Saturday 30 November 2013

Yemen’s New Ways of Protesting Drone Strikes


Artists in Yemen campaign against American drone strikes using cultural forms of graffiti and poetry, but will the peaceful protests alter policy?

Yemen’s New Ways of Protesting Drone Strikes: Graffiti and Poetry

Street artists and poets in Yemen campaign against American drone strikes


US drone attacks in Yemen
Yahya Arhab / EPA
A Yemeni boy looks at graffiti depicting a U.S. drone at a street in Sana'a, Yemen, Nov. 6, 2013.

An American drone hovers along a main thoroughfare in the Yemeni capital, Sana’a. Not a real drone, but rather a 7 foot-long rendition of an unmanned aircraft spray-painted near the top of a whitewashed city wall. Below it, a stenciled-on child is writing: “Why did you kill my family?” in blood-red English and Arabic script.
Painted by Yemeni artist Murad Subay, the Banksy-esque mural sits beside three others also admonishing the United States’ use of drones in Yemen to track and kill terrorism suspects. This drone art is part of Subay’s latest campaign, “12 Hours”, which aims to raise awareness about twelve problems facing Yemen, including weapons proliferation, sectarianism, kidnapping and poverty. Drones are the fifth and arguably most striking “hour” yet completed.
“Graffiti in Yemen, or street art, is a new device to communicate with the people,” says Subay, 26, who after taking up street art two years ago in the wake of Yemen’s Arab Spring revolution has almost single-handedly sparked the growing Yemeni graffiti movement. “In one second, you can send a message.”
The anti-drone chorus in Yemen has grown louder since the Obama Administration took office in 2009. All but one of the dozens of reported drone strikes in Yemen have been carried out since Obama came to office (although strikes here and in Pakistan have been more sporadic in recent months). Operations are rarely acknowledged by American officials but have nonetheless stirred a global debate about the strikes’ legality, morality and effectiveness.
Proponents argue that drones offer an efficient way of fighting al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, a Yemen-based affiliate of the global terrorist network. The Yemeni President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi has endorsed the program, praising ongoing U.S.-Yemen counterterrorism cooperation and the “high precision that’s been provided by drones.” Human rights activists in Yemen and the families of many victims are outraged by the so-called “drone war” in the country, which the Bureau of Investigative Journalism estimates has resulted in between 21 and 56 civilian deaths. Aside from more conventional methods of protest - such as demonstrations, media campaigns, and the production of often scathing reports – activists are increasingly employing art as a medium through which to express their anger.
“We [have] tried to be a little bit more creative on ways [that] we can really combat the fact that drones are hovering over our cities and villages,” said Baraa Shiban, a Yemeni activist and project coordinator for the British-based organization Reprieve, which advocates for the rights of prisoners to receive a fair trial. Taking their lead from Yemen’s reputation for recitation, the group organized an anti-drone poetry contest earlier this month. The top prize: $600 or, in Reprieve’s words, “1% of the cost of a hellfire missile.”
A panel of Yemeni poets whittled the more than 30 submissions down to six finalists and a winner. Frontrunners gathered on a recent Tuesday afternoon to share their work. One by one, contestants read their poems aloud. Some delivered their verse – containing lines such as “From above, Death descends upon us,” “Drones are the friend of our enemy” and “Do you fight terrorism with terrorism?” – more fluently than others, but the small audience of mostly friends and fellow activists greeted all of the contestants with equally boisterous applause. The winner: Drones Without Rhyme, a catchy free verse poem with a familiar theme. The winning poet, Ayman Shahari, beamed as he walked on stage.
Despite not winning, Raghda Gamal, a journalist and author of the entry Death Flying Around!, was glad that she had participated. “It’s great to use such art to send your case,” she said. “We can use a lot of tools rather than weapons.”
Reprieve’s Shiban says that creative events like this help broaden discussions in Yemen, a country with high rates of illiteracy and limited Internet penetration. “It’s a way of engaging more sectors of society,” he says.
Subay agrees. “[Art] galleries in Yemen belong to one class. Graffiti is for all people,” he says. Two years ago there was hardly a stencil to be seen on public walls but today, thanks largely to Subay’s campaigns, they are plastered across some of the country’s most trafficked areas. Subay estimates that, in all, millions of citizens have now been exposed to street art.
Shiban is optimistic that cultural forms of protest like poetry and graffiti could be a step on the path toward ending drones strikes and affecting other changes in Yemen. Subay, however, is skeptical that art will alter policy, saying that the United States’ counterterrorism strategy will likely “carry on” regardless.
“Maybe I don’t expect any action [from the U.S.],” said Subay. “But I’ll always keep hoping.”
Whether or not the anti-drone poetry and graffiti influences American policy in Yemen, one thing seems clear: for a region whose people have so often lived under dictators and through times of violence, peaceful protest of this sort can only be healthy.


Read more: Yemen’s New Ways of Protesting Drone Strikes: Graffiti and Poetry | TIME.com http://world.time.com/2013/11/30/yemens-new-ways-of-protesting-drone-strikes-graffiti-and-poetry/#ixzz2mCzFpX8g

A Rustic Paradise, Open for Development



A zoning change will allow urban development in the agricultural heart of northwestern Mexico. Natalia Badán, above, calls it “an aggression.”


A Rustic Paradise, Open for Development


Max Whittaker for The New York Times
Natalia Badán, a winery owner and longtime resident of the Guadalupe Valley, called a zoning change “an aggression.”

GUADALUPE VALLEY, Mexico — The doors were locked. The lights were out. When Hugo D’Acosta and 60 of his neighbors reached Ensenada City Hall after being tipped off to a nighttime vote that would open their beloved wine region to Florida-style housing and golf courses, they had to shout just to get in.
World Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
Max Whittaker for The New York Times
Land is for sale in the area, though scientists say the arid valley cannot sustain intensified development.

But it was no use: In a fourth-floor meeting room, lawmakers quickly voted to permit urban and suburban development in the agricultural heart of northwestern Mexico, the Guadalupe Valley, despite angry opposition from those who have spent decades making it an international destination for wine, food and quiet.
“It will destroy everything,” said Mr. D’Acosta, 55, one of the valley’s premier winemakers. “We can put up plastic grapes to make it look pretty, but that’s it.”
Municipal council members argue that the new zoning regulations will preserve the valley and increase property values, spreading out the benefits of a boom. But the new rules subvert the state-approved regional plan they were supposed to clarify by allowing up to 10 times as much housing density while significantly weakening public oversight. Independent scientists say the arid valley simply cannot sustain the intensified development, creating what many here see as a threat to a national treasure and a vital test of Mexico’s young democracy.
The Guadalupe Valley is Mexico’s Tuscany. The vast majority of Mexico’s increasingly popular wine comes from vineyards here, along a narrow, 14-mile stretch of land with the warm days and cold nights that vintners crave. Over the past five years, as interest in the area has grown, dozens of new wineries, along with small hotels and award-winning restaurants, have popped up between the softly sloping mountains. Yet, for now at least, it is still much as it has always been: a ribbon of rustic beauty where most of the roads are dirt and the nights are brightened by shimmering stars.
Critics say the new rules, which apply to the entire wine region north of the city of Ensenada, could destroy all that. And it could happen quickly. Carlos Lagos, a major developer with close financial and personal ties to Ensenada officials, has already published plans for a 996-acre development, Rancho Olivares, which includes a nine-hole golf course, a spa, pools and more than 400 new homes.
Mr. D’Acosta and many others believe they are up against a familiar brand of Mexican corruption, especially with the local government again controlled by the Institutional Revolutionary Party, which led (and pilfered) Mexico for 71 years.
This time, though, a savvy resistance coalition has begun to emerge. On Monday, a little over a week after winemakers canceled the popular harvest festival in protest, about 300 supporters marched to City Hall. On Tuesday, at a public forum in a cramped university conference room in Ensenada, state officials, scientists and the municipality’s own planning experts all criticized the new rules.
“The valley should continue to be what it is now, an agricultural area, for wine and food and beautiful scenery,” said Javier Sandoval, director of urban planning at the Municipal Institute of Investigation and Planning, which advises the local government on development.
After comparing the new regulations with the regional program, he said the vote amounted to a breakdown in land management and procedure. “Technical expertise has been de-linked from government decisions,” he said.
Many longtime residents and new arrivals favor growth on a small scale. R. P. McCabe, an American novelist building a winery on a patch of hillside across from where Rancho Olivares would be, said he started coming here years ago because it reminded him of the Napa Valley of his youth — family-oriented, friendly. “I don’t want to see something rural, traditional and historic be taken away,” he said.
His neighbors to the north, Hector Perez, 40, who is building a winery, and south, Natalia Badán, 60, who grew up on a 12-acre farm that now produces wine and organic produce, said the Lagos development would hurt the entire valley. Ms. Badán called the new zoning decision “an aggression.”
“It’s opportunism,” she said. “They changed the rules in a dirty, disagreeable way to favor development that has nothing to do with what we’ve been working on.”
Mr. Lagos’s office did not respond to emails seeking comment.

The regulations were supposed to be the final step of an 18-year process that involved scientific studies, public hearings and a published program for growth that prioritized agriculture and sustainability. Many features of the plan were innovative — it required that homes not be built in a straight line, for example — and a wide range of stakeholders were to be involved in major decisions.
The New York Times
World Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
Max Whittaker for The New York Times
Raymundo de la Mora, a municipal council member, voted for new zoning rules, which he says guarantee organized growth.
Now, many of those groups, including an pro-winery association, have been cut from the process, according to Mr. Sandoval. The new rules also eliminate requirements for impact studies and legalize anything already built, and possibly anything built up to 360 days after the regulations are published, creating what Mr. D’Acosta described as an amnesty for anything-goes construction.
“It’s like inviting Mickey Mouse to the countryside,” he said, allowing Disney-style artifice to crowd out the authentic.
But the increase in density is the primary concern. “Urban development here will be fatal for the wine industry, completely fatal,” said Raúl Canino Herrera, a water treatment expert at the Autonomous University of Baja California.
It is not just a matter of limited water supply, he said; in the small towns here where most farm workers live, water flows only a few hours a day, often at a trickle. It is also a matter of quality. “Everything you use at home — detergents, chemicals — ends up in the water,” he said. “How are they going to make sure it stays clean?”
Raymundo de la Mora, a council member who voted for the new rules, said that water accessibility would still be taken into account, suggesting that water could be brought in. He did not deny that some officials would benefit from opening the area to more development, through property holdings or connections to developers, but he said poor landowners would be the main beneficiaries because the new regulations clarify what can be built. “We have given everyone certainty,” he said, adding that the regulations would preserve the valley’s beauty by codifying its growth.
“Until now, we didn’t have regulations that guaranteed organized growth and, above all, that conserve the Guadalupe Valley as part of the heritage of all Mexicans,” he said. “That is our priority.”
By Damien Cave
Raymundo de la Mora, a member of the Ensenada City Council who leads the commission for governing and legislation, defends the vote to increase development in the Guadalupe Valley.
Some poorer residents said that if welcoming development would mean more jobs, they were for it. Others, like Clemente Rodriguez, 58, a sod farmer watering his grass on Wednesday morning, said subdivisions like the one planned by Mr. Lagos probably would not be as bad as critics feared.
“The people complaining aren’t even from here,” he said. “They’re from France, England or wherever.”
But many of his Mexican neighbors said they expected the worst. The website for Rancho Olivares proclaims that it will be what critics fear: “a catalyst for unprecedented change.” And like Mr. D’Acosta and Ms. Badán, many residents of all ages and classes said they worried that Mr. Lagos and others with money and connections would trample anyone whose needs did not align with their vision of a more crowded, real-estate-driven valley.
“This is the reality,” said Jose Ramirez, 79, a retired farmer. “If you’re powerful and you come here and there is only one glass of water, you’re going to get it, and I’ll get nothing.”

Wednesday 27 November 2013

యూటీకి నో..! GOM

యూటీకి నో..!

Published at: 28-11-2013 06:05 AM
 6  5  1 
 
 

హైదరాబాద్‌పై పరిమిత స్థాయిలో కేంద్ర నియంత్రణ
భద్రాద్రి తెలంగాణకు,,ముంపు ప్రాంతం సీమాంధ్రకు!
తెలంగాణలో అసెంబ్లీ స్థానాల పెంపునకు ఆమోదం
మంత్రుల బృందం నిర్ధారణ..చర్చలు ముగిసినట్లే
ముసాయిదా సిద్ధం...తుది నివేదిక బాధ్యత షిండేకు
ఎల్లుండి లేదా 2న కేంద్ర కేబినెట్ ప్రత్యేక భేటీ
(న్యూఢిల్లీ - ఆంధ్రజ్యోతి):'ఎవరినీ నొప్పించని విధంగాపరిష్కారాలు అన్వేషిస్తున్నాం' అని షిండే ఇంతకుముందు పేర్కొన్నట్టుగానే హైదరాబాద్, భద్రాచలంపై నిర్ణయాలు తీసుకున్నారని సమాచారం. హైదరాబాద్‌ను కేంద్ర పాలిత ప్రాంతంగా మార్చకుండా ఉమ్మడి రాజధానిగానే కొనసాగించాలని జీవోఎం నిర్ణయించింది. యూటీ కాకుండా మరో రూపంలో జీహెచ్ఎంసీ పరిధిపై కేంద్రం పరిమిత స్థాయిలో 'పట్టు' కొనసాగించేందుకు అవసరమైన నిబంధనలను బిల్లులో చేర్చాలని నిర్ణయించుకుంది. ఇక భద్రాచలాన్ని తెలంగాణకే వదిలివేయాలని, పోలవరం ప్రాజెక్టులో ముంపునకు గురయ్యే ప్రాంతాలను మాత్రం సీమాంధ్రలో కలపాలని తీర్మానించుకుంది. తెలంగాణలో అసెంబ్లీ నియోజకవర్గాలను 119 నుంచి 153కు పెంచాలని, శాసన మండలిని కూడా ఏర్పాటు చేయాలని మర్రి శశిధర్ రెడ్డి చేసిన ప్రతిపాదనపైనా ఆమోద ముద్ర వేసింది.
న్యాయ మంత్రిత్వ శాఖ అభిప్రాయం వచ్చిన తర్వాత బిల్లులో ఈ అంశాన్ని చేరుస్తారు. "డిసెంబర్ 2న కేంద్ర కేబినెట్ ప్రత్యేక సమావేశం జరిపి రాష్ట్ర పునర్వ్యవస్థీకరణ బిల్లును ఆమోదిస్తారు. దానిని రాష్ట్రపతి ప్రణబ్ ముఖర్జీ డిసెంబర్ 5లోపు అసెంబ్లీకి పంపిస్తారు'' అని విశ్వసనీయ వర్గాలు చెప్పాయి. డిసెంబర్ 2 నాటికి కేంద్ర కేబినెట్ ప్రక్రియ పూర్తవుతుందని హోంమంత్రి సుశీల్ కుమార్ షిండే విలేకరులకు తెలిపారు. బుధవారం ఉదయం 10 గంటలకు ఆంటోనీ నివాసంలో జీవోఎం సభ్యులు అరగంటపాటు చర్చించారు. ఆ తర్వాత... మధ్యాహ్నం 2.30 గంటలకు షిండే కార్యాలయంలో మూడున్నర గంటలు సుదీర్ఘంగా చర్చలు జరిపారు. ఈ సమావేశంలో షిండే, ఆంటోనీ, చిదంబరం, వీరప్ప మొయిలీ, జైరామ్ రమేశ్, నారాయణస్వామి పాల్గొన్నారు. గులాంనబీ ఆజాద్ మాత్రం గైర్హాజరయ్యారు. ఈ భేటీ ముగిసిన తర్వాత షిండే, జైరామ్ మరో ముప్పావు గంట పాటు మంతనాలు జరిపారు.
షిండే అక్కడి నుంచి నిష్క్రమించిన తర్వాత... ఆయన కార్యాలయంలోనే జైరామ్ రమేశ్ మరో రెండు గంటలు అధికారులతో చర్చలు జరిపారు. కేంద్ర ఆర్థిక శాఖ, జలవనరుల శాఖ, విద్యుత్ శాఖ, సిబ్బంది - శిక్షణ వ్యవహారాల శాఖ, న్యాయ శాఖలతోపాటు శాంతి భద్రతలపై విజయ్ కుమార్ తమ ప్రజెంటేషన్లు ఇచ్చారు. రాష్ట్ర ప్రభుత్వ ప్రధాన కార్యదర్శి పీకే మహంతి ఈ భేటీకి ప్రత్యేకంగా హాజరయ్యారు. జీవోఎం సభ్యులకు సహాయ పడేందుకు ఆయనను రప్పించినట్లు తెలిసింది. గురువారం కూడా తమకు అందుబాటులో ఉండాలని సూచించినట్లు తెలిసింది. బుధవారం జైరామ్‌తో భేటీకి ముందు మహంతి సుమారు గంటన్నర పాటు కేంద్ర ఆర్థిక శాఖ అధికారులతో భేటీకావడం విశేషం.
అన్నింటిపై స్పష్టత..
బుధవారం జరిగిన భేటీతో జీవోఎం సమావేశాలు ముగిసినట్లేనని హోం శాఖ వర్గాలు తెలిపాయి. హైదరాబాద్, ఆర్థిక ప్యాకేజీలు, నదీ జలాలు, ఉద్యోగుల పంపిణీ, 371 (డి) వంటి పలు కీలక అంశాలపై మరింత స్పష్టత తీసుకునేందుకే ఆయా శాఖల కార్యదర్శులతో మరోమారు సమావేశమైనట్లు వెల్లడించాయి. ఈ భేటీతో ఆయా అంశాలపై స్పష్టత వచ్చిందని, నివేదిక కూడా దాదాపుగా ఖరారైనట్లేనని తెలిపాయి. తుది నివేదికను ఖరారు చేసే బాధ్యత జీవోఎంకు నేతృత్వం వహిస్తున్న షిండేపైనే ఉందని వెల్లడించాయి. ఈ నివేదికను సోనియాకు చూపించి, ఆమె సూచనల మేరకు మార్పులు, చేర్పులు కూడా చేయొచ్చని తెలుస్తోంది. భేటీ అనంతరం హోం శాఖ మంత్రి షిండే విలేకరులతో పిచ్చాపాటీగా మాట్లాడుతూ.. జీవోఎం సమావేశాలు కొనసాగుతాయని, తాము మరిన్ని భేటీలు జరపాల్సి ఉందని మరోమారు చెప్పారు. ఇంకా ఎన్ని సమావేశాలు ఉంటాయి? ఒకటా? రెండా? అని ఓ విలేకరి ప్రశ్నించగా.. 'పది ఉంటాయి. నీకు సంతృప్తిగా ఉందా?' అని అన్నారు. నివేదిక ఖరారైనట్లేనా? అని ప్రశ్నించగా.. 'ఇప్పుడు నేనేమీ చెప్పలేను. కేబినెట్‌కు నివేదిక వెళ్లనంత వరకూ అది ఖరారు కానట్లే' అని చెప్పారు. అయితే, గురువారం జరిగే కేబినెట్ సమావేశంలో మాత్రం తెలంగాణ అంశం చర్చకు రాదని స్పష్టత ఇచ్చారు.

- See more at: http://www.andhrajyothy.com/node/34495#sthash.Cg5na5uH.dpuf

legally enforceable debt

legally enforceable debt

accused did not dispute the fact that he had issued the 3 cheque under his signature and had received notice (Exh.22) from the complainant; but outrightly denied the complaint and any liability on the ground that the complainant was doing business of money lending without any requisite licence for money lending and that the complainant has failed to prove legallyenforceable or recoverable debt or legal liability as against accused, in view of the provisions of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946. The accused opposed the complaint stoutly on the ground that under section 139 of the N.I. Act, there can not be presumption of pre-existing liability and complainant had failed to prove that the cheque was issued towards legally enforceable debt or liability. 4. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led and submissions at the Bar, recorded finding of "not guilty" and acquitted the accused of the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. 5. Learned Advocate for the appellant, in support of the appeal, submitted that the accused ought to have been convicted by the trial Court for offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act, since the accused
appellant, mere non-production of money lending license in the trial Court, was cited as the prime reason for acquitting the accused and, therefore, judgment and 4 order impugned, be set aside. 6. None appeared for the respondent at the time of hearing of this Appeal. 7. In Krishna Janardhan Bhat vs. Dattatraya G. Hegde : AIR 2008 SC 1325, the Apex Court in Para No.20 observed that sec.138 of the N.I. Act has three ingredients, viz: (I) that there is a legally enforceable debt; (ii) that the cheque was drawn from the account of bank for discharge in whole or in part of any debtor other liability which presupposes legally enforceable debt ; and, (iii) that the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds. It is further observed in Para No. 21 while considering presumption u/s 139 of the N.I. Act; "Existence of legally recoverable debt is not a matter of presumption in favour of the holder of the cheque that the same has been issued for discharge of any debt or other liability" In order to prove offence punishable under sec. 138 of the said Act, five ingredients are required
cheque within 30 days of the receipt of such notice." Under section 139 of the N.I. Act, there is presumption in favour of holder that the holder of a cheque received the cheque of the nature referred to in section 138 for the discharge, in whole in part of any debt or other liability. The explanation to section 138 makes it clear that "debt or other liability" means legally enforceabledebt or other liability. Under section 118 of the N.I. Act it can legally be inferred that the cheque was made or drawn for 6 consideration on the date which the cheque bears. 8. Thus, bearing in mind the relevant provisions of the N.I. Act, it must be emphasized that only legally enforceabledebt or liability can be enforced in the proceedings under section 138 of the said Act, because the explanation to the penal provision is abundantly clear that the dishonoured cheque must have been received by the complainant against a legally enforceable debt or liability. 9. The complainant in the present case, is a money lender who had advanced loan to the accused on the basis of the two promissory notes dated
found with the trial Court as it was duty bound to dismiss the complaint by the complainant a money lender who was engaged in business of money lending without a valid money lending license at the time of transaction in view of clear provisions of Sec. 10 of the Bombay Lenders Act, 1946 as the learned Court could not have assisted the complainant to facilitate or further the illegal claim or claim prohibited by law in the complaint. Since explanation to Sec. 138 of the N.I. Act clearly stipulated that the debt or liability means legally enforceable debt or other liability the claim by money lender against her borrower without production of valid and operative money lending license covering period of transaction was unenforceable claim under section 138 of the N.I. Act was bound to be dismissed. The complainant money-lender despite availing of sufficient opportunity in the trial Court could not produce valid and operative money lending license at the time of transaction of loan, hence dismissal of complaint can not be faulted as the complainant failed to establish legally enforceable debt or liability of the accused. Sec. 5 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act prohibits business

Section 25 (1) of the PSS Act . 2007


Section 25(1) of the Payment of Settlement Systems Act . 2007 

25. Dishonour of electronic funds transfer for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. -

(1) Where an electronic funds transfer initiated by a person from an account maintained by him cannot be executed on the ground that the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the transfer instruction or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with a bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to any other provisions of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the electronic funds transfer, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-

(a) the electronic funds transfer was initiated for payment of any amount of money to another person for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability;

(b) the electronic funds transfer was initiated in accordance with the relevant procedural guidelines issued by the system provider;

(c) the beneficiary makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice in writing to the person initiating the electronic funds transfer within thirty days of the receipt of information by him from the bank concerned regarding the dishonour of the electronic funds transfer; and

(d) the person initiating the electronic funds transfer fails to make the payment of the said money to the beneficiary within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice.

(2) It shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the electronic funds transfer was initiated for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability.

(3) It shall not be a defence in a prosecution for an offence under sub-section (1) that the person, who initiated the electronic funds transfer through an instruction, authorisation, order or agreement, did not have reason to believe at the time of such instruction, authorisation, order or agreement that the credit of his account is insufficient to effect the electronic funds transfer.

(4) The Court shall, in respect of every proceeding under this section, on production of a communication from the bank denoting the dishonour of electronic funds transfer, presume the fact of dishonour of such electronic funds transfer, unless and until such fact is disproved.

(5) The provisions of Chapter XVII of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 shall apply to the dishonour of electronic funds transfer to the extent the circumstances admit.
Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, "debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability, as the case may be. 

Section 138 of The N I Act, 1881

Central Government Act
Section 138 in The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
138. Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of funds in the account. Where any cheque drawn by a person on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment of any amount of money to another person from out of that account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid. either because of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the amount arranged to be paid from that account by an agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice. to any other provision of this Act, be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the cheque, or with both: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been, presented to the bank within a period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course. of the cheque as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the said amount of money by giving a notice, in writing, to the drawer of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of the cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen days of the receipt of the said notice. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section," debt or other liability" means a legally enforceable debt or other liability.

Sunday 24 November 2013

Deal With Iran Faces Major Challenges

Longer-Term Deal With Iran Faces Major Challenges

Fabrice Coffrini/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
By 
Published: November 24, 2013 87 Comments
  • Secretary of State John Kerry shaking hands with Mohammad Javad Zarif, the Iranian foreign minister, following the announcement.


LONDON — The Obama administration’s successful push for an accord that would temporarily freeze much of Iran’s nuclear program has cast a spotlight on the more formidable challenge it now confronts in trying to roll the program back.
Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
For all of the drama of late-night make-or-break talks in Geneva, the deal that Secretary of State John Kerry and his negotiating partners announced early on Sunday was largely a holding action, meant to keep the Iranian nuclear program in check for six months while negotiators pursue a far tougher and more lasting agreement.
By itself, the interim pact does not foreclose either side’s main options or require many irreversible actions — which was why the two sides were able to come to terms on it. That was also a reason for the sharp negative reaction the deal elicited on Sunday from Israel, an American ally that is deeply suspicious of Iranian intentions.
Named the “Joint Plan of Action,” the four-page agreement specifies in terse language the steps Iran would initially take to constrain its nuclear effort, and the financial relief it would get from the United States and its partners.
A few technical details are left to footnotes. The agreement’s preamble says that a more comprehensive solution is the eventual goal, and the broad elements of that solution are given in bullet points on the final page. The agreement allows Iran to preserve most of its nuclear infrastructure, and along with it the ability to develop a nuclear device, while the United States keeps in place the core oil and banking sanctions it has imposed.
The questions that the United States and Iran need to grapple with in the next phase of their nuclear dialogue, if they want to overcome their long years of enmity, are more fundamental.
“Now the difficult part starts,” said Olli Heinonen, the former deputy director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency.
Even the planned duration of the comprehensive follow-up agreement is still up in the air. It will not be open-ended, but there is as yet no meeting of the minds on how many years it would be in effect. The interim agreement says only that it would be “for a period to be agreed upon.”
“The terms of the comprehensive agreement have yet to be defined, but it is suggested that that agreement will itself have an expiration date,” said Ray Takeyh, a former State Department official and a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “It would be good if the comprehensive agreement was more final.”
Iran’s program to enrich uranium also needs to be dealt with in detail. The Obama administration has made clear that it is not prepared to concede at the start that Iran has a “right” to enrich uranium. But the interim deal, reflecting language proposed by the American delegation, says the follow-up agreement would provide for a “mutually defined enrichment program with practical limits and transparency.”
So the question appears to be not whether Iran will be allowed to continue enriching uranium, but rather what constraints the United States and its negotiating partners will insist on in return, and how large an enrichment program they are willing to tolerate. The interim accord makes clear that it must be consistent with “practical needs.” Iran and the United States are likely to have very different ideas of what those needs are.
“This, of course, will be one of the central issues in the negotiations for a comprehensive agreement,” said Gary Samore, who served as senior aide on nonproliferation issues on the National Security Council during the Obama administration and is now president of United Against Nuclear Iran, an organization that urges that strong sanctions be imposed on Iran until it further restricts its nuclear efforts.
“We will want very small and limited,” Mr. Samore said, referring to Iran’s enrichment efforts. “They want industrial scale.”

The negotiators will confront other difficult questions regarding elements of a comprehensive agreement that would be difficult to reverse. Will the underground Fordo enrichment plant have to be shut down? Will the heavy-water reactor that Iran is building near the town of Arak, which could produce plutonium for weapons, have to be dismantled or converted into a light-water reactor that is not useful for weapons development?
Multimedia

Readers’ Comments

The interim deal “did not do enough to narrow down the limitations that will be in a final deal,” said David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security.
Hoping to reassure Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who called the easing of sanctions on Iran “a historic mistake,” President Obama told him that the United States would press for a comprehensive solution to the Iranian nuclear question in the months ahead.
The diplomats who worked out the interim agreement left open the possibility that it might be extended beyond six months. The text of the deal says it is “renewable by mutual consent.”
Some analysts said that hammering out a comprehensive solution seems so onerous that there may never be an enduring accord but only a succession of partial agreements. Even if a more comprehensive agreement is never reached, experts say, a limited agreement can still be useful.
The interim deal includes improved verification, constraints on Iran’s installation of new centrifuges, and the requirement that Iran dilute its existing stock of uranium enriched to 20 percent, or else convert it to oxide, a less readily used form. Moreover, the cap imposed on Iran’s stockpile of uranium enriched to 5 percent would increase the time that Iran would need to make a dash for a bomb, adding several weeks or perhaps a month. “This may seem a small time,” Mr. Albright said. But because the interim deal also includes provisions that would make it easier to spot cheating swiftly, the added time “would be significant,” he said.
The United States successfully opposed Iran’s demand that it be allowed to continue installing components at the heavy-water plant at Arak. The interim pact also stipulates that Iran cannot test or produce fuel for that reactor or put it into operation. As it sought to strengthen the accord, the United States added a sweetener. As the talks progressed, the amount of oil revenue frozen in foreign banks that Iran would be allowed to retrieve was raised to $4.2 billion from $3.6 billion.
Mr. Kerry said on Sunday that he was as committed to “the really hard part,” obtaining a comprehensive follow-up agreement, “which would require enormous steps in terms of verification, transparency and accountability.” Speaking in London before a meeting with William Hague, the British foreign secretary, he said, “We will start today, literally, to continue the efforts out of Geneva and to press forward.”

Israeli Leaders Denounce Geneva Accord


Pool photo by Abir Sultan
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel declared the interim nuclear deal with Iran a “historic mistake” on Sunday.

JERUSALEM — Having failed to stop Sunday’s signing of a nuclear deal between Iran and six Western powers despite a relentless campaign of criticism, Israeli leaders say their mission now is to ensure that, as several put it, this first step is not the last step.
Multimedia
To influence the final deal that the Obama administration and its partners in the Geneva talks intend to hammer out over the next six months, Israel will supplement its public and private diplomacy with other tools. Several officials and analysts here said Israel would unleash its intelligence industry to highlight anticipated violations of the interim agreement.
At the same time, with many Israelis viewing the United States as having abandoned its credible military threat against Iran, they have stepped up talk of a strike of their own.
Though the White House insists the deal signed Sunday is an interim move intended only to buy time to negotiate an agreement that would prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, Israel is deeply worried that there will be little further progress. The sanctions relief in the interim accord relieves the pressure that brought Iran to the table, Israeli officials argue, so Iranian leaders might not stay. Further, they say, the so-called P5 + 1 nations that negotiated the pact have not agreed on or clearly identified their final goals, nor outlined the parameters for punitive measures if progress is not made within the deadline.
“The focus has to be on what happens at the end of those six months,” said Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economy minister and a member of its inner security cabinet. “A, define what our objective is, and B, define now, in advance, as soon as possible, what happens if we don’t meet those objectives,” he said. “If it’s just some open-ended vague negotiations, it’s pretty clear that Iran will retain its nuclear program and revive its economy — the worst-case scenario.”
Amos Yadlin, director of the Institute of National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, said that much of the vitriol of the last few weeks was misplaced and that a shift in strategy was overdue. “They call it the deal, the deal, the deal — they should call it the initial deal that leads either to an acceptable deal or to the failure of the deal,” he said. “Then Israel should be ready, if sanctions will not be ratcheted, to go to the option that we try to avoid all the time.”
For now, Israel is expected to continue its denunciation of the agreement. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared it a “historic mistake” on Sunday, while some of his top ministers deemed it “a surrender” and “the greatest diplomatic achievement for the Iranians.”
But the reality is that the weeks of harsh and personal condemnations leading up to the agreement on Saturday left Israel sidelined in the Geneva process, and its relations with Washington under severe strain.
With its ability to influence the deal through diplomatic channels accordingly limited, Israel will now deploy its intelligence resources to monitor the process.
Among the expected areas of scrutiny will be whether construction at the heavy-water reactor in Arak is halted as demanded in the interim deal; whether Iran installs new centrifuges or uses its advanced ones in violation of the agreement; how the Obama administration enforces the remaining sanctions; and the seriousness of the promised increased inspections.
“Israeli intelligence will be required to make a double effort,” Ron Ben-Yishai, an analyst for the Israeli news site Ynet, wrote Sunday. “Ensure that Iran is not deceiving,” he explained, “and that the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors are not cutting corners.”
Jonathan Spyer, a senior research fellow at the Interdisciplinary Center in Herzliya, predicted a “carefully timed injection of intelligence-derived information into the public space” to put pressure on the talks.
While most experts here said they could not imagine Israeli military action while the Geneva negotiations are underway, officials from Mr. Netanyahu on down were already raising the specter of a potential Israeli military strike on Iran. Mr. Netanyahu on Sunday repeated his mantra that “Israel has the right and the obligation to defend itself, by itself, against any threat.” Mr. Bennett added, for good measure, that Israel “is capable of defending itself.”
Indeed, Yaakov Amidror, who until last month was Israel’s national security adviser, told the Financial Times last week that Israel’s air force had been conducting “very long-range flights” to prepare for an attack on Iran, and that there was “no question” that Mr. Netanyahu was prepared to make the decision to strike if necessary. Mr. Amidror also said Israel’s military could stop Tehran’s nuclear program “for a very long time.”


Efraim Inbar, director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Bar Ilan University, published a paper on Thursday describing an Israeli strike as “complex, but possible.” He said the number of facilities that would have to be hit to “deal a significant blow to Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is generally overestimated” and that Iran’s ability to retaliate “is quite limited.” Arab states whose airspace Israel would need to fly over, Professor Inbar added, “would turn a blind eye or even cooperate” because of their own concerns over Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Multimedia
“At a time when appeasing Iran seems to be in vogue, an Israeli strike could invigorate elements in the international arena who are unwilling to accept an Iran with a nuclear breakout capability,” he wrote. “In addition, many people around the world would be reminded that muscular reactions to evil regimes are often truly necessary.”
There has been near-unanimity among Israeli leaders across the political spectrum that the interim deal was a major setback. There is mounting division, though, on whether the public prosecution of the case put too much stress on Jerusalem’s relationship with Washington or only highlighted its diminishment.
One radio host on Sunday repeatedly played clips of President Obama, during his visit here in March, reassuring Israelis, in Hebrew, that “you are not alone,” and then said ominously, “We are in fact alone.” Mr. Spyer, the Herzliya analyst, described the communication between the White House and the prime minister’s office in recent weeks as “a dialogue of the deaf” that revealed a growing gulf in approach to Middle East policy.
Mr. Obama called Mr. Netanyahu on Sunday to discuss the agreement with Iran, the White House said in a statement, adding that the two men “agreed to stay in close contact on this issue.”
Tzipi Livni and Yair Lapid, two centrist ministers in Mr. Netanyahu’s cabinet, both called Sunday for better cooperation with the United States and a quieter, more dignified diplomacy campaign in the days ahead.
“We’ve lost the world’s ear,” lamented Mr. Lapid, the finance minister and head of Parliament’s second-largest faction. “We have six months, at the end of which we need to be in a situation in which the Americans listen to us the way they used to listen to us in the past.”


Nuclear Accord With Iran Opens Diplomatic Doors in the Mideast


Jewel Samad/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
President Obama boarding Air Force One on Sunday. He said Saturday night that a final agreement with Iran “won’t be easy.”
  • FACEBOOK
  • TWITTER
  • GOOGLE+
  • SAVE
  • E-MAIL
  • SHARE
  • PRINT
  • REPRINTS

WASHINGTON — For President Obama, whose popularity and second-term agenda have been ravaged by the chaotic rollout of thehealth care lawthe preliminary nuclear deal reached with Iran on Sunday is more than a welcome change of subject.
Multimedia
World Twitter Logo.

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow@nytimesworldfor international breaking news and headlines.
Pool photo by Carolyn Kaster
Secretary of State John Kerry at a London airport on Sunday, after reaching an interim accord with Iran that raises many questions for the Obama administration.

It is also a seminal moment — one that thrusts foreign policy to the forefront in a White House preoccupied by domestic woes, and one that presents Mr. Obama with the chance to chart a new American course in the Middle East for the first time in more than three decades.
Much will depend, of course, on whether the United States and the other major powers ever reach a final agreement with Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions. Mr. Obama himself said Saturday night that it “won’t be easy, and huge challenges remain ahead.”
But the mere fact that after 34 years of estrangement, the United States and Iran have signed a diplomatic accord — even if it is a tactical, transitory one — opens the door to a range of geopolitical possibilities available to no American leader since Jimmy Carter.
“No matter what you think of it, this is a historic deal,” said Vali R. Nasr, the dean of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies. “It is a major seismic shift in the region. It rearranges the entire chess board.”
Mr. Obama has wanted to bring in Iran from the cold since he was a presidential candidate, declaring in 2007 that he would pursue “aggressive personal diplomacy” with Iranian leaders, and ruling out the concept of leadership change, which was popular at the time.
But the president has sought to avoid being consumed by the Middle East, in part so he could shift America’s gaze to Asia. He has tended to view Iran through two narrower prisms: his goal of curbing the spread of nuclear weaponsand his desire to avoid entangling the United States in another war in the region.
On Friday, Mr. Obama huddled in the Oval Office with Secretary of State John Kerry over the fine points of a proposal to the Iranians. He was intent on making sure that Iran halted all testing at a heavy-water reactor, a senior administration official said, and in tying any reference to Iran’s enrichment of uranium only to a final agreement.
Still, pursuing a broader diplomatic opening, Mr. Nasr said, could alter other American calculations in the region — from Syria, where the Iranian-backed group Hezbollah is fighting alongside President Bashar al-Assad’s government, to Afghanistan, where the Iranians could be helpful in brokering a postwar settlement with the Taliban.
The prospect of such a long-term strategic realignment is precisely what has so alarmed American allies like Saudi Arabia, the Persian Gulf emirates and Israel, whose leader, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, on Sunday condemned the deal as a “historic mistake.”
It is also what has stirred opposition from lawmakers, including those of Mr. Obama’s party, who complain that the deal eases pressure on Iran without extracting enough concessions.
“It was strong sanctions, not the goodness of the hearts of the Iranian leaders, that brought Iran to the table,” Senator Charles E. Schumer, Democrat of New York, said Sunday.
Mr. Schumer said he would support a push in the Senate to pass additional sanctions against Iran after Congress returns from the Thanksgiving break. A day earlier, Mr. Obama had warned that new sanctions would “derail this promising first step, alienate us from our allies and risk unraveling the coalition that enabled our sanctions to be enforced in the first place.”
On Sunday, administration officials called lawmakers to defend the deal and head off the legislation, while Mr. Obama called Mr. Netanyahu to hear his concerns before the next round of talks.
To some extent, Mr. Obama finds himself in a predicament similar to that of his policy toward Syria, where allies like Saudi Arabia favor more robust support of the rebels fighting Mr. Assad. Some experts predicted that the tensions over Iran would only deepen because the administration would be determined to prevent the deal from unraveling.
“The administration is now a little bit hostage to Iran’s behavior going forward,” said Elliott Abrams, a foreign policy official in the Reagan and George W. Bush administrations. “Iran’s bad behavior — whether it’s the Revolutionary Guard in Syria or the ayatollah’s vicious speeches about Israel — it’s going to be linked to the deal.”
The bitterness in Israel may hurt another of Mr. Obama’s priorities: a peace accord between the Israelis and Palestinians. Administration officials said they believed Mr. Netanyahu would be able to separate his anger about the Iran deal from any decision about whether to make concessions to the Palestinians. But outside experts have their doubts.
“The Palestinian issue is the big casualty of this deal,” said Bruce O. Riedel, a former administration official who is now a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. “Now that they have an Iran deal, over the strong objections of Israel, it’s going to be very hard to persuade Netanyahu to do something on the Palestinian front.”
For Mr. Obama, resolving the threat of Iran’s nuclear program might be worth taking that chance. He has risked angering European allies, particularly France, by authorizing secret negotiations between the United States and Iran conducted in parallel to the multilateral talks involving Britain, China, France, Germany and Russia.
Those talks, reported earlier by The Associated Press, fleshed out many of the principles that wound up in the interim agreement in Geneva. Mr. Obama was briefed on their progress by Jake Sullivan, the national security adviser to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., who conducted the talks with the deputy secretary of state, William J. Burns.
Over the course of the negotiations, aides say, Mr. Obama became well-versed in the minutiae of Iran’s nuclear program. At a presentation last week with lawmakers, he ticked off the elements of sanctions relief that the West was prepared to offer Iran.
In a phone call Saturday afternoon with Mr. Kerry, who was then in Geneva, Mr. Obama went over the final wording, focusing on the preamble, which refers to a “mutually defined enrichment program” with Iran — essentially the provision that will allow Iran to enrich uranium, a privilege it does not currently have from the United Nations.
As Mr. Obama looks ahead, however, it is not the fine details but the big picture that is likely to dominate his attention. Among the decisions he faces is whether to treat Iran’s nuclear program as a discrete problem to be solved, freeing him up to focus more on Asia, or as the opening act in a more ambitious engagement with Iran that might give it a role in Syria, Afghanistan and other trouble spots.
Aides say that he is open to that, but that it will depend on factors that are out of America’s control, like moderates’ gaining ground in Iran. And given the extreme sensitivities the interim deal has aroused in the Middle East and on Capitol Hill, the White House is being careful to cast the coming negotiations narrowly.
“First and foremost, this has been a multifaceted, multiyear process to address a serious security concern,” said Tom Donilon, the former national security adviser to Mr. Obama, who coordinated Iran policy before leaving the White House in July.

U.S. and Saudis in Growing Rift as Power Shifts

Pool photo by Jason Reed
Secretary of State John Kerry was escorted by the Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, as he arrived in Riyadh on Nov. 3.
WASHINGTON — There was a time when Saudi and American interests in the Middle East seemed so aligned that the cigar-smoking former Saudi ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, was viewed as one of the most influential diplomats in Washington.

Readers’ Comments


Those days are over. The Saudi king and his envoys — like the Israelis — have spent weeks lobbying fruitlessly against the interim nuclear accord with Iran that was reached in Geneva on Sunday. In the end, there was little they could do: The Obama administration saw the nuclear talks in a fundamentally different light from the Saudis, who fear that any letup in the sanctions will come at the cost of a wider and more dangerous Iranian role in the Middle East.
Although the Saudis remain close American allies, the nuclear accord is the culmination of a slow mutual disenchantment that began at the end of the Cold War.
For decades, Washington depended on Saudi Arabia — a country of 30 million people but the Middle East’s largest reserves of oil — to shore up stability in a region dominated by autocrats and hostile to another ally, Israel. The Saudis used their role as the dominant power in OPEC to help rein in Iraq and Iran, and they supported bases for the American military, anchoring American influence in the Middle East and beyond.
But the Arab uprisings altered the balance of power across the Middle East, especially with the ouster of the Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, a close ally of both the Saudis and the Americans.
The United States has also been reluctant to take sides in the worsening sectarian strife between Shiite and Sunni, in which the Saudis are firm partisans on the Sunni side.
At the same time, new sources of oil have made the Saudis less essential. And the Obama administration’s recent diplomatic initiatives on Syria and Iran have left the Saudis with a deep fear of abandonment.
“We still share many of the same goals, but our priorities are increasingly different from the Saudis,” said F. Gregory Gause III, a professor of Middle East studies at the University of Vermont. “When you look at our differing views of the Arab Spring, on how to deal with Iran, on changing energy markets that make gulf oil less central — these things have altered the basis of U.S.-Saudi relations.”
The United States always had important differences with the Saudis, including on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the spread of fundamentalist strains of Islam, Mr. Gause added. But the Obama administration’s determination to ease the long estrangement with Iran’s theocratic leaders has touched an especially raw nerve: Saudi Arabia’s deep-rooted hostility to its Shiite rival for leadership of the Islamic world.
Saudi reaction to the Geneva agreement was guarded on Monday, with the official Saudi Press Agency declaring in a statement that “if there is good will, then this agreement could be an initial step” toward a comprehensive solution for Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In recent days, Saudi officials and influential columnists have made clear that they fear the agreement will reward Iran with new legitimacy and a few billion dollars in sanctions relief at exactly the wrong time. Iran has been mounting a costly effort to support the government of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, including arms, training and some of its most valuable Revolutionary Guards commandos, an effort that has helped Mr. Assad win important victories in recent months.
The Saudis fear that further battlefield gains will translate into expanded Iranian hegemony across the region. Already, the Saudis have watched with alarm as Turkey — their ally in supporting the Syrian rebels — has begun making conciliatory gestures toward Iran, including an invitation by the Turkish president, Abdullah Gul, to his Iranian counterpart to pay an official visit earlier this month.
In the wake of the accord’s announcement on Sunday, Saudi Twitter users posted a wave of anxious, defeatist comments about being abandoned by the United States.
In many ways, those fears are at odds with the facts of continuing American-Saudi cooperation on many fronts, including counterterrorism. “We’re training their National Guard, we’re doing security plans and training for oil terminals and other facilities, and we’re implementing one of the biggest arms deals in history,” said Thomas W. Lippman, an adjunct scholar at the Middle East Institute who has written extensively on American-Saudi relations.

Readers’ Comments

And despite all the talk of decreasing reliance on Saudi oil, the Saudis remain a crucial producer for world markets.
But none of this can obscure a fundamental split in perspectives toward the Geneva accord. The Saudis see the nuclear file as one front in a sectarian proxy war — centered in Syria — that will shape the Middle East for decades to come, pitting them against their ancient rival.
“To the Saudis, the Iranian nuclear program and the Syria war are parts of a single conflict,” said Bernard Haykel, a professor of Near Eastern studies at Princeton. “One well-placed Saudi told me, ‘If we don’t do this in Syria, we’ll be fighting them next inside the kingdom.’ ”
How the Saudis propose to win the struggle for Syria is not clear. Already, their expanded support for Islamist rebel fighters in Syria — and the widespread assumption that they are linked to the jihadist groups fighting there — has elevated tensions across the region. After a double suicide bombing killed 23 people outside the Iranian Embassy in Beirut last Tuesday, the Arab news media was full of panicky reports that this was a Saudi “message” to Iran before the nuclear talks in Geneva. A day later, a Shiite group in Iraq claimed responsibility for mortars fired into Saudi Arabia near the border between the two countries.
The Saudi-owned news media has bubbled with vitriol in recent days. One prominent columnist, Tareq al-Homayed, sarcastically compared President Obama to Mother Teresa, “turning his right and left cheeks to his opponents in hopes of reconciliation.”
American efforts to assuage these anxieties, including Secretary of State John Kerry’s trip to Riyadh earlier this month, have had little effect.
The Saudis have already broadcast their discontent about the Iran agreement, and America’s Syria policy, by refusing their newly won seat on the United Nations Security Council last month. It was a gesture that many analysts ridiculed as self-defeating.
Beyond such gestures, it is not clear that the Saudis can do much. The Obama administration has made fairly clear that it is not overly worried about Saudi discontent, because the Saudis have no one else to turn to for protection from Iran.
The Saudis have increased their support for Syrian rebel groups in the past two months, including some Islamist groups that are not part of the secular American-backed coalition.
“They are working with some people who make us squeamish,” said one United States official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. “But they’re effective, they’re the real deal. These are Islamists who foresee a Syria where Alawites and Christians are tolerated minorities, but at least they’re not enemies to be slaughtered.”
In its most feverish form, the Saudis’ anxiety is not just that the United States will leave them more exposed to Iran, but that it will reach a reconciliation and ultimately anoint Iran as the central American ally in the region. As the Saudi newspaper Al Riyadh put it recently in an unsigned column: “The Geneva negotiations are just a prelude to a new chapter of convergence” between the United States and Iran.
That may seem far-fetched in light of the ferocious and entrenched anti-Americanism of the Iranian government. But the Saudi king and his ministers have not forgotten the days of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi of Iran, who cherished his status as America’s great friend in the region.
“The Saudis are feeling surrounded by Iranian influence — in Iraq, in Syria, in Lebanon, in Bahrain,” said Richard W. Murphy, a retired American ambassador who spent decades in the Middle East. “It’s a hard state of mind to deal with, a rivalry with ancient roots — a blood feud operating in the 21st century.”