Here's an open source summary of some Statfor (subscription) analysis about recent US-Iran, behind the scenes, negotiations -

http://smirkingchimp.com/thread/7528

I don't know, but if Iran really wants these things, they must be the 'white hats'

1. Iran does not want an abrupt withdrawal of coalition forces from Iraq for fear this would lead to reshuffling the cards and redistributing power. Instead, there should be a fixed timetable for the withdrawal of U.S. and British forces from Iraqi cities and relocation at bases and camps inside Iraq, provided the Iraqi forces have reached the point at which they can provide security. The Iranians also stated that they would extend all possible assistance so that foreign forces could exit "honorably" from Iraq.
to the United States that they are willing to cooperate so the Iraq withdrawal does not look like another Vietnam scenario for the U.S. administration to deal with at home.

2. Iran is "strongly opposed to all attempts to partition Iraq or impose a federal system that allows for regional autonomy." No region should be allowed to monopolize the resources in its territory and deprive other regions of the revenues from these resources.

3. Iran wants a plan, involving the Kurds and Sunnis, drawn up to root out the transnational jihadist forces allied with al Qaeda in Iraq. Sunni tribes should also assume the responsibility of confronting jihadists, whether they are Iraqi citizens or are from other Arab and Muslim countries.

4. Iran clearly states that the negotiations over Iraq cannot be separated from other regional issues and Tehran's nuclear file.

5. Iran wants a new regional formula that would make Iraq a region of influence for Tehran.

The United States will not, according to Stratfor, let Iraq become a satellite state of Iran and Iran know this, but a Shiite government in place in Baghdad would probably suffice.

The Iranian paper outlined several key concessions it would offer the United States and Iraq's Sunni faction if its demands were met.

1. Iran would help the Iraqi government rein in the armed Shiite militias and incorporate them into the state security apparatus.

2. The de-Baathification law can be revised to allow for the rehiring of former Iraqi army personnel, the bulk of whom are tied to the Sunni nationalist insurgency. However, Iran wants assurances that former Interim Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi and other former Baathists will not be allowed to hold the position of Prime Minister when the time comes to replace current Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.

3. Iran would be willing to see fresh parliamentary elections, the formation of a new Cabinet and the amendment of the Iraqi Constitution to double the Sunni seats in parliament to 40 percent, with the Shia retaining 60 percent. Tehran has said nothing about what would be left for Kurdish political representation, however.

4. Iran has proposed the "fair" distribution of oil revenues in Iraq to satisfy all parties, especially those in "central Iraq," the Sunni-dominated, oil-deprived heart of the country.
According to Stratfor, “it looks as if the Kurds will get screwed again”.

The United States doesn’t want Iraq to become a proxy state of Iran. That will probably not happen. Another point brought up was that Iran does not want Iraq to be equipped with offensive military capabilities.

I don't know but does that seem like the Iran we've all come to know and love?

Maybe it's close to the truth but there sure seems to be a lot of weird stuff floating around in the ether in the last couple weeks.

This time, families are being targeted. People are being shot in drumhead executions and thrown bodily off skyscraper roofs. I don't think even peace talks held under duress in Mecca will work this time.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/13/wo...rssnyt&emc=rss

Palestine is now 4T. I predict al-Qaeda will attempt to move in next, as they share the Iranian desire to take over the "struggle against the Zionists" and the street credibility thereof. (Hamas and Hezbollah are well known to be clients of Iran.)

Al Qaeda's generational split

RECENT CONFUSION over the status of Jamal al-Badawi, one the masterminds of the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, illustrates the difficulties of containing an increasingly fractured jihadist movement. Badawi, who escaped from prison early last year, had surrendered to the Yemeni government in early October, only to be released as part of a plea deal. These events have sparked confusion and anger in the United States.

In Yemen, meanwhile, authorities have continued to make misleading and ambiguous statements about his whereabouts. It would be easy to assume, as many have done, that the country's reaction was that of a reluctant ally eager to shirk its responsibility in the war against Al Qaeda. This reading, as Rudy Giuliani suggested, demands that the United States threaten Yemen with a reduction in aid.

But what to the United States is a cohesive organization bound together by a common hatred is to Yemen a fragmented movement that is rife with infighting and dissension.

Over the past several months, a generational schism has emerged within Al Qaeda's ranks in Yemen, pitting younger, more radicalized members against the more experienced old guard. Since 2003, the Yemeni government and Al Qaeda in Yemen have reached what could best be described as a tacit nonaggression pact. Through a combination of military action and negotiation, Yemen has attempted to convince the militants not that their beliefs are incorrect, but rather that they would hurt their own cause and base of operations by acting violently within the borders of the state.

I was rather surprised to find there is no Iraq thread on this forum, so this will have to do.

Some time ago I was in an extended argument with a certain poster over whether there was, or would be, a civil war in Iraq. He argued repeatedly that the answer was no, because Iraq had had its Fourth Turning in the 1980s during the war with Iran, a "genocidal war", he said, of the sort characteristic of 4Ts.

I have just heard a lecture (unclass) by a historian who has been studying original Iraqi documents on that Iran-Iraq war, and he reports that it cost the Iraqis about 300,000 lives. I submit that many estimates show that to be much less than what the Iraqis have lost since 2002. In addition, there are between 1.5 million and 2 million Iraqi refugees outside Iraq and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been internally displaced; and there is no central government to speak of in Iraq. In other words, by any measure what Iraq has been through since 2002 is much, much worse than what it went through in the 1980s, when the social order survived intact.

When the 4T should have happened in Iraq is a tricky question. If we go back to the founding of Iraq then 2002 was right on schedule; but the Ba'ath-Communist civil war of the 1960s looks like a 4T too. . .I would suggest the following. The saeculum is based on an average long life, but many diseased (or simply unlucky) people do not live that long. In the same way, a social or political order can die unexpectedly early for all sorts of reasons, including foreign invasion. In any case, anyone who could deny that Iraq is now in a 4T is depriving the concept of any possible meaning.

Originally Posted by Steven McTowelie

Al Qaeda's generational split

RECENT CONFUSION over the status of Jamal al-Badawi, one the masterminds of the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen in 2000, illustrates the difficulties of containing an increasingly fractured jihadist movement. Badawi, who escaped from prison early last year, had surrendered to the Yemeni government in early October, only to be released as part of a plea deal. These events have sparked confusion and anger in the United States.

In Yemen, meanwhile, authorities have continued to make misleading and ambiguous statements about his whereabouts. It would be easy to assume, as many have done, that the country's reaction was that of a reluctant ally eager to shirk its responsibility in the war against Al Qaeda. This reading, as Rudy Giuliani suggested, demands that the United States threaten Yemen with a reduction in aid.

But what to the United States is a cohesive organization bound together by a common hatred is to Yemen a fragmented movement that is rife with infighting and dissension.

Over the past several months, a generational schism has emerged within Al Qaeda's ranks in Yemen, pitting younger, more radicalized members against the more experienced old guard. Since 2003, the Yemeni government and Al Qaeda in Yemen have reached what could best be described as a tacit nonaggression pact. Through a combination of military action and negotiation, Yemen has attempted to convince the militants not that their beliefs are incorrect, but rather that they would hurt their own cause and base of operations by acting violently within the borders of the state.

I would say that the Idealist and/or Adaptive leadership of Al Qaeda (Bin Ladin is a early wave Idealist according to my view of Middle Eastern Generations). Is facing problems with their now overwhelming Reactive rank and file. The 911 attackers were either later wave Idealists or early wave reactive.

Originally Posted by Tristan

I would say that the Idealist and/or Adaptive leadership of Al Qaeda (Bin Ladin is a early wave Idealist according to my view of Middle Eastern Generations). Is facing problems with their now overwhelming Reactive rank and file. The 911 attackers were either later wave Idealists or early wave reactive.

I would like to propose something different. The turnings theory is about the rise and decline of civic virtue. One could argue that highly traditional societies (such as Saudi Arabia) don't have any such concept--and that therefore, we can't identify turnings within them clearly. And Saudi Arabia, of course, is the home of Al Queda.

The situation is somewhat different in Iraq which was ruled by a western-style totalitarian party for about forty years--but which has now lapsed into tribal/sectarian anarchy with no sign of any real unifying force.

The Palestinians strike me as much more modern.

Just a thought. Now off to work. .

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

I would like to propose something different. The turnings theory is about the rise and decline of civic virtue. One could argue that highly traditional societies (such as Saudi Arabia) don't have any such concept--and that therefore, we can't identify turnings within them clearly. And Saudi Arabia, of course, is the home of Al Queda.

The situation is somewhat different in Iraq which was ruled by a western-style totalitarian party for about forty years--but which has now lapsed into tribal/sectarian anarchy with no sign of any real unifying force.

The Palestinians strike me as much more modern.

Just a thought. Now off to work. .

Saudi Arabia is less 'traditional' inspite of it's political system, it was experiencing much the same upheavals as the rest of the middle east in the 80's. In 1979 the Grand Mosque in Mecca came under attack by religiously motivated critics of the monarchy.

Despite being the country with the most strict enforcement of Islamic law or the Sharia in the world. Islamists still hate the Saudi Monarchy because of it's alliance with the USA and allowing non-Muslims to live in Arabia (A saying attributed to Muhammad said all Christians and Jews be forbidden to live in Arabia).

Israel seems still to be in 3T mode, and, basically, in a mess, the day after yesterday's election.

Politically the left wing in Israel, which founded the state, is pretty much dead--the once-heroic Labor Party won 13 out of 120 seats yesterday. The centrist Kadima, founded b Ariel Sharon, barely won the most seats, beating the Likud 28-27. Tzipi Livni, their leader, who seems to be cut from the Hillary Clinton Prophet mold (she is 50) claims the right to form a new government. However, combining her votes with those of Labor gives just 41 out of the 61 she would need for a majority. Also on the Right are Avigdor Lieberman's violently anti-Arab Yisrael Beitenu with 15 and the ultra-Orthodox Shas with 11. Adding those to Likud gives 53 which is in sight of a majority. So Livni is courting Lieberman, which to my untrained American eye casts a huge doubt on her dovish credentials. Another aspect of the results suggest something really funny is going on within Israeli democracy. 19% of the Israeli population (we aren't talking about the Palestinians) is Arab--but the Arab parties won just 4 seats. I don't see how anything but a hawkish government can emerge from all this.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Israel seems still to be in 3T mode, and, basically, in a mess, the day after yesterday's election.

Politically the left wing in Israel, which founded the state, is pretty much dead--the once-heroic Labor Party won 13 out of 120 seats yesterday. The centrist Kadima, founded b Ariel Sharon, barely won the most seats, beating the Likud 28-27. Tzipi Livni, their leader, who seems to be cut from the Hillary Clinton Prophet mold (she is 50) claims the right to form a new government. However, combining her votes with those of Labor gives just 41 out of the 61 she would need for a majority. Also on the Right are Avigdor Lieberman's violently anti-Arab Yisrael Beitenu with 15 and the ultra-Orthodox Shas with 11. Adding those to Likud gives 53 which is in sight of a majority. So Livni is courting Lieberman, which to my untrained American eye casts a huge doubt on her dovish credentials. Another aspect of the results suggest something really funny is going on within Israeli democracy. 19% of the Israeli population (we aren't talking about the Palestinians) is Arab--but the Arab parties won just 4 seats. I don't see how anything but a hawkish government can emerge from all this.

Listening to stuff on the Israeli election on the BBC I was struck by how much pessimism and cynicism there is. Looks like your "Israel is 4T" pronouncement was wrong.

Originally Posted by Odin

Listening to stuff on the Israeli election on the BBC I was struck by how much pessimism and cynicism there is. Looks like your "Israel is 4T" pronouncement was wrong.

But the general trend away from the western tradition within Israel is undeniable. From 1948-73 the Labor party, which was founded by the same european Jews who founded Israel itself, promoted what was basically a social democracy. Each succeeding generation of Israelis has been more non-european and conservative. I personally believe that an Israeli government that will be 4Tish in war policy and non-inclusive in regards to non-Jewish elements with the state is coming. The storm has been delayed but not diverted.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

But the general trend away from the western tradition within Israel is undeniable. From 1948-73 the Labor party, which was founded by the same european Jews who founded Israel itself, promoted what was basically a social democracy. Each succeeding generation of Israelis has been more non-european and conservative. I personally believe that an Israeli government that will be 4Tish in war policy and non-inclusive in regards to non-Jewish elements with the state is coming. The storm has been delayed but not diverted.

I would have to agree completely and believe it does not bode well for the region in general, and Israel specifically.

A Post-Zionist posture would move Israel in a more positive direction. I dont see that as likely though

Originally Posted by Skabungus

I would have to agree completely and believe it does not bode well for the region in general, and Israel specifically.

A Post-Zionist posture would move Israel in a more positive direction. I dont see that as likely though

No, an increasingly intolerant society set in the midst of another, equally intolerant (and ferociously hostile to itself) society,...

Originally Posted by Odin

Listening to stuff on the Israeli election on the BBC I was struck by how much pessimism and cynicism there is. Looks like your "Israel is 4T" pronouncement was wrong.

Characteristic of an early 4T...

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

No, an increasingly intolerant society set in the midst of another, equally intolerant (and ferociously hostile to itself) society,...

????? Please elaborate.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

I would have to agree completely and believe it does not bode well for the region in general, and Israel specifically.

A Post-Zionist posture would move Israel in a more positive direction. I dont see that as likely though

How would you define as "post-Zionist" posture for Israel?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

How would you define as "post-Zionist" posture for Israel?

I’d say a Post Zionist state would be one where:

-The state of Israel becomes a democracy as opposed to a Jewish democratic state. Doing so would give all citizens an equal stake in the future of the nation – like say, most other democracies where jews, muslims, Christians, atheists and pagans are granted the same rights to participate in the secular state affairs.

-Israel accepts it’s role in the ME as a ME state, and not insist on a future trajectory that is somehow separate and special.

Up until now, we’ve accepted the Zionist narrative that set up Israel as a special homeland for the Jewish people. To that end the territory was carved out with artificial boundaries to accommodate Jews from all over the world: a separate sacred homeland and refuge. To that end the existing inhabitants were in large part driven out to make room. In other instances where this has happened it is looked upon with abhorrence.

Were Israel to look upon the Palestinians and surrounding ME states as partners, and look to confederation on a common future, this would be post-Zionist. Granted, the Palestinians, Jordanians, Lebanese, Egyptians and Syrians and Israelis don’t come to mind as ideal bedfellows, but that is not the fault of the idea, but of the participants.

Many examples exist around the world of “warring tribes” dropping their myriad differences to unite and become strong and prosperous forces in history. Is the post-Zionist future pie in the sky? If so, then so is the EEC, USA, etc. It was not long ago that the EEC was a battle ground. America had it’s trial by fire.

The weakness in the dream of a post Zionist state lies not in the idea but in the mean-spirited selfishness of the Jews and Arabs that insist on “all or nothing solutions”.

Originally Posted by Skabungus

????? Please elaborate.

When two societies, each completely intolerant of the other, collide, something's got to give. It's kind of like the Cascadia School of Plate Tectonics - when said something does give, the results are cataclysmic. (Think of what's building between Arabs and Israelis as the political version of an impending 9.2+ on the Richter Scale Megathrust Earthquake - and associated tsunami.)

Originally Posted by SVE-KRD

When two societies, each completely intolerant of the other, collide, something's got to give. It's kind of like the Cascadia School of Plate Tectonics - when said something does give, the results are cataclysmic. (Think of what's building between Arabs and Israelis as the political version of an impending 9.2+ on the Richter Scale Megathrust Earthquake.)

Agreed. It seems pathetic that it should be that way but.......... neither side chooses to rise above the blame game, tit for tat.

Also, speaking of the global repercussions of said event, I was about to add on to my last post the phrase 'and associated tsunami'.

(I decided to go ahead and add it on anyway.)

Originally Posted by Skabungus

Agreed. It seems pathetic that it should be that way but.......... neither side chooses to rise above the blame game, tit for tat.

With both sides equally intolerant of each other's existence, each has reason to believe that 'to rise above' = 'to commit suicide'.

Basically, you're asking a piranha to make nice with a crocodile - and vice versa.

My critics have a point. Israel's politics at the moment look like an institutionalized 3T. For a blog post on Saturday I surveyed all the parties on Wikipedia--Byzantium had nothing half so complex to offer. . .the system promotes this, by encouraging people to form new parties, and thus perpetuates itself. And this has been reflected in Israeli politics over the last 8 years where no one has been able to make a firm decision on what direction in which to go--even invasions of Lebanon and Gaza do not reflect an actual long-term policy--they are a substitute for one. Perhaps the $5 billion annual American aid is helping this situation to continue.
The Labor Party has shrunk drastically. Part of the reason is undoubtedly emigration. Something like 10% of registered Israeli voters now live overseas, and I suspect they are mostly the more liberal and westernized ones.
A possible attack on Iran, it occurs to me, may be emerging as a substitute for making the critical 4T decisions that Israel faces.

"Saudi government cracks down on Shiite dissidents"

Originally Posted by Donna Abu-Nasr

AWWAMIYA, Saudi Arabia (AP) — A cleric's threat of secession has brought a swift government crackdown in this poor, radical Shiite town in Saudi Arabia's increasingly restive religious minority heartland atop the Sunni kingdom's main oil reserves.

Cleric Sheik Nimr al-Nimr threatened to break away if Saudi authorities don't treat Shiites better. Followers of the sect make up 10 percent of the kingdom's population of 22.6 million and they have long complained of discrimination, saying they are barred from key positions in the military and government and are not given an equal share of the country's wealth.

"Our dignity has been pawned away, and if it is not ... restored, we will call for secession," al-Nimr said during Friday prayers last month. "Our dignity is more precious than the unity of this land."

Since that incendiary sermon, more than 35 people have been arrested in a government crackdown and al-Nimr has gone into hiding. Police have set up checkpoints on the roads leading into Awwamiya, one of the Shiite area's poorest towns.

A serious 4T is hitting the Middle East. Turkey is challenging the legality of Israel's Gaza blockade in the World Court and has downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel. Egyptian rioters took over the Israeli embassy in Cairo. And the Palestinian independence declaration is looming and will be endorsed by the General Assembly. And I haven't even mentioned Iran! Ironically, Iran, Turkey and eventually Egypt were de facto allies of Israel for much of its modern existence--but no more. I don't know where this is going but it's big.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

A serious 4T is hitting the Middle East. Turkey is challenging the legality of Israel's Gaza blockade in the World Court and has downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel. Egyptian rioters took over the Israeli embassy in Cairo. And the Palestinian independence declaration is looming and will be endorsed by the General Assembly. And I haven't even mentioned Iran! Ironically, Iran, Turkey and eventually Egypt were de facto allies of Israel for much of its modern existence--but no more. I don't know where this is going but it's big.

Let's all watch, 'Battle of Algiers'. I hear hear it's a Kissinger favorite and plans for Northern Africa. I didn't like the fact that the Obama Administration silently encouraged it.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

A serious 4T is hitting the Middle East. Turkey is challenging the legality of Israel's Gaza blockade in the World Court and has downgraded diplomatic relations with Israel. Egyptian rioters took over the Israeli embassy in Cairo. And the Palestinian independence declaration is looming and will be endorsed by the General Assembly. And I haven't even mentioned Iran! Ironically, Iran, Turkey and eventually Egypt were de facto allies of Israel for much of its modern existence--but no more. I don't know where this is going but it's big.

No offense to those who are Jewish, but Israel has been overly aggressive for a while IMO. Call it "neccessary for survival" or whatever else you wish, but the fact remains that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. It's reaping what its sewn.

Cliche-filled, but to the point.

~Chas'88