The new Great Game? Iran accused of ploting Saudi Ambassador's assassination

Oh oh. This isn't good.

Reuters: Oct. 11 - An Iranian in custody has confessed to an alleged $1.5 million assassination plot to kill the Saudi ambassador of the United States and provided information about involvement by factions of the Iranian government, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder tells a news conference.

Photo: Iranian President Ahmadinejad, said "Who, me?. No way!"


We've all seen the Saudi Bahrain response to the (predominantly Shia, linked to Iran) protests there - massive military force, riot police, imprisonment (including 15yrs for Doctors who had the gall to treat injured protesters), harassment. Sh. Fluffy, the Crown Prince, who called for dialogue and calm was immediately shifted to one side and the iron fist returned. Firmly. Note The reports that the UAE, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar sent troops too. Pakistan sent mercenaries.

.... [Itanian News]
...
attacks come two days after Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar dispatched their armed forces to crisis-hit Bahrain to quash anti-government protests in the tiny Persian Gulf state.
...

[Ms Dragon calls the reports of Oman troops being sent as erroneous. I suspect we probably sent ROP & 'Observers' from ISS]

So the report today from the US Attorney General that the Feds had busted 'factions of the Iranian Government' funding a terrorist plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador (and countless innocents) on US soil, well, that was always going to be a big deal.

Anyway it plays - Iranian Gov did plan it (and how tremendously stupid to do it and then to get caught!), or bits did it (more likely), or it's a cunning Mossad/CIA conspiracy (it won't be the FBI. They're cops), or heck, even a cunning Saudi Intel black op - there are no 'uninteresting' explanations.

But the Saudis are gonna be pissed off in a big way if it was Iranian. EG, here just now on Reuters.

Saudi to 'take measures' in response to Iran-Americans arrested for plot to blow-up top adviser and security confident to King.

(Reuters) - The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will be expected to 'take measures' by its people after U.S. authorities broke up a plot by two men linked to the Iranian government to assassinate the Saudi ambassador in the United States.

"After this incident many in the kingdom will expect the kingdom to take measures, the least of which will be to pull the Saudi ambassador from Iran," said Abdullah Alshammari, a government official in Riyadh. "In the opinion of Saudi decision makers, this situation is not going to pass easily."

Saudi Arabia mistrusts Shi'ite power Iran, and together with the United States accuses Tehran of backing terrorism and pursuing nuclear arms.

"There were always problems with Iran and Saudi Arabia, what is new now is that America is involved... The fact that the Saudi ambassador was the target in the United States, I believe this will mean the kingdom and the United States will take a joint decision together," Alshammari said. "An ambassador of the level of Adel Al-Jubeir, who was an adviser to the royal court, that is a great provocation for Saudi Arabia and therefore we expect that the kingdom will take steps in this matter."

Hmmm. 'Take steps' sounds potentially ominous.

At least the USA will allow a trial and some evidence in public court. So Iran (and Saudi...) can always see what the evidence is I guess. That would NOT happen in Iran or Saudi, bastions of press freedom that they are.

HM once again rescues American prisoners from Iran, and the special relationship between Oman and the USA.

Oman has always had a very close relationship with the USA. His Majesty, as befits a professional diplomat, has long had a consistent foreign policy that Oman - while retaining full sovereignty - should basically get along with both its regional neighbours and the great powers. In fact, a treaty of friendship and navigation, one of the first agreements of its kind between the USA and an Arab state, was concluded between the United States and Muscat way back in 1833.

Oman has not joined the US-led chorus prevalent in the rest of the GCC states to isolate Iran. Instead, Oman has consistently pursued engagement with Iran as being in its own best interests. Oman has never been too friendly with the Saudis, especially as they funded and supported the Iman of Nizwa's rebellion, and sees Iran as a regional balance against any attempted dominance in the region by the Wahabis of Saudi, as exemplified by the recent protests in Bahrain.

This has enabled Oman to act as a trusted intermediary between the US and Iran. The results of this were evident last week as Oman secured the release of the 2 American 'hikers', who were apparently stupid enough to go wandering near the Iraq/Iran border and got nabbed by the Iranians and thrown into jail for 'spying'. (I mean, come on, who would ever think that it's a good idea to go anywhere near Iran if you have an American passport?)

HM not only negotiated for their release, but also personally paid the Iranian's blackmail/blood money 'bail', a nice round sum of half a million US$ per person, which allows the American Administration to state as fact that they did not pay Iran a cent.

So Barack Obama gave HM a call yesterday to personally thank him.

WASHINGTON — President Barack Obama thanked Oman's Sultan Qaboos on Friday for his role in getting Iran to free two US hikers jailed there for spying and illegal entry for over two years.

Josh Fattal and Shane Bauer, both 29, were flown into Muscat on an Omani Royal Air Force plane Wednesday after the Gulf sultanate of Oman paid their $1 million bail to get them released from Tehran's notorious Evin prison. Their case had poisoned already tense ties between Tehran and Washington.

Obama called Sultan Qaboos bin Said "to convey the United States' deepest appreciation for the Sultan's exceptional and successful role in securing the release of the young American hikers from Iranian detention and the cooperation between our governments in this endeavor," the White House said.

"The president expressed our gratitude to the sultan and his special envoy, Salim al-Ismaili, for sparing no effort to secure the release of Sarah Shourd last year, and Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal this past Wednesday, thus ending a painful chapter for the hikers and their families."

Shourd, Bauer's fiancee, was released last year on $500,000 bail also paid by Oman.
During their call, Obama and Sultan Qaboos "affirmed that the friendship and partnership between our two nations, as manifested in our cooperation for the release of the hikers, have only grown stronger, and that the United States and Oman will continue to work together on a broad range of common interests," the White House added in its statement.
...

I just hope HM asked President Obama for a visit (the last visit by a US President was Clinton). Something timed just after the Shura elections next month would be great PR for both of them. The press releases would almost write themselves. What greater contrast with the on-going disaster that is Yemen?



Photo: Judgmentally-challenged American hikers Shane Bauer (L) and Josh Fattal hold a press conference after arriving free in Oman (ripped from AFP, Mohammed Mahjoub)


A history of Military Cooperation
The close relationship between Oman and the USA is something the Omani Government has always avoided discussing in public (see the wikileaks cables), afraid of stirring up those Omanis and other Arabs who would get worked up about such superficial issues as Israel, US foreign policy, etc.

Oman has allowed the US to place emergency war materials [USAF Prepositioned War Reserve Materiel, aka WRM] in Oman for decades, recently extending in December 2010 the 10 year duration Base Access Agreement (BAA) first agreed in 1980. In return, the Americans are being allowed to build (at their own cost) a new 36,000 sqm warehousing facility for this purpose, plus a large refueling capability, at the Oman Airforce base in Al Musannah, north of Muscat, to the tune of a whopping $166 million. This will replace the previous facilities at Seeb. The details are publicly available via the US Airforce budget submission to Congress for funding.

... A requirement exists to construct a new airlift apron, taxiway and lighting along with fuel storage and distribution system to support two C-5 or equivalent commercial wide body strategic airlift aircraft at Al Musanah AB, Oman. The fuel storage delivery system must be capable of sustaining a maximum of four(4) C-5 flights a day for seven (7) consecutive days. Maximum fuel load calculated at 189,270 liters per flight.

In support of Overseas Contingency Operations, Al Musanah AB has been designated as a key strategic location for future US development. The Sultan of Oman has mandated that the US War Reserve Materiel (WRM) outload site at Seeb be relocated due to the commercial development of Seeb International Airport.

The Sultan of Oman has offered Al Musanah AB as a viable alternative to Seeb AB. The US government has accepted the offer and consequently developed a long range strategic and tactical plan that fully develops Al Musanah AB in accordance with future US defense posture plans. The initial phase relocates the entire WRM compound from Seeb by FY 12 (AMAB 08-3000). The follow phase (this project) begins the initial strategic development phase of this effort by developing a limited "Gas-n-Go" capability. This capability will provide aircraft with the ability to land at Al Musanah AB, refuel and then depart toward a final destination.
...

There is a lot of information about the relationship between Oman and US available via the US Congressional Research Service, especially stuff written by their Middle East expert Kenneth Katzman, eg here. A quote:

The Sultanate of Oman is a long-time U.S. ally in the Persian Gulf; it has allowed U.S. access to its military facilities for virtually every U.S. military operation in and around the Gulf since 1980, despite the sensitivities in Oman and throughout the Middle East about a U.S. military presence there.

The US is also long active at the RAFO airport base on Masirah Island, known as 'Camp Justice' and apparently nicknamed Moon Base Alpha by the American troops stationed there due to being pretty much at the end of the earth.

Iran vs USA: Stratfor Analysis

I do appreciate the analysis provided by Stratfor. Here's their article today about 'The Iranian problem'. You may find it interesting. It doesn't mention Oman, and that I also find interesting.

Oman will play a key role in any détente between the US and Iran. Oman is the only country with serious and respectful long-term relationships with both countries. Given the unattractiveness of a military option, and the likely futility of sanctions (unless China can be convinced to support them, which is unlikely), I agree that it is in the best long term interest of America to gradually allow an easing of tensions, while extending the US nuclear umbrella to the Gulf States and emphasising the tried and trusty doctrine of MAD [Mutually Assured Destruction], or in this case, IAD (Iran's Assured Destruction) should they ever use those nukes or provide them to Hezbollah.

As most young Iranians actually support the US, and a significant proportion of their elders do to (or already live there), in the long term the US would be assured of achieving their strategic aims. And their oil firms and other companies could make a nice buck in the meantime.

Thinking About the Unthinkable: A U.S.-Iranian Deal

March 1, 2010
By George Friedman

The United States apparently has reached the point where it must either accept that Iran will develop nuclear weapons at some point if it wishes, or take military action to prevent this. There is a third strategy, however: Washington can seek to redefine the Iranian question.

As we have no idea what leaders on either side are thinking, exploring this represents an exercise in geopolitical theory. Let’s begin with the two apparent stark choices.

Diplomacy vs. the Military Option
The diplomatic approach consists of creating a broad coalition prepared to impose what have been called crippling sanctions on Iran. Effective sanctions must be so painful that they compel the target to change its behavior. In Tehran’s case, this could only consist of blocking Iran’s imports of gasoline. Iran imports 35 percent of the gasoline it consumes. It is not clear that a gasoline embargo would be crippling, but it is the only embargo that might work. All other forms of sanctions against Iran would be mere gestures designed to give the impression that something is being done.

The Chinese will not participate in any gasoline embargo. Beijing gets 11 percent of its oil from Iran, and it has made it clear it will continue to deliver gasoline to Iran. Moscow’s position is that Russia might consider sanctions down the road, but it hasn’t specified when, and it hasn’t specified what. The Russians are more than content seeing the U.S. bogged down in the Middle East and so are not inclined to solve American problems in the region. With the Chinese and Russians unlikely to embargo gasoline, these sanctions won’t create significant pain for Iran. Since all other sanctions are gestures, the diplomatic approach is therefore unlikely to work.

The military option has its own risks. First, its success depends on the quality of intelligence on Iran’s nuclear facilities and on the degree of hardening of those targets. Second, it requires successful air attacks. Third, it requires battle damage assessments that tell the attacker whether the strike succeeded. Fourth, it requires follow-on raids to destroy facilities that remain functional. And fifth, attacks must do more than simply set back Iran’s program a few months or even years: If the risk of a nuclear Iran is great enough to justify the risks of war, the outcome must be decisive.

Each point in this process is a potential failure point. Given the multiplicity of these points — which includes others not mentioned — failure may not be an option, but it is certainly possible.

But even if the attacks succeed, the question of what would happen the day after the attacks remains. Iran has its own counters. It has a superbly effective terrorist organization, Hezbollah, at its disposal. It has sufficient influence in Iraq to destabilize that country and force the United States to keep forces in Iraq badly needed elsewhere. And it has the ability to use mines and missiles to attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf shipping lanes for some period — driving global oil prices through the roof while the global economy is struggling to stabilize itself. Iran’s position on its nuclear program is rooted in the awareness that while it might not have assured options in the event of a military strike, it has counters that create complex and unacceptable risks. Iran therefore does not believe the United States will strike or permit Israel to strike, as the consequences would be unacceptable.

To recap, the United States either can accept a nuclear Iran or risk an attack that might fail outright, impose only a minor delay on Iran’s nuclear program or trigger extremely painful responses even if it succeeds. When neither choice is acceptable, it is necessary to find a third choice.

Redefining the Iranian Problem
As long as the problem of Iran is defined in terms of its nuclear program, the United States is in an impossible place. Therefore, the Iranian problem must be redefined. One attempt at redefinition involves hope for an uprising against the current regime. We will not repeat our views on this in depth, but in short, we do not regard these demonstrations to be a serious threat to the regime. Tehran has handily crushed them, and even if they did succeed, we do not believe they would produce a regime any more accommodating toward the United States. The idea of waiting for a revolution is more useful as a justification for inaction — and accepting a nuclear Iran — than it is as a strategic alternative.

At this moment, Iran is the most powerful regional military force in the Persian Gulf. Unless the United States permanently stations substantial military forces in the region, there is no military force able to block Iran. Turkey is more powerful than Iran, but it is far from the Persian Gulf and focused on other matters at the moment, and it doesn’t want to take on Iran militarily — at least not for a very long time. At the very least, this means the United States cannot withdraw from Iraq. Baghdad is too weak to block Iran from the Arabian Peninsula, and the Iraqi government has elements friendly toward Iran.

Historically, regional stability depended on the Iraqi-Iranian balance of power. When it tottered in 1990, the result was the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait. The United States did not push into Iraq in 1991 because it did not want to upset the regional balance of power by creating a vacuum in Iraq. Rather, U.S. strategy was to re-establish the Iranian-Iraqi balance of power to the greatest extent possible, as the alternative was basing large numbers of U.S. troops in the region.

The decision to invade Iraq in 2003 assumed that once the Baathist regime was destroyed the United States would rapidly create a strong Iraqi government that would balance Iran. The core mistake in this thinking lay in failing to recognize that the new Iraqi government would be filled with Shiites, many of whom regarded Iran as a friendly power. Rather than balancing Iran, Iraq could well become an Iranian satellite. The Iranians strongly encouraged the American invasion precisely because they wanted to create a situation where Iraq moved toward Iran’s orbit. When this in fact began happening, the Americans had no choice but an extended occupation of Iraq, a trap both the Bush and Obama administrations have sought to escape.

It is difficult to define Iran’s influence in Iraq at this point. But at a minimum, while Iran may not be able to impose a pro-Iranian state on Iraq, it has sufficient influence to block the creation of any strong Iraqi government either through direct influence in the government or by creating destabilizing violence in Iraq. In other words, Iran can prevent Iraq from emerging as a counterweight to Iran, and Iran has every reason to do this. Indeed, it is doing just this.

The Fundamental U.S.-Iranian Issue
Iraq, not nuclear weapons, is the fundamental issue between Iran and the United States. Iran wants to see a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq so Iran can assume its place as the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf. The United States wants to withdraw from Iraq because it faces challenges in Afghanistan — where it will also need Iranian cooperation — and elsewhere. Committing forces to Iraq for an extended period of time while fighting in Afghanistan leaves the United States exposed globally. Events involving China or Russia — such as the 2008 war in Georgia — would see the United States without a counter. The alternative would be a withdrawal from Afghanistan or a massive increase in U.S. armed forces. The former is not going to happen any time soon, and the latter is an economic impossibility.

Therefore, the United States must find a way to counterbalance Iran without an open-ended deployment in Iraq and without expecting the re-emergence of Iraqi power, because Iran is not going to allow the latter to happen. The nuclear issue is simply an element of this broader geopolitical problem, as it adds another element to the Iranian tool kit. It is not a stand-alone issue.

The United States has an interesting strategy in redefining problems that involves creating extraordinarily alliances with mortal ideological and geopolitical enemies to achieve strategic U.S. goals. First consider Franklin Roosevelt’s alliance with Stalinist Russia to block Nazi Germany. He pursued this alliance despite massive political outrage not only from isolationists but also from institutions like the Roman Catholic Church that regarded the Soviets as the epitome of evil.

Now consider Richard Nixon’s decision to align with China at a time when the Chinese were supplying weapons to North Vietnam that were killing American troops. Moreover, Mao — who had said he did not fear nuclear war as China could absorb a few hundred million deaths — was considered, with reason, quite mad. Nevertheless, Nixon, as anti-Communist and anti-Chinese a figure as existed in American politics, understood that an alliance (and despite the lack of a formal treaty, alliance it was) with China was essential to counterbalance the Soviet Union at a time when American power was still being sapped in Vietnam.

Roosevelt and Nixon both faced impossible strategic situations unless they were prepared to redefine the strategic equation dramatically and accept the need for alliance with countries that had previously been regarded as strategic and moral threats. American history is filled with opportunistic alliances designed to solve impossible strategic dilemmas. The Stalin and Mao cases represent stunning alliances with prior enemies designed to block a third power seen as more dangerous.

It is said that Ahmadinejad is crazy. It was also said that Mao and Stalin were crazy, in both cases with much justification. Ahmadinejad has said many strange things and issued numerous threats. But when Roosevelt ignored what Stalin said and Nixon ignored what Mao said, they each discovered that Stalin’s and Mao’s actions were far more rational and predictable than their rhetoric. Similarly, what the Iranians say and what they do are quite different.

U.S. vs. Iranian Interests
Consider the American interest. First, it must maintain the flow of oil through the Strait of Hormuz. The United States cannot tolerate interruptions, and that limits the risks it can take. Second, it must try to keep any one power from controlling all of the oil in the Persian Gulf, as that would give such a country too much long-term power within the global system. Third, while the United States is involved in a war with elements of the Sunni Muslim world, it must reduce the forces devoted to that war. Fourth, it must deal with the Iranian problem directly. Europe will go as far as sanctions but no further, while the Russians and Chinese won’t even go that far yet. Fifth, it must prevent an Israeli strike on Iran for the same reasons it must avoid a strike itself, as the day after any Israeli strike will be left to the United States to manage.

Now consider the Iranian interest. First, it must guarantee regime survival. It sees the United States as dangerous and unpredictable. In less than 10 years, it has found itself with American troops on both its eastern and western borders. Second, it must guarantee that Iraq will never again be a threat to Iran. Third, it must increase its authority within the Muslim world against Sunni Muslims, whom it regards as rivals and sometimes as threats.

Now consider the overlaps. The United States is in a war against some (not all) Sunnis. These are Iran’s enemies, too. Iran does not want U.S. troops along its eastern and western borders. In point of fact, the United States does not want this either. The United States does not want any interruption of oil flow through Hormuz. Iran much prefers profiting from those flows to interrupting them. Finally, the Iranians understand that it is the United States alone that is Iran’s existential threat. If Iran can solve the American problem its regime survival is assured. The United States understands, or should, that resurrecting the Iraqi counterweight to Iran is not an option: It is either U.S. forces in Iraq or accepting Iran’s unconstrained role.

Therefore, as an exercise in geopolitical theory, consider the following. Washington’s current options are unacceptable. By redefining the issue in terms of dealing with the consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, there are three areas of mutual interest. First, both powers have serious quarrels with Sunni Islam. Second, both powers want to see a reduction in U.S. forces in the region. Third, both countries have an interest in assuring the flow of oil, one to use the oil, the other to profit from it to increase its regional power.

The strategic problem is, of course, Iranian power in the Persian Gulf. The Chinese model is worth considering here. China issued bellicose rhetoric before and after Nixon’s and Kissinger’s visits. But whatever it did internally, it was not a major risk-taker in its foreign policy. China’s relationship with the United States was of critical importance to China. Beijing fully understood the value of this relationship, and while it might continue to rail about imperialism, it was exceedingly careful not to undermine this core interest.

The major risk of the third strategy is that Iran will overstep its bounds and seek to occupy the oil-producing countries of the Persian Gulf. Certainly, this would be tempting, but it would bring a rapid American intervention. The United States would not block indirect Iranian influence, however, from financial participation in regional projects to more significant roles for the Shia in Arabian states. Washington’s limits for Iranian power are readily defined and enforced when exceeded.

The great losers in the third strategy, of course, would be the Sunnis in the Arabian Peninsula. But Iraq aside, they are incapable of defending themselves, and the United States has no long-term interest in their economic and political relations. So long as the oil flows, and no single power directly controls the entire region, the United States does not have a stake in this issue.

Israel would also be enraged. It sees ongoing American-Iranian hostility as a given. And it wants the United States to eliminate the Iranian nuclear threat. But eliminating this threat is not an option given the risks, so the choice is a nuclear Iran outside some structured relationship with the United States or within it. The choice that Israel might want, a U.S.-Iranian conflict, is unlikely. Israel can no more drive American strategy than can Saudi Arabia.

From the American standpoint, an understanding with Iran would have the advantage of solving an increasingly knotty problem. In the long run, it would also have the advantage of being a self-containing relationship. Turkey is much more powerful than Iran and is emerging from its century-long shell. Its relations with the United States are delicate. The United States would infuriate the Turks by doing this deal, forcing them to become more active faster. They would thus emerge in Iraq as a counterbalance to Iran. But Turkey’s anger at the United States would serve U.S. interests. The Iranian position in Iraq would be temporary, and the United States would not have to break its word as Turkey eventually would eliminate Iranian influence in Iraq.

Ultimately, the greatest shock of such a maneuver on both sides would be political. The U.S.-Soviet agreement shocked Americans deeply, the Soviets less so because Stalin’s pact with Hitler had already stunned them. The Nixon-Mao entente shocked all sides. It was utterly unthinkable at the time, but once people on both sides thought about it, it was manageable.

Such a maneuver would be particularly difficult for U.S. President Barack Obama, as it would be widely interpreted as another example of weakness rather than as a ruthless and cunning move. A military strike would enhance his political standing, while an apparently cynical deal would undermine it. Ahmadinejad could sell such a deal domestically much more easily. In any event, the choices now are a nuclear Iran, extended airstrikes with all their attendant consequences, or something else. This is what something else might look like and how it would fit in with American strategic tradition.

This report is republished with permission of STRATFOR

The best hope America's got. President Barak Obama

So, finally. President Barack Obama. After 2000 and 2004 I was always holding my breath. Would the polls be accurate? Would American's really vote for an African American, once in the booth and faced with a stark choice?

Yes.


Now the tedious time of overlap as we wait for Bush to exit.

Not the landslide I would have liked. Its frankly shocking for me to see how many votes McCain/Palin got.

But President Obama. Fantastic.

And now comes the hard part, but I sense a great 8 years ahead for America. Hard, but great.

Unfortunately, a lot of talk now about his chances of surviving the right wing para-military nutcases. I think he will.

I don't the time nor the talent to do this monemt justice, but here's one I like

Deborah's US Liberal Politics Blog - Great post on Obama

As Obama said -

"America, this is our moment. This is our time. Our time to turn the page on the policies of the past. Our time to bring new energy and new ideas to the challenges we face. Our time to offer a new direction for the country we love."

I would urge people - especially in Oman and the GCC - to read/listen to his speeches, and imagine what more leaders like this in the Middle East could achieve. The whole region is suffering from its poor leadership - even here, the 'second' layer could do with a lot more accountability and information exchange/feedback. Fortunately, there are signs that the Majlis Al Shura is starting to flex its powers. That must be encouraged, with funding for a functional independent working arm of civil servants to act as a balance to the executive branch, an 'honourable opposition' almost. Equally, the judiciary in Oman must be protected and cherished as a truly independent counterbalance to any and all acts that are incompatible with the general rule of law, fairly applied.

And so, what for Oman?

A big opportunity for Oman. Very big.
Certainly, the issues wrt the free trade agreement will become less debatable. Labour laws and unions will be important. Diplomatically, Oman will be even more recognised as the stabilising force in the region it is. And there is a real opportunity for Oman to gain an increased influence in the White House, as the New Administration will be less willing to put up with the excesses of the rest of the GCC wrt women's rights and democratic representation, and Oman can get brownie points by helping to lead the way. A very small effort in the human rights, human trafficking dept would potentially pay HUGE dividends too.

Elsewhere?
The markets in general will be glad of a result, and positive, as Obama's economic team are about as good as you could wish for. Dollar will ease. Markets will bump and, short term, run flat. The underlying recession is not going anywhere. Sell the bounce.

American Embassy warns ROP getting tough (again)

The American Embassy have issued a reminder (below) that the ROP are (apparently) getting tough again. I wish. I saw at least 3 red light violations just on my way to work this morning.

(Thanks to one of my American sources for the feed, BTW. You know who you are.)

Warden Message - Traffic Violations
The U.S. Embassy in Muscat wishes to inform the American community in Oman that the Royal Oman Police is now working to more strictly enforce regulations with regards to traffic violations, including red-light violations. The consequences for being stopped for such a violation are, by U.S. standards, severe.

For example, red-light violations carry a mandatory and non-bailable detention period of 48 hours, followed by confiscation of driver's license, vehicle registration, and car registration plate until the Omani judicial process is concluded, a period that might be as long as several months.

Other common traffic violations that carry strict penalties, up to and including jail sentences, fines, and/or deportation include:
* Driving without a valid license;
* Driving under the influence of alcohol;
* Non-use of seat belt;
* Talking on cellular telephones (other than hands-free) while
driving; and
* Violating traffic laws in a reckless manner, such as excessive
speeding, overtaking, and screeching of car tires.

In the event of a traffic violation and fine, American citizens are strongly encouraged to cooperate with police officers and not attempt to negotiate payment at the traffic stop. Effective June 1, 2007, the Royal Oman Police (ROP) introduced new procedures for minor Road Traffic Accidents (RTA) to reduce traffic jams. According to the ROP, the new procedure is currently in force in the Governorate of Muscat area and will eventually be implemented in the other governorates and regions of the Sultanate. American citizens considering driving in Oman are advised to familiarize themselves with the new procedures available on the ROP website at
http://www.rop.gov.om/english/index.asp
under "Minor Road Traffic Accidents."

Note: Minor Road Traffic Accidents are defined as those causing minor damage to one or more vehicles, but with no in injuries, deaths, or material damage to public/private properties. Parties involved in minor RTAs should immediately move their vehicles to the side of the road. American citizens involved in accidents outside of the Muscat area are advised not to move their vehicles from the accident location until the ROP gives them the permission; moving a vehicle may be interpreted as an admission of guilt.

More from the land of freedom of speech

Just a light hearted post on how fantastic it is what freedom of speech can achieve in the USA. Can you imagine this happening in the Middle East ever?

First this YouTube parody criticising Sarah Palin is great. Muscati linked to another blog showing it too, but I couldn't resist putting it here 'cos its just so god-damn funny.


Then there's a nice piece from the classic satirical magazine The Onion. We need more of this style of reporting here in Oman.

Bush Calls For PanicOctober 15, 2008 | Issue 44•42

WASHINGTON—In a nationally televised address to the American people Wednesday night, President Bush called upon every man, woman, and child to spiral uncontrollably downward into complete and utter panic.

President Bush addresses the nation shortly before shaving his head and soaking the Oval Office in his own urine. Speaking from the Oval Office, Bush assured citizens that in these times of great uncertainty, the best and only course of action is to come under the throes of a sudden, overwhelming fear marked by hysterical or irrational behavior.

"My fellow Americans, the time for running aimlessly through streets while shrieking and waving our arms above our heads is now," Bush said. "I understand that many of you are worried about your economic future and our situation overseas, and you have every right to be. Yet there is only one thing we as a nation can do in times like these: give up all hope and devolve into a lawless, post-apocalyptic, every-man-for-himself society."

"For those of you who have remained resolute in your belief that things will turn around eventually, I urge you to close your eyes, take shallow rapid breaths, and begin freaking out immediately," Bush added. "At this point, anyone who isn't scared to death needs to wake the fuck up—because we're screwed here."

The president then picked up the telephone from his desk and hurled it through the Oval Office window.

During the address, Bush laid out a historic five-point plan for panic that he hopes will help the American people fall apart as quickly as possible. The plan—which many are calling Bush's most well-thought-out proposal to date—calls for citizens to abandon their daily routines entirely, and engage in a weeklong period of bloodcurdling screaming, arm flailing, dry heaving, and gnawing on one's fingers while rocking back and forth in alternating bouts of maniacal laughter and gentle sobbing.

Under the new bill, Americans are also advised to withdraw all their money from U.S. banks and the stock market, place it in a Maxwell House coffee tin, and bury it in a safe place in their backyard. In addition, Bush has urged the legalization of Americans trampling one another in a mad rush to compete for the nation's dwindling resources, and proposed allocating $3 billion toward a program that would give every citizen a gun and a bottle of 140-proof whiskey.

The final part of the plan calls for the immediate release of all convicted felons and death-row inmates from the nation's prisons.

Immediately after Congress approves his plan, the president said he will order multiple B-2 stealth bombers to fly over America's cities at low altitude. The resulting sonic boom, Bush said, will set off all car alarms and cause all babies to cry uncontrollably, which he believes will promote a real sense of chaos throughout the nation. In addition, Bush intends to release 50 live cobras into the Senate chamber.

"I realize this is a difficult vote for members of Congress, but at this critical time in our nation's history, it is imperative that we not sit back and pretend like everything is fine, because everything's not fine, it's just not," Bush said. "Even if Congress fails to act, I still intend to do what is right and lead this country into mass hysteria by acting outside the framework of the U.S. Constitution, overriding the entire democratic process, and setting the Lincoln Memorial on fire."

Early reactions on Capitol Hill to Bush's call for panic have thus far been positive. Leading House Republicans and Democrats said they appreciate the president's candor, and will encourage their constituents to comply with Bush's request to "find something and smash it with all of their strength."

"For most of the day tomorrow, I intend to do my part by remaining in my boarded-up home and getting worked up about our standing in the world," Pacoima, CA resident Harold Miller said. "And then at night, I plan to lie awake in my bed and be scared to death about the loss of my job, pension, and retirement fund. Then I plan to run out into the streets in my bathrobe and shout that the End of Days is coming."

Bush told Americans that if at any point they catch themselves feeling even slightly at ease, they should remind themselves that, in the end, everything is going to be completely fucked.

Simply brilliant.

Satire - you gotta laugh. Bill Maher roasts Republican VP choice

Here's a spoof ad satirising the new Republican VP candidate, Sarah Pallin from Alaska... Its so funny, I had to share. Its from an HBO comedian called Bill Maher.
[Background: You have to know that John McCain has selected Sarah Pallin as his running mate, an unknown religious right-wing mother of 5 from a small town in Alaska where she's the Governor, who's very pro-life/anti-abortion, has a young baby + 4 other kids, and whose 17 year old daughter is 5 months pregnant to her 18yr old boyfriend.]



Go USA freedom of speech. If there's one thing the Middle East needs, its more (OK, a lot more, or even a couple to start with) satirical comedians. The possibilities are endless...

More on Iran, US And Israel: The Pentagon keep their common sense

In a sort of good news/bad news story, Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported yesterday that America was strongly against supporting an Israeli strike on Iran, denying them military assistance, Iraq overflight rights, and acting to downplay the effectiveness of such a strike. (The report was also republished in The Oman Tribune.)

However, readers should note that these efforts are mainly coming from the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs - American Institutions that seems refreshingly removed from the idiotic machinations of the theo-cons and the likes of VP Cheney.

So the good news is the Pentagon and the US Military are firmly against attacking Iran, and against enabling Israel to perform such a strike, and sensibly pointing out that such an attack would do little to actually halt the nuclear programme (see Haaretz Report), and blocking Israeli efforts through leaks. Similar leaks of the CIA intelligence assessment also helped cool down GW Bush's sabre rattling earlier this year. It would seem the guys in the Pentagon have got our backs on this one, thankfully.

The bad news is that Israel is clearly both asking for permission to overfly Iraq and trying to obtain US advanced weapons and intelligence to carry out such a strike, and were it seems very close to executing such a strike. US Administration hawks are also intent on keeping, as they like to say, all options on the table.

The danger would be that the fall back strategy of such hawks and the theo-cons could be to pressure Iran into making the first move, by for example, a partial naval blockade, or placing elements of the 5th Fleet in close proximity to trigger happy Iranian militias in the straights of Hormuz... Hmmm.

U.S. puts brakes on Israeli plan for attack on Iran nuclear facilities
By Aluf Benn, Haaretz Correspondent

The American administration has rejected an Israeli request for military equipment and support that would improve Israel's ability to attack Iran's nuclear facilities.

A report published last week by the Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) states that military strikes are unlikely to destroy Iran's centrifuge program for enriching uranium.

The Americans viewed the request, which was transmitted (and rejected) at the highest level, as a sign that Israel is in the advanced stages of preparations to attack Iran. They therefore warned Israel against attacking, saying such a strike would undermine American interests. They also demanded that Israel give them prior notice if it nevertheless decided to strike Iran.

As compensation for the requests it rejected, Washington offered to improve Israel's defenses against surface-to-surface missiles.

Israel responded by saying it reserves the right to take whatever action it deems necessary if diplomatic efforts to halt Iran's nuclearization fail.

Senior Israeli officials had originally hoped that U.S. President George Bush would order an American strike on Iran's nuclear facilities before leaving office, as America's military is far better equipped to conduct such a strike successfully than is Israel's.

Jerusalem also fears that an Israeli strike, even if it succeeded well enough to delay Iran's nuclear development for a few years, would give Iran international legitimacy for its program, which it currently lacks. Israel, in contrast, would be portrayed as an aggressor, and would be forced to contend alone with Iran's retaliation, which would probably include thousands of missile strikes by Iranian allies Hezbollah, Hamas and perhaps even Syria.

Recently, however, Israel has concluded that Bush is unlikely to attack, and will focus instead on ratcheting up diplomatic pressure on Tehran. It prefers to wait until this process has been exhausted, though without conceding the military option. Israel's assumption is that Iran will continue to use delaying tactics, and may even agree to briefly suspend its uranium enrichment program in an effort to see out the rest of Bush's term in peace.

The American-Israeli dispute over a military strike against Iran erupted during Bush's visit to Jerusalem in May. At the time, Bush held a private meeting on the Iranian threat with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and the Israelis presented their request for certain specific items of military equipment, along with diplomatic and security backing.

Following Bush's return to Washington, the administration studied Israel's request, and this led it to suspect that Israel was planning to attack Iran within the next few months. The Americans therefore decided to send a strong message warning it not to do so.

U.S. National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mike Mullen both visited here in June and, according to the Washington Post, told senior Israeli defense officials that Iran is still far from obtaining nuclear weapons, and that an attack on Iran would undermine American interests. Therefore, they said, the U.S. would not allow Israeli planes to overfly Iraq en route to Iran.

The Americans sent a similar message to Iraq, which had objected vociferously to the idea of its air space being used for an Israeli attack on Iran.

These private messages were accompanied by a series of leaks from the Pentagon that Israel interpreted as attempts to thwart any possibility of an attack on Iran. For instance, the Americans revealed details of a major Israel Air Force exercise in the Mediterranean; they also said they doubted Israel had adequate intelligence about Iran's nuclear facilities. In addition, Mullen spoke out publicly against an attack on Iran.

Two weeks ago, Barak visited Washington for talks with his American counterpart, Robert Gates, and Vice President Richard Cheney. Both conversations focused on Iran, but the two Americans presented conflicting views: Gates vehemently opposes an attack on Iran, while Cheney is the administration's leading hawk.

Barak presented Israel's assessments of the Iranian situation and warned that Iran was liable to advance its nuclear program under cover of the endless deliberations about sanctions - which have thus far produced little in the way of action. He also acknowledged that effective sanctions would require cooperation from Russia, China and India, all of which currently oppose sanctions with real teeth.

Russia, however, is considered key to efforts to isolate Iran, and Israeli officials have therefore urged their American counterparts in recent months to tone down Washington's other disputes with Moscow to focus all its efforts on obtaining Russia's backing against Iran. For instance, they suggested that Washington offer to drop its plan to station a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic - a proposal Russia views as a threat, though Washington insists the system is aimed solely at Iran - in exchange for Russia agreeing to stiffer sanctions against Iran. However, the administration rejected this idea.

In an attempt to compensate Israel for having rejected all its proposals, Washington then offered to bolster Israel's defenses against ballistic missiles. For instance, Gates proposed stationing an advanced radar system in Israel and linking Israel directly into America's early warning satellite network; he also offered increased American funding for the development of two Israeli missile defense systems - the Arrow-3, an upgrade of Israel's existing Arrow system for intercepting ballistic missiles, and Iron Dome, a system designed to intercept short-range rockets. In addition, Washington agreed to sell Israel nine Super Hercules long-range transport aircraft for $2 billion. However, it would not agree to supply Israel with any offensive systems.

Now, Israel is awaiting the outcome of the latest talks between the West and Iran, as well as a formal announcement of the opening of an American interests section in Tehran. Israel views the latter as sure proof that Washington is not planning a military strike.

Cheney visits Oman, Kuwait politics a mess

Not a lot of news today.
Cheney visits
I wonder what they have to talk about? Of course, again we're forced to suffer the closure of the highways, as when it seems any so-called dignitary visits. Presumably on the agenda was Iran, the military bases, and general Intel stuff. But I'd rather we got a visit from Barack Obama!

MUSCAT — His Majesty Sultan Qaboos bin Said gave an audience to Dick Cheney, vice-president of the United States of America at Bait Al Barakah yesterday evening.

During the audience, cordial conversations were exchanged and aspects of existing cooperation between the Sultanate and the US in various domains in the light of close relations between the two countries were reviewed.

The audience was attended by His Majesty the Sultan’s special adviser for external liaison, the US ambassador to the Sultanate and the delegation accompanying the guest. — ONA

Kuwaiti Ruler dismisses Parliament
Kuwait are having problems. The ruling elite don't get on with the parliament. Its one of the problems of the approach to democracy around the region that doesn't allow political parties. That makes it hard to run a Government. So the only thing the ruler can do is call for more elections. See
Times of Oman article

It the same here. The Shura are a collection of individuals. Parties are illegal in Oman. That makes it very hard for the Shura to really establish any significant oversight on the Government. But the problems in Kuwait will hardly be helping the trend towards elected representation in the GCC area.

So called Cement Blackmarketers busted
A couple of 'Asians' were imprisoned for selling cement at $3 a bag. Which is strange, as the Tribune reported last week that the market price was exactly that. This microeconomic attempt to addressing what is a macroeconomic problem (galloping inflation) is bound to fail. Its been tried before in many many other countries, and it just leads to a spiral of more intervention, to correct the mounting side-effects of the initial ones.

Where is the action from the MONE? Per Your Request, you really need to give these guys a hand...

Bush. How could it happen?

Awful. The pictures of UAE dignitaries and Bush all lovey dovey are really terrible press, pretty much for everyone. Gives me that shiver. For an almost unending stream of rubbish on Bush's Gulf visit, the Gulf News has helpfully collected it all here Gulf News Bush Special. Yuck. And he went to Saudi after all, or at least a really good double. The pics look like a rodeo clown meeting Jabba the Hutt.


It really makes you wonder. How could it happen? How could the US re-elect him? Are all Americans nuts? I mean, once, and against Gore, and effectively stolen by his brother in Florida, OK. I can understand that. But twice?

Well, the reason is:
- most Americans (not the ones you generally meet out here) don't really give a hoot or a thought to those parts of the planet outside the USA, and at the time the economy seemed to be going fine. And when all is basically OK, why bother voting?
- he got the vote out, by scaring people, by pandering to the extremist Christian right, and successfully character assassinating Kerry.
- most Americans didn't actually vote for Bush. Really. Only about 30% of those who could have voted did so for Bush. You could say 70% of America didn't vote for Bush. Washington Post.

But in the end, the ones who could be bothered to vote pipped those who wanted Kerry. It all came down to a margin of just 1.5% of the voters. Such is the problem with Democracy.

Thank goodness for term limits (not that he'd win again...)

Its got to be Obama this time. Please. A great nation deserves so much better than this.

Why Oman needs to be friendly to the USA

Well, everyone can bitch and moan about Bush (and I agree he’s an idiot and has done significant damage to the USA and the world in terms of his Foreign policy, Economic policies, domestic agenda, and many other areas) as per recent comments on the Oman Community blog, but let's first get our facts straight and take some perspective.

The USA remains the country with, by far, the world's largest economy. The latest World Bank listing has the GDP of USA about the same as the combined GDP of Germany, China, UK, France, Russia, India, South Korea and Saudi Arabia. Really. California alone (if it were a separate country) be ranked 9th, just behind Brazil. See wikipedia. Even in terms of Purchasing Power Parity corrected GDP, its economy is still 60% bigger than China and India combined.

Oman is tiny – it ranks 77th just ahead of Lebanon. The USA economy is 540 times bigger than Oman. Take away the oil and gas, and Oman would probably be down around 116th place, being beaten by piddling Nepal. Oman needs economic growth, and a FTA that allows them to sell stuff mainly made in India, or made here by NRIs and Omanis, allows local businessmen access to a huge market with a cheap product. The biggest market in the world. Otherwise folks, its even more hotels and a future for Omani kids that involves serving beer to fat German tourists on the beach, or fishing, or digging up the place piece by piece to sell to the Chinese.

The Free Trade Agreement with the USA is worth far, far more to Oman's long term future than some deals with South Korea or the Chinese. Do you think the USA are in desperate need of tax free dates and goats? No, but they are willing to cut a well paying deal (cash, market access, intelligence sharing) in exchange for access to some good strategic areas of rock and sand (Thumrait, Masira Island, Jebel Ahkdar, Musandam) and to generally support the economy of a stable and friendly nation.

Oman will also in time learn, I hope, that the Asians are even more motivated by their self-perceived national self-interest than the USA. You think the Asians care about Omanis? What a joke.
China want to lock in long term strategic access to Oman's resources on the cheap and gain influence in the wider Gulf (and African) region.
Sth Korea want Oman’s (short to medium-term) development cash (infrastructure, LNG tankers, fishing vessels).
Japan and Taiwan want to take as much fish as they can as cheaply as possible until they run out.

The USA has many faults in terms of foreign policy, but they are actually generally very well meaning, albeit incompetent at times. People also sometimes forget what the USA could be like if they really wanted to fuck everybody up. Can you imagine what the world would be like if the USA's military and economic might was controlled by someone like Chavez, or Ahmadinejad, or Putin? It may be uncomfortable, but at bottom line the USA has the capability to turn the whole of Iran (or indeed the entire Middle East) into a radioactive wasteland within a few hours. Yes, it would be a terrible crime, but no-one in the USA would be that drastically affected. Yes, China and Russia would object, but the MAD doctrine would keep them at bay. In a few years men in plastic suits and some robots would get the oil out anyhow.

The USA has its faults, but it serves Oman's long term interest to remain friendly. Fortunately, His Majesty is well aware of that. Soon Bush will be gone. But Diplomats play a longer game. And pissing off the world's only superpower is not what HM would ever do. He is way too smart for that.

But he may meet Bush in private...

Bush visits UAE - why not Oman too?

You'll have read that Bush is visiting Abu Dhabi, after he stops by Israel to remind them please stop building settlement (or else he'll keep sending them lots of aid).

Why UAE? Well, he's got o lot on the agenda. Plus he can't go to Saudi, so unpopular is he there.

1/ The UAE (and Abu Dhabi in particular) are raking in LOTS of money, and he wants them to send some more their way. The recent save of Citigroup by the Abu Dhabi Investment Authority investing $7.5 billion is hopefully just the start. Next to be hit are the big credit card companies as default on plastic will start to skyrocket too. A break from the dollar is something he will want to avoid at all costs this year with the US elections coming up.

2/ Bush wants to gauge the depth of support for Iran, and seek diplomatic help in combating the ease of relations between the Sunni states of the Gulf and the Shiite Iran. Iranian gunboats playing tag with US Battle Fleets, presumeably in the hope of triggering a response, will have reminded Bush how much he relies on the Gulf states to base operations. He'll also want to engage them in whatever plans he has for Iran (al least, those that he can share) now his own intelligence people have released papers behind his back showing a nuclear threat is not imminent.

3/ He also just wants to be seen by the folks back home in a Middle East country that is growing in prosperity and stable and will actually welcome him (at least that's how it will look on TV). Screw democracy. Those silly voters keep voting for Islamists!

4/ But, given reason 3 - why not visit Oman? OK, they don't have the cash, but they have half of the straights of Hormuz and are very US friendly with a nice stable economy and peaceful. I think he will drop by, and we'll only hear about it after he's gone. We'll see.