For the first time in nearly two decades, the US has the upper hand in the Middle East and could be on the verge of turning the tide in the relentless propaganda war waged between Washington and Al-Qaeda, among others. But there are urgent steps - and bold initiatives - the Obama administration must take if it hopes to drive Al-Qaeda out of the caves and into the trash-bins of history.

The US must now work in tandem with such institutions as the Organization of the Islamic Conference to establish a quorum of policy-makers who will draft initiatives and identifiable goals. Both parties should declare a three-phased approach to resolving conflict and ending the war on terror: Intention, implementation and accountability.

Barack Obama already outlined his administration’s intent in Cairo but must now enact concrete measures, such as exert pressure on Israeli leaders to halt illegal settlement expansion and commit to withdrawing from existing ones as part of land-for-peace agreement.

It is these actions, called for by his detractors, which will convert Obama’s words into new realities.

The Muslim World must respond with bold initiatives of its own, not least of which are efforts to promote tolerance, pluralism, education and equitable rights for women. Muslim clerics must outlaw hate speech and curb the growth of extremist elements within their own ranks.

For its part, the Arab League must exert pressure to force Hamas and Fatah to lay down their arms, stop firing at each other and at Israelis, and form a unity government so that stalled Middle East peace talks can resume. By doing so, the Palestinians will have removed excuses the Israelis have been using to avoid returning to the negotiating table.

The Muslim World cannot afford to wait nor allow the momentum to be seized by others; on June 7, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that he will soon deliver a peace initiative of his own. The Arab League is yet to respond to Obama’s speech.

To borrow a clichd mannerism, both the Obama administration and Muslim states must now walk the talk.

To create a mechanism for measuring accountability one need look no further than the US Constitution’s Article II which created the concept of the State of the Union address - an annual review of economic, social, and security policies which was also used to chart the course ahead.

Obama’s Cairo address has created a union of intent and goodwill with the Muslim World; much may be gained if this contract is renewed and reviewed every year by the highest cadres of the Obama administration in a different Muslim country every year.

Many in the Middle East cling to the hope that Obama will seize on this historic opportunity to expunge eight years of poorly-developed and increasingly divisive US foreign policies which seemed to be based on the theory that the West was on a collision course with the Muslim East.

As the son of Kansan and Kenyan parents and now the most powerful man on the planet, the US president may be in the best position to reverse the clash of cultures which has led to a world divided by conflict. He himself epitomizes the coming together of distinct pasts: raised a Christian, his father is of Islamic heritage; an American, he has grown up in the midst of Islamic culture in three continents.

And this is Obama’s greatest advantage … an advantage and momentum that must not be squandered.

On June 4, 2010, Obama could possibly deliver an address in Jakarta, Indonesia or Muscat, Oman to report on the health of relations between the US and the Muslim World and the progress achieved in reaching the goals established by the quorum of policy-makers.

Failure to keep the Muslim World engaged by continuing channels of communication and establishing trust-building measures could deal a severe blow to East-West dialogue.

The Muslim World has become increasingly distrustful of US policies and intentions over the past two decades, but the fact that Obama’s speech was received with accolades by many Muslims means they are willing to give Washington one last token of a chance to mend fences.

Yes, there was the usual round-up of detractors who found seemingly legitimate grounds to criticize the president’s speech.

While Obama pushed for a global forum in which conflicts could be averted through diplomacy, mutual respect and understanding, several of Egypt’s opposition groups boycotted his speech chastising him for covertly supporting their arch-nemesis, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

Outside Egypt, Iraqis, Palestinians, Iranians, Israelis and Americans found distinct but mutually inclusive issues to complain about. In Baghdad, Mosul and Ramadi, Iraqis wondered how talk of a new chapter in US-Islamic relations could end the illegal occupation, and return them to a semblance of security and normalcy (attacks against Iraqis and US forces have been on the rise).

They want stable electric power, clean water, job opportunities and safety from ambitious neighbours and the now dormant, but equally threatening militias.

The Palestinians want the Israelis to end their occupation, dismantle illegal settlements, and tear down the security barrier they have termed the Apartheid wall, resume peace talks, lift the siege on Gaza, allow 1948 refugees the right of return, and accept the re-floated Arab Peace Initiative of 2002.

The Iranians want Obama to go beyond mere rhetoric and accept their right to what they say is a civilian nuclear program. The Israelis want Obama to deter the “Iranian threat” and understand their reasons for refusing to endorse a two-state solution to the conflict with the Palestinians; Israeli settlers say Obama has sold them out.

Back home, Obama was criticized by some Republicans as being “un-American” and pandering to terrorism.

But no matter what side of the aisle they are on, the consensus in the Middle East agrees that Obama’s speech has created a momentum and the potential for a new chapter in US-Muslim relations.

If the US fails to deliver and build on the positive vibes emanating from Cairo, it is likely Muslims will never again trust any US official.

Such a failure would also work to Al-Qaeda’s advantage; they could easily pronounce “we told you so” to the Muslim World that Obama was not to be trusted.

The US has charged and seized the hill; it must never again create the conditions which would allow Al-Qaeda to regain a media foothold.

Otherwise, it will be US policies that will be found in the trash-bins of history.

North Korea’s nuclear test put US President Barack Obama under pressure Monday to drop his push for direct diplomacy and instead seek tougher international action against the defiant Stalinist state.

The Obama team has suggested recent North Korean provocations amount to a bargaining ploy, but former Bush administration hardliner John Bolton and North Korea analyst Jim Walsh offer different, more ominous readings.

Obama himself is now hinting at a tougher stance than simply seeking the restart of six-party nuclear disarmament talks with North Korea.

“The United States and the international community must take action in response,” the president said in hastily arranged remarks at the White House ahead of a Memorial Day ceremony for war dead.

Pyongyang’s recent “reckless” actions, including an April 5 ballistic missile test, have defied UN resolutions, the Obama said. “As a result, North Korea is deepening its own isolation and inviting stronger international pressure.”

In addition to the underground nuclear test, short-range missiles were reportedly launched on Monday.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton began telephone consultations on Monday with Washington’s partners in the so-called six-party process in order to chart a course of action, a State Department spokesman said.

The UN Security Council was due to meet later Monday to take up the matter.

In the six-party talks involving the United States, China, Japan, South Korea and Russia, North Korea agreed in 2007 to scrap its nuclear programs for energy aid.

But the negotiations lapsed late last year over a dispute about disarmament verification steps, and after the United Nations tightened sanctions following the April missile launch the North vowed to conduct a second nuclear blast and more missile tests unless the world body apologized.

Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations under president George W. Bush, said Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy rather than confrontation with Pyongyang gave North Korea the excuse it needed to carry out the new nuclear test.

“This is a moment of truth for this administration,” Bolton told AFP.

“They put all of their faith in the six-party talks. The North Koreans have thumbed their nose at the administration and now we have to see what kind of stuff they (the new administration) are made of,” Bolton said.

He urged Obama’s team to first put North Korea back on the list of state sponsors of terrorism following its removal in the waning months of the Bush administration.

Bolton also urged the UN Security Council to expel Pyongyang from the world body as a “persistent violator” of UN resolutions.

Ultimately, Bolton said, North Korea wants nuclear weapons because it is motivated by the desire to preserve its isolated dictatorship, adding it has no interest in nuclear diplomacy.

Walsh, an analyst at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, also questioned a standard view that North Korea was taking a hard line to win concessions in negotiations such as direct talks with the United States.

The Obama administration is open to such talks, but has been rebuffed so far by the communist regime.

The incident may have “nothing to do with bargaining,” Walsh said on CNN.

It may reflect “internal dynamics… as it begins to grapple with the issue of succession and leadership change” following reports that leader Kim Jong-il suffered a stroke last August.

“If that’s what is going on, we’re in for more of this for quite some time,” he said.

Another analyst, Bruze Klingner of the conservative Heritage Foundation, called on Obama to put more pressure on China, North Korea’s closest ally, to back tough sanctions.

“Washington should cease the charade of praising Beijing’s behavior in the six-party talks and instead criticize its obstructionism to carrying out the will of the international community as expressed in two UN resolutions,” Klingner said.

Victor Cha, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said North Korea may want to pursue negotiations in order to achieve the status as a nuclear weapons state in which it can keep “a residual nuclear deterrent” as part of an eventual deal with the international community.

President Obama’s plans to close the terrorist prison at Guantanamo Bay by early 2010 were rejected by the Senate on Wednesday and the FBI issued a firm warning against moving detainees to U.S. soil.

Democrats joined Republican in voting 90-6 vote to prohibit transferring to the any of the detainees at the facility to U.S. soil. The Senate also rejected Obama’s appeal request for $80 million to close the prison until he provides a detailed plan for what will be done with the 240 men held at the naval base located on Cuba’s southeastern coast.

The Obama administration “should have focused on a plan for these terrorists first. Once it has one, we’ll consider closing Guantanamo, but not a second sooner,” said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

FBI Director Robert Mueller dealt another blow to Obama’s goal of closing the prison by January 22, 2010 by rejecting Democratic assertions that maximum-security U.S. prisons can safely hold accused terrorists.

“The concerns we have about individuals who may support terrorism being in the United States run from concerns about providing financing to terrorists, radicalising others,” said Mueller in a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee.

The FBI head also said that the threat of Guantanamo detainees “radicalising” others would be real even if they were held in maximum-security prisons on the U.S. mainland.

Mueller’s comments supported Republican complaints and reflect the publics deep concern about moving the detainees to the United States an essential element in closing the prison.

The White House has promised to reveal details of plans for the detainees in a national security speech on Thursday. The Pentagon has said lawmakers were making it “exceedingly difficult” to meet the deadline imposed by the President.

Obama had included $80 million to close Guantanamo Bay as part of an emergency spending bill to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The house removed the money out even before the Senate voted to remove it.

Apparently feeling a need to support the President, a handful of Democrats voted against blocking the detainees’ transfer while most sided with the Republicans who had been reeling from their successive election losses in 2006 and 2008.

Some Republicans said they favored closing the prison while warning that some of the suspected high-ranking al-Qaeda terrorists held there may never face trial or be freed.

“Some of these people, literally, are going to die in jail, and that’s okay with me,” said Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “I will not shed a tear.”

However, Graham said he backed Obama’s plan to resume military trials for the prisoners and supports that eventual closing of the prison, which he said would help the United States win in the war on terrorism.

“It would help our war effort. It would help operations in the countries in question, in the Middle East at large. It would repair damage with our allies,” said the former military lawyer.

President Obama’s plans to increase the average car’s mileage to 35.5 MPG and reduce auto emissions by 2016 may sound like a victory for just about everyone. While it may be so in the future, the immediate impact on you and me might not feel like a victory.

The immediate price to the customer will be higher car prices and a less choice in vehicle size. The large vehicles that Americans have come to know and love will be harder to find and much more expensive.

Here are ten ways the new plan will affect you and me:

1. Your next car costs about $1,300 more than it would have without Obama’s plan. This is based on the government’s estimates of the cost of the technology to put you a higher-mileage, lower-polluting car. The $1,300 figure is, of course, only a government estimate and critics say it’s going to be a lot more. The government has never proven its ability to accurately estimate the cost of projects in which it is involved.

2. Used car prices are going up. New cars will cost more and may be less desirable so more people will hang onto older cars. This will reduce supply and increase demand for used cars on the market and drive up prices.

3. Pollution will not be reduced anytime soon. The worst 10% of the cars on the road cause over half the emissions. People who drive the worst 10% of the cars on the road are least likely to be able to afford newer, cleaner cars. The government is actually considering incentives for people who scrap their old cars. The older cars that stay on road (because new cars cost too much) will prevent some of the promised pollution and mpg gains.

4. A win for the automakers. They already manufacture lower-emissions cars to meet the existing California laws. Automakers hate having separate rules for California (and the dozen or so states the follow California’s rule) and the rest of the U.S. They will no longer have to make two versions of each car.

5. An even bigger win for Japanese, Korean, and Chinese automakers. Asian automakers produce a higher proportion of fuel-efficient cars already. U.S. automakers are way behind. They will have five years to catch up…but can they do it?

6. Also a win for European automakers that get another chance to show how efficient diesels can be and convince the U.S. that they are better than hybrids.

7. A win for mass transit…maybe. As cars cost more and fuel prices increase people will have more incentive to park their cars and ride the bus or train. But, will the money be available to construct these systems and where will it come from?

8. We will pay more for gas. Economists say that higher fuel prices - by which they mean more taxes - will force Americans to buy more efficient cars…if they can afford them, that is. Politicians hope that higher mileage cars will reduce oil consumption and avoid the need to punish Americans by raising taxes. However, f car mileage goes up and fuel consumption goes down tax revenues will go down with too. As that happens the government will have to either reduce spending or raise the tax rate to make up the difference. Which do you think they will choose?

9. America will be safer. By reducing demand for oil we lessen our dependency on and control by foreign nations that don’t like us and want to destroy us.

10. The government gets more control of what we drive and we get less. Only you can decide if that is a good thing or a bad thing.

Hillary Clinton will make her first visit to Israel and the occupied West Bank as U.S. secretary of state next week, Israeli officials said on Monday.

Her visit will maintain efforts to revive peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians despite political uncertainty on both sides.

Clinton was scheduled to hold meetings on March 3 and 4 with outgoing Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, along with other leaders, after she attends a March 2 conference in Egypt on reconstruction in the Gaza Strip following last month’s war, the officials said.

U.S. officials had no immediate comment on the visit, which comes despite political uncertainty in Israel over the make-up and policies of the next government.

A separate visit to Israel and the West Bank by George Mitchell, U.S. President Barack Obama’s Middle East envoy, will begin on Thursday. Mitchell will return there with Clinton after they attend the Gaza conference at the Red Sea resort of Sharm el-Sheikh, Israeli officials said.

Right-wing parties gained ground in Israel’s February 10 parliamentary election, denting U.S. hopes for an Israeli coalition that can move toward peace with the Palestinians and other Arab neighbors after the fighting in Gaza, which is ruled by the Hamas Islamist group.

In addition to Olmert, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Clinton was expected to meet right-winger Benjamin Netanyahu, whom Israeli President Shimon Peres has asked to form the next government.

Netanyahu, head of the Likud party, has asked Livni, the centrist Kadima leader who led unsuccessful peace talks with the Palestinians last year, to join him in a broad coalition government, but she has so far refused.

COALITION OUTLOOK

That may leave Netanyahu little choice but to form a narrow coalition with other right-wing parties which oppose the kind of concessions demanded by Palestinians in the peace talks. That could in turn raise tensions with the Obama administration.

Israeli and Western officials said the Obama administration wanted the next Israeli government to resume peace talks with Abbas and to clamp down on Jewish settlement building in the West Bank and ease travel restrictions for Palestinians there.

But it is unclear to what extent Netanyahu will go along with this. He has ruled out a settlement freeze, and has said he wants to shift the focus of stalled peace talks with the Palestinians to shoring up their economy and away from tough territorial issues.

Senior Abbas aide Saeb Erekat said the Palestinians were looking to Clinton to keep the pressure on Israel to meet its international commitments.

“The most important thing for us is to see to that any Israeli government that is formed is committed to a two-state solution and to stopping settlement expansion,” Erekat said.

But Clinton also faces formidable political challenges on the Palestinian side, which is divided between Abbas in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza.

The United States backs Abbas and his prime minister, Salam Fayyad. It boycotts Hamas, which seized control of Gaza in 2007 and refuses to recognize Israel or renounce violence.

U.S. President Barack Obama on Thursday assured Canada, his country’s biggest trading partner, that he would not pursue protectionist policies, and the two neighbours agreed to cooperate on cleaner energy technology.

Obama, on his first trip abroad as president, sought in talks with Prime Minister Stephen Harper to allay Canadian concerns raised by a “Buy American” clause in a $787 billion (550 billion pounds) U.S. economic recovery plan he signed this week.

“Now is a time where we have to be very careful about any signals of protectionism,” Obama told a joint news conference after several hours of talks with Harper on his one-day visit to Ottawa.

“And as obviously one of the largest economies in the world, it’s important for us to make sure that we are showing leadership in the belief that trade ultimately is beneficial to all countries,” he said.

He stressed the United States would meet its international trade obligations and told Harper he wanted to “grow trade not contract it.”

“I’m quite confident that the United States will respect those obligations and continue to be a leader on the need for globalised trade,” Harper said afterward.

Harper said he was willing to look at strengthening the environmental and labour provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement, something Obama has said he wants. But the Canadian leader said he did not support renegotiating the agreement, which has boosted trade between the two countries.

The two sides announced they would collaborate on environmentally friendly technologies that would help them develop an electricity grid fuelled by clean, renewable energy and to tap their vast fossil fuel resources with less pollution. The technology is not cost-effective now.

“How we produce and use energy is fundamental to our economic recovery, but also our security and our planet. And we know that we can’t afford to tackle these issues in isolation,” Obama said, adding there was “no silver bullet” solution.

GOING FURTHER ON CLIMATE

Environmentalists want Obama to go further and pressure Canada to clean up its oil sands in the western province of Alberta, from which oil is extracted in a process that spews out large amounts of greenhouse gases.

“Tar sands create three times the global warming pollution as conventional oil and are not a viable alternative, no matter how the Canadian government and oil industry portray it,” said Susan Casey-Lefkowitz of the International Program Natural Resources Defence Council.

But with his country facing its worst economic crisis in decades, Obama stressed the importance of Canada as the United States’ largest energy provider. Most of the output of the oil sands is destined for U.S. markets.

Despite the agreement to stimulate the development of green energy, Harper said it was too early for the countries to talk about a shared strategy for reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Obama, who took office last month, campaigned on a pledge to reduce U.S. emissions by 80 percent of 1990 levels by 2050.

In contrast to a passive approach by his predecessor, George W. Bush, Obama is committed to tackling global warming, but he said climate change initiatives must be balanced against economic considerations in the midst of a worldwide recession.

A White House official said the joint U.S.-Canadian green energy initiative would work on “elements like carbon capture and sequestration and the smart grid.”

Carbon dioxide is the main greenhouse gas blamed by scientists for warming the Earth. Carbon sequestration, which is not yet commercially viable, involves capturing the gas and storing it underground before it enters the atmosphere.

On Afghanistan, where Canada has 2,700 troops as part of a NATO-led force fighting a growing insurgency, Obama said he had not asked for more military help. Obama ordered 17,000 new U.S. troops there this week to battle the insurgency.

Harper said Ottawa, which plans to withdraw its troops in 2011, would expand economic aid to Afghanistan, already Canada’s biggest foreign recipient of aid.

Mortgage Rescue Eligibility Still Being Finalized

A day after President Obama unveiled his $75 billion foreclosure prevention program, administration officials yesterday said they were still determining which homeowners should qualify.

The administration is developing a standard to be used by lenders in evaluating applicants that seeks to exclude homeowners who either are not in real need or are too far behind in their payments to be saved. Officials have already set some conditions for eligibility, including requiring that borrowers’ mortgage payments consume more than 38 percent of their income and that the property be their primary residence.

Government officials are working to finalize details before a self-imposed March 4 deadline when the program will go into effect and lenders are likely to be flooded with calls for help.

The program is aimed at stemming the tide of foreclosures amid predictions that another wave of risky loans could begin defaulting later this year as a deepening recession could make it more difficult for borrowers to afford their homes.

The administration’s effort includes several elements, including a refinancing initiative for borrowers with little equity in their home. A separate loan modification program lavishes incentive payments on lenders to make it even more profitable for them to help homeowners stay in their home than to foreclose on the property.

One of the chief goals of the loan modification program is to address complaints of consumer advocates that borrowers are often turned away by lenders when they ask for help before becoming delinquent on loans. The plan includes extra incentive payments for lenders that reach “at-risk” homeowners and modify their loans before they become delinquent.

“But what counts as an at-risk homeowner?,” asked Edward R. Morrison, a professor at Columbia Law School. He said policymakers should avoid setting a standard that encourages lenders and mortgage servicers to rework sustainable loans just to get payments from the government.

Administration officials involved in developing the program said they are basing their effort on a model developed by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. The formula to determine at-risk borrowers will likely weigh a homeowner’s debt level and payment track record, officials said. But in setting eligibility standards, they are also trying to determine what documentation borrowers should provide to prove they could lose their job or face a reduction in income, they said.

Another key question facing the administration is how to calculate when foreclosure would be a better deal for lenders than keeping borrowers in their home, even with incentives. The administration will attempt to generalize the FDIC formula, known as the net present value test, and apply it to the entire mortgage industry, according to officials familiar with the effort.

“If a borrower has no means of repayment, even if you restructure the loan, then foreclosure may be the only option,” said Diane Casey-Landry, chief operating officer of the American Bankers Association. “We’re very interested in how they’re going to develop it.” The administration is canvassing the financial services industry and consumer advocates for input on this and other issues. “They want them as soon as possible, so we’re scrambling,” said Paul M. Leonard, vice president of government affairs at the Financial Services Roundtable’s housing policy council.

Obama has pledged to spend $75 billion on loan modifications. About $50 billion would come from federal bailout funds approved by Congress to shore up the financial system, with mortgage financing firms Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the Department of Housing and Urban Development also contributing, administration officials said. The HUD money will be used to help fund nonprofit housing groups, the officials said. The money from the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will be used pay incentive fees and rate subsidies to mortgage servicers that modify mortgages that the financing agencies own or guarantee.

Even as the administration finalizes details of the mortgage modification program, officials are getting pressure from some groups to include protection for lenders and mortgage servicers that rework a loan and worry they could face a lawsuit from investors.

The Mortgage Bankers Association is also trying to persuade the administration to expand the refinancing portion of the plan. Under that program, the administration will loosen lending standards at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to allow millions of homeowners to qualify for refinanced loans as long as their mortgages do not exceed 105 percent of the current value of their property. But with housing prices in a free fall in some parts of the country, including Florida, California and Arizona, that will not be enough for many homeowners.

“We think that 105 percent [loan-to-value ratio] should be revisited,” said Steve O’Connor, senior vice president for government affairs at the mortgage bankers’ group.

President Barack Obama has authorized an extra 17,000 U.S. troops for Afghanistan in an effort to halt worsening insurgent violence there.

Here are some key questions and answers linked to the deployment.

WHICH TROOPS WILL GO?

About 8,000 troops from the 2nd Marine Expeditionary Brigade from Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, will go to Afghanistan in late spring. About 4,000 soldiers from the U.S. Army’s 5th Stryker Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, from Fort Lewis, Washington state, will deploy in the summer. Another 5,000 support troops will also deploy, the Pentagon says.

The new forces will add to the 38,000 U.S. troops and approximately 30,000 military personnel from other nations, who form part of a NATO-led force, already in Afghanistan.

WHERE WILL THEY GO?

The Pentagon says the troops will be deployed to southern Afghanistan, where insurgent violence is worst. Britain, the Netherlands, Canada and other nations already have troops in southern Afghanistan, as does the United States.

WHAT WILL THEY DO?

Commanders say extra troops will allow them to hold territory once it has been cleared of insurgent fighters. Until now, they say, they have not had enough troops to maintain a presence in those areas and allow essential services to be provided and economic development to take place. Such projects will motivate ordinary Afghans to reject the Taliban, military commanders say.

WILL CASUALTIES GO UP?

Probably, at least in the short term. Senior U.S. officials have said that as the troops attempt to clear more areas of insurgents, there is a higher risk of casualties.

WHAT ARE THE OTHER RISKS?

Some independent analysts have questioned the wisdom of a major troop buildup. They have suggested that a larger foreign military presence runs a greater risk of being seen as an occupying force by ordinary Afghans.

Some analysts have also questioned whether such a major effort is necessary to achieve Washington’s main goal of preventing al Qaeda from using Afghanistan to plot attacks against the United States.