Online Petition: Stop the DEA From Criminalizing Routine Geriatric Care in Nursing Homes

Go here to sign http://www.gopetition.com/online/32305.html

Background (Preamble):

The DEA in accordance with the controlled substance act (CSA), amendments to the CSA, and the DEA’s own internal interpretations of the act, regulate the prescription and dispensing of scheduled (controlled) drugs with the purpose of limiting abuse of these drugs. The intention of the CSA was geared toward limiting abuse in outpatient settings; the CSA itself does not mention nursing homes or hospitals.

When these DEA rules, which are originally designed for outpatient/office setting, are applied to inpatient settings, like nursing homes and hospitals, they create a logistical barrier to care and make the timely dispensing of medications prescribed by medical providers very difficult.

The DEA in 2009 initiated a strict enforcement of controlled substances rules in nursing home and have taken action against some nursing home pharmacies for what they deemed to be non-compliant practices. This “non-compliance” is not associated with any abuse issues but rather the nursing homes are being caught not following outpatient procedures set by the DEA.

This is a complicated issue but below are a few of the ways this DEA action is impacting nursing home providers’ practices and the care of nursing home patients:

1. If a new order for a narcotic drug is written in the nursing home chart, the provider has to write a hard script to go with that order.

2. If the medical provider writes an order to change a pre-existing order for narcotics, the provider has to repeat the same process and write a new script for the new change in dose or interval. This creates a disincentive to making appropriate order changes in patients with uncontrolled pain.

3. If the provider is not in the nursing home facility and gives a verbal order for a narcotic, he or she would have to fax a script to the nursing home before the pharmacy can dispense what he or she ordered. If a faxed script is not possible then a separate call is required to the pharmacist to authorize an emergency dispense. Hard scripts would then have to be written for the emergency authorization as well as the original order and be faxed to the pharmacy within 7 days. Of note, some pharmacies, like Waltz pharmacy in Maine, would not even take an emergency authorization unless the patient in the nursing home is having an “actual emergency” aside from the fact that they have a doctor’s order that shouldn’t wait till the next business day to be carried out. Ironically, CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid) would consider such delay in care a violation in any federal or state survey of a nursing home. CMS expect nursing homes to carry out doctors orders without delay.

4. If the nursing home pharmacy can not deliver the ordered medicine in a timely fashion the staff at the nursing home are accustomed to using the “Emergency box” (E-box) in their facility to dispense the ordered medicine, while waiting for the pharmacy to deliver. The DEA’s position now is that the nursing staff can not use the E-box without a separate prescription (in addition to the original order and script), otherwise they are considered in violation of DEA regulations. Emergency script for each “Emergency box” use in this impatient setting is what the DEA is now mandating. With this DEA interpretation, some nursing home patients may be deprived of an important stop gap measure traditionally used by nursing staff to ensure the timely dispensing of medications legitimately ordered by licensed providers.

5. In addition to writing the orders for narcotics and providing hard scripts, nursing home providers are now expected to ask for a specific number of pills even though their patients are in an inpatient setting. This means that most providers would write for larger number of pills to avoid having to repeat this process over an over again. Larger scripts means more drug wasting in the nursing homes.

6. If the strict interpretation of the DEA regulations are applied then the above issues with schedule II narcotics would also be applicable to other scheduled drugs (III-V). In fact some nursing home pharmacies are already taking this strict stance as standard of practice.

7. Last but not least, assisted living facilities are in a worse shape than nursing homes as a result of the new DEA enforcement practices. Despite having a contracted pharmacy, like nursing homes, and having more or less the same checks and balances as nursing homes, these assisted livings facilities are now required to mail hard scripts (not fax) to the pharmacy for all narcotic orders. Some assisted living facilities are reverting back to using regular outpatient office practices for their patients rather than utilizing onsite geriatric medical services because it makes it logistically easier to meet the DEA requirements.

8. At no point does the DEA allow nursing home nurses to act as the agents of the providers in prescription matters. This is contrary to the realities of geriatric work in nursing homes where the medical team is made up of providers and nurses. Nursing home nurses have traditionally been the eyes and ears and the right hand of the providers in every nursing home in the nation.

The argument against the DEA actions:

1. Doctor’s authorization in nursing homes equals doctors orders in the chart. Mandating a hard script is simply a duplication of the providers’ orders in another format and serves no purpose whatsoever.

2. Nursing homes are inpatient facilities and patients residing there are inpatients. Nursing home residents should not be treated as community dwelling outpatients who get their prescripts during outpatient office visits and have minimal changes in medications between visits. Modern Geriatric standards mean more frequent intervention and orders to meet the needs of the nursing home population. This includes frequent, sometimes daily, nursing calls to providers to address changes in patients’ status that often require new orders. The DEA requirement that these frequent orders be coupled with prescriptions is bringing this dynamic system of care to a halt.

3. Nursing homes maintain contracts with house pharmacies that follow the same checks and balances as hospital pharmacies. These checks and balances already account for the appropriate use of the nursing home “Emergency box”. As it is, two nurses are required to sign off on each access of the “Emergency box”, in addition to having a doctor’s order in the chart. These pharmacy services, and protocols are already mandatory for all nursing homes in the United States and have been proven very effective.

4. Nursing homes and hospitals follow the same protocols and have similar checks and balances, yet the DEA doesn’t apply the scheduled drugs rules to hospitals but does so in nursing homes. The explanation is that the hospitals are inpatient; We say so are the nursing homes.

5. The DEA, by applying rules designed for outpatient setting to nursing homes, are creating problems without solving any. It is widely accepted that the only major DEA related problem in nursing home is “drug diversion” by staff, not “drug abuse” by nursing home patients. The documentation and checks and balances in nursing homes, just like in hospitals, are geared to dealing with the issue of drug diversion and preventing it. The DEA’s current actions divert attention from this very real DEA related problem and focuses attention on a self created issue of paperwork compliance that does nothing to prevent drug diversion.

6. The DEA is creating unnecessary hardship for nursing home patients and providers alike in a field of Medicine where there is a real shortage of qualified medical providers. Geriatric recruitment and retention is already suffering as the unnecessary paperwork mounts. The DEA actions are exacerbating a chronic geriatric recruitment issue in nursing homes.

7. Drug wasting in nursing homes can be expected to increase as the DEA is providing an incentive for providers to write larger scripts to minimize their paperwork. When there is a change in orders, the pharmacy is not allowed to take back the unused drugs, so they are routinely wasted at a huge cost to the system.

8. The increased bureaucracy increases the chances of medication errors as the potential for providers giving slightly different instructions multiplies when orders and scripts are done in separate steps and in duplication.

9. The DEA is creating a new potential abuse issue in nursing homes that never existed before, as the new mandates are resulting in increasing number of hard prescription that the providers give to facilities only to sit in charts after being faxed to pharmacies. These signed hard scripts can be sold or used illicitly to get narcotics from outpatient community pharmacies. Most providers are genuinely concerned that the hard scripts they provide to nursing homes serve no purpose and are a liability for them and their practices.

10. CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid) has long been pressing nursing homes to improve pain management for their residents. This new DEA action is a barrier to meeting that goal, and it can potentially disrupt the quality of care related to pain management.

Petition:

We petition our government to instruct the DEA and CMS to take the following actions:

1. The DEA should use the same standards for all inpatient facilities, including nursing homes. Nursing homes (NF and skilled facilities) and assisted living facilities should be treated the same as hospitals and inpatient rehabilitation facilities, provided they maintain the same pharmacy checks and balances as hospitals. This should include the ability of nursing home nurses to use the “Emergency box” to fill doctors orders until the pharmacy can deliver the ordered medications.

2. Allow nursing home nurses to act as the agents of medical providers to implement and carry out doctors’ orders in their facilities. This should apply to the DEA as well as Medicare Part-D issues i.e. assist with prior authorization issues and conveying doctors’ orders to pharmacies.

3. Allow nursing home pharmacies to act as the agents of medical providers in processing prior authorizations with Medicare part-D plans for nursing home patients when providers order drugs not covered by Part-D formularies.

4. Allow nursing homes to have a less restrictive system for partial fills for PRN (as needed) as well as scheduled narcotics to decrease drug wasting and associated cost.

Go here to sign http://www.gopetition.com/online/32305.html

It's the economy stupid, Even in Iran

Many following Iranian politics are waiting and hoping for some sort of major political event that would push the Green revolution over the hump and lead to the collapse of the Iranian regime.

The main problem this Iranian revolution has had is that the educated elite are the only ones revolting, while the majority of other Iranians are still on the sidelines.

There is one event that might motivate the other socioeconomic classes to join the green revolution and it happens to be the brainchild of the government itself. Facing a budget deficit and impending sanctions, the Iranian government just approved a measure to take away subsidies on some basic commodities, like gasoline.

The gas prices in Iran are about to increase by at least 350%. Imagine if Gas prices in the US went from $2.7 to $9.45 overnight. The amazing thing is that if the Iranian government is doing this at a time when the political future of the regime is in jeopardy. They think their plan to pay qualified families a stipend will lessen the devastating psychological impact of such a jump in inflation.

Like other dictatorships in history, the dictators are the last to realize that their time is up. East Germans had a military parade a month before the Berlin wall fell, and in similar fashion the Iranians are increasing the cost of commodities for the poor during a major political turmoil. This political suicide will be put into action within the next 12 months; I can't wait!

The greatest thing about the dictators of Iran is that they seem to be more arrogant than they are stupid, which suits me just fine.

Iranians are posting info on individual Riot police officers

Facing an increasingly brutal crackdown, and with no way to fight back, Iranian revolutionaries are fighting back by taking the battle to the individual riot police. The Green movement is posting photographs of the riot police officers as they beat up young demonstrators, most of whom are girls. What really caught my attention was that they also included the individual officers' name, rank, unit, as well as their home address and phone number.

This is their way of trying to hold their oppressors accountable. Some of the riot police officers can no longer go home and forget about their rough day at work anymore. Sooner or later they will have to answer for their actions to their families, neighbors, friends, and most likely future courts, if and when the regime is overthrown.

This revolution is evolving in many ways:

-When the government refused to grant permits for public gathering, the greens used government events to make their voice heard. The latest example was Nov.4 when they went to a government sanctioned anti-American demonstration, commemorating the hostage taking of American diplomats, to chant slogans asking the American president Obama to support them in their struggle against the anti-American Iranian regime. They walked over the picture of the supreme leader instead of walking over the american flag, as is customary in such events.

-When the government started using the online video footage to track down demonstrators, the Greens started taking clips showing the backs of people rather than filming while facing the demonstrators, many of whom now waring masking for good measure.

-When there was no opportunity to express dessent on state television, some brave soles confronted the leadership, including the supreme leader, in the government's own TV covered events and the government to task publicly. They held the regime accountable for its actions and oppression on state media, even if it was only for a moment to be censored later.

The future is now more unpredictable than ever but with the government squashing peaceful demonstrators it's a matter of time before some of these demonstrators decide to arm themselves and exercise whatever version of self defense they deem appropriate. We will then have a full blown civil war that will only end after much loss of life.

Lets hope this regime expires before this stage of the revolution.

Iran and President Obama, time to take a stand

Iranian demonstrators in Tehran are chanting "Obama, Obama, either with them (the government) or with us". I wonder if he is aware of the gravity of this sentiment on the streets of Iran. What if the people of Iran conclude that the united states would rather play it safe and be content to watch as the Iranian regime tries to crush them. What if they won despite the lack of moral support from the US and it's president?Isn't that a political risk for Mr. Obama?

It is hard to imagine how Mr. Obama can avoid taking a chance and stand with the Iranian people despite what some overcautious politicians think. I hope his advisers are pointing out the fact that it is politically wise for the united states to abandon talks with a government at this time considering that the current regime will never be a true friend to America, in favor of cultivating a better relationship with Iran as a country down the line.

Even if the government of Iran doesn't change the US can pick up were it left off months or years later when the political atmosphere is different and the US won't appear to be appeasing a brutal regime.

The continuation of overtures towards Iran despite the savage crackdown against the defenseless civilians is undermining the future relationship between the two countries. The risk of siding with the demonstrators is much less than the risk of appearing obtuse about the cause of freedom and the wants of the Iranian people.

The current government of Iran blames the US for all ills whether they support the democratic movements or not so why not show some initiative and go all out in support of the peaceful demonstrators.

President Obama is not immune from missing a historical opportunity to do good, just as president Hoover, with his strong financial background, was an unlikely president to miss a historical chance to confront the great depression.

The president is facing a choice and he should know that he can't have it both ways, either stand with the Iranian people in their fight with the regime or pursue an illusive reconciliation with an untrustworthy regime that still celebrates taking American diplomats hostage after 30 years of that shameless act.

I hope he throws caution to the wind and do the right thing. Mr. Obama and The united states shouldn't be on the wrong side of history in this crucial time for Iranians.

Khamenei's mistake could end his Regime

Khamenei did not need to antagonize all the grand Ayatollahs in Iran and Iraq, for no reason what so ever, but yet he did.

Khamenei issued a decree, on Sat the 19th of september, "ordering" all Iranians to stop fasting and celebrate the Eid on Sunday, rather than Monday, contrary to the decrees of all the other Ayatollahs.

In Shiite Islam individuals are required to select a senior clergyman, an Ayatollah, to be their spiritual guide in religious matters, such as when to start and end the fasting month of Ramadan. Ayatollah Khamenei, like the other Ayatollahs, has his own religious followers, inside and outside the country. He is also the only Ayatollah who is the head of state for all Iranians. This political title does not change the fact that most Iranians, regardless of their political allegiance, look to Ayatollahs other than Khamenei for spiritual guidance when it comes to religious matters.

As a religious leader Khamenei is expected to exercise his purgative in issuing edicts for his own religious followers on issues such as what day to start and end of the fasting month of Ramadan. Such religious edicts are expected to be directed at his religious followers and not be forced on others.

The aforementioned command is a major leap even for a supreme leader and effects all Iranians and not only Khamenei's own religious followers--It is an intolerable mixing of politics and religion even in a theocracy. This blatant action is tantamount to countermanding the religious advice of all other Shiite Ayatollahs in Iran and Iraq, including the grand Ayatollah Sistani in Najaf, who has the greatest religious following among Shiites around the world.

By this action Khamenei is forcing all Shiite Iranians to ignore their own spiritual guides and follow his religious instructions as the political head of state instead. Most people would see this as a step too far and an abuse of power by the supreme leader--needlessly interfering in the most basic of religious matters. The Grand Ayatollahs in Qom and Najaf are likely to see this as a direct challenge to their authority over their flock, and may do the unthinkable and consider the Iranian theocracy a threat to the Shiite religious establishment.

With the exception of the student organizations, the religious establishment in Iran is the only non government entity with grass roots that could be tapped into to organize the opposition movement and give it a reasonable chance of success. If all the Ayatollahs brake their silence and put their weight behind the Green revolution then this regime is history.

Khamenei may believe himself to be the new Khalif or Shah of Iran with power over all people, in both religious and political maters, or he could be simply inadvertently over reaching, either way he may have just made his biggest mistake yet.

Iranian women ministers, yeah right

Mr. Ahmadijejad may think that the women of Iran who are eager to depose him will be satisfied with the gesture of selecting two women to be the first women ministers in the Islamic republic. Never mind the fact that the proposed minister of health is a hardliner who once called for the segregation of women into separate hospitals. Never mind that the proposed minister of welfare is a staunch defender of polygamy and is a two time Parliament member in the hardliners' block.

Mr. Ahmadijenad is either arrogant, stupid, or both, for believing that the brave girls and women who walk in front of their men in the street demonstrations would be that gullible. It doesn't seem likely for these women to risk arrest, torture, and rape only to fall for such empty gestures.

Radical women in ministerial positions does not advance the cause of women's rights, rather it is likely to serve as a cover for more limitations on women.

Some blacks may have once thought that the selection of the black Judge Clarance Thomas to the united states supreme court would mean more support for minority rights, but he proved that a person's beliefs are more important than gender or ethnicity.

Iran will one day be free and so will its women and minorities; the only way Mr. Ahmadinejad is going help in this process is by fueling the flames of the green revolution by being the stupidly arrogant sun of a bitch that he is.

Mr. Ahmadinejad does not realize this but he is like a frog enjoying the slowly boiling water that is the Iranian green revolution. He will one day be tried for his actions and the judge might well be one of the women that he subjected to imprisonment and rape.

Mousavi needs to act

Brave people deserve brave leadership, and so the besieged people of Tehran deserve to have their leaders share in their risks and sacrifices.
I know that Mr. Mousavi is under house arrest but if the few thousand people manage to get through the armed militias and police maybe he can try harder to join them.
Such a brave act would force the government's hand into arresting him, which would add another spark to this revolution.
Mr. Mousavi may turn out to be like Mr. Gorbachev, a catalyst for change but not destined to be the leader in the new age. Either way he needs to act and leave the rest up to the Iranian people. I hope he gets it that this is no longer about a desputed election--it's about regime change.

Iranians should be proud, Persian or Not

Most in Iran know that not all Iranians are Persians but most Iranians abroad insist they are. Perhaps it is because people might like them a little better if they associated them not with Iran but with ancient Persia.

Even as Iranians from all ethnic backgrounds fight and die on the streets of Tehran and other cities, some supporters insist on over emphasizing the persianhood of the people of Iran. This old inferiority complex was exaggerated by the bad reputation brought on by 30 years of the Islamic republic. In this day and age such thinking, regardless of its root causes, is at worst racist and at best narrow minded.

After the sacrifices and the extraordinary bravery of the Iranian men and women in the past few week it should be easier for most Iranians to use the word "Iran" without being ashamed anymore. Let us stop insisting on reminding everyone of our Persian heritage in order to entice them to respect us despite us being Iranaian.

Again, We are all Iranian but not all Persian. Afterall Mr. Moussavi himself is an Azeri Turk, and the young student who took a bullet to the head on the 20th of June was an Arab Iranian from Ahwaz; sadly he also happens to be my sister's brother in law.

Lets be proud of being Iranian again and stop pushing the "Persian" phrase all the time. Lets just pray that our brave country men and women in the front lines will keep on fighting for all of us, Persians and non-Persians.

Did I also mention how we need to distribute some DVDs to the masses and inform ordinary Iranians about our struggle?

DVDs maybe the key to Iran's Green Revolution

There is no doubt that the students and the facebook members of Iran are predominantly behind the fledgling green revolution. What is in doubt is the awareness and support of the millions of poorer Iranians with no access to alternate media. It is not clear if they are aware of the extent of oppression and killings by the government security forces on the streets. If the Media black out in Iran holds, the revolutionaries may remain cut off from the majority of the poor Iranians. Without those masses in southern Tehran and the provinces the revolution can not succeed.

In 1979 ayatollah khomeini, faced with a simillar Iranian media black out, spread his message from France through smuggled cassette tapes. The hope of the new Green revolution may lye in DVDs and CDs as even the poor with no facebook accounts have access to DVD players. Lets burn some DVDs and get the word out. There is security in numbers and this might help bring more people out to support the thousands of brave Iranians already on the street.

I was touched last night as I watched a clip of young demonstrators being charged by the police. As the crowd saw tear gas and smoke rising ahead of them they chanted "be brave, we're all together". With no one to help them and surrounded by so many security forces they are indeed brave as they only have each other.

Iran's Green revolution, Is it finally happening?

When I last left Iran 18 years ago not only had I given up on the idea of traveling back to visit, but I had also given up on the possibility of regime change in Iran in my life time. There were many more Iranians who looked at Iran from afar hoping that they would return some day but most, if not all, had given up hope.

When the latest election came, I greeted it with my usual skepticism knowing that the so called reform movement is just a faction of the ruling regime and can not be an instrument of real change.

What happened next caught me off guard and did not fit into the familiar Iranian political equations. It seems that the Iranian regime was not content to have the people chose the inconsequential post of president but decided to deny the people that privilege as well. And so the hardliner Ahmadijenad who trailed his opponents in the poles wins unexpectedly, in a landslide no less.

The sequence of events that followed were an expression of multitudes of frustrations by the people and was spontaneous and not politician driven. What the government saw as post-election demonstrations were actually anti-government demonstrations. In the early days the reformist leaders even called for the cancellation of rallies in an attempt to remain on the good graces of the supreme leader, only to see the people show up on the streets anyway. People power is driving the leaders and they're trying desperately to catch up.

As the supreme leader drew a line in the sand on Friday, asking for demonstrators to go home or there will be bloodshed, a ghost from the past appeared on the political scene to challenge him directly. Political junkies may recall that In the months before the late Ayatollah Khomeini's death there was a change in the succession plans. Up to that time the Iranian regime had widely presented the people with grand Ayatollah Montazeri as the chosen successor to Khomeini. The regim soon discovered that the more he expressed his views the more it became apparent that he is likely to allow the clerics to lose power to the people and so he quietly disappeared from public view. When Khomeini died there was another man chosen by the clergy elite to be supreme leader, Khamenei. The only thing he had in common with the late supreme leader was the similarity of name. Khomeini vs Khamenei. Even the slogans can stay the same they must have thought. There was a slight problem however, Mr. Khamenei was not high enough in the religious hierarchy to qualify for the post, he wasn't even an Ayatollah. No problem. In a few weeks he emerged with the title of ayatollah and even managed to develope a grayer beard to emphasis seniority.

Ever since that swift change of the guards Mr. Montazeri has kept to himself and thought to be under house arrest. His timing to brake his silence and come out in support of the demonstrators couldn't have been better. As the supreme leader Khamenei demanded an end to the uprising, Grand Ayaltolah Montazeri expressed the opposing religious and political view that "it would be anti-Islamic for the government to oppose people's will". Instead of calling for an end to demonstrations he called for 3 days of moaning practically inviting more demonstrations. This direct challenge to the supreme leader is unprecedented and removes a psychological and political barrier for others to follow suite.

The previously unthinkable is actually happening. The government including the supreme leader is under siege. The state media is reporting calm where there are riots. There is total black out on filming or reporting on the demonstrations. The pro government militias are on the lose attacking demonstrators. As horrible as this is, it offers a glimmer of hope as the government is now reactionary and is losing control. If the people of Iran sense that they can actually overthrow the regime they might do just that. Demonstration against election fraud can easily turn into demonstrations for the overthrow of the regime.

Ironically, at this stage the greatest threat to this uprising movement comes from its reformist leaders. They may decide that this is going too far and seek to restrain people's ambitions in order to save the Islamic theocracy.

We are in uncharted territory but as the government moves in to crackdown there is more likelihood for a shift from demonstrations to an all out green revolution. And so I find myself, and for the first time in 18 years, hopeful about the future of Iran. I'm even starting to dream about travelling freely to see my family one day.

Until then I pray that regime change will not have a high toll in blood of the Iranian people.

Iran, A dirrect challange to the supreme leader

There is a new twist in the unfolding political struggle in Iran. An old foe of the supreme leader, Ayatollah Montazeri declared his support for the demonstrators and contradicted the supreme leader directly by saying that the government needs to respect the will of the people. Ayatollah Montazeri was the original heir apparent for the late Ayatollah Khomeini but he was removed from that position before Khomeini's death and later replaced with Khamenei. Ayatollah Montazeri was then forced to maintain a low profile ever since.

A couple of decades later Mr. Montazeri is probably one of the few people who can draw support from a wide segment of the population including those who support the current regime. His words of defiance go beyond the political, his challenging the supreme leader on religious grounds too. He called for 3 days of morning and for the government to respect of people's right to protest as a religious duty of the government, while the supreme leader is calling for people to leave the streets and is threatening them with blood shed if they don't. The undermining of the supreme leader's religious and political authority was unthinkable in the past and it is a turning point for the people's struggle with the regime.

This a lose lose for the government, if they allow the demonstrations to go on they lose face and risk an eventual loss of power, on the other hand if they crack down they risk a full blown revolution now.

The best part of this is that Montazeri can be the spiritual leader of a transitional government in case of a regime change. This would minimize the chances of civil war.

I am personally encouraged to the point that I feel the end of the regime is finally possible. Lets hope it can happen with the least of blood shed.

Iran's battle lines are drawn

After Khamenei's hard line speech on Friday there should be no more confusion about what it would take for the demonstrators to effect real change in Iran. Sooner or later everyone will realize that there can only be one final authority in Iran, either the will of the people or the will of the unelected supreme leader, not both.

Ironically, all the candidates in the recent election, including Mr. Mousavi, officially support the supremacy of Mr. Khamenei over the wil of the people. If Iranians have the courage to stand to the government for a few more weeks other elements in society and regime will have to take sides between these two competing interests, and that includes the Iranian military.

Help comes from within not from without so lets hope that this time all the internal elements will align to ensure that the sacrifices by the people of Iran are rewarded with real freedom.

Last but not least, lets not forget the large segment of society that depends on the current government for their livelihood. Once the revolution is underway, if that's what this really is, there need to be a general amnesty issued for all who worked for the regime, including the security agencies and revolutionary guards. Without such amnesty we risk an all out civil war.

IRAN, glimmer of hope and lessons unlearned

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the re-election of Mr. Ahmadinejad offers a glimmer of hope for an eventual regime change. Instead of a new president, popular with the elite and the educated, we got the ignorant radical back. Instead of pacification of the masses we have anger and unrest in the big cities. There is no guarantee that this would create a momentum for bigger change but there is no denying that an influential segment of the population is denied its choice of pretend president. The demonstrations that follow can be the ice breaker for a nation frozen in fear for 30 years. Grass root leadership may still emerge from this but its still a long shot.

The reason for the unfavorable odds for change can be found in the election results themselves. If we believe the election results, Mr. Ahmedinejad appears to have support among those living in rural areas, the less educated, the more religious, and the traditional segments of the Iranian society. Of note, these same segments of society were at the core of the Iranian revolution in 1979. Even though the students and merchants are credited with toppling the Shah, the reality is that the poorest in Iran were the ones that made the revolution possible by coming out in their thousands and millions to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the Shah's regime.

The elite of years ago didn't get it and the elite of today apparently don't either. They can not make a drastic change, or even a small one, without addressing the needs of the poor and the less fortunate in Iran.

As a result of having an entrenched "dictatorship lite" for 30 years is that more than half of the population in Iran works for the government one way or the other. Their biggest fear is that with any kind of change comes a loss of the very little they have. They not only fear for their livelihood but they also fear for their lives, baring in mind the executions that followed the last regime change.

If the elites of Iran want to effect change they need to treat the poor and traditional majority of Iran with some deference and convince them that their lives and livelihood will be protected if the regime does eventually change to a more pro-western regime. Chanting "death to the dictator" in rallies certainly doesn't help allay these fears. In the mind of many, Death to the dictator could easily mean "death to the dictator and his past and present supporters".

IRAN, the fake democracy

Watching the news coverage of the Iranian presidential elections I am getting the impressions that the world, including the Iranians themselves, are starting to believe the notion that there are actually democratic elections in Iran.

The minor details are easily forgotten, such as the, never mentioned, vetting process in place for presidential candidates that excludes anyone who disagrees with the current form of government in Iran. There is also the minor matter of the supreme leader oversight. The Iranian constitution stipulates that all elected officials in the Iran, including the president, are subject to the veto power and guidance of the unelected "supreme leader". The Iranian presidential election could easily be called the "sidekick election" for selecting the sidekick to the supreme leader.

Looking at the presidential candidates over the years the names are starting to look familiar, that because all the candidates are from within the current regime. A select few are simply changing roles within the same government. Their commitment to the regime has already been tested over and over again making the vetting easy.

The news media divides the presidential candidates into conservatives and moderates but they really should be divided into ultra-conservatives and moderate conservatives as any candidate to the left of that never gets past the vetting process.

The Iranian younger generations are made to believe that they are actually electing their government, and worse, that the past failures in Iran are a consequence of their previous votes. Those who are truly responsible are never blamed or punished as they are never elected. They quietly supervise those elected and let them take the blame for the government failures, in the process allowing the public to vent their anger by electing new sidekicks once in a while.

The first election in the Islamic republic was the election to establish the form of government after the 1979 revolution. Even then there was only one choice on the ballet, an Islamic Republic (a theocracy) or nothing. The ballot read "Yes or No to the Islamic republic". That election sat the stage for future elections where Iranians got to choose, provided that government decides what or who can be on the ballet. The People get to vote but only for select posts and from a pool of select people.

Despite all the hoopla the reality in Iran is that Iranian can't even vote for their city mayors or the governors of their provinces as those government posts are deemed too sensitive to be opened to people's vote. The government in Tehran appoints every provincial governor and every city mayor.

In the next few days some Iranians will be celebrating the fake victory of their fake representative government while the real, unelected, government of Iran gets another 4 years of breathing room to rule. They will even throw in an occasional drama of power struggles over some inconsequential post in the government.

The Iranians best hope lies in the remote possibility that one of these so called presidents would have the balls to lead a grass root reform movement that would change the Constitution and get rid of the unelected supreme leadership of the republic--peacefully of course.

Muslims need to stop talking and do something

It is an undeniable fact that Islam is under attack by Muslims and not by the west. What is striking is that most Muslims in positions of leadership don’t seem to think so and those who do haven't figured out what to do about it. They expect the average Joe to simply take their word for it that real Islam is different than the one portrayed on the news and that Radical Muslims are totally wack and would do anything for political gain.
The reaction of Muslims scholars and the public to the almost daily Terrorist attacks committed by extremist Muslims has evolved quite a bit since 9/11 but there is no apparent sense of urgency among Muslims to try to find a solution to their predicament.
More Muslims need to come to this realization that the extremists are their enemies and the enemies of Islam as their acts of terrorism effects Muslims directly in more ways than one. Islam’s standing with young Muslims and people of other faiths is suffering daily. It is not hard to imagine how the future generations of Muslims may start feeling more and more ashamed of their religion and heritage. One would think that with so much at stake we would see a more proactive offensive against “radical Islamists” by every Muslim in a position to express an opinion. If terrorism was a Christian phenomenon one would expect to see ads run by Christian religious organizations in every medium against radical Christianity. Such act would be in the interest of self preservation and in defense of Christian values.
It is astonishing that most Muslims haven’t awakened to the threat posed by radical Islam or at least so it seems. They need to stop focusing on talking about Islam to outsiders and start talking to each other about the threat radical Islamists are posing to all Muslims and to the future of Islam Itself. In the process they also need to flush out the few sympathizers who pretend to be centrists but secretly agree and support the radical Islamists. I say to Muslims, Let’s do something crazy, lets stop talking only about the root causes of terrorism, poverty, imperialism, and dictatorships. Let’s instead focus on talking about the responsibilities of every Muslims to rise up and defend their faith, their heritage, and themselves from radical extremists living among them.
CAIR and other Islamic organizations need to buy ads on Aljazeera to run against radical Islam after each terrorist attack, rather than buying ads in the United States to improve the image of Islam. The image of Islam would improve if Muslims rise up and tackle their problem with radicalism at the source, at home. There needs to be a demand for action to go along with the usual condemnation of terrorism. I for one am tired of having to defend my Islamic heritage because some nutcase decided that he can make killing kosher by having a radical Imam approve it. I say more of us should say “not in our name” but say it in our own communities and in Muslim countries, not just at meetings in the UN or western forums.
When ordinary Iraqis are attacked and killed during the holy month of Ramadan the silence of the so called Muslim scholars is deafening. They need to declare, on Muslim media, in unison, their outrage at both the targets of such attacks and the timing given that even in ancient times fighting during the holly month, except in self defense, was forbidden. Other attacks like the ones targeting places of worship are another obvious example of outrageous inexcusable acts of violence that should not be treated as just “news” in the Muslim world.
So I ask where is the outrage? Where are the demonstrations on the Arab and Islamic streets?
In case anyone reads this and decides to organize a Muslim demonstration in Makah or Cairo against violence committed in their names, it would help if such demonstration avoids the slogan “death to the radicals”, Just a thought.

Exporting Democracy Obama Style

All across the world various dictators and governments allowed news outlets along with the public to focus their attention on the US 2008 elections, some in the hope of proving that the US democracy is flawed. Most watching the election were cheering for Mr. Obama as the presumed underdog of US politics but most have also come to the conclusion that America would never elect him. After all, Americans, as is often said, are too conservative, too prejudice, and too ignorant to go against imperial special interests controlling politics in the country. Ironically many were looking at America through the prism of their own prejudices and experiences with their own governments and elections.
American history is full of examples were great presidents were elected despite being unlikely candidates. It goes to show how little attention we pay to history or how easy it is to be distracted by recent events that block our view of the past. The Bush administration’s stated goal of “exporting democracy” to others had provided the world a decidedly bad example of Democracy, one imposed by a foreign power and one that favors the most docile of politicians.
The world’s expectations of America were so low that no one believed that the American Democracy was anything but a forgone conclusion. No wonder the Chinese, the Russians, Arab and African dictators, and even the Iranian government allowed a fair amount of media coverage of the 2008 American election, thinking that their people would have a first row seat to the final proof that their propaganda messages against America were true. Many of the world public expected that the American election would turn out just like the elections in the own countries, predetermined by those in power and influence.
Well, the dictators’ presumptions were wrong, and now they’re stuck with their people finally seeing what real democracy really looks like. Nobody in America knew who the president will be, not even the candidates, until the peoples’ votes were counted, or for that matter projected. More importantly, after the election those who disagreed with the majority vote didn’t go on rampage and the National Guard didn’t have to be called in.
I wonder how the next fixed Russian election would feel like to the Russians as ex-president Putin will run to be president again and will shockingly be elected. He will not cause as much excitement, however, because the Russians now know the difference between true democracy and a fake one.
It will certainly be a little bit more difficult to swallow the BS surrounding the next election in Iran which can already be predicted even though we still don’t know who the candidates are. The odds are that many of the legitimate candidates will be vetted out by the governing theocracy leaving the country will a few choices like the current president and one of the ex-presidents both trying to run on a platform of change.
Its OK if the world forgets about the history of American Democracy because as luck would have it, American democracy is evolving to something better as time passes. America’s best days lie ahead.

Iraq's latest Shiite vs Shiite conflict

The new Shiite vs Shiite fighting in Iraq between government forces and Shiite militias is the latest chapter of the post war Iraqi political evolution. There is much discussion about the factions and their leaders but little is being said about the hidden agendas that drive the militia groups to seek political and military domination of the Basra region. It seems to me that the seeds of this conflict can be traced to the partial decentralization of the oil sector in Iraq.

The ill advised decentralization of the previously nationalised oil sector has created an economic incentive for local militias to fight for control of oil rich regions, and to have a vested interest in keeping the central government in Baghdad weak. The central government will never be strong enough to control Iraq as a whole unless it has full control over the oil, thus allowing local politics to be conducted without the hidden oil agendas.

The fight in the oil rich Basra region is not going to be the last fight over oil. As soon as the dust settles the oil rich Kurdish areas could follow, with Arab Iraqis (Sunni and Shiite) fighting to cease control of some or all oil rich Kurdish (Sunni) areas in the north.

The shifting alliances in Iraq is in part due to the desperate attempt of all groups to gain control over all or a portion of the Iraqi oil riches which is now open for local control for the first time in Iraqi history.

In my humble opinion the solutions for much of the simmering internal political and military conflict in Iraq has and will always be the "total re-nationalization" of Iraqi oil industry. It may sound un-American in principle, but it could be the greatest American contribution to the long term security in Iraq.

Romney vs McCain on Immigration

Romney has come a long way to prove himself as the most anti-immigrant among the remaining Republican presidential candidates. True to form, his low blow attacks on McCain’s on the issue came across as slogans and propaganda and lacked real substance.

Senator McCain has nothing to be ashamed of when it comes to his efforts to tackle the extremely unpopular issue of immigration reform. If Romney has it his way then nobody should dare pass any reform and we all should just move south to guard the borders.

Illegal immigrants risk their lives to cross the border only to face exploitation by greedy businesses that pay them a fraction of the minimal wage for the work they do. Their reasons for coming here are no different than the founding colonials. Come to think of those guys didn’t need a visa to come to America either--Their effort to get here was good enough at the time. We all can agree that illegal immigrants are braking the law of the land by crossing the border without a visa but their intentions are as such that calling them criminals is a stretch even in an election season.

Many would agree with the contention that this election is the Democrats’ to lose. The republican nominee for president doesn’t stand a chance in the general election unless he moves to the center. McCain is already there, except on the war.

It is worth mentioning that a growing number of military recruits are now Hispanic immigrants or sons of Hispanic immigrants. The increasing hostile stance by Romney must come as a huge insult to these men and women in uniform. The Hispanic vote is all but guaranteed to be against Romney if he were to clinch the Republican nomination.

McCain should cease the chance to point out that Romney’s only policy on immigration is to build a larger fence then bury his head in the sand, whereas McCain has the courage to at least address the problem head on. There is no clear path to follow on this divisive issue but most politicians recognize that something needs to be done giving the magnitude of the problem.

Tightening the border without immigration reform simply means that the thousands who used to cross the border just to work a few months then return are now having no choice but to stay permanently in the US as they can no longer risk crossing the border back and forth. The anti-immigrant forces are in essence contributing to the increasing number of illegal immigrants permanently residing in the US by their “enforcement only policy”.

Immigration reform would also mean that employers will no longer be able to use the illegal status of their immigrant workers to exploit and underpay them. If Immigrants are paid the same as Americans then the incentive to hire immigrants over Americans would be eliminated.

The many millions who live in the US illegally are likely to remain here no matter what congress decides to do. These immigrants are not going to leave just because the US didn’t pass a law to grant them legal status. Their lives are as such that they have very little choice about where they live. Most are here by necessity and will stay even if their hardships are increased.

It should be clear to most, including Romney, that McCain’s efforts on immigration are honorable and necessary.

The latest attack ads by Romney is further proof that he would do and say anything to be elected. I think he would even switch to the Democratic Party if he thought it would help him get elected.

Turkish attacks in Northern Iraq

The Turkish military was on the brink of initiating a full scale military operation in Northern Iraq back in October but appeared to back down as a result of intense US diplomatic interventions. The visible US concessions to the Turks were that the Armenian genocide resolutions in the US house of representatives was scraped and the US declared the Kurdish enemies of Turkey as enemies of the United States. Aside from the situation in Iraq, the military which represents the secular political power in Turkey was on the brink of yet another military coup to stave off the growing Islamist political power in government. The Europeans applied pressure to prevent that intervention and so the new, ex-Islamist, Turkish president was sworn in despite the objections of the military.

The ex-Islamists in charge of the current Turkish government counted their blessings as the soldiers stayed in their barracks but there is an undeniable sense of urgency on their part to show unconditional support for the military establishment when it comes to attacking the Kurdish rebels. This appeasement phase by the Islamists in Turkey means that the military has a free hand in Northern Iraq as long as they can convince the US to allow operations there.

The recent smaller scale Turkish military operations in Northern Iraq seem to indicate that a deal was struck, back in October, with the US to allow just such operations both for security reasons and to allow the Turkish military to save face and continue to appear relevant in Turkish politics. A show of power by the Turkish military is needed after the events of 2007. Any legitimate oppositions to such operation on the part of the Turkish civilian government would be seen as unpatriotic and give the Turkish seculars an excuse to use the military to oust the Islamists in control of government in Ankara.

We should expect continued Turkish military operations for some time to come but the question now is: how long would can Iraqi politicians turn a blind eye for such operations? The Iraqi military and government view such operations as a violation of Iraqi sovereignty regardless of who is being targeted. The Iraqi Kurds also see these operations as the first indicators that the alliance with the United States has its limits and the Kurds could potentially be sold out if the political and military fortunes change. They are sensitive to this as every Alley they ever had eventually shifted alliance sooner or later through out their history.

The ultimate solution for all would be to come to a political settlement between the Turks and their own Turkish minority (including the rebels). The obstacles to the political settlement include the hard line Kurdish rebels who see independence as the only solution, and on the other side, the Turkish ultra nationalists in the military apparatus who see any negotiations with Kurds as treasonous and a clear threat to the territorial integrity of Turkey.

Below is an excerpt from "Iraq decoded" about the Kurdistan region written in Dec. 2006.(Photos and maps not included here)

Chapter 9. Kurds and Kurdistan

Iraqi Kurds and their politics are probably the most difficult for outsiders to decipher. Most people, including those in the region, know very little about their politics, so Americans can feel better about their less-than-complete understanding of Kurdish issues. Many Americans may be surprised to know that Kurds are mostly Sunni. They are, of course, allied with the Iraqi Shiite Arabs who are, in turn, allied with Iran who is opposed to Kurdish independence or stronger autonomy. The Shiites and the Kurds are unified by their historical suffering under Saddam’s regime, which was supported mostly by the minority Sunni Arab population.

It is important to realize that the Kurds reside in four countries as a significant minority: Iran, Iraq, Turkey, and Syria. This has made it impossible for them to gain autonomous rule or even equal rights in any of them. Such rights in any of these countries are viewed by regional governments as bad precedents which could threaten their territorial integrity. Iran is not only against Kurdish autonomy in Iran, but is also against Kurdish autonomy in Iraq. They consider the latter to be the first step in empowering the Kurds with more rights across the borders. Each of these four countries feels that their own Kurdish minority would demand the same rights afforded the Kurds in the neighboring countries. This has lead to a cycle of interference across borders and a divide-and-concur policy being taken by all sides.

For decades, the Iranians have prevented their resident Kurds from gaining autonomy, while at the same time supporting the Iraqi Kurdish independence movement. This support was not intended to allow the Iraqi Kurds to succeed in gaining their independence but, rather, to destabilize Iraq enough to give Iran a strategic advantage. This same strategy was true of the Iraqi government who supported Iranian Kurds against the Iranian regime. This dynamic preceded Khomeini and Saddam, and is almost a tradition in this part of the world. The cross-border assistance for the Kurdish armed movements resulted in a perpetual state of conflict with no one having an interest in a final settlement. Simultaneously, the Iraqi Kurds were constantly fighting each other as they were divided by their various supporters. The only real friends of the Kurds were the rugged Kurdish mountains. They provided safety against the various attacking armies and allowed them to survive Saddam and others.

The conflict between Saddam and the United States presented a historical breakthrough for the Iraqi Kurds. The establishment of the no-fly zone after the first Gulf war and, later, the alliance with the US during the second Gulf war allowed the Iraqi Kurds to achieve an unprecedented level of independence from the Iraqi central government. In fact, they are now a de facto independent state with their own flag, constitution, and government. This was the only true, unconditional assistance the Kurds received from any country. Kurds in Iraq made the best of this American support and turned their region around economically and politically. This Iraqi Kurdish success story, however, presents a constant threat to all the neighboring countries with a Kurdish minority of their own.

Iran is especially concerned not only because it has a large Kurdish minority sitting at the northwestern border with Iraq, but also because it has other minorities including an Arab minority dominating the oil rich province of Khuzestan (previously known as Arabistan during the Qajar and Safavid Persian dynasties). More Kurdish rights in Iran might embolden the Arabs in Iran to demand more rights in Khuzestan. Such a scenario would threaten Iranian strategic interests in this oil-rich region. Other considerations include Iran’s other minorities, including the Sunni Balouchi minority with strong cross-border ties to Pakistan and Afghanistan and the site of a recent attack (Feb. 2007) on Iranian “Basij” forces, who are considered the Islamic regime’s private army.

The Iraqi Shiites, allied with Iran and jealous of Kurdish control of the northern oil field, are also opposed to Iraqi Kurdish independence. The only reason Iraqi Shiites are going along with the federalism idea now is that, in the short run, they will gain more control of the southern oil fields. They are undoubtedly thinking they can deal with Kurdistan later . . . much later, like when the US is completely out of Iraq. The Sunni Arabs in Iraq are also opposed to Kurdish autonomy. They see the Kurdish oil fields as part of their national treasure; any Kurdish autonomy is considered a first step towards the theft of those resources resulting in further isolating the Sunnis in the poorest region of Iraq. The Sunnis may have the desert, but that desert has much less oil in it than the other regions.

The Sunni Arabs also suspect that the Shiite-dominated central government will do little to explore and develop the small oil fields in the Sunni region. It is no surprise that the first forceful voice against the Iraq study group findings and conclusions was the (Kurdish) Iraqi president Mr. Jalal Talebani. He understood the implications of peace with Iran and the impact of pulling American troops out of Iraq—and along with it the American support to the Kurds.

The Kurds are showing signs of wanting even more than autonomy at this stage. With Saddam’s regime toppled and replaced by a weak central government in Baghdad, it is hard to blame them for becoming politically greedy. They are pushing hard to secure a lion’s share of the oil revenues in their own region, raising the stakes for the other Iraqi factions who are already opposed to Kurdish independence. The Kurds have also pushed to turn the idea of Iraqi Federalism into a de facto declaration of independence, promoting a weak central government in Baghdad. This would leave Kurdistan with significant local powers, including their own independent military power. The Kurds retain in active service Iraq’s best trained and most cohesive forces, in the form of the Kurdish Peshmerga militias. Iraqi Kurdish TV stations broadcast Kurdish news and programs to the Kurds across the border making Iranians and Turks very uneasy. Iran and Turkey can no longer move against their own Kurdish minority without attracting the attention of the Iraqi Kurdish media, who would broadcast the Kurdish point of view to the rest of the world.

Ironically, when we speak of democracy, improved human rights, and minority rights in the region, we forget that if the Iraqi Kurds don’t manage their current gains well, they will put at risk the ambitions for equality of all minorities in the region. The problem is that the Iraqi Kurds can now see an easy path to independence—and they might just take it. In so doing, they would give credence to the argument that if minorities are given more rights, they will use them to gain even more independence and perhaps threaten the countries’ territorial integrity.

When John Kerry and Senator Biden commented in 2006 that all options are on the table, including dividing Iraq up into separate regions, they may have failed to realize the true impact of such policies on the entire region or their impact on the path towards freedom and equality for the many minorities there. If a minority is considered by the rest of the country as a threat to national security and territorial integrity, that minority can expect more persecution. Neighboring countries will tighten their grip and the pursuit of freedom and minority rights will suffer a setback for decades. The US policy should first focus on “do no harm,” when it comes to minorities in Iraq. We should also care, because whatever we do in error, will come back and bite us sooner or later. President Bush may be wrong in thinking that democracy can be exported in a neat package. Yet, he would be right in thinking that US military and political actions in the region can promote civil rights trends that would eventually lead to flourishing homegrown democracies. If the US can prove that granting the Iraqi Kurds more rights won’t
result in the disintegration of Iraq, we would then have succeeded in advancing the pursuit of freedom for all minorities in Iraq and the region.

Americans policies in Iraq, regardless of other agendas, should ensure that any support to Iraq and the regional countries is linked to the rights they afford their people, and especially their minorities. There is no better way to ensure civil and human rights for the entire population than to aim to protect its most vulnerable, the minorities. The US itself offers a perfect example of success in that regard. When the civil rights movement succeeded in passing laws protecting
minorities, they impacted the rights of all Americans of all genders, ages, and races. They even helped to reduce the plight of gay Americans years later.

Democracy takes time to fully blossom in a society. Still it needs to be on the right path, with attention paid to the little, seemingly unrelated issues which could have an impact in the long run. Elections are not all a democracy needs; a commitment to minority rights offers the guarantee for the right to cast votes, the right to freedom of speech, and the right to elect local officials.

Iran has held elections for many years. That criterion alone doesn’t constitute a democracy. In fact, the very existence of elections in Iran provides the Iraqis with the wrong example of a democracy. It is actually an illusion of democracy. People outside Iran don’t realize that, while being able to cast their votes, Iranians lack the right to become candidates unless they are vetted by the central government. Iranians can vote, but they can only choose between cleric
number one and cleric number two. There is not a single city in Iran that can elect its own mayor, because that post is considered a threat to central governmental control. Thus, all mayors are appointed by the government in Tehran. In minority cities, voters don’t even get to choose the city name (changed at will by the central government to water down ethnic identities).

These cities’ appointed mayors often come from elsewhere and from a different sect to insure their detachment from the local population. Obviously, if we allow such “little things” to remain uncontested in Iraq, as in Iran, then we are leading the Middle East on a path away from democracy.

We can protect our interests in Iraq while being the nice guys, which includes being tough on our friends like the Kurds if the need arises. Maybe being the nice guy is the only true way left for us to save the situation in Iraq and be able to complete this mission.

When one looks at the long-term picture for the region, it is apparent that the only spot in the Middle East where there is an incentive to welcome US military bases is Iraqi Kurdistan. Such presence would be welcome on a long-term basis and may be considered a Kurdish national security objective. US presence would provide a way for the Kurds to preserve what they gained in political independence and civil rights over the past 15 years as well as a way to inoculate themselves against future attacks by Iran or Turkey. Despite its desperation for such unconditional bases, the US should not miss this opportunity to set long-term conditions with the Kurds for promoting regional stability and fostering democracy. Such conditions would ultimately serve both US and Kurdish long-term strategic interests. Preserving human rights, curbing corruption, integrating militias with the army, and setting limits on the Kurdish independence ambitions would be objectives to consider.

Arrogant political actions in Iraqi Kurdistan will not be tolerated forever. The Iranians and Turks have time on their side and, before they know it, the Kurds will be back where they started. Under the right conditions, the US can have stable bases in the vicinity while pulling out of hot spots in Iraq. We can accomplish that while promoting, on a long-term basis, human rights issues, the rule of law, and democracy in the region.

All this may all be academic as of now, considering that the January 2007 unilateral US military operation against Iranian officials and diplomatic offices in Iraqi Kurdistan has demonstrated a decision-making process that is short-sighted and focuses only on carrying out security operations without any strategic considerations. To the average Kurd, this kind of unilateral action demonstrates that any US presence in Kurdistan will not constitute an allied presence but instead, one of an overseer. The US must begin acting more like an ally and less like a master in Iraq, including in Kurdistan. We can go after the Iranians in Kurdistan if we must, but need to do so with Kurdish blessing or at least last-minute knowledge.

As the US is working on an exit strategy, the old alliances in Kurdistan are reemerging. Any vacuum left by the Americans will leave doors open for these old alliances to reconsolidate and would likely lead to infighting in Kurdistan. All regional powers would benefit from such infighting, including the central government in Iraq. If we are going to change the political and military dynamics in Kurdistan, we need to cultivate an unbreakable strategic alliance, one that
needs to appear to be a partnership. This partnership would be based on mutual respect and national interests versus a master/subservient relationship that would cease as soon as US interests change or the US forces leave.

In the absence of a US stabilizing presence in Kurdistan, it would only be a matter of time before Turkey began conducting military operations in Kurdistan to pursue Kurdish rebels and separatists fighting in southern Turkey or in pursuit of those who support them in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Iranians would do the same, pursuing Iranian Kurdish nationalists and their supporters in Iraq. Historically, both countries have conducted such operations, though these actions were never large-scale due to the balance of powers in place during Saddam’s regime. With a weak Iraqi government and army, such Turkish or Iranian incursions in Iraq would go unchecked and potentially escalate into a much larger conflict than previously witnessed. The absence of intrinsic or political factors limiting the scope and duration of such operations would destabilize the entire region. Ultimately, if left unchecked, this situation would become unpredictable and could, at the very least, stop the flow of oil from that region.

Politically, this scenario could beget endless infighting and outside political interference from regional powers. Further, the Kurdish people would continue to suffer in Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. Again, it is in the US national best interest to stay in Kurdistan as much as it behooves the Kurdish national interest. Over time, the US presence will encourage dialogue and promote political solutions for the Kurdish problems in all regional countries, as it would eliminate the need for regional military intervention as a means to subdue the Kurds. The people of the Middle East also stand to benefit: policies and laws designed to protect minorities will also protect individual rights for all citizens. Even the Turks can benefit from such a US strategy in Kurdistan; they would be motivated to reach a political settlement with their own Kurdish minority and militias. In doing so, the Turks can improve their human rights record and public image, a first real step towards aEuropean Union membership . . . a goal supported by the United States.

Iraqi refugees returning to Iraq...A sign of success?

The news of Iraqi refugees returning to Iraq from Syria is being reported as a sign of reduced violence and increased public confidence in the Iraqi security forces. There are reasons for optimism in Iraq but I am not sure that the return of the refugees is such a great sign of security success. If the mainstream media were to invest an hour or so researching this topic, they might come across the fact the Syrian government has introduced new visa rules for the Iraqis that make it impossible for them to stay in Syria. With no where to go and no ability to stay the Iraqis are simply choosing to leave before they get deported. The Syrians now require an entry visas for new comers. Those who need their stay permit renewed need to return to Iraq in order to obtain a visa to re-enter Syria.

Like everything else in Iraq, the headlines don't tell the whole story, or even the real story. If we can take a breather from celebrating the refugees' return for a second maybe we can then see the dynamics in play here and start planning for the likely, and imminent, influx of refugees to Turkey, as it is the obvious path of least resistance for Iraqi refugees from this point on.

The return of refugees in such a haste may also result in their segregation by sect for the near future as they are often unable to return to their old neighborhoods due to continued security concerns in most areas. The government of Iraq will also have to manage squatters who took over many of the abandoned homes leaving the refugees with no home to return to. This is but a few of the many refugee issues that demand our attention. Valuable time is being wasted in spinning the news and declaring the refugees' return as an indisputable sign of improved security in Iraq--Improved security in Iraq is but one element in all this. Time will tell if any improvement in security is sustainable enough to prevent more refugees from leaving Baghdad and other hot spots again.

Below is an except from "Iraq decoded" that relate to the refugee issue (written in December of 2006):

Chapter 26. Iraqi refugees,a political gold mine

According to data from the UN’s High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in 2006_, more than two million Iraqi refugees languish in neighboring countries. This illustrates the fact that the suffering of the Iraqi people extends beyond Iraq itself. Sadly, these refugees are not visible on the radar screens of the policy makers or the US public. Iraqi governmental interest in these refugees is limited to security concerns; it routinely tries to secure the cooperation of neighboring governments to extradite dissidents and insurgence elements or, at least, limit their activities abroad. The US has allowed less than 500 Iraqis to be resettled in the US as of early 2007. The Syrians issue “stay permits” to Iraqis which need to be extended every few months to avoid deportation. The neighboring Arab and Muslim countries don’t seem to care enough to include any assistance for these refugees in their national budgets. This is despite these governments’ frequent expressions of sympathy for the Iraqi people and their stated concerns about the plight of the Iraqi people.
The Syrians are to be given $9,000,000 by UNHCR in 2007 to help with the one million Iraqi refugees there. While nine million dollars may sound like a goodly sum, it amounts to support of a mere $9 per person per year. The Iraqi government cancelled all old Iraqi passports for security reasons, so these Iraqi refugees are struggling to maintain their legal status abroad. Refugees had limited success obtaining new Iraqi passports in order to be able to apply for visas and then move on to Europe or other countries. Even when they attain proper passports, these Iraqis are routinely refused travel visas. It is a life of uncertainty coupled with feelings of abandonment.
This constitutes a humanitarian as well as a social disaster for these Iraqis, mostly middle class, who had the common sense and the ability to extract their families from the daily violence of Iraq. The future and fate of these Iraqis should matter to the US administration. Vulnerable and helpless, whoever comes to their assistance and appears to care, including the US, will be recognized and thanked for years to come—within and outside Iraq. This is a situation where doing the right thing would benefit everyone.
For a smart administration, it constitutes a political goldmine, especially when it relates to the Iraqi refugees in Syria. The US would be able to openly hold public talks and communications with Syria regarding these Iraqi refugees, without having to make any policy changes towards Syria itself. Any US humanitarian assistance would be appreciated by both the Syrians and the common Iraqis. Such assistance would be seen as an act of kindness, one with no immediate ulterior motives or hidden agendas. Provided that such US efforts are public and sincerely meaningful, they would go a long way towards rehabilitating the US image in the region.
A symbolic, low-key meeting behind closed doors to express concern is not what is needed here. A full-scale US bona fide effort focusing on tangible results is what is needed. With US persuasion, the Iraqi government should be encouraged to participate in assisting its citizens in Syria. This could be accomplished by giving the Syrians free oil via its old, unused oil pipe line to
Syria. That may seem to be a waste of desperately needed money, perhaps even an aid to a hostile government, though if done properly, it can have many benefits for the US. It would obviously generate goodwill towards the Iraqi government with the primarily Sunni Iraqi refugees. It would also deter any sabotage against the oil pipeline. To damage that pipeline would be to impair Iraqi refugee assistance efforts; it would serve to assist in shifting Sunni Iraqi public sentiment towards support of more such attacks in the hostile western region of Iraq. Ideally, the Syrians will use this oil to improve care for the Iraqi refugees and would be more likely to cooperate with the Iraqi and US government on future security issues.
The resumption or eventual increase in the flow of oil from Iraq to Syria could become the first step in weaning Syria from its dependence on Iranian oil and assistance. It could help to cultivate closer ties between Syria and Iraq and its US ally. Eventually, this could have the effect of increasing US political and economic influence over Syria.
The US could also come to the aid of Iraqi refugees in Jordan. A fringe benefit of doing so would be the impression it would give the Jordanians and the Palestinians (50% of the population) living in Jordan. Such assistance would be viewed as unexpected acts of kindness, not to be forgotten.
Many of these refugees will eventually return to Iraq. As they do so, they would carry with them a positive image of the US based on their own personal experience. This could be priceless for the US when it comes to repairing its tarnished image in Iraq and maintaining US influence there.
From a humanitarian standpoint, the US should feel a moral obligation to help these refugees, especially as it was US intervention in Iraq that indirectly resulted in the positions these Iraqi families are in today. We can do the right thing and genuinely help the Iraqi refugees, knowing that, politically speaking, no good deed will go unrewarded.

McCain! You're killing me!

I happen to be in the unenviable position of thinking that Senator McCain is the best choice for president of the United States at this juncture. He is probably not going to be president, however, due to, in no Small part, to his own efforts. Everybody know that he needs to pander to the extreme right in order to pass the hurdle of the Republican primary, but he is taking it so far that he is becoming unelectable even in the eyes of right wing Republicans. He looks like he badly needs the presidency, rather than wanting to be president.
His advisers seem oblivious to the fact that both Republicans and Democrats all want an end to the Iraq war in their life time, and so when he the Senator comes across as pro-war no matter what it hurts his electability with both party electorates. Even for supporters, like me, it is becoming worrisome when McCain doesn't distinguish himself from president Bush when it comes to Iraq. There is nothing wrong with qualifying the Senator's support for the war by declaring that he wants the US out of Iraq but he'll do it in a manner that protects US interests and the territorial integrity of Iraq. I personally hope that Mr. McCain doesn't really believe that having 500,000 troops in Iraq would solve the problem; if he does then maybe it's a good thing that he doesn't stand a chance at this point.
If I were the senator's advisor I would advise him to do the following:
-To come to peace with the possibility that he won't be the next president of the United States as it is detrimental to his cause to appear to want the presidency at all cost.
-Support the efforts in Iraq by saying that we he is not in support for immediate withdrawal from Iraq but he does not support turning Iraq into another de facto US territory and is in favor of calculated withdrawal with continued support for our allies in Iraq post withdrawal.
-To continue his anti-torture stance but clearly state that the United States can never guarantee 100% security for its citizens even with torture. The United States, more than ever, needs to make a stance against the forces of hatred and blind revenge within and without. The best chance the US has against terrorism is when it stands for its ideals and principles without giving in to the temptation to hate back and take revenge.
-Declare that the US economic recovery is dependent on US efforts to support peace in the world and mutual peaceful coexistence.
-Talk about how Democratic candidates, if elected, are likely to adopt an aggressive posture in Iraq in order to demonstrate their toughness against terrorism, and that Senator McCain is the best candidate, as a war hero, to make the right decisions in Iraq without worrying about being called a coward if he pulls out of Iraq.
I hope Senator McCain would heed the advice and go on to be the next president of the United States.

Jabbar Fazeli, MD
Author, Iraq Decoded