In his column today, the Washington Post’s David Ignatius presents an important piece of reporting about the Obama Administration’s approach to Iran and the Palestinian issue. David opens his column by citing “two top administration officials” as telling him that President Obama is seriously considering putting forward an American plan for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This plan would be based on proposals put on the table at the Camp David summit in July 2000 and in follow-on negotiations at Taba, Egypt later that year. If he decides to move ahead, Obama would advance such a plan by this fall, after “detailed interagency talks to frame the strategy and form a political consensus for it”, in much the same way that the Obama Administration produced its current strategy for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
According to the two senior officials who spoke with David, the rationale for proceeding along these lines is twofold:
–First, there is a growing recognition that the incremental approach to Israeli-Palestinian peace pursued by the Obama Administration so far—trying “to coax concessions from the Israelis and Palestinians, with the United States offering ‘bridging proposals’ later”—is clearly failing. (The failure of this approach should hardly be surprising to anyone who knows anything about Arab-Israeli diplomacy, but it is noteworthy that at least some senior Administration officials are now prepared to admit it to a prominent journalist.)
–Second, a perception is gaining ground within the Administration that movement on the Palestinian issue is critical to building regional support for “confronting Iran”, and that Israeli concern about a perceived Iranian threat can be used to leverage greater cooperation from the Netanyahu government toward the pursuit of a two-state solution. Netanyahu and his supporters, of course, have consistently argued that dealing with the Iranian threat must take priority over dealing with the Palestinian issue. To bridge this clear disconnect between American and Israeli preferences, one of the two senior Administration officials argued that “it’s not either Iran or the Middle East peace process. You have to do both.”
If President Obama moves in this direction—and that strikes us as a big “if”, at this point—it will undoubtedly be praised by many in the foreign policy establishment as a significant and positive step toward a serious Middle East strategy for the United States. Indeed, David reports in his column that an important catalyst for Obama’s thinking in this regard was a discussion he had at the White House on March 24 with six former national security advisers—Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Colin Powell, Sandy Berger, Frank Carlucci, and Robert McFarlane—who encouraged bolder U.S. action on the Palestinian issue.
The argument that a “push” for Israeli-Palestinian peace would marginalize the Islamic Republic and reduce its influence in regional affairs is also gaining traction among the more “liberal” parts of the pro-Israel community in the United States. These actors believe that a two-state solution is critical to Israel’s long-term future and think the argument that Israeli-Palestinian peace would marginalize Iran could be an important “selling point” in overcoming resistance in Israel and among most pro-Israel groups in the United States to the prospect of a U.S. “blueprint” for peace.
Unfortunately, such an approach, if pursued by President Obama and his administration, will, in fact, constitute a continued and deepening denial by the United States of key regional realities—and genuine strategy can only be forged on the basis of an acute understanding and appreciation of such realities. Two points warrant special consideration in this regard.
First, the prospective approach reported in David’s column will not work on its own terms, for several reasons.
–Netanyahu will say “no”. Obama Administration officials can argue as much as they want that resolving the Palestinian conflict is essential to a viable regional strategy for containing Iran, but Netanyahu—and, it should be said, most Israeli political and policy elites—do not buy it. Netanyahu will continue to insist that the Iranian challenge must take priority over the Palestinian issue and that Israel cannot deal with both at the same time—and he will have considerable domestic political support for such a posture. Moreover, Netanyahu will almost certainly reject any peace plan based on what was on the table at Camp David and Taba in 2000 as overly demanding of Israel.
Will the Obama Administration deal with Netanyahu’s “no” over major concessions to the Palestinians in a more effective (or at least less embarrassing) manner than it has dealt with Netanyahu’s “no” over a settlement freeze? The likely outcome will be that the Administration raises expectations, once again, among Arabs, Muslims, and the international community more generally, only to dash those expectations with more supine accommodation of Israeli resistance—doing further damage to already badly eroded perceptions of America’s credibility and effectiveness as a regional and global leader.
–The Palestinians will not be able to say “yes”. Who, exactly, is going to conclude an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement for the Palestinian side and how will that agreement be legitimated by the Palestinian people? We will be surprised if the Obama Administration is really prepared to advance a peace plan with parameters for resolving core final status issues (border, Jerusalem, refugees) that actually meet minimum requirements for the Palestinians. But, even if the Administration surprises us, there is no way that HAMAS—which still holds the largest number of parliamentary seats from the last national elections in the Palestinian territories—will let a PLO that is functioning essentially as an extension of Abu Mazen’s Fatah movement conclude a major agreement determining the political future of the Palestinian people for generations to come while excluding HAMAS and the constituencies that it represents. HAMAS will fight vigorously against such an outcome—and they would almost certainly prevail.
The Obama Administration’s refusal to deal with HAMAS or, at least, to allow HAMAS to be brought into a unified Palestinian political structure that could provide a serious interlocutor for peace talks with Israel is a fatal mistake. Last fall, the Administration began telling Egyptians, Palestinians, and others that it did not want the Egyptian effort to broker a Fatah-HAMAS unity accord to move forward; the Administration wanted to see what it could accomplish in an Israeli-Palestinian process that involved only Fatah and its allies on the Palestinian side. But the reality today is that it is simply not possible to get a sustainable Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement without HAMAS’s involvement as a major player on the Palestinian side, commensurate with HAMAS’s political standing among Palestinians.
–“Dealing with” the Palestinian issue will not catalyze a regional coalition against Iran. Certainly, key Arab allies of the United States—Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia—have been pleading with Washington for years for more effective U.S. mediation of the Israeli-Palestinian track. But what, exactly, are the steps that these states would be prepared to take against Iran, as a result of a more active U.S. role on the Palestinian track and in concert with the United States and Israel, that these states are not prepared to take today? Last year, the Obama Administration tried to peddle George Mitchell’s appointment as Middle East peace envoy and Obama’s Cairo address to the Muslim world as worthy down-payment for Arab cooperation with Israel in an anti-Iranian regional coalition. Arab states almost uniformly rejected the offer. This approach failed last year and, if tried by the Obama Administration this year, will fail again. America’s Arab allies are clearly concerned by what they see as Iran’s growing regional influence and its expanding involvement in what the Saudis characterize as “Arab affairs”—Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Yemen. But these states know that they must live in the same neighborhood as Iran; none has an interest in a prolonged, Cold War-style confrontation with the Islamic Republic, much less an actual military confrontation.
Moreover, a more active U.S. role on the Palestinian track will do nothing to incentivize Syria or Lebanon (where Hizballah, as the most powerful single political party, is part of the current national unity government and has an effective veto over any government decision of importance) to join a U.S.-led coalition against Iran. As we reported from our meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in February, Damascus wants better relations with the United States and a peace settlement with Israel that meets well-established Syrian red lines—but, as President Assad made clear, “Syria’s relations with Iran, as well as its ties to Hizballah and HAMAS, are not on the table.” That is why Assad has, since late 2008, adopted a rhetorical position on Arab-Israeli issues emphasizing the need for a “comprehensive” Arab-Israeli settlement, encompassing the Palestinian track along with the Syrian and Lebanese tracks, and with HAMAS playing a central role on the Palestinian side. (And, Assad pointed out, he can play a critical role in bringing HAMAS and his other “rejectionist” allies into a truly comprehensive regional settlement.)
This observation about HAMAS’s indispensable role in the search for resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and, indeed, for a broader regional settlement brings us to our second major point: the prospective approach that David Ignatius reports is under serious consideration by President Obama draws the wrong relationship between Iran and Palestine. As we have pointed out, it is simply not possible any more—if it were ever possible at some point in the past—to achieve Israeli-Palestinian or Arab-Israeli peace in a manner that excludes and marginalizes the Islamic Republic and its regional allies. Rather, today, the link between Iran and Palestine runs in the opposite direction: the United States needs a better and more productive relationship with the Islamic Republic, in part, because it will be impossible to achieve Arab-Israeli peace absent U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Obama administration knows for fact that Iran under Islamic regime poses no threat to US security even if Tehran acquire a couple of hundreds of crude nuclear bombs nor the rest of G5+1 stupid enough to fear Iran. It’s the Zionist-regime which is exploiting this issue to keep Washington developing a friendly relations with Tehran.
Gary Samor, Obama’s White House adviser on Iran’s nuclear program and Brookings’ Bruce Reidel had prepared an 18-month study for the joint Zionist think tanks Brookings-CFR during 2007-08. It described in details how the next president (Barack Obama) should stop or set-back Iran’s nuclear program in order to maintain Israel’s nuclear monopoly in the Muslim heartland. It was Samor who sold to IAEA and Russia the idea of Iran’s low-enriched uranium being shipped to Russia for conversion into more highly-enriched fuel rods – during his Obama’s visit to Moscow. Thus setting back Iranian breakout capability for a few years.
Both the Conservatives and the Reformist leaders are unanimous in rejecting the idea of LEU stocks being sent to a foreign country. The defeated presidential candidate, Mir Mousavi, has called the IAEA proposal: “If the demands carried out, all the efforts of thousands of scientists will go to the wind”. Conservative parliamentarian Hesmatollah Falahatpisheh said any deal with the West involving the export of Iran’s LEU stocks should be conditioned on ending the economic sanctions on Iran, particularly a lifting of sanctions on raw uranium imports.” And Mohsen Rezai, the conservative secretary of the Expediency Council, said that Iran should retain 1,100 kilograms of the roughly 1,500 kilograms of LEU in its stockpile, rather than sending 1,200 kilograms abroad as called for in the ElBaradei plan.
Gareth Porter, US investigating journalist and author, in his recent article, titled US-Iran Talk: The Road to diplomatic Failure has blamed Obama administration for not being sincere in its dialogue with Iran.
“The talks between the G5 plus 1 and Iran are careening toward a premature breakdown. If they do fall apart, it will be due in large part to a serious diplomatic miscalculation by the Obama administration.”
“Along with its European allies, the Obama administration seized on a plan that cleverly asked Iran to divest itself of the bulk of its stock of low-enriched uranium (LEU). It seemed to represent a golden opportunity to set back Iran’s nuclear program, and despite the warning signs that such an objective is not achievable by the West, it lured the West away from a serious effort to find a diplomatic compromise with Iran aimed at defusing the decades-long hostility between Washington and Tehran.”
“The origins of the immediate diplomatic drama surrounding the proposal lay in Iran’s need to supply fuel for its US-built Tehran research reactor producing medical radioisotopes. Iran had obtained 23 kilograms of fuel enriched to 20 percent from Argentina under a cooperation agreement signed in 1988 that ended in 1993. But that supply is expected to run out in late 2010, and Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki sent a letter to the IAEA in June requesting its help in purchasing enough 20 percent enriched uranium under the agency’s supervision so that the medical reactor would again have a long-term supply. But that would require a relaxation of the international sanctions against Iran’s nuclear program. And when the Obama administration got wind of the Iranian request, it created a new diplomatic strategy aimed at forcing Iran to accept terms that would force it to give up most of its LEU for about a year.”
“Lately, Ahmadinejad advanced yet another proposal to put roughly a quarter of its LEU under seal by the IAEA on Iranian soil until the uranium for its medical reactor is delivered, rather than sending it abroad. But Obama warned November 15, “We are now running out of time” for negotiations on the ElBaradei proposal…….”
Yesterday, Iranian FM Manouchehr Mottaki, said that his government is willing to exchange most of its uranium for processed nuclear fuel from abroad – as the United Nations has proposed – but only according to a timetable that ZOGs have already rejected. Under the new offer, Iran would handover 882 pounds (34% of its total stocks) of uranium initially – in exchange for an equal amount of enriched material to fuel a medical research reactor.
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2009/12/13/israel-behind-us-iran-nuclear-conflict/
Alan, I agree it is much more difficult changes for the US side, I do not see how that can happen anytime soon
I also believe long term if a drastic strategic change made (China Model) it will greatly enhance US global standing with regard to emerging powers as well as Europe
kooshy – I don’t think some kind of US/Iran rapprochement necessarily sells the Iranian moral position down the river. That would only be the case if Iran agreed to certain restrictions, such as reduced support for Hizballah and Hamas. I don’t think Iran needs to agree to that to get a deal. In fact, if Iran did get a deal without those restrictions, it could increase their standing in the region.
It means of course that the greatest movement in position is required from the US, as it should be. We all know the Iranian terms for an initial deal are out there, and they are not remotely onerous for the US.
Thank you Pak for your reply, but sorry not for me I do not agree with the green assertions, tactics or plans nor I believe they are honest, I also believe currently independence is far more important for the present fabric of Iran’s social structure which if allowed will eventually bring in more democratic participation.
Dear kooshy,
Thank you for the link you provided earlier, which I just had the opportunity to read.
For me, the article goes to show how imperative it is for the Green Movement to spread its message across the nation and Iranian people; thus the name of the article is, “The Green Revolution wont come as soon as we think” – it will take time. It shows hows Ahmadinejad and his clan still possess support, despite the endless failures, corruption and brutality of their government. It also shows how the regime has successfully divided the nation into loyalists and enemies, through the use of misinformation, propaganda and old-school populism (as the saying goes, divide and conquer).
Iran is a very diverse nation, one that is also struggling to balance traditionalism with modernism, so a flexible and pluralistic government is essential. It does not need a government that provokes peaceful protests into riots and then lays the blame on the peaceful protests. Or insults fiercely independent and patriotic Iranians by labelling them as agents of foreign powers. Divide and conquer… divide and conquer… Why are many Iranians so passionately loyal to a regime that has a record worse than the one it replaced and so suspicious of a grass-roots campaign to bring about real democracy and human rights? Divide and conquer…
We all need to work together, Iranian and non-Iranian, to help the Green Movement achieve its aims. We must always remember that it is a movement for democracy and human rights. It does not need to be a movement for regime change; the way in which the regime reacts will decide their own fate. And, crucially, we cannot blindfold ourselves to the crimes being committed by the regime in order to pursue different agendas. Finally, a truly democratic Iran that adheres to the basic rights of its people cannot be denied its right to a peaceful civilian nuclear program, while it will also spread real influence throughout the region by setting an example to others (especially Egypt and a number of Arab states that have burgeoning civil rights movements).
We have been handed another opportunity by fate to change the landscape of politics in Iran. Let us not miss this opportunity, as we have done so before so many times.
Pak and Scott
Hello and thank you both for a civil debate,
Almost all of the regular commentators on this board are hoping and looking forward for a rapprochement between the Iranian and American governments. Personally, I am not too optimistic, since for the longest time I believe there are many complications for both sides that have previously prevented a political realignment of the two competing nations in the region. Unfortunately, these same conditions still not only exist but also have become more complicated.
In case of an Iranian policy realignment with the US’s regional policy without a resolution of the I/P Iran will encounter great complications with its established posture and image among the Sunni Arabs, this will immediately reduce Iran’s hard gained balance of power in the region.
If we look from the US side, it will first require for US to settle the I/P issue in a fair and acceptable way for the Arab community. Which that means a complete revision of the US current regional policy, one can imagine how impossible that will be, considering the current US internal politics, as well as the insecurity that will be or perhaps is felt among pro Israel community, besides the US military strategic architecture that will also need to be restructured.
Therefore, an easy and inexpensive way out of this ever-complicating impasse would have been a change; yes, I did not mean change of the politics and policy but rather I meant the change of politicians of
Thanks and good luck
Dear James,
Yes, you are right. The animosity that exists between both nations is a problem that needs to be resolved. However, neither side is innocent. Both Iran and the US recognise the stand-off is as beneficial as it is dangerous; i.e. the US can continue to use the Iranian threat promote American hegemony and Iran can continue use the US and western threat to suppress domestic political reform.
Pak,
The Iranians continue to make clear they want to do the exchange (their LEU for the 20% U). The issue for them is how to ensure the bargain is carried out. Which raises the question: Since the US knows Iran still wants to do the exchange, why does the Obama administration not even disclose to the American public that Iran is willing, if safeguards are arranged? Ergo, have Turkey hold the Iranian LEU until the 20% U arrives, then pass the 20% U on to Iran, and send the LEU to Russia (or wherever).
To me, there is an obvious issue of good faith on the part of the Americans.
Dear kooshy,
Thank you for your response and I will keep your thoughts in consideration. I accept that Obama’s Nowruz message was part of a package aimed at changing peoples’ perceptions of US foreign policy. However, I do not attribute this to a regime change policy. And as far as I am aware, a swap deal was agreed to by both the US and Iran, but internal politics in Iran stopped the deal from progressing.
Regarding my point about Afghanisatan, I was trying to point out how they have effectively capitulated, where as Iran is a relatively rich, powerful and independent nation that is still standing, with a huge and educated population. Furthermore, Iran has a functioning government and carries influence throughout the region.
I think the biggest issue about doing I/P and Iran the wrong way round is that whatever concessions are extracted from the Israelis will be jettisoned by the Israelis as soon as the US has adopted an Israeli-approved policy on Iran.
The outcome would be a further entrenching of the Israeli grip over the Palestinians and a dramatic deterioration in US relations with Iran. It would be a disaster.
To do it the other way round as Flynt and Hillary say would mean warming relations with Iran while exposing Israel as acting specifically against US interests if they choose to take matters into their own hands.
Judging by the way Obama has been feeding Netanyahu the rope to hang himself with, you still have to fancy the second way is favourite, but things remain as opaque as ever.
Salam Kooshy,
Thank you for your kind wishes and for the link to the article.
I think the Obama Administration continues to recognise the Ahmadinejad Government. That doesn’t mean, of course, that they aren’t looking for a political and military advantage over it. So a chicken-and-egg situation arises over their reference to rights in Iran: are they now emphasising this or is it a lever to get an advantage in other areas such as the regional competition and the nuclear issue?
That said, there are also advantages for the US Government in reaching a settlement with Iran on enrichment: it would allow Washington to focus on its goals on the Israel-Palestine and Middle East issues (the Israelis will use the excuse of an unchecked Iranian nuclear capability to avoid significant talks over Palestine) and it would open up practical co-operation (albeit it, a competitive cooperation) with Iran on issues such as Iraq and Afghanistan.
Scott
This is a very interesting analysis for Scott and Pak to read
An American in Tehran
The ‘Green Revolution’ won’t come as soon as we think it will.
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/5736/an_american_in_tehran
Hello Scott, I hope you had a good trip
Thanks for your reply
Scott wrote
” The group within the Administration favoring genuine talks pursued the “third-party” enrichment plan, prevailing over those who did not want the proposal, leading all the way to the Geneva talks in October and the possibility of technical talks later that month.”
What I find striking is that this was pursued DESPITE the ongoing questions over the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad Government. Indeed, the Obama Administration was very reserved in its statements through the autumn on the political and human rights issues.”
The question is if Mr. Obama has accepted the Islamic Republic of Iran as he stated so loudly in his Norooz greetings, and has been writing letters to the highest authority
of the country, therefore he must have accepted the constitutionality of his authority to send formal letters to him. In international norms, if you recognize a country it means
you have accepted the governing constitution of that country. Right or wrong Mr. Ahmadinijad, was elected to office based on this same constitution, fully accepted and recognize by the authorities and bodies governing this country’s constitution to whom Mr. Obama before and after wrote letters. One would have asked what would be Mr. Obama’s reason to refuse to negotiate with an elected government since the new government is constitutionally recognized around the world except by a few like-minded allies and US.
I understand based on your standing concerning the Greens, you would liked to see him taking a different direction about the Oct. negotiations, but the truth of the matter is that he had no other choice since that would have made US the party unwilling to negotiate.
The negotiations took place in Oct. and they were not suppose to bear fruit because the intentions were not genuine if it was why Iran had to sent out nearly all her
3.5% enrichments and why it cannot be done in batches, didn’t Mr. Obama in his Norooz greetings referee to mutual trust and respect?
A genuine mutual trust and respect will start with recognition of the Iran’s NPT rights which US has refused since the revolution for understanding my reasons you can see
my earlier reply to Pak. Entire program since the revolution is designed to contain Iran and Mr. Obama is incapable of making changes to this policy since that will probably require a complete overhaul of US’ regional foreign policy which if you like I will explain.
Sincerely
Dear Pak thank you for your response to my earlier post
PAK
“I would need more convincing that Iran’s nuclear negotiations strategy is actually working (so far there have only been rejected resolutions and… no nuclear power!)”
As we, both know that the West refuses to accept Iran’s NPT rights, especially the right to domestic enrichment or precisely the knowledge of enrichment
If they did, there was no need for preventing the Chinese and The Russians to cancel their contracts with Iran during the Clinton Administration.
True that the Bousher reactor is not yet completed, but based on IAEA reports one should acknowledge that Iran has rapidly advanced in domestic nuclear knowhow, if this is not called progress for a country that was not suppose to have UF6 plant, an enrichment plant, etc. I do not know what to call a progress. I do believe current circumstances, has produced a stronger position not only for Iran but also for many other countries who will want to exercise their NPT rights.
Pak
“I also believe your analysis of the Nowruz message is somewhat paranoid. Firstly, we must consider that US media is not just domestic but international too, so what better way to promote a message from a US president directed at a nation with whom the US has no diplomatic ties with? And where do you draw the line between publishing and disseminating a president’s speech and state sponsored propaganda”
No, I am not paranoid; I do whole heartily believe Mr. Obama was not genuine with his campaign assertion that he will want to negotiate with Iran in a fair and equal term.
Mr. Obama was simply trying to bring in the left of the Democratic Party to his side therefore, he made various announcements that he could not and did not keep.
I also believe that even if Mr. Obama during his campaign genuinely thought he could negotiate for a rapprochement with Iran he later found out that was not possible,
since a rapprochement with Iran will require an entire re, make of US regional foreign policy.
Now I do believe that this campaign, to offer to negotiate was nothing then a tactic, that did include the Norooz greeting, events of Election, and the 20% fuel for TRR, the entire goal was to show the word that a new popular widely accepted president of US, is sending Greeting and letters accepting the Islamic Republic of Iran, but these hardliner Iranians are refusing to accept our goodwill and offers, since they are perusing or intending to peruse a WMD program.
If Mr. Obama and his administration is genuinely interested to negotiate with Iran why he cannot accept Iran’s enrichment rights under the NPT or accept to trade the TRR fuel in batches, the answer is that they cannot accept to allow for domestic enrichment to a non aligned Muslim middle eastern nation, that will tilt the current balance of power against the west in the region. This is why, he made a campaign offer to broaden his base, or perhaps he did not know what his country’s foreign policy, requires.
Pak
“Finally, while I mean no disrespect to the people of Afghanistan, the American-Iranian stand-off is far more significant and worthy of international concern,”
Is that why we are sending 30000 more troops to Afghanistan and have the entire NATO dragged there in last 10 years , your assertion doe not comprehend , Afghanistan is important since it borders China , Iran, Central Asia , US is interested to have more access to Central Asia.
The Financial Times reported yesterday that Iran wants to do the exchange but continues to fear it would send out its LEU and not receive the 20% U in return. What is interesting, is why does the Obama administration refuse to discuss the offer Turkey and Japan have made, to serve as intermediaries? ElBaradei asked Turkey to make the offer. The US seems quietly to have accepted this solution, but it gets no attention in the media.
Scott Lucas,
The Iranian government initially supported the proposed exchange of LEU for the 20% U needed for the research reactor, then backpedalled after Mousavi and other “reformers” attacked the proposal. It should not seem surprising that any US negotiations with Iran, would have been with the government (in wake of elections).
Has anyone heard what Obama’s Defense Secretary has said about the Baghdad helecopter attacks? It’s just criminal.
Scott Lucas:
I called and asked PressTV and they said the line was not very good. End of story. They have many guests who are critical. You are obsessed with yourself.
Thanks to all for comments re the Press TV episode and media and politics:
I definitely wasn’t “bumped” from the Friday programme — the format was to ask each of the three panellists an opening question and then discuss further. Dr Shaath was not one of the panellists but was brought in after a decision was made that I shouldn’t appear; that is why the presenter was so confused and flustered, as she hadn’t been told of the change.
I raise the episode precisely because I have worked with Press TV staff on numerous occasions and have found them professional and friendly. On this occasion, however, the cut-off was abrupt, and I did not get a response to my subsequent text asking what had occurred.
The third original panellist (from Chatham House in London) did appear and was gently critical of Tehran’s position, and Press TV has had other guests such as Richard Hellman who have challenged Iran’s nuclear stance. On that occasion, however, there was a line drawn — why and by whom still raises interesting questions to complement the discussion on the US media’s treatment of Iran.
Scott
Salam Kooshy,
Behind Obama’s public calls for engagement, there has always been a division between a faction in the Administration who wanted to reach a settlement with the Iranian Government over nuclear issues (some of whom see this as an essential part of discussions with Iran on issues such as Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East)and a faction who saw value in negotiations only to establish a pretext — when they “broke down” — for tougher sanctions.
I do think that Obama has tilted towards the former group. As you note, Obama sent at least two letters to the Supreme Leader (and there may have been more, before and after the election). However, what was needed was a catalyst for discussions that might produce an advance.
That came with Iran’s approach to the IAEA in June over fuel for the medical research reactor. The group within the Administration favouring genuine talks pursued the “third-party” enrichment plan, prevailing over those who did not want the proposal, leading all the way to the Geneva talks in October and the possibility of technical talks later that month.
What I find striking is that this was pursued DESPITE the ongoing questions over the legitimacy of the Ahmadinejad Government. Indeed, the Obama Administration was very reserved in its statements through the autumn on the political and human rights issues.
To be blunt, I think that the prevailing group in the Obama Administration put a priority on nuclear talks over other issues (which does not mean that the US Government could not be ham-fisted in its pursuit of this, e.g., with the late September declarations about the Fordoo “secret” enrichment plant). An important moment is when those talks broke down in late October/November — the reasons are still not clear, although I think internal disagreement within the Iranian Government over the way forward (Ahmadinejad, I believe, very much wanted a settlement but faced opposition from foes such as Ali Larijani) was an important part.
Since that moment, we have been back to the fencing over the nuclear issue, although a “third-party” enrichment deal is still possible — Larijani’s trip to Japan earlier this year was intriguing, to say the least.
However, amidst that tension, the Obama Administration has come forward more with statements on rights and individual moves like the opening of Internet access to Iranians in Iran. This doesn’t constitute a regime change strategy, but I do think that some in the Administration now see rights as a pressure point on the Ahmadinejad Government, perhaps more to weaken it internationally than to affect it internally.
Best,
Scott
Pak, thank you for correcting the rashness of my statements. I was aware that many Iranians are deeply embarrassed at what is perceived to be Ahmadinejad’s insults to Jewish people, whom I have learned are cherished members of Iranian society. For one Iranian friend, a specialist in the poetry of Rumi, Ahmadis rhetoric about Israel/zionism was the major cause for her strong support of Mousavi.
I guess I was thinking from an American perspective: few of our leaders — only Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich come to mind — are able to oppose Israeli/AIPAC influence and remain civil–and elected. On the other hand, they don’t manage to gain much ground. It is my impression that at least some part of the Iranian electorate feels the same way: Flynt and Hillary said in the Charlie Rose interview that Khatami lost his elected position because he made concessions to the West but got nothing in return.
With those factors in mind, I was feeling grateful that SOME force had started the ball rolling. I apologize that I insulted Iranian sensibilities and expectations for better behavior from their leaders.
Dear Fiorangela Leone,
I must say that I am in agreement with most of your points, albeit I believe that the demise of Israel’s immunity was always an inevitability. However, I wish to elaborate on your quote below:
“Ahmadi turned the ‘mad actor’ schtick on its head — at great risk to his own political future and at great harm to the people of Iran, WHO SUPPORTED HIM NEVERTHELESS”…
A nation’s foreign policy should always be in the interest of the nation. Playing political chess – rather Russian roulette – is definitely not in the interest of the nation. Ahmadinejad is provocative and polarising. For example, his attempts to encourage dialogue about the use of the holocaust as a pretext for defending Israeli actions is encouraging. Hosting a holocaust conference however, which boasted participants such as a former KKK leader and extremist Orthodox rabbis, was not admirable; for me, as an Iranian, it was embarrassing. His hypocrisy is also a source of tension for many Iranians. Please, Mr. Ahmadinejad, practice what you preach.
I disagree that Ahmadinejad has shown leadership skills. His various ridiculous declarations, which I am happy to list if you wish, are embarrassing and unexpected from the most senior representative of a nation. While he may stir up support among the muslim world, the disillusioned people in the west and despotic leaders such as al-Bashir of Sudan of Mugabe of Zimbabwe, he certainly does not please Iranians in the manner I believe you are suggesting. He has polarised the Iranian nation, as demonstrated on the streets after the June elections. A responsible leader would think and act more wisely.
As you mention yourself, Erdogan is a far more moderate critic of Israel, yet just as (if not more) effective. You may thank Iran for acting wildly to create this opening for criticism, but I certainly do not thank them. Extremism never pays off; history is our lesson.
Dear kooshy,
Thank you for your response; I am mostly in agreement with you. However, I would need more convincing that Iran’s nuclear negotiations strategy is actually working (so far there have only been rejected resolutions and… no nuclear power!). I also believe your analysis of the Nowruz message is somewhat paranoid. Firstly, we must consider that US media is not just domestic but international too, so what better way to promote a message from a US president directed at a nation with whom the US has no diplomatic ties with? And where do you draw the line between publishing and disseminating a president’s speech and state sponsored propaganda? At the end of the day, I have not met a single Iranian who has not seen the video.
Regarding your thoughts about Obama’s acknowledgement of Iran’s full name, I do believe that no other US president has done such a thing (please correct me if I am wrong). This in itself is something to consider. Furthermore, I have always stated how international politics is a dirty game, so American dealings with Iran are no more extraordinary than Iranian dealings with Israel. Finally, while I mean no disrespect to the people of Afghanistan, the American-Iranian stand-off is far more significant and worthy of international concern, considering the growing influence and strategic importance of Iran. That is why nearly everything to do with the stand-off is so publicised and acknowledged.
Mohammed ElBaradei has said that the real issue regarding Iran’s nuclear program is adequate transparency. The Iranians rightly complain that Israel’s nuclear program has zero transparency but receives far different treatment. And this, despite the fact Israel has hundreds of nukes, and Iran from what I can ascertain, is not currently trying to develop them.
By the way Mr. Lucas, if you watch this program on Press TV about Iran’s nuclear program,:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNH6kn-I1PM
You will see that they are not shy of inviting Richard Hellman and broadcasting his views, I can’t imagine why a TV station would let Mr. Hellman talk freely and then rsort to such a meaningless charade when it comes to you. Perhaps there is a much more innocent explanation behind your experience?
“we should also consider that, while the core of the regime’s nuclear policy will always remain the same, the manner is which it is handled is determined by the president and parliament in power. I personally believe that the Obama administration was hoping for Ahmadinejad to be defeated in the presidential elections in order for the US to eventually negotiate with a far more rational, reformist leader. Ahmadinejad has vigorously promoted Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program, but he lacks the diplomatic skills to effectively secure that right. A reformist government, with a history of pragmatism in dealing with the nuclear problem, would provide a preferable environment for negotiations. We should not forget that Obama implicitly accepted the legitimacy of the regime by calling Iran by its full name and addressing letters directly to Khamenei.”
Pak,
Thank you for your comments on my post to Scott
You are right as I also stated in my earlier post, Iran’s Tactics, Team and Tone (3T) of nuclear negotiations with the west constantly changes. I believe this changes are necessary and part of a good strategy in negotiations with more a powerful opponent. As you also agreed, the program and its goals have not since changed. However I believe these 3Ts are not decided by one person or one power center, It seems to me, that this is correctly part of a collective decision making process, aimed to maintain Iran’s right under the NPT to have an open nuclear capability, as an Iranian I also believe this is in our national interest, which incidentally is in
compliance with the NPT rules and regulations, but will defiantly influence the balance of power in the Middle East against western hegemonic interests. Further
I believe that not only is not bad but it actually will enhance power of Sunni Muslim nation states of the region, since historically, socially and economically Iran cannot afford any complications with the Sunni sect.
It is true that during Mr. Khatami’s administration, due to conditions and circumstances of the time, negotiators were more accommodating to the western demands.
I believe that strategy was part of a necessary tactic, that it needed a different tone, with a different team, since Iran’s program was not yet completely mature to have a self-sustained capability. Frankly, due to the same mentioned conditions and circumstances of the time, at that point, the west also did not have any better choices, other than to negotiate with Iran, in a way, both sides were buying time for better conditions. These conditions for the west, not only have not improved since, but as we both know, they actually have further weakened the western position with regard to Iran’s nuclear case. Therefore we can conclude the decisions made and the tactics used were indeed in Iran’s national intrest.
Pak
“We should not forget that Obama implicitly accepted the legitimacy of the regime by calling Iran by its full name and addressing letters directly to Khamenei”
Mr. Obama’ Johnny come lately tactic, as a head of state calling IRI with its full name in his first Nooroz greetings was for US audience consumption, and not for the Iranians. Isn’t it funny that as far as 1981 US has signed Accords, negotiated with IRI representatives on Afghanistan, Iraq etc. with the Islamic republic of Iran and now suddenly Mr. Obama found out its real name? As I mentioned the widely broadcast Obama’s last year Nooroz greeting in the US media, was one part of an offensive propaganda to convince the US audience, that the new administration is indeed frank and willing to negotiate with Iran on a good term. Otherwise, what was the reason to have that greeting so broadly broadcast on all US and western, do you ever hear Mr. Obama’s Nooroz greetings to the Afghan people or the New Year greetings to any people being broadcast on US media?
What Mr. Lucas says about the Presstv program is a bit odd, because usually if a TV station is so much afraid of broadcasting what a certain person may say, they usually don’t invite him to the program to begin with.
I don’t know why Presstv has done what Mr. Lucas says it has done, but if I were Mr. Lucas, I would pursue the issue further and ask the Press TV staff (whoever is in charge) as to why that has happened? It may have been just a simple misunderstanding without necessarily any evil motive behind it. After all Mr. Lucas says he has appeared on PressTV several times without being edited (to the credit of PressTV) which is much more than what I can say for the US media who never give any chance to any voice of a real alternative.
By the way, this is an interesting piece of news, and I didn’t know that before this Press TV program:
US to ban “Anti-US” channels:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7FSQtjvvnE
This bill has apparently passed the house of representatives, does anyone know if it has been signed in the White house?
Also it would be interesting to see the program on PressTV that Mr. Lucas talks about, does anyone have any link to that program? I tried to find it on PressTV website and You tube and couldnt find it.
Fiorangela,
Great post! Ahmadinejad in a way “lanced the boil” to open up fair discussion of the moral issue behind the Israel/Palestine problem: why should the Palestinians be punished for crimes they did not commit? The Israel lobby suppresses discussion of this issue in mainstream American new media.
Neocons liked to make a great deal of noise about the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, and alleged Syrian connections to that terrible crime. Rafiq’s son warns repeatedly that Israel is threatening the peace of the Middle East, get zero comment from the neocons (and their fellow travellers).
Pak – I disagree that Ahmadinejad “lacks the diplomatic skills” –
“”in order for the US to eventually negotiate with a far more rational, reformist leader. Ahmadinejad has vigorously promoted Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program, but he lacks the diplomatic skills to effectively secure that right. A reformist government, with a history of pragmatism in dealing with the nuclear problem, would provide a preferable environment for negotiations.”"
when Ahmadi was elected in 2005, Israel’s nuclear ‘ambiguity’ was an untouchable, and Israel had unspoken permission to carry on any level of mayhem because of “the holocaust.” Ahmadi turned the ‘mad actor’ schtick on its head — at great risk to his own political future and at great harm to the people of Iran, WHO SUPPORTED HIM NEVERTHELESS: he acted crazy enough to say, ‘You, Israel, are overplaying the holocaust: why are you punishing the people of Palestine for a crime committed in Europe? We support giving Palestinians a right to vote for their future; do you support it?
Today, more and more international leaders are emboldened to speak out against Israel’s evil acts and to put the reality of Israel’s possession of nuclear weapons on the table for all to see.
Erdogan is courageous and cool, but would he have had the political space to make the more moderate but critical statements he is making if Ahmadinejad had not “opened the Overton window” by making extreme statements?
It may be as you say, that Ahmadi has served his purpose, and now finer negotiations will be better handled by others. But don’t shortchange Ahmadi and the Iranian people who, at their own peril and hardship, have truly been world leaders in pulling away the curtain that the Wizard of Oz hides behind.
Scott Lucas:
Spare us with your self promotion. You should volunteer for reality TV.
Scott Lucas:
If they weren’t planning to talk to you, they wouldn’t have invited you in the first place. They probably just decided to go with someone else. These things happen all the time. You are too deep into conspiracy theoies and you assume your presence to be more important that it really is. Press TV regularly invites critics of Iran, unlike CNN,…
Scott, the way you tell it, you were “bumped.” Reminds me a lot of certain CNN presentations, where “on the fly” negative depictions of Israel are “excised.”
Given your outspoken challenges as to the legitimacy of the Iranian government, not a real surprise is it?
If you feel you’ve something meaningful to contribute to the specified discussion on Iran’s nuclear program, by all means address it on your EA blog.
But if you’re simply going to “drone on” on legitimacy issues or human rights, you’re free to do that on your blog as well. Just don’t expect a pulpit or audience on Iranian mainstream media outlets, in the same way that strident anti-Israel voices are nowhere to be found on mainstream US cable TV news. That’s just the way it is, professor.
Salam Kooshy,
Thank you very much for such an engaging and thoughtful reply. I am on my way to the US so will have to reply to you tomorrow.
In the meantime, given our discussion of media and politics, you may be interested in my own experience with Iranian media yesterday, “How I Suddenly ‘Disappeared’ by Press TV” (http://enduringamerica.com/2010/04/09/iran-how-i-suddenly-disappeared-on-press-tv/).
Best,
Scott
Dear kooshy,
You have some interesting points and they are indeed plausible. However, we should also consider that, while the core of the regime’s nuclear policy will always remain the same, the manner is which it is handled is determined by the president and parliament in power. I personally believe that the Obama administration was hoping for Ahmadinejad to be defeated in the presidential elections in order for the US to eventually negotiate with a far more rational, reformist leader. Ahmadinejad has vigorously promoted Iran’s right to a peaceful nuclear program, but he lacks the diplomatic skills to effectively secure that right. A reformist government, with a history of pragmatism in dealing with the nuclear problem, would provide a preferable environment for negotiations. We should not forget that Obama implicitly accepted the legitimacy of the regime by calling Iran by its full name and addressing letters directly to Khamenei.
This is not to say that the Obama administration has not taken advantage of the post-election turmoil; but that is only expected. Both the US and Iran jump to exploit any political shortcomings from one another.
A moving video
Gaza: The Killing Zone – Israel/Palestine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0aEo59c7zU&feature=fvw
The criminal leaders of Israel are committing genocide in Palestine.
In Jan 2009, they slaughtered more than 700 innocent and defenceless Palestinian woman and children.
These murderers have no regards for human life; they keep on killing with impunity because they know the western governments would not hold them accountable for their crimes.
These criminals are in possession of over 200 illegal nuclear warheads and are capable and willing to use them against 70 million Iranians.
They are the biggest threat to world peace.
The international community must stop them now before the unthinkable happens.
Scott wrote
“I do not think Obama Administration officials have pursued regime change through sponsorship and/or direction of media outlets. That does not mean, of course, that they have not tried to “spin” the media on issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme.
Indeed, and this is a paradox, the Obama Administration, through its emphasis on nuclear-first engagement up to October 2009 was actually recognising the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad at a time when his policy was being challenged not only post-election issues but also by those “conservatives” opposed to his approach on the nuclear issue.”
Hello Scott
Thank you very much for your kind reply, I am glad you took this discussion to where I hopped it will be directed. At this time, I am not going to reply to your position on the analysis of the western media’s biases. However, I am replying with my position regarding your last sentence as copied and pasted above. I will point as why there is a propaganda war and why it got even more intense since the start of the Mr. Obama’s administration that openly announced during and after the campaign its willingness to sit with Iran and negotiate on the nuclear issue among other matters of interest.
Here is my position
We know, that in the period prior to the June 2009 election, the New Obama administration publicly took the position that they were not prepared to start negotiations with Iran on nuclear issue until after the Iranian elections.
We also know Iran’s nuclear policy with its pursued direction was fully endorsed by all four presidential candidates of both reformist and conservatives before and during the Iran’s presidential election of June 2009. Above all Iran’s nuclear policy not only is endorsed but also is directed by none other than the supreme leader who constitutionally has the final word on all matters of the state.
We also know that Ayatollah Khamenie received letters sent directly by Mr. Obama early last year. One would like to believe that beside the Nooroz greetings and pleasantries the nuclear issue, the most important foreign policy of the new US administration was, mentioned and perhaps offers made on these letters.
Now the question is, knowing these facts, what was the Obama administration’s “reason” for waiting nine months, to start the most important foreign policy goal of their new administration until after the Iran’s elections. We know that the Ahamdinijad’s, or the Mosavie’s administration had to continue the supreme leader’s direction on this issue (which most likely was communicated to Mr. Obama by the supreme leader way before the election) since the new Iran administration could not have changed the nuclear policy . As we both know, in fact Iran’s position on its nuclear rights has not changed, since the Movsavi administration of 1980s. I agree that they have changed tactics due to circumstances but they have never agreed to let go of their rights for domestic enrichment this has never been on the table.
So, what was it, that the new US administration was willing to Waite to happen, before they start this important negotiations, could it be that a regime change and not the administration change was what the US administration was waiting for, and if that was the reason for a nine months delay in negotiations, how did they know that there is a possibility for a regime change which is worth waiting? May be they knew, as been practiced before, during elections when fraction is prominent, is a perfect time to stirrup things and bring about changes they hoped, or if that did not go well at least it can interrupt and weaken the regime for when the negotiations starts. This is when the media’s rule becomes prominent and yes, the new form of media being it Twitter or Face book becomes essential.
Best to you
Kooshy
Rafik Hariri, the Lebanese PM, said in Spain today that Israel has been trying to block a peace deal, by waging wars against Israel’s neighbors. There is a good deal of truth to this statement. All the region needs is another insane Israel smashing of Lebanon. How many tens of thousands of civilians in Lebanon have been slaughtered over the past 30 years, by the Israeli “Defence” Forces?
Dan Cooper,
Great post (8:30pm April 8th). Prince Hassan of Jordan in my view is absolutely correct when he calls for an international recognition of Palestine, with borders as existed June 1, 1967. Any change to the border would have to be agreed by both countries, and obviously be on a fair-market valuation. Thus Palesine would consist of 22% of what was Palestine under the British mandate. Israel would have 78%. Possibly Israel could trade 5% or 6% of its land area, for 2% of the West Bank. This would take the Palestinian share above 20% of what was Palestine under the British.
The Palestinians almost ccertainly would accept this outcome, and all the blather one hears and reads about the Palestinians’ supposed unwillingness to “accept” Israel needs to be consigned to the rubbish bin.
Ra’ad – there is a shuttle-bus (not their!)
Have you seen Rick Steves’ PBS travel film where he visits Iran? Steves works hard to promote understanding.
Ra’ad,
Dennis Ross would prefer that Obama tolerate whatever outrages Israel’s government perpetrate, and I think it is hard for anyone fair-minded to argue he has the interests of the American people foremost in his thinking.
Aipac and its fellow travellers are able to intimidate, or effectively bribe, or blackmail, most of the Congressmen and Senators. Brian Baird (Washington State) said recently that he is about the only US Congressman with the courage to visit Gaza, when their is effectively a shuttle-bus running between Washington DC and Tel Aviv. With hundreds of Congressmen toing and froing.
I agree with you that American business would be welcome in Iran. Boeing could sell scores of airplanes, maybe hundreds for that matter.
pirouz_2,
I agree with you, in your latest post. That the American public tolerates the fact the US spends as much money on “defence” each year, as the next ten richest countries combined, is the result of corporate media who promote what is essentially a colossal scam against the interests of the American public. Hundreds of billions of dollars in effect are stolen every year, from the American public, with scarely a peep from mainsteam news media.
“1. Do I think the private US media is controlled by the US Government? No.
(State-funded outlets like Radio Farda and Voice of America are special cases which I would be glad to discuss further.)”
A much better answer to this question would be that BOTH US government and the private US media are under complete control of “corporate America”. In fact the media -instead of being a tool for informing the public by publicizing the truth- is an extension of the corporate america. Today TV netwroks are huge corporations running for “profit”and as such they give the news to increase their profit not to publicize the truth!
As for the government of US: Like all other governments it is a tool in the hand of the rulling class (ie. corporate owners) to protect their interests.
“2. Do I think the private US media often puts forward and shares the views of US Government officials?
Absolutely. In part, that is because there can be a dependence on “official” sources. In part, it is because journalists can share the political assumptions and perceptions of officials. (Case: David Sanger at New York Times)”
I think more important than the reasons are the results. And the result is that there is probably the same level of independence (in fact perhaps even more) and variety of opinions in the Islamic Republic newspapers as there is in the main stream US newspapers.
Liz:
You have made a good point.
James,
Thanks for your reply. I find it hard to believe that the State Department and Pentagon are so completely Neo-Con/Israel-centric that all other views are suppressed.
What is the problem US is trying to solve? The nuclear issue is a red herring for anyone who seriously knows the balance of forces in the region and is aware of the Iranian (entirely defensive) military doctrine and military spending.
Is the US’s issue that it is excluded from oil-exploration/extraction contracts in Iran? …. these are now going to the Chinese/Russian, Malaysians amongst others because US has imposed restrictions on itself. The Iranians may be willing to visit the offer they made to US (via the Swiss) in 2003 for normalisation of relationships. Why is that not being re-visited as a basis of a grand-bargain or at least the start of negotiations. Why Obama’s only re-approachment has been the ridiculous nuclear swap offer in October which was more an ultimatum and not a start of negotiations. If the US had expended half the energy and air miles talking to the Iranians directly, they would have had a positive outcome by now.
One cause of concern is whether the Iran/Israel issue has become intertwined with Obama’s intra-US policy agendas …… it was amazing that on the night – yes on the night – that the Healthcare bill had its first successful passage in the Congress in December both Pelosi and Reid demanded that the sanctions on Iran need to be ratcheted up. Timing was uncanny.
For Iranians to become subjected to crippling sanctions as a price for US Senators supporting their elected US President’s US policies because otherwise they risk their funding from pro-zionist groups, is both immoral and inexcusable.
By the way where has Denis Ross been in all the policy formulation announcements in the past year?
Ra’ad,
Important question. Aipac and other elements of the Israel lobby want Iran to ignore the continuing colonial enterprise in the West Bank and the Golan Heights, carried out by Zionists pushing for a “Greater Israel” even if this project is contrary to the best interests of the US.
Salam Liz,
I answered Kooshy’s question on this thread so there could be a productive discussion — the shouting can continue on the Charlie Rose thread.
Scott
Scott Lucas:
You are not the person to answer such questions, because you actively cooperate with US government propaganda outlets.
Can anyone please explain to me what the US exactly wants Iran to do and – more importantly -why?
I am profoundly unsure of the US decision-making principles, its view of its interests in the region and her perceptions of how Iran challenges them. Cost-benefit calculations by Iran have a mirror for the US in the form of opportunity cost-benefits ….. not only vs Iran but also vs positions she gives up in bringing Russia/China/Turkey/Israel etc on board to its position. The scenarios I can think of where Iran challenges US interests to a level where this opportunity cost-benefit calculus for the US makes sense, are very probability-remote scenarios.
Any ideas?
Kooshy,
A general opener for discussion of your question, “Do you think there is a western propaganda war against Iran?”:
I have great sympathy for the analysis of Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman of the “mainstream” US media, situating it within political, economic, and cultural contexts. My general perception is that the media usually works within a certain range of assumptions and assertions about issues of US foreign policy and international affairs, shaped in part by financial considerations, in part by issues of resources for coverage, in part by political links with actors inside and outside the US Government, and in part by US political culture.
I would also add that I think there has significant change in the media environment in recent years because of the rise of alternative media, often based on the Internet. This has challenged the “gatekeeper” position of the mainstream media outlets, opening up news and analysis
1. Do I think the private US media is controlled by the US Government? No.
(State-funded outlets like Radio Farda and Voice of America are special cases which I would be glad to discuss further.)
2. Do I think the private US media often puts forward and shares the views of US Government officials?
Absolutely. In part, that is because there can be a dependence on “official” sources. In part, it is because journalists can share the political assumptions and perceptions of officials. (Case: David Sanger at New York Times)
However, there are also cases where journalists can make significant challenges to those views (Case: Seymour Hersh)
3. Do I think there a “propaganda war” against Iran?
I think there is always a US Government to get an advantage in negotiations with Iran, but that is not the same as pursuing regime change.
I think officials in the Bush Administration had an idea of using media outlets in pursuit of regime change, but this effort, if it was pursued, was poorly conceived and I do not necessarily think it even made it down to the reporting of State-funded outlets.
I do not think Obama Administration officials have pursued regime change through sponsorship and/or direction of media outlets. That does not mean, of course, that they have not tried to “spin” the media on issues such as Iran’s nuclear programme.
Indeed, and this is a paradox, the Obama Administration, through its emphasis on nuclear-first engagement up to October 2009 was actually recognising the legitimacy of Ahmadinejad at a time when his policy was being challenged not only post-election issues but also by those “conservatives” opposed to his approach on the nuclear issue.
Best,
Scott
Dan Cooper, fine talk for Her Majesty’s government, and it would be believable were it not for the Sykes-Picot Agreement by which the self-same Majesty’s government mendaciously promised to Jews, the same Palestinian spoils it carved between GB and France.
Rule by Law or Defiance
Interesting article
By William A. Cook
Because Israel controls our Congress, the President is essentially powerless to confront the forces that maneuver behind the scenes to thwart any U.S. government, Republican or Democrat, from moving toward a just and balanced resolution of the Israel/Palestinian conflict.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25154.htm
Unauthorized statements have been made to the effect that the purpose in view is to create a wholly Jewish Palestine. . . .
His Majesty’s Government regard any such expectation as impracticable and have no such aim in view. Nor have they at any time contemplated . . . the disappearance or the subordination of the Arabic population, language or culture in Palestine.
They would draw attention to the fact that the terms of the (Balfour) Declaration referred to do not contemplate that Palestine as a whole should be converted into a Jewish National Home, but that such a Home should be founded IN PALESTINE. . . .
His Majesty’s Government therefore now declare unequivocally that it is not part of their policy that Palestine should become a Jewish State.
(Command Paper 1922, from the Avalon Project at Yale Law School, 1996–2000)
Justice demands that Israel and the United Nations address the enormous inequities that exist in Palestine.
There is no justice if the division of the land remains 86 percent to 14 percent when both populations are of approximately equal size, especially if the right of return is acted upon according to international law.
There is no justice if Israel remains the controlling power over a faux state that cannot manage its own affairs and control its own destiny.
There is no justice if Israel does not compensate those from whom they have stolen land and return to Palestine the natural resources it has commandeered.
There is no justice if a reconfiguration of the land is not achieved so that both peoples can move freely from one sector of their country to another.
There is no justice if the separation wall continues to imprison the Palestinians with its constant reminder that Israelis defied international law to impose their own and made visible the unacceptable attitude that one people has a right to psychologically and physically isolate others from communication with their neighbors or the world, a collective punishment that denies the very humanity of the people.
There is no justice if the status quo remains the day-to-day reality of the Palestinians, because that way is a slow, torturous route to sickness, psychological torture, deprivation, starvation, and death; it is the Israeli government’s heinous action of a slow genocide acted out on the world stage as the European Union, the Asian nations, and America look on indifferently.
There is no justice if the United States blocks the UN Security Council from enforcing the means to bring about justice in Palestine, an action that may require the UN to stand against the United States or lose its credibility as an international body that protects the weak as well as the strong.
And, conversely, there is no justice if the Palestinians do not accept the people of Israel to live in peace and security, in separate states or in one, so that all may thrive and enjoy the fruits of their labor.
Fiorangela,
Great post (first one). One wonders to what degree is the Israeli public deceived about the Iranian “threat” in order to stir up the Israel lobby in the US? Is the American lobby being manipulated, in order to enable continued colonisation of the West Bank (and the Golan Heights)?
The Iraq War essentially was a scam, albeit on a grandiose scale. Yet another gigantic scam may well be in the works.
KiwiDan,
Great post. I very much agree. Qatar does not want a war in the Gulf, nor does any other country in the Middle East (except for some Israeli militarists).
How absurd to describe Iran as a “threat” to the US, or even to Israel. This is the same sort of rubbish put out to justify the idiotic invasion of Iraq, when the only threat posed by Saddam was to property values in Tel Aviv (he was paying compensation of $25,000 to the families of suicide bombers attacking that city).
Dan Cooper and Kathleen,
Thanks. Another interesting article in American Conservative mag for May is “Normalizing Relations: President Obama’s speeches signal a desire to treat Israel like any other country. Now events have converged to test his resolve”, by Scott McConnell.
Fox four part series on Israel’s telecommunications systems and potential wiretapping of U.S. communications
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.htm
James Thanks for for linking that Am Con article
“Dershowitz said; the Arabs hate us because they hate freedom. With his usual precision, he bragged, “Israel’s high technology accomplishments exceed those of all of Europe and most of Asia.” Kohr, too, retailed Israel’s techno achievements, before saying that it is “specious, insidious,” and “dangerous” for anyone to make the “reductivist” argument that the “relationship between the United States and Israel rests on resolving the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians.”
Always wondered about that four part Fox report by Carl Cameron on Israel’s technology accomplishments that was forced off of Fox’s website.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article7545.ht
————————————————————
After watching the Aipac Rosen espionage 9 time delayed and then finally dismissed trial basically be ignored by our MSM I thought the disproportionate amount of power and influence of the I lobby had not been diminished. One time Chris Matthews whispered about the trial being delayed. Once Rachel Maddow did a short report where she basically made fun of the seriousness of the potential trial.
—————————————————————————
This last kick by Israel in the U.S.’s canjones having to do with building in East Jerusalem may have served to push the Obama administration to accept Israel could care less about what the U.S. thinks or wants
James Canning
Thanks , it is an interesting article, the link is:
http://www.amconmag.com/article/2010/may/01/00010/
“Out From the Shadows
AIPAC confronts its worst fear: daylight.
One would like to believe that AIPAC will never recover from a brutal spring that has exposed its real interests to the American public.
Even supporters of the Jewish state have criticized the American Israel Public Affairs Committee for fully taking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s side in his battle with Barack Obama over settlements, and during its recent annual conference, the lobby looked wobbly and defensive. “
Sakineh “What happens on day two?” Reuel Marc Gerecht, Ledeen, Bolton, Gaffney, Cheney’s, Kristol etc do not care what happens on day two. Terrifying,
Now I know history repeats itself but this is insane
I recommend Philip Weiss’ article in the May 2010 number of The American Conservative magazine: “Out From the Shadows – - Aipac confronts its worst fear: daylight”.
Bravo! The utter imbecility of continuing effort to isolate Iran, should be only too obvious. The problem is not Iran; the problem is Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. Iran is a useful red herring for American politicians trying to conceal their foolish encouragement of Israeli colonization of the West Bank and the Golan Heights.
Israel had to openly humiliate the US as a show of its power.
Given Israel’s strategic domination of the US political system and the Zionist Power Configuration(ZPC) control over mass media and their enormous wealth, a Zionist-controlled administration, like Obama’s, would have to capitulate.
Israeli and US Zionist pressure forced the American leaders to subordinate their international image and national self-respect and accept the unlimited expansion of Jews-only settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, no matter how this might undermine US standing in the region and jeopardize US troops.
By ‘whipping’ the Obama Administration into line, Israel has set the stage for the launching of its top priority: Forcing a direct US military confrontation with Iran in Israel’s strategic interests.
It is clear that the entire ZPC will stand with Israel as it promotes its militarist agenda against Iran, regardless of the consequences to the United States.
It has been proven beyond a doubt by the recent events, that the ZPC has the ultimate say with the Obama Administration, against the advice of top US military officials and against the basic interests of the American people.
In plain English, we are a people colonized and directed by a small, extremist and militarist ‘ally’ which operates through domestic proxies, who, under any other circumstance, would be openly denounced as traitors.
Can the ZPC be defeated? They are the “most powerful lobby in Washington”, to whom Presidents, Administration officials, Generals and Congress people must submit or risk having their careers ruined and being ousted from public office.
Meanwhile,outside of the United States, the international community openly despises Israel as a brutal, racist colonial state, a war criminal and chronic violator of human rights and international law.
The Middle East Quartet, made up of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations, has condemned Israel’s plan to build another 1,600 homes exclusively for Jewish extremist settlers in Arab East Jerusalem.
The Quartet demanded “the speedy creation of a Palestinian state and the end to provocative actions”. But the ‘Quartet’ is powerless to stop Israeli plans.
The Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations tell their followers that global “anti-Semitism” motivates the ‘Quartet’. The huge AIPAC “Hail Israel” Conference in Washington D.C. in late March celebrated the triumph of unfettered Israeli expansionism.
Nevertheless, some Israelis are beginning to express unease.
After their initial euphoria over Netanyahu’s slap-down of Biden and face-up to Clinton, there is growing fear of Israeli being ‘weaned’ away from the American treasury and losing their unfettered access to the US latest military technology.
A poll published on March 19 in Yedroth Ahronoth, one of Israel’s biggest dailies, revealed that 46% of their readers responded that the government should freeze settlement building in East Jerusalem, much to the chagrin of the US Israel Firsters, who might in other circumstances, have labeled these Jews anti-Semites.
Fissures in the Zionist monolith are beginning to appear.
These would deepen if and when the American public realizes that Israel’s’ dispossession of Palestinians is raising havoc with American lives and with American interests in a vital part of the world populated by 1.5 billion Muslim.
As more issues arise, the critical choice between following the lead of the ZPC in pledging unconditional allegiance to Israel and enduring its provocations and humiliations, or standing up for the dignity, basic interests and integrity of America, will have to be made.
More fissures will appear and the AIPAC and other members of the ZPC will be seen for what they are: Swaggering bullies acting on behalf of a foreign power.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25162.htm
The bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran crowd like McCain, Bolton, neo-cons, and WigWag will not have it any other way. There is only one way to deal with Iran. Bomb the country back to stone ages. Nothing else will do! But this cabal never stops to ask, what then? What happens on day two? Once they answer that question, the bomb bomb crowd can have at it.
Fact: the biggest funder of HAMAS is Saudi Arabia not Iran.
WigWag, Iran survived a US/Soviet/European-backed Iraqi attack between 1980-1988. You are seriously deluded if you think the US can bomb Iran into submission. It will take a full scale invasion, which could result in large US casualties which is still a no-go area for US politicians.
Anyway, it is not clear that the GCC or Saudi would support an attack on Iran. Note the recent visit of an Iranian warship to Qatar *while* President Clinton was there ranting on about “the danger of Iran”. And Iran can counter in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Persian Gulf. In any case, Iran has been and still is instrumental to Obama’s troop pull-out policy in Iraq.
The fact is – Iran’s threat to the US/Israel is much overhyped by the hundreds of Israel-firsters out there in the world. Fortunately their faith-based view is clashing quite seriously with reality, and US interests at the moment.
The prime US strategic interest – the free flow of oil from the region – is clearly served best by some form of rapprochement with Iran. This rapprochement has already happened locally in Iraq and will most happen incrementally elsewhere. Iran is a key regional player.
The prime reason why this has not yet happened on a strategic level is US domestic politics, lobby groups, and an entrenched bipartisan anti-Iranian establishment which harks back to November 1979.
Iranian @ Iran: I guess I’m stuck in the “Israel as spoiled child” frame of mind.
The Obama administration will do anything to placate tantrum-tossing child Israel, much as Americans spent themselves deeply into debt to placate their spoiled children.
Interesting that an administration and a nation that are held captive by Christian zionists as much as by Israel, fail to ponder fundamental lessons from Christianity: “What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but suffer the loss of his soul?” -Mark 8, 36
WigWag wrote:
“They will demand that Iran be cut down to size, not bargained with as if it was an important power.”
aahhh, so that’s what’s at the heart of the matter: Iran is bigger than Israel.
Uri Avnery’s child’s tale has yet another dimension and WigWag gives it dimensions:
Destroy Iran until it is “cut down to size … not an important power.”
WigWag can’t stand it that Iran is larger in size, deeper in history, richer in resources, more refined in culture, more prepared for a dynamic future, than is Israel. Like the spoiled child of Avnery’s tale, WigWag would resolve these jealousies not by encouraging Israel to make the effort to become a mature, responsible adult but by throwing a childish tantrum, smashing its rival sibling until Iran is as small in usable territory as is Israel.
What you’re missing, WigWag, is that the soul of Iran cannot be “cut down to size.”
Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall doctrine is at the core of zionism: destroy the other until they capitulate. It is part of Israel’s foundational legacy; the consistent deployment of wildly disproportionate military force (again, that ‘bigger than’ thing) as a pedagogy and a way of shaping Israel national identity is to Israel what “all men are created equal” is to the American experiment in self-government.
Israel has the power to destroy Iran, even as you so feverishly desire.
What happens then? Will Israel then feel big enough, deeper in history, richer in resources, more refined in culture, more prepared for a dynamic future, than any other state in the Middle East?
Will destroying Iran grant maturity, character, integrity, identity, to Israel?
How’s it worked so far: Israel destroyed the Arab air force, destroyed Lebanon several times, destroyed Gaza — have these childish demonstrations of destructive capacity made Israel an admired member of the world community, or a pariah state?
What needs to be destroyed, dear WigWag, is Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall doctrine. Destruction as an ideal at the foundation of Israel’s identity and character is nihilism.
“When I was a child, I spoke as a child. I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”
1 Corinthians 13:11
Good point Liz. The US is willing to lose so much to the Russians, the Chinese, and others in their crusade against Iran, but they are unwilling to find a way to work with the Iranians.
Sorry, but this isn’t totally related:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978590,00.html
My question is, why it the US government willing to give so many concessions to the Russia over Iran, when the Russians go about overthrowing US allies and weakening the American global position? Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to start rebuilding relations with the Islamic Republic of Iran? As American rivals grow more and more powerful, the US will be needing Iran more and more. The events yesterday and today, already show that American fortunes are rapidly on the decline and the balance of power is shifting and will continue to shift.
Iran vows to strike Israel immediately if attacked.
A senior cleric within Iran’s elite Revolutionary Guard on Tuesday reiterated warnings that Tehran would strike Tel Aviv immediately if Israel and its Western allies attacked Iran.
“The enemies know if they fire a missile toward Iran, the dust from explosions by Iranian missiles will rise in Tel Aviv even as their missile is still in the air,” a report by the semiofficial Fars news agency on Tuesday quoted cleric Mojtaba Zolnour as saying.
The cleric issued a similar warning in October, when he said Iran would blow up the heart of Israel if the United States or the Jewish state attacked it first.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1161130.html
“Rather, today, the link between Iran and Palestine runs in the opposite direction: the United States needs a better and more productive relationship with the Islamic Republic, in part, because it will be impossible to achieve Arab-Israeli peace absent U.S.-Iranian rapprochement.” (Leverett and Mann Leverett)
For a change, the Leveretts get it almost right. They are entirely correct that it will be impossible to achieve Arab-Israeli peace as long as Iran decides to play a spoiler role. Iran can destroy any U.S. peace initiative by inspiring its proxies to undermine any agreement. Iran can work to foment continuing violence and hatred between Hamas and Fatah; it can continue to ship weapons, especially rockets that can be launched towards Israel by terrorist groups that object to a peace initiative that Iran doesn’t want to see materialize. More generally, Iran can work to undermine Arab nations whose support will be necessary if Palestinians and Israelis are to achieve peace.
Paradoxically, the Iranians, the Israelis and the Palestinians are all allied in this. The Iranians want to be seen as major players in the Middle East; they don’t want an agreement that they haven’t signed off on. The Palestinians won’t want to accept that deal that Obama will offer them; after all they’ve already turned it down more than once. Any Palestinian who signs away the right of Palestinians exiles to return to their ancestral homes in Israel, as Obama will surely insist on, won’t have a lifespan of more than a few days. Netanyahu’s Government, as reliant as it is on the settler movement will never acquiesce to removing tens if not hundreds of thousands of settlers. The debate in Israel amongst all political parties about whether to share Jerusalem will be fierce. And let’s not forget the Sunni Arab regimes who distract their oppressed citizenry from their own destitute status by shedding crocodile tears at the travails of the Palestinians. Do these Sunni Arab nations really want a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or in their heart of hearts do they actually want the conflict to continue?
With the Israelis, Palestinians, Iranians and Sunni Arab nations all preferring the status quo to a final agreement, it’s hard to see how any Obama plan will end up anywhere but the dust bin.
But the Leveretts do get one big thing wrong. They believe that only a rapprochement between the United States and Iran can motivate the Iranians not to play the role of spoilers. Of course their suggestion that a “grand bargain” is actually available is highly dubious. They’ve both been exposed as serial exaggerators if not worse.
But even if a grand bargain was available that doesn’t mean that it’s the only option to prevent the Iranians from playing the spoiler role. The other option is a military one. The United States and its allies could bomb the Iranians into submission in a very similar manner to what was done in Serbia during the Kosovo crisis. Targeted assassination of Iranian leaders, destruction of all assets owned and controlled by the Revolutionary Guards, the bombardment of infrastructure including roads, bridges, electric grids and the like all broke the spirit of the Serbian leadership. If sustained, the same type of campaign would, in time, motivate the Iranians to be disinclined to spoil Obama’s Middle Eastern peace plans.
One can only assume that this must be what Obama has in mind. After all, neither the Israelis nor the Sunni Arab nations are likely to be motivated make the concessions necessary for a two state solution if their only “reward” is the kind of sanctions that Russia and China will go for. If they take Obama’s deal at all, the Sunni Arab regimes and Israel are likely to demand far more; they will want to see Iran crippled. They will demand that Iran be cut down to size, not bargained with as if it was an important power.
Ironically, the group most likely to insist on this is the Palestinian Authority itself; if anyone wants to see Iran cut down to size its them. After all, Iran is the patron of the one group that the PA hates even more than Israelis; that would be Hamas.
what Syria says:
Mideast conflict ‘more explosive’ than Iran crisis: Hariri
what Turkey says:
http ca dot news dot yahoo.com/s/afp/100407/world/turkey_mideast_israel_unrest
“Israel is main threat to Middle East Peace” – Erdogan, Turkish PM
Flynt and Hillary Leverett:
“Second, a perception is gaining ground within the Administration that movement on the Palestinian issue is critical to building regional support for “confronting Iran”, and that Israeli concern about a perceived Iranian threat can be used to leverage greater cooperation from the Netanyahu government toward the pursuit of a two-state solution. Netanyahu and his supporters, of course, have consistently argued that dealing with the Iranian threat must take priority over dealing with the Palestinian issue. ”
Uri Avnery:
“WHEN NETANYAHU & Co. criticize the inability of the American leaders to act against Iran, they answer in the same coin: you, too, are not serious.
And indeed, how serious are our leaders about this? They have convinced the Israeli public that it is a matter of life and death. Iran is led by a madman, a new Hitler, a sick anti-Semite, an obsessive Holocaust-denier. If he got his hands on a nuclear bomb, he would not hesitate for a moment to drop it on Tel Aviv and Dimona. WITH THIS SWORD HANGING OVER OUT HEADS, THIS IS NO TIME FOR TRIVIAL MATTERS, SUCH AS THE PALESTINIAN PROBLEM AND THE OCCUPATION. Everyone who raises the Palestinian question in a meeting with our leaders is immediately interrupted: Forget this nonsense, let’s talk about the Iranian bomb!!
But Obama and his people turn the argument around: if this is an existential danger, they say, please draw the conclusions. If this matter endangers the very existence of Israel, sacrifice the West Bank settlements on this altar. Accept the Arab League peace offer, make peace with the Palestinians as quickly as possible. That will ease our situation in Iraq and Afghanistan and free our forces. Also, Iran would have no more pretext for war with Israel. The masses of the Arab world would not support it anymore.
And the conclusion: If a new Jewish neighborhood in East Jerusalem is more important to you than the Iranian bomb, the matter is clearly not really so critical for you. And that, with all due modesty, is my opinion, too.”