Hezbollah rockets, hinted at a broader ground operation. “We have no intention of occupying Lebanon, but we also have no intention of retreating from any military measures needed,” he said. “Hezbollah must not think that we would recoil from using all kinds of military measures against it.”

Mr. Peretz continued, “You can mark one thing down: Hezbollah flags will not hang over the fences of Israel.”

At the United Nations, Secretary General Kofi Annan condemned the Israeli operation as an “excessive use of force.”

Russia, which reduced parts of Chechnya to rubble in its fight against rebels there, also sharply criticized Israel, with the Foreign Ministry calling Israel’s actions in Lebanon “far beyond the boundaries of an antiterrorist operation” and urging a cease-fire.

At the White House, President Bush’s press secretary, Tony Snow, said, “I’m not sure at this juncture we’re going to step in and put up a stop sign,” although he called on Israel to “practice restraint” and said Mr. Bush was “very much concerned” about a growing human crisis in southern Lebanon.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is arranging a trip to Asia and the Middle East; she could be visiting this region as early as Sunday.

Diplomats are investigating the idea of a more robust international force under United Nations auspices but more likely made up of European troops, that could help the weak Lebanese government move its army to the Israeli border and push back a weakened Hezbollah.

Ephraim Sneh, Israel’s deputy defense minister and a former Israeli commander in Lebanon, told Israeli television: “We have no choice but go in and physically clean up Hezbollah posts on the ground. The air force can’t do that. So when we talk about a ground operation, the intention is not necessarily a massive incursion but more pinpoint operations.”

The small force of about 40 marines who landed in Beirut on Thursday were the first American military personnel to be deployed in Lebanon since the withdrawal of forces after a Hezbollah suicide bomb attack killed 241 Americans, mostly marines, in 1983. The marines who landed Thursday were from the same unit as those killed 23 years ago.

Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Brown of the United States Naval Central Command in Bahrain said a small number of marines from the 24th Marine Expeditionary Unit landed on a beach north of Beirut, near shorefront belonging to the American Embassy on Thursday morning. They helped American citizens board a landing craft that ferried them to the amphibious assault ship Nashville stationed offshore.

By late afternoon, 1,052 evacuees had been boarded, and the Nashville was preparing to head to Cyprus, Commander Brown said.

Helicopters also evacuated 161 Americans on Thursday, the military said, and the Orient Queen, a cruise liner that had transported the first large group of American evacuees to Cyprus on Wednesday, was expected to reach Beirut on Thursday night for reloading.

A planeload of Americans who had been on the Orient Queen’s first trip to Cyprus arrived at the Baltimore/Washington International Airport on Thursday morning. Five more naval vessels are expected to arrive in the area on Friday, along with a high-speed ferry hired to transport evacuees to Cyprus, the military said in a statement.

Citizens of Britain and other countries were also evacuated.

On Thursday, Israel continued its large-scale air attacks on Hezbollah positions and equipment. It also leafleted southern Lebanese villages, made taped phone calls, informed local leaders and broadcast messages in Arabic to warn residents to move north of the Litani River if their villages contained Hezbollah assets or rockets, but gave no deadline.

Israel dropped similar leaflets on Thursday in Gaza as well, possibly foreshadowing more attacks on populated areas where Israel believes Hamas is storing Qassam rockets.

The air attacks on Thursday also hit Beirut’s southern suburbs, following Wednesday night’s heavy attack by Israeli jets, using special burrowing bombs, to try to penetrate a bunker believed to be used by senior Hezbollah officials, including its leader, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. Hezbollah said no one had been hurt in the bombing, which Israeli officials said had involved 23 tons of explosives in the Burj al Brajneh neighborhood.

According to Al Jazeera’s Web site, Sheik Nasrallah said in an interview on Thursday that the two Israeli soldiers captured by Hezbollah in a raid last week would be freed only in the context of a prisoner exchange and otherwise would not be released even “if the whole universe comes against us.”

Hezbollah said its military capacity was largely undiminished. “The resistance has only used a small, small part of its strength,” Hussein Hajj Hassan told LBC television. “Nothing has been destroyed.”

Despite the continuous shelling of the Hezbollah strongholds of southern Beirut, the militia remains very much in control there, barring access to outsiders.

On Thursday, the militia led reporters on a tour of the area, where Hezbollah’s headquarters are. Buildings as high as 12 or 15 stories had collapsed; some were still smoking.

According to Lebanese reports, four civilians were killed in a strike on a car in the coastal city of Tyre. Israeli jets also attacked a detention center in the town of Khiam in south Lebanon on Thursday, according to local television reports. The prison, formerly run by Israel’s Lebanese militia allies during its occupation of south Lebanon, was destroyed.

Israeli planes also struck at Shiite areas in the eastern towns of Baalbek and Hermil, where some Hezbollah leaders are said to live, and several southern villages.

About 50 rockets hit Israel on Thursday, the Israeli Army said, a sharp drop from 150 the day before.

The Israeli military said two of its helicopters had collided Thursday night near the border with Lebanon.. [On Friday, a military spokeswoman said one of the pilots had died and three crewmen had been injured, Reuters reported.

In Gaza, Israel continued its military operation in the central sector, killing at least three Palestinians and wounding six in fighting around the Mughazi refugee camp. An airstrike on the same refugee camp killed one fighter and wounded eight more. One of the dead was a Palestinian girl, 10, wounded in an airstrike on Wednesday, when nine Palestinians, eight of them militants, were killed, according to The Associated Press.

The Israeli Army dropped the leaflets Thursday throughout Gaza warning that “anyone who has, or is keeping an arsenal, ammunitions or weapons in their house must destroy it or will face dangerous consequences.”

On the West Bank, Israeli forces continued to surround the Mukata compound in Nablus, where Palestinians wanted by Israel have been taking refuge since Wednesday morning. About 15 wanted men gave themselves up but at least 10 remain inside. Tanks fired five shells at the buildings and army bulldozers worked to knock down the exterior walls, while warning those inside to come out or risk being buried underneath the rubble.

Israeli troops fired rubber-coated bullets at Palestinians who demonstrated against the troops, wounding five, one seriously, Palestinian medics said. About 4,000 Palestinians demonstrated in Nablus in support of Hezbollah, calling on the militia’s leader, Sheik Nasrallah, to attack Israel with rockets.

“Nasrallah, our dearest, strike, strike Tel Aviv!” the Palestinians shouted. Five Palestinians were killed in the Nablus operation on Wednesday.

The Lebanese government said it had so far sheltered as many as 120,000 refugees, mostly in schools. It is considering setting up tents and temporary barracks in public parks and sports fields. The United Nations estimates that a total of 500,000 people have been displaced.

“The losses are immeasurable,” said Nayla Moawad, the Lebanese minister for social affairs.

Ms. Moawad blamed Syria for setting off the crisis, saying that she was expressing her personal opinion. “The decision of the Hezbollah operation was not taken in Lebanon,” she said. “Lebanon was taken a hostage, a mailbox of other people’s interests. It has been taken in Damascus, probably with an Iranian coordination.”

Ms. Moawad was one of the leaders of the Lebanese revolt last year that led to the withdrawal of Syrian troops from Lebanon.

“Syria has tried to destabilize Lebanon since her troops pulled out,” she said.

Jad Mouawad reported from Beirut for this article, and Steven Erlanger from Jerusalem.

    Marines Return to Beirut to Aid U.S. Evacuation, NYT, 21.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/21/world/middleeast/21mideast.html?hp&ex=1153540800&en=d09889265a4bcbf1&ei=5094&partner=homepage

US to deploy missile interceptors at Japan base

Thu Jul 20, 2006 12:29 AM ET
Reuters

TOKYO (Reuters) - The United States will start deploying missile interceptors at a key air force base in Japan from this summer, as part of efforts with Tokyo to deal with the threat of North Korea's missile arsenal, the Japanese Foreign Ministry said on Thursday.

The U.S. military will install Patriot Advanced Capability-3 surface-to-air interceptors at its Kadena Air Base on the southern Japanese island of Okinawa from September and plans to make them partly operational by the end of the year, the ministry said.

They will be fully operational by the end of March, a ministry official added.

The deployment of the PAC-3s at Kadena -- the largest U.S. air base in the Asia-Pacific -- would be the first at a U.S. facility in Japan.

Japanese officials said while the system was meant to protect the country from North Korea's missiles -- which include hundreds of Rodong missiles that can hit all of Japan -- the timing of the deployment, soon after Pyongyang's test-firing of seven missiles earlier this month, was a coincidence.

Japan and the United States had agreed in May to deploy the PAC-3s at U.S. military facilities in Japan as soon as possible, as part of a realignment of U.S. forces in Japan.

The PAC-3s are the U.S. military's state-of-the-art missile interceptors and are designed to shoot down incoming ballistic missiles at their terminal phase, shortly before they reach their targets, by firing interceptor missiles at them.

But military analysts say the system can cover an area within a radius of up to 10 km, and Japanese officials said the PAC-3s at Kadena will only be able to cover parts of Okinawa.

Separately, Japan plans to equip its own military, the Self-Defence Forces, with PAC-3s, and is set to deploy the first such system at an air base just north of Tokyo by the end of March, officials said.

As part of U.S.-Japan cooperation on missile defense, the U.S. Navy will deploy Shiloh, a cruiser equipped with the Aegis missile tracking and engaging system, at one of its bases in Japan, the officials added.

    US to deploy missile interceptors at Japan base, R, 20.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-07-20T042921Z_01_T334636_RTRUKOC_0_US-KOREA-NORTH-JAPAN-USA.xml

Americans find haven in Cyprus

Thu Jul 20, 2006 3:17 AM ET
Reuters
By David Clarke

LARNACA, Cyprus (Reuters) - Hundreds of Americans and other foreign nationals fleeing Israeli air strikes that have pummeled Lebanon for eight days found safe haven in Cyprus on Thursday.

About 40 U.S. Marines landed on a beach near Beirut at dawn to rescue about 1,200 Americans during the course of the day.

The lightly armed Marines came ashore at dawn in a landing craft, which they will use to ferry up to 400 people per trip to a troop carrier anchored offshore that will take the evacuees to Cyprus.

"We are here to help people," said Petty Officer Eric Walker, 36, from Canton, Mississippi, as the Marines returned to a city where 241 Marines and other U.S. service personnel died in a 1983 guerrilla truck bombing.

Three ships docked in the port of Larnaca in Cyprus late on Wednesday -- a U.S.-chartered cruise liner carrying 1,044 people, mostly Americans, a United Nations ship with an unknown number aboard and a French ship with 320 on board. Another French ship with 900 French evacuees arrived on Thursday morning.

The U.S. ambassador to Cyprus said the operation to bring American citizens out of the stricken city of Beirut was just beginning, with thousands more expected over the coming days.

"Over the next couple of days you are going to be seeing a very large influx," Ambassador Ronald Schlicher told reporters at the quayside. "Maybe five, maybe six, maybe seven (thousand), I think we just have to wait and see."

As helicopters clattered overhead and forklift trucks unloaded baggage, a woman with a bandaged arm was taken off the Orient Queen cruise liner on a stretcher and put straight into an ambulance, while an elderly man was disembarked in a wheelchair.

Nabil El-Hage, 47, a professor of management science at Harvard Business School, said: "I feel really sad, I really do. I have two countries. I have my country of birth and my adopted country and I love both. I hate to see Lebanon destroyed".

Eight-year-old Ali Makki, from Michigan, said he had been frightened by bombs dropped near his building. "The thing I was scared the most about was when they shot the bombs on our building."

Kamil Saber, who lives in New Jersey, gave his reasons for leaving: "It wasn't the fear it was just the restriction of movement. We'll be back. We'll all be back next year".

The Americans, the biggest group of U.S. citizens to have been evacuated from Lebanon so far, were taken on buses to a facility prepared for them at the Nicosia fairground. Many were expected to board two charter flights to Baltimore on Thursday.

SOUND OF FIGHTING

The evacuees began their 75-km (40-mile) voyage from Beirut to Cyprus with the sound of fighting ringing in their ears. Two explosions from an Israeli air strike echoed over the city as families clustered at the assembly point.

Ali Fowaz, 16, a high school student from Florida on vacation with his family, said as he arrived in Cyprus, "It's horrible ... I think they should have negotiated it, not just go and destroy a whole city."

Zar Yassine, 38, also from Florida, added, "The circumstances in Lebanon didn't have to escalate as much as they escalated. I don't think the Israeli people would condone the actions of their government if they get to see what's going on in Lebanon."

A U.S. official said the United States had the capacity to evacuate up to 6,000 Americans from Lebanon by Friday.

Nine military ships, including a helicopter carrier and a dock landing ship, and thousands of Marines and sailors were involved in a U.S. operation expected to evacuate 8,000 people.

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, in Europe for a trip, ordered his official Airbus plane to be diverted to Cyprus on Wednesday to pick up Canadians. The first ship chartered by Canada left Beirut with evacuees at about 1830 GMT on Wednesday.

Thousands of Lebanese, as well as foreigners, have braved the road to Syria to flee Israeli bombardment that has killed 293 people in eight days, all but 27 of them civilians.

Israel attacked Lebanon after Hizbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers and killed eight on July 12. Hizbollah rocket strikes have killed 13 civilians in Israel.

(Additional reporting by Michael Winfrey and Michele Kambas in Cyprus, bureaux)

    Americans find haven in Cyprus, R, 20.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-20T071642Z_01_L18334401_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-EVACUATION.xml

US starts Lebanon evacuation

Wed Jul 19, 2006 1:39 AM ET
Reuters
By Alaa Shahine

BEIRUT (Reuters) - The United States began a major evacuation of its citizens from Lebanon on Wednesday as thousands fled Israeli air strikes any way they could.

Nine military ships, including a helicopter carrier and a dock landing ship, and thousands of Marines and sailors were involved in the U.S. operation, U.S. officials said.

More than 2,400 people would be evacuated by air and sea on Wednesday, the first big group up to 8,000 the Pentagon expects to bring out of Lebanon.

In Cyprus, 75 km (40 miles) from Lebanon, U.S. Ambassador Oronald Schlicher said staff had secured hotel rooms and space in schools and was setting up a cot camp in a fairground on the island to accommodate Americans fleeing the violence.

"It's a moving target, but what we're planning for is in the order of several thousand in the coming days," he said, after meeting 126 Americans brought from Beirut by a Norway-chartered ship carrying around 1,100 mostly European evacuees.

A U.S.-chartered ship was scheduled to bring 800-900 mostly Americans -- its largest group yet to leave Lebanon -- under military escort to Cyprus on Wednesday afternoon.

Britain said six of its ships, including two aircraft carriers, were also ready to rescue its citizens.

The destroyer HMS Gloucester collected 180 people from Beirut port on Tuesday and British Prime Minister Tony Blair told parliament that about 5,000 Britons would be moved by the end of the week.

Other nations mustered boats and planes to reach citizens stranded by the bombing of Beirut airport, roads and bridges.

Countries from as far away as Chile were making arrangements to reach their citizens. A Brazilian air force plane collected about 100 Brazilians who had reached Turkey from Beirut. Canada said it would start evacuating its citizens by sea on Wednesday.

The United Nations said on Tuesday it was pulling non-essential staff and family members from Lebanon, but relief workers would stay and more would go in.

Two U.N. staff members had been wounded and another staffer and his wife were missing, associate U.N. spokesman Farhan Haq said in New York.

Convoys of foreign nationals also traveled the hazardous route by road to Syria from Lebanon to flee a seventh day of an Israeli bombardment which has killed at least 235 people in Lebanon, all but 26 of them civilians.

The attacks were launched after Hizbollah fighters seized two Israeli soldiers and killed eight in a cross-border raid on July 12. At least 13 civilians have been killed in Hizbollah rocket attacks.

FLOTILLA UNDER WAY

Many of the Americans who have fled to Cyprus, including 45 airlifted by U.S. Marine helicopters earlier this week, were critical at the fury of the Israeli bombing and said it had brought suffering on ordinary Lebanese.

"The situation is very bad. There are a lot of casualties. People are very afraid," Marsha Winitzer, a Boston-based lawyer on holiday in Lebanon when the airstrikes began, said after arriving in Cyprus.

France said it had transported 800 of its citizens by ship through the tight corridor maintained by Israel's navy and would return to spirit away some of its 6,000 nationals.

Israel is enforcing a sea blockade of Lebanon but a Foreign Ministry spokesman said governments had approached Israel to see if it could support the evacuation. "We have been as helpful as we can under the circumstances," he said.

Earlier a Greek frigate carrying 265 mostly Greeks and Cypriots reunited a mother with her daughter who had been stranded in Beirut.

"I cannot describe how I feel," said a beaming Victoria Zahar as she hugged 11-year-old Jacky.

Sweden was collecting 1,500 people early on Wednesday, while a Spanish airforce Boeing 707 flew 113 people out of Damascus and more than 152 were being transported from Amman, the Foreign Ministry said.

Russia sent Emergencies Ministry aircraft to pick up its evacuees and Poland and Bulgaria hired buses to ferry their nationals and Czechs and Slovaks to Damascus.

(With contributions from Michael Winfrey in Cyprus, and bureaux in London, Berlin, Paris, Jerusalem, Madrid, Bucharest)

    US starts Lebanon evacuation, R, 19.7.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=newsOne&storyID=2006-07-19T045150Z_01_L18334401_RTRUKOC_0_US-MIDEAST-EVACUATION.xml

Weapons

Arming of Hezbollah Reveals U.S. and Israeli Blind Spots

July 19, 2006
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTI and THOM SHANKER

WASHINGTON, July 18 — The power and sophistication of the missile and rocket arsenal that Hezbollah has used in recent days has caught the United States and Israel off guard, and officials in both countries are just now learning the extent to which the militant group has succeeded in getting weapons from Iran and Syria.

While the Bush administration has stated that cracking down on weapons proliferation is one of its top priorities, the arming of Hezbollah shows the blind spots of American and other Western intelligence services in assessing the threat, officials from across those governments said.

American and Israeli officials said the successful attack last Friday on an Israeli naval vessel was the strongest evidence to date of direct support by Iran to Hezbollah. The attack was carried out with a sophisticated antiship cruise missile, the C-802, an Iranian-made variant of the Chinese Silkworm, an American intelligence official said.

At the same time, American and Israeli officials cautioned that they had found no evidence that Iranian operatives working in Lebanon launched the antiship missile themselves.

But neither Jerusalem nor Washington had any idea that Hezbollah had such a missile in its arsenal, the officials said, adding that the Israeli ship had not even activated its missile defense system because intelligence assessments had not identified a threat from such a radar-guided cruise missile.

They said they had also been surprised by the advances that Hezbollah had made in improving what had been crude rockets — for example, attaching cluster bombs as warheads, or filling an explosive shell with ball bearings that have devastating effect.

The Bush administration has long sought to focus attention on Iranian missile proliferation, and regularly discusses with journalists intelligence evidence of those activities. But American officials in Washington made clear this week that they were reluctant to detail Iran’s arming of Hezbollah in the current conflict.

The reason, according to officials across the government, was a desire by the Bush administration to contain the conflict to Israeli and Hezbollah forces, and not to enlarge the diplomatic tasks by making Iranian missile supplies, or even those of Syria, a central question for now.

Still, some officials in Washington admitted to being blindsided by the abilities of Hezbollah’s arsenal.

“You have to acknowledge the obvious — we’ve seen a new capability in striking the naval vessel and in the number of casualties that have been sustained from the Hezbollah missile attacks,” a Bush administration official said.

“In the past, we’d see three, four, maybe eight launches at any given time if Hezbollah was feeling feisty,” the official added. “Now we see them arriving in large clusters, and with a range and even certain accuracy we have not seen in the past.”

The officials interviewed agreed to discuss classified intelligence assessments about Hezbollah’s capabilities only on condition of anonymity.

While Iranian missile supplies to Hezbollah, either by sea or overland via Syria, were well known, officials said the current conflict also indicated that some of the rockets in Hezbollah’s arsenal — including a 220-millimeter rocket used in a deadly attack on a railway site in Haifa on Sunday — were built in Syria.

“The Israelis did forensics, and found several were Syrian-made,” said David Schenker, who this spring became a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy after four years working on Middle East issues at the Pentagon. “Everybody recognizes that Syria has played an important role in facilitating transshipment — but not supplying their own missiles to Hezbollah.”

Officials have since confirmed that the warhead on the Syrian rocket was filled with ball bearings — a method of destruction used frequently in suicide bombings but not in warhead technology.

“We’ve never seen anything like this,” said one Western intelligence official, speaking about the warhead.

But it was Friday’s successful launching of a C-802 cruise missile that most alarmed officials in Washington and Jerusalem.

Iran began buying dozens of those sophisticated antiship missiles from the Chinese during the 1990’s, until the United States pressured Beijing to cease the sales.

Until Friday, however, Western intelligence services did not know that Iran had managed to ship C-802 missiles to Hezbollah.

Officials said it was likely that Iran trained Hezbollah fighters on how to successfully fire and guide the missiles, and that members of Iran’s Al Quds force — the faction of the Revolutionary Guards that trains foreign forces — would not necessarily have to be on the scene to launch the C-802.

At the same time, some experts said Iran was not likely to deploy such a sophisticated weapon without also sending Revolutionary Guard crews with the expertise to fire the missile.

An administration official said intelligence reports have concluded that a small number of Iranians are currently operating in Lebanon, but the official declined to disclose their number or mission.

    Arming of Hezbollah Reveals U.S. and Israeli Blind Spots, 19.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19missile.html

Violence

U.S. Appears to Be Waiting to Act on Israeli Airstrikes

July 19, 2006
The New York Times
By HELENE COOPER and STEVEN ERLANGER

WASHINGTON, July 18 — The outlines of an American-Israeli consensus began to emerge on Tuesday in which Israel would continue to bombard Lebanon for about another week to degrade the capabilities of the Hezbollah militia, officials of the two countries said.

Then, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice would go to the region and seek to establish a buffer zone in southern Lebanon and perhaps an international force to monitor Lebanon’s borders to prevent Hezbollah from obtaining more rockets with which to bombard Israel.

American officials signaled that Ms. Rice was waiting at least a few more days before wading into the conflict, in part to give Israel more time to weaken Hezbollah forces.

The strategy carries risk, partly because it remains unclear just how long the rest of the world, particularly America’s Arab allies, will continue to stay silent as the toll on Lebanese civilians rises.

On Tuesday, the seventh day of the face-off, Israeli warplanes battered more targets in Lebanon, killing 30 people, including 11 members of the Lebanese Army, when bombs hit their barracks east of Beirut. Four of the dead were officers, and 30 more soldiers were wounded.

In southern Lebanon, nine members of a single family were killed and four wounded in an Israeli airstrike on their house in the village of Aitaroun, near the Israeli border.

Some 500,000 Lebanese have fled their homes to escape the violence, the United Nations estimated.

Hezbollah rockets again hit Israel’s port city of Haifa and Nahariya, a coastal town just south of the border, where one man died and several were wounded, one critically. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis continued to spend their time in shelters, and Haifa was largely shut down, with only grocery stores and pharmacies open. More than 130 rockets were fired, Israeli officials said.

American officials said Washington was discussing with its Arab allies and Israel how to beef up Lebanon’s borders, a central Israeli demand. Israel has been lukewarm to the idea of an international force in Lebanon, but is willing to consider such a deployment if it includes troops from major powers and is used to prevent Hezbollah from supplementing its arsenal.

On Tuesday, Israel said it blew up six more long-range rockets that it said were being transported by road into Lebanon from Syria.

American and Israeli officials are also contemplating a 12-mile buffer zone in southern Lebanon to keep Hezbollah away from the Israeli border. While disarming Hezbollah entirely remains Israel’s goal, it is no longer demanding that as a condition of a cease-fire, officials said.

Israeli airplanes have been pounding Hezbollah targets, in particular the two dozen or so long-range rockets in the militant group’s arsenal believed to be capable of hitting Tel Aviv.

Israel had made clear that it does not want Ms. Rice to begin a peacemaking effort yet, and the Bush administration has, for the time being, gone along with an Israeli request for more latitude. President Bush and American officials have resisted joining other world leaders in calling for an immediate cease-fire, reflecting the Israeli view that reaching a truce before destroying a significant number of Hezbollah’s missiles would open Israel up to the possibility of more attacks.

President Bush, as he has repeatedly, said Tuesday that Israel must be allowed to defend itself. “Everybody abhors the loss of innocent life,” he said, speaking at the White House before a meeting with Congressional members. “On the other hand, what we recognize is that the root cause of the problem is Hezbollah.”

“Some people are uncomfortable with the American position, and we’re very careful how we talk about it,” a senior American official said yesterday. “We are not going to be wagering with the lives of innocent people here,” he said, adding that privately, Bush administration officials are telling the Israelis that there is a limit to how much more time the United States will be able to give Israel. He spoke on condition of anonymity under normal diplomatic rules.

Beyond the desire to give Israel time to weaken Hezbollah militarily, administration officials said Ms. Rice should not go to the region until she can actually produce results. Israel, which is trying to destroy the military capacity of Hezbollah and secure the release of two captured soldiers, said it is targeting only Hezbollah and not the Lebanese Army, although attacks on Monday and Tuesday killed 19 Lebanese soldiers.

Again on Tuesday, cities and towns in southern Lebanon and the densely packed slums at the southern edge of Beirut that are Hezbollah’s stronghold bore the brunt of the barrage. While the Israelis say they have carefully targeted 1,000 sites thus far, the attacks seem to have spread almost randomly across the country.

A cement truck near Jbeil, also known as the ancient city of Byblos, up the coastline in Christian territory, was hit on Tuesday. The Israeli military said the vehicle was suspected of carrying weapons.

The Lebanese prime minister, Fouad Siniora, criticized the world for not stopping the Israeli offensive. “The international community is not doing all that is can in order to stop Israel continuing its aggression against Lebanon,” Mr. Siniora said in an interview in his Beirut office. “They are stopping short of exercising the necessary pressure on Israel while Israel is taking this as a green light.”

In other comments, he accused Israel of “committing massacres against Lebanese civilians and working to destroy everything that allows Lebanon to stay alive.”

As the bombs and rockets fell, diplomats and officials continued to debate the effectiveness of any new international force that could patrol the border and help Lebanon implement United Nations Security Council resolutions that call for Hezbollah to be disarmed and for the Lebanese government to extend its authority over the whole country.

A team sent by United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan met in Jerusalem on Tuesday with senior Israeli officials, including the foreign minister, Tzipi Livni, and top aides to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. Mr. Olmert dropped in at the end of their meeting to explain the Israeli position, Israeli officials said, underlining his skepticism about how any new force might work.

Mr. Olmert, in a televised speech to Parliament on Monday night, said that Israel would continue fighting until its soldiers were free, the Lebanese Army was deployed along the border and Hezbollah was effectively disarmed in line with Security Council Resolution 1559. Hezbollah has consistently rejected those terms.

In the last seven days, the Israelis have carried out about 2,000 sorties by warplanes and attack helicopters and hit 650 targets, the Israeli Army said.

After meeting the United Nations envoys, Ms. Livni said Israel would insist that any settlement include provisions to ensure that Iran and Syria cannot rearm Hezbollah, perhaps through some form of international monitoring at the Syrian border and the Beirut airport. Israel has bombed the airport and routes from Syria, and has put a sea blockade on Lebanese ports.

Ms. Livni said that any settlement must “end the Iranian and Syrian control over Lebanese and Israeli lives” and repeated Israel’s demand that its three captured soldiers — two by Hezbollah and one by Hamas and other militants in Gaza — be released “immediately and without conditions.”

Mr. Annan said in Brussels that any force must have a different set of instructions from the current, toothless United Nations force, known as Unifil, still in southern Lebanon. “It is urgent that the international community acts to make a difference on the ground,” Mr. Annan said.

Giora Eiland, until recently Israel’s national security adviser, said an international force is not in Israel’s interest if it acts just as a buffer. It can only be effective, he said, “if the other side does not want any provocation and wants to maintain quiet” and “if there’s a credible address on the other side” with control over Lebanon.

Israel should, he said, insist that any international force “make it possible for Lebanon to do what it has to do and not be a buffer between us and them, which would reduce the Lebanese government’s responsibility.”

Gholam Ali Hadad-Adel, the president of the Iranian Parliament, told a rally in Tehran on Tuesday that Israelis should “flee occupied Palestine.” He called Israel “this filthy tumor” that “lies in the body of the Islamic world,” and he warned the United States that as long as Israel exists, “Muslims will not stop hating America.”

In other attacks in Lebanon on Tuesday, a convoy of medical goods donated by the United Arab Emirates was hit in the Bekaa region near Zahle, a mostly Christian town on one of the few open roads linking Syria and Beirut. Two trucks were destroyed and their drivers killed.

The evacuation of foreigners continued for a second day as a ferry chartered by the French government carrying over 1,200 people reached Cyprus. The American Embassy began airlifting its citizens by helicopter, with some 320 Americans scheduled to leave by the end of the day, and another 1,000 on Wednesday. About 8,000 Americans are registered with the embassy but there are an estimated 25,000 Americans or dual nationals living in Lebanon. Britain sent six ships to the region.

In the interview, Mr. Siniora, the Lebanese prime minister, said that he favored a release of the two Israeli soldiers. But he coupled that call with other requirements.

Any solution to the crisis, he said, should include Israel’s withdrawal from the disputed Shebaa Farms area of the border, the release of Lebanese detainees in Israeli jails and a return to the terms of the 1949 armistice between the two countries.

He suggested the Lebanese Army would move to southern Lebanon once these conditions were met. He backed the idea of a more robust international force, but only after “all the issues” were put on the table, and he stopped short of condemning Hezbollah for inviting the Israeli attacks on the rest of the country.

Meanwhile, Beirut settled into its first week of violence and conflict. Many shops, banks and stores opened for a few hours in the morning, but closed much earlier than usual. The city streets were calm, with little traffic.

In the newly rebuilt city center, where thousands of tourists and Lebanese usually gather at the end of the day to smoke a water pipe, meet for a drink before dinner, or take the children for a walk, there were only private security guards and soldiers. Beirut’s luxury stores, famous throughout the region, were shut.

Helene Cooper reported from Washington for this article, and Steven Erlanger from Jerusalem. Greg Myre contributed reporting from Haifa, Israel, and Jad Mouawad from Beirut, Lebanon.

    U.S. Appears to Be Waiting to Act on Israeli Airstrikes, NYT, 19.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/19/world/middleeast/19mideast.html?hp&ex=1153368000&en=d53b2149a67b17a5&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush Says U.S. May Have Been Able to Intercept North Korean Missile

July 8, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER

CHICAGO, July 7 — President Bush said Friday that he believed the nation's nascent missile defense system would have had a "reasonable chance" of shooting down a long-range missile launched by North Korea had it come close to the United States, and he said he was determined to use the United Nations to set "some red lines" for future behavior by the North Koreans.

Mr. Bush said the launching of a prototype long-range missile that tumbled into the Sea of Japan showed why missile defenses were needed, but he acknowledged that the abilities of the unproven missile defense system based in Alaska and California were "modest," and he said it was "hard for me to give you a probability of success."

"I think we had a reasonable chance of shooting it down; at least that's what the military commander has told me," he said at a news conference in Chicago.

Although defensive sensors and missiles, while not fully tested, are theoretically available for use in an emergency, Pentagon officials have said there was little reason to think they would have been used this week, as the North Korean test missile was not thought to carry a live warhead.

In an hourlong news conference here that was part of a new White House strategy to bolster Mr. Bush's sagging popularity around the country, the president sounded mildly frustrated that diplomacy to disarm North Korea and halt Iran's nuclear program was so "slow and cumbersome." But he sidestepped questions about conditions under which he might be tempted to use military force, saying he was determined to find diplomatic solutions.

And, in a sharp contrast to the kind of less cautious statements he made about Iraq before the invasion in 2003, which were based on sometimes contradictory intelligence reports, he cast doubt on North Korea's claim that it possesses what it calls a "nuclear deterrent."

Mr. Bush challenged a reporter who, in posing a question, asserted that the North Korean leader Kim Jong Il had increased the size of his nuclear arsenal during Mr. Bush's presidency. "I don't think we know that," the president shot back. But, in what may have been a sign of his wariness about intelligence assessments of opaque nations, he pointedly declined to say what assessment he believed was correct.

"Maybe you know but you're not telling," one reporter said. Mr. Bush said, "That's an option," and then, to laughter, added, "Or maybe I don't know and don't want to tell you I don't know."

A new national intelligence estimate of North Korea's capabilities was completed earlier this year, but the administration has declined to publish a declassified version of it. According to officials who are familiar with its contents, it concludes that North Korea probably produced enough fuel for six or more nuclear weapons, from a supply of 8,000 spent reactor fuel rods that the country boasts it reprocessed after throwing inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency out of the country three years ago.

"What we don't know is whether they turned those into weapons," said one senior intelligence official in a recent interview who asked not to be named because he was discussing intelligence issues. "You can assume it, but it is just an assumption."

Mr. Bush's discussion of "red lines" — a term drawn from the cold war limits over steps the United States and Soviet Union agreed not to take for fear they could spiral into outright war — was important because until now his aides have said such limits do not work in North Korea's case. Three years ago, one of Mr. Bush's senior aides said it would be useless to tell North Korea that turning its spent fuel into plutonium was a "red line" because the United States had no effective way to enforce the threat. The North Koreans went ahead anyway, lines or no lines.

It was the ambitious North Korean program to extend the reach of its missiles — along with its work on producing nuclear warheads — that many proponents of the missile defense plan cited to justify the Pentagon's huge expenditures on the new defensive system, which is costing about $9 billion a year and is still in the early stages of a long and complex development process.

After deciding to field a first batch of interceptors without fully testing them, in what commanders have called a "thin line" of defense against a small-scale attack, the Pentagon interrupted its testing for more than a year after a series of failures. The testing of missiles and radars has now resumed, with an important set of test shots expected to begin as early as this summer. If they succeed, officials have told Congress, there will be better ground for confidence that the system would be able to intercept a missile launched from North Korea or from Iran.

As things stand now, though, there is considerable uncertainty over both sides of the technology race: How long it will take North Korea to produce a missile capable of posing a serious risk to the United States, and how long it will take to build a reliable defensive system?

Though North Korea and the struggle over responding to the missile tests dominated the news conference, Mr. Bush denied that the United States was trimming back on its search for Osama bin Laden by disbanding a unit within the Central Intelligence Agency that focused on that hunt.

"We got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden," Mr. Bush said. "So whatever you want to read in that story, it's just not true, period." He added later: "In my judgment, it's just a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop looking so long as I'm the president, not only for Osama bin Laden, but anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United States of America."

He repeated his conviction that the United States would prevail in Iraq, but also seemed intent on dampening speculation about significant reductions of forces in coming months. "An artificial timetable of withdrawal and early withdrawal before this finishes sends the message to the enemy: 'We were right about America,' " Mr. Bush said, repeating his argument that Al Qaeda seeks to turn Iraq into a haven for training.

But when the subject turned back to North Korea, Mr. Bush by turns argued that Mr. Kim was untrustworthy — he cited the country's violation of a 1994 accord with the Clinton administration — and that the only path was to negotiate with him. But he rejected conducting one-on-one negotiations, insisting that he needed China and other neighbors at the table so that Mr. Kim did not make the United States to appear the blockade to an agreement.

"One thing I'm not going to let us do is get caught in the trap of sitting at the table alone with the North Koreans," Mr. Bush insisted, rejecting the criticism by Democrats who say such talks would be the only way to break the logjam.

"If you want to solve a problem diplomatically, you need partners to do so," Mr. Bush said, adding later that his worry about "handling this issue bilaterally is that you run out of options very quickly."

But in citing anew the need to team up with China and South Korea, Mr. Bush was skipping past the warnings of members of his own administration that neither country would agree to sanctions. Both are worried about a North Korean collapse, and both have continued supplying North Korea with food, energy and investment — even while Japan and the United States try to turn off the spigot.

Mr. Bush has been careful never to criticize either country publicly. But he seemed to do so obliquely when he said, with some frustration in his voice: "The problem with diplomacy, it takes a while to get something done. If you're acting alone, you can move quickly. When you're rallying world opinion and trying to, you know, come up with the right language at the United Nations to send a clear signal, it takes a while."

    Bush Says U.S. May Have Been Able to Intercept North Korean Missile, NYT, 8.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/08/world/asia/08prexy.html

Bush Urges Patience as North Korea Diplomacy Continues

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
July 7, 2006
Filed at 12:43 p.m. ET
The New York Times

CHICAGO (AP) -- President Bush said Friday he wants to rally world support in confronting North Korea over its missile tests to send an unmistakable message to the leader of the communist regime.

''It's your choice, Kim Jong Il. You've got the choice to make,'' Bush said.

In a rare out-of-town news conference, Bush also vowed to keep hunting for terror leader Osama bin Laden, a search that has been fruitless in the nearly five years since the Sept. 11 attacks.

''No ands, ifs or buts, my judgment is it's a matter of time -- unless we stop looking, and we're not going to stop looking as long as I'm president,'' Bush said.

He also said anew that he would await a recommendation from Gen. George W. Casey, the top U.S. military commander in Iraq, on when to withdraw American forces.

''We will lose if we leave too early,'' Bush said. There are just under 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq.

Bush sought to explain why he was committed to seeking U.N. Security Council support on dealing with North Korea, whereas he launched the invasion of Iraq in 2003 after failing to obtain the council's support.

''All diplomatic options were exhausted as far as I was concerned'' in confronting Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Bush said.

At the same time, Bush conceded that awaiting U.N. consensus, both on dealing with North Korea and Iran, was adding to delay.

''You know, the problem with diplomacy: It takes a while to get something done. If you're acting alone, you can move quickly,'' Bush said

He said he wanted to make clear to the North Korean leader ''with more than one voice'' that the world condemned the test firing this week of seven missiles, including a long-range missile that failed.

Bush said the United States had ''a reasonable chance'' of shooting down the long-range missile, if it had not failed.

But he also said, ''Our anti-ballistic systems are modest, they are new.''

The United States has a rudimentary missile defense program in which interceptor missiles based in Alaska and California -- linked to a network of satellites, radar, computers and command centers -- are designed to strike and destroy incoming ballistic missiles.

The Pentagon says the system is capable of defending against a limited number of missiles in an emergency -- such as a North Korean attack. More than $100 billion has been spent on the program since 1983.

The setting for Bush's news conference was the rotunda of Chicago's Museum of Science and Industry. He stood in front of a large photograph of Chicago skyscrapers. The setting underscored the lengths the White House went to, to pose the president outside of Washington.

Bush gave a rambling 15 minute opening statement in which he talked about Chicago's vibrant economy, the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.

Bush is spending more time on the road this summer -- and less time vacationing on his Texas ranch -- as part of a public-relations effort aimed at boosting his low standing in polls and GOP chances in this fall's midterm elections.

''It might do me some good,'' he said.

Following a government report showing unemployment holding steady at 4.6 percent in June, Bush also praised the U.S. economy. ''Productivity is high, people are better off, people are working,'' he said.

Bush said immigration was one of the top issues in this midterm election year. ''The system we have now isn't working,'' he said.

In defending his decision to seek U.N. support on North Korea, Bush said that the leader of the reclusive communist regime in Pyongyang had ''defied China and Japan and South Korea and Russia and the United States.''

''All of us said, `Don't fire that rocket.' He not only fired one, he fired seven. Now that he made that defiance, it's best for all of us to go to the U.N. Security Council and say, loud and clear, `Here's some red lines.' And that's what we're in the process of doing,'' Bush said.

He said he still hopes to resume stalled six-nation talk's designed to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions, and once again ruled out direct talks between just the U.S. and North Korea.

''My judgment is you can't be successful if the United States is sitting at the table alone with North Korea. You run out of options very quickly if that's the case,'' he said. ''In order to be successful diplomatically it's best to have other partners at the table''

Turning to efforts to restrict Iran's nuclear program, Bush noted that some nations had economic interests in Iran that colored the deliberations.

''Part of our objective is to make sure national security interests trump economic interests,'' he said.

A local reporter asked the president what he thought of some Republican candidates keeping their distance this election year because of his low poll numbers. The reporter cited a comment from an aide to Illinois Republican gubernatorial candidate Judy Baar Topinka, who reportedly had said Bush would be welcome only in the middle of the night.

''It didn't work,'' Bush laughed, noting he was going straight from the news conference to a lunchtime fundraiser for Topinka, the state's treasurer who is running to unseat Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

The event was drawing about 500 people and was expected to add a hefty $1.1 million-plus to Topinka's campaign account. ''I was invited, I gladly came and I think we're going to have a pretty successful fundraiser for her,'' Bush said

    Bush Urges Patience as North Korea Diplomacy Continues, NYT, 7.7.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Bush.html

U.S. Seeking to Bolster Foes of Islamists in Somalia

June 30, 2006
The New York Times
By MARK MAZZETTI

WASHINGTON, June 29 — The Bush administration will work to bolster the police force and other security troops of Somalia's government in exile in the hope of marginalizing the Islamic militias now controlling much of the war-torn country, a senior American official told Congress on Thursday.

Jendayi E. Frazer, the State Department's top Africa official, said the United States had no intention of holding direct talks with the leaders of the Council of the Islamic Courts, which took control of Mogadishu, the capital, earlier this month after prolonged clashes with Somali warlords secretly backed by the C.I.A.

Instead, Ms. Frazer said the United States and its allies would push to strengthen the security troops of Somalia's largely powerless interim government, which she called "the only legitimate framework for governance in Somalia."

Ms. Frazer made the comments before the House subcommittee on international terrorism and nonproliferation. She did not give specifics about how much money the United States would devote to the effort to strengthen the interim government, which American officials are hoping can take control over Somalia.

Ms. Frazer admitted this would be a tall order. The Islamic militias have expanded their power base beyond Mogadishu, and Ms. Frazer said the interim government was not even able to control the town of Baidoa, the site of its headquarters. On Thursday, the Islamic group said it was expanding its authority to the entire country, Reuters reported.

Some Somalia experts warned that any effort to strengthen the interim government's security forces was likely to anger the Islamic militias, and that the United States ignored the Islamic Courts at its own peril.

"The Islamic Courts are the strongest element in Somalia, you can't just wish them away," said John Prendergast of the nonprofit International Crisis Group, who also testified at the hearing.

American officials were initially hopeful that the Islamic Courts might embrace a moderate brand of Islam and help American officials hunt down a group of operatives of Al Qaeda believed to be hiding in Somalia. But the group appointed as its leader a sheik whom the Bush administration has linked to international terrorism. The sheik, Hassan Dahir Aweys, was vice chairman of Al Itihaad al Islamiya, a group that the United States designated as a terrorist group shortly after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

On Thursday, Ms. Frazer demanded that the Islamic militias hand over the Qaeda members. "Speak with action, rather than reaching out to the United States," she said.

The Qaeda members who the United States believes are hiding in Somalia have been linked to the 1998 bombings of the American Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania.

Ms. Frazer said it was difficult to assess the military strength of the Islamic courts council, which officials in Washington say is financed by wealthy donors throughout the Middle East.

    U.S. Seeking to Bolster Foes of Islamists in Somalia, NYT, 30.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/30/washington/30somalia.html

Wary of U.S., Syria and Iran Strengthen Ties

June 25, 2006
The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

SAYEDA ZEINAB, Syria, June 24 — For a long time, the top-selling poster in Hassan al-Sheikh's gift shop here showed President Bashar al-Assad of Syria seated beside the leader of Hezbollah in Lebanon. A few weeks ago a slightly different poster overtook it, this one with the Syrian president, the Hezbollah leader and Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

Mr. Sheikh's shop is on a bustling street in Sayeda Zeinab beside the entrance to a Shiite shrine that shares a name with the town, and both have been packed with Iranian pilgrims, many more than in years past.

Those changes illustrate what may well be a worrying phenomenon for Washington as it seeks to contain Iran and isolate Syria: the two governments, and their people, are tightening relations on several fronts as power in the region shifts away from the once dominant Sunni to Shiites, led by Iran.

This is, in part, the result of the American installation of a Shiite-dominated government in Iraq after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein and his Sunni-led government. But it is also spurred by the growing belief in Arab capitals that the Bush administration may soon negotiate a deal with Tehran over Iraq and nuclear weapons.

Arab governments once hostile to Iran have begun to soften their public posture after decades of animosity toward Tehran. President Hosni Mubarak of Egypt met Iran's national security chief, Ali Larijani, in Cairo recently, and Saudi Arabia's foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, visited Tehran this month and declared the two nations to be good friends. In addition, Iranian officials recently sent messages of friendship to every Persian Gulf state.

Amid all that activity, Syria has managed to inflate its power in the region by playing a subtle double game and setting itself up as a possible go-between.

On one hand, it is offering Iran the chance to develop a strong and unified crescent of influence extending from Syria to the Palestinian territories, now led by Hamas, a Syrian and Iranian ally. On the other, Syria, which has a secular-oriented government but is made up of different religious sects and ethnic groups, has held itself out as an important player in the Sunni effort to limit the spread of Shiite influence. That has helped it with Arab countries and has attracted investment from the around the gulf, diplomats and political analysts in Syria said.

"Syria will work to use its role as a pivotal point to get the most from both the Arabs and Iranians," said Ayman Abdel Nour, a political analyst and Baath Party member who works for more political freedoms.

Syria's strategy has helped it win crucial support at a time when it is cut off from the United States and Europe. But political analysts and government officials say it is also a risky strategy, one that could weaken Syria if Iran cuts a deal with the West over its nuclear program — and abandons its ally in Damascus.

"Syrian officials are worried about America making a deal with Iran," said Marwan Kabalan, a political science professor at Damascus University. "Syrians fear that Iranians will use them as a card to buy something from America."

At the same time, Iran's efforts to bolster Shiism in parts of Syria come as the government here is confronted by the rise of radical Islamic ideas that many say are being exported from the gulf region. Though relations with Iran are widely perceived as a political alliance rather than a religious one, the confluence of the two forces could aggravate sectarian rivalries. Tensions among Syria's many religious and ethic groups burn so hot beneath the surface of the society that newspapers are forbidden from identifying sects even when reporting on Iraq.

Syria and Iran began establishing closer ties decades ago, but the real strides have been recent.

Syria has signed expanded military and economic agreements with Tehran covering everything from telecommunications projects to higher education. Syria will buy missiles from Iran. Iran will build cement and car plants in Syria.

At the same time, Arab nations that have been cool to Syria are now reaching out to it. Syria received the king of Bahrain this month, he met Thursday with Mr. Mubarak, and this week President Assad held a telephone conference with King Abdullah II of Jordan. Relations between Amman and Damascus became strained when Jordanian officials accused Syria of allowing Hamas to smuggle weapons across Syrian territory and into Jordan — charges Syria has denied.

"Iran injected Syria with a lot of confidence: stand up, show defiance," said Sami Moubayed, a political analyst and writer in Damascus. "Iran is giving them advice. This is certain."

European diplomats here said that Syria's turn away from the West — and toward Iran and other Eastern countries — had also been part of a domestic power struggle between two forces within the government. Those who favored at least trying to keep a foot in the door with Europe have been silenced, and those seeking to shift Syria toward the East have been empowered, said the diplomats who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid aggravating tensions between their governments and Damascus.

When Hafez al-Assad, the former Syrian president, forged ties with Iran decades ago, his government had the upper hand. Iran had recently gone through a revolution that ousted the shah and installed a religious system that was only just finding its footing. Then Saddam Hussein's military invaded, and Iran was grateful that with Syria's support, Mr. Hussein was unable to define his war as a battle of Arabs versus Persians, Shiites versus Sunnis.

While Syria offered Iran strategic support, Iran repaid Syria with economic aid like cheap oil. At the same time, the two shared an interest in building up Hezbollah, the militia group considered a terrorist organization by the United States and a resistance force by the Lebanese.

Today the relationship is fundamentally different, with Iran holding the dominant position as its strength in the region, and the world, is elevated and Syria's is compromised. "Iran in the last few years became stronger and Syria became weaker," said Dr. Samir al-Taqi, a health adviser to the Syrian government and the director of a research institute focused on international affairs. "Now everyone is asking what Iran will do if it cuts a deal with America."

Iran's ambassador to Syria, Muhammad Hassan Akhtari, who served as chief of staff for Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, for seven years, said in an interview that Syrians had been assured that Iran would not accept any compromise with the West if it was "against the interest of Syria."

He also said that over the past 27 years, since the earliest days of the revolution, Iran had the opportunity to make a deal and "did not sell out its friends."

"Now that Iran is stronger," he added, "why would it sell out its friends, and sell out Syria?"

The risks also involve domestic affairs as Syria struggles against an increase in religious identification, particularly among Sunnis, and signs that the most radical interpretations of Islam have begun to spread in Syria.

That fight goes back to Hafez al-Assad's reign, when he sent the army to wipe out the city of Hama, where the Muslim Brotherhood had started an uprising. Recently, Bashar al-Assad's government reported killing a small group of Islamic terrorists planning to attack a government building in the center of Damascus.

All of this could present a challenge for a government controlled by a religious minority — the Alawites — and a political party that identifies itself as secular, the Baath Party.

"Our situation is so difficult now in the Islamic street," said Muhammad Habash, a Syrian lawmaker and the director of the liberal-leaning Islamic Studies Center in Damascus. "Foreign influences, by which I mean mainly Saudi influences, or Wahhabi influences, are creating dangerous discussions in this region."

Those forces promote the idea that Shiites are not proper Muslims — and in some cases declare them to be apostates.

For the moment, though, many people say that Iran's opposition to the West and its long ties to Syria generally have broad support here.

"The three are practically the only ones challenging the United States," said the shopkeeper selling posters of Mr. Ahmadinejad, Mr. Assad and the leader of Hezbollah, Sheik Hassan Nasrallah. "That's why we put them in a picture together. They are the only ones who say no."

But the influx of religious pilgrims in Syria — some estimates exceed a million a year — and the Iranian investment in Shiite shrines in the north, could increase tensions.

Still, the prospect of inflaming sectarian tensions is, for now, a distant threat compared with the immediate benefits of Syria's Iran policy.

"At the beginning of his term, the president tried to make contacts with the Western world," said Intisar Junis, a Syrian television anchor. "I can't imagine that he is a real friend to Iran, but now he has no choice. Europe and the U.S. forced his choice; they closed all the other doors to him."

Katherine Zoepf contributed reporting from Damascus, Syria, for this article.

    Wary of U.S., Syria and Iran Strengthen Ties, NYT, 25.5.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/world/middleeast/25syria.html?hp&ex=1151294400&en=c6024db2a0ededd2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Bush, at Merchant Academy, Warns Iran on Nuclear Program

June 20, 2006
The New York Times
By JIM RUTENBERG and SHERYL GAY STOLBERG

KINGS POINT, N.Y., June 19 — On the day before he was to depart for a meeting with European allies in Vienna, President Bush issued a stiff warning to Iran on Monday, saying it should suspend its uranium enrichment program now or face "progressively stronger" economic sanctions and further political isolation.

Mr. Bush reiterated the United States' offer to join multinational talks with Iran, but only if it immediately ceased uranium production. If Iran rejects that offer, he said, "It will result in action before the Security Council, further isolation from the world and progressively stronger political and economic sanctions."

Still, he mixed his stern oratory with words of inducement. Speaking at a commencement ceremony at the United States Merchant Marine Academy here, he promised Iran that compliance would result in huge benefits for its economy and its people. He indicated that the United States was open to allowing Iran to develop civilian nuclear capacity, though under the proper "safeguards," keeping the administration's recent agreement on the possibility of future enrichment by Iran if it can provide sufficient proof that its program is peaceful.

White House aides said the address was in part meant to serve as a table-setter for discussions about the nuclear standoff with Iran that are expected as part of a broader agenda this week at the United States-European Union summit meeting.

"It's in some way teeing up what is going to be a topic of conversation, one of many, at the European Union consultations this week," Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, told reporters on the way here aboard Air Force One.

The talks about talks with Iran remain in a delicate place. The prospect of a deal hinges on Iran's willingness to drop what it says is its sovereign right to develop nuclear power sources and on how the West will ultimately be willing to define the word "suspend." Some of the negotiating partners have indicated a readiness to allow Iran to keep its centrifuges — which enrich uranium into a form that can fuel reactors or atom bombs — idle but online during talks. The United States has not shown any softening of its stand that the centrifuges must be completely shut down for talks to begin.

Officials signaled that their strategy this week would concentrate more on building a unified front with Europe in pressing Iran to suspend its program than it would on making any breakthrough with Iran.

While stressing unity with Europe, Mr. Bush reprised some of his tougher language about the Iranian political leadership, telling the graduates, "The leaders of Iran sponsor terror, deny liberty and human rights to their people, and threaten the existence of our ally, Israel."

But, tapping into the internal politics of Iran with a message that seemed aimed at its more liberal intellectual classes, Mr. Bush praised its culture and civilization. "Through the centuries, Iranians have achieved distinction in medicine and science and poetry and philosophy, and countless other fields," he said.

Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser, said that unless Iran responded to Mr. Bush's offer while he was in Europe, the negotiations were unlikely to produce any developments. "At this point, the next step is really waiting for the response from the Iranian regime," he said.

Mr. Bush would not be able to make great strides on Iran anyway, because he is meeting only with the core of the European Union leadership this week, not heads of state.

Iran's president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, said Monday that Iran would stand for nothing less than "unconditional" talks, though he continued to keep the door open to talks.

"The Islamic Republic has always wanted to negotiate and have dialogue on equal terms and with no preconditions," state television quoted him as saying during a meeting that included Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. But he had also said "the new proposal is a step forward."

North Korea's nuclear ambitions will also certainly be on the president's mind this week, but the United States' main negotiating partners in those talks are not Europeans.

Mr. Bush also intends to use the meeting to press European countries to come to terms on a trade-expanding agreement under the so-called Doha round, named for the city in Qatar where the talks began. He also will call for European leaders to help collect billions of dollars in pledges to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq, as he said after his surprise trip to Baghdad last week that he would do.

"All nations that have pledged money have a responsibility to keep their pledges — and America and Europe will work together to ensure they do so," Mr. Bush said here.

Europeans are pursuing their own agenda, with officials there hinting in the last week that they will probably push Mr. Bush to close the prison in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. He tacitly acknowledged the divisions during his address here, saying, "Others in Europe have had disagreements with our decisions on Iraq." He added, "We agree that the success of a democratic government in Baghdad is vital for the Iraqis and for the security of the world."

Jim Rutenberg reported from Kings Point, N.Y.for this article, and Sheryl Gay Stolberg from Washington.

    Bush, at Merchant Academy, Warns Iran on Nuclear Program, NYT, 20.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/20/world/middleeast/20prexy.html

U.S. Competes With China for Vietnam's Allegiance

June 19, 2006
The New York Times
By JANE PERLEZ

HANOI, Vietnam — With the fastest growth in East Asia after China and a capitalist game plan that is attracting global investment, Communist Vietnam is emerging as a regional economic power as it moves steadily from rice fields to factories.

And with the wounds of war all but healed, Washington is paying attention.

Trade talks between House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, Republican of Illinois, and his Vietnamese counterpart turned into a lovefest here recently, choreographed by the hosts to show their affection for America.

"At last we're having dinner together," said Nguyen Van An, the leader of the Vietnamese National Assembly, as he hugged the speaker and presented a copy of a letter from Ho Chi Minh to President Harry S. Truman appealing for American help against the French. "We should have met 60 years ago."

Mr. Hastert's presence in April was part of a larger dance that has since starred Bill Gates, the founder of Microsoft, and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld as visitors, and will feature President Bush when he attends the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation summit meeting here this fall. Vietnam's leaders have made plain they want the United States on their side for equilibrium against China, a longtime occupier. Vietnam, though an ideological ally of Beijing, fears an expanding Chinese sphere of influence and being reduced to an economic appendage by China, its northern neighbor.

It has fought wars against China, most recently in 1979. But now, relations have "never been so good," said Ton Nu Thi Ninh, the vice chairwoman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the National Assembly.

"But that doesn't mean they're perfect," she added.

The Bush administration, also concerned about Beijing's designs in Asia, is happy to provide a counterweight.

"Everyone knows we have to keep a fine balance," Ms. Ninh said. Vietnam will take overtures from each side in stride, she said, declining to "lean over" toward Washington or "bow" to Beijing.

The competition between Beijing and Washington for Vietnam's allegiance sometimes seems toe-to-toe.

This month, Mr. Rumsfeld announced small but significant steps to deepen military cooperation between the United States and Vietnam, including the possibility that Vietnam would buy American military spare parts. Two Vietnamese military officers were to enroll at a military language school in San Antonio this month for English classes financed by the Pentagon's International Military Education and Training program that is open to friendly countries.

China's minister of defense, Cao Gangchuan, visited Hanoi in April on the eve of a National Party Congress that chose Nguyen Tan Dung as prime minister and Nguyen Minh Triet as president.

Mr. Dung and Mr. Triet support economic change but are political diehards who favor the Chinese model: economic transition to open markets with firm Communist Party political control, analysts say.

China and the United States are rapidly increasing their economic presence here. Chinese and American investments in Vietnam last year were about equal — a little more than $2 billion each, according to government figures.

Two-way trade between the United States and Vietnam rose to nearly $8 billion last year — from less than $1 billion in 2001 — most of it shrimp, clothes and shoes exports for American shoppers.

Not to be outdone, the Chinese commerce minister, Bo Xilai, said in a visit here this month that trade between Vietnam and China could reach $10 billion in 2006, an increase of almost 40 percent from 2005.

In one of the most significant new American investments, Intel chose Ho Chi Minh City as the site of a $600 million microchip plant that will begin production in 2008. With Vietnam's membership in the World Trade Organization expected in the fall, scouts for American banks, and insurance and telecommunications companies are knocking on doors here, poised to invest.

And in motorbike-crazy Vietnam, where city streets are clogged with cheap Chinese models, Harley-Davidson, the all-American company, has sensed an opportunity. It won concessions in recent trade talks to have tariffs on heavy cycles lifted, and plans to open a showroom soon.

China's investments have been mostly in raw materials like coal and bauxite, and in building roads and rails that will connect the long coast of Vietnam to southern China.

Signs of Vietnam's economic exuberance abound.

One of the nation's best known new entrepreneurs, Ly Qui Trung, 40, opened a noodle soup store three years ago and now has 33 outlets with distinctive décor and polite service, all modeled on McDonald's.

Called Pho 24, after the national dish of noodles, beef, spices and greens served in an aromatic broth, the stores earn their franchisees up to $40,000 a year, Mr. Trung says, a handsome income in Vietnam.

"I use the method of McDonald's: everything is standardized, everything is uniform," he said. "It's nine steps from taking the order to serving the food to saying goodbye." .

He expects to open 100 stores in the next two years, including a restaurant in southern China next month.

In Vinh Yen district on the outskirts of Hanoi, Chen Guo Hui, a textile engineer from Southern China, runs a yarn manufacturing factory with 600 employees, many of whom left the surrounding farms to work as machine operators.

"Chinese factories are coming here more and more — labor costs are 25 to 30 percent lower than in China," he said. At his plant, workers were paid an average of $60 a month.

Vietnam has arrived as an economic player in Asia after years of slow and fitful decision making by the governing Politburo.

The government finally passed an enterprise act in 2000 that permitted the formation of small- and medium-size businesses. Major industries like power and telephones remain dominated by state enterprises.

The gradual approach has won praise from the World Bank, which says growth has come fairly equitably, creating fewer divisions between rich and poor than in some developing countries.

"It is rare for a country to graduate from being poor to middle income in 15 years," said Klaus Rohland, the World Bank's country director in Vietnam.

In 1993, Vietnam's per capita income was $180. It climbed to $640 for 2005 and is expected to reach $1,000 by 2010, when Vietnam will no longer qualify for concessionary loans from the World Bank, he said. In a clear difference with many developing countries, especially in Africa, Vietnam has eschewed heavy reliance on foreign aid; less than 15 percent of public spending for the last number of years came from aid, the bank said.

Relations between Vietnam and the United States have improved in the last several years but remain troubled by uneasiness in Washington over human rights, and by the opposition of many Vietnamese-Americans to the Hanoi government.

The Vietnamese government remains irritated by Washington's refusal to consider compensation for victims of Agent Orange, the toxic herbicide the United States used in the Vietnam War. Still, the anti-Americanism that can be found elsewhere, especially over the Iraq war, is less evident here.

Ms. Ninh singled out the welcome for Mr. Gates, who was mobbed here in April, as an example of friendlier attitudes. "Vietnamese like Bill Gates because he earned his money with his brain, and got it with his determination," she said. "He is a role model young people can emulate."

His last message, she noted, was to say, "I'm coming back."

    U.S. Competes With China for Vietnam's Allegiance, NYT, 19.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/19/world/asia/19vietnam.html

Global Image of the U.S. Is Worsening, Survey Finds

June 14, 2006
The New York Times
By BRIAN KNOWLTON

WASHINGTON, June 13 — As the war in Iraq continues for a fourth year, the global image of America has slipped further, even among people in some countries closely allied with the United States, a new opinion poll has found.

Favorable views of the United States dropped sharply over the past year in Spain, where only 23 percent said they had a positive opinion, down from 41 percent last year, according to the survey. It was done in 15 nations, including the United States, this spring by the Washington-based Pew Research Center.

Other countries where positive views dropped significantly include India (56 percent, down from 71 percent); Russia (43 percent, down from 52 percent); and Indonesia (30 percent, down from 38 percent). In Turkey, only 12 percent said they held a favorable opinion, down from 23 percent last year.

Declines were less steep in France, Germany and Jordan, while people in China and Pakistan had a slightly more favorable image of the United States this year than last. In Britain, Washington's closest ally in the Iraq war, positive views of America have remained in the mid-50-percent range in the past two years, down sharply from 75 percent in 2002, before the war.

Support for the fight against terrorism led by the United States is also down, Pew found.

Although strong majorities in several countries expressed worries about Iran's nuclear intentions, in 13 of 15 countries polled, most people said the war in Iraq posed more of a danger to world peace. Russians held that view by a 2-to-1 margin.

"Obviously, when you get many more people saying that the U.S. presence in Iraq is a threat to world peace as say that about Iran, it's a measure of how much Iraq is sapping good will to the United States," said Andrew Kohut, president of the Pew Research Center.

The latest declines came after a year in which anti-American sentiment had slightly receded, aided by good feeling over aid for tsunami victims and political progress in Iraq.

The polling was conducted before the completion last week of the Iraqi government or the killing of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia.

These were some other findings:

{paragraf}After Hamas's victory in the Palestinian elections, Germans, in a reversal, said they sympathized more with Israel than with the Palestinians. Support for Israel also rose in France, to 38 percent from 20 percent.

{paragraf}After the immigrants' riots and job protests in France, people in every country but one — the United States — said they held dimmer views of the French. The number of Americans favorably impressed by France rose to 52 percent, from 29 percent in 2003, when the French angered many Americans by refusing to back the war in Iraq.

{paragraf}Only 75 percent of Americans had heard reports of abuses at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq and at the American naval base at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, while 90 percent of Western Europeans and Japanese had heard about them.

Many respondents distinguished between their largely negative feelings about President Bush and their feelings about Americans in general.

Majorities in 7 of 14 countries polled, not including the United States, had favorable views of Americans, led by Japan, at 82 percent, and Britain, at 69 percent. But majorities in just two countries, India and Nigeria, expressed confidence in Mr. Bush.

After a tumultuous year in Iraq and Afghanistan, the fight against terrorism is now backed by more than 50 percent of people only in Russia and India, while support has virtually collapsed in Japan, the poll found. People in the United States were not asked this question. But as leading powers seek ways to contain the Iranian nuclear program, the poll found strong majorities in Western Europe, Japan, and India sharing underlying American concerns. The percentages of people in Britain, France and Spain who view Tehran as a threat have roughly tripled in three years.

More than 9 in 10 Americans, Germans, Japanese and French opposed Iran's acquiring nuclear arms.

Pew surveyed 16,710 people from March 31 to May 14 in Britain, China, Egypt, France, Germany, India, Indonesia, Japan, Jordan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Russia, Spain, Turkey and the United States. The margin of error was two to four percentage points in every country except Britain and Germany, where it was six points.

    Global Image of the U.S. Is Worsening, Survey Finds, NYT, 14.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/14/world/14pew.html?ex=1150516800&en=d5d051f9169cfbc9&ei=5087%0A

    Related > http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/252.pdf

Iraqi Ties to Iran Create New Risks for Washington

June 8, 2006
The New York Times
By MICHAEL SLACKMAN

QUM, Iran — The single most influential man in Iraq today, the Shiite religious leader Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, provides cash, free housing and medical care to tens of thousands of religious students and operates hundreds of religious Web sites across the globe.

Yet this is all going on not in Iraq, but here in the religious capital of Iran.

As the Bush administration seeks simultaneously to stabilize Iraq, in part by empowering its Shiite majority, and contain Iran, it must carefully navigate the complex relationship between the countries. It is not just Iran's influence in Iraq that the United States must confront, but Iraq's connection to Iran, as well.

While Ayatollah Sistani is viewed suspiciously by the leadership of Iran — he opposes clerics' involvement in politics — his relations with the Iranian people have deepened and spread since the American occupation of Iraq. Divisions that once stood between the Shiites of Iraq and Iran, animosity fed by the eight-year war between the countries, have become less relevant as Iraq's Shiites re-establish their identity after decades of oppression under Saddam Hussein.

"We are a family of Shia," said Javad Shahrestani, who is Ayatollah Sistani's son-in-law and his representative in Qum. "This is the basic fact of our life."

While the United States says it is determined to resolve its disputes with Iran through diplomatic means, many officials and political analysts in Iran say they fear that President Bush will use force against Iran before he leaves office.

With that in mind, present and former Iranian security officials said they were counting on, even stoking, the sense of religious connection to Iraq as well as to fellow Shiites in places like India and Saudi Arabia, as part of a defensive strategy.

Iranians believe that despite philosophical differences with others of their faith, like Ayatollah Sistani, their country is the Shiite motherland and any kind of military attack on Iran would compel Shiites around the globe to respond.

"There are two things that all grand ayatollahs care about — preventing chaos and making sure the people are as secure as possible," said one of Iran's central security planners, who spoke on the condition he not be identified because of the nature of his work. "If the United States hits Iran, other players will come in."

Ayatollah Sistani's organization is already worried that the tensions between Iran and the United States will affect its work. It has two large computer servers based in California that are the hub of its technology center. If the United States ever cut off access to those servers, Ayatollah Sistani's information network would be knocked offline.

"Will they check, will they know this is for Ayatollah Sistani, or will they just shut down the servers?" asked Walid Salman, one of the technology managers working with the ayatollah's operation in Qum.

Ayatollah Sistani, who is Iranian, studied religion in Qum 56 years ago before moving to the Shiite religious city of Najaf in Iraq, said Mr. Shahrestani, who left Iraq for Qum 29 years ago, never once returning. He has built Ayatollah Sistani's operation here to include a network of services, from Web design training to health insurance, all for religious students. In Qum, he said, there are 45,000 students receiving aid of some sort, with another 20,000 in other Iranian cities.

"Because of the situation during Saddam's time, we decided to make Qum as the center," Mr. Shahrestani said as he sat in one of the many cultural centers his organization's operates here.

Just 75 miles from Tehran, Qum is a gritty town, with a huge shrine decorated in fiery blue tiles, a site of pilgrimage for Shiite Muslims. It is also the site of many Shiite religious schools, drawing students from around Iran and elsewhere, who study full time and receive financial support from political leaders.

Ayatollah Sistani does not have a religious school in Iran, but he has high-tech links to all the schools here. Eight years ago his son-in-law founded the Aalulbayt Global Information Center, in a small building on a traffic-clogged street in the center of Qum.

Inside is a staff of technicians who design and manage four Web sites, using the Internet to spread Ayatollah Sistani's ideas and his influence among Shiites all over the world.

Each month, for example, the center receives hundreds of requests for guidance, and each day the staff members send back answers under the name of the ayatollah. One woman from Australia asked if her father was right to oppose her decision to marry a non-Arab. The response was that she should get her father to change his mind. A person from the United Arab Emirates asked if it was O.K. to play the guitar, and the answer was no.

"Najaf was a very important and pivotal center for Shia studies but it was ruined by Saddam," said Sayed Ibrahim Larjvardi, who is the information center's chief administrator "Qum is the same now. The motherland of Shiism is here in Qum."

Across town, along dusty streets, Ayatollah Sistani's son-in-law was overseeing the construction of 320 apartments, each of which will be loaned to a religious student in Qum.

Muhammad Shariatmadri, 35, a theology student from Tehran living in one of the apartments, said, "The free housing has been a huge help."

His neighbor, Muhammad Abedi, 35, from southern India, lives with his wife and children in another one. Asked how Shiites in India and elsewhere would react if the nuclear issue reached a stage where the United States decided to take action against Iran, he said: "They will help Iran. Of course."

    Iraqi Ties to Iran Create New Risks for Washington, NYT, 8.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/08/world/middleeast/08iran.html?hp&ex=1149825600&en=e478e96e8803dc02&ei=5094&partner=homepage

Rumsfeld eyes boosting military ties with Vietnam

Mon Jun 5, 2006 3:03 AM ET
Reuters
By Paul Eckert, Asia Correspondent

HANOI (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and his Vietnamese counterpart agreed on Monday to boost military exchanges between the former battlefield enemies, Pentagon officials said.

Vietnam is one of several Asian states that the Pentagon has built close ties with to conduct its war on terrorism and to hedge against a rising China, which Washington says is too secretive about its military spending and intentions.

"It was cordial and both sides agreed we want to expand these contacts," a senior Pentagon official said after Rumsfeld's hour-long meeting with Defense Minister Pham Van Tra.

The two sides agreed to share medical training under a Pentagon-funded program and have "more visits at all levels," the official told reporters traveling with Rumsfeld on the second leg of a Southeast Asian visit.

U.S. military ties with Hanoi, 31 years after the end of the Vietnam war and 11 years after the normalization of diplomatic ties, have warmed gradually with ship visits.

Rumsfeld, the second Pentagon chief to visit communist-run Vietnam since the fall of U.S. ally South Vietnam in 1975, was due to meet Prime Minister Phan Van Khai later on Monday.

Rumsfeld, who also headed the Defense Department in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, last visited Hanoi in 1995 as a businessman.

"I hasten to congratulate you and the people of Vietnam for the amazing economic achievements that have occurred just in the last 11 years," Rumsfeld told Tra.

The military talks were held less than a week after the two countries signed a new trade pact that paves the way for Vietnam to join the World Trade Organization by year-end.

MISSING IN ACTION RECOVERY

A U.S. Navy ship would visit Vietnam this summer, the fourth in four years, Rumsfeld said.

But he told reporters in Singapore on Sunday that "we have no plans for access to military facilities in Vietnam" and his aides stressed that ties would evolve gradually. For Hanoi, this means avoiding provoking giant neighbor China.

U.S. officials have said Vietnam, which fought a brief war with China in 1979, shares Washington's desire to have good ties with Beijing and a wariness about rapid Chinese military growth.

Exchanges under the Pentagon's International Military Education and Training (IMET) program would begin with English-language training for Vietnamese officers in San Antonio, Texas, the official said.

Further IMET exchanges "will need some time to cook and there are some restraints on our side", said the official, referring to congressional oversight that raises concerns about U.S. military partners' human rights behavior.

Rumsfeld and Tra discussed cooperation on recovering the remains of the 1,805 U.S. soldiers missing in action in Southeast Asia since the war, which killed more than 58,000 Americans and three million Vietnamese soldiers and civilians.

The Pentagon official said Washington could offer technical help for Hanoi in recovering the remains of its 300,000 missing soldiers. He added that although Vietnam was very helpful, Washington wanted more assistance searching Vietnamese archives and finding data on missing soldiers in Laos and Cambodia.

Hanoi will host President Bush in November at the annual summit of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.

    Rumsfeld eyes boosting military ties with Vietnam, R, 5.6.2006, http://today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-06-05T070344Z_01_B113616_RTRUKOC_0_US-VIETNAM-USA.xml

Rice says "wait and see" on Iran oil threat hint

Sun Jun 4, 2006 5:41 PM ET
Reuters
By Eric Walsh

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice took a wait-and-see approach toward Iran's next moves in a dispute over its nuclear ambitions, after the country's top religious leader suggested on Sunday it could disrupt oil supplies if pushed.

"Well, I think we shouldn't place too much emphasis on a move of this kind; after all Iran is very dependent on oil revenue," Rice told Fox News Sunday.

Asked whether Iranian leaders had already rejected a six-nation diplomatic initiative, by insisting there be no preconditions for new talks on their nuclear program, Rice said Iran had not yet received the proposal and would need time to assess it.

"It's sort of a major crossroads for Iran, and it's perhaps not surprising that they will need a little bit of time to look at it," she told Fox News.

Washington has offered to join European countries in talks with Iran about the nuclear program, but says Iran must first suspend uranium enrichment. Iran has so far said enrichment is a national right.

The timetable for a decision by Iran must not be endless, Rice said on CNN's "Late Edition." But in the meantime, "We're not going to react to every statement that comes out of Iran," she said.

She said Iran had a path to resolve the impasse but warned "the international community is committed to a second path should that first path not work."

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, said earlier on Sunday that if the United States makes a "wrong move" toward the world's fourth-largest oil exporter, energy flows in the region would be endangered.

Iranian officials have in the past ruled out using oil as a weapon in the nuclear standoff.

His remarks, likely to unsettle wary oil markets, come days before EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana is due to deliver a package of incentives agreed by six world powers and designed to persuade Iran to abandon plans to make nuclear fuel.

Washington accuses Tehran of seeking to develop atomic weapons under cover of a civilian nuclear power program, a charge Tehran denies. While calling for a diplomatic solution, it has refused to rule out military action.

The incentives being offered in the new international initiative have not been publicly announced, but diplomats are considering an offer of nuclear reactors as well as security guarantees.

International oil prices have stayed near record highs, above $70 a barrel, partly because of fears Iranian exports could be disrupted. Iran produces about 3.85 million barrels of oil a day.

    Rice says "wait and see" on Iran oil threat hint, R, 4.6.2006, http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2006-06-04T214129Z_01_L01792783_RTRUKOC_0_US-NUCLEAR-IRAN-USA.xml

Iran Is a Leader in Terror, Rumsfeld Tells Defense Group

June 4, 2006
The New York Times
By MICHAEL R. GORDON

SINGAPORE, June 3 — Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld told a gathering of defense experts here on Saturday that Iran was “one of the leading terrorist nations in the world.”

Mr. Rumsfeld also questioned why Russia and China would allow Iran to participate in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, a regional organization that includes Russia, China and Central Asian nations.

Iran has observer status in the group, and the Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, is expected to attend a summit meeting that the organization is holding in Shanghai this month.

“It strikes me as passing strange that one would want to bring into an organization that says it is against terrorism one of the leading terrorist nations in the world: Iran,” Mr. Rumsfeld said.

His pointed comments were made at an important moment in American diplomacy. This week, the Bush administration reversed a refusal to hold direct talks with Iran that had lasted decades. The administration said it was willing to join European allies in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program if Teheran first suspended its efforts to enrich uranium.

At the same time, Washington has been seeking Russian and Chinese cooperation in fashioning a common negotiating strategy. Both nations are members of the United Nations Security Council, which the United States would like to impose punitive measures if Iran does not accept a package of incentives and suspend its nuclear enrichment activities.

The United States and its European allies recently agreed on the package of incentives, which are to be conveyed to Iran in the coming days. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has said that Iran must respond within weeks. President Ahmadinejad has rebuffed the offer, but America officials said this may not be the final word.

In his comments, Mr. Rumsfeld said that President Bush had presented Iran with the opportunity to defuse the confrontation over its nuclear program through diplomacy and that more time was needed to assess the prospects for a diplomatic settlement.

“The information has just been communicated to them, and it seems to me the appropriate thing now to do is to wait and see which path the Iranian government will take,” he added.

But he painted a dark picture of Iran, saying that it had a long history of “being engaged in terrorist activities” and, thus, was not an appropriate participant in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. The Russian- and Chinese-dominated organization was established in 2001 and one of its stated goals is to counter separatist and terrorist groups.

Singapore’s prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong , said Friday that Iran’s role in the Shanghai organization was a way for Russia and China to demonstrate their influence. Iran, he said, had applied to upgrade its presence to full-fledged member. By agreeing to consider this, he said, “Russia and China have reminded the West of their combined influence on world-turning events.”

India, which also has observer status in the organization, said Iran’s participation in the upcoming summit as an observer was a matter for Iran to decide. “Who am I to decide on their behalf?” said the Indian defense minister, Pranab Mukherjee.

One of the main themes in Mr. Rumsfeld’s address here was the need for more inclusive institutions. The United States was concerned last year when an East Asian summit was held that included 10 members of the Association of South East Asian Nations, as well as China, Korea, Japan and other countries, but which excluded the United States.

Mr. Rumsfeld repeated a theme from last year’s address — that China needed to be open about how much it was spending on its military and what the funds were being used for.

Russia, he said, had sought “to constrain the independence and freedom of action of some of their neighboring countries.” Defense officials said this was a reference to the pressure that Moscow has put on Central Asian nations to curtail military ties with the United States as well as to Russia’s difficult relationship with Georgia and Ukraine.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s presentation and that of other defense officials were made at an annual conference organized by the International Institute for Strategic Studies. Neither China nor Russia sent high-level officials to the conference. Iran has made its own forays into the region. Last month, President Ahmadinejad visited Indonesia where, Mr. Lee noted, he received a hero’s welcome from Indonesian students.

“This showed how successfully Iran has portrayed itself as a leading Muslim country, its nuclear program as a project in which Muslims worldwide should take vicarious pride, and the issue as a nationalist struggle,” Mr. Lee said. “We have to refocus on the core issue, which is nuclear proliferation and Iran’s obligations under the Nonproliferation Treaty.”

    Iran Is a Leader in Terror, Rumsfeld Tells Defense Group, NYT, 4.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/04/world/middleeast/04rumsfeld.web.html

News Analysis

Bush's Realization on Iran: No Good Choice Left Except Talks

June 1, 2006
The New York Times
By DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, May 31 — After 27 years in which the United States has refused substantive talks with Iran, President Bush reversed course on Wednesday because it was made clear to him — by his allies, by the Russians, by the Chinese, and eventually by some of his advisers — that he no longer had a choice.

During the past month, according to European officials and some current and former members of the Bush administration, it became obvious to Mr. Bush that he could not hope to hold together a fractious coalition of nations to enforce sanctions — or consider military strikes on Iranian nuclear sites — unless he first showed a willingness to engage Iran's leadership directly over its nuclear program and exhaust every nonmilitary option.

Few of his aides expect that Iran's leaders will meet Mr. Bush's main condition: that Iran first re-suspend all of its nuclear activities, including shutting down every centrifuge that could add to its small stockpile of enriched uranium. Administration officials characterized their offer as a test of whether the Iranians want engagement with the West more than they want the option to build a nuclear bomb some day.

And while the Europeans and the Japanese said they were elated by Mr. Bush's turnaround, some participants in the drawn-out nuclear drama questioned whether this was an offer intended to fail, devised to show the extent of Iran's intransigence.

Either way, after five years of behind-the-scenes battling within the administration, Mr. Bush finally came to a crossroads at which both sides in the debate over Iran — engagers and isolaters, and some with a foot in each camp — saw an advantage in, as one senior aide said, "seeing if they are serious."

Mr. Bush, according to one participant in those debates, told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice several months ago that he needed "a third option," a way to get beyond either a nuclear Iran or an American military action.

Ms. Rice spent a long weekend in early May drafting a proposal that included a timetable for diplomatic choreography through the summer.

"Nobody wants to get to that kind of crisis situation — whether it is us or the next administration — where you either accept an Iranian weapon or you are forced to do something drastic," said the participant, who declined to speak on the record about internal White House deliberations.

The idea of engagement is hardly new. When Colin L. Powell was secretary of state, several members of his senior staff argued vociferously that the United States needed to test Iran's willingness to deal with the United States — especially in the aftermath of Sept. 11.

There was strong opposition from the White House, particularly from Vice President Dick Cheney, according to several former officials.

"Cheney was dead set against it," said one former official who sat in many of those meetings. "At its heart, this was an argument about whether you could isolate the Iranians enough to force some kind of regime change." But three officials who were involved in the most recent iteration of that debate said Mr. Cheney and others stepped aside — perhaps because they read Mr. Bush's body language, or perhaps because they believed Iran would scuttle the effort by insisting that the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty gives it the right to develop nuclear fuel. The United States insists that Iran gave up that right by deceiving inspectors for 18 years.

In the end, said one former official who has kept close tabs on the debate, "it came down to convincing Cheney and others that if we are going to confront Iran, we first have to check off the box" of trying talks.

Mr. Bush offered a more positive-sounding account: "I thought it was important for the United States to take the lead, along with our partners, and that's what you're seeing. You're seeing robust diplomacy."

As part of the diplomatic timetable, Ms. Rice will be in Vienna on Thursday to endorse an international offer to Iran that includes several plums. Among them will be the dialogue with Washington that Iran has periodically sought, a lifting of many long-standing economic sanctions, and even light water reactors for nuclear power with Russia and the West controlling access to the fuel.

Yet skepticism abounds. "It's true that the conditions are significantly different than they were four or five years ago, but candidly they are not as favorable now for the United States," said Richard Haass, who as the head of the State Department's policy planning operation during Mr. Bush's first term was a major advocate of engagement with Iran.

First, the new president, Mahmoud Ahmadinijad, "has vowed that the country will never back down on enriching uranium.

"Oil's at $70 a barrel instead of $20, said Mr. Haass, now the president of the Council on Foreign Relations. "And we are bogged down in Iraq," where the United States is vulnerable to Iranian efforts to worsen the violence and arm the insurgents.

But the internal debates in the White House included vigorous discussion of the risks associated with any effort to negotiate with foes suspected of seeking nuclear weapons. And in this, Mr. Bush already has bitter experience.

In its dealings with North Korea, which Mr. Bush branded a member of the "axis of evil" along with Iran and Iraq, the administration also decided a few years ago to try limited engagement, locked arm-in-arm with neighboring nations.

But North Korea has kept making weapons fuel, and the allies have not stayed united: China and South Korea continue to aid the North. The Iranians have doubtless noticed.

The question now is whether there is any middle ground between Mr. Bush's demand that Iran give up everything, and Iran's insistence that it will give up nothing. Without breaking that logjam, the American-Iranian dialogue may never begin.

    Bush's Realization on Iran: No Good Choice Left Except Talks, NYT, 1.6.2006, http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/01/world/middleeast/01iran.html