Mahzor

New York Public Library

Churches

Sarajevo Haggadah

Mah Nishtanah

Sarajevo haggadah

Antaea Darom

Israeli women's art

Action

Torah as music

Ben Heine

Action

ceramic bowl

Mohammad Said Kalash, "Offering Reconciliation" exhibit (photo: Ilan Amihai)

Action

Punch and Judy/Pinchas and Jamila

Avi Katz

Action

David Grossman

Ben Heine

Action

Eldrige Street shul

Lower East Side

Action

Dove

Ben Heine

Action

Two birds

Hoda Jamal

Action

Israeli and Palestinian boys

from documentary, Promises

Action

Cat in the Hat

Yiddish version

Action

Daylight through the Wall

Banksy: graffiti art on Separation Wall

Action

Maurice Sendak's Brundibar set

New Victory Theater (photo: Nan Melville/NYT)

Action

Daniel Barenboim, West-Eastern Divan Orchestra

Palestinian-Israeli musical ensemble (photo: Kerstin Joensson/AP)

Action

Great Day on Eldrige Street

N.Y.'s klezmer greats celebrate shul rededication (photo: Leo Sorel)

Action

Joint Appeal for Peace

(Avi Katz)

Joint Appeal for Peace

Ketubah, Ancona, Italy (1772)

(Jewish Theological Seminary library)

Ancona ketubah

Posts Tagged ‘regime change’

Besieged Former UK Defense Minister’s Buddy Funded by Pro-Israel Lobby, Linked to Mossad

Sunday, October 16th, 2011

Not to be outdone by the ludicrous goings-on in Washington DC, where our own Justice Department has tried to turn a drug-dealing, wife abusing, failed businessman into an Iranian Terrorist Mastermind, the Brits are trying to best us.  The Tory government’s recently resigned defense minister, Liam Fox, left in disgrace after he was deeply implicated in a pay for play scandal involving a best friend, Adam Werrity, who jet-setted around the world with Fox and freelanced an independent foreign and defense policy that set official government figures on edge.

adam werrity liam fox

Adam Werrity and Liam Fox (R)

I’d followed this scandal peripherally until I started hearing more about Werrity’s doings, and then I really took notice.  Werrity, it appears, held views roughly similar to Michael Ledeen and cultivated wealthy pro-Israel donors who funded his travels to Iran, Israel and other locales where, among other things, he plotted the overthrow of the Iranian regime:

The revelation that the man who had unrestricted access to Mr Fox while he was serving in David Cameron’s Cabinet was at the same time attempting to unseat the Iranian President will fuel alarm in the Foreign Office that he was pursuing a freelance foreign policy and acting as a “rogue operator”.

In order to be a neocon version of James Bond, Werrity required an extensive bankroll to fund his stays at first class luxury hotels.  He found funding to the tune of hundred of thousands of pounds from some of the most well-known Tory and pro-Israel fatcats in Britain including the chair of the UK equivalent of Aipac (called Bicom):

The Finnish billionaire Chaim “Poju” Zabludowicz, who has given the Tories more than £100,000, was also named as a Pargav donor, via his company, Tamares Real Estate. Mr Zabludowicz shares Mr Fox’s pro-Israel opinions and chairs the pro-Israel lobbying group Bicom. He was yesterday said to be “extremely disappointed” to discover the truth about how his money was used.

Another key Werrity donor and central figure in Bicom was Michael Hintze:

Most significant of all was the involvement of Michael Hintze, the billionaire fund manager who has given the Tories more than £1.4m – including individual donations to Mr Fox, George Osborne and Boris Johnson. He had already been brought under scrutiny after it was revealed that Mr Werritty worked from a desk at the offices of Mr Hintze’s hedge fund, CQS – and that Mr Hintze had donated £29,000 to Atlantic Bridge.

Werrity was cozy not just with the UK pro-Israel lobby, but with figures likely from the Mossad as well:

Mr Werritty, 33, has been debriefed by MI6 about his travels and is so highly regarded by the Israeli intelligence service Mossad – who thought he was Mr Fox’s chief of staff – that he was able to arrange meetings at the highest levels of the Israeli government, multiple sources have told The IoS.

Werrity brought Fox to a dinner meeting with the British ambassador to Israel during a Herzlyia security conference, at which they met Israeli political figures including likely Mossad operatives.  The Israelis were interested in Werrity’s travels to Iran, where he met with opposition figures and likely plotted his regime change agenda.  All of this, of course, allowed the Iranians to claim, falsely we believed, during the post-election riots that British agents were plotting to overthrow the government.  Turns out it likely was true.  Though the Iranians may not have known that Werrity was doing so unofficially, not on behalf of the British government.  But how can you blame the Iranians for not understanding the difference when it appears neither the Israelis, nor lots of others did either.  In fact, an Israeli is quoted as saying he understood Werrity was Fox’s chief of staff.

Here is what official Britain thought of Werrity’s doings:

One Whitehall source was scathing of Mr Werritty. The source said: “Ask yourself what he was doing there. It’s regime change but only in his own mind. I can’t think of anything more stupid, wandering round Iran flying the British flag. Does he really think the answer to Iran’s nuclear ambitions – which we all want to resolve – is to have a bunch of people encouraging the opposition there in that way? We do have a responsibility to those people, and anything that’s done like that has to have government approval, which he doesn’t seem to have had. It’s ridiculous. You are inviting people to believe you have the Government’s resources behind them, and in fact the opposition is likely to be brutally crushed.

Now, what other foreign intelligence agency is plotting regime change?  The Mossad of course.  So the questions arises–just whose interest was Werrity serving when he engaged in all this razzle dazzle and subterfuge?  He appears to suffer from the same illness that afflicts the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.  They pursue Israel’s interest to the detriment of the interests of their own country, because they don’t see any difference between the two.  Israel’s interests in their eyes become U.S. or UK interests through some miraculous process of transsubstantiation.  Here is how Craig Murray described the problem:

Not only was Werritty being paid to act as an unofficial part of the Defence Secretary’s entourage, the money was coming from people who may have been ready to promote the interests of certain foreign governments, particularly the United States, Israel and Sri Lanka.

…It is plain as a pikestaff that Fox had retained his effective partnership with Werritty in lobbying activities that not only were concerned with Israel and Sri Lanka, but which actively sought to promote the geo-strategic interests of those countries – for money.

…What really was worrying senior officials in the MOD [Ministry of Defense]and Cabinet  Office was the possibility that Fox could be being used as a ‘useful idiot’ by Mossad, Israel’s far-reaching and extremely effective intelligence service.  Key funding sources for Werritty were from the Israeli lobby and a rather obscure commercial intelligence agency.  Might Mossad be pulling Werritty’s strings, with or without his knowledge?

On Friday, two senior Fleet Street journalists also reported hearing similar concerns from other Whitehall officials about possible Israeli intelligence service involvement with Fox and Werritty.   By working closely with an unofficial aide with extraordinary access but no security vetting and murky funding sources, Fox had potentially compromised national security.  That is the real story here.

Seymour Hersh’s ‘Iran and the Bomb’

Saturday, June 4th, 2011
how i learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

How we can stop worrying and learn to 'love' the Iranian bomb

Seymour Hersh’s article in the New Yorker, Iran and the Bomb, is stirring up great interest, because he argues that the latest National Intelligence Estimate, released last February, says that essentially nothing has changed since the last (2007) NIE.  In other words, just as the earlier report said it appeared Iran had ended its nuclear weapons program in 2003 (after Iran’s arch-enemy Saddam Hussein was overthrown), the new version could find no definitive evidence showing that Iran had resumed its effort.

Now, this is an incredibly controversial claim just as the 2003 report was.  Then, Bush and Cheney railed against the notion that everything they’d been saying about demon Iran was wrong.  Now, the 2010 NIE contradicts almost every basis of current U.S. policy toward Iran.  That’s why Obama’s staff have anonymously (no courage among this lot) smeared Hersh’s work in Politico as little better than a school “book report.”

Hersh reveals that U.S. intelligence analysts believe that when Iran was developing its nuclear weapons program, the purpose was not to deter an attack from Israel or the U.S. as Bibi Netanyahu claims, but against Iraq, which the Iranians believed was developing a bomb (just as Bush believed, remember WMD?).  This accords with a number of analyses I’ve read, which say that Iran historically is most threatened by its regional neighbors.  It fought a costly eight-year, war-to-the-death against Iraq and logically, the primary reason for building a bomb would be to protect itself from attack from that quarter, and not from Israel.

Meir Dagan, Israel’s recently departed Mossad chief, doesn’t quite agree with Hersh.  Lately, he’s been saying that Iran is trying to develop a bomb and that it will do so.  But perhaps most radical of all (compared to Hersh at least) is Dagan’s contention that Iran will get the bomb, but that this will not mean the end of the world; or as Terry Southern put it, “How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb.”  For Dagan, the key is negotiating a modus vivendi with Iran so that each country can live in peace despite the fact that they may have enough firepower to obliterate the other.  This is quite a radical thought inside Israel for many reasons, but perhaps most critically it means that Israel’s former top spy believes that Iran, even the brutal regime currently in power, is composed of rational leaders with whom an understanding may be negotiated.

No, Dagan hasn’t said this explicitly, perhaps because it would further isolate him among the intelligence community he once headed, but it flows logically from all his other statements on the subject.  In fact, Bibi’s minions have begun doing just that, actually accusing Dagan of being “insane” (Hebrew) for single-handedly (supposedly) destroying Israel’s military option with his statements.

The New Yorker writer quotes a former British foreign service officer almost precisely echoing Dagan:

One of [his] worries is that Netanyahu “might take a pot shot” at Iran, as the former adviser put it. “Everything in London is now about containment and the notion that if the Iranians get a bomb we’ll have to live with it.  I believe that the Iranians do understand the logic of nuclear deterrence, but the Israelis do not.  London believes we cannot allow containment to be seen as a policy of failure”—in terms of a fallback policy for dealing with Iran. “And so we’re trying to shift the public perception of deterrence so it is seen as a good. The Brits are really concerned about the Israelis, and what they might do unilaterally.

One of Hersh’s most incisive criticisms of current U.S. policy is that we are exploiting the supposed Iranian nuclear weapons program in order to advance our own political goals of bringing Iran to heel:

Donilon said that Iran’s nuclear program “is part of a larger pattern of destabilizing activities throughout the region. . . . We have no illusions about the Iranian regime’sregional ambitions. We know that they will try to exploit this period of tumult and will remain vigilant. . . . The door to diplomacy remains open to Iran. But that diplomacy must be meaningful and not a tactical attempt to ward off sanctions.”

America’s sanctions policy thus is increasingly aimed, as Donilon indicated, at changing Iran’s political behavior, and the spectre of nuclear-weapons development has become a tool for accomplishing that goal.

The Pulitzer-Prize winning journalist draws an apt historical analogy to prove the likely failure of the U.S. led international sanctions regime against Iran.  He points to fifty years of American sanctions imposed on Castro after he took power in 1959.  Just as these policies led to no significant change in the Communist regimes policies and certainly did not topple it; so we can assume the punitive sanctions on Iran will have similarly minimal effect.  All sanctions do is allow Obama to save face by claiming he’s doing something about the supposed problem.  This covers his right flank from attack by pro-Israel and Republican forces looking to shrey, as conservatives did in 1949 (“who lost China”), when Iran gets a bomb: “who lost [a WMD-less] Iran?”

From the New Yorker essay emerges a prominent Iranian fear that deters a pragmatic future policy–that is, that Israel and the U.S. are intent not just on forcing Iran to end its nuclear program but on regime change.  There is a realist caucus consisting of former State Department official Tom Pickering and others who’ve undertaken Track II talks with Iran and this is one of the most glaring concerns raised by the other side.  Thankfully, Pickering, who has unfortunately not been able to get Obama’s ear for his efforts, would tell the president if he could meet him, both to end any U.S. efforts in this direction and discourage Israeli efforts as well.

Hersh does acknowledge a camp that believes that while Iran may be pursuing nuclear research and development, it is not doing so with the intent of weaponizing, but rather of going right up the edge and stopping.  So that it would have the capacity to make a bomb if it felt it needed to do so, but it would not actually have a bomb.  At a conference I organized on Iran-Israel relations, one of the speakers noted that Japan is a nation that has followed this policy.  Curious how you never hear anyone complaining that Japan poses a nuclear threat to China and its region.  Yes, Japan’s leaders are perceived as more rational than Iran’s.  But to believe Iran’s leaders are prepared to incinerate their cities in order to achieve the goal of ridding the world of Israel, carries such pathology to ridiculous extremes.  Bibi may convince himself that this is true, but there’s no law saying we have to jump off the bridge with him when he takes the plummet into such murky waters.

Josh Block ‘Discovers’ Iranian Democracy

Tuesday, March 29th, 2011

josh block, natasha mozgovaya, bill daroff

Josh Block palling around at Democratic convention with Haaretz's Natasha Mozgovaya and United Jewish Communities' Bill Daroff (Ron Kampeas)

Josh Block, Aipac’s former PR flack and media enforcer, has a new perch at the rather inaptly named Progressive Policy Institute, the place where hawkish Democrats go to die politically.  Apparently, the PPI hired Josh because they didn’t have enough street cred with the pro-Israel crowd.  Josh’s first initiative since coming there is a doozy.  He’s trying to exploit the political prominence of the Arab Spring democratic revolutions by hitching a new anti-Iranian so-called “democracy initiative” to them.  He’s doing this with another Bush-era neocon darling with a special interest in promoting anti-jihadi views, Freedom House:

With democratic revolutions shaking the Middle East, a Democratic think tank, the Progressive Policy Institute, and the pro-democracy group Freedom House are launching a new task force aimed at shifting American policy on its central regional foe, Iran, toward a more aggressive focus on democracy.

The new “Iran Strategy Task Force” is subtitled “Beyond Sanctions…”

You know what “beyond sanctions” is code word for, don’t you?  Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.  And don’t ya just love that phrase “aggressive focus on democracy?”  Since when is the pursuit of democracy ‘aggressive?’  Since when does democracy come from pre-emptive air strikes or regime change such as the anti-Iran hawks propose?  And you know that’s what “aggressive” really means.

The names of the “luminaries” chosen for this august undertaking are also revealing, as they show its clear right-wing pro-Israel bias, and the slow drift rightward of some figures who should know better.  Among them are: Ken Pollack, Ray Tayekh, Steve Beckerman (Aipac), Rob Satloff (WINEP), Walter Russell Mead, Larry Diamond (Hoover Institution).

Memo to Josh: Iran doesn’t need your meddling.  In fact, if you really want democracy in Iran, butt out.  All the ayatollahs need to hear is that people like you are cynically trying to hijack the Arab revolution for your anti-Iran agenda, and they will turn around and yoke the real Iranian democracy activists like Moussavi and Karroubi to you.  That will be the end of Iranian democracy for the next ten years.

If Iranian democracy is to develop, we cannot be seen to be meddling internally or even lobbying aggressively outside Iran for to become what we want it to become.  That’s poison for the reformers that we support and Josh professes to support.  The truth is that Josh Block doesn’t care much about the people of Iran or democracy there.  Israel is his agenda and advancing the Likudist vision of Iran as an international hegemonic bogeyman is what Josh is really about.  If you scratched beneath the surface (or maybe not even), Josh is likely one of the “bomb Iran” crowd.  So his alleged support of Iranian democracy derives from his desire for regime change.  What he won’t tell you is that his “aggressive” pursuit of democracy really means he’s in favor of attacking Iran, rather than promoting democracy there.  If Iran could re-introduce a new Shah who would be pro-Israel, that would likely be fine with Josh and some of this crowd.  The only reason Josh doesn’t overtly support monarchism, as many wealthy Iranian-American Jews do, is that it’s declasse in this age of Arab revolution.

Now, would he prefer that the masses of Iranians rise up and overthrow their masters in a bloodless revolution?  Probably.  But I think Josh would take an overthrow any way he can get it with or without violence, with or without democracy as the ultimate outcome.  Claiming to support Iranian democracy is the ultimate political opportunism.

‘Iranium’ Heritage Foundation Premiere, Iranian Star of Film: ‘If U.S. Won’t Bomb Iran, Israel Should’

Thursday, January 27th, 2011


Now, the moment so many of you have all been waiting for: the première of Clarion Fund/Aish Hatorah’s latest magnum opus in its epic trilogy of Islamophobia.  Iranium is coming.  It will be premiered (where else) at the Heritage Foundation and introduced by one of the great neocon charlatans, Richard Perle.  It will be screened at New York City AMC Theaters.  Years in the making and with a cast of neocon thousands (well, OK maybe “tens”) and a seeminly unlimited budget (fronted no doubt by far-right Jewish Republican fatcats like Barre Seid who spent $17-million promoting Obsession), Iranium will scare the wits out of you (well, maybe not you) and send you crawling to your local Congress member demanding that they do something, anything about Iran before it’s too late.

Ali Gharib and Eli Clifton actually watched the entire film before Clarion locked down its Vimeo account and made the file private.  Their review is available at Teheran Bureau.  If anyone here has access to the full length version, please let me know.  I think it’s critical that progressives watch this film, blog about it and so steal the thunder from Clarion and the war party advocating attacking Iran.  The more we can tell the world what this film is really about the less people will fall prey to the inevitable propaganda that will pass for objective information about the “Iranian threat.”

reza khalili

Reza Khalili: alleged Iranian double agent and star of 'Iranium' (Reuters)

I’ve been watching video segments consisting of portions of the film and one sticks out like a sore thumb.  It’s video of an interview with an alleged Iranian CIA spy, Reza Khalili (not his real name, nor is anything else about this guy genuine).  The name was familiar to me and then I realized why.  Yossi Melman profiled him in Haaretz.  When I read his piece something about it smelled fishy.  This was confirmed when Prof. Muhammad Sahimi also suspected fraud.  He wrote about the alleged spy:

Even according to him [Khalili], the last time he was with the IRGC [Revolutionary Guards] – if he was – was in late 1980s, twenty-years ago. Things have changed fundamentally. The IRGC has changed, but so also has the society. What relevance his “experience” has to the current state of affairs? None.

The article is also full of inaccuracies…When he was supposedly with the IRGC, there was no nuclear program to speak of; so what does he know? As much as anyone else based on public information.

…This guy, Khalili is not even smart. If he were, he would try to make his case without invoking Israel and the Nazis.  The very fact that he does goes to show that he is associated with lunatics and at best is an opportunist.

On this subject, can you tell me any Iranian besides the Mujahadeen e-Khalq, who publicly advocate bombing Iran and who say if the U.S. doesn’t have the nerve they hope Israel will? Can you tell me any Iranian (other than perhaps monarchists living in Beverly Hills) who ape Bibi’s “it’s 1938 and Teheran is Munich” hysteria? Can you tell me any Iranian who complains that the West had a chance to overthrow the Iranian regime last June “without firing a single bullet” and didn’t do it? Do you know an Iranian who believes that among the last remaining signs of the coming of the Iranian messiah that must occur are the “destruction of Israel and bombing of Persian oil fields and European capitals?”

Does this guy pass the smell test?

One of the few honest statements in Melman’s profile is an acknowledgement that Khalili is associated with “conservative right-wing circles in the U.S.” Among other lies or misstatements in Melman’s profile is the claim that Khalili’s alleged mentor Dr. Ali Shariati, was assassinated by the SAVAK (Iran’s Shah-era secret police). Prof. Sahimi correctly notes that Shariati died of a terminal illness and was not killed by anyone. Either Khalili is making up stories and Melman hasn’t done his research or Melman himself is trying to pass off lies as truth.

Melman’s story also claims that Khalili taught Revolutionary Guard personnel how to use computers. In another passage, Khalili notes that his most active period in the Guard was in the “early 1980s.” I myself took a computer science course at Columbia University in 1980 and computers were in their infancy. Microsoft didn’t even begin as a company until 1980 and Windows wasn’t developed until 1985. I am dubious that Khalili taught anyone anywhere computers in the early 1980s.  Another strike against him.

Clarion Fund has also trotted out similar alleged Muslim “turncoats” to people its earlier films, among them the notorious Zuhdi Jasser, the star of Third Jihad.  Before that it was Walid Shoebat, the fake PLO terrorist, and Tawfiq Hamid.  So it’s a common ploy of these people to latch onto sources of dubious repute and hang the weight of their expose on the expertise they bring and the ‘authenticity’ of their inside knowledge of the subject, whether it be the race for the world Muslim Caliphate or Iranian world ‘domination.

Take a look at a few of Khalili’s bedfellows and you’ll get a sense of how trustworthy he is.  Roger Simon of Pajamas Media interviewed him in 2008, claiming the CIA offered an email approving publication of a profile of him (thus giving him the CIA Good Housekeeping seal of approval).  Pat Robertson’s CBN also featured him.

Khalili has even written an “exposé” of his “double-life” working for the CIA while a Revolutionary Guard, A Time to Betray.  It even looks like he hoodwinked as formidable a journalistic figure as the Washington Post’s David Ignatius into reviewing it (and highly favorably I might add).

I invite my readers to peruse other video footage used in Iranium. If you note any similar howlers to this one please let me know. We’ve got to take this propaganda apart line by line if necessary to drain the toxin from the body politic that the film is liable to build up.

Wikileaks: Mossad Sells U.S. on Iran Regime Change Plan

Tuesday, December 21st, 2010

Consider this reverse scenario: four separate planes carrying hundreds of IDF soldiers crash in a single year all due to mysterious circumstances not traceable to mechanical or human failure.  Israeli nuclear scientists die in bombings and under other violent circumstances.  Retired Israeli generals and a deputy defense minister are  kidnapped and spirited to Teheran.  Mysterious explosions at Israeli missile bases leave scores dead.  And a mysterious computer worm leaves the Dimona nuclear reactor virtually incapacitated.  Whenever asked about any of these incidents Iranian politicians and military officers smile knowingly while Iranian media are filled with stories trumpeting the derring-do of its intelligence services.  Finally, various Iranian generals, intelligence directors and political leaders publicly call for regime change in Israel, a full-fledged assault on Israel to force it to renounce its nuclear program, end the Occupation and topple the current government.

Put the shoe on the other foot and think how Israel would react if it came under the type of attack to which Israel is subjecting Iran.  Of course, Israel would react with full scale war.  It would warn Iran that the next such incident would invoke full-fledged hostilities.  And it would be true to its word.  Now compare this with how Iran has reacted to the same types of provocations.  Iran has not declared war on Israel.  It hasn’t demanded a Security Council session to denounce Israeli aggression.  Iran is keeping its cool relatively well considering what it’s facing.  Much better than Israel would under similar circumstances.

newsweek iran cover

Just about everything Mossad 'thinks it knows about Iran is wrong'

On a similar subject, a recently released Wikileaks cable reveals that Mossad chief Meir Dagan met with Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns in August, 2007.  The unbelievably self-serving nonsense that emerged from Israel’s chief intelligence official is astounding.  Among other things, he urged the U.S. to join together with Israel on a plan for regime change:

Turning to Iran, Dagan observed that it is in a transition period. There is debate among the leadership between Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad and their respective supporters. Instability in Iran is driven by inflation and tension among ethnic minorities. This, Dagan said, presents unique opportunities, and Israelis and Americans might see a change in Iran in their lifetimes. As for Iraq, it may end up a weak, federal state…

Dagan said that more should be done to foment regime change in Iran, possibly with the support of student democracy movements, and ethnic groups (e.g., Azeris, Kurds, Baluchs) opposed to the ruling regime…Iran’s minorities are “raising their heads, and are
tempted to resort to violence.”

Dagan urged more attention on regime change, asserting that more could be done to develop the identities of ethnic minorities in Iran. He said he was sure that Israel and the U.S. could “change the ruling regime in Iran, and its attitude towards backing terror regimes.” He added, “We could also get them to delay their nuclear project. Iran could become a normal state.”

By which Dagan clearly means a state that is obedient to Israeli and U.S. interests.

Clearly, there is coöperation and coördination between the U.S. and Israel regarding covert ops/destabilization efforts against Iran as this passage of the cable indicates:

Covert Measures: Dagan and the Under Secretary agreed not to discuss this approach in the larger group setting.

Given all of the information quoted above it seems entirely credible, even certain that the Mossad, with the collaboration of internal dissident forces like Jundallah and Mujuhadeen e-Khalq, have been responsible for the series of bombings, assassinations and attempts against the lives of political leaders and nuclear scientists within Iran.  The grand plan of the Mossad seems to be to combine paralyzing economic sanctions which provoke instability and unrest, with sabotage and political fragmentation to weaken the regime and eventually topple it.

The language of the cable seems to indicate that the U.S. isn’t quite on board with the regime change aspect of Israel’s plan.  But certainly Dagan is quite content that existing policy and a few energetic shoves of the right direction will bring an end to the Ayatollah regime and replace it with one that is “normal” (whatever that means).  One wonders what might have to be done to create an Israel that its neighbors and the rest of the world might view as “normal.”

The unfortunate truth for Dagan is that at least so far, his grand scheme has come up short.  While Iran is under increasing economic distress as evidenced by yesterday’s quadrupling of the price of gasoline and announcement that other critical subsidies for bread and other necessities would be lessened or phased out, Iran remains a coherent, though troubled state.  While the message doesn’t seem to have been heard in Tel Aviv, the ability of the regime to withstand the discontent following the June election fiasco indicated to any reasonable observer that this was not a political system that would go easily or willingly.  It will take a lot more to topple the mullahs than a couple of bombings and a sabotaged nuclear program.

To put it even more directly, Israeli policy regarding Iran is founded on completely unrealistic, even deluded premises.  As I recently heard former CIA officer Ray McGovern say about U.S. views on Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s approach to Iran is faith-based rather than evidence-based.  And faith-based policy or intelligence is the absolute worst kind.  You can convince yourself of virtually anything if your analysis is not based on rock-solid evidence and reality, as Israel has done.  Faith-based analysis got us into Iraq and to an extent fueled Obama’s foray into Afghanistan.  Faith-based intelligence policy is hunting down Taliban militants in Pakistan with CIA drones.  None of this will bring the types of changes the U.S. would like to see in the region.  Just as none of the principles Dagan enunciates above will bring the type of result he wishes (a new Iranian regime).

Eli Lake Calls for ‘Regime Change’ in Gaza, ‘Strategic Communications War’ Against Hamas

Sunday, June 13th, 2010


The NY Times features excerpted conversations with political bloggers on various topics via an agreement with BloggingheadsTV.  Very infrequently, they will host a discussion about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  My friend, Helena Cobban has been a guest I know.

Today, the Times features a rather shocking “debate” (more like mutual admiration society) between Heather Hurlburt of the National Security Network and Eli Lake of the Washington Times titled (I kid you not), A Smarter War on Hamas.   Pardon me, but isn’t the lesson Israel and the U.S. have learned over the past four years is that there is no such thing as a “smart war” or any type of war that will topple Hamas?  Neither overt war nor collective siege have done it.  So here you have a self-professed Irish-American and Jewish neocon (not a Palestinian or even Arab to be seen among the bunch–Edward Said where are you when we need you?) debating the best way to foment regime change against Hamas.

This dialogue is a perfect reflection of the impoverishment of debate about these issues in the American media and within the Beltway think-tank world where these people operate  And their views are amply reflected within the administration, which explains why Obama is still spinning his wheels in terms of making any impact related to Gaza or U.S. policy there.  Hurlburt and Lake are engaged in a dialogue of the deaf.  Lake especially is a prisoner of his own deeply help prejudices and distorted notions of what U.S. policy should be.

I half-jokingly call his policy: let them eat cardamon.

Can you imagine anything stupider than advocating regime change against Hamas or saying Israel didn’t go far enough in Operation Cast Lead and should’ve toppled Hamas altogether (which would’ve demanded an Israeli re-occupation)?  What can you say about someone who claims that Israel’s problem is that it can’t be cruel enough in its wars against the Palestinians?

Here are excerpts of their comments (audiostream of expanded discussion) about the aftermath of the Gaza flotilla attack (pardon my editorial intrusions in brackets–I just couldn’t help myself):

Lake: There’s this problem of Gaza…how do you satisfy Israel’s security concerns and…how do you allow cardamon and cinnamon to get to the 1.5-million people who live in Gaza.  It’s a very, very, very hard question.  It all comes back to the fact that there needs to be a policy for political regime change for Gaza.  You have to do something about Hamas.  You have to see a situation in which Hamas can moderate–I don’t know how that’s going to happen; or you have to force an election and hopefully they lose it.  It comes back to this sore of the people who rule Gaza.

Hurlburt: Except that if you want to replace Hamas or modify it, you would have to start with creating the conditions in which Hamas could be discredited and another force could emerge.  At the moment you have a situation in which Hamas is the source of everything good which happens in Gaza…you’re making it much harder on yourself than it needs to be.  Actually finding some ways to ease the blockade, to allow a little more independence to emerge, to allow a little more commerce between the West Bank and Gaza, to allow Abbas to have a few more victories and make himself look a little better.

You’d be idiotic to try to stage an election in Gaza right now.  Every time you begin to think Hamas is becoming discredited something like the flotilla happens.  And you think anybody would vote against Hamas now?

Lake: It would sure be nice if there were Palestinians around Fayyad who were in the Palestinian diaspora who were on Fayyad’s side who could really begin in Arabic a campaign of political warfare against Hamas starting with…the moral idiots in Europe who think that Hamas is in some ways progressive.

It would be nice if there were Palestinians who could say: “Your support for Hamas is exacerbating my dispossession.”  It becomes weird as an Ashkenazi Jew in America saying that [Gee, dya think?].  That is a true statement.  If you talk to the American Task Force for Palestine…

There are so many Palestinians who look at Hamas as an obstacle ultimately to a Palestinian state.  The problem is that there is this misplaced solidarity particularly in Europe, but also in the Arab world, with Hamas, which is seen as more virtuous; obviously they were seen as less corrupt than Fatah during the peace process.  I hope that that shine can come off.  I can’t imagine that some clever Palestinians in Norway or the United States or Toronto  with web savvy could begin to take advantage of it.  It would be nice to see the strategic communications war turned on Hamas.

Hurlburt: I agree with you that that would be desirable.  But it’s incredibly chutzpadik of comfortable American commentators to call for it [Gee, dya think?]  And we’ve seen in the past that whenver there’s an intimation that anyone from the U.S. is thinking about it, it’s incredibly damaging to those Palestinians who would be willing on their own to undertake such a thing…

Lake: It would be nice for the Arab media to start to put Hamas on the spot.  They’ve been in charge of Gaza now since 2007.  What have they done for the people of Gaza?  What have they done for the dream of a Palestinian state?  What have they done about Palestinian dispossession?  What have they done about the depravity of these conditions?

Hurlburt: I would like to see more people able to do more for the people of Gaza–deeds on the ground.

Lake: I think you can do things on the margin about it, but this is still going to be a major problem if the party in charge of Gaza is formally and in every sense at war with Israel.  I don’t think you’re going to have any peace, any agreement as long as Hamas is in the picture.

Hurlburt: It’s not going to be possible to get Hamas out of the picture in any time-frame that’s going to be of any interest to you or me in terms of peacemaking.

Lake: You can look back at Operation Cast Lead and see that Israel’s decision not to take out Hamas may’ve been a cruel mistake because you can’t get anywhere as long as they’re in charge.  If you’re going to make a decision to do Cast Lead go all the way.  This is the classic problem with the Israelis.  They can never be as cruel as Hafez al Assad or Hussein or other Arab leaders in the region because they just can’t be.  They try to be half-way cruel, or one-quarter as cruel and it ends up infuriating the world and losing the respect [!] of their adversary

What was BloggingheadsTV thinking when they put this panel together?  God only knows.  But the fact that they not only did so but featured it on the NY Times website is indicative of the abject bankruptcy of U.S. media and the political echelon in terms of coming up with any viable policy toward Hamas.  We’re at sea (to continue the Gaza flotilla metaphor) and getting more and more seasick by the minute.

I’ve written to Robert Wright, BloggingheadsTV’s co-founder expressing my distress at this editorial choice.  We’ll see what if anything he says.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Poll: Iranians Willing to Forego Nuclear Weapons in Return for Normalizing Relations

Tuesday, February 9th, 2010

Thanks to Steve Walt for noting an important University of Maryland poll of Iranian attitudes toward its elected government and the nuclear impasse (full report). Contrary to the claims of neocons and their fellow travelers in the media, academia and the halls of the Israel lobby, Iranians appear generally to support the current government and its approach to nuclear enrichment and research. While some of the findings disappointed me, given the amount of actual polling that was done inside Iran and other measures taken to ensure accuracy, I reluctantly grant a good deal of credibility to the survey.

Perhaps the most hopeful result was this:

Some analysts have suggested that if the opposition were to gain power this would lead to fundamental changes in the Iranian posture toward the US. Focusing on those respondents who said they voted for Mousavi, as an approximation of the opposition,
PIPA found that a majority were ready to negotiate with the US on a number of issues, while the Iranian public as a whole was more divided. However, Mousavi supporters, like the general public, were quite negative in their views of the US government and were strongly committed to Iran’s nuclear program.

A majority of Mousavi supporters did favor diplomatic relations with the US, and were ready to make a deal whereby Iran would preclude developing nuclear weapons through intrusive international inspections in exchange for the removal of sanctions. However, this was equally true of the majority of all Iranians.

As Walt noted in his blog post, this provides an opening for resolving the current impasse: if the U.S. proposes full normalization of relations and removal of sanctions in return for an Iranian guarantee that it will not develop nuclear weapons–this should be a proposal the west could endorse.

So instead of the stupidity about sanctions and regime change, we need more reason and moderation in the form of this attitude expressed by the majority of Iranians according to this survey.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Foreign Policy Mandarin, Richard Haass, Endorses ‘Regime Change Lite’ for Iran

Sunday, January 24th, 2010
Photograph of Richard N. Haass, from his offic...

Haass, foreign policy mandarin, advocates regime change lite

Richard Haass is the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, America’s mandarin foreign policy establishment group. He’s served in senior State Department positions under both Presidents Bush. I’d call him a realist centrist with faintly liberal leanings. So imagine my wonder when Rupa Shah sent me a new op-ed he penned for Newsweek calling for regime change in Iran.  Not even Henry Kissinger has gotten that far yet for Chrissake!

With all the hype in the article title (Enough Is Enough: Why we can no longer remain on the sidelines in the struggle for regime change in Iran) I was prepared for a really noxious blast, but in actuality Haass’ stance is what I’d call regime change lite.  First, he’s not in favor of using violence to change the Iranian regime.  So that immediately takes him out of the Ledeen nutcase class of regime change advocates.  It seems that what Haass wants is to do everything short of attacking Iran.  He believes diplomacy is a dead end and that sanctions would be a useful tool.  He also seems to believe that Iran intends to make a nuclear weapon, something with most cautious, deliberate analysts do not concede–yet.

So why is Haass going out on a limb like this?  I think it reveals the absolute impotence of the foreign policy establishment in the face of Iran’s impregnable resistance to negotiation and reform.  It also reveals an alarming lack of a primary quality that any good diplomat must have: patience.  Patience is what the Iran observers I admire most have been counseling for months.  Without patience, we are likely to run headlong toward whatever policy option seems to offer some, or any hope of utility.  Remember Milton’s excellent saying: “They also serve who only stand and wait.”  This is advice that could serve the U.S. well in the current impasse.

Iran is entirely fragmented.  No one knows which side is on the ascent.  No one knows whether muscular intervention of the type advocated by Haass will hurt our chosen friends in Iran or hurt them.  In fact, any intervention that backfires could hurt them very badly.  We should remember how vicious the current regime can be.  Do we want to goad them into escalating their campaign against the opposition by turning to arrest, torture or assassination of the senior leaders of the reform movement?  In this environment the least wrong move could prove disastrous.  The vultures in Teheran are prepared to strike at the least opportunity.  Why give them what they yearn for?

That is why I believe that Richard Haass’ advice is altogether misguided.  I am in favor of vigorously supporting human rights in Iran.  But I am not in favor of doing things that appear as if we are intervening deeply into the domestic political situation there.  Regime change lite is a very bad idea.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]