my blog making news…..

http://www.nysun.com/foreign/un-ambassador-cuts-vacation-short-amid-memo-flap/84873/

U.N. Ambassador Cuts Vacation Short Amid Memo Flap
By BENNY AVNI,
Staff Reporter of the Sun
August 29, 2008

UNITED NATIONS — The American ambassador to the United Nations, Zalmay Khalilzad, is cutting his vacation short and is due to return home on Monday night, after a leaked State Department memorandum raised questions about his methods of work, which many U.N. diplomats fondly call his “independent streak” but which have angered some of his colleagues in the Bush administration.

U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Zalmay Khalilzad speaks to the press outside of the United Nations Security Council August 11, 2008 in New York City. As State Department officials questioned whether Mr. Khalilzad’s communications with a top Pakistani politician, Asif Ali Zardari, were authorized by policymakers, the ambassador decided to end his vacation in Europe early. He will return to New York on Monday night, according to a State Department official who confirmed a Web log entry posted yesterday by the spokesman for the American mission, Richard Grenell.

“We were told yesterday that ambassador Khalilzad will come back home earlier than expected from his vacation — I am sure he will be confronted with more erroneous assumptions from reporters who don’t bother checking the facts,” Mr. Grenell wrote at http://www.richardgrenell.com/, where he took issue with some reporting on the memorandum, which first appeared on Monday in an article in the New York Times.

“Ambassador Khalilzad is in constant touch with the State Department,” Mr. Grenell told The New York Sun yesterday. “He knows and delivers the policies of the United States.”
President Bush and Secretary of State Rice “value his counsel,” a State Department spokesman, Robert Wood, said earlier this week, adding, “Ms. Rice has full confidence in Ambassador Khalilzad.”

“Khalilzad knows many people,” the Pakistani ambassador to the United Nations, Munir Akram, said. Like many diplomats here, Mr. Akram sought to avoid speaking extensively on the topic, which is a sensitive one in Washington and Islamabad. Diplomats rushed to defend Mr. Khalilzad, who is popular among many U.N. ambassadors, including some who have serious policy differences with America.

The Times article apparently touched a nerve in Washington and according to several sources was the top item on the agenda of the White House staff meeting on Tuesday.
State Department officials, including Deputy Secretary John Negroponte, are said to be miffed about Mr. Khalilzad’s consultations with Mr. Zardari, a pro-Western politician vying for the Pakistani presidency amid a major upheaval in the country, which began when a former prime minister — and Mr. Zardari’s wife — Benazir Bhutto, was assassinated in December.
A memorandum written by the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, Richard Boucher, referred to extensive recent phone conversations between Messrs. Khalilzad and Zardari. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Mr. Boucher wrote in the memo.

copy and paste journalism…..

the new york times ran a front page story this morning about my boss, the u.s. ambassador to the united nations zalmay khalilzad, and his ties to the guy running for president of pakistan (see story in blog below). the times had been working on the story with multiple journalists for several days…..you can imagine my surprise when i arrived into work this morning to see that bloomberg news had cut and pasted the nytimes story into a bloomberg news wire story – running it as their own but crediting the nytimes sources. bloomberg news was even quoting me even though no one from bloomberg had ever called.

i called the international news editor, edward demarco, to complain. to my shock he said “oh, yeah – we ran a lift from the new york times”. i thought, “a lift”? there is a whole terminology to plagerism and lazy journalism??

as edward at bloomberg news explained it to me, they rountinely go through “credible news papers like the new york times and the washington post” to lift stories they missed. they just cut and paste – - no questions asked.

i couldn’t believe they did it let alone admitted it.

i guess i am just learning that reporters copy other reporters when they didn’t have time to do their own research……

if they were in any other profession they would be fired for plagiarism. remember joe biden’s speech in 1988?

Grenell comments on pakistan/u.s. relations

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/26/washington/26diplo.html?_r=1&scp=10&sq=pakistan&st=cse&oref=slogin

August 26, 2008
U.N. Envoy’s Ties to Pakistani Are Questioned
By HELENE COOPER and MARK MAZZETTI
WASHINGTON — Zalmay Khalilzad, the American ambassador to the United Nations, is facing angry questions from other senior Bush administration officials over what they describe as unauthorized contacts with Asif Ali Zardari, a contender to succeed Pervez Musharraf as president of Pakistan.
Mr. Khalilzad had spoken by telephone with Mr. Zardari, the leader of the Pakistan Peoples Party, several times a week for the past month until he was confronted about the unauthorized contacts, a senior United States official said. Other officials said Mr. Khalilzad had planned to meet with Mr. Zardari privately next Tuesday while on vacation in Dubai, in a session that was canceled only after Richard A. Boucher, the assistant secretary of state for South Asia, learned from Mr. Zardari himself that the ambassador was providing “advice and help.”
“Can I ask what sort of ‘advice and help’ you are providing?” Mr. Boucher wrote in an angry e-mail message to Mr. Khalilzad. “What sort of channel is this? Governmental, private, personnel?” Copies of the message were sent to others at the highest levels of the State Department; the message was provided to The New York Times by an administration official who had received a copy.
Officially, the United States has remained neutral in the contest to succeed Mr. Musharraf, and there is concern within the State Department that the discussions between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, could leave the impression that the United States is taking sides in Pakistan’s already chaotic internal politics.
Mr. Khalilzad also had a close relationship with Ms. Bhutto, flying with her last summer on a private jet to a policy gathering in Aspen, Colo. Ms. Bhutto was assassinated in Pakistan in December.
The conduct by Mr. Khalilzad, who is Afghan by birth, has also raised hackles because of speculation that he might seek to succeed Hamid Karzai as president of Afghanistan. Mr. Khalilzad, who was the Bush administration’s first ambassador to Afghanistan, has also kept in close contact with Afghan officials, angering William Wood, the current American ambassador, said officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly on the matter of Mr. Khalilzad’s contacts. Mr. Khalilzad has said he has no plans to seek the Afghan presidency.
Through his spokesman, he said he had been friends with Mr. Zardari for years. “Ambassador Khalilzad had planned to meet socially with Zardari during his personal vacation,” said Richard A. Grenell, the spokesman for the United States Mission to the United Nations. “But because Zardari is now a presidential candidate, Ambassador Khalilzad postponed the meeting, after consulting with senior State Department officials and Zardari himself.”
A senior American official said that Mr. Khalilzad had been advised to “stop speaking freely” to Mr. Zardari, and that it was not clear whether he would face any disciplinary action.
In 1979, Andrew Young was forced to resign as the American ambassador to the United Nations over his unauthorized contacts with the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Administration officials described John D. Negroponte, the deputy secretary of state, and Mr. Boucher as angry over the conduct of Mr. Khalilzad because as United Nations ambassador he has no direct responsibility for American relations with Pakistan. Those dealings have been handled principally by Mr. Negroponte, Mr. Boucher and Anne W. Patterson, the American ambassador to Pakistan. Mr. Negroponte previously was the United Nations ambassador, and Ms. Patterson the acting ambassador.
“Why do I have to learn about this from Asif after it’s all set up?” Mr. Boucher wrote in the Aug. 18 message, referring to the planned Dubai meeting with Mr. Zardari. “We have maintained a public line that we are not involved in the politics or the details. We are merely keeping in touch with the parties. Can I say that honestly if you’re providing ‘advice and help’? Please advise and help me so that I understand what’s going on here.”
This is not the first time Mr. Khalilzad has gotten into trouble for unauthorized contacts. In January, White House officials expressed anger about an unauthorized appearance in which Mr. Khalilzad sat beside the Iranian foreign minister at a panel of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. The United States does not have diplomatic relations with Iran, and a request from Mr. Khalilzad to be part of the United States delegation to Davos had been turned down by officials at the State Department and the White House, a senior administration official said.
Richard C. Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the United Nations under President Clinton, said the administration was sending conflicting signals. “It is not possible to conduct coherent foreign policy if senior officials are freelancing,” he said.
It has long been known that Mr. Zardari, who has been locked in a power struggle with Mr. Musharraf and Nawaz Sharif, a former prime minister whose party left the governing coalition on Monday, planned to run for president, administration officials and foreign policy experts said.
“I know that Zardari’s interest in becoming president has been clear for quite some time,” said Teresita C. Schaffer, a Pakistan expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
The Bush administration has long been uneasy with the idea of Mr. Sharif as a potential leader of Pakistan, and now that Mr. Musharraf is out of the picture, the administration, despite public protestation of neutrality, is seeking another ally.
“It distresses me that the U.S. government has not learned yet that having ‘our guy’ is not a winning strategy in Pakistan,” Ms. Schaffer said. “Whoever ‘our guy’ is isn’t going to be the only guy in town, and if we go into it with that view, we’ll bump up against a lot of other guys in Pakistan.”
A senior Pakistani official said that the relationship between Mr. Khalilzad and Mr. Zardari went back several years, and that the men developed a friendship while Mr. Zardari was spending time in New York with Ms. Bhutto.
The Pakistani official said the consultations between the men were an open exchange of information, with each one giving insight into the political landscape in his capital.
“Mr. Khalilzad, being a political animal, understood the value of reaching out to Pakistan’s political leadership long before the bureaucrats at the State Department realized this would be useful at a future date,” the official said. The ambassador “did not make policy or change policy, he just became an alternate channel,” the official said.
Of Mr. Khalilzad’s Pakistan contacts, Sean I. McCormack, the State Department spokesman, said, “Our very clear policy is that the Pakistanis have to work out any domestic political questions for themselves.” Gordon D. Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said, “The Pakistani elections are an internal matter for the Pakistani people.”
Helene Cooper reported from Washington, and Mark Mazzetti from New York.

this is unbelievable…..but typical

did you see this story? after 10 months of hearing about john edwards’ affair, the national media finally got around to doing the story when edwards admitted it! how can the editors at the new york times and the washington post justify this?? the new york times ran a frontpage story roughly 6 months ago claiming to have proof that john mccain was having an affair – and when the story ran – there was no hard evidence but anonymous sources saying it was so. so what gives when there are rumors that john edwards was having an affair? why not investigate even? could it be that the editors of the new york times are all partisan democrats? you can’t make this stuff up! combine the clear editorial bias with the snooty east coast attitude of looking down on tabloids and you have the reason for 10 months of silence…..read below:

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB121841411983828503.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_leftbox

Mainstream Media Notes Enquirer Scoop
By RUSSELL ADAMS and SHIRA OVIDE
August 11, 2008
Page B7
For most of the 10 months since allegations of former Sen. John Edwards’s extramarital affair appeared in the National Enquirer, the story was marginalized, partly because much of the media has a dismissive attitude toward the publication that broke it.
They ignored the story at their peril, forgetting that amid the unflattering celebrity photos and overblown headlines, the Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid owned by publisher American Media Inc. has a track record of scoops, including some about politics. And this time it found an unlikely ally: a group of Internet voices driven less by political ideology than by a view of the mainstream press as out of touch. The Enquirer, a supermarket tabloid, has a track record of scoops, including some about politics, and has at times forced the mainstream press to play catch-up.
The Enquirer, which has been reporting the story for nearly a year and which first published it last October, was vindicated Friday when Mr. Edwards admitted to the affair to Walt Disney Co.’s ABC News. (Mr. Edwards has denied other elements of the Enquirer’s reports, including that he is the father of the woman’s child.) News of the former Democratic senator’s admission subsequently was splashed across most major newspapers. It was the first time many of those publications, including The Wall Street Journal, had weighed in on the topic.
Not so in the blogosphere, where a stable of voices on sites such as Washington Post Co.’s Slate, Huffington Post and Drudge Report had recognized the possibility that the story might be true and questioned the old guard’s inaction. Unlike previous scandals fueled by partisan politics, this one blurred political lines. It was the left-leaning Huffington Post that began investigating the relationship between Mr. Edwards and the woman, Rielle Hunter, around the time the first Enquirer story was published last year.
“New media really helped keep this story alive,” the Enquirer’s Editor in Chief David Perel said. He added that the online voices that propagated the story aren’t as willing to dismiss the Enquirer’s story as “tabloid trash,” as Mr. Edwards is.
Traditional media’s late arrival to the Edwards story stemmed in part from skepticism about the Enquirer, which isn’t taken seriously as a Washington opinion-maker. Indeed, the Edwards news didn’t even get top placement on the cover of the latest issue.
Still, the Enquirer has at times forced the mainstream press to play catch-up, even in the political field typically dominated by more established media outlets. It was the first publication to unearth a photo of Donna Rice sitting on the lap of then-presidential candidate Gary Hart, who was forced to drop out of the 1988 presidential race.
Of course, the paper pays for many of its headline-grabbing interviews and it has had to settle numerous lawsuits, two factors that often have cast doubt on its credibility. In 2004 American Media settled a lawsuit with former U.S. Congressman Gary Condit over stories linking him to the disappearance and death of Chandra Levy.
John Drescher, executive editor of the News & Observer, said the Enquirer’s mixed track record gave him pause. The Raleigh paper had reporters tracking the Edwards story for months, but it and fellow McClatchy Co. paper the Charlotte Observer only began publishing their accounts ten days ago, when editors were satisfied they had confirmed the events to their satisfaction. “The way we treated it was as a tip, but there’s no question that we treated it differently because it was in the Enquirer,” Mr. Drescher said. “I think that’s appropriate.”
The Enquirer makes no apologies for its tactics, including the practice of paying sources, even splashing “We’ll pay big for your celebrity gossip” across its pages every week. It paid a source in reporting the John Edwards story, said David Pecker, American Media’s chairman and chief executive.
The Enquirer’s weekly circulation of just more than one million, while robust, is a long fall from its 1970s peak of more than five-million copies, reflecting the challenge of staying relevant at a time when celebrity coverage has gone mainstream.
And while ad pages are up at many of its publications, the Boca Raton, Fla.-based publisher faces a tough road financially. It said in its latest securities filing in June that if it doesn’t refinance at least $389.5 million of debt by Feb. 1, “we may have to liquidate assets, seek protection from creditors or may be unable to continue as a going concern.”

after the media storm…

the new york times story on my boss’ relationship with pakistani presidential candidate zardari certainly caused a plethora of media calls over the last few days. the washington post followed the story the next day and so the calls continued to come in thru the next days’ news cycle. i was surprised that it was such a big deal, especially during a democratic convention. the new york times even ran it on the frontpage of the paper and above the fold!

the news media outlets who assigned reporters to the story were from around the world not just from the united states and pakistan. it is amazing how many reporters just follow the new york times and never really check out the facts for themselves. bloomberg news just ran the story without even calling us, and a number of other reporters called to ask for “the statement that was issued” rather than to ask if the story was true or not….after explaining that there was no statement issued they seemed puzzeled – they all just believe the new york times story as fact and never really challenge it. amazing.

there were also some good reporters who called to inquire about the “charge” in the new york times. we were impressed by those reporters because they seemed to start from the premise that the new york times story was an issue they should inquire aboout but not necessarily believe right away. i think that is a quality that a good reporter should have. unfortunately, it wasn’t the quality that a majority of the callers had. most reporters just ran with the story and re-told it without checking the facts.

the calls have mostly died down now – today the security council takes up the issue of russia/georgia and so most reporters are calling regarding the meeting and what to expect. i did receive a call from jasper at “foresight news” who said “i saw the new york times story and am wondering where the meeting between zardari and khalilzad will take place in dubai”? i wasn’t surprised. here was a jornalist calling about the story in the new york times but he hadn’t even read the story to know that it was about a cancelled meeting between the two!

we were told yesterday that ambassador khalilzad will come back home earlier than expected from his vacation – i am sure he will be confronted with more errorneous assumptions from reporters who don’t bother checking the facts.

profile of richard grenell

http://newsmax.com/kessler/Richard_Grenell_at_un/2008/08/11/119512.html

U.S. Spokesman at the U.N. Makes His Mark
Monday, August 11, 2008 2:35 PM
By: Ronald Kessler

In February 2006, both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times ran editorials saying that John Bolton, America’s ambassador to the United Nations, was right to reject sham proposals to reform the United Nations Human Rights Commission.
Noting that some of the world’s most abusive regimes hold seats on it, the Times called the commission “disgraceful.”
The paper even applauded Bolton’s refusal to go along with a “shameful charade” to make cosmetic changes in the commission.
The New York Times is normally a cheerleader for the United Nations and a critic of the Bush administration, not to mention then U.S. Ambassador John Bolton.
“It was a coup for Ric Grenell,” says Maggie Farley, who covers the United Nations as bureau chief for the Los Angeles Times.
Since 2001, Grenell has been the U.S. spokesman at the United Nations, a position officially called “director of communications and public diplomacy for the U.S. permanent representative to the United Nations.”
“He had both The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times saying that Bolton was right and Secretary General Kofi Annan was wrong,” Farley recalled, noting his ability to reach out to the media.
Working Behind the Scenes
Grenell is a not exactly a household name; he stays in the background and works diligently behind the scenes to make his bosses look good as he promotes and protects America’s reputation. The longest-serving U.N. spokesman, Grenell has advised four U.S. ambassadors — John D. Negroponte, John C. Danforth, John R. Bolton, and Zalmay Khalilzad the current U.S. ambassador — on the formulation and articulation of U.S. policy at the United Nations.
Grenell has a no-nonsense approach – he quickly responds to attacks against the United States. That has raised some hackles among reporters who see the United Nations as a perfect launch pad for anti-American diatribes.
Still, many of the most respected reporters who cover the United Nations and State Department view him as a breath of fresh air who makes their jobs easier while getting the U.S. message out to the world. In that respect, many of them say, the White House press office could take a few lessons from Grenell.
Few outside the media grasp how much a good public relations person can shape coverage. Reporters are human, and if they are given respect and attention, they are more likely to be open to the official line. If they are ignored or simply “fed” a story, they often take it out on the agency or person they are covering.
“Ric Grenell is one of the sharpest press officers I’ve dealt with,” James Rosen, Washington correspondent for Fox News, tells Newsmax.
“He knows the policy underlying the talking points, the personalities, and the issues. He also understands the black-is-white, up-is-down bizarro world that the United Nations can sometimes become. Ric can be exceptionally helpful to an honest reporter — when he wants to be . . .
“The U.S. government is lucky to have him.”
Grenell looks younger than his 41 years. He’s articulate, well dressed, and comes across as poised as a veteran politician. In fact, before arriving at the United Nations, Grenell earned his stripes in the political world.
He worked on several political campaigns, then served as press secretary on Capitol Hill to then Congressman Mark Sanford — who went on to become South Carolina’s governor — and Congressman Dave Camp of Michigan.
From Washington he moved on to Albany and served as a spokesman for New York Gov. George Pataki. Later he joined San Diego Mayor Susan Golding as her press secretary.
Despite his media background, Grenell said dealing with the press at the United Nations offered different challenges.
“The U.N. press corps viewed themselves as international civil servants,” Grenell told Newsmax. “They certainly were journalists, but they viewed themselves differently than the press corps of Washington. They saw themselves as helping the world’s poor and needy. They were friends with Secretary General Kofi Annan, and they felt it was their job to trumpet the obscure reports produced by him and the U.N. They weren’t, for example, looking at how the billions of dollars were spent at the U.N.”
As aggressive reporters for Fox News, The New York Sun, and a few other news outlets arrived on the scene, “The press corps began to have a fight among themselves,” Grenell remembers.
“The old deans of the U.N. press corps immediately started talking loudly about those who were rocking the boat. And what really irritated me at this point was those old deans of the press corps not only were upset that people were rocking the boat and doing stories that they weren’t supposed to do, but they dismissed these people as not really true journalists. It was that elitist attitude of, You just don’t know the world, and we do.”
So, Grenell says, he focused on helping “those journalists who wanted to act like journalists.”
Instead of deferring to The New York Times and Washington Post, Grenell began pushing his staff to go online, blog, start MySpace and Facebook pages, and reach out to the new media.
“I’m not from the East Coast, and I don’t think like an East Coast press person,” Grenell says. “I don’t naturally think The Washington Post and New York Times are the be-all, end-all. I understand it’s all about digital media.”
Farley of the Los Angeles Times confirms, “Ric was very aware of the online presence of new media like The Huffington Post and Slate, and he made sure the news was accessible to them.”
Normally, government spokesmen confine themselves to passively working with the daily press. But Grenell made a point of reaching out to editorial writers, including those at The New York Times.
“I was doing monthly editorial writers’ calls with our ambassador to update the editorial writers, even at medium-size papers,” Grenell says. “When you have a conference call with the ambassador to the U.N., these people get very connected into what we are doing.”
At least once a week, Grenell checks in with two editorial writers at The New York Times. Such proactive work often pays dividends, as it did when the Times ran its Feb. 26, 2006 editorial, “The Shame of the United Nations.”
“When it comes to reforming the disgraceful United Nations Human Rights Commission,” the editorial said, “America’s ambassador, John Bolton, is right; Secretary General Kofi Annan is wrong.”
“Nobody could believe it,” recalls Farley.
Receptive to All Press Reps
Keeping in mind the need to convey to the rest of the world what America stands for, especially in the wake of Sept. 11, Grenell has cultivated the Arab press.
“All of the Arab bureau chiefs are integral to what we are doing here at the U.S. mission, and so I befriended them and really reached out to them, socialized with them,” Grenell says.
“I joined them on domestic trips sponsored by the State Department, so that I could encourage these Arab journalists to see more of America and understand that America is more than just Washington and New York.”
Grenell took them not only to Chicago, Denver, and Kansas City, but also to Las Vegas.
“Ric strongly defended his government’s position but always gave me the informational tools I needed to build a comprehensive and meaningful picture of that position for my audience,” says Abderrahim Foukara, bureau chief of Al-Jazeera Satellite Channel.
“On many occasions, he arranged for me to hear that position from the horse’s mouth, in one-on-ones with those representatives, whatever the issues may have been. This is extremely significant in light of the difficulty that some of my colleagues experienced in getting that kind of access to people and information in Washington.”
Raghida Dergham, senior diplomatic correspondent at the pan-Arab newspaper Al-Hayat, says she never felt like a second-class citizen because her publication is not American.
“Ric Grenell changed the tier system and understood that he served American policies best at the U.N. though dealing with the international press as equal to the American press,” she says.
Grenell uses the carrot and the stick: If he feels certain reporters are not interested in doing an honest story, he shuns them.
“When we’re dealing with reporters who are biased from the beginning, and who don’t allow us to speak our mind and explain our policies, then that’s a vicious cycle,” Grenell says.
And if a reporter gets a story wrong, he tells him.
“I fully believe that it is my job to follow the story to the end,” Grenell says. “If a reporter writes a story that is erroneous, I feel that it is my responsibility to the public to correct the record as much as possible.”
Grenell says his job is to get the story out; he only has a limited number of ways to do that.
“I ask myself every day, ‘Am I getting the story out? Am I explaining our policy enough?’” he says.
As noted in the Newsmax story “Dana Perino: Press Job Like Herding Cattle,” President Bush’s approach is to present his message publicly in speeches and press conferences. Bush believes this approach minimizes leaks.
When it comes to the press, the White House has been known as a buttoned-down operation, often unwilling to feed the media even harmless tidbits that would make their stories more colorful and help to tame snarky reporters.
If Grenell differs in his approach from the more traditional White House press operation, that has not raised eyebrows at the White House.
“They recognize that New York is a different place and that the U.N. press corps is a huge challenge,” he says, “so they have given me a long leash.”
Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of Newsmax.com.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Grenell on iran

http://www.ledger-enquirer.com/news/photos/story/389712.html

Sanctions may be in store if Iran rebuffs nuclear offer
By WARREN P. STROBEL
WASHINGTON
The United States and Europe are poised to seek harsher U.N. financial sanctions against Iran if it fails to meet this weekend’s deadline to accept an international offer of negotiations in exchange for freezing its nuclear program, diplomats said Friday.
It’s uncertain how, or even whether, Iran will formally respond to the offer. Authorities in Tehran have given no sign that they’re willing to accept the offer of a “freeze for a freeze” – to cap Iran’s uranium enrichment at current levels in exchange for a moratorium on further sanctions against it.
A snub by Iran could open a new chapter in the long-running confrontation as President Bush enters his final months in office. While diplomats plan to push for new sanctions, Israel’s leaders and Bush administration hawks, led by Vice President Dick Cheney, argue that military strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities must be considered.
“It’s clear (Iran) has not complied with the international community’s demand to stop enriching uranium. We, the United States, will work with our allies to come up with another resolution in the Security Council,” Richard Grenell, a spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations, told McClatchy.
What new sanctions will be sought hasn’t yet been decided, U.S. and European officials said. In the past, it’s sometimes taken months to get agreement on new U.N. action from China and Russia, who are unenthusiastic about sanctions.
But one idea under discussion is to target Iran’s reliance on imported gasoline and other petroleum products. Despite its vast oil reserves, Iran lacks refining capacity and imports much of its gasoline. Sanctions could target shipping directly or dissuade insurers from insuring shipments to Iran.
The idea has the backing of some Israeli and U.S. officials but is controversial, because it could hurt Iran’s citizens as much as it would their leaders.
The international community offered the “freeze for a freeze” to Iran two weeks ago at a Geneva meeting in which a senior U.S. diplomat, Undersecretary of State William Burns, was present for nuclear talks for the first time.
Britain, China, France, Germany, Russia and the United States offered to suspend consideration of further sanctions for six weeks in return for Iran not expanding its enrichment of uranium that can be used for nuclear weapons.
Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said this week that the country wouldn’t be dissuaded from its nuclear program, which Iran says is aimed at generating electricity, not making weapons. Diplomats at Iran’s U.N. mission weren’t available for comment Friday.
“I would say the Iranians sent mixed messages this week, and it’s really hard to tell what the bottom line is,” White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said. “And so we’ll need to wait and see if they do respond formally.”
“You never know what the Iranians are going to do,” said a European diplomat, who requested anonymity to discuss diplomatic options.
While State Department officials say that there’s still time for diplomacy to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions, Israel’s leaders – who view an Iranian nuclear weapon as a threat to the country’s existence – are increasingly blunt in warning that time is running out.
Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz warned Friday that Iran is on the verge of a nuclear breakthrough.
“The window of influence is becoming smaller and, I believe, is about to close,” said Mofaz, a possible candidate to replace outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.
“Even diplomacy has its limits,” he said at an appearance at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.
The United Nations has imposed three previous rounds of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. They’ve failed to persuade Tehran to change course, but U.S. officials argue that they’ve compounded Iran’s economic problems and prompted a debate among Iran’s fractured leadership over the country’s course.
(McClatchy Newspapers correspondent Jonathan S. Landay contributed to this report.)

Richard Grenell responds to the government of iran

http://www.iht.com/articles/reuters/2008/08/04/africa/OUKWD-UK-IRAN-NUCLEAR-1.php

U.N. council must increase sanctions on Iran: U.S
By Louis CharbonneauSun Aug 3, 8:20 PM ET
The United States said on Sunday that Iran has left the U.N. Security Council no choice but to increase sanctions on the Islamic Republic for ignoring demands that it halt sensitive nuclear activities.
The U.S. declaration came a day after an informal deadline lapsed for Iran to respond to an offer from the United States, Britain, France, Germany, China and Russia for talks on its disputed nuclear program.
“It is clear that the government of Iran has not complied with the international community’s demand to stop enriching uranium and isn’t even interested in trying,” said Richard Grenell, spokesman for the U.S. mission to the United Nations.
“They leave the Security Council no choice but to increase the sanctions, as called for in the last resolution passed.”
Tehran has not formally responded to the offer. But Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Saturday that Iran would not back down in its nuclear dispute with the powers, which have supported three rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions.
“In whichever negotiation we take part … it is unequivocally with the view to the realization of Iran’s nuclear right and the Iranian nation would not retreat one iota from its rights,” Ahmadinejad said in a statement.
The U.S. statement was noticed by oil traders. Concern about Iran’s nuclear program was one of the reasons the price of oil rose by more than $1 to over $126 a barrel shortly before 7 p.m. EDT.
The West accuses Iran of seeking to develop nuclear weapons under cover of a civilian power program. Iran, the world’s fourth-largest oil producer, says its uranium enrichment drive is aimed solely at generating electricity.
A spokeswoman for EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said in Brussels that he and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Saeed Jalili, would discuss the six powers’ offer soon. She gave no further details.
Western officials gave Tehran two weeks from July 19 to respond to their offer not to impose more U.N. sanctions on Iran if it froze any expansion of its nuclear work.
That suggested a deadline of August 2 but Iran, which has repeatedly ruled out curbing any of its nuclear activities, dismissed the idea of having two weeks to reply.
The five permanent U.N. Security Council members and Germany have appointed Solana to be their liaison with Iran.
MILITARY ACTION?
Israel and the United States have hinted that they could attack Iran’s nuclear facilities if it remains defiant. Speculation about a potential attack on Iran has been causing jitters on oil markets in recent months.
But the founder and head of the global intelligence company Stratfor, George Friedman, told weekly magazine Barron’s that the chance of a U.S. or Israeli attack on Iran is slim because the risks to the world economy far outweigh possible benefits.
The U.S. delegation at the United Nations might have to put some pressure on the rest of the council to discuss Iran again. Diplomats from some of the 14 other council members have said they would prefer not to enter into negotiations on another round of sanctions against Iran for now.
One of the main reasons for council members’ reluctance to take up Iran now is the U.S. presidential election in November and what it could mean for U.S. policy on Iran.
U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama, a Democrat, has criticized Republican President George W. Bush’s handling of the issue and has promised greater engagement with Tehran.
Republican candidate John McCain has criticized Obama’s suggestion that he would pursue direct talks with Tehran.
The other reason for the council’s reluctance is that Russia and China do not want to discuss sanctions now. Diplomats say the two veto-wielding council members want to give Iran time to consider the offer of economic and political incentives in exchange for a suspension of enrichment.
Moscow and Beijing reluctantly backed all three rounds of U.N. sanctions against Iran but pushed hard to try to water them down beforehand in negotiations on the resolutions.
Separately, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said in Tehran on Sunday that Damascus was not mediating or bringing a message from the West to Iran over its disputed nuclear plans but could play a role to help defuse the issue in future.
Assad made his comments during a two-day trip to Iran that followed a visit to Paris in July, when he told French President Nicolas Sarkozy he would use his good ties with Tehran to help resolve the atomic stand-off.