James Baker Works to Establish Direct USA

This is in defiance of Bush White House policy which essentially has said that encouraging direct negotiations with the Iranian clerical leaders would legitimize and strengthen the power of the Iranian mullahs, making it more difficult for Iran’s secular opposition to bring about democratic change in the country.

The visit on January 25-26, 2007, to Tehran by the Secretary-General of the Saudi National Security Council, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, for talks with his Iranian counterpart Ali Larijani on “the critical situation in Lebanon” was, in fact, to scope out a more broadly-based resolution to the Iran-US impasse along the lines of the so-called “Baker Plan” devised by the Iraq Study Group.

The Iraq Study Group recommendations had already been discounted and discarded by the George W. Bush White House, but the Bandar maneuver with Ali Larijani is an attempt to sidestep that in order to resume the process of US recognition of the clerical leadership in Iran.

The move highlights not only the ongoing Baker-Bandar link — which has been close on a financial and personal basis for decades — but also the growing power of Prince Bandar, the former Saudi Ambassador to the US and son of the Saudi Crown Prince and Deputy Prime Minister, Sultan bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud.

Prince Bandar in December 2006 caused to have removed his successor as Saudi Ambassador to the United States, former Director General of the General Intelligence Directorate (GID) Prince Turki al-Faisal, who he apparently saw as a rival.

Although Prince Bandar’s father is in line to succeed to the Throne, there have been recent suggestions that his father could — with the passing of King ‘Abdallah bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz al Sa’ud (should Sultan outlive him; they are both of similar ages) — step aside and push Bandar as the candidate to be the next King.

Moreover, Prince Bandar’s power in the Saudi structure is now such that suggestions that he replace Prince Sa’ud al-Faisal bin ‘Abd al-’Aziz Al Sa’ud as Foreign Minister are privately being sneered at as being beneath Prince Bandar’s power level.

The Bandar-Larijani talks, then, should be seen in the light of Bandar’s power and ambition, and in light of Bandar’s close personal connection with James Baker.

The talks between Bandar and Larijani, thus, gave Larijani, Secretary of Supreme National Security Council (SNSC), and the Iranian clerical leadership considerable optimism that they could circumvent the public position of US Pres. George W. Bush by working with Baker — through Bandar — and with the Democratic Party leadership in the US Congress.

It seemed equally clear following initial talks between Bandar and Larijani that the Iranian official felt himself to be confident of his knowledge as to strategic approaches by the Bush White House with regard to Iran.

Although the January 26, 2007, talks in Tehran were ostensibly primarily related to the developing crisis in Lebanon, it was apparent that talks on the US-Iranian framework both incorporated and transcended the Lebanon issue. But it was the crisis in Beirut which provided the ostensible cause for the developing round of talks between Bandar and Larijani.

Larinjani had delivered a message to Saudi King ‘Abdallah on January 14, 2007, precipitating the visit by Bandar to Tehran where he met with “Supreme Leader” “Ayatollah” Ali Hoseini-Khamene‘i on January 25, 2007, before meeting at length next day with Larijani.

It was clear that Bandar’s contacts in Tehran excluded Pres. Mahmud Ahmadi-Nejad, who is now in open dispute with the “Supreme Leader”. [Saudi-Iranian links also took place in late January 2007 at the level of foreign ministers, between Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Sa’ud al-Faisal and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.]

Indeed, as an aside, the growing Baker/Bandar/Sultan links with the Khamene’i/Larijani links gives an implied boost to the position — currently informal — of former Iranian Pres. Ali Hashemi-Rafsanjani, now being projected as a “moderate” cleric, as opposed to the radical position of Ahmadi-Nejad.

Iranian secular opposition and military figures believe that this characterization suits the Baker approach in the US, but disguises the fact that Rafsanjani is, in reality, no moderate, but is being portrayed in that light in comparison with the current President.

Iranian sources said that offering up Rafsanjani as a leadership alternative to Ahmadi-Nejad could be portrayed in the West as a dampening down of Iranian anti-US strategic ambitions, although this was not the case: Rafsanjani has traditionally been one of the principal supporters of the use of terrorists as a proxy weapon against the West, and of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, much of which he pioneered.

The Iranians, for their part, made little or no pretence on January 26, 2007, that the Tehran talks were about Lebanon, citing almost exclusively the common areas of agreement on regional security with Saudi Arabia.

Not that Lebanon was excluded from the agenda. On the contrary, Iran used the consensus that the Bush Administration was incapable of stopping Tehran’s strategic momentum in order to bring Saudi Arabia — at least the Sultan-Bandar camp — into Iran’s fold by offering it more access, for example, to the Syrian leadership.

Moreover, Larijani’s visit to Beirut in late January 2006 gave evidence that he felt that Iran had absolutely succeeded in its strategies to dominate Lebanese politics and to assure the veto capability of its surrogate, HezbAllah, in Lebanese affairs.

Subsequently, Larijani also made it clear that he felt that the US could not — through the United Nations — stop Iranian plans for nuclear enrichment as part of Iran’s indigenous nuclear weapons program.

But it was Larijani’s belief that he had insight into US strategies toward Iran which highlighted the strong probability that Bandar reflected conversations which he had earlier had with James Baker, in which Baker clearly alluded to White House positions.

Larijani denigrated the US position against Iran as being merely “psychological warfare”, and dismissed the likelihood of a military threat from the two US Navy carrier battle groups in the region.

Larijani’s comments made it clear that he was aware that the White House favored a campaign of psychological operations against the Iranian clerics over the use of actual military force, the threat of which was ideally intended to be more symbolic.

Tehran was certainly proceeding with its power projection into Iraq and Lebanon based on this assumption, and was disregarding both the US and the United Nations accordingly.

However, although former Secretary of State Baker may have conveyed what he felt was the position of the Bush White House — based on his privileged position as a close friend of the current President’s father (former Pres. George H. W. Bush) and a colleague of the new US Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, quite apart from his ongoing contacts in the State Dept. — it is clear that both Pres. Bush and Vice-Pres. Richard Cheney are, in fact, losing patience with Baker for advocating Iraq and Iran policies so at odds with those of the White House.

Moreover, the moves by Pres. Bush to authorize attacks in Iraq on Iranian personnel — essentially reversing a policy in place until a week or so earlier — showed that the US Executive Branch could still maneuver in ways to surprise Baker, Bandar, and the Iranian clerics.

Former US Secretary of State James Baker, who co-chaired the recent US Iraq Study Group — the main recommendations of which were rejected by the George W. Bush Administration — is working indirectly and behind the scenes to bring about direct diplomatic ties between the US and Iran.

This is in defiance of Bush White House policy which essentially has said that encouraging direct negotiations with the Iranian clerical leaders would legitimize and strengthen the power of the Iranian mullahs, making it more difficult for Iran’s secular opposition to bring about democratic change in the country.

The Logan Act:

Â§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply himself, or his agent, to any foreign government, or the agents thereof, for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.

The Logan Act is THE definitive law on how American citizens are to conduct themselves when in contact with any foreign government.

Unfortunately, it is seldom if EVER enforced.

It could have been cited as a reason to arrest and convict one John F'in Kerry in 1971 after his illegal negotiations with the Communists in Paris, negotiations made with the full knowledge that they were not authorized by, nor were they condoned by, the United States Government.

As for our latter day Arabist James Baker, using the logic I've seen thus far in this thread, there seems to be the idea that it "never hurts" to talk to our enemies.

That is true under normal conditions.

The global jihad we are facing, supported, encouraged, and in many cases underwritten by the regime in Iran, does NOT constitute normal conditions.

The leadership in Tehran is in the grip of an ideology that is far more extreme than anything that we might have faced in the dictatorial regimes of the past like Nazi Germany, militarist Japan, or the Soviet Union. The jihadist mindset is one which believes in, and will accept, only ONE outcome which is the wholesale conversion of all infidels (that's you and me folks) to Islam, or the killing of all who will not bow to 'allah'.

Unlike the Shah of Iran who was a strong U.S. ally, the little runt running Iran now (Ahmanutjob) has threatened to exterminate Israel AND the United States, they are hell bent on obtaining a nuclear capability and only an utter fool and/or knave (like the aforementioned John F'in Traitor) believes otherwise.

Baker is either as naive a fool as Jimmy Carter, or he's been bought and paid for with Arab money. His illustrious Iraq Surrender Group was a total waste of time and effort, the bottom line of that empty-cranium-storming (because there was no 'brain' to storm) is that the United States should basically get the F outta Dodge (Iraq), leave the Iraqi people to their own devices, and watch the chaos from a safe distance.(you know, basically what Bush #41 did by not supporting Kurdish rebels and other groups who wanted to overthrow Saddam at the end of the Gulf War).

If Baker is acting on the authorization of the President of the United States, shame on both him AND George Walker Bush.

If Baker is NOT acting with authorization from our Government, he should be arrested and tried under the Logan Act.

But that would require much more in the way of gravitas that I suspect exists right now in Washington D.C.

My guess is that it is related to this snippet of an article that I read earlier tonight:

The Anti-War Movement

The United States has a growing antiwar movement. If one looks under the ‘covers’ we find that that this movement had its origins in the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance following the Gulf War of 2003.

Today, U.S. military deserters are going to Canada where a small group is growing. Once across the border, a network of Vietnam War-era draft evaders meets them, Quakers and anti-war activists, who are waiting with lawyers, free housing, job offers and organic groceries.

A described in Islamic Economics and the Final Jihad – The Muslim Brotherhood to the Leftist/Marxist-Islamist Alliance, on December 13 and 14, 2003, activist delegates from the West and the Middle East joined at a conference in Cairo to exchange ideas and debate plans for actions. The second Cairo Conference against Capitalist Globalization and U.S. Hegemony brought together anti-war activists from across the world. The conference discussed how best to support the Iraqi and Palestinian resistance movements and how to challenge the United States’ drive for power. (The third Cairo Conference took place March 24 to 27, 2005, sponsored by the Stop-the-War Coalition.)

As the news of Saddam Hussein’s capture spread, delegates reaffirmed their support for the Iraqi resistance to continue against the U.S. occupation. Hamdeen Sabahy, an Egyptian M.P., said, “The resistance in Iraq is not based on Saddam Hussein. It will continue after Saddam Hussein. It is there because there is an occupation. As long as there is an American occupation, there will be resistance.”

This was much bigger than the 2002 conference, attended by four hundred people. Left-wing groups, Arab nationalist groups, and the Muslim Brotherhood organized the conference. It was supported by a number of trade unions.

In the opening session, John Rees from the Stop-the-War Coalition in Britain received loud applause when he said: “We stopped George Bush from launching his re-election campaign in London last month. Hundreds of thousands of ordinary people poured onto the streets. People have come from Britain in solidarity with you. This is not merely because we sympathize with your struggle, and that of Iraq and Palestine. We come because your struggle is our struggle; your enemy is our enemy. In the last year we have created an international mass movement. We will not let the rule of profit and arms destroy our world. Only ordinary people can stop the political elites.”

The chemistry between the conference’s left wing and Islamic currents was a revelation to many. Making a rare appearance in such a socialist-oriented gathering, Ma’moun El- Hodeibi, the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme guide, spoke at the opening session. Slamming “the authoritative imperialist and aggressive capitalist systems,” Hodeibi hailed the “new [anti-globalization] global movement.”

Since this conference the Muslim Brotherhood achieved significant victories in Egypt through the election process.

Stop-the-War’s Yakoub described the anti-war movement as a “bridge between East and West. From Cairo to Birmingham, Muslim and Jew, we have more in common than we have differences, and it’s unity that gives us the potential to be the other superpower.” British M.P., George Galloway called the conference itself a bridge between East and West. “Across the bridge, in two-way traffic, should come experience and support. We learn from here and here will learn from us.”

Sona’ Allh Ibrahim, a famous Egyptian writer who turned down a major award recently in protest at the Egyptian government, also addressed the conference. Other speakers included former Labour M.P. Tony Benn, former United Nation’s humanitarian coordinator for Iraq Denis Halliday, Salma Yaqoob from Britain and Ramsey Clark, former U.S. attorney general. The Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance was in full attendance.

The conference released the second Cairo declaration, calling for opposition to capitalist globalization and U.S. power. It also urged support for the Iraqi resistance and the Palestinian intifada against Israeli occupation.

Ashraf El Bayoumi was one of the organizers. He is a campaigner based in Egypt who was arrested recently for joining an anti-war protest. He spoke to Socialist Workers about the importance of the event. The conference came from the belief that imperialist globalization must be met with people’s mobilization. The people who attended the conference in 2002, especially those who were invited to speak, gave an anti-imperialist flavor to the conference. There were some professors and academics who were irritated by the injustice in Iraq and Palestine, such as Thomas Nagy, a professor at George Washington University.

The Al-Ahram Weekly gave a picture of the events of the third international Cairo Anti-War Conference held March 24-27, 2005.

Perhaps it was not totally ironic that the third international Cairo Anti-War Conference ended on the same day that dozens of members of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood were arrested for organizing a peaceful protest calling for constitutional reforms and the lifting of Egypt's 24-year-old state of emergency. For four days, almost 1,000 Egyptian, Arab and international activists representing anti-war and anti- globalization movements, had been arguing that the liberation of Palestine and Iraq should start with changing undemocratic regimes in the Arab world.

Activists from Islamist, secular, communist and socialist currents from across the globe sat together sharing their views, and absorbed in friendly conversation.

According to comparative literature professor, Abdel-Wahab El-Missiri, the author of many works on Zionism and Jewish thought, globalization is no more than a U.S. dynamic for hegemony. “Globalization reduces people into consumptive beings with no identity or history,” El-Missiri told the Weekly. “It is no wonder that the proponents of globalization are also those who invaded Pakistan and Iraq, and blindly support the Israeli occupation of Palestine.”

That rhetoric provided a new dimension to resistance in Iraq and Palestine as “the front-line” of fighting against imperialism and globalization.

According to John Rose, author of Myths of Zionism, “the Palestinian flag has come to symbolize the dispossession of the poor peoples of the world.”

“The flag adorns the great anti-globalization and anti-war mass demonstrations on every continent,” Rose said.

The general mood of the conference was one of defiance, where passionate speeches inspired a general spirit of hope and enthusiasm. John Rees, from the U.K.-based Stop-the-War Coalition, boasted of the fact that the global anti-war movement had forced many countries, including Holland, Poland, Hungary and Spain—and perhaps now Italy—to withdraw their troops from Iraq.

But there was also general consensus that resistance was the only way to liberate Palestine and Iraq. Most delegates seemed to share Galloway’s opinion that U.S. troops in Iraq would be destroyed between “the hammer of the anti-war movement and the anvil of resistance.”

Sheikh Hassan al-Zorqani, of the Sadri Shia resistance movement in Iraq, told the Weekly that the Iraqi resistance “still has a long way to go before it liberates Iraq.” He expressed enthusiasm, however, that the conference gives him “a platform to clear misconceptions about resistance.”

The conference again demonstrated the Leftist/Marxist - Islamist Alliance.

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp?ID=2030&cid=2&sid=2

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.