President Obama plans to nominate Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) to succeed Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State early Friday afternoon, according to a senior White House official. Kerry has been the de-facto nominee since U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice withdrew her name after Republicans attacked her comments about the September 11 attack on a U.S. consulate office in Benghazi, Libya. Kerry, as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, has significant foreign policy experience and believes climate change is the “biggest long term threat” to national security.

– Greg Noth

(Photo: White House)

In a rare extended interview with the U.K.’s New Statesman, according to multiple outlets, an anonymous Taliban commander says the group was “naïve and ignorant of politics and welcomed Al Qaeda into their homes.” That came back to bite the group when Osama Bin Laden’s militants attacked the U.S. on Sept. 11, 2001, leading to a U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and shattering the Taliban’s hold on the country.

According to the New York Times, the interview can be seen as a Taliban assessment that the group is unlikely to take all of Afghanistan by force. “It would take some kind of divine intervention for the Taliban to win this war,” the commander said, according to The Guardian. “The Taliban capturing Kabul is a very distant prospect. Any Taliban leader expecting to be able to capture Kabul is making a grave mistake.” But that doesn’t mean the group is ready to negotiate with the central government.

On Al Qaeda, the Taliban commander called the late Osama Bin Laden’s group a “plague” and said:

At least 70 percent of the Taliban are angry at Al Qaeda. Originally, the Taliban were naïve and ignorant of politics and welcomed Al Qaeda into their homes.

…To tell the truth, I was relieved at the death of Osama. Through his policies, he destroyed Afghanistan. If he really believed in jihad he should have gone to Saudi Arabia and done jihad there, rather than wrecking our country.

In 2010, Ahmed Rashid reported that Taliban leader Mullah Omar pledged that a Taliban return to power in Afghanistan “would pose no threat to neighboring countries — implying that al-Qaeda would not be returning to Afghanistan.”

In the New Statesman interview, with a former U.N. envoy to Kabul during the Taliban’s rule, the commander also said his group does not expect to take the capital. Nor do the fundamentalists, however, intend to negotiate with President Hamid Karzai’s government there. The commander said:

The Taliban have observed that NATO does everything to prop up the Karzai regime. The regime’s political power is entirely dependent on the military backing provided by NATO.

The Kabul regime has no authority in the issues that matter in a war — power and control of the armed forces. There is little point in talking to Kabul. Real authority rests with the Americans.

Those are mixed messages for American forces, who plan on leaving Afghanistan in 2014 and ending a decade-long war there. While the Taliban, according to this commander, does not seem eager to negotiate with Karzai’s government — the U.S. client there — the disdain for Al Qaeda could serve to bolster Obama’s pledge to keep the terror group from establishing a base in Afghanistan after the U.S. leaves. “In pursuit of a durable peace, America has no designs beyond an end to al Qaeda safe-havens, and respect for Afghan sovereignty,” Obama said in Afghanistan in May.

With negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program moving to Moscow next week, a draft letter to be circulated among Senators for signature calls on the Obama administration to not offer Iran major concessions without a comprehensive deal on its nuclear program. The draft letter, obtained by ThinkProgress, says that, should the Iranians not take certain steps demanded by the Senators, the U.S. should “reevaluate the utility of further talks.”

Authored by Sens. Robert Menendez (D-NJ) and Roy Blunt (R-MO), the draft letter outlines the “absolute minimum steps” Iran must take in Moscow: shutting down its Fordow enrichment facility, ending enrichment of uranium to high levels, and shipping out its stockpile of high-enriched uranium. The letter says that Iran’s agreement to these steps would “justify continued discussions,” but doesn’t outline any other possible concessions.

While that leaves the door open for other possible lesser concessions, the Senators rule out acceding to a key Iranian goal until Iran agrees to the full spectrum of Western and U.N. demands. The New York Times reported that, in Baghdad, Iran asked for “an easing of the onerous economic sanctions imposed by the West,” something the Iranians have “relentlessly” pursued. But the Senators refuse to consider such steps without a comprehensive deal. In the draft letter, they write:

Barring full, verifiable Iranian compliance with all Security Council resolutions and full cooperation with the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], including a new, far more intrusive inspections regime under the additional protocol, we see no circumstances under which Iran should be relieved from the current sanctions or those scheduled to come into effect at the end of this month.

That restriction could, in effect, stymie moves toward a “confidence-building” deal. A deal identical to the one mentioned by the Senators — demanding the “absolute minimum steps” but offering little sanctions relief — was on the table in Baghdad. After it failed to advance, an Iranian diplomat told the Christian Science Monitor that Iran would not “accept these things this way.”

Read more

Yesterday, a tribal court in Pakistan handed down a 33-year prison term for treason to the doctor who helped the CIA locate Osama Bin Laden in a Pakistani army garrison town. The verdict drew widespread attention in Washington, but Congress and the State Department are having very different reactions.

After Capitol HIll collectively expressed considerable outrage, the Senate Appropriations Committee voted unanimously to cut $33 million from Pakistan’s foreign aid package — $1 million for each year of the sentence against the doctor, Shakeel Afridi. The reduction comes on top of the more than 50 percent of the aid a Senate panel cut earlier this week.

But the U.S. State Department didn’t ramp up its rhetoric so dramatically, maintaining its position that Afridi is detained without basis. A spokesperson said the U.S. will continue to let the Pakistani government know about that position. The softer line might reflect the possibility that Afridi’s verdict could easily be overturned.

Afridi, who ran a vaccination drive to collect data that the U.S. has credited with helping to find Bin Laden, was tried under a British colonial-era law that does not carry a death penalty, according to the New York Times. (The L.A. Times reported that “Afridi could have been given the death penalty.”) Having never approved of his detention, however, the U.S. still objected to the sentence. Asked about the issue yesterday, spokeswoman Victoria Nuland said:

We will – we continue to see no basis for Dr. Afridi to be held….

I think we’ve said that we don’t see any basis for what’s happened here, and so we will continue to make those representations to the Government of Pakistan.

Watch the video:

In February, Clinton said of Afridi: “His work on behalf of the effort to take down Bin Laden was in Pakistan’s interests as well as in America’s.” On CBS’s 60 Minutes in January, Panetta was more outspoken on the matter, calling actions against Afridi a “real mistake on their part” and crediting his help and making a case similar to Clinton’s:

This was an individual who in fact helped provide intelligence that was very helpful with regards to this operation. He was not in any way treasonous towards Pakistan, he was not in any way doing anything that would have undermined Pakistan. As a matter of fact, Pakistan and the United States have a common cause here against terrorism.

A Pakistani lawyer speaking to CNN said it was likely the case could be overturned — something Nuland subtly alluded to in the briefing when she said the legal process wasn’t necessarily complete. The lawyer, Shahzad Akbar, said that the tribal court is not based in Abbottabad, the site of the bin Laden raid. He told CNN: “If this punishment is challenged by Dr. Afridi’s family in the Superior Court of Pakistan, there is a good possibility that the sentence will be turned around.“

When the State Department granted the head of Cuba’s National Center for Sex Education, Mariela Castro Espín, a visa to chair a panel on LGBT issues at the Latin American Studies Association in San Francisco later this week, the Republican response was as obvious as the Cuban LGBT activist’s relations to the Caribbean island’s Communist dictators. Her father is Cuban President Raúl Castro, her uncle is revolutionary leader and longtime dictator Fidel Castro, and the Republicans were “appalled.”

“The State Department needs to wake up from its delusional love fest with the dictators in Havana,” said right-wing House Foreign Affairs chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL). Republican Members of Congress released web videos and organized conference calls denouncing the visa as “outrageous.”

Even presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney got in on the action, releasing a statement accusing the Obama administration of “a slap in the face to all those brave individuals in Cuba who are enduring relentless persecution.”

Ros-Lehtinen and Reps. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL), David Rivera (R-FL) and Albio Sires (R-NJ) wrote a strongly-worded letter to the State Department saying:

The administration’s appalling decision to allow regime agents into the U.S. directly contradicts Congressional intent and longstanding U.S. foreign policy.

If it’s “longstanding U.S. foreign policy” to deny Mariela Castro a visa to enter the U.S., someone forgot to tell President George W. Bush. The Bush administration granted Castro not one but three visas to enter the U.S. in 2001 and 2002. State Department spokesman william Ostick told the Miami Herald:

Mariela Castro visited once in 2001 and twice in 2002. I can’t discuss her visas specifically, but you can assume she needed one to travel.

An Obama surrogate, Freddy Balsera, told the Herald:

In fact, the top State Department Official in charge of Latin America at the time was a Cuban American. Where was their criticism then? Nowhere, because ultimately this is all about politics for them.

A ThinkProgress search of the Lexis Nexis news database for Mariela Castro’s name during 2001 and 2002 returned no results relevant to her trips to the U.S.

Former attendees at the Latin American Studies Association (LASA) said that Cuba has long been a presence at LASA conferences. This year, the State Department accepted 60 visas, denied 11, and is still processing 6. A State spokesman said visas couldn’t be rejected simply because “we don’t like you.”

LASA’s president told the Associated Press that Castro’s appearance at the conference was “an academic issue, not a political issue,” and that she’d answered a call for papers like any other conference speaker.

Senate Republican hawk Lindsey Graham (SC) said on Fox News last night that the U.S. shouldn’t negotiate with Iran over its nuclear program until it accedes to all U.S. demands and gives up its nuclear program entirely. The remark comes after a week where Congress considered a flurry of hawkish legislation and resolutions about Iran ahead of the next round of nuclear talks next week in Baghdad.

Graham offered his curious take on what it means to negotiate — demanding that Iran accept all U.S. demands prior to negotiation — in a conversation with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, who indicated that his negotiating tactic was probably a non starter. Graham first emphasized his hawkish bent by noting that the “only way” for an agreement to be reached between the sides was for the U.S. to threaten “a strike by the United States.” He went on:

GRAHAM: Here’s what we should do. We should tell the Iranians, no negotiations, stop enriching, open up the site on the bottom of the mountain, a secret site. Then we will talk about lifting sanctions. You are not going to get to enrich uranium any more, period.

VAN SUSTEREN: I think they will probably stay “go fish” on that one.

Watch the video:

Leave aside that the Fordow site is not “secret” (it’s under U.N. inspections and monitored by camera) and that reports on U.S. and Israeli estimates state that these intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran has made a decision to build nuclear weapons (Graham doubts the intelligence), Graham’s position prompts one to ask: What’s the alternative to negotiations, since Graham is proposing pre-conditions that Iran would never meet? The Senator from South Carolina’s been busy on that front, too — and falsely citing the Obama administration to back himself up. The House yesterday passed a resolution that seeks to shift U.S. “red line” for an attack to an Iranian “nuclear capability” — something Graham mentioned on Fox News — from an Iranian push for nuclear weapons.

While the CIA has laid out a specific definition, the “nuclear capability” language is a complex issue. The word “capability” has a special meaning in the non-proliferation context, but it’s not always clear exactly what. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), one of the Sentae’s most vociferous Iran hawks, said this year, “I guess everybody will determine for themselves what that means.”

Read more