June « 2009 « Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Archive for June, 2009

Lieberman Meets Clinton

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

You remember that old saw: what if a tree fell in the forest and no one heard it? Well, Avigdor Lieberman came to Washington today for his first meeting with Sec. of State Clinton and it seems nobody knew or cared. Part of the reason his visit sunk into oblivion is that Iran appears to be teetering on the brink, alongside which most other foreign policy stories pale. Seriously, I can’t find a single substantive story on this meeting in any major news source.

Nevertheless, no visit by Avigdor Lieberman should go unnoticed here. You never know what outrageous statement he might make to add to his classic list of whoppers. He did seem to have quite a problem with the English language and at points was barely comprehensible, an issue he didn’t seem to face when he fawned over the Russians during his meeting with Putin last week (and spoke with him in their native Russian).

Clinton began the press conference with diplomatese for “we just had a helluva cat fight:”

Because our countries are close friends, we spoke honestly and openly about a range of issues.

Then, a reporter questioned Clinton and Lieberman whether there was any “wiggle room” in the U.S.’ ironclad commitment to a settlement freeze.

Lieberman’s reply was interesting. Instead of focusing immediately on the freeze, he introduced a new element into his argument:

…We really don’t have any intention to change the demographic balance in Judea and Samaria. But we think that, you know, as – in every place around the world, baby are born…,people get married, some pass away. And we cannot accept – we cannot accept this vision about absolutely completely freezing call for our settlements. I think that we must keep the natural growth…

This seems to be an attempt to argue to the Americans that maintaining “demographic balance” in the Territories performs the same function as a settlement freeze and renders the latter unnecessary. It’s an odd locution since settler population in the Territories has done nothing but grow since 1993–from 100,000 to nearly 500,000 today if you include cross-Green Line Jerusalem neighborhoods.

Lieberman also adopts the Eliot Abrams position, that because there were alleged unwritten agreements between Bush and Sharon concerning the permissibility of population growth in certain settlements, that these agreements are somehow imposed on the current administration:

…We had some understandings with the previous administration…

Clinton blocks and parries Lieberman in her reply. First she begins with the crystal clear, succinct statement:

We want a stop to settlements.

You can’t put it any more clearly than that. She continues:

I think that the whole issue that you’ve raised is one that we’ve expressed our opinion on. And in looking at the history of the Bush Administration, there were no informal or oral enforceable agreements. That has been verified by the official record of the Administration and by the personnel in the positions of responsibility. Our former ambassador Dan Kurtzer has written an op-ed that appeared in the last few days that lays out our position on that.

Personally, I’m rather dumbfounded that Israel would attempt to enforce an unwritten understanding between two leaders on their successors. If I agree to rent you a house for $3,000 per month but refuse to sign a lease or rental agreement does that mean that my descendants must honor the agreement with you after I die? That’s what leases are for. If either Bush or Sharon refused to put this alleged agreement on paper it was either because they did not want it known publicly; or they didn’t want to impose it on their successors. Either way, it’s now gornisht no matter how much Lieberman and Netanyahu try to bring it back to life.

Israel’s Channel 2 correspondent asked a pointed question, to which Clinton responded masterfully:

…How do you envision any progress…on the Israeli-Palestinian track when the Israeli prime minister and the foreign minister have put so many conditions on the existing of a Palestinian state, conditions that are…all-out refused by their Arab neighbors, including the Palestinians? And when you hear that the Israeli – current Israeli Government refuses totally to talk about your demand of freezing the settlement activity, how do you envision a progress on that track?

SECRETARY CLINTON: Well, I think if one looks at Israeli history, there have been prime ministers going back to the beginning of Israelis’ statehood that have staked out positions which have changed over time. I personally have known such prime ministers from Labor, Likud and Kadima, who started in one place, but in the process of evaluating what was in the best interests of Israel, and that has to be the primary obligation of any leader of Israel: What is in the best interests of my people and the future of my state?

And these prime ministers have moved to positions that they never would have thought they could have advocated before they started looking hard and thinking hard about what the future should be. But that’s what negotiations are for.

I think you could argue that this was true of Sharon, Rabin and Begin. But I’m not sure you could argue that about any recent prime minister. Olmert seemed to change his views but never actually did anything concrete to reflect this. At any rate, it’s a nice thought on her part.

On a slightly different matter: “Don’t cry for me, Israel” sings Dennis Ross about his forthcoming job change. He’s not getting booted from the State Department as Haaretz seemed to imply in its story. Rather, he’s become Barack’s new best friend and is an indispensable partner in devising the White House’s Iran policy. He’s really gettting a promotion, don’t you know. How do we know? A little birdy and the Wall Street Journal told us so. That’s a disinterested source if ever I saw one.

This story sounds like it was written for WSJ by Ross’ spindoctors, and yet the reporter claims that Ross refused to be interviewed for the story. Hell, he didn’t need to be interviewed. If he didn’t write it himself he might as well have.

You’ll note that all the political sound bytes in this story align perfectly with the Aipac/pro-Israel line. The report even assigns a fall deadline to determining whether Iran is serious about dismantling its nuclear program. After which, I presume it would be perfectly OK for all hell to break loose. Interestingly, the reporter refuses to acknowledge that Pres. Obama himself in a very public press conference with Bibi Netanyahu specifically refused to accept such a categorical formulation. Now, wouldn’t it be nice if the WSJ could dictate U.S. foreign policy and dispense with the inconvenience of a president who balks at doing its bidding?

Tags: avigdor-lieberman, dennis ross, iran, iran sanctions, separation-wall
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 4 Comments »

Those Mischief Makers at FoxNews

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Fox News is reporting an unconfirmed account that Palestinian militants allegedly linked to Al Qaeda attempted to assassinate Jimmy Carter on his visit to Gaza earlier this week. They interview an unnamed Gaza teenager (video) who claims to have witnessed the bombers plant the alleged bomb and who reported the crime to Hamas police who arrested the perpetrators. Haaretz also reports the story, crediting it to “a Palestinian source.” Hamas denies the story and the incident.

This report is grist for the anti-Palestinian mill. You see, Jimmy Carter, the most radical U.S. political leader when it comes to Israeli-Palestinian peace–even he can be assassinated by those crazy terrorists. How can we expect Israel to trust them when they even try to kill the peacemakers (crazy as people like Carter may be)? The unconfirmed claim that the bombers were affiliated with Al Qaeda also hammers another nail into the coffin of the possibility for Israeli-Palestinian peace: Al Qaeda has even infiltrated Palestine. No Arab country is safe from the scourge. That’s the line, anyway.

Carter went to the Middle East, traveling to Syria, the West Bank and Gaza. The N.Y. Times reports that Carter asked Hamas to to consider embracing positions that would enable it to come in from the diplomatic cold. Ismail Haniya made several productive, constructive statements on various subjects including Obama’s Cairo speech. Carter also bore a letter from Gilad Shalit’s parents to their kidnapped son.

It doesn’t appear there were any substantial breakthroughs. But the important thing is that there was discussion, there was contact. A serious American political leader was reaching out to Hamas (he also met with settlers in Gush Etzion) without becoming their mouthpiece.

Watching the FoxNews video, it appears an American reporter ambushed him with a question about removing Hamas from the U.S. terror list. He replied that he believed Hamas should be removed. From this, FoxNews has spun the following distorted report:

Former President Jimmy Carter will urge the Obama administration to remove Hamas from the terrorist list, FOX News has learned.

The video reveals nothing of the sort. Carter has merely expressed his personal opinion on the subject. From this a fantasy is made up out of whole cloth.

FoxNews reinforces this smear by describing the former president as: “Carter, a chief defender of the U.S.-designated terror group [Hamas]…” What can you expect from such scandal sheet journalism?

Unfortunately, the highly respected Foreign Policy blogger, Laura Rozen has amplified the FoxNews distortion. She’s written one of those “Loose Cannon” Carter stories about the guy who embarrasses Democrats with his wild-eyed pursuit of Quixote-like ambitions for peace and good will with terrorists around the world. She quotes former Aipac staffer Ira Forman with his typically toxic opinion of Carter. There may be reasons to criticize Jimmy Carter or be leery of some of his statement or activities. But I’d say basing such sentiment on FoxNews is a dangerous gamble given their journalistic integrity (or lack thereof).

Carter’s contacts with Arab enemies of Israel scare the hell out of the pro-Israel status quo crowd. What if the guy actually does persuade Hamas to moderate its principles? What if he does persuade Obama to open up a dialogue with Syria? What will that mean for Israel? Pressure. Compromise. Danger. That’s why they’re all out to Get Carter.

H/t Rob Browne.

Tags: gaza, hamas, israeli assassinations
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 1 Comment »

Iranian Human Rights Group Reports Death Toll at 32

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Providing evidence that the death toll from Iranian pro-democracy demonstrations is much higher than the 7 officially reported, the NIAC blog quotes this report from the Association of Human Rights Activists in Iran, which it describes as a “trusted” source:

Source: Human Rights Activists in Iran [Farsi: Majmu‘e-ye fa‘âlân-e hoquq-e bashar dar irân]

Numbers of dead in recent violence in Iran reach 32
Wednesday, June 17, 2009, 11:29

The Association of Human Rights Activists in Iran can confirm the deaths of 32 Iranian citizens connected to the events of June 14 and June 15, based on its own fieldwork and despite numerous other reports.

Most of these citizens lost their lives in the attack on Tehran University dormitories on June 14 and the opening of fire by the paramilitary Basij forces on June 15. The violence started after Iranian citizens protested against the results of the tenth presidential elections, and the interference of security and paramilitary forces connected to the government.

In a statement, the public relations office of The Office to Consolidate Unity [Iran’s biggest student organization] yesterday reported the killing of at least seven students during the attack on dormitories of Tehran University and other universities around the country (Amnesty International said on June 15 there had been five deaths).

According to numerous and confirmed reports, the morgue at the Rasul Akram Hospital in Tehran has also stored eight people, who lost their lives during the shooting at defenseless people on Monday June 15.

In addition, Azerbaijani human rights activists have reported the killing of two citizens of Orumiyeh during fights in that city on June 15.

Finally, sources among the doctors at Erfan Hospital (which contains ICU, CCU, NICU and 14 emergency operation rooms) in Western Tehran reported that 15 people were dead in the hospital, all connected to the shooting on June 15.

Reports of civilian deaths across the country received by the Association are very high. However, it is impossible to confirm these because of the highly militarized atmosphere and widespread arrests, so the Association can only vouch for the deaths detailed above but
will continue the process of documentation and reporting.

The N.Y. Times and other sources continue to describe a very fluid situation within Iran with each side jockeying for position and no one yet having the upper hand or taking decisive action. I’ve read several respected sources who claim it’s only a matter of time before “the tanks” are unleashed and the revanchists retake social control.

Several nationally respected journalists have been arrested. Yesterday there was a report that several high ranking political figures, including one who served in a senior role in Iranian intelligence in the past have been arrested. One Iranian prosecutor has threatened execution for anyone found guilty of destroying property and being in cahoots with foreign interests. The regime seems especially intent on suppressing all foreign coverage of the daily rallies by pro-democracy forces. Journalists have been entirely confined to their offices though this has merely forced them to rely on Iranian non-journalists to funnel information, images and video to them.

It would seem that this regime is especially sensitive to how it might be perceived outside Iran. Knowing this provides the opposition with an opening to exploit the government’s weakness. Every bloodied body shown outside Iran helps democratic forces within Iran.

There may come a point when the authorities go for broke and decide they have to risk everything to regain control. Then, there may be no leverage and no conscience remaining and all hell could break loose. Let’s hope that day does not come.

Can we insist that major media stop referring to Ahmadinejad’s election “victory?” This phrasing annoys the hell out of me. He won nothing. It is just as easy to to use terms like “claimed” or “alleged” to distinguish this election from a legitimate one.

Reader Alex Stein yesterday pointed to a BBC story which suggested the election results might be valid. Today’s N.Y. Times provides electoral maps noting tremendous discrepancies between past and current voting patterns. In addition, a sitting president who presided over massive inflation and economic displacement, a repressive and unpopular regime stifling human rights, and who regularly made a mockery of himself and his country with his pronouncements about the Holocaust, homosexuality (there are no gays in Iran)–this guy allegedly received 8 million MORE votes than the first time he ran. It simply beggars belief.

Among the items mentioned in the Times’ electoral map section is that in the 2005 election an Azeri candidate (where Moussavi hails from) finished last in the national voting but swept the Azeri provinces. This time, Moussavi won only 42% of his home province. In 2005, Mehdi Karroubi won 55% of the vote in his native province. This election he won 5%. Ahmadinejad’s percentage increased from 9% in 2005 to 71% this election. The claim of a free and fair election is incredible.

Tags: iran
Posted in Mideast Peace | 8 Comments »

What is ‘Intelligent’ About Israeli Intelligence?

Wednesday, June 17th, 2009

Has anyone ever said that calling the Mossad an intelligence agency is a bit of an oxymoron? From Haaretz:

According to [Mossad director Meir] Dagan, “Election fraud in Iran is no different than what happens in liberal states during elections. The struggle over the election results in Iran is internal and is unconnected to its strategic aspirations, including its nuclear program.”

How’s that again? In what liberal state that you know of does the election commission essentially announce the results and winner without providing a shred of supporting evidence of the real outcome? If Dagan truly believes that Iran’s election has nothing to do with its strategic aspirations then he should be fired for being an idiot. Of course the election has a great deal to do with Iran’s strategic goals, priorities and interests. In fact, Moussavi during the campaign explicitly criticized Iran’s foreign adventures and said the government should focus its attention closer to home. The fact is, it is in Dagan’s interest to describe Moussavi and Ahmadinejad as Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dum, while they are no such thing. This is the mendacity of Israeli intelligence. You can’t believe a word they say unless you can confirm it first from a reliable source.

This is something like Aluf Benn was thinking when he wrote in Haaretz:

The prize for this week’s most stupid remark has to go to the officials, officers and experts who described Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the candidate Israel prefers to win the election in Iran, and were even happy he did. It is hard to think of a more blatant manifestation of the narrow horizons of Israeli strategic thinking.

Returning to Dagan’s remarks, if Iran’s election outcome is “no different” than what happens in other western liberal states, doesn’t that fly in the face of the campaign promoted by the Mossad and Israeli government that Iran is NOT a liberal democracy, but rather a medieval Islamist tyranny?

This type of pat “analysis” may also come back to haunt the Mossad’s top spook:

Mossad chief Meir Dagan on Tuesday told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that the riots in Iran over the election results will die out in a few days rather than escalate into a revolution. “The reality in Iran is not going to change because of the elections. The world and we already know [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad. If the reformist candidate [Mir Hossein] Mousavi had won, Israel would have had a more serious problem because it would need to explain to the world the danger of the Iranian threat, since Mousavi is perceived internationally arena as a moderate element…

It is in Mossad’s interest to make it appear as if Ahmadinejad was indeed the legitimate winner of the election. If this were not the case, then Iran might indeed be a nation within which beats a liberal democratic heart. And such a phenomenon would impede the intelligence agency’s campaign to smear Iran and gin up a war and possible regime change.

In pointing out the threat also posed by Moussavi, Dagan claimed that Iran’s nuclear program began under the reformist presidential candidate when he was prime minister in the 1980s. Actually, the program began under the Shah. Certainly, Moussavi’s government pursued nuclear research as all Iranian governments have. But the claim the Mossad chief made is simply bogus. Does the Mossad have a case of historical amnesia? Are they completely ignorant about Iranian history? Or are they willingly to be creative and cook the books when it’s in their interests to do so?

Dagan also told the Knesset committee that Iran would have a nuclear weapon by 2014, a date that is far different than what other Israeli officials have been telling the world. It even tells its own diplomats that Iran will have a bomb within a year. Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing and saying?

Posted in Mideast Peace | 11 Comments »

Abbas Demands Israel Recognize Palestine as Muslim State

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

One of Bibi Netanyahu’s non-starter demands is that the Palestinians must recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Forget the fact that it is more than just a Jewish state since it is also a state for its Muslim, Christian and Druze citizens. Think about how ridiculous it would be for Mahmoud Abbas–or even Ismail Haniye for that matter–to demand that Israel recognize Palestine as a Muslim state, before Palestine would negotiate a peace agreement.

My more ‘pro-Israel’ readers will object that it is less critical that there be yet another Muslim state in the world while there is only ONE Jewish one. So let’s turn the tables and say hypothetically there is no other Muslim state in the world besides Palestine. Still, and I repeat the question, why in heaven’s name does it make any difference whether Bibi Netanyahu concedes that Palestine is Muslim? I’d say it’s none of Bibi’s damn business whether Palestine is Muslim, Christian, Hindu or Shinto for that matter.

Similarly, it’s none of Abbas’ business what Israel is. That’s for Israelis to decide.

Does Mexico demand that we recognize it as a Catholic state before we negotiate cross-border agreements? Should we insist that Canada recognize that the U.S. as a Christian nation before we negotiate the next thorny issue confronting our two nations?

Now to return to one of the more problematic aspects of the issue of Israel as a Jewish state. If Israel is a Jewish state, then it is not a democratic state. It is an ethnocratic state. That is, a state with a hierarchy of rights with Jews at the top and Muslims at the bottom.

This is not to say that Israel, in an ideal articulation, could not be a state in which its Jewish citizens see it as a Jewish homeland while its Arab or Muslim citizens see it as their respective ethnic homeland as well. To concede this is not to concede that Jews will lose recognition of any of their Jewishness within this reframed state. Instead, what will happen is the re-envisioned state will expand its conception to embrace all its citizens and their respective religions and ethnicities.

Make no mistake, my rightward pro-Israel readers call this “the death of Israel as a Jewish state” or “the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state.” It is nothing of the sort. If Israel continues to embrace its Jewish citizens while reaching out additionally to its Arab citizens, this is the death of nothing. It is different from the current system. But nothing need die if Israel adopts a truly multi-ethnic egalitarian model.

And another point which Tony Karon raises, if Israel is to claim it is a Jewish state this implies a continuity of values or interests with the rest of the world’s Jews. But who has asked Diaspora Jews whether Israel is their state? Who has given Israel the right to speak for them as Jews? Yes, there are many older generation Jews and the Israel lobby which accept this deal. But increasingly, a younger generation of Jews doesn’t.

If Israel is to become a state of all its citizens it would be far healthier for there to be more of a distinction between Diaspora and Israeli Jewish interests. I do not say that they should never overlap, but there certainly should be nothing wrong when they don’t. Israel must earn the support of the world’s Jews, that support should not be automatic or assumed. If Israel realizes the Jewish values of Diaspora Jews then it should gain our support. If it violates our conception of such values it should not assume we will fall into line like good soldiers.

Tags: ethnocracy, jewish, jewish-state
Posted in Jews & Judaism, Mideast Peace | 22 Comments »

7 Dead in Iran as Protestors Assault Revolutionary Guard Headquarters

Tuesday, June 16th, 2009

The N.Y. Times reports that up to seven Iranians died overnight after a largely peaceful, massive opposition rally in Teheran by supporters of Hossein Moussavi:

…Violence erupted after dark when protesters surrounded and attempted to set fire to the headquarters of the Basij volunteer militia, which is associated with the Revolutionary Guards, according to news agency reports. The first death and several injuries were reported as a result of that confrontation.

Here are grahpic images of many of the dead and most seriously wounded. This is what happens when a dreaded security apparatus runs amok. ElectronicMaji reports in even greater detail and directly from the source:

Throughout the land many are dead. At least 5 perished in the attack on the Tehran University by supporters of Ahmadinejad. At least 4 following the Tehran protest, as guards fired into the crowd. Another 7 in Shiraz, in the South of Iran.

Further, Persian Kiwi twitters (Tabriz in in Iran’s north and is the birthplace of Moussavi and known to detest Ahmadinjad):

confirmed – Tabriz – Baseej headqurters set fire – ‘many’ dead

Iranian demonstrator raises clenched fist

I mentioned in an earlier post that Iranians are playing political chicken. It seems the stakes have just been raised. Whoever decided to take on the Basij militia by attempting to burn down their headquarters was both foolhardy and reckless, though understandably so. This militia is at the heart of the regime’s repressive apparatus. It’s cohort was out in force assaulting demonstrators over the past few days. It is a powerful and feared institution in Iran and a symbol of all that is wrong with the current system.

So the hatred with which Iranians view Basij is understandable. The problem is that Moussavi spent yesterday telling Iran and the regime that he didn’t want to topple it. He only wanted to reform it. When you go to the heart of power and attempt to destroy its symbols that is another matter entirely. Such bloodletting is liable to provoke the Ayatollah and his supporters into an all-out crackdown.

Both sides just now are dancing an awkward, but elaborate minuet. If one side disdains the dance and tries to blow up the dance hall, then all bets are off. This could turn very bloody, very fast. The opposition needs discipline and adventures like this are the worst things that can happen.

On the other hand, this brazen assault is quite breathtaking. In such a repressive regime, no one could contemplate taking on the most hated and feared of its members. The Channel 4 report above quotes demonstrators shouting: “We will murder those who murder their brothers.” This is crying havoc and letting loose the dogs of war.

Perhaps responding to Republican pressure, Pres. Obama released a measured statement decrying the bloodshed and affirming U.S. support for an investigation of the election results so that all may be heard in a spirit of democracy.

Some of the information above originates at the NIAC blog.

Tags: Barack Obama, iran
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 5 Comments »

Iran’s Game of Chicken

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Hossein Moussavi speaks at Teheran protest rally Monday (Behrouz Mehri/AFP-Getty)

In a game of chicken of massive and momentous proportions, it appears that Iran’s clerical leadership has blinked ever so slightly. I wouldn’t start celebrating just yet as a lot remains to be seen. But maybe, just maybe, there is someone home there:

Hundreds of thousands of people marched through central Tehran on Monday to protest Iran’s disputed presidential election in an extraordinary show of defiance that appeared to be the largest antigovernment demonstration here since the 1979 revolution.

…The protests began hours after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, called for a inquiry into opposition claims that the election was rigged in favor of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

The ayatollah’s call — announced every 15 minutes on Iranian state radio throughout the day — was the first sign that Iran’s top leadership might be rethinking its position on the election. But it was too soon to tell whether the announcement, or the government’s decision to let the enormous rally in Tehran proceed, indicated more than a superficial shift. Many in the crowd said they believed the government was simply buying time, and hoping the protests would dissipate, as smaller protest movements have in 1999 and 2003.

The Times’ report said that, impressively, the rally was entirely silent (except for Moussavi’s address), to emphasize the non-threatening, non-violent nature of the movement. Clearly, it is important to the protest leaders to reassure the putative leadership that they are not seeking to overthrow the system, but rather to democratize it. This does not mean that the Ayatollah will not continue to see the movement as a threat. But it does give him one less piece of ammunition with which to bash them in the domestic media.

Moussavi’s wife had earlier called for a general strike tomorrow though the Times is reporting only another demonstration. Tomorrow is another day on the road toward freedom (one hopes at least).

There are several related developments here in the U.S. which are alternately hopeful and distressing. First, Israeli media are reporting that Dennis Ross, Iran hawk, has been relieved of his State Department responsibilities regarding Iran:

Dennis Ross, who most recently served as a special State Department envoy to Iran, will abruptly be relieved of his duties, sources in Washington told Haaretz. An official announcement is expected in the coming days.

The Obama administration will announce that Ross has been reassigned to another position in the White House. In his new post, the former Mideast peace envoy under President Bill Clinton will deal primarily with regional issues related to the peace process.

Washington insiders speculate that a number of reasons moved the administration to reassign Ross. One possibility is Iran’s persistent refusal to accept Ross as a U.S. emissary given the diplomat’s Jewish background as well as his purported pro-Israel leanings. Ross is known to maintain contacts with numerous senior officials in Israel’s defense establishment and the Israeli government.

Diplomatic sources in Jerusalem surmised that another possibility for Ross’ ouster is his just-released book, “Myths, Illusions, and Peace – Finding a New Direction for America in the Middle East.”

Frankly, I was rather astonished to read this promotional e mail from Ross’ publisher, Penguin-Viking, that played up precisely the most bellicose and alarming (to those like me opposed war with Iran) aspects of the book’s contents:

U.S. envoy Dennis Ross…raises the possibility of the use of military force against Iran should negotiations fail to head off Tehran’s nuclear ambitions.
…
“Tougher policies – either militarily or meaningful containment – will be easier to sell internationally and domestically if we have diplomatically tried to resolve our differences with Iran in a serious and credible fashion,” they wrote.

I wondered to myself how Ross’ publisher could so bald-facedly promote pro-war provocation while the co-author sat in the State Department ostensibly promoting constructive U.S.-Iran engagement.

Personally, I think either Clinton or Obama just grew tired of reading stories like these which telegraphed Ross’ discomfort with the current administration line toward Teheran. And with an even more intransigent, entrenched regime now in place it became even more important for our ducks to be in row when dealing with Iran.

That’s why I’m delighted Ross has been removed from a sandbox in which he could do much harm. Having him in a senior position dealing with the Iranian issue is like putting the fox in the chicken coop. If you want mischief I can’t think of a better way to get it.

In a related matter, United Against Nuclear Iran, a group neocon on whose board Ross sat, has begun a TV ad campaign touting a hardline message concerning a nuclearized Iran. I’m shocked that Ross wouldn’t have completely dissociated himself from this group considering his government role and the fact that UANI is advocating a position that not only is dangerous and contrary to current U.S. policy, but mirrors Israel’s interests and the goals of its military and intelligence apparatus.

Folks, we’ve got to cut out this s(&t. It only helps Ahmadinejad and his lackeys drill the locks tighter on Iranian democracy and freedom. There are those in the U.S. and Israel who actually prefer things that way. These people not only want a war, they want regime change. So as far as they’re concerned, the worse the Iranian government. the more the world will eventually clamor for toppling the mullahs. They’re got a retro version of George Bush’s fever dream about overthrowing Saddam Hussein. And were we to go that way, we’d end up in precisely the same place that we’re in right now regarding Iraq: troops committed and dying, a nation in the midst of mini-civil war. A total disaster. We must not let this happen with Iran.

Tags: ayatollahs, iran, iran-nuclear-program
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 5 Comments »

Whither Iran: Dictatorship or Democracy?

Monday, June 15th, 2009

Wounded Moussavi supporter during Teheran demonstrations (Olivier Laban-mattei-AFP/Getty)

Who will win the showdown between brutish theocratic dictatorship and reformism? So far, clearly the thugs backing Ahmadinejad and Khamenei have the upper hand. But will the reformers and their millions of supporters acquiesce? Will this be a replay of Khatami’s reign during which brave student resistance was smothered by unremitting repression and violence? Or has the genie escaped from the bottle? Have so many millions of Iranians had a taste of democracy and freedom that they simply refuse to go back?

Hossein Moussavi, who remains under house arrest along with 100 other key opposition leaders, has announced a mass demonstration for tomorrow to be followed by a national strike Tuesday. The putative government has rejected the call for a demonstration thus setting up a potentially lethal confrontation. Who will give in in this game of political chicken? Will the opposition brave death to protest? Will the thugs pull out all stops to smother the resistance in its cradle?

Both opposition presidential candidates issued new statements denouncing the election and calling for further resistance. In fact, Mehdi Karroubi made this astonishingly bold statement:

“I do not consider Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as president of the republic.”

A moderate clerical group also called for annulling the result:

Those resisting the election results gained a potentially important new ally on Sunday when…the Association of Combatant Clergy issued a statement…saying that the vote was rigged and calling for it to be annulled. The statement warned that “if this process becomes the norm, the republican aspect of the regime will be damaged and people will lose confidence in the system.”

Mr. Moussavi called for the clergy to join his protest in an open letter late Saturday. It is difficult to say how influential the statement by the association, made up of 27 moderate clerics, will be in Iran’s complex and opaque power structure, but Ayatollah Khamenei, who has the last word on many important matters, is sensitive to clerical opinion.

Ayatollah Khamenei issued a second clueless statement supporting the tainted election:

“Elections in Iran are the soundest, the healthiest of their kind,” he said to cheering supporters. “Some people inside or outside the country … say that the vote has been disrupted, there has been fraud. Where are irregularities in the elections?”

Moussavi supporter masks her face with candidate's image (Ben Curtis-AP)

It seems clear that the coup plotters see Moussavi as a potential spoiler. Besides being placed under house arrest, Ahmadinejad made the following threat against his opponent that is characteristic of overreaching dictators everywhere:

“He ran a red light, and he got a traffic ticket.”

While this is intended as humor, it is the type of joke the cat tells the mouse before he pounces and swallows it for breakfast. The question remains–will Iranians allow themselves to be swallowed whole in the maw of repression and injustice?

The NIAC blog reveals that Republican Rep. Mike Pence has called for Obama to come out against Ahmadinejad, which would be the most foolhardy thing the U.S. could do. Mitt Romney too, calls for precisely the wrong response:

“What has occurred is that the election is a fraud, the results are inaccurate, and you’re seeing a brutal repression of the people as they protest.”"The president ought to come out and state exactly those words, indicate that this has been a terribly managed decision by the autocratic regime in Iran,” said Romney, who has not ruled out another run for president in 2012. “It’s very clear that the president’s policies of going around the world and apologizing for America aren’t working.”

The president is maintaining a studied silence, which speaks volumes both to Iran and the rest of the world. Unlike in the law, silence does not mean assent. It means disapproval. But studied disapproval. Withholding recognition of this stolen election is about as strong a statement as the U.S. can make. But make no mistake, it is eloquent silence. As Trita Parsi has said so eloquently, for once this is not about us. This is about Iran. It is for the Iranians to decide what direction their country takes. We have done enough meddling in the world over the past eight years. Our history with Iran is so fraught with hatred and mistrust that taking a step back is the best thing we can do.

On a related matter, remain vigilant about this type of neocon exploitation of this situation, emanating from Dennis Ross’ United Against a Nuclear Iran:

“President Obama offered the hand of diplomacy to the Iranian people. Iran has rejected that hand. Since President Obama’s inauguration we have seen more nuclear enrichment from Iran and more missile tests. And now Iran has reelected President Ahmadinejad – a hard-line, holocaust-denying radical. America and the international community must increase Iran’s economic isolation and Americans can take action today to do just that.”

– Ambassador Mark D. Wallace, President, United Against Nuclear Iran

Undoubtedly, others in Tel Aviv (and their minions in Washington) are also burning the midnight oil seeking ways of working this crisis to their advantage. We must not let the pro-war crowd exploit this. Cooler heads must prevail. This is the type of situation at which Barack Obama excels. It’s like a chess game. You have to weigh all of the intangibles before deciding what action to take. The neocon push for rash, precipitous action must be resisted at all costs. Remember Iraq?

Tags: ahmadinejad, iran, iran-nuclear-program, neocon
Posted in Mideast Peace, Politics & Society | 10 Comments »