RIGHTS ACTIVISTS DEPLORE IRANIAN HANGINGS. Iran hanged four ethnic
Arab Iranians in the southwestern city of Ahvaz on January 24 for
their alleged involvement in bombings in that city in 2005, agencies
reported (see "RFE/RL Iran Report," June 20, 2005). The executions
prompted objections by human rights organizations including Amnesty
International, which stated on January 25 that the men's trials were
unfair. Iran had hanged three men convicted on similar charges in
December (see "RFE/RL Newsline," December 22, 2006). Activist
Emadeddin Baqi, the president of the Association in Defense of
Prisoners' Rights in Iran, told Radio Farda on January 25 about the
condition while in detention of at least one of the men who was
hanged. He said Abd al-Amir Farajullah Kaab had been on a hunger
strike to protest being kept in solitary confinement for months
before his execution. Baqi has sought for the past year to have the
death sentences commuted, Radio Farda reported. He told the
broadcaster that "an official" told him on January 23 that certain
officials might agree to this if the families of the bombings'
victims would consent. He told Radio Farda that as Iran is in a holy
month that disallows killing, he thought there would be time to
obtain a reprieve. But "hours" after his conversation with the
official, he was informed the men had been hanged. "This...shows
these people do not even abide by the religious norms they claim to
espouse," he said. VS

January 26, 2007
Bush Clears All Measures Against Iranians in Iraq

By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 11:25 a.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush has authorized U.S. forces in Iraq to take whatever actions are necessary to counter Iranian agents deemed a threat to American troops or the public at large, the White House said Friday.

''It makes sense that if somebody's trying to harm our troops, or stop us from achieving our goal, or killing innocent citizens in Iraq, that we will stop them,'' Bush said. ''It's an obligation we all have ... to protect our folks and achieve our goal.''

The aggressive new policy came in response to intelligence that Iran is supporting terrorists inside Iraq and is providing bombs -- known as improvised explosive devices -- and other equipment to anti-U.S. insurgents.

''The president and his national security team over the last several months have continued to receive information that Iranians were supplying IED equipment and or training that was being used to harm American soldiers,'' National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe said.

''As a result American forces, when they receive actionable information, may take the steps necessary to protect themselves as well as the population,'' Johndroe said.

Bush referred to the new policy in his Jan. 10 address to the nation in which he announced a buildup of 21,500 troops in Iraq. He said the United States would confront Iran and Syria more vigorously.

While promising tougher action, the White House said the United States does not intend to cross the Iraq-Iran border to attack Iranians.

During a picture-taking session Friday with Army Lt. Gen. David Petraeus, newly confirmed by the Senate to command U.S. troops in Iraq, Bush was asked about stepped-up activities in Iraq against Iranian activities thought to be fueling the violence.

He defended the policy, but said it is no indication that the United States intends to expand the confrontation beyond Iraq's borders.

''That's a presumption that's simply not accurate,'' Bush said.

But added: ''Our policy is going to be to protect our troops. It makes sense.''

Five Iranians were detained by U.S.-led forces earlier this month after a raid on an Iranian government liaison office in northern Iraq. The move further frayed relations between the two countries, already tense because of U.S.-led efforts to force Tehran to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program.

''We believe that we can solve our problem with Iran diplomatically and are working to do that,'' Bush said. ''As a matter of fact, we're making pretty good progress on that front.''

The administration said at the time that U.S. forces entered an Iranian building in Kurdish-controlled Irbil because information linked it to Revolutionary Guards and other Iranian elements engaging in violent activities in Iraq.

But Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari, a Kurd, contended the Iranians were working in a liaison office that had government approval and that the office was in the process of being approved as a consulate. In Iran, Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said the U.S. raid constituted an intervention in Iranian-Iraqi affairs.

IRANIAN AND SAUDI SECURITY OFFICIALS MEET... Iranian Supreme National
Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani met with Saudi Arabian Prince
Bandar bin Sultan in Tehran on January 25, ISNA reported. Prince
Bandar, who heads Saudi Arabia's National Security Council, discussed
the situation in Iraq and Lebanon as well as Iran's nuclear dossier
in their meeting, ISNA reported. Prince Bandar said both sides
stressed the need to avoid Shi'ite and Sunni division, "because we
all worship the same God." If "there is solidarity between regional
states," he said, "foreign states would not interfere in [their]
internal affairs, and regional states must not allow such
interferences." Regarding Iran's controversial nuclear program,
Prince Bandar said Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Cooperation Council --
of which it is a member -- approve of the peaceful use of nuclear
power. Larijani said Iran will continue working with UN inspectors
and consulting "with various countries." He urged "those who left the
negotiating table" to return "because negotiation is the best
solution." VS

POLITICS & ECONOMICS: “Foreign-Aid Program May Be Hamstrung by Budget: Bush Program Faces Hit as Countries Near Large Deals,” by Michael M. Phillips, Wall Street Journal, 22 January 2007, p. A7.
The best innovation of the Bush administration in foreign policy has been the Millennium Challenge Corporation, a new foreign aid-granting entity outside of USAID that focuses on countries approaching the threshold of emerging market status. Instead of just propping up countries from below, the MCC was designed to lure them from above, creating a transparency with regard to standards.
The focus of the MCC has been great: very much enabling the mechanisms by which soft infrastructure and rule sets emerge. My favorite grant (very De Soto-ish) was to Madagascar to take its antiquated land titling system and bring it into the information age (I have a special spot for Madagascar, as I did a bit of work for USAID’s Africa Bureau [no travel, alas] back in the mid-1990s, about the same time my firstborn was surviving her advanced case of cancer thanks to a drug made from a plant found only on the island [my consulting involved the preservation of nature reserves, so a nice sense of symmetry arose]).
Bush wanted $5B a year (alas, Bush was a spender beyond all spenders), but Congress, as always, got stingy and has continuously trimmed it back. Our legislature should know better, but they prefer their ability to earmark the entire USAID budget to death, primarily to benefit home districts.

January 26, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Running on Empty

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Sorry to repeat myself, but I have the same reaction to this year’s energy proposals in the State of the Union that I had to last year’s. President Bush had the opportunity to launch America on a transformative new path for clean, efficient power. He had a chance for a “Nixon to China” moment — as the Texas oilman who leads us into a greener future. Instead, he gave us “Nixon to New Mexico” — right direction, but not nearly far enough.

As I read the president’s remarks, listened to the tepid public reaction and looked at his latest polls, which show Mr. Bush to be wildly unpopular, it seemed to me that the American people basically fired George Bush in the last election. We’re now just watching him clean out his desk. Both his energy proposals and his recent Iraq surge were about the best he could muster, given his pink slip.

The problem is that he is going to be cleaning out his desk for another two years, and Americans deserve better. I would love to see Democrats put that something better on Mr. Bush’s desk — regarding both energy and Iraq.

“The stakes on Iraq and on climate change are way too large for us all to be just couch potatoes waiting for the messiah to come in 2009,” said Fred Krupp, president of Environmental Defense. “That is not an option. Yes, it would be entertaining, but we need leadership on these issues, and we need it now.”

On energy — no, the president’s proposals were not just beanbag. His call to reform CAFE mileage standards for U.S. cars “shifts the debate from whether to compel U.S. automakers to build more fuel-efficient vehicles to how much they should do so,” notes a strategy consultant, Peter Schwartz. And his call for a nearly fivefold mandatory increase in the production of ethanol and other alternative fuels for cars and trucks also changes the debate from whether to how much, and which fuels.

But the devil will be in the details. Will liquefied coal be one of those alternatives — which could add to global warming — or only non-fossil-fuel alternatives? On mileage standards, U.S. automakers will lobby the White House very hard for the smallest possible change. Will they get their way? If so, there isn’t much here.

The really bold, transformative — and popular — initiative Mr. Bush should have offered would either be a national cap-and-trade system for controlling CO2 emissions by utilities, manufacturers and autos, or a carbon tax. Both would create economic incentives for us to get rid of appliances, buildings and cars that emit a lot of CO2 and to invent and purchase those that don’t.

But there is no reason that the Democrats could not right now put a cap-and-trade bill on Mr. Bush’s desk themselves by spring, Mr. Krupp said, “and I think Bush would sign it.”

It is not enough for Democrats to just hold hearings on climate change. They need to use their new power to change the climate. Not only would the public be with them, but so would big business. A coalition of America’s best companies — like General Electric, DuPont, Duke Energy, Alcoa, Caterpillar — and environmentalists just issued a “call to action” for a national cap-and-trade program to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

On Iraq: talking to some of our senior military lately, I’ve been struck by how concerned they are about the new Bush buildup against Iran. Before we have even won one war in Iraq, the Bush team seems to be courting another with Iran. I am all for brandishing the stick with Iran, but it should be for the purpose of gaining leverage for a diplomatic dialogue with Iran and Syria about Iraq.

“When your house is burning, you don’t go looking to start a fire in the next house,” said Vali Nasr, author of the “The Shia Revival.” Right now, he adds, everything should be subordinated to trying to salvage Iraq.

Let the troop surge be accompanied and reinforced by what the Baker-Hamilton commission proposed: a regional conference that puts Syria, Iran, Jordan and Saudi Arabia around a table with Iraqis to try to stabilize the place. And that requires that America brandish carrots and sticks with all the parties. If a real regional conference doesn’t work, then Democrats who want to just set a date to withdraw will have an even stronger case because we will truly have tried everything. But let’s try everything: a surge of diplomacy, not just troops.

Let the Democrats put that on the president’s desk. Just as the business community would support a real climate initiative, I think the U.S. military would support a real diplomatic conference. Bush gave America’s voters the reasons to fire him. Democrats need to give voters the reasons to hire them — for the long haul.