Arab League can't decide whether to endorse talks with Iran or between Palestinians and Israelis

News from Libya that the Arab League was unable to agree whether to endorse indirect peace talks between the Palestinian Authority and Israel should be no surprise to anyone after the PA expressed outrage over Israeli plans to build 1,600 homes near east Jerusalem. The league's two-day summit in Sirte ended abruptly after the 22 nations were unable to agree on either a new endorsement of the peace talks or on formulating a new approach to Iran, according to the Reuters international news service. The Arab League did endorse U.S.-mediated proximity talks between Israel and the Palestinian Authority earlier this month. "Within the next few weeks, we have to decide what to do: whether to continue with the negotiations or to completely shift course," Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa said at a news conference after the summit closed down. Moussa said Arab states were frustrated by the slow pace of negotiations between Jerusalem and Ramallah and would propose alternatives if there was no progress soon, Reuters said. "We cannot enter into a vicious circle to be added to the hundreds of previous vicious circles that will end in another zero result," Moussa said. "We are fed up with this." The stalemate is bad news for the stalled peace process, since Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas probably will be reluctant to conduct substantive talks without the Arab League endorsement due to the threat from hardliners in his own community. Of course, there is no reason to expect anything from the Arab League if the Palestinians themselves are unwilling to pursue an actual peace agreement with Israel. And, of course, nothing is what came of the proposal before the Arab League to start talks with Tehran about Iran's nuclear program, Reuters said. Foreign ministers were unable to agree on their next step, even though Persian Gulf states near Iran had expressed concerns about problems if Tehran develops weapons or is prevented from doing so by Western states. "I do not believe the time has come where we can see that Iran has changed its behavior toward Arab countries," said Prince Saud Al-Faisal, Saudi Arabia's foreign minister. Iran has insisted that its nuclear development is intended solely for peaceful purposes, even though it doesn't make sense for the country with the world's third-largest oil reserves to pursue nuclear power to generate electricity.

U.S. urges sanctions against Iran's Revolutionary Guards

Could Iran have finally run out of time to comply with Western demands that it stop trying to produce nuclear weapons? Monday's comments threatening international economic sanctions against the country's elite Revolutionary Guards raises the stakes even further by exposing the men behind the curtain. The Revolutionary Guards are the power behind the theocracy -- and now, finally, Western nations have gotten personal. What else to make of Monday's comments by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton threatening to include the group in the next round of economic sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to give up its nuclear weapons program. Speaking in Qatar on her way to Riyadh, the Saudi capital, Clinton said the United States would not "stand idly by" while Iran pursued nuclear weapons, according to the Reuters international news service. "We are planning to try to bring the world community together in applying pressure to Iran through sanctions adopted by the United Nations that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, which we believe is, in effect, supplanting the government of Iran," Clinton said. The Revolutionary Guard group, which was set up after the 1979 revolution to protect the country's rulers, has 125,000 soldiers and includes army, navy and air divisions, Reuters said. The group is separate from Iran's 350,000-soldier army and is under the command of the country's top religious authority, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The group has steadily expanded its reach and is now involved in construction projects, international trade and oil and gas development. Clinton said the United States thinks the Revolutionary Guards group was overpowering Iran's civilian government and aiming to set up a military dictatorship. "We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the parliament, is being supplanted and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship," she said. "That is our view." Clinton also made a point of stating that the United States was not contemplating war with Iran. "We are planning to try to bring the world community together in applying pressure to Iran through sanctions adopted by the United Nations that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, which we believe is, in effect, supplanting the government of Iran," she said. But what politicians say is not always what they mean. It should be fairly obvious to everyone where this is headed, unless Iran drops its pretenses and agrees to give up its uranium enrichment programs.

U.S. oil companies launch new Iraq invasion

And they're off! We're talking, of course, about the latest charge by U.S. companies toward financial nirvana in Iraq, where their expertise is apparently essential for the world's second largest proven oil reserves to be re-equipped for full production. Iraq officials are aiming for a five-fold increase in production to more than 11 million barrels a day in the next seven years, according to the New York Times. That level of oil production would rival Saudi Arabia and Iran for No. 1 in the world, the Times said. Such an increase means billions of dollars in contracts for new oil drilling, repairs to thousands of miles of pipeline, updating current facilities and construction of many more -- including, possibly, a new port on the Persian Gulf. U.S.-based oil-services companies Halliburton, Baker Hughes, Weatherford International and Schlumberger have either started sending workers and equipment to Iraq or have plans to, and construction and engineering giants KBR, Bechtel, Parsons, Fluor and Foster Wheeler are not far behind, the Times said. But Halliburton and its former subsidiary KBR, which used to be run by former U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, Bechtel and Parsons were criticized by the Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction for earlier work in the country, and could be headed for trouble before they're offered more. The companies have denied intentional wrongdoing and say that their experience in Iraq and in other oil-producing countries in Central Asia gives them an advantage, the Times said. “KBR has historic experience on previous oil and gas production projects ranging from Azerbaijan to Kazakhstan,” said Heather Browne, KBR’s director of corporate communications, in an e-mail to the Times. “Our pursuit of additional contracts in the region is based on this experience in addition to KBR’s work on Project RIO (Restore Iraq Oil).” David Lesar, Halliburton’s chief executive, said in October that his company was already doing work on oil wells there. “I think you see everybody trying to establish a base there, and we’re no exception,” he said. “Clearly, a great future there and one we will participate in — in a big way.” Iraq has signed 10 production contracts with international oil companies in the past few months and officials say they hope to drill at least 430 oil wells during the next two years, the Times said.

War means big business -- U.S. tops list of weapons exporters

Just when it seemed Washington was ready to resume its expected role of helping to bring sanity to world affairs comes word of a congressional study finding the United States was involved in more than two-thirds of worldwide arms sales last year. The study, released Friday by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service, found U.S. arms sales increased 50 percent in 2008 to $37.8 billion despite the worldwide recession, according to the New York Times. The report shows the United States is by far the world's largest arms trader, with Italy a distant second at $3.7 billion and Russia third at $3.5 billion. The report said U.S. arms sales increased nearly 50 percent from 2007. The increase was attributed by the report "not only to major new orders from clients in the Near East and in Asia, but also to the continuation of significant equipment and support services contracts with a broad-based number of U.S. clients globally. The study, “Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations," was written by Richard F. Grimmett, a specialist in international security at the CRS, a division of the Library of Congress. Top buyers of U.S. arms and equipment in the developing world were United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and Morocco, the report said, while main buyers of Russian armaments were China, India and Venezuela. Arms sales to major oil exporting countries helps keep the trillions of dollars they earn in circulation and keeps the world economy in some sort of balance, but is an enormous temptation to become aggressive and start wars.

United States shouldn't threaten war unless it means it

Was U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton serious today when she warned Iran that it would not permitted to possess nuclear weapons or even produce nuclear fuel for power plants? Did she really mean to threaten war against the Shiite country that had regarded Washington with emnity since the 1979 revolution that overthrew a U.S.-backed ruler who had imposed a monarchy on Iran? That's certainly what it sounded like Sunday when she told Iran's leaders on NBC's "Meet The Press" television show that the country's efforts to develop nuclear weapons was "futile" and said the United States would not permit Tehran to produce its own nuclear fuel, according to the New York Times. "We’re trying to affect the internal calculus of the Iranian regime,” Clinton said. "What we want to do is to send a message to whoever is making these decisions that if you’re pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, of projecting your power, we’re not going to let that happen.” Well, if something sounds like a threat, looks like a threat and feels like a threat, it's reasonably certain that it's a threat. Is the United States really going to attack Iran, or enlist its allies to, if Tehran continues defying international economic and diplomatic sanctions aimed at bringing an end to its nuclear research? For its part, the rest of the Obama administration immediately began backing away from Clinton's most-threatening comments. Senior officials said Clinton was offering her own opinion but also agreed with her statement that the United States was committed to defending its allies in the region, which presumably include Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq, and Turkey. “You have a right to pursue the peaceful use of civil, nuclear power,” Clinton said as if speaking to Iran's leaders. “You do not have a right to obtain a nuclear weapon. You do not have the right to have the full enrichment and reprocessing cycle under your control." But what if Iran continues to ignore the international community's demands, what then?