Vice President Joseph Biden set out to massage U.S.-Israeli relations this week, but instead ran up against the reality of Israeli politics, manifested in the Netanyahu government’s announcement of the construction of 1,600 new homes in East Jerusalem. The result, as described by the normally rhetorically sober Financial Times, has been to expose “an emasculated White House” that lacks “Mideast muscle.” This criticism is completely deserved, because Biden’s debacle in Israel is the fruit of the Obama Administration’s fatally flawed approach to the Middle East.
The first and most fundamental flaw in that approach is President Obama’s failure to pursue strategic realignment with the Islamic Republic of Iran with the kind of strategic focus and political determination with which President Nixon pursued strategic realignment with the People’s Republic of China in the early 1970s. By allowing the Iran issue to drift, President Obama has given Prime Minister Netanyahu an ideal excuse for not acceding to effective American mediation on the Palestinian issue. “How can Washington ask me to take both strategic and domestic political risks on the Palestinian issue,” Netanyahu can ask rhetorically, “when I have to marshal every bit of the Israeli government’s bureaucratic and national security capacity and my own political capital to deal with the Iran issue?”
Furthermore, the Obama Administration’s current default policy for dealing with Iran—namely, to pursue further sanctions and work to forge a regional coalition to “contain” Iran—will do nothing to resolve the Iran problem. This only reinforces Netanyahu’s excuse for pursuing policies toward the Palestinians that are deeply damaging to whatever prospects might still remain for a two-state solution and, by extension, to America’s strategic position in the region. As we wrote in a New York Times Op Ed in May 2009 (and were criticized in some quarters for being too critical of the Obama Administration too early in its tenure):
“President Obama and his team should not be excused for their failure to learn the lessons of recent history in the Middle East—that the prospect of strategic cooperation with Israel is profoundly unpopular with Arab publics and that even moderate Arab regimes cannot sustain such cooperation. The notion of an Israeli-moderate Arab coalition is not only delusional, it would leave the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks of the Arab-Israeli conflict unresolved and prospects for their resolution in free fall.”
And that is exactly where prospects for resolution of the Palestinian and Syrian-Lebanese tracks are today—in free fall. As we noted in our May 2009 Op Ed, “These tracks cannot be resolved without meaningful American interaction with Iran and its regional allies, HAMAS and Hezbollah”.
Beyond the failure to deal in a genuinely strategic way with Iran, the second fundamental flaw in the Obama Administration’s approach to the Middle East is a failure to define any appreciable limits for Israeli actions. This is particularly devastating on the Palestinian track.
As we wrote in an article, “A Roadmap to Nowhere: Obama’s Refusal to dub Israeli settlements illegal is undermining any hope of Middle East peace”, that we published on ForeignPolicy.com in July, President Obama missed a critical opportunity in his June 2009 Cairo speech to take U.S. policy on Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory back to what is was under the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations, when U.S. policy actually achieved meaningful progress towards a resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict—namely, a clear-cut stance the such settlements were illegal, in that the settlement of Israeli civilians in occupied territory violates the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Instead, Obama stuck with the same tired and useless stance that has enabled Israel to expand settlements in occupied Palestinian territories by orders of magnitude over the past quarter century; in Cairo, Obama said only that “the United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements”. When the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler asked the State Department to clarify whether Obama’s rejection of the “legitimacy” of continued Israei settlements meant that the U.S. government considered settlement activity in itself to be a violation of international law, the State Department repeatedly declined to answer. As we wrote in “A Roadmap to Nowhere” on ForeignPolicy.com,
“Obama’s rhetoric in Cairo strongly suggests that his Middle East diplomacy will extend America’s decades-long record of ineffectual efforts at Arab-Israeli peacemaking—a record that has its origins in the Reagan administration’s 1981 decision to abandon the Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations’ characterization of Israeli settlements in occupied Arab territory as ‘illegal.’ While the European Union and most of the rest of the world have consistently done so, the last four U.S. administrations have not—a position Obama is continuing. By shrinking from declaring Israeli settlement activity illegal, Obama has guaranteed that, in substance, his Middle East policy cannot depart significantly from that of George W. Bush…
“Worse, in contrast to other policy mistakes made early in his presidential tenure, Obama will be hard put to reverse the damage done by his lack of clarity and courage on the settlements issue by coming back at a later date and arguing that Israeli settlements in occupied territory are, in fact, illegal…
“Had President Obama explicitly declared Israeli settlements illegal…his call for a halt to settlement activity would not be based on a (disputable) judgment that such activity is ‘unhelpful’ or creates ‘facts on the ground’ that prejudge final negotiating outcomes. Instead, the U.S. call to end settlement activity would be grounded in a straightforward argument: Because Israeli settlements are illegal, no negotiating process rooted in international law could responsibly tolerate their expansion…
“By explicitly declaring Israeli settlements illegal, Obama could have transcended [the absence of clearly defined final status parameters] in the road map. If settlements are illegal, then no negotiating process grounded in international law could take any starting point other than the 1967 boundaries for negotiating final borders. Similarly, if settlements are illegal, then any negotiating process grounded in international law would have to start from the premise that all of Jerusalem cannot remain under exclusive Israeli control…
“In response to pressure from the Netanyahu government, Mitchell is reportedly already considering a ‘new’ definition of ‘natural growth’ in existing settlements—a definition that would allow Israel to complete construction that has already been started. One can only imagine how many construction permits will be pulled out of drawers in Israeli settlements throughout the West Bank in anticipation of such an arrangement; the practical effect of such ‘limits’ will be as meaningless as the Bush administration’s ‘understandings’ with Sharon and Olmert.”
And that is precisely what is happening today. In addition to the 1,600 East Jerusalem housing units announced by the Netanyahu government in conjunction with Biden’s visit, Haaretz reports that “some 50,000 new housing units in Jerusalem neighborhoods beyond the Green Line are in various stages of planning and approval”.
But bad strategy on Iran and Arab-Israeli issues, in and of itself, does not account for descriptions of the Obama Administration as “emasculated”. For that, we must consider the third flaw in President Obama’s approach to the Middle East—his determined position to enable Israel to act without cost or consequence, no matter how damaging its actions might be to regional peace prospects and America’s own strategic interests. Writing in POLITICO today, Laura Rozen reports that people who heard what Biden said to Israeli officials behind closed doors “were ‘stunned’, the centrist Israeli daily newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth reported. ‘This is starting to get dangerous for us’, Biden castigated his interlocutors. ‘What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.’”
One hopes that Biden did indeed use those words. But what do such behind closed-doors words mean, really, if they are not backed up by a willingness to withhold some part of America’s aid to Israel over behavior that, as Biden reportedly said, puts the lives of American soldiers at risk? What do those fine words mean if they are not backed up by a willingness to let Israel begin appreciating the consequences of such behavior in the United Nations Security Council? What do those words mean if President Obama does not inform Prime Minister Netanyahu that he is prepared to use those words himself, addressed to the American public, if Israel does not reverse course on the settlements issue?
Biden’s visit to Israel has brought into graphic relief the fundamental flaws of the Obama Administration’s approach to the Middle East. Unless there is a fundamental change in approach, those flaws will prove fatal, and the United States will experience massive strategic failure in this critical region on President Obama’s watch.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Great post can you recommend any forums to join?
PRETRIB RAPTURE POLITICS
Many are still unaware of the eccentric, 180-year-old British theory underlying the politics of American evangelicals and Christian Zionists.
Journalist and historian Dave MacPherson has spent more than 40 years focusing on the origin and spread of what is known as the apocalyptic “pretribulation rapture” – the inspiration behind Hal Lindsey’s bestsellers of the 1970s and Tim LaHaye’s today.
Although promoters of this endtime evacuation from earth constantly repeat their slogan that “it’s imminent and always has been” (which critics view more as a sales pitch than a scriptural statement), it was unknown in all official theology and organized religion before 1830.
And MacPherson’s research also reveals how hostile the pretrib rapture view has been to other faiths:
It is anti-Islam. TV preacher John Hagee has been advocating “a pre-emptive military strike against Iran.” (Google “Roots of Warlike Christian Zionism.”)
It is anti-Jewish. MacPherson’s book “The Rapture Plot” (see Armageddon Books etc.) exposes hypocritical anti-Jewishness in even the theory’s foundation.
It is anti-Catholic. Lindsey and C. I. Scofield are two of many leaders who claim that the final Antichrist will be a Roman Catholic. (Google “Pretrib Hypocrisy.”)
It is anti-Protestant. For this reason no major Protestant denomination has ever adopted this escapist view.
It even has some anti-evangelical aspects. The first publication promoting this novel endtime view spoke degradingly of “the name by which the mixed multitude of modern Moabites love to be distinguished, – the Evangelical World.” (MacPherson’s “Plot,” p. 85)
Despite the above, MacPherson proves that the “glue” that holds constantly in-fighting evangelicals together long enough to be victorious voting blocs in elections is the same “fly away” view. He notes that Jerry Falwell, when giving political speeches just before an election, would unfailingly state: “We believe in the pretribulational rapture!”
In addition to “The Rapture Plot,” MacPherson’s many internet articles include “Famous Rapture Watchers,” “Pretrib Rapture Diehards,” “Edward Irving is Unnerving,” “America’s Pretrib Rapture Traffickers,” “Thomas Ice (Bloopers),” “Pretrib Rapture Secrecy” and “Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty” (massive plagiarism, phony doctorates, changing of early “rapture” documents in order to falsely credit John Darby with this view, etc.!).
Because of his devastating discoveries, MacPherson is now No. 1 on the “hate” list of pretrib rapture leaders!
There’s no question that the leading promoters of this bizarre 19th century end-of-the-world doctrine are solidly pro-Israel and necessarily anti-Palestinian. In light of recently uncovered facts about this fringe-British-invented belief which has always been riddled with dishonesty, many are wondering why it should ever have any influence on Middle East affairs.
This Johnny-come-lately view raises millions of dollars for political agendas. Only when scholars of all faiths begin to look deeply at it and widely air its “dirty linen” will it cease to be a power. It is the one theological view no one needs!
With apologies to Winston Churchill – never has so much deception been foisted on so many by so few!
[Also Google "David Letterman's Hate, Etc."]
What you say makes sense, but yeah, I’m surprised that nobody seems to hit our logistics. It’s an awfully long supply line. . . .
Jon – I believe it has to do with the deals done behind the scenes, and the differences between the various factions that coalesce into the Pakistani Taliban (vehemently opposed by Pakistani people and forces) and the different animal that is the Afghan Taliban (tacitly supported by both).
The Afghan Taliban, whose target is the US, are not interested in upsetting their hosts by causing problems inside Pakistan, while the actual target of the Pakistani Taliban are the Pakistani forces themselves. The US pay Pakistan a hell of a lot of money to keep those trucks moving, and one imagines there is close cooperation between the US and Pakistani militaries over it. They are not routed through Pakistani Taliban strongholds either. Even so, you would still think there would be at least occasional attacks.
You know, Alan, that’s the darndest thing to me. I think it’s even more than 70%. The stuff is landed at Karachi and trucked north through the Khyber Pass. I can’t for the life of me understand why the Taliban aren’t setting off bombs in Karachi and along those miles and miles of roads the supplies travel on. Who provides security for the convoys? How can that security be so good? One never hears of problems with insurgent attacks on our logistics — why??
Jon – I would add on the Pakistan point that 70% of all US military supplies are routed to Afghanistan through Pakistan by road. I believe this is something like 300 truckloads every day.
Just getting to this piece, which is excellent. The commentary provided by all of the usual suspects is first-rate too, much better than what one generally finds online. Eric’s stuff in particular stands out, but everybody is on top of their game in both substance and style.
I may have missed it, but I don’t think anyone responded to Eric’s P.S. (first comment) about US troops in Pakistan. I understand there are special operators there now; we had them there before, but the Paks invited them out in, I think, 2003. I believe the US government is either not commenting on their presence or is denying it publicly while acknowledging it privately. On the latter point I’m trying to recall from memory; I may have my facts mixed up.
Note to Sakineh Bagoom: remember that the Boston Globe is a satellite of the New York Times.
Eric – I thought you might think that!
I think the crucial thing is for Obama to create a point of conflict with Israel, where US and Israeli interests diverge, which Obama can use to clearly demonstrate Israel acting against the interests of the US. Only then can he take on the Lobby, because that is really what the whole game is all about.
The GWB era saw the US adopting Israel’s enemies as their own. That link must be broken first, and Iran is the obvious candidate. Until it is broken, the US will always risk being roped into Israel’s senseless battles. It won’t take much to break it, just a simple change from an adversarial posture toward Iran to a non-adversarial posture. A small deal like the TRR one could do it, and then all the dynamics change, at home and in the region.
James,
“Israel blocked an Iranian initiative early in the G W Bush administration, calling for normal US/Iran relations in the context of Iran’s accepting Israel WITHIN ITS JUNE 1, 1967 BORDERS.”
I assume you’re referring to the Swiss ambassador’s memo (see “Key Documents” at bottom of this website page) reporting the Iranian’s willingness to negotiate toward a grand bargain with the US in May 2003. Much as we all might like to believe such a GB was feasible, if you take a look at that memo and then consider the situation in May 2003, I can’t imagine you or anyone else could really imagine that such a deal, or anything remotely close to it, was do-able, or even worth discussing. Even if the Israelis had been entirely asleep at the switch when that memo came across the transom, the result (nothing) would have been exactly the same. Even if Obama had been president then, I suspect the result would have been exactly the same. (Six months ago, I’d have been less confident saying this hypothetically about Obama, but given his passivity, it’s hard to imagine he’d have acted any differently from George W. Bush).
Read the memo, then see what you think. It’s pie-in-the-sky memos like this that make me feel so strongly that we and Iran will be much better off taking much smaller steps if we expect ever to get anywhere. To imagine that US and Iranian diplomats will ever sit down across a conference table and start working their way down the wish-list that was that memo is just this side of absurd – then, now, and at every moment of time in between. Great to imagine, and any diplomat sitting at that table would have a great shot at a Nobel Prize and the Time Magazine Person of the Year if something actually came of it. But if we’re actually trying to get something accomplished, rather than win Nobel Prizes and Person of the Year awards, we’d better just scrap the memo and try first to clear some smaller hurdles.
Persian Gulf
Not that I agree with Mr. Rohani, or CSR on all their views and presentations, but I think in 2003 for Iran and, the west, I mean for both sides, there wasn’t many other choices other then what took place.
And I don’t believe the decisions that took placed was Mr. Rohani’s alone since I do believe Iran’s foreign relation’s policies, especially strategic ones, are made in conscious, it does not seem to be possible to be decided by one person alone.
The regional and broader global (opinion) environment in 2005 was more possible to reverse course in favor of Iran, therefore just like its entire history, since Iran was on the defense in the home field it did what she has always done to survive, zig zag and buy time which will equal to energy and cost for the other side.
By just observing the comments between Eric and Allen on this page, interestingly one will note that how much the US will have to reform, and struggle to reform, its internal, and regional polices to just create an atmosphere possible for negotiations with Iran. Can you imagine what would be the show in NSC or State? In 2003, this luxury was not possible for Iran if it was the Bush administration would not throw the Swiss proposal to the bin.
Salamat Bashi
Alan – - Israel blocked an Iranian initiative early in the G W Bush administration, calling for normal US/Iran relations in the context of Iran’s accepting Israel WITHIN ITS JUNE 1, 1967 BORDERS.
Dan Cooper is quite right, that Ahmadinejad never called for destroying Israel, and he has made it entirely clear he (and Iran) expect Israel to fail as a “Jewish” state for demographic and other internal “natural” reasons – - not from an attack from without. Many Israelis think he is correct in his analysis.
kooshy:
I understand what you say, but taking CSR’s recommendations serious is nothing but waste of time. sometimes you need to act in a knee-jerk fashion!
CSR is a typical Akhondi system. we call it “las zani” in Farsi. missing the opportunities, nothing substantial. Ahmadinejad, I think, is quite right not to take those self promoted people in CSR seriously! I personally don’t consider Mr. Ruhani in having a nationalistic agenda anymore. he has been, at least sine 2005, pre-occupied with preserving his personal fortune. he shouldn’t hold that position. he just doesn’t deserve that. he better leave the post and teach some of the kids in his close family so to be able to read and write Farsi fluently! I am really tired of seeing few individuals, with the same tune and language, on the positions of power for decades!
Alan,
I agree with everything you write, which is well put – with just one minor difference that I hope won’t obscure just how closely our views agree on this:
Like you, I think Obama can should say: “Don’t attack them. But if you do, you’re on your own.” But I think he should say that right now (and more, as I explain below).
Possibly such a statement would carry more weight after a US/Iran deal has been struck. But by the time that occurs, if ever, the entire West Bank may be carpeted with settlements, which would make an I/P settlement even more difficult than it already is. And I’m not at all sure Israel would behave better if we had a deal with Iran in place. As long as we don’t, but such a deal looks possible, Israel has to worry that an Israeli attack on Iran might upset the US enough to close the deal, thereby hanging Israel out to dry. By contrast, if a US/Iran deal has already been struck, Israel’s hard-liners might persuade the Israeli public that the time has come to acknowledge that Israel has been sold down the river, abandoned by her strongest ally, and accordingly must take matters into its own hands. Indeed, the very closing of a US/Iran deal may enable them to create a sense of urgency – better to attack before the US/Iran deal leads to commercial, educational and cultural exchanges that persuade the US public that Iranians aren’t such bad people after all.
I think Obama’s right-now statement should deal with the settlements too, not just an attack on Iran. I recognize Netanyahu’s got some ornery coalition partners, but he may be able to shift a bit and put together a deal with Kadima. I don’t see the US getting far with Netanyahu as long as he maintains his current coalition (if he won’t buck them on this 1,600-unit snafu, after all, when will he?). And if it’s not realistic to think that he Netanyahu can put together a coalition with Kadima, or even that he will try in response to our demand on the settlements, maybe it’s time to bring George Mitchell home and replace him with a new (or even the old) James Baker and turn the screws a little bit.
In short, if we wait around for a deal with Iran, we may be waiting for a very, very long time, and it’s not clear we’ll be better off (on the I/P issue) with a deal than we are without one.
Eric
P.S. Thank you for the link to that exchange of letters on who pushed the Palestinians out of Palestine. Very interesting reading.
Fiorangelea
Sorry I forgot to mention CSR currently is, chaired by Hassan Rohani the Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator during Khatami’s administration.
Here is the link to their quarterly publication.
http://www.csrjournals.ir/
Since you have browsed the Iran’s Diplomacy site, here is the link
To Iran’s Center for Strategic studies which originally was attach to the President’s office but currently is part of the Expediency Council chaired by Rafsanjani
http://www.csr.ir/
Persian Gulf
Iran must not get intimidated by other sides rhetoric’s and nor should you, rhetoric’s from both side are made to make you intimidated and make you take a wrong step. Iran’s beef is not with Israel, it never was it is with the US, as a result now to some extends with major European states.
Israel is just another client state, like the Saudis, Egypt, Jordan etc. for a Brooder strategic propose of the west. Once its usefulness expires, it will be thrown under the bus just like that Pastor in Chicago, or more like what Flynt compares to the good old Republic of China, as matter of fact they may even offer Iran a chair at the UNSC and start passing resolution against some other poor states.
Cheers
Eric,
A deal with Iran, from the US side, has nothing to do with the settlements. It is Israel that is trying to make that link – give us something on Iran, we will give you something on I/P. However, the US knows any Israel promise on I/P isn’t worth a carrot, so will not commit to that link. Also, what Israel wants on Iran is NOT what the US wants.
Israel wants heavy duty action, but they want the US to do it. What they want to avoid at all costs is a US deal with Iran, because in bringing Iran in from the cold the US is accepting their reality as a strategic force in the region. This is anathema for Israel, not because of any bogus existential threat, but because it spells the end of unconditional US support for Israeli strategic hegemony.
If Israel does then attack, against a backdrop of a new and promising era between the US and Iran, there could be few better ways for Israel to lose the goodwill of the US government and public. Obama just needs to say “Don’t attack them. But if you do, you’re on your own.” He calls their bluff. No quid pro quo necessary.
That same dynamic can be applied to the I/P arena. If the capacity for Israel to disrupt US interests in the region has been nullified with an Iran deal, there is much more scope for Obama to apply pressure to Israel over Palestine. In response to the inevitable Israeli dummy-spitting that would arise, all he needs to do is leave all their countless aggressive, provocative and counterproductive actions hanging out in the breeze for the average Joe to look at.
But a deal with Iran must come first.
I think Iran said several times that Israel’s quota is ready in the case of an attack! Israel will not attack Iran simply because it can’t. no nation state would tolerate an existential threat if it could, even with a slim chance, diminish it one way or another. after all, Rafsanjani said few years ago how big Israel really is!
I guess, if there was any intention in bringing up enriched uranium from the underground storage at Natanz, that was to humiliate Israel and the imaginary talk of its attack on nuclear facilities. Soon after, Ahmadinejad completed this notion by putting Israel in the rank of Hezbollah and maximum Syria in Damascus. no matter how many nukes Israel has, it will never use them, it’s effectively lowered to the size of few militia. considering all these realities, I really don’t want to waste my time reading about Israel’s attack on Iran. please talk about something real.
Alan,
Excellent post, especially on the inevitability of the 20% fuel deal.
One comment, though.
“On the link between I/P and Iran, Obama cannot pressure Israel over I/P until he has a deal with Iran, because Iran is his open flank that Israel can exploit mercilessly.”
Yes, Israel can exploit this “open flank” mercilessly – unless we tell Israel that it cannot. If we do strike “a deal with Iran,” how many settlements will Israel have built in the meantime, and how will we know whether our “deal with Iran” is good enough for Israel to stop building even more – when Israel tells us it’s good enough? In that case, who’s shaping our relationship with Iran – us, or Israel? Or will we then tell Israel that, in our opinion, our deal with Iran is good enough and thus insist that Israel rethink its I/P policy? If the latter, why can’t we tell Israel the very same thing right now: deal or no deal, it’s time for you to rethink your I/P policy? Won’t we be more likely to strike a deal with Iran that’s best for the US, rather than for Israel, if we do it at our own pace, on our own terms, without having to think about what Israel’s needs are in that deal? And won’t Iran be more inclined to reach a deal that’s good for the US if its negotiators don’t believe that half of what we’re asking for is for Israel’s benefit rather than ours?
I’m presuming, as it seems you do too, that telling Israel firmly not to attack Iran will prevent it from doing so. I just don’t think we need to promise Israel anything in return (such as a “deal with Iran”) to get it to listen to us. Just get a backbone and threaten a reduction of support.
On the link between I/P and Iran, Obama cannot pressure Israel over I/P until he has a deal with Iran, because Iran is his open flank that Israel can exploit mercilessly. I agree that it is well nigh impossible for Israel to launch the kind of attack that can take out the Iranian nuclear programme – there is no similarity whatsoever with the attacks they launched on Iraq or Syria – however it is not beyond them to do something seriously inflammatory that drags the US into an almighty mess. If Obama gets Iran relations on an even keel, it makes it extremely difficult for Israel to do that.
On the Iran deal itself, as James says, the Iranian offer is in black and white at the IAEA. They will swap, in a single swap, their 5% LEU for “our” 20% plates, in Iran, simultaneously.
But, as kooshy and Persian Gulf suggest, why should Iran bother any more? If we DON’T do the deal on their terms, they have two options – make the plates themselves (they can enrich to 20% OK, but can’t yet fabricate the plates), OR buy the radioisotopes on the open market.
Now, which brave Western government is going to block the supply of essential medical supplies to Iran?
So Obama has to do a 20% fuel plate deal, simply for cosmetic purposes now. He has no leverage. He needs it more than they do. He can still sell it as the Iranians “seeing sense” or “bowing to the inevitable” or whatever. But he needs to do it.
Ahmadinejad Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map”
The false charge that Ahmadinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map” is based on an incorrect translation that many language experts have exposed. Yet the entire western media continue to report every time Ahmadinejad is mentioned that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.
This is purely propaganda to demonise Ahmadinejaad.
Ahmadinejad Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map”.
He never uttered the word “map” or even “Israel”.
This is what he said; “This Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
Ahmadinejad simply compared the demise of the “Jerusalem regime” to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
His emphasis was on “The Zionist regime” and not “the state of Israel”
Zionist regime is often compared with Hitler and fascism;
If someone says, “Hitler and fascism must vanish from the page of time”, does this mean, “Germany must be wiped off the map”?
Ahmadinejad’s statement has deliberately been altered to sound more threatening.
The criminal Zionist regime is desperate to paint Ahmadinejad as a threat to divert attention from their own atrocities.
The fake quote “wiped off the map” has been spread worldwide by Israel lobby Organisations.
The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self-defence, based on the misinformation.
The propensity for western governments to manufacture or exploit ahmadinejad’s statement could eventually have catastrophic implications.
An excellent analysis
“Wiped off the map”
The rumour of the century
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
.
Jon if I understood correctly in a way you are saying that Dean did not conform to certain established views and that is the reason the green light of his faith was signaled to the free media.
No, argue there, exactly after a few comments like that the media makes sure you are not electable and will make sure, you will not be heard again. Or like Ahmadinijad, you could become Hitler and a mad crazy suicide bomber, therefore in this environment to get elected you will have to throw your pastor under the boss and even deny you heard him say things, this is exactly what I mean, if you do imagine what else you will be willing to do.
Cheers
Persian Gulf – - My understanding is that Iran still has its offer on the table, to exchange LEU for the 20% U needed for the medical research reactor. Iran wants the exchange made on Kharg Island (free trade zone).
I very much agree with Fiorangela Leone that Ahmadinejad is quite right to describe US foreign policy in the Middle East as hypocritical. Aipac is all too powerful with both parties in Congress, but of course the Christian Zionists go with the Republicans.
Very few Americans are even aware Iran has tried to put relations on a normal footing (vis-avis the US) many times over the years. The Israel lobby blocks every overture.
Fiorangela happy Sunday to you, can’t argue with Italian or Swiss chocolates since I grew up with them, it sounds like, now days the “favorite is the Dark ones since the White ones can’t sell as well”
I am interested to know if you are Italian Fiorangela?
Levant is strategically too important for the west regardless of what AIPAC wants or does not want, this is not new is been like that ever since the history. Now if AIPAC is able to form regional policies for US, is because it knows what the broader US military strategic position with regard to Middle East
Mediterranean theater is, so if you can buy the congress and you can form your policies in formation with the military strategic architecture great you will have Israel, look how much chance of an Israeli attack on Iran is if US military does not approve even if congress passes resolutions after resolutions, zero. So I believe Israel Thorough its lobby forms and shapes the US policies with what it knows will be approved by the military first, yes even with regard to settlement, intimidations and selling arms , just now a little Iran is spoiling this cozy arrangement which the cost benefit of how to deal with it doesn’t pan out
Cheers
Kooshy,
“I can’t imagine how one can be elected in US without being able to pass the corporate media, and not have the fate of Howard Dean.”
Howard Dean started out riding high, of course, but he committed three sins in late 2003 that made his fall inevitable. I can’t remember what the third one was, but here are the other two:
1. He said that, if he were president and Osama bin Laden were captured, he’d be sure that bin Laden received a “fair trial.”
2. He suggested that the US should be “even-handed” in the Israel/Palestine dispute.
Can you guess which of those two sins was considered more serious? Within hours, Joe Lieberman was sputtering, veins popping out on his forehead, and soon John Kerry – never quite as quick on the uptake, but he learned – was following suit. I remember wondering why challenging someone simply for having suggested “even-handedness” didn’t call for at least a bit of tact and reserve, but I can assure you that none was displayed.
For a day or two, those attacks continued. Then they more or less stopped, and a decent interval passed. Then, guess what? It turned out, numerous writers reported, that Howard Dean actually had a lot of flaws that no one had noticed until then but, thank goodness, these writers had found them and were now warning us about him. None of those flaws, of course, had anything to do with his earlier “even-handed” remark.
http://mondoweiss.net/2008/01/in-the-chicago.html
kooshy – Godiva chocolate is no longer the gold-standard of chocolate, not since Kraft bought it.
Italian chocolate, such as Perugina BACI, is very good and readily available in US.
Matthew Sutton wrote: “Fiorangela, I share your sentiment, but as a practical matter what would this look like? How could he do this without appearing to cower or give in to the harsh anti-American rhetoric coming out of Iran and its leadership?”
Haven’t read every single comment but noticed that Persian Gulf refuted your statement about “harsh anti-American rhetoric…”, and you argued back against that.
I’m with Persian Gulf.
You generalize and characterize Iranian rhetoric as anti-American; please cite specific statements to back up your assertions.
The notion that Iranian leaders should pull their rhetorical punches lest they tip a balance toward Republicans in American elections seems to misread Iranian concerns entirely. It’s hard for me to imagine that Ahmadinejad gives a tinker’s dam about whether Republicans or Democrats in the US win elections; indeed, there’s very little difference between Democratic and Republican positions on Iran in the US: Democrats are joined at the hip to Israel whose American lobby is responsible for more than half of Democratic party funding, and GOP is firmly in the camp of Christian zionists.
The way I understand Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is from an Iranian perspective: I don’t hear anti-Americanism; I do hear Ahmadinejad calling out American hypocrisy. I am not anti-American; I love the country that is my home and my children’s home; but I also believe Ahmadinejad is correct in many of the statements he makes about US hypocrisy.
I do not interpret statements of Iranians that criticize and oppose American policy as “anti-American,” I hear those statements as defending Iranian interests. That’s what a nation’s leaders are supposed to do.
Mark Tapscott of Washington Examiner was a guest on C Span Washington Journal this morning. http://www.c-span.org/Watch/Media/2010/03/14/WJE/A/30662/Mark+Tapscott+Washington+Examiner+David+Waldman+DailyKos.aspx
He defended Bibi Netanyahu’s actions vis a vis Biden, stating, “Israel’s leaders act to protect Israel’s interests, as they should, and as America’s leaders defend American interests.” I have a lot to say about that statement, but the most obvious thing to recognize is that Iran’s leaders work to protect Iranian interests, too. Iran knows the difference between predatory capitalism, as has overtaken the US in the years since the Chicago School and Reaganomics took over, and the hum drum capitalism of Adam Smith. Iran is intent on resisting predatory capitalism; who can blame them: Iranians are not blind, they see the mess the US economy is in, thanks to predatory capitalism. (nb. Iran is among a growing group of Asian states that is coalescing around Shari’ia forms of finance that impose on lending the kinds of discipline that Americans wish their banks had practiced. Iran is resource rich, and predatory capitalists are itching to press those resources into a Dutch disease model, and to run it ‘for the good of the Iranian people’. Would you want Sandy Weil taking over your economy? THAT is the “America” that Iran is “anti-”)
John, very well said, one can’t blame what recently happened to Biden in Israel on Ahmadinijad’s pissing match, it really looks like people ridiculing the US are her own allies.
Look Ahmadinijad knows his rhetoric of pounding short comings of US’s regional polices, will be demonized and magnified with all sort of twists and will get published in the western media for the consumption of western audience. That’s exactly what he wants once his comments gets published in the NYT (Recorded on Paper), it then can be allowed to be published in the western oriented Arab media, and be heard and seen by even more disconnected and angry Arabs who like and approve of exactly what NYT doesn’t like. So he is beating the US and their own game , if he wanted to influence the western public opinion by now they had hired someone on the K street.
They know the battle they are fighting is not in the 5th street NY or Regent Street London, the battle is rather in the, say Ghods street in Amman, or King Fahd street Jeddah
Therefore, they are fighting an inexpensive war, without loss of any life, beating their opponents at their own game with their own tools. Arab love to hear what he says because they are so disgusted with their own ineffective easy bought and sold unpopular rulers. Arabs have been humiliated by the west for several decades when they see Muslim leaders like Nassrolah or Ahmadinijad are standing to the west and tell the Muslims do not be scared they immediately become street heroes. I for myself have heard and seen this from even the Arab Muslims in Europe. Iran, since is no longer protected by a super power, like it was before the revolution, when it really needed an umbrella due to the power and proximity with USSR, is now ,basing its regional balance of power with regards to its non Iranian neighbors, on wining the hearts and minds in the streets of the middle east .
We all know that would be impossible for the US to exercise Iran’s regional policy of wining the street in the Middle East outside of Israel, even if it wraps its hand in Godiva chocolate. Therefore, for US to balance its regional policy, is feeling the need to have Iran on her side, but for Iran to form a real strategic partnership with US in the region considering US’s current political image in the region, it is a price too high to pay. I think this was the essence of Mr. Khamenai’s request for change in US’s regional policy that the US administration preferred to ignore. I can imagine what was in Mr. khamenai’s reply to Mr. Obama’s letters that the administration could not even publically receive his replies; therefore, they preferred to continue the Bush policy of the regime change.
I agree with Persian Gulf to compare Obama with Khatami they were elected when the internal and international image of their respected countries was set at low, therefore like what Mr. Brzezinski bragged about before the 08 election we can suggest they were elected for just window cleaning and not the window dressing never mind the merchandising.
I have seen and observed the US elections since the Watergate elections of 1972, I can’t imagine how one can be elected in US without being able to pass the corporate media, and not have the fate of Howard Dean, if they are not trusted. Just for swinging your hand in the air, saying that you are upbeat and will win here and there in next primaries, you could be, branded as unelectable by the bosses, and be, demonized by corporate media. I no longer can comprehend what is a real free election, so could we therefore assume that the trusted ones or the necessary trusted ones can only pass the corporate media test (The guardian council) first, even before they can be able to run a meaningful campaign in the primaries.
Persian Gulf,
“I think the big question is: can the U.S come to term of an independent nuclear Iran?”
That indeed may be the big question, but if that “big question” gets asked and answered now, in those words, guess what? The answer will be a very loud “No, the US cannot come to terms with an independent nuclear Iran” – at least if “US” is defined (as it will be) to mean any politician who has an urge to be re-elected.
That being so, do you really want that to be the question that gets asked and answered now, or would it make more sense to keep attention focused on a lesser question that you argue has become “irrelevant” but which I think remains tactically very useful for Iran? I’ll rephrase that question a bit here:
“Is Iran’s current 3%-for-20% fuel swap proposal acceptable to the West and, if not, is it realistic to believe that any alternative fuel-swap proposal can be fashioned that would be acceptable to both sides?”
That’s the sort of mushily-phrased question that Western analysts can run with for weeks and months on end, especially those who think they’re oh-so-smart that they can come up with a just-perfect swap solution that nobody but them has been bright enough to think of until now. Most important, the narrow frame of that question keeps attention focused on the legitimate objective that Iran is trying to achieve here:
The acquisition of fuel that cannot be further enriched to make a bomb to run a nuclear reactor that makes medical isotopes used to help sick people get well.
If we keep the attention properly focused on that narrow and noble purpose – rather than on some broad question about an “independent nuclear Iran,” which inevitably will conjure up images in Western minds of mad mullahs supplying nuclear bombs to Hezbollah terrorists – I am confident that most people will eventually come around to say: “Well, I can’t say I like the idea of an ‘independent nuclear Iran’ any more than I ever have, but I guess I could see my way clear to let them make medical isotopes used to help sick people get well. You sure they can’t refine those 20% fuel rods into bombs? OK, then, but let’s just make sure we keep a close eye on those mad mullahs.”
And then, with a little luck and time, maybe some of those same people will eventually come around to say: “Well, I can’t say I like the idea of an ‘independent nuclear Iran’ any more than I ever have, but I guess I could see my way clear to let them use the stuff to run nuclear power plants. After all, it will reduce global warming and lower our own fuel costs by reducing demand for oil. You sure those IAEA guys can really tell whether they’re trying to turn that 3% uranium into bomb material? OK, then, but let’s just make sure we keep a close eye on those mad mullahs.”
In short, your big question (answer: “no”) will have been carved into two little questions that can be answered “yes” and “yes,” and – voila – Iran will be right where it wants to be and deserves to be.
Here is how Iran is portrayed when A-nejad is not someone to rail about and other negative faux-news story has to be put out. This, in today’s Boston Globe from WP.
http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2010/03/14/iranian_dissidents_find_refuge_relative_freedom_in_turkey/
The message: Be afraid of those Iranians – be very afraid – they may call you.
Matthew:
I can see how the media portrays Ahmadinejad here in NA. I am fully aware of that. But the fact that the media does this job should not overshadow the reality of Ahmadinejad’s words. and Obama supposed to LEAD but not fallow the events so to make changes that we could believe in. after all, Nixon was a republican. So, in view of my national interests, whoever that can make such a change is acceptable. If Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, if we just take your words, can produce an environment for the election of a republican that can bring the rapprochement scenario into the reality as opposed to a weak democrat one unable to do so, then let it be. Definitely, Ahmadinejad considers Iran’s interests but not the interests of this party or that in the U.S. obviously banking on the U.S election is a very risky gamble, and Iran’s rulers should seriously avoid that.
Eric:
I understand the balancing logic of the U.S elections. What I said was more about presidential election not for Senate and the House. Except recent election, what was the impact of let’s say people’ thinking in Californian and Texas… on the balancing act you have explained here before? It’s fair to say, the fait of the elections, in the past few ones, was on the hand of a few states. Anyway, thanks for the explanation, here is not a right place to talk about U.S elections, and I am not, as I said before, that informed about the subject. I just found the argument a bit weird.
As for the 20% issue, I think, Ramin Mehmanparast (the spokesperson for the foreign affairs) recently said that the swap idea is getting really irrelevant. Iran made that step, why should it be a change? Think of something else. This idea is like having an international consortium of enrichment in Iran’s soil. And a more strict supervision?! Here is the point of divergent. Iran believes she was under supervision much more than any other signatory of NPT.
I think the big question is: can the U.S come to term of an independent nuclear Iran? Can it accept Iran’s nuclear status to be like Brazil, Japan…? Or how important cooperation in other areas like Iraq, Afghanistan, and peace process….are to the U.S compare to the nuclear issue (I am not talking about a quid pro quo)?
Ahmadinejad knows that the US media and propaganda will portray him the same way, no matter what he says. As a result, he is free to say whatever will win him points inside of Iran and wherever people are allowed to hear what he says. This includes the Arab “street.” Where he is allowed to be heard, he scores points against an overbearing West.
The problem for Obama is not what Ahmadinejad says or does. His problem is the opposite of Ahmadinejad’s. Instead of being free to say something constructive, he is constrained by the Iranian frame that is highly entrenched in the US media and public “diplomacy.” To have any hope of changing anything, Obama has to start exercising leadership by changing the frame of the narrative by going behind closed doors or by going over the heads of the talking heads and hired pens. He started to do this by talking about engaging Iran. But then he promptly shot himself in the foot by making Iran an offer on the TRR that they had to refuse. A leader would have been sincere enough about engagement to actually engage instead of conducting a charade that reinforced the existing, nonsensical frame.
Matthew
“Here in the US, the media puts a spotlight on every negative thing that Iran’s President says. Take his recent trip to Afghanistan for example. Maybe he said a bunch of great things, but what we hear are his railing against the US. This contributes to the environment in which Obama has to operate here in the US.”
Matthew you in the west should understand that Ahmadinijad’s rhetoric with regard to the US and the west is not for consumption in the west, he doesn’t care what the NYT or WP make of his rhetoric if he did he wouldn’t agree to interview with them,. His rhetoric’s are for his own base that is the Muslim street around the Middle East otherwise, they would not hang his pictures in Cairo, you here have to understand he is a very shroud politician, and in my opinion, he does it well. Unlike Khatami he does not use and upper class eloquent tone, he delivers his punches in a very folksy tone for this exact reason.
Look here is why because Iran’s regional balance of power for at least since the 2003 Iraq occupation is based on the opinion of every day Muslims stree in the region, which is very cost effective. Iran can do this with just hammering US policies in the region in a public way that be broadcast throughout the reign and guess who’s speeches will be highlighted by the major media in the globe, the answer is Ahmadinijad’s.
Now look what US has to do with regard to her balance of power in the region, since it is currently only based on support of very unpopular governments, they have to have an expensive military presence as well as give free aids and military supplies, which is expensive and not cost effective , so guess who do you think in long run will win this game
Great piece! Obama has failed to develop good relations with Syria, even though Basha al-Assad would welcome normal relations with the US. Foolish notions of “containing” Iran, and continuing the counter-productive effort to isolate Hamas and Hezbollah, injure the interests of the US.
Obama should tell Israel it needs to get out of the Golan Heights and accept Syria’s offer of peace. And dump into the garbage bin notions of “weaning” Syria away from Iran, when in fact the US needs Syria to serve as a bridge to Iran.
Ronald Reagan is correctly identified as the bungler on the illegal settlements in the West Bank – - a bungling vastly amplified by G W Bush.
Matthew,
Your idea sounds good to me. I have to admit that I’ve not kept up on the details of the latest swap deals. My understanding of the first one was for Iran to give up all or substantially all of its low-enriched uranium in exchange for a promise to get 20% fuel plates in return. The only thing that bothered me about that proposal was that the Iranian representative reportedly said it sounded fine to him, he just needed to check with his government. That made me wonder about the quality of people Iran has representing it, since I’d have put that proposal into the you’ve-got-to-be-kidding category. Then, as I understand it, Iran proposed a simultaneous swap, which got summarily rejected, and that Iran then proposed some imaginative three-way swap that either has been rejected or is still on the table.
In the end, something like what you outline will probably be what it takes. Whether that happens before Iran runs out of fuel is another question, of course.
Eric, excellent points.
But given that Iran has already rejected the “single swap” scenio, what is the next move from the US?
I note that, in light of the history of western interefence in Iran’s internal affairs, I don’t blame Iran one bit for not agreeing to a “single swap” arrangement. It is a trust issue and there is no trust there, period. Trust has to be earned, plain and simple.
So here’s what I suggest. A time table in which the enriched uranium is switched in ever increasing percentages for the fuel plates or rods that can only be used for peaceful purposes. Both sides would be given an “out” to back out of the time table if the other side failed to perform. For example, in June 20% would be swapped. In September, another 30% is swapped. In December, 40%. The balance would be swapped three months later. Provisions would be included to account for future production. And, of course your idea of increased inspections would have to be included.
This would give our countries a chance to start building a working relationship. It would give Obama the political cover he needs to start real engagement. And it would cool the jets of the Israelis and the war hawks.
Why can’t a timetable like this be implemented?
Matthew,
I agree with your comment to Persian Gulf:
“Persian Gulf, may I ask what country you are in and where you get your news? Here in the US, the media puts a spotlight on every negative thing that Iran’s President says. … what we hear are his railing against the US.”
It’s not just Ahmadinejad’s anti-Israel talk that hems Obama in. He makes it very tough for Obama because he bad-mouths the US too. And even if that weren’t so, bad-mouthing Israel hems Obama in all by itself, because that “forces” Obama to declare his strong support for Israel.
Matthew,
“Lost in the uproar are little facts, such as how 20% enrichment is nowhere near that necessary to build a bomb.”
True, but note the point made in an article recently, which I understand is essentially this: If you start with, say, 0.7% uranium and double its purity by running it through your centrifuges, it ends up at 1.4%. Do it again and you’re up to 2.8%, just 2.1% richer than what you started with. Start instead with 20% uranium, and you double it to 40% and then to 80%, a whopping 60% richer and with striking distance of bomb-quality. So I don’t think the “20% is far short of bomb-quality” argument is a winner. I think we’re better off pressing for (1) a simultaneous swap of their 3% for Western 20%, which takes away from them fuel that could have been refined to bomb-quality and gives them back fuel plates that can’t thereafter be further refined to bomb-quality; and (2) insisting on more intrusive inspections (and whatever other safeguards the IAEA experts think would be useful) as a quid pro quo for supplying them the 20% fuel..
Persian Gulf, may I ask what country you are in and where you get your news?
Here in the US, the media puts a spotlight on every negative thing that Iran’s President says. Take his recent trip to Afganistan for example. Maybe he said a bunch of great things, but what we hear are his railing against the US. This contributes to the environment in which Obama has to operate here in the US. And leaves him little room to operate as a first term President who wants to get re-elected. Unless Ahmadinejad truly wants to bring about Armegedon as many argue, he really should not seek, inadvertently or not, to help a Republican get elected to the White House in 2012.
My presumption is that Ahmadinejad believes that railing against the US increases his popularity in Iran, and is good politics for him and his government. God knows we give him enough to rail about. Ironically, Obama is fenced in by the same domestic political considerations.
I don’t really know how to change the dynamic to where both sides say, politics be damned, let’s sit down and pull together on issues that will help both our countries.
I like Eric’s idea of dialing down the urgency level, and perhaps giving the situation more time. But the problem there is that Iran will continue to make headlines in the US by seemingly provocative actions with its nuclear program.
Every time it does something, ie. enriching uranium to 20%, the war hawks in the US seize upon it, the US media runs with it, and the political sound bite machines kick into gear.
Lost in the uproar are little facts, such as how 20% enrichment is nowhere near that necessary to build a bomb. Instead of dialing in the facts to diffuse the situation, the Obama administration then amps up its sanction talks. Instead, it should be diffusing the crisis with the facts, and open a high level channel of communication.
Persian Gulf,
I can assure you there are many American voters who try to keep one party from controlling both branches. I’ll confess that I’ve occasionally chosen among candidates on just that basis – favor one party’s candidate for president, favor the other party’s candidates for Senate and the House. I know that it was the guiding principle for my father and for many of his generation; several times, he voted for a candidate that I knew he disliked, and that was always his reason. It’s a well-recognized phenomenon that has been studied and written about very often.
There’s no question that this strategy doesn’t make sense if a voter wants some grand changes to be made, and I gather from your response that that is why you find it implausible. In most cases, a voter indeed would like to see something get done, and indeed does think that one party would be more likely than the other party to try to get it done. Sometimes he crosses his fingers and takes his chances – voting for one party across the board (as many voters did in 2008, for example). But rarely in the US do things work out as candidates promise in their campaigns, and so very many voters are very leery about taking the risk. US administrations don’t have a good track record for predictability. A candidate who abhors “nation building” might be off building nations within a year after taking office. A “compassionate conservative” may turn out to be less than compassionate. Someone who assures us he’ll end a war, or engage our adversaries in diplomatic dialogue, may do neither. Someone who assures you he’ll lower taxes may raise them. Someone who assures you he’ll lower the deficit may increase it dramatically. A likely “big spender” will leave office with a budget surplus. I could go on.
After a while, many voters become very reluctant to pin their hopes on a candidate and his campaign promises, and see a lot more merit in simply hamstringing whomever gets elected so he has no choice but to just mind the store. And the best way to do that is to make sure that one party controls the White House and the other party controls Congress. Nothing new gets done, at least legislatively, but at least the store gets minded.
Chris,
“The naked truth is that Israel is not interested in a Palestinian state.”
I agree. But notice that Israel never really says that, nor do they say they prefer a one-state solution. They don’t like either choice, and so they simply avoid making a choice. That has worked pretty well for them for several decades. Those of us who don’t think anything good can come from forcing the issue with Iran believe there’s something to be learned from how the Israelis have handled their predicament – without regard, on this narrow point, to whether one is happy about how that situation is working out for the rest of the world.
Maybe we will be better off just frittering away $400 million a year pretending we’re trying for regime change (war costs more, after all). Strike some narrow-scope deals that work out for us and ease the tension simply because they happen (say, on Iraq, or on the sale of 20% fuel in exchange for more intrusive inspections). Wait patiently until American companies get tired of seeing Chinese electronics stacked floor-to-ceiling in Tehran shops and quietly press the US government to ease off on the sanctions. Wait till Ahmadinejad’s term is up in 2013, and Obama (assuming he’s re-elected) no longer needs to worry about getting re-elected. Then take another crack at it. Now is about as bad a time as I can imagine to try to settle this “crisis.”
Matthew:
“9) The President of Iran’s harsh anti-US rhetoric that doesn’t seem to allow for any opportunity for engagement that Obama could seize to move forward without looking like he is being bullied by Iran.”.
I want to disagree with this comment.it’s not really a fair comment. Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric is about Israel, not that much toward the U.S. When it comes to the U.S, he consistently emphasized on cooperation, resolving the disputes, talk…. he even sent a congratulatory letter (it’s unbelievable for me as the one who was born and grown up in the era of the Islamic Republic).
Eric:
thanks for your explanation of the U.S election for recent history. actually, I am not that aged! to dispute them. however, there is one thing troublesome that I hear here and there:
“One important reason for Clinton’s victory in 1996 … is the desire of many American voters to prevent one party from having control of both branches of government….”.
given the electoral system in the U.S, this comment seems to be controversial. to believe people in different states make decision for the sake of preventing this eventuality to happen is even mathematically questionable!
I think, the gender factor would also be very important. when it came to men, as far as I remember, Obama and McCain where almost the same, around 48-9%. but for women, there was a hug gap. will Obama get those votes again?
Matthew,
All great observations. I think you’re especially right on the last one:
“But I just don’t see Ahmadinejad as giving us that opening. Its hard to reach out to someone when he is pissing in your face.”
I couldn’t agree more. But the conclusion I draw from that is that the best policy for Americans is simply to “dial down” the sense of urgency until prospects look better. Why force the issue when the realistically possible outcome is not desirable. If a “crisis” is deemed to exist, and the only apparent solutions to that “crisis” are (1) sanctions, which everyone will soon enough figure out don’t work; or (2) a “grand bargain,” which is hard to strike, as you note, with someone who’s pissing in your face; or (3) military strikes, which choice is likely to get made? Isn’t it better just to temporize?
I do give the administration some credit. I think Obama and Clinton really don’t think their “regime change” effort has a snowball’s chance in hell of success, but budgeting $400 million a year, and never having to explain what you’re accomplishing with all that money because, after all, it’s “secret,” is a great way to defuse the imagined “crisis” for a while. Who wants to send in the bombers when, who knows, we might be just a month or two away from a peaceful “regime change?”
Persian Gulf,
“Obama is becoming Iran’s Khatami by the time! Khatami could, at least, get reelected (the demography factor was on his side!). I am not sure of Obama!”
Very interesting (as was your whole post).
You should not, however, underestimate the power of an American president to get himself re-elected. It takes a pretty bad alignment of the zodiac for that to happen. Carter in 1980: sinking economy made him look bad domestically, Iran hostage crisis made him look like a foreign policy wimp, “malaise” speech (though he never actually used the word) made him look like a real downer, especially compared to don’t-worry-be-happy Ronald Reagan. Bush the elder in 1992: bad economy, upset some conservatives by not “finishing the job” in Iraq, many others by breaking his “read my lips” promise on taxes. But when you look back earlier than Carter, the last president to lose a re-election bid was Herbert Hoover in 1932.
By contrast, Bill Clinton, after the 1994 Republican sweep, looked so weak that reporters asked him whether he still considered himself even to be “relevant,” and he abased himself still further by giving the question a serious and lengthy answer. But he trounced Bob Dole in 1996. (Speaking of Bob Dole, has anyone else noticed that 2008 was the first US election since 1972 in which the Republican ticket included neither a “Bush” nor a “Dole”?)
One important reason for Clinton’s victory in 1996 (apart from the fact that it’s hard to imagine an opponent weaker than Bob Dole) is the desire of many American voters to prevent one party from having control of both branches of government. Sometimes they’re disgusted enough that they actually want that too happen (as in 2008), but more often they don’t. Tax-and-spend Democrats make them especially uneasy, which is precisely why the likely Republican sweep this fall bodes well for Obama in 2012: I’d be much less optimistic about his chances in 2012 if it looked like the Democrats are not going to get their wings clipped. Nobody voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 because they thought highly of his plans for the next four years (did he even have plans by then?) They voted for Clinton because the Gingrich Republicans had overplayed their hand from 1994 to 1996, and voters wanted to make sure those guys delivered their “Contract with America” speeches only from the steps of the Capitol building, not also from the Oval Office.
For this reason, assuming the Republicans romp in November, and overplay their hand again during the ensuing two years, Obama will probably be seen as a restraining influence that ought to be kept around for that reason alone. If he’s weak enough during 2011-2012 that absolutely no meaningful legislation gets passed, his chances will be even better: he can run a Harry Truman “do-nothing Congress” campaign – nothing to apologize for since nothing got done, and the fact that nothing got done was all the other guys’ fault.
To be sure, if the economy is really in the tank in 2012, Obama could get the boot, but most voters will probably ask themselves “Compared to what?” and overlook that. When Carter and Bush the elder got punished for a bad economy, it had been much stronger when they took office. Remember Reagan’s most persuasive campaign line: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” In 1980, the answer was usually “no.” And who can forget James Carville’s mantra for Clinton campaign workers in 1992: “It’s the economy, stupid.” By contrast, given the deep hole we were in when Obama took office, it’s hard to imagine there will be much voter enthusiasm for handing the reins back to the party that was running the show when the hole was dug.
My hunch is that Obama will get re-elected, then dither around for a year or two, and finally decide, a la Clinton, that solving the Israel/Palestine crisis would be a really neat legacy, and so he’ll devote a serious effort to doing so. Since the opponents’ usual reaction to any American president who makes that effort is to cast him as a wimp, Obama will look for some way to avoid the “wimp” label. I can think of a good way, and I presently expect he will too: cast himself as a sincere, hard-driving, let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may peacemaker on the Israel/Palestine issue (with more success than Clinton, I confidently anticipate), and offset the inevitable “wimp” accusations by taking a harder line (or at least continuing the present hard line) on Iran.
Chris, as a private citizen and observer here within the U.S., here is my best guess on “what happened”:
1) preocupation with domestic issues such as health care, huge economic crisis, etc.;
2) As a result, Iran policy is allowed to drift and be influenced by the usual suspects with Bush Administration mindset;
3) A drifting Iran policy puts Obama in position to simply react, rather than be proactive, as events unfold in Iran;
4) without new initiatives in place, US falls back on same old tired rhetoric;
5) Green movement in Iran raises false hopes in US of internal revolution, thereby tying Obama’s hands from initiating real engagement;
6) Republicans and pro-Israel lobby feed the flames of false hopes of Green Movement that would result in downfall of Islamic Republic;
7) Obama confronted with false picture of engaging with Islamic Republic as scuttling chances of Green Movement;
8) Too much worry over Republicans and media pouncing on any real engagement with Iran as a sign of weakness, especially with midterm elections approaching;
9) The President of Iran’s harsh anti-US rhetoric that doesn’t seem to allow for any opportunity for engagement that Obama could seize to move forward without looking like he is being bullied by Iran.
10) Iran’s leadership apparent desire to keep our two nations on a collision course.
It is not too late for Obama to right the ship, but it is extremely challenging. We really need the Islamic Republic to give us an opening where we can work together on an issue where we have common ground, ie. perhaps progress in Afganistan and Iraq to squelch violent Sunni extremists which threaten both of our Countries.
But I just don’t see Ahmadinejad as giving us that opening. Its hard to reach out to someone when he is pissing in your face. And I’m sure from his perspective, it is hard for him to reach out to us given his ideology, the $400,000,000 or so authorized by the US governent to undermine his government, and folks like Nat. Sec. Director Jones talking about “regime change” in Iran.
President of which country in the world would dare to invite vice-president of the United States and then humiliate him in front of the world, and the vice-president thanks him for it?
Question: Which country alone in the Middle East has nuclear weapons?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East refuses to sign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and bars international inspections?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East seized the sovereign territory of other nations by military force and continues to occupy it in defiance of United Nations Security Council resolutions?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely violates the international borders of another sovereign state with warplanes and artillery and naval gunfire?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which American ally in the Middle East has for years sent assassins into other countries to kill its political enemies (a practice sometimes called exporting terrorism)?
Answer: Israel.
Question: In which country in the Middle East have high-ranking military officers admitted publicly that unarmed prisoners of war were executed?
Answer: Israel.
Question: What country in the Middle East refuses to prosecute its soldiers who have acknowledged executing prisoners of war?
Answer: Israel.
Question: What country in the Middle East created 762,000 refugees and refuses to allow them to return to their homes, farms and businesses?
Answer: Israel.
Question: What country in the Middle East refuses to pay compensation to people whose land, bank accounts and businesses it confiscated?
Answer: Israel.
Question: In which country in the Middle East was a high-ranking United Nations diplomat assassinated?
Answer: Israel.
Question: In which country in the Middle East did the man who ordered the assassination of a high-ranking U.N. diplomat become prime minister?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East blew up an American diplomatic facility in Egypt and attacked a U.S. ship, the USS Liberty, in international waters, killing 34 and wounding 171 American sailors?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East employed a spy, Jonathan Pollard, to steal classified documents and then gave some of them to the Soviet Union?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country at first denied any official connection to Pollard, then voted to make him a citizen and has continuously demanded that the American president grant Pollard a full pardon?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which Middle East country allows American Jewish murderers to flee to its country to escape punishment in the United States and refuses to extradite them once in their custody?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which Middle East country preaches against hate yet builds a shrine and a memorial for a murderer who killed 29 Palestinians while they prayed in their Mosque.?
Answer: Israel.
Question: What country on Planet Earth has the second most powerful lobby in the United States, according to a recent Fortune magazine survey of Washington insiders?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East deliberately targeted a U.N. Refugee Camp in Qana, Lebanon and killed 103 innocent men, women, and especially children?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East is in defiance of 69 United Nations Security Council resolutions and has been protected from 29 more by U.S. vetoes?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East receives more than one-third of all U.S. aid yet is the 16th richest country in the world?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East receives U.S. weapons for free and then sells the technology to the Republic of China even at the objections of the U.S.?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely insults the American people by having its Prime Minister address the United States Congress and lecturing them like children on why they have no right to reduce foreign aid?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East had its Prime Minister announce to his staff not to worry about what the United States says because “We control America?”
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East was cited by Amnesty International for demolishing more than 4000 innocent Palestinian homes as a means of ethnic cleansing.
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East has just recently used a weapon of mass destruction, a one-ton smart bomb, dropping it in the center of a highly populated area killing 15 civilians including 9 children?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East routinely kills young Palestinian children for no reason other than throwing stones at armored vehicles, bulldozers, or tanks?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East signed the Oslo Accords promising to halt any new Jewish Settlement construction, but instead, has built more than 270 new settlements since the signing?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East has assassinated more than 100 political officials of its opponent in the last 2 years while killing hundreds of civilians in the process, including dozens of children?
Answer: Israel.
Question: Which country in the Middle East regularly violates the Geneva Convention by imposing collective punishment on entire towns, villages, and camps, for the acts of a few, and even goes as far as demolishing entire villages while people are still in their homes?
Answer: Israel.
Chris
The problem is Israel lobby.
If Obama goes against the wishes of Israel Lobby, he will be crucified by them but will be a hero in the eyes of the vast majority of the people on this planet.
In my opinion, he is not brave enough to do it
Matthew Sutton
During the election, Mr Obama was clear about his willingness to sit down and talk with Iran.
He said, “The notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration — is ridiculous.”
Surely, the president must have had an idea of what he was talking about and how he was going to achieve it in the current political minefield.
So the question is: What happened? Why are we seeing the same tough talk, sanctions, threats of attack BUT no talking?
Israel doesn’t exist in the Arab and Muslim consciousness. Educated Arabs are even harsh critics of Israel’s existence. one can just imagine how the situation is for less educated ones. when it comes to Israel, my friends from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Libya, Aljazaer, Morraco ,… say almost the same thing. one would say, you are simply an individual with very limited connections, which is true in nature, but it’s interesting to see their words are essentially the same in such a vast territory. if there is any desire for American to revive her image in the Arab and Muslim world, which I think there is given the time Obama spent on the issue, it can only come in the expense of Israel. why should America endanger her interests in the greater middle east for the interests of Israel?
if there used to be a sense of increasing soft power in the hand of current U.S administration, that has effectively died down. in any case, Obama, instead of using that opportunity to realign American’s relation to Iran, thought to exploit some uncharted territory of Bush’s administration, and ended up losing everything even the world public opinion. This trend was clear from the very beginning, and because of that, and considering the absent of war scenario in any situation, I wished McCain, rhetoric aside, could get elected!. Obama explicitly said in one the presidential debates what his offer of engagement to Iran really means, and he is following those words. he could justify the realignment at the beginning of his carrier even with his magic words. now, he is in a very weak position, and continue to be for the time being.and I guess the effects of words is also gone. it’s hard for me to imagine how Obama could change the course for a rapprochement with Iran. Obama is becoming Iran’s Khatami by the time! Khatami could, at least, get reelected (the demography factor was on his side!). I am not sure of Obama!
Why has the US been willing to set aside its own interests in order to advance the interests of Israel and its criminal leaders?
Fiorangela Leone
I cannot open this link; http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24961.htm
“It would be sheer genius for the Obama administration to boldly and unequivocally reach out to Iran in the kind of unconditional dialog we expected when we voted for “change you can believe in.’”
–Fiorangela Leone
Fiorangela, I share your sentiment, but as a practical matter what would this look like? How could he do this without appearing to cower or give in to the harsh anti-American rhetoric coming out of Iran and its leadership?
It is time for those of us in favor of engagement to start being specific and practical in our comments, and show the Administration how they can negotiate through this political mindfield, and survive.
important to remember that when Israel surprised the Reagan admin by attacking Osirik (in unmarked US-made aircraft), the Reagan admin vocalized shock and dismay, and held up the transfer of more military hardware to Israel.
for a little while.
then things got back to ‘normal,’ Israel got everything they demanded and more from the US.
for his part, a frightened Saddam ramped up secret nuclear research and Iran followed suit, fearful of what desperate moves a frightened Iraqi tyrant might take (see Joseph Cirincione, http://www.carnegieendowment.org/publications/index.cfm?fa=view&id=17922
It is so amazing that American officials cannot see through the deceit of the Israeli government and continue to provide it with full financial, diplomatic and military support.
The naked truth is that Israel is not interested in a Palestinian state.
The idea of reestablishment of a homeland for Jews has turned into the creation of a racist rogue state.
The United States holds the key to resolve this travesty and it is time the president takes positive action.
It would be sheer genius for the Obama administration to boldly and unequivocally reach out to Iran in the kind of unconditional dialog we expected when we voted for “change you can believe in.”
It’s not only genius, it’s the only card remaining in Obama’s hand. Former Senate banking committee counsel Jeff Gates has applied his lawyerly skills to briefing the US-Israel relationship. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24961.htm If a critical mass of the American populace arrive at the same conclusions as Gates before the administration takes bold steps to preempt their outrage, the United States may fracture.
In case anyone missed the essence of Netanyahu’s remorse over this unfortunate incident, note especially the final two words of the following passage:
“The Israeli leader repeated his surprise about the plan to Mrs. Clinton, a senior official said, and apologized again for the timing.”
In all the stories you’ve read about this incident, have you read one word suggesting that Israel might be reconsidering the 1,600 new housing units?
Fantastic piece guys!
Why America Should Apologize
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103182458406&s=107098&e=001st5L43520axl7U6Z8I0dMUer2U38H63_jacmXzAYxSXEukhjyNC0Fg0CXfNbP3XrY_5xaNBoScZ3T_0H2lVApDsO3IP9zexzSwyI3_PNKw_Fpkc5KyVcXrwkvZN3O4tBtNDZ5cfYS_Z-CSMUX_j5X0XZHFTSb_Rl
President Bush’s offensive statement above was no isolated incident. After a Navy missile destroyed an Iranian civilian airplane in 1988, killing all 290 passengers (including 66 children), Bush, who was Vice President and campaigning to become President, said in response to the event: “I will never apologize for the United States – I don’t care what the facts are… I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.” You can only imagine how the family, friends, and Iranian population at large felt about these remarks by the soon-to-be leader of the so-called free world.
My Thanks and appreciation goes to –Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett for such a wonderful article and to Ben Katcher for making all this possible.
Obama must first break the Zionist lobby’s stranglehold on Congress, failing which, there will never be peace in the Middle East or rapprochement with Iran.
Matthew Sutton:
You may remember I mentioned I read the NY Times principally to see what they leave out.
I would not swear to this, but I think we had a “Winston Smith Moment” today (Smith was the character in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, whose job it was to edit historical archives so they always jibed with the government’s current thinking about how history had happened). I read today both the early and later versions of the NY article (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/13/world/middleeast/13diplo.html?hp) entitled “Clinton Rebukes Israel for Housing Announcement.” For any of you who may not have known the Times often revises “breaking news” stories within hours (sometimes minutes) of when they first appear on-line, it’s illuminating to read both versions and note the differences. (Jump on it quickly, though: Times editors do not let grass grow under their feet.)
Though it’s possible I had simply missed it in the earlier version, I was looking principally for the statement that the call had lasted 43 minutes. The 43-minute length of a high-level phone call after such a snafu is, after all, an objective indication that at least one participant in the phone call was less than happy about what was being discussed – the sort of detail the NY Times would be inclined to leave out, I thought, if it could possibly find a way to do so. I don’t recall seeing any mention of the call length in the earlier version of the article. But in the later version, there it was – 43 minutes – right in the first sentence, suggesting that the “newspaper of record” had learned in the meantime that its “newspaper of record” status might be diminished, however imperceptibly, if it failed to mention an important fact that had, by then, been mentioned in hundreds of other publications around the world:
“‘In a tense, 43-minute phone call on Friday morning, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel’s plan for new housing units for Jews in East Jerusalem sent a ‘deeply negative signal’ about Israeli-American relations…’”
Lest there be any doubt about how serious the Obama administration considered this transgression to be:
“Mrs. Clinton went a good deal further in her conversation with Mr. Netanyahu, saying it had harmed ‘the bilateral relationship,’ according to the State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley.”
Ouch, ouch, ouch! Harmed the bilateral relationship? Ms. Clinton was certainly not pulling any punches!
And not only Ms. Clinton: It seems that President Obama himself was also quite upset:
“[S]everal officials said Mrs. Clinton was relaying the anger of President Obama at the announcement…”
The officials, who requested anonymity because they were not authorized to speak about sensitive foreign policy matters, declined to answer questions as to why President Obama himself had not spoken about the matter if he was so upset, though one reporter noted that Robert Gibbs had shown up at the Friday morning press conference wearing a “March Madness” T-shirt and was overheard muttering into a cell-phone: “12-to-1? I’d take it in a heartbeat, Mr. President!”
The Times reported that Israeli’s leaders themselves were shocked (shocked) by “the announcement, which was made by Israel’s Interior Ministry and which Mr. Netanyahu said had caught him off guard.”
Mr. Netanyahu apparently was not certain that Ms. Clinton fully appreciated just how shocked (shocked) he too had been, and so:
“The Israeli leader repeated his surprise about the plan to Mrs. Clinton, a senior official said, and apologized again for the timing.”
Comment necessary?
“But that did not appear to mollify Mrs. Clinton…”
Good for you, Hillary! Clearly you’re “mad as hell and you’re not going to take it any longer!” (Or at least not for the next day or two – can we just get through the weekend, for God’s sake?)
Israel is a monster apparently beyond control.
There is no doubt it. More and more people all over the world, and probably many of their governments behind closed doors, are beginning to see the Zionist state of Israel for what it really is – not only the obstacle to peace but a monster apparently beyond control.
http://rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1102967068797&s=107098&e=001YdmJ18qi-GluUSP2pm2QIs8yoUvuCzunnDC0eBXLD2db3VhsLjNTcZHIrJQVNriE7jGQ3quzAWsRR2×46fECOanQuKv7sYG7BYQ3FEIXx_D3i6xX9uCxBll-Kx3qsAqGU1XNx6GIYyld1×2UXAgk2FGdWFpAVCxS
La plus ca change…
On the other hand, a qualitatively different sort of remark was (reportedly) made by Biden, albeit behind closed doors, which may mean Biden would not dare to utter it in publlc (assuming he uttered it at all):
“‘This is starting to get dangerous for us’, Biden castigated his interlocutors. ‘What you’re doing here undermines the security of our troops who are fighting in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. That endangers us, and it endangers regional peace.’”
Can’t say I recall ever hearing a top US politician draw such a direct connection between Israel’s actions vis-a-vis the Palestinians and the safety of our troops. One thing Americans – even those who otherwise pay no attention whatsoever to the I/P dispute – get very upset about is something that endangers their sons and daughters, unless there’s a very good reason for it. Our government rarely has difficulty persuading them that their children are dying for good reasons, but it nevertheless does require some effort. I doubt that it’s occurred to very many parents of soldiers that their sons and daughters have been dying for quite some time to maintain the status quo in Palestine.
Maybe it will be useful to make sure this connection is kept clearly in their minds – for example, by quoting Biden’s remark above every few hours or so.
- Eric
P.S. Am I the only one who learned for the first time, from Biden’s remark, that we have troops fighting in Pakistan? Drones I knew about; troops I didn’t.