Lebanon has become a hot house for paranoid hysteria. Ever since Syria's invitation to Annapolis signaled a two degree thaw between Washington and Damascus, a Beirut Spring of strategic extrapolations has begun to sprout jungle-like in the land of Cedars. The Iran NIA served to nourish further the febrile hallucinations of March 14 minds. 

Raghida Dargham of al-Hayat is seeing Shiite Orcs marching to Uncle Sam's drum beat. Yes, in Dargham's considered opinion, Washington has struck a devil's bargain with Iran. And because Iran holds the armies of Middle Eastern Shiites in its sectarian thrall, George Bush can now issue marching orders to its new turbaned legions, who just happen to live atop the region's oil, Dargham darkly notes. The victim of this secret alliance are the jilted Sunnis. In essence, the Shiite crescent has been transmogrified into a living scimitar directed at the heart of the March 14th Movement. After all, why did the neoconservatives decide to overthrow Sunni Saddam and hand Iraq over to the "Iranian" Shiites? Dargham explains her anxieties thusly:

But there is another interesting theory. All of the indications at the time pointed to the pro-Iraq war group – from neoconservatives to those advocating the unleashing of what they called the "Shiite force" – all worked on the basis that the enemy were only Sunnis, who produced terrorism and the 11 September 2001 attack on the US. The basic idea for these people was Iraq, and its president, Saddam Hussein, constituted the "ideal" cover to justify a strike at the country, on the pretext of WMD. They said that the oil-rich Arab lands were inhabited by Arab Shiites, and that the best way to create an oil belt (a "Petrolistan") is to produce chaos in these areas. Then, it would be able to create a Shiite extension of influence in the Arab Gulf for Iran, and via the special Syrian-Israeli relationship, one could link to Israel via Syria and Lebanon.

See the Badger's careful exposition of Dargham's thinking at Missing Links.

Lee Smith, has been insisting at "Now Lebanon" that President Bush is not dumping March 14. In his article, "No deal," Smith writes that, 

Despite rumors and fears, no backroom bargain was cut at the expense of the US's Lebanese allies.

President Bush himself has been pressed into reassuring Washington's allies. Elliot Abrams and NSC chief Hadley arranged for a meeting between Syrian oppositionists living in the US and President Bush himself. Amar Abdulhamid, one of the Syrian contingent, has written about the Meeting. He describes how Bush "spoke passionately in defense of human rights in Syria and worldwide and revealed in-depth knowledge of developments inside Syria."

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is another March 14er, who believes that Lebanon is being sold down the river by Washington. Without evidence, he posits that King Abdullah's trip to Damascus the week before Annapolis was in reality a fireside sale. Syria is getting back the Golan, he insists, but Bashar hasn't "flipped" yet! What does this mean? Stupid American suckers for Syria. Read his article.

The price of being suckers for Syria

Daily Star

Beirut — The question as to whether Damascus can be made to break its alliance with Iran and alter its ways, as Western and Arab governments have sought of late, has confounded all those answering in the affirmative.

When Lebanon's March 14 coalition recently approved the candidacy for president of army commander General Michel Suleiman, the pro-Iranian Hizbullah displayed reluctance in accepting. This suggested a possible crack between Syria and Iran, because Syria had long been viewed as supportive of Suleiman. Yet Syrian-Iranian divergences might really be more a product of Western wishful thinking than anything else.

Diplomats believe that during his recent visit to Damascus three weeks ago, Jordan's King Abdullah relayed to Syrian President Bashar Assad what he described as a "final offer" for Syria to distance itself from Iran. Abdullah's package reportedly included proposals that Syria would regain control of the occupied Golan Heights and would receive international aid, while the international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri would be scaled down.

In return, Damascus would have to ratify a peace treaty with Israel, cease its intervention in Lebanese affairs, end its ties with Iran, and cut off Iran's proxy groups, particularly Hizbullah and Hamas.

The idea was that if Assad walked in the footsteps of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, he would end his country's isolation and rejoin the international community as a full partner. Alternatively, if Assad refused the offer, he would have to endure more international opprobrium and be abandoned to his alliance with an increasingly isolated Tehran.

The assumptions behind such a scheme jar with what we already know about Syria and its behavior in the past. The Syrian regime has never taken one side or another when asked to do so, and this is particularly true of its relationship with Iran. For example, recently Damascus sent Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad to Annapolis for the conference on Middle East peace. Yet only days earlier, Foreign Minister Walid Moallem had flown to Tehran to explain to the Iranians his country's perspective on the gathering, which Assad had depicted as a likely failure.

Damascus wants to have the cake and eat it too. It wants the Hariri tribunal scaled down and its international isolation ended. At the same time, the Syrian regime wants to maintain its links to Hizbullah, preserve its ties to an Iran that has bought off Syria's debt to Russia, and re-impose its hegemony over Lebanon. No matter how much international aid Syria receives, this would never sweeten Syria's financial pot as did its control over Lebanon before 2005, the year its army withdrew from the country.

The Syrian regime also believes that if the international community is not willing to give Syria all it wants now, it might be willing to do so in the future. Damascus feels it has plenty of time to wait for the balance of power to change in a way that all its demands are eventually answered.

Now that the Annapolis conference is over, the Syrian regime can pretend that it has actually taken Abdullah's offer. However, once the United States sends its ambassador back to Damascus and the international community scales down the Hariri tribunal, Syria would only ask for more. Among these demands is the restoration of its influence over Lebanon. As time goes by, Damascus would find excuses to reestablish its links to Tehran – assuming it severed them at all. In no time, Syria would have reneged on all its commitments, while the regime would have raked in all the benefits the international community had to offer.

Some history might be useful here. After the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in summer 1982, Syrian troops were forced to withdraw from Beirut. Five years later, however, Damascus managed to send its forces back into West Beirut not only to restore civil peace after Amal and Hizbullah had fought a bloody conflict in the capital's southern suburbs, but also supposedly to help release Western hostages. Washington approved the return. Between 1982 and 1987 circumstances had changed, yet the Syrian regime stood its ground and heightened its chances for a comeback. It succeeded.

There is no guarantee this won't happen again. In early 2008 there will be a new administration in Washington and international circumstances will have probably changed. The recent release of a US National Intelligence Estimate on Iran's nuclear program has the potential to substantially alter American calculations in the Middle East, which could offer Syria greater room to maneuver. Nothing guarantees that Damascus won't try to take advantage of the new situation in order to return in some way to Lebanon and take the country back to where it was before the Cedar Revolution. The world should be aware that this is the real Syrian game.

Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a journalist based in Washington. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR.

This note came from Damascus today. 

Syrian authorities began an arrest campaign yesterday evening among participants of a conference held a few days ago by the Damascus Declaration for Democratic Change.  Some were arrested after begin summoned to branches of the security service while others were taken from their homes.  While some were released shortly after questioning, the latest figures indicate that at least 18 are still in custody, including Najati Tayar, Muafaq Nairabia, Gazi Qador, Osama Ashor, Radeef Mustafa, Peer Rustom and others.

all the best

SHRIL

Syriatel, Syria’s largest private corporation, to change hands

10 December 2007 from The Syria Report

Syriatel, Syria’s largest private corporation, is about to be sold by its main shareholder, Mr Rami Makhlouf. Earlier today, Turkcell, one of Turkey’s three operators of a mobile phone network filed a public notice with the Istanbul Stock Exchange to notify that it was finalizing documents to bid for at least 51 percent of the shares of Syriatel Mobile Telecom, giving it a controlling stake in the larger of the two GSM operators in Syria. Turkcell did not provide any information on its potential final stake in the company or on the value of the deal.

Turkcell is a joint-venture between Sonera Holding B.V., a Scandinavian GSM operator, and Turkish investors. As The Syria Report went to press, Syriatel’s management was not available for comment. It is not clear how far the two parties have gone in discussions related to the sale or if any other GSM company is putting forward another bid. If the deal goes forward, it would be the second Syrian mobile phone company that changes hand within a year. Late last year, Areeba Syria was sold to MTN, a South-African mobile phone operator, within a broader deal involving the sale of all the shares of Investcom, the mother company of Areeba, by its shareholders, the Mikati family from Lebanon…. 

Iraqi security adviser tells US to engage with Iran and Syria
By Roula Khalaf in Manama, Bahrain
December 10 2007: The Financial Times Limited 2007

Iran and Syria have taken measures to curb violence in Iraq, a senior Iraqi official said yesterday in a rare acknowledgement of a shift in tactics by the two allegedly troublesome neighbours.

Mowaffak al-Rubbaie, Iraq's national security adviser, also called on Washington to engage with both Damascus and Tehran, warning that security in the Gulf was interlinked and "you cannot stabilise Iraq and destabilise Iran".

Speaking at a conference in Bahrain, Mr Rubbaie sought to assuage fears that Iraq faced the threat of falling under Iranian dominance, saying that Baghdad was working on a long-term strategic agreement with the US that would underline its outlook towards the west.

Mr Rubbaie pointed to signs that Tehran had tightened control over its border and made arms shipments to Shia militias "more difficult". Syria too, he said, was stopping militants from crossing the border with Iraq and had improved controls at Damascus airport.

American military officials confirmed that the flow of foreign fighters into Iraq through Syria had been substantially reduced. But Admiral William Fallon, commander of the US central command, told the FT that he did not see "such a clear change" in Iranian behaviour, which the US alleges includes supplying Iraqi Shia militias with sophisticated explosives, charges that Tehran denies.

"I believe there's some restraint in the activity of the extremist militias but I don't know the cause and effect," said Admiral Fallon.

However, in a veiled criticism of perceived US efforts to build a Sunni Arab front against Shia Iran, Mr Rubbaie yesterday said his country was becoming a stage where Iran and Saudi Arabia were playing out their rivalry.

"Until they [the US] engage with Iran and Syria, long-term regional security will be in doubt," he said. "We cannot continue playing on Tehran and co. versus Riyadh and co."

But senior American officials attending the conference, organised by London's International Institute for Strategic Studies, showed no sign of an easing in US policy towards Iran, and were instead seeking to limit the damage provoked by last week's US intelligence report, which said Tehran had halted its atomic weapons programme in 2003.

The National Intelligence Estimate baffled America's European and Middle Eastern allies and is likely to complicate the US-led drive to drum up international support for a tightening of UN sanctions against Iran.

In an apparent effort to reassure supporters of diplomatic pressure, Robert Gates, the US secretary of state, struck an unusually tough tone on Saturday, accusing Iran of provoking instability in the region.

"There can be little doubt that their destabilising foreign policies are a threat to the interests of the US, to the interests of every country in the Middle East, and to the interests of all countries within the range of the ballistic missiles Iran is developing," he said.

He stressed that the National Intelligence Estimate also said Iran was keeping its options open and could resume its nuclear weapons programme at any time – "if it has not done so already".

The Arab world has reacted to the NIE with a mixture of relief that the prospects of military action against Iran have diminished, if not disappeared, and concern that diplomatic pressure will now also ease, boosting Tehran's confidence.

But the intelligence report also revived favourite conspiracy theories, including long-standing Arab concerns that the US was paving the way for a comprehensive deal with Iran that would be struck at the Arabs' expense.

Syria … is emerging from Western and Arab ostracism without sacrificing its anti-Israeli alliance with Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas.

No one expects a dramatic warming of U.S.-Syrian ties, but Syrian analysts and Western diplomats spoke of modest prospects for constructive engagement after years of mutual mistrust….

"Syria is rising now and the United States is collapsing in the region," said Imad al-Shuaibi, a Syrian political analyst familiar with government thinking. He dismissed the idea that a U.N. tribunal to try Hariri's killers posed any threat to Syria.

Syria is now looking to improve ties with Saudi Arabia and other U.S.-backed Arab countries before an Arab League summit in Damascus in March, without dropping Iran and its other allies.

"After Annapolis, we hope we are entering a new phase," a European diplomat said. "Syria's overall behavior on Annapolis and Lebanon shows it is trying to reintegrate itself in the Arab family and play things in a way that would benefit the region."…

better ties with Baghdad go down well in Washington and could further reduce U.S.-Syrian tensions. Such a detente would have repercussions across the region. But any notion that Syria can easily be "flipped" away from Tehran is premature.

"No one should imagine that Syria will get rid of its relationship with Iran and Hezbollah," Shuaibi declared.

Iran signs $2bn oil deal with China Dec-09 (Only a week ago China said it would join sanctions on Iran.)

Iran has signed a $2bn oil contract with Sinopec of China, sending a signal to western companies that they might miss out on potentially lucrative contracts if they continued to heed US-inspired sanctions against Tehran –

Assad fires official who barred Facebook By ASSOCIATED PRESS

Syrian President Bashar Assad on Saturday replaced Syria's communications and religious affairs ministers, the state-run Syrian Arab News Agency reported.

Assad issued a decree naming Imad Abdul-Ghani Sabbouni as minister of communications, replacing Amr Nazir Salem. Sabbouni had been Salem's advise.

Local Syrian Web sites in recent months had been critical of Salem, who had been nominated to the post in February 2006, for blocking some Web sites including www.all4syria.org and the Arab online newspaper www.elaph.com as well as online social networking site Facebook.

Recent reports have said that Syrian authorities blocked Facebook, the popular Internet hangout, over what seems to be fears of Israeli "infiltration" of Syrian social networks on the Net.

Residents in Damascus said that they have not been able to enter Facebook for more than two weeks. An Associated Press reporter got a blank page when he tried to open the Facebook web page Friday from the Syrian capital.

Syrian officials were not available for comment Friday because of the Muslim weekend, but some reports have suggested that the ban was made to prevent Israeli users from infiltrating Syrian social networks.

Lebanon's daily As-Safir reported that Facebook was blocked on November 18. It said the authorities took the step because many Israelis have been entering Syria-based groups.

Here is the WSJournal's editorial on the Iran NIE

Iran Curveball
This latest intelligence fiasco is Mr. Bush's fault.

Saturday, December 8, 2007 12:01 a.m.

President Bush has been scrambling to rescue his Iran policy after this week's intelligence switcheroo, but the fact that the White House has had to spin so furiously is a sign of how badly it has bungled this episode. In sum, Mr. Bush and his staff have allowed the intelligence bureaucracy to frame a new judgment in a way that has undermined four years of U.S. effort to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions….

The Chinese are backing away from whatever support they might have provided for tougher sanctions against Iran, while Russia has used the NIE as another reason to oppose them. Most delighted are the Iranians, who called the NIE a "victory" and reasserted their intention to proceed full-speed ahead with uranium enrichment. Behind the scenes, we can expect Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey to expand their nuclear efforts as they conclude that the U.S. will now be unable to stop Iran from getting the bomb.

We reported earlier this week that the authors of this Iran NIE include former State Department officials who have a history of hostility to Mr. Bush's foreign policy. But the ultimate responsibility for this fiasco lies with Mr. Bush. Too often he has appointed, or tolerated, officials who oppose his agenda, and failed to discipline them even when they have worked against his policies. Instead of being candid this week about the problems with the NIE, Mr. Bush and his National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley, tried to spin it as a victory for their policy. They simply weren't believable.

It's a sign of the Bush Administration's flagging authority that even many of its natural allies wondered this week if the NIE was really an attempt to back down from its own Iran policy. We only wish it were that competent.

Two new articles by Solomon and Moubayed chart the about-face in Bush foreign policy, which promises to be much more productive than the old slash and burn strategy.

Bush Engages Foreign Foes
As Policy Shift Accelerates
Direct Talks With Iran?

WASHINGTON — The White House said that President Bush sent a letter directly to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il seeking cooperation in implementing a pact to dismantle its nuclear arms in exchange for full normalized relations.

The move is the latest example of the White House accelerating its reversal on numerous foreign-policy fronts.

Earlier in his presidency, Mr. Bush designated Pyongyang a member of an "axis of evil" and expressed loathing for the communist state's dictator. In recent months, however, contacts have picked up amid an accord on dismantling Pyongyang's nuclear program.

On other fronts — particularly Iran, Syria and Lebanon — the Bush administration is also shifting tactics in ways that could affect American interests long-term, say U.S. officials and foreign policy analysts. President Bush is generally receiving praise for engaging Pyongyang and Damascus, but he is also risking alienating the Republican Party's conservative wing, which believes the U-turns will undermine U.S. standing around the world.

"Our foreign policy is in free-fall at the moment," said John Bolton, Mr. Bush's former ambassador to the United Nations and an ally of Vice President Dick Cheney. Mr. Bolton argues that engaging dictators will only "diminish our prestige and influence."

The release this week of a U.S. intelligence report playing down the threat posed by Iran's atomic energy program is already undercutting President Bush's high-profile campaign to pressure Tehran into suspending its nuclear activities. Mr. Bush used financial sanctions and the threat of force, and a growing number of foreign diplomats now say it will be increasingly difficult for Washington to push a new round of economic sanctions through the United Nations.

The National Intelligence Estimate concluded that Iran froze its nuclear-weapons program in 2003, though it continues to aggressively enrich uranium to produce nuclear fuel.

Both conservative and liberal pundits see the report as so weakening the White House that the U.S. may have no option but to more aggressively seek direct talks with Iran. Even some U.S. diplomats are seizing on the hope that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad could use the intelligence report to open up talks with the West.

"If they want to pursue our offers to negotiate, they now have the perfect face-saver," said a U.S. official.

In addition to the report on Iran, Washington's sudden opening to Syria and President Bashar Assad has also stunned many diplomats and foreign-policy analysts. For most of the past six years, the White House viewed Damascus as among its most intractable foes in the Middle East, charging it with supporting militant groups fighting in Lebanon, Iraq and the Palestinian territories. Many U.S. officials also believe Damascus was directly involved in the 2005 murder of Lebanon's former Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a charge Syria denies.

In recent weeks, though, the U.S. has displayed a growing willingness to talk with Syrian leaders. Damascus's Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal Mekdad addressed the Annapolis peace summit last month, just weeks after it was uncertain that the State Department would even invite the Syrians. And U.S. officials say they are considering backing a Russian initiative to promote direct peace talks between the Syrians and the Israelis.

Pentagon and State Department officials say their optimism toward Syria has been driven by a lessening of the number of foreign fighters being allowed to cross into Iraq from Syria. They also say they hope Mr. Assad can be constructive in helping Lebanon elect a new president after a yearlong political crisis in Beirut.

Still, there are fears that any U.S. engagement with Syria could ultimately cost Lebanon's pro-Western government. In recent days, the Bush administration has indicated it would accept a Lebanese general as president who has longstanding ties to Mr. Assad's regime. Many Lebanese fear this could restore Syrian influence inside their country, just two years after President Assad withdrew nearly 30,000 Syrian troops.

The most pronounced reversal of policy between Mr. Bush's first and second terms involves North Korea. After eschewing any direct talks, the State Department is now regularly sending envoys to Pyongyang and is even promoting a performance by the New York Philharmonic there early next year. Mr. Bush was also encouraged by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to directly contact Mr. Kim through the letter.

In his letter to Mr. Kim, President Bush wrote: "I want to emphasize that the declaration must be complete and accurate if we are to continue our progress," according to an excerpt of the Dec. 1 letter reviewed by the Associated Press.

The payoff has been a nuclear accord among the U.S., North Korea and four other parties that calls for dismantling Pyongyang's nuclear-weapons program by next year. There's also hope that Washington could sign a peace agreement with North Korea, China and South Korea, formally ending the 1950-53 Korean War.

"The Syrians are Back," by Sami Moubayed is a must read for an excellent history of the thaw in US-Syrian relations.

"friday-lunch-club"  explains that "The US is 'quietly' supporting a UNDP program to supply Syria with sophisticated surveillance equipment + computers to monitor borders"

Landis: Syria Key to Middle East Peace Process
Council on Foreign Relations – New York, NY,USA

December 5, 2007

Observer wrote (Written before Ehsani's comment): 

The latest NIE is a bombshell that Bush has been sitting on since Wed. It essentially excludes the use of force in the coming year. What does this mean:
a) Annapolis is a fiasco on the Palestinian Israeli side as Olmert has already dampened expectations.
b) Olmert will lose the coalition partners if he makes too big concessions
c) the “moderate” Arabs got screwed as Bush did not share this info with them ahead of time
d) the pretext to attack Iran is gone they will have to deal with the regime
e) Ahmadinejad has clearly dominated the GCC meeting with a vision that none of the leaders had. They meet usually to discuss details and avoid big decision making such unpegging the dollar
f) concerted sanctions are out the door as China and Russia will not follow along.
g) Europeans will feel that they were being used to advance the US agenda.
h) Jumblat is eating his words in the interview of his son Timor. (A reader has objected to this linked article as a hoax.) In a way the son asking for a change of leadership in the Druze community may well save his father’s life. This last one is the most telling of the reversal of fortunes of the coalition.

Iran will surely replace the US as a guarantor of the Gulf security and would strike a bargain with the US and Europe to insure that the oil production and flow remain completely open and smooth going. They will also do it exactly in an opposite way to that of the Shah with soft rather than with hard power. I sense that Syria may have become less important to Tehran now but the alliance will remain as neither side is able or willing to part ways.

The current administration is now the “Pretzel” administration as it is contorting itself in various ways to appear as if they had any role in forcing Iran to abandon the weapons program ( if it ever existed ) while at the same time maintaining that Iran remains a threat. Now that the so called surge, the end of the ethnic cleansing locally, and the influence of Iran have resulted in some mode of stability, the urge to withdraw the troops will increase rather than decrease. The US will have not much to show for its adventure except that it is diminished in the world. The great thing about this is that it is not perceived in such a traumatic way as Vietnam did when the images of embassy evacuation were all over the screens and therefore a right wing backlash a la Reagan will not occur soon except of course if there is another terror attack on American soil.

Atassi said:

Nukeless Nation ‘Not Evil Enough,’ Says Korean Madman (thanks Alex)

One day after a National Intelligence Estimate revealed that Iran halted its nuclear arms program in 2003, North Korean president Kim Jong-Il ejected Iran from the Axis of Evil, calling them “not evil enough.”

A visibly furious Kim called a press conference in Pyongyang today to excoriate the Iranians as “evildoer wannabes” and “pussies.”

“I can’t tell you how many times Mahmoud Ahmadinejad looked me in the eye, told me he was developing nuclear weapons, and cackled like a madman,” Kim said. “That man does not deserve to cackle.”

Kim added that when Iran was admitted into the Axis of Evil in 2002, “they knew the rules: no nukes, no membership.”

The National Intelligence Estimate, Kim said, showed that Iran was not holding up their end of the bargain: “They said they were enriching uranium and all the while they were going all Libya on my ass.”

As for who would take Iran’s place in the Axis of Evil, Kim said there was no shortage of candidates: “Right now we’re looking at Venezuela, Syria, and Rupert Murdoch.”

Elsewhere, natural honey is a more effective remedy for children’s coughs than over-the-counter medicines, according to a study commissioned by the National Association of Bees.

Ehsani writes:

Dr. Landis,

The latest NIE report on Iran is another significant event in the region. Some analysts describe the report as "sensational," and I agree. To underscore the importance of this development, President Bush decided to hold a press conference this morning to discuss the implications of its findings.

While the President tried to project the image that nothing has changed in his Administration’s policy towards Iran, the truth is that this report has dealt the existing policy a severe blow.

During the press conference, Bush admitted that he had learned about the NIE report a week before it became public yesterday.

The dumping of March 14th, the invitation of Syria to Annapolis and that of Iran to the G.C.C conference is a startling dynamic that is sweeping the region.

Syria stands to reap the benefits in a most spectacular fashion

Report May Reset Debate on Iran

WASHINGTON — A new report from 16 U.S. intelligence agencies concludes that Iran halted its development of atomic weapons in 2003 — a surprising finding likely to shift the debate over Iran's nuclear ambitions both at home and abroad.

The National Intelligence Estimate, demanded by Congress in 2006, could undercut calls from hawks inside the Bush administration — as well as those on the presidential campaign trail — who have urged military strikes to combat Iran's program. U.S. diplomats say it also could undermine Washington's ability to use financial sanctions to pressure Tehran into giving up its long-term pursuit of nuclear technologies, especially if it emboldens Iran's allies such as China and Russia.

NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE ESTIMATE: IRAN
1

"We judge with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program; we also assess with moderate-to-high confidence that Tehran at a minimum is keeping open the option to develop nuclear weapons. We judge with high confidence that the halt, and Tehran's announcement of its decision to suspend its declared uranium enrichment program and sign an Additional Protocol to its Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Safeguards Agreement, was directed primarily in response to increasing international scrutiny and pressure resulting from exposure of Iran's previously undeclared nuclear work." Read the full report summary (PDF)2 .

At the same time, the report could pose a challenge to the Iranian regime, which has expanded its strategic influence across the Middle East partly on the back of its nuclear ambitions. Much like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Tehran has employed belligerence over the nuclear issue to bolster its regional credentials by standing up to the U.S.

The NIE, the consensus view of U.S. intelligence agencies, says Tehran appeared committed to developing a nuclear weapon until 2003. It froze its activities following a mixture of diplomatic pressure and the prospect of U.S. military force and financial sanctions, the report says. The report also says Tehran's decision was driven in part by the exposure in 2002 of some of its covert programs.

"International isolation and international pressure," said one senior intelligence official, "created an atmosphere that clearly led to this decision."

The official said it wasn't clear whether the 2003 invasion of Iraq or other events — including Libya's decision to end its nuclear program and the dissolution of Pakistani scientist A.Q. Khan's nuclear-weapons network — influenced Iran's decision.

Regardless of the freeze, the NIE warns that Iran continues to enrich uranium at a rate that could allow it to obtain enough fissile material for a nuclear bomb sometime between 2010 and 2015. Iran continued through this year to install new centrifuge equipment but faced significant technical problems operating it, the report says.

Iran's decision to freeze its nuclear-weapons program took place two years before the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president. While he has become the face of the country's nuclear ambitions, his ultimate influence over these matters is uncertain, since much power in Iran is held by a council of senior clerics.

The White House sought to play down the significance of the estimate, arguing that its most significant finding was that Iran continues to press ahead with its uranium-enrichment work. National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley told reporters the estimate suggests President Bush "has the right strategy" in confronting Iran.

The Bush administration and its Western partners, particularly France and the United Kingdom, have been working in recent months to pass a United Nations resolution penalizing Tehran for its uranium-enrichment work. Now, a number of U.S. officials believe China and Russia, and potentially other countries, will balk at coercive actions, citing the diminished threat.

Last week, talks between Iran's senior nuclear negotiator and the European Union collapsed in acrimony, with the Iranian, Saeed Jalili, bragging about his country's recent advances.

Congress mandated the report in a defense bill last year, and intelligence officials said yesterday it was also a part of their continuing review of their information on Iran. Such a report had already been requested by Senate Democrats earlier that year, and in a May 19, 2006, letter to President Bush, Democratic senators, including Harry Reid, now Senate majority leader, and Carl M. Levin of Michigan, now Senate Armed Services chairman, said the report was needed to "avoid repeating mistakes made in the run-up to the conflict in Iraq."

U.S. intelligence officials said the report was delayed because of the need to gather additional information. This was deemed crucial, these officials said, to avoid a repeat of the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq, which is widely seen today as having overstated Saddam Hussein's weapons capabilities ahead of the U.S. invasion.

The report's findings diverge from statements made by administration officials as recently as this year, and also from the most recent NIE on Iran, issued in 2005. In February, Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell told Congress that "we assess that Tehran seeks to develop nuclear weapons." President Bush in October said that denying Tehran a nuclear capability was central to any international effort to avoid "World War III."

Officials at U.S. spy agencies came to believe after their 2005 report was issued that Iran had suspended its weapons program. The differences between this assessment and the administration's public comments prompted them to make the report public, officials say.

Republican and Democratic presidential front-runners Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Rodham Clinton have cited the Iranian nuclear threat as perhaps America's No. 1 security issue. Both candidates endorsed the administration's coercive actions against Iran.

Write to Jay Solomon at [email protected]3

Syria ‘path to peace in the Mid-East’
December 03, 2007

JERUSALEM: Israel should drop its preconditions and immediately resume peace talks with Syria, a confidant of Israel’s Defence Minister said yesterday.

Labor Party legislator Danny Yatom also told Israel Radio that it would be easier to reach a deal with Syria than with the Palestinians, and that progress with Syria could accelerate Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

“I think the time has come to renew negotiations with Syria,” he said. “After Annapolis, we need to take advantage of the new atmosphere.”

Yatom was reportedly briefed by Defence Minister Ehud Barak after the minister returned from the international Middle East conference held last week in Annapolis, Maryland. The Annapolis conference focused on the Israeli-Palestinian track but Syria also sent a representative, raising hopes it could be persuaded to break its alliance with Iran if talks with Israel were to resume. An Annapolis follow-up conference, tentatively scheduled for Moscow in the northern hemisphere spring, may address the Israeli-Syrian conflict directly.

Yatom, a former chief of Israel’s Mossad spy agency, said the Government should drop a series of preconditions and start talks with Syria immediately. In the past, Israel has demanded the Syrian Government withdraw support for militant groups, including the Palestinian factions Hamas and Islamic Jihad and the Lebanese guerilla group Hezbollah. In exchange for peace, Syria wants Israel to return all of the Golan Heights, a plateau captured by Israel in the 1967 Six Day War.

Yatom suggested negotiations with Syria and the Palestinians be conducted simultaneously, but said it would be easier to reach a deal with Damascus.

Secret ‘diplomatic’ overtures to Hamas
30/11/2007 By Anshel Pfeffer Jerusalem

A diplomatic back-channel is intensifying between Israeli and Muslim religious leaders, including figures identified with Hamas.

The aim of the talks, taking place with the full knowledge of the Israeli and Palestinian leaderships, is to provide a wider consensus at the grassroots for an eventual accord.

While all eyes have been on preparations for this week’s Annapolis summit, talks have continued between senior religious figures on both sides.

Israel has insisted on not talking to Hamas politically until it recognises

Israel and renounces violence, but politicians are aware of the need to engage with Hamas on some level.

There is also a need to supply some degree of support for a possible peace deal within the Palestinian public, especially among the more Islamist elements. While a dialogue between Jewish and Muslim leaders has been taking place for over a decade, a senior Israeli government source told the JC this week that "it has greatly intensified over the past six months and is of a much serious order than in the past"…..

"We all feel that in the end, the success or failure of the Annapolis summit and subsequent negotiations, is tied to the goodwill of the public on both sides."

Abbas needed to gain support also within Islamist circles, he added. "Also, for many Israelis the fact that there is no consensus within the Palestinian people causes widespread scepticism and we are trying to disprove that."

Rabbi Melchior said that one aim was for a fatwa by senior Islamic clerics to affirm the right of a Jewish state to exist in the region.

Among others, the leadership of Israel’s Islamic Movement and representatives of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt are involved. Both have close political and religious ties with Hamas. As Sunnis, they also have a joint interest in minimising Iranian-Shia influence in the region.