Earlier this month, Hillary Mann Leverett was interviewed on Antiwar Radio (can be heard here) to discuss the course of U.S.-Iranian diplomacy. The interview serves as a very good year-end review of U.S.-Iranian interactions during 2010, with a focus on the nuclear issue. So, as 2010 draws to a close, we thought our readers might appreciate the opportunity to access it here.
Hillary opens by laying out our argument that President Obama’s legacy on Iran policy is shaping up to be “change you can’t rely on”. She reviews how what many perceived as Obama’s early promise on Iran was undermined by the President’s advisers and squandered as a consequence of Obama’s own reluctance to follow up his nice rhetoric with a substantively different approach. She explicates Obama’s “double game” with Iran, in the form of the “dual track” (what used to be called “carrots and sticks”) approach to nuclear talks, and contrasts that with President Nixon’s very different approach to China. On this basis, she draws the critical policy point—that Washington needs to put sticks aside to show the Iranians that the United States is serious about realigning relations with them.
Hillary then tells the disappointingly revealing story of how the Obama Administration handled the issue of refueling the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) and the Iran-Turkey-Brazil Joint Declaration. She points out that this episode raises serious questions as to how much of Obama’s “failed promise” on Iran is due to the President’s advisers and how much should of the blame should actually be ascribed to the President himself.
Hillary extrapolates from these particular accounts to draw an important and disturbing “big picture” analysis of Obama’s handling of foreign policy and the enormous “structural problems” facing a President who wants to reorient U.S. policy away from a trajectory leading to another damaging and counter-productive war in the Middle East. She recalls that candidate Obama ran for the presidency promising not just to end America’s military involvement in Iraq, but to end the “mindset” that got America into that war in the first place. But now, having won the presidency, Obama is no longer trying to change that mindset; rather, he is “appeasing” it.
In a similar spirit, she reviews Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s remarkable rhetorical zig-zags regarding the Russian-built Bushehr reactor to highlight the bigger point that the Obama Administration is completely failing to understand and deal with “the rise of Iran”, just like it is failing to understand and deal with the rise of Turkey. She characterizes the idea that the United States can somehow keep Iran from obtaining major regional power status as a “fantasy”. But it is a fantasy which greatly distorted the approach of both the George W. Bush Administration and the Obama Administration to the Iranian nuclear issue and the broader question of U.S.-Iranian relations.
Hillary also offers a multi-faceted assessment of how America’s Iraq war has (probably irrevocably) changed the balance of power in the Middle East. She concludes by addressing questions about U.S.-sponsored covert programs in and against the Islamic Republic and what their continuation signals about Obama’s failed promise to change America’s approach to Iran.
As always, we appreciate any and all comments that readers wish to offer about this post. But, we are also thinking about how to best to respond to readers’ requests for enhanced possibilities for interactive discussions on topics not necessarily related to those on which we post. We hope to have something concrete in this regard to put forward early in 2011. One of the things that is truly unique about www.RaceForIran.com is the enormously high-quality of the commentors and discussants who write in. We think that creating more and better space for that discussion is a great idea.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Good job Hillary.
Humanist says: December 29, 2010 at 1:43 pm
This is solely about Power for Power’s sake.
If not Iran, Americans would find another country to beat up; remember Yugoslavia? Or Iraq?
Resistance is the only path forward.
R S Hack,
There never was any serious likelihood Iraq would sell its oil to US oil companies at below-market prices. Is it possible some of the neocons were so stupid as to believe this would happen? Or, more likely, the story was a ruse to distract attention from the real reason for the invasion: “protecting” Israel.
R S Hack,
Sir Max Hastings, who of course is a close follower of events in the greater Middle East, says Obama “is in thrall to General Petraeus”. This seems to be an accurate assessment of the problem. And Petraeus is incapable of comprehending that the presence of the US military is a large part of the problem in Afghanistan.
Hillary Mann Leverett & all
Regardless of its complexity every dispute CAN be resolved ONLY if BOTH sides are rational, honest and respectful. On the contrary disputes never come to a full satisfactory conclusion if one side (or both) are dishonest, irrational, self-righteously bullying, psychopathic or inflexible (have solidified minds).
Here we are talking about human civil ways and barbaric animal ways
In the baboon world the strong bully becomes the indisputable ruler and if it is a senseless sole, potentially can lead the pack to areas where there is no water or food causing the total annihilation of the pack. While, because we have the problems solving analytical neo-cortex layer in our brains, we are capable of avoiding any kind of disaster and have the potential to perpetually improve the standards of living of ALL people all over the word without having wars or any kind of self-made calamity. Of course in the case of using our evolved brains properly, the peace and prosperity becomes possible only if we can elect the right people for the high positions or expel (dethrone) the influential, powerful, inept maniacs.
Mathematical Logics, theories based on analytics and computer simulations all compellingly prove the above assertion. Google search the simple case of Prisoner’s Dilemma and read the texts to see why.
Sadly with the present corrupt atmosphere the doors for electing the right people are closed and the public, even it knew what is right, is powerless to dispose the evil warmongering psychopaths who are pulling the strings.
On the case of Iran, all the conscientious people of world are worryingly watching how the stronger side of dispute is overtly and arrogantly dishonest and has no fear to show its heinous ill intentions. The world clearly witnesses whenever there is a minuscule chance of diffusing the conflict the dominant, aggressive and degenerate groups use all kind of terror or trick to derail the constructive processes at hand.
Although among the civilized people every dispute is resolvable, these powerful sick individuals use animalistic tactics to move all towards unnecessary barbarous deaths and destructions.
It seems the greedy sicko bunch foolishly doesn’t care how the majority in the world is critical of their ruthlessness and how day after day the masses are anxiously and desperately watching their brazenness and mendacity.
If history is a reliable source for judgment then these extraordinary zealots are shooting their own feet (or maybe their head or hearts).
Metaphorically similar to the lead baboons they are driving their pack towards the killing cliffs of destiny.
I wish they had the wisdom and vision to fathom that ruthless apartheid systems can NEVER last forever.
Someone should convince them ‘the book they are getting their instructions from has no scientific validity and at best as Richard Dawkins says it is a book of fiction and fantasy’
Scott Lucas,
The links are clear and the funding was extensive (you should know!).
VoT, UU,
Allah (swt) will never disappoint the shohadah- who are alive- and their dear families, never. One of the most important aspects of Islam that the Supreme Leader stresses is the reality of Allah’s promise. When Allah promises you something and you understand who is giving you His word, you enter the state of sakinah.
Pirouz_2,
Protesting an election — even if that protest is incorrect in its assessment of the election — is not the same as planning a coup. Absent any evidence, punishment of those who protest is a political act, not a legal case.
Re the journalists: which evidence do you have that any of the 113 journalists detained just before or after the election attended workshops set up by “CIA proxies”?
S.
P.S. — I have covered the Kelly case. There is a great deal of evidence in the public domain; however, I agree with you that there are further records that should not be classified.
kooshy,
“I have to conclude that you are not at all interested or willing to get engaged and discuss…geopolitics”
To the contrary, I write about geopolitical and regional matters and US foreign policy every day and would be pleased to chat with you about any specific topic you would like to raise.
S.
@UU
“”…I have often said that the fact that the IRI continues not only to survive but to thrive, is something that I cannot explain in objective terms (and must resort to my personal feeling that it is because of the baraka of [blessings resulting from]the blood [sacrifice] of the innocent martyrs, and the spiritual gravity of the Hidden Imman; the Grace of God, in other words)”"
Brilliant words dear Unknown Unknowns , what can be added more ?
I spent endless nights to study the faith of those innocent martyrs , those brave men and women , ‘big’ names like Shahid Chamran , Shahid Babaei , Shahid Bagheri and countless Shohadayeh Gomnam , who donated their blood to the revolution and to the Iranian nation in pure ‘ Ekhlass’ with the purest intentions , unknown in the history a mankind. No words can ever express , what we owe to those , who defended their country with bare hands in an imposed war , which would have torn our beloved country apart , would the evil powers not have been defeated . Sure it was the grace of God and the spiritual gravity of the hidden Imam , as you mentioned , who gave our martyrs the will to defend our country.
Let me add one point , All this is just the beginning and the evil powers , who have committed ( and are committing ) endless crimes against humanity are the enemies of God and will pay until end of times for each and every drop of blood , they are responsible of.
” KhanemanSuz bovad Atashe Ahi , Gahi Naleyieh mishekanad poshte Seaphi , Gahi… “
Eric @
Wouldn’t that be better – for the Iranian government, as well as everyone else – than to allow people like Scott – along with dozens of influential journalists and other writers – to run around asking: “Look what happens to a film maker who dares to question the election?”
Yes, it would. Unfortunately, one of the problems that we have is that most of the best and the brightest of the indiginous Islamic movement were either killed by schismatics such as teh MKO, or by the revolution itself a la Stalin. Add to that the brain-drain and the embargos and sanctions, and you will see that it is a wonder that the country is surviving at all. And so, yes, the judiciary is a victim of this paucity of administrative adn management expertise, even more so that other sectors of society.
I have often said that the fact that the IRI continues not only to survive but to thrive, is something that I cannot explain in objective terms (and must resort to my personal feeling that it is because of the baraka of [blessings resulting from]the blood [sacrifice] of the innocent martyrs, and the spiritual gravity of the Hidden Imman; the Grace of God, in other words)
Fyi: “Mr. Obama’s Iran policy is the tip of the ice-berg.
His Afghanistan policy makes no sense, his Pakistan policy is even less viable; he has neglected both Mexico and Brazil and he is skirting around China with borderline hostility.”
Absolutely correct. Obama is possibly the worst foreign policy President the US has ever had. Nixon is a genius compared to him. Even Reagan is better.
Obama is SO clearly in the pocket of the military-industrial complex in terms of his actions re Pakistan. The notion of expanding the Afghan war into Pakistan ON THE GROUND is so insane as to be clearly motivated by interests who couldn’t care less that the end result will be the complete destabilization and collapse of Pakistan and/or a nuclear/conventional war between the US and Pakistan, which would even more destructive than a US-Iran war as Pakistan is many times the size of Iran in population, dislike of the US and has nuclear weapons.
How anyone can look at Obama and his utter lack of concern about expanding the war into Pakistan and not realize how OWNED he is by the military is just amazing to me.
Fyi: “From Kuwait, the disembarkation point for US materiale, to Baghdad is more than 12 hours of driving.
This supply line can be disrupted at will and US will need to add something like 20,000 troops just to secure that; year in and year out.
Just one obstacle of many.”
As I said, it’s not a viable plan. But if the overall plan is to crush Iran, the US has no choice but to try. People tend to take these obstacles as meaning there is no plan to crush Iran, but the reality is the opposite. Again, the ruling elites of the US pay no price for asking the Pentagon to do what it cannot do. They did it in Iraq, they’re doing in Afghanistan, and they will do it Iran. And most of the top Pentagon civilian officials and general officers will not pay any price even if they fail. Even if they have to retire as a result of failure, they move immediately onto any number of well-paying board of directors positions at military-industrial complex corporations. No one pays any price for failure except the troops on the ground and the civilians who get in the way of those troops and the taxpayer who is paying for those troops.
Mr. Canning: “Do you really believe the purpose of the US invasion of Iraq was to obtain favorable oil deals? This is the cover story, not the reality.”
As I explained here several times, the NEOCON plan was to obtain favorable oil deals. However, oil industry executives put pressure on Bush to overrule that plan and require Iraq to maintain parity with OPEC. Journalist Greg Palast has covered this in great detail, naming the oil executives involved, etc.
@Everyone;
I wont be able to write comments on this site for a few days. I will follow what everyone writes once I come back from my trip.
Mr. Lucas;
You said: “Evidence? Please offer specific cases of the Greens and journalists who would be locked away.”
If you had this obssession with evidence when it came to fraud claims, if showed the same sensitivity about the classification of “evidence” pertaining to Dr. Kellys death by Lord Hutton for 70 years, perhaps you would have more credibility!
By the way any decent academician worth of his salt would show the same obssession for evidence and truth when it came to his own opinion, as he would demand from his opponents. What I can tell you Mr. Lucas, is that you are very far from that category.
As for my answer:
All those opposition campaign staff who actually claimed electoral fraud should have been given some time to provide “evidence” for their claims, if they did not provide any evidence and persisted in not even taking the partial recount results into account and still tried to creat sedition then I would charge them with attempting to make a coup and put them in jail.
Also I would follow and seriously investigate every single journalist who had been trained by the workshops set up CIA proxies or US government and if necessary be sent to jail.
Iranian@Iran
“When I watch this, I think of American hypocrites like Scott Lucas:
http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=74161”
I understand your anger, but don’t get too emotional.
This is on Ashura and one of the instances when green animals (male and female), rip off all the clothes of people and severely beat them. This is a young 18 year old baseeji and university student. They even did this to a woman wearing a chador. Afterwards, Mousavi called these people Godly…
By the way Eric;
As a matter of pure coincidence (!!) three of the major slogans thrown by the greens during their street protests were:
a)Neither to Ghaza, nor to Lebanon, my life is dedicated to Iran.
b)Death to Russia
c)Death to China
Eric,
I am quite sure you actually know exactly what is meant by when people talk about color or velvet revolutions, you just think the whole thing is kind of fanciful and that actions of ‘democracy activists’ or ‘human rights activists’ shouldn’t ever be confused with threats to national security. I can’t really blame you, but here are some resources that may challenge that assumption a little:
,http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/12/code-orange.html
,http://montages.blogspot.com/2008/03/neds-wmd.html
,http://montages.blogspot.com/2004/12/why-progressives-must-not-embrace.html
,http://montages.blogspot.com/2007/09/united-states-and-regime-change-in-iran.html
Those posts contain lots of references for you to follow up on if you like.
Kooshy:
By the way, those links that I posted for Eric, I think they may interest you as well. Have a look and if you find them interesting read them.
I have more, but I am about to take a trip and am very busy, so if these two interest you I will post some more later on.
Eric;
Here is the second:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15767
Eric;
You said: “I have no idea whether particular protesters are attempting a “velvet coup.” I’ll even confess to not understanding what, exactly, a “velvet coup” is, or how some street protesters might be planning to accomplish it, whatever it is.”
I have some articles for you, read and tell me what you think. I will post them in three different links because I cant post more than one link in a single comment:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/nov/26/ukraine.comment
Scott
Re the “safer ground”: I find a lot of merit in the analysis of the authors of RFI on geopolitical and regional issues.
Scott thanks a lot, for your short response to my earlier question, which I was hoping, to get a long response, unfortunately from your short response (see above), I had to conclude that you are not at all interested or willing to get engaged and discuss the dawn and dirty geopolitics of Iran and your own country that you wish to endure the good old US of A, this same geopolitics which accordingly, you believe it’s rather an easier (Safer) subject to discuss then the subject of your interest, did you ever think that maybe this is the reason, that majority of us commentators, on this blog, and, I suspect even the principals, believe, that your comments are agenda driven, and is not to expand and discuss the subject of the current treads of RFI.
Dear Scott, since you are in the UK, maybe just this once, like Alan, I would want to say that’s a Blimey, or is it?
Thanks
K
Masoud,
“I understand perfectly what your point is, but at the same time it is quite difficult to find a precedent like Iran’s, where you can see clearly, over a twenty year period, rising levels law and order and observance of civil rights in a society dealing with increasing levels of sanctions, threats of war, and threats of first use nuclear strikes. It’s important not to loose perspective of that.”
I am trying my best to keep that in perspective, but I’ll freely admit that I’m not at all sure I’m able to do so. I can’t honestly say I would give the same advice if I were in Iran’s situation right now. I’d like to think so, but I just don’t know. Americans have shown themselves willing to suspend civil liberties in circumstances that many would consider far less fraught with danger than you believe (probably correctly) Iran now faces.
Masoud,
I had written:
“When someone complains, is allowed to speak, and offers no evidence for his complaints, observers soon yawn and walk away…”
You replied:
“That would be news to Glenn Beck and Fox.”
It’s different when you own the TV station.
“When someone complains, is allowed to speak, and offers no evidence for his complaints, observers soon yawn and walk away…”
-Eric
That would be news to Glenn Beck and Fox.
Rehmat says: December 28, 2010 at 7:35 pm
In regards to prostitution:
In Israel there are very many Jewish women who are prostitutes.
In Tehran, the estimated number of prostitutes are at 75,000.
And in US, many women choose to become prostitutes because they like to make money in an easy manner.
Prostitution has complex causes; the largest one being that men pine for novelty.
Rehmat says: December 28, 2010 at 7:35 pm
The Iranian Judges are not familiar with the Judaic and Christian Traditions.
In fact, excepting myself, I do not think that there are even 100 Iranians with sufficient familiarity to even discuss these traditions with someone well-versed in them.
The historical evidence suggests that the early jurists in Islam had been influenced by the Thalmud and Halaka. It is an irony of history that these traditions, had earlier been influenced by the Zorastrian Law.
You are wrong about the stoning sentence – it is not to be found in the Five Books of Moses (the actual Word of God according to the Quran and to the Judaic Tradition as well) but in Leviticus and elsewhere; not God’s Word.
If you accpet the proposition that Revelation is Unitary, then it follows that the five books of Moses, and the Acts of Jesus (as recorded in the 4 books of the New Testament as well as in Gnostic Christian sources), the Psalms of David and Songs of Solomon are also Revelations that, together with the Quran, may be used as the sources of the Law.
As I tried to explain to you and others, in this manner, it will be quite claer that much of the Islamic Law is in contradiction to the Word of God and therefore must be discarded.
Eric,
The Iranian government provides legal aid to those who can’t afford a lawyer as well(i may be mistaken, but i think this is enshrined in Iran’s constitution). I haven’t heard about the one month period pirouz_2 mentioned, but I do believe that under Iranian law, defendants can be held for up to four months without charge, even if they are allowed to see an attorney or family members. As odious at this may seem, this really compares quite positively with US law. There are no secret trials, executive orders authorizing indefinite detention without trial or charge, or executive orders authorizing assassination. I understand the point you are trying to make, but i think it also pays to keep things in perspective. There was huge amounts of grumbling over ‘journalist’ Maziar Bahari, but it did turn out that he was indeed guilty either of editing June 15 footage to make it seem like the Government was shooting indiscriminately into crowds, or of aiding foreign news agencies to do so. This actually lead to the deaths of many protesters. I have no information about what Panahi was doing, but if it does resemble what the government says he was doing, he was indeed playing a dangerous game. If you think it’s harsh, it’s nothing compared to the treatment Adam Ghadan(the American al qaeda member who runs their media arm) would get if caught, which itself would be quite merciful compared to what brown-skinned official enemies get(Summary execution, along with family, by drone).
I understand perfectly what your point is, but at the same time it is quite difficult to find a precedent like Iran’s, where you can see clearly, over a twenty year period, rising levels law and order and observance of civil rights in a society dealing with increasing levels of sanctions, threats of war, and threats of first use nuclear strikes. It’s important not to loose perspective of that.
Masoud
Western terrorism against Iran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/29/western-terrorism-against-iran/
fyi – Don’t you think that Iranian judges are more familiar with Jewish Bible than Israel’s racist Rabbis like Shas party spiritual leader Rabbi Josep?
After all – “stoning” is prescribed in Torah over 2000 year before the punishments in Islamic shari’ah. And not forget – that the Jewish Bible also allow slavery – that’s why in Israel over 3,000 White Christian women are sold to Jews as sex slaves.
Next time you visit Synagogue – do check it with your Rabbi.
Pirouz_2 says: December 28, 2010 at 1:08 pm
The Judiciary is Independent in Iran – it is not subject to the machinations of the Executive Branch or the Majlis.
That is why it can issue stoning verdicts or dishonorable verdicts such as the execution order against Mr. Agha-jeri.
It is sufficiently independent to indulage in all manner of foolishness.
Its relationship with the Revolutionary Courts, on the other hand, is not clear to me.
Why continue to have Revolutionary Courts after 30 years is beyond me.
The Leveretts:
Mr. Obama’s Iran policy is the tip of the ice-berg.
His Afghanistan policy makes no sense, his Pakistan policy is even less viable; he has neglected both Mexico and Brazil and he is skirting around China with borderline hostility.
Richard Steven Hack says: December 28, 2010 at 4:19 pm
Doubtful.
From Kuwait, the disembarkation point for US materiale, to Baghdad is more than 12 hours of driving.
This supply line can be disrupted at will and US will need to add something like 20,000 troops just to secure that; year in and year out.
Just one obstacle of many.
R S Hack,
Do you really believe the purpose of the US invasion of Iraq was to obtain favorable oil deals? This is the cover story, not the reality.
kooshy,
Re the “safer ground”: I find a lot of merit in the analysis of the authors of RFI on geopolitical and regional issues.
S.
Eric,
Thanks for the thoughtful post at 12:10 p.m., which is rich ground for discussion.
Pirouz_2,
“Even in an ideal judiciary system where the judges would be truly independent and the laws would respect freedom of expression (and a right to assembly), A LOT OF the greens who are being so fervently advocated by Mr. Lucas, would be arrested and put into jail for a very long time (including a lot of the so-called journalists).”
Evidence? Please offer specific cases of the Greens and journalists who would be locked away.
S.
Eric, great comment at 12:10 pm.
I would just remind you of certain trials that took place here in the US while the two of us were younger than we are now. One would be the Chicago Eight conspiracy trial as well as the criminal trials of Angela Davis and Jane Fonda (among many others). There were similar motives to the ones we see in Iran today. And even though the US judicial system eventually acquitted these named anti-government figures, some of them spent considerable time behind bars.
Does this legitimize some of the relatively extreme responses seen in Iran today? I can’t say. But it does put things into perspective.
And I have to again emphasize that the perceived threat to Iran’s national security in many ways approach conditions experienced in Britain in 1940 and in certain ways, internally, actually exceed that historical threat.
Below is an article on the new head of Mossad (Pardo), and includes comments regarding Israeli agents in Iran. The comment section is interesting for information on the passing in the British parliament of a procedural limitation on the laws of universal jurisdiction, which will allow the Israeli war criminals unimpeded access to the UK.
http://www.richardsilverstein.com/tikun_olam/2010/12/25/new-mossad-chief-makes-nice-to-brits/
Pirouz_2 – I do believe in the old Persian wisdom: “Only a fool sitting in a glass house would throw a stone on his neighbor’s house”.
According to Richard Silverstein (Jewish Tikkun magazine), Iran’s former deputy Defense Minister Gen. Ali Reza Asghari has died as result of torture while in Mossad custody.
http://www.eurasiareview.com/opinion/opinion-opinion/iranian-general-murdered-in-israel%e2%80%99s-ayalon-prison-28122010/
I wonder, if Iranian intelligence agency kidnape an Israel General or Ehud Barak – What Hillary Clinton would have to say since she is shedding tears on the death sentence for the dude spying for Israel.
Castellio: I am inclined to believe Maliki is stating what he would LIKE to happen, but what actually ends up happening is, as Jayne said to Malcom Reynolds in the movie “Serenity”, “ain’t necessarily ever been similar”.
As I’ve said before here, if you want a war with Iran, you NEED troops – at least airbases protected by said troops – in Iraq. And once the war heats up, the US will definitely need troops on the ground in Iraq, regardless of how viable that plan ultimately turns out to be (and it won’t be very viable in the long run).
And I doubt the US could even physically remove even the remaining 50,000 or so with their equipment by end 2011 if they started now.
It’s clear, however, that Maliki is under orders from Iran to get the US out one way or another, as part of the deal that allowed him to remain in power. Certainly that would have been al Sadr’s demand, he has been adamant about that. There’s no doubt that the Iraqis could force the US out if they wanted to, of course. It’s not clear what Obama would do if the Iraqi government forces turned against the US forces remaining in the country if the US doesn’t leave entirely. It would be difficult for Obama to go against the apparent wishes of the US electorate that the US leave if asked directly by the Iraqi government, but it’s not clear whether he could use it as an excuse to re-ignite the Iraq war if it turned violent against US forces there again.
I DO believe the bottom line is that the US wants to maintain large and permanent staffed bases with thousands, if not scores of thousands, of troops in country indefinitely as part of the long-range plan to attack Iran as well as to try to pressure the Iraqi government to give favorable treatment to US oil companies. This is after all WHY the US went to war with Iraq in the first place and those goals have yet to be achieved (indeed are not achievable, but it’s not clear the US elites have conceded that.)
Rd.,
Obama’s problems in developing an intelligent policy toward Turkey has everything to do with the Israel lobby. Many stooges of the Israel lobby in the US Congress want to punish Turkey for having an intelligent foreign policy in the Middle East.
kooshy,
Jimmy Carter’s ambassador to Iran was expecting the overthrow of the Shah, and he said this to various vistors to the embassy, even two or three years before it happened. Sullivan also said he could not get the attention of Carter’s national security advisor.
Bravo! Yes, the sticks have to be put aside. Is this too difficult for Obama to grasp? Or is he afraid to do the obviously right thing?
I find it hard to believe that the US will withdraw all troops from Iraq, but Maliki, apparently, things that will be the case.
“Baghdad, Dec 28 (IANS) The US troops will leave Iraq by 2011, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has said and ruled out the possibility of extension of their stay any more as Iraq’s own forces were capable of confronting remaining threats to the country.
Maliki, speaking to the Wall Street Journal, said the new Iraqi government and the country’s security forces were capable of confronting any remaining threats to its security, sovereignty and unity.
‘The last American soldier will leave Iraq’ as agreed, he said, speaking at his office in a leafy section of Baghdad’s protected Green Zone. ‘This agreement is not subject to extension, not subject to alteration. It is sealed.’”
http://www.sify.com/news/iraqi-pm-rules-out-us-troops-stay-beyond-2011-news-international-km2raihjgaa.html
One way or another, this will play into how the US relates to Iran in 2012.
Pirouz_2,
Your points are good ones, and I don’t mean to suggest you’re arguing for more of an “iron fist” in Iran. A comment just on this, though:
“When some officials speak about the ‘independent’ judiciary, they are not being very truthful; but when they say that a lot of those who have been put in jail were trying to attempt to make a velvet coup, then I am afraid they are right.”
I have no idea whether particular protesters are attempting a “velvet coup.” I’ll even confess to not understanding what, exactly, a “velvet coup” is, or how some street protesters might be planning to accomplish it, whatever it is.
But it’s also my impression that the Iranian government is a lot more strongly supported than some outsiders might concluded from its harsh response to anti-government protests. If I were running the Iranian government, I’d certainly arrest somebody for throwing a rock through a window, or beating up a policeman, or setting a car on fire. But I’d be very, very hesitant to toss in additional charges about “velvet coups” and that sort of thing. Drawing the line carefully there would enable the government to do what it is expected to do – protect citizens from rocks thrown through windows, attacks on policemen and cars set on fire – while expressing confidence in one’s own stability to permit people to complain openly without fear of punishment.
If someone complains and is promptly silenced by the government, observers naturally wonder whether he had good reasons for complaining – and why the government saw fit not to let him state his reasons. When someone complains, is allowed to speak, and offers no evidence for his complaints, observers soon yawn and walk away. And when someone complains and offers good reasons for his complaints, people should listen. Iran’s government, like any government, is a work in progress. It strikes me as stable enough to withstand some criticism. Focus on actual crimes, and ease up on the political protests.
Eric:
Regarding your comment on December 28, 2010 at 12:10 pm
Believe me Eric, of all people, I am the last one that you will have to convince on the merits of the freedom of expression and an independent judiciary.
In answer to your first question:
I don’t believe that judiciary is independent in Iran. Although I am not sure how ‘independent’ it is in the west either (just three examples: the decisions made by the US judiciary regarding the vote recount in Florida during the presidential elections in 2000, the classification of all evidence regarding the death of Dr. Kelly by Lord Hutton for 70 years and the stopping of the probe into bribe allegation against the British officials to Prince Sultan Bendar regarding an arms deal between UK and S. Arabia). One may argue about the degree of ‘independence’ in various countries, of course.
As for your question regarding the rights to a legal council even for the most serious threats to the national security (during the suspects temporary arrest and interrogation): I am not sure about the exact details of the law, I did not talk to the lawyer I mentioned earlier, I just heard him in an interview and I just conveyed the jist of what he said. But I do know that if a defendant cannot afford a lawyer, the court is supposed to provide him with one.
By the way, let me remind everyone here again that I don’t deny that there are systematic human rights violations in Iran.
The problem is not about the fact that there are unjust court rullings based on insufficient (or even fake) evidence in Iran. I agree with that part. The main problem that I have is that even in an ideal judiciary system where the judges would be truly independent and the laws would respect freedom of expression (and a right to assembly), A LOT OF the greens who are being so fervently advocated by Mr. Lucas, would be arrested and put into jail for a very long time (including a lot of the so-called journalists).
One of the most effective ways to do deception is to mix truth with lies and this is a sin that both sides in Iran are guilty of. When some officials speak about the ‘independent’ judiciary, they are not being very truthful; but when they say that a lot of those who have been put in jail were trying to attempt to make a velvet coup, then I am afraid they are right.
It is a very well known fact that CIA proxies were trying to do recruitment from disillusioned Iranians through “reporter-journalist workshops” that they had set up in Europe and in some of the Persian Gulf countries.
Scott Lucas
“On to the next thread with hopes that the focus of RFI authors and commenters is on the safer ground of geopolitics…..”
Scott if this is true, can you expand on why you think that the geopolitics of Iran is an easier subject to deal with, and as an Iran analyst why you think your government(US) for some thirty years has continuously failed to manage this relatively easy(safe) task of Iran’s geopolitical advances
Regards
Richard,
You make good points about Justin Raimondo, and I agree strongly that antiwar.com features some excellent writers, including those you named. Nonetheless, I was quite disappointed with his “shoot from the hip” analysis of the 2009 Iran election, and nearly as disappointed that (to my knowledge) he’s never taken a closer look at it on his own initiative. I used to check out antiwar.com much more than I do now, though I still find my way to many of its best writer’s articles – quite often because someone on this website mentions them.
Pirouz_2,
Thanks for passing on that comment from the Iranian lawyer.
He mentions that a court’s decision is required to extend the one-month detention period. Does the initial one-month decision also require court approval, or does the prosecutor get the first month “for free?” Even if I knew this answer, of course, it would be hard or impossible for me to determine how independently the courts behave in practice on these matters. US courts can deny bail to defendants in many circumstances, but my impression is that they don’t rubber-stamp prosecution requests. I wonder whether that’s true in Iran too.
I wonder even more why a defendant is not allowed to see an attorney. Whatever the rules may be, I see no reason to deny a defendant a right to have a lawyer help him ensure that the rules are properly applied in his case. Even if – maybe especially if – the government is absolutely certain that a defendant has broken a rule and deserves to be punished, it seems to me best for all concerned – including the prosecution – that he be given a fair opportunity to defend himself against the charge, with a lawyer’s assistance.
In the US, the defendant would not only be given access to a lawyer, but the taxpayers would pay for the lawyer if the defendant cannot afford to. Nobody here likes to pay legal fees for some ax murderer or drug dealer, but most of us feel it’s “worth it” for reasons apart from the particular case: we can tell ourselves the system is fair. To be sure, there are rogue cops, dishonest prosecutors, and crooked judges. Nevertheless, those are the exceptions, and we are generally satisfied that the system is fair for both sides in a criminal case.
No legal system can ever protect fully against the bad eggs, but it should at least establish a bit more level of a playing field than it sounds like Iran has done. As you know, I feel strongly that Ahmadinejad was validly elected and his government is legitimate. I think Pak, Scott, Binam and others make a tactical mistake to link their non-election complaints so tightly to their argument that Ahmadinejad’s government is not legitimate. But establishing a government’s legitimacy doesn’t give the government carte blanche to mistreat citizens. If government officials aren’t following their own rules, people should protest against that. If they are following their own rules but those rules don’t add up to a fair legal process, people should protest the rules – not in the individual case, perhaps, but by pressing for the rules to be changed as soon as possible so that they are more fair.
Even for its own selfish reasons, a government should want this. Take the election, for example. Scott has not taken the bait dangled to him in my recent questions, and so, for the sake of discussion, I’ll have to supply one of his standard answers to the question of why none of Mousavi’s on-site observers has ever backed him up on his fraud allegations: Each of them (40,000+) fears punishment if he disagrees with the vote count reported for his polling station.
Whether or not one finds this plausible (I don’t), there can be little or no dispute that Scott’s argument gets a strong boost from the arrest and severe punishment of a prominent film-maker for making a movie protesting the election. It leaves Scott in a stronger position to say: “See? I told you so.”
Someone, possibly you, pointed out a while ago that the Iranian government faces far more serious risks from outside interference than does the US government, and that a pro-Nazi movie maker during World War II might well have had a knock on his door late at night. I acknowledge that, and don’t think it would be productive to debate where Iran’s current situation is on the spectrum between complete risk-free stability and the near-chaos of total war. Even if one agrees with Iran’s government and its supporters that the risks of outside interference are extremely high and must be dealt with somehow, I don’t think it follows that the government should suppress free expression as much as it does, nor even close to that extent.
Consider this fact: not a single serious scholar (to my knowledge) has sided with Mousavi about the election. Those few that addressed the subject in the early post-election days limited themselves to “preliminary” analyses and, without exception that I’m aware of, never followed up. (Dr. Ali Ansari is the classic example: he promised to, but ended up dropping the project like a hot potato.) Most or all of those scholars live outside Iran and had more or less unrestricted freedom to write or say whatever they liked about the Iran election. If Iran’s critics had been given the same free rein, they’d presumably have come up with nothing more than outside scholars have come up with. Had the Iranian government allowed them to do so, and even cooperated in their research, it would now be in a position to say this: “OK, you’ve had more than a year now. Nobody’s been punished or even threatened, and no one claims they’re worried about this. We’ve helped you in every way you’ve asked. So tell us: What have you come up with to support your allegations of fraud?”
Wouldn’t that be better – for the Iranian government, as well as everyone else – than to allow people like Scott – along with dozens of influential journalists and other writers – to run around asking: “Look what happens to a film maker who dares to question the election?”
Rehmat;
I explained it before, but it seems that I have not been able to make it clear enough:
I was not trying to draw attention to the harshness or injustice of Iranian laws. All I wanted to do was to shed light on the Iranian laws regarding ‘arrest’, its length and the rights of the suspect to see anyone.
And the reason was that some people (everyone knows who) over here tried to exploit the fact that we are not legal experts (not on Iranian law anyway) and try to make an assertion that the arrest of ‘some’ of the so-called dissidents in Iran was unlawful UNDER IRANIAN LAWS.
While I do NOT deny that there might be arbitrary (in fact there has been) arrests and imprisonments in Iran, the nature of the arrest of some of the pro-Israeli/pro-American ‘reformist’ figures, could be explained under Iranian laws.
According to Mr.Zbig Head the former NSA, from early on, because of the unexpected Islamic revolution in Iran, to contain and or reverse the spread of this unwelcomed Islamic revolution to neighboring Muslim satellite client states of US and USSR, the US’s and to some extend the USSR’s strategy was set, to a tactical proxy use of Iraq and Afghanistan, US went further and empowered and armed the Sunni militant Taliban a highly extremist and militant Sunni Muslims, this was to first block a possible further southward move by USSR and also to contain shieh revolutionary ideas of Iran. History shows that both this projects and related strategies failed to achieve their objectives in a way that as a possible result the USSR seized to exist, and the US became so deeply stocked in a quagmire in both this countries, which as a result it may affect its super power status and a possible longevity.
To quickly summarize this thirty years old reality show, one can draw a conclusion, that the proxy forces which was used to contain Iran, in reality have effectively contained the actual proxy users for seeable future. a little nice but rather very expensive lesson is learned , one hopes anyway.
Dan Cooper – Many of articles from my blog have appeared on uprootedpalestinian blog along with Gilad Atzmon. The blog is run by a Palestinian female writer Nahida.
pirouz_2 – Iranian detention laws are more fair than similar laws in the US, Britain, France, Germany – where anti-Israel protesters are called anti-Semitic and some of rounded up for being ‘Muslim terrorists’. When was the last time we heard Zionist lobby groups calling for justice under US Constitution as they’re voicing similar demands on the top of their lungs?
Here is a little taste of American justice for the ignorants….
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/aipac-thou-shalt-not-recognize-palestine-state/
Iranian;
That was not my point. Some people question the legality of the detention of some of reformist figures (under Iranian law), I just wanted to shed light on what Iranian law is.
“Obama Administration is completely failing to understand and deal with “the rise of Iran”, just like it is failing to understand and deal with the rise of Turkey. She characterizes the idea that the United States can somehow keep Iran from obtaining major regional power status as a “fantasy”.
IF the following analysis has any grounds, there is yet, the very potential for, another fantasy on the brewing in Saudi when there will be a change of guard(s). The question would be, what, if any, planning are the US FP team making in the anticipation of this change?
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/157252.html
“”These pictures are from President Ahmadinejad’s trip to Karaj taken today:
http://www.irna.ir/Show.aspx?SD=0&NID=30156276&PID=840665
Painful aren’t they”"
I@I , please be more merciful and let SL survive the last days of 2010 , the Greens need him . As UU mentioned : Ya Lucas , Mir Lucas…..
BiBiJon: Absent any other reason, you normally only get “awaiting moderation” if you’ve included more than one link in your post. A lot of forum software does this to prevent spammers. One can avoid the issue by editing the URL to put spaces in so it does not become a link.
Testing to see if my comments get the indefinite ‘awaiting moderation’.
Scott Lucas
These pictures are from President Ahmadinejad’s trip to Karaj taken today:
http://www.irna.ir/Show.aspx?SD=0&NID=30156276&PID=840665
Painful aren’t they?
pirouz_2
The anti-terror laws in England go even further.
When I watch this, I think of American hypocrites like Scott Lucas:
http://www.rajanews.com/detail.asp?id=74161
@Everyone (especially Eric):
I just heard today from a prominent law practitioner in Iran something regarding the Iranian laws regarding making an “arrest” and the rights of a suspect regarding meeting anyone (including his lawyer) during his arrest:
‘IF’ there is reasonable suspicion that a suspect is a danger to the security and/or the suspect may either cause harm, or destroy the evidence pertaining to his/her crime, it is lawful to keep the suspect under arrest without the right to see anyone, for a month. Upon the completion of the one-month period, if the sensitivity of the situation persists, the court can decide to extend the one month period.
Thank you Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett.
Dear Leveretts,
Please top off this wonderful year by making an apology for your anti-Iran past. Please also update Hillary Mann’s biography to include her employment with WINEP; nobody likes revisionist history. And finally, please keep an eye out for personal attacks made by commentors, such as calling other commentors disabled and bowel-dwelling parasites.
Dan Cooper: And according to Ilan Pape here:
The drums of war are heard again in Israel
http://mondoweiss.net/2010/12/the-drums-of-war-are-heard-again-in-israel.html
Israel intends to brutalize Gaza all over again, worse and quicker this time. I rather doubt we’ll get through 2011 and 2012 without at least one more brutal Israel war on Gaza and/or Lebanon – if not Iran.
As an aside, it’s nice to see this site reflecting its readers requests. This is much better than, for example, Matt Yglesias’ site which forced its readers to endure hideously bad forum software for the better part of a year before fixing it.
Not to mention that Yglesias couldn’t care less about what his readers say for the most part. I’ve noticed the Leveretts’ consistent introduction of themes in their posts which reflect and address points raised in the discussions going on here. Kudos to them for that.
Eric: I wouldn’t be too harsh on Justin for his response to the Iranian election. As a “paleo-Conservative/cum anarchist”, he’s more forceful in his denunciation of state deficiencies than most. Importantly, he doesn’t limit his criticisms to any given state, although as one of the worst actors and as a citizen of same, the US gets the majority of his criticism. If you made him aware of your analysis of the Iranian elections, he’d likely modify his opinion or at least acknowledge some deficiency in his analysis. I’ve found him mostly dead on in most of his columns. Although he can jump the gun on occasion. his instincts are pretty good for detecting hidden agendas in the day’s news.
In general, Antiwar.com has been in the forefront of criticizing the US military-industrial state, the various wars, the actions of Israel and many other related geopolitical matters. It’s a great jumping off place for finding out what’s really going on, as is Asia Times. The roster of writers there is really top notch including Philip Giraldi, Ivan Eland, Gareth Porter and many others.
Speaking of Antiwar.com, in the “With friends like this, who needs enemies?” category, Justin Raimondo’s name may top the list for Iran. The long-time webmaster of Antiwar.com was more strident in his denunciation of the 2009 Iran election than writers such as Alan Kuperman, Joshua Muravchik, Max Boot, Daniel Pipes and John Bolton, among others (see footnote 42 of my election article for more details (http://brillwebsite.com/writings/iran2009election.html)). Although Raimondo dutifully emphasized that he “anticipate[s] with horror the prospect of war with Iran,” one suspects these bomb-Iran advocates were grateful for his fervent support of their position on the election but confident they could fashion a proper remedy without further assistance from him.
The Gaza massacre, which Israel launched two years ago today, did not end on 18 January 2009, but continues. It was not only a massacre of human bodies, but of the truth and of justice. Only our actions can help bring it to an end.
The UN-commissioned Goldstone Report documented evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in an attack aimed at the very “foundations of civilian life in Gaza” — schools, industrial infrastructure, water, sanitation, flour mills, mosques, universities, police stations, government ministries, agriculture and thousands of homes. Yet like so many other inquiries documenting Israeli crimes, the Goldstone Report sits gathering dust as the United States, the European Union, the Palestinian Authority and certain Arab governments colluded to ensure it would not translate into action.
Israel launched the attack, after breaking the ceasefire it had negotiated with Hamas the previous June, under the bogus pretext of stopping rocket firing from Gaza.
During those horrifying weeks from 27 December 2008 to 18 January 2009, Israel’s merciless bombardment killed 1,417 people according to the Palestinian Centre for Human Rights in Gaza.
They were infants like Farah Ammar al-Helu, one-year-old, killed in al-Zaytoun. They were schoolgirls or schoolboys, like Islam Khalil Abu Amsha, 12, of Shajaiyeh and Mahmoud Khaled al-Mashharawi, 13, of al-Daraj. They were elders like Kamla Ali al-Attar, 82 of Beit Lahiya and Madallah Ahmed Abu Rukba, 81, of Jabaliya; They were fathers and husbands like Dr. Ehab Jasir al-Shaer. They were police officers like Younis Muhammad al-Ghandour, aged 24. They were ambulance drivers and civil defense workers. They were homemakers, school teachers, farmers, sanitation workers and builders. And yes, some of them were fighters, battling as any other people would to defend their communities with light and primitive weapons against Israel’s onslaught using the most advanced weaponry the United States and European Union could provide.
The names of the dead fill 100 pages, but nothing can fill the void they left in their families and communities (“The Dead in the course of the Israeli recent military offensive on the Gaza strip between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009,” [PDF] Palestinian Centre for Human Rights, 18 March 2009).
These were not the first to die in Israeli massacres and they have not been the last. Dozens of people have been killed since the end of Israel’s “Operation Cast Lead,” the latest Salameh Abu Hashish last week, a 20-year old shepherd shot by Israeli occupation forces as he tended his animals in northern Gaza.
But the tragedy does not end with those who were killed. Along with thousands permanently injured, there is the incalculable psychological cost of children growing up without parents, of parents burying their children, and the mental trauma that Israel’s offensive and the ongoing siege has done to almost everyone in Gaza. There are the as yet unknown consequences of subjecting Gaza’s 700,000 children to a toxic water supply for years on end.
The siege robs 1.5 million people not just of basic goods, reconstruction supplies (virtually nothing has been rebuilt in Gaza), and access to medical care but of their basic rights and freedoms to travel, to study, to be part of the world. It robs promising young people of their ambitions and futures. It deprives the planet of all that they would have been able to create and offer. By cutting Gaza off from the outside world, Israel hopes to make us forget that the those inside are human.
http://uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com/2010/12/gaza-massacre-and-struggle-for-justice.html
I agree with Hillary Mann Leverett on the Obama’s “change you can’t rely on”. In fact, Obama’s continuous bending backwards on Benji Netanyahu’s endless irrational demand – has totally destroyed his administration’s credibility in the world. More and more world leaders are coming to the conclusion that Obama is nothing but a poodle of the Israel Lobby.
Contrary to Washington’s pathetic foreign policy – Tehran has succeeded in courting more foreign capitals and irrespective of the sanctions, country’s economy has increesed by over 37% during the last 12 months. Iran’s advancements in the military technology has become unparallel. Furthermore, the non-aligned countries alongwith many other countries continue to pledge their support for Iran’e right to carry-on its civilian nuclear program.
However, with the overloading of ‘Israel-First’ dudes in both Congress and Senate will force Washington’s anti-Iran policy in the 2011.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/23/iranophobia-figment-of-imagination/