There has been much talk in recent weeks about the possibility of another war between Israel and Hizballah and/or HAMAS (the Middle East’s two most prominent resistance movements, both supported by Iran) in coming months. Perhaps most notably, President Obama’s national security adviser, James Jones, told a Washington think tank audience last month that
“when regimes are feeling pressure, as Iran is internally and will externally in the near future, it often lashes out through surrogates, including, in Iran’s case, Hizballah in Lebanon and HAMAS in Gaza. As pressure on the regime in Tehran builds over its nuclear program, there is a heightened risk of further attacks against Israel”.
Just today, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad arrived in Damascus for discussions with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. It is widely anticipated that, while he is in Damascus, Ahmadinejad will meet with both Hizballah’s secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah, and the head of HAMAS’s Political Bureau, Khalid Mishal.
But, contra General Jones, after spending much of last week in Lebanon and Syria, we are struck by how disinclined both Hizballah and HAMAS are to provoke another round of military conflict with Israel. The day before we arrived in Beirut last week, Nasrallah gave a speech on the second anniversary of Imad Mughniyah’s assassination that also commemorated Hizballah fighters who fell in the fight against Israeli occupation (including one of Nasrallah’s own sons). In the course of the speech, Nasrallah addressed Israel directly, declaring that
“if you destroy buildings in Dahiyeh [a large Shi’a neighborhood south of Beirut], we will demolish buildings in Tel Aviv…If you strike martyr Rafiq Hariri’s international airport in Beirut, we will strike your Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv. If you hit our ports, we will hit your ports. If you attack our refineries or factories, we will bomb your refineries and factories”.
Western media reports characterized Nasrallah’s speech as “throwing down the gauntlet” to Israel, while pro-Saudi commentators in the regional media denounced Nasrallah’s speech—and Ahmadinejad’s endorsement of it—as inviting war. Writing in Al Hayat and Al Arabiyya, one of these commentators argued that
“previous experience has shown that Iran’s talk of war has been serious when the matter concerns the regime’s interests. The summer 2006 Lebanon war erupted after economic sanctions were imposed on Tehran, and there is nothing preventing such a scenario from being repeated, a scenario which produced a ‘victory’ Iran and its allies still boast of”.
But this reading of Nasrallah’s speech is diametrically opposed to the prevailing local interpretation of the Hizballah leader’s rhetoric. In his address, Nasrallah stressed that, while Hizballah would respond to any Israeli aggression, it does not seek war. Nasrallah noted that “since July 2006, nothing has happened on the South Lebanon front”. A prominent Hizballah parliamentarian described Nasrallah’s speech as “historic and crucial”, underscoring that, while Hizballah was not fearful of another war, it was not seeking one. Another Lebanese politician with close ties to Nasrallah told us that, the day after the speech, people throughout south Lebanon “breathed a sigh of relief” because, in their perception, the Hizballah leader’s speech had substantially reduced the risk of conflict with Israel over the next several months.
The message that local resistance forces are not out to provoke another round of confrontation with Israel also came through clearly during a meeting with Khalid Mishal in Damascus. Mishal was very explicit in stating that, while HAMAS is prepared to deal with another Israeli military incursion into Gaza, it “does not want another war”—among other reasons, to spare Palestinians in Gaza the suffering that would come with another conflict, especially so soon after the 2008-09 Gaza war. Mishal said he had given instructions to HAMAS in Gaza not to fire rockets or do anything else that would give Israel a pretext for military action.
It was notable that, in our meeting with him, Mishal did not say a word about the murder of a prominent HAMAS figure, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, in Dubai last month. In the immediate aftermath of Mabhouh’s death, HAMAS publicly pressed Emirati authorities to launch a homicide investigation. That investigation has yielded substantial evidence that Mabhouh was assassinated by Israel’s Mossad, creating tensions between Israel and several European countries—including the United Kingdom— as well as Australia over the Mossad’s apparent use of forged passports for their agents. In times past, the assassination of a prominent HAMAS figure would have been taken as a casus belli prompting retaliatory action. One can easily speculate that Mabhouh’s assassination resonates deeply with Mishal, who himself survived an assassination attempt by the Mossad in 1997 in Jordan—an episode that boosted his standing within HAMAS as “the martyr who did not die”. But, today, Mishal and his colleagues seem intent on using Mabhouh’s assassination to focus international attention on Israel’s provocative stance, while holding off pressures from within HAMAS to retaliate.
In this context, steps by various regional players that Israel and its friends in Washington are seeking to portray as provocative—Nasrallah’s speech, a recent statement by Syrian Foreign Minister Walid al-Muallim that Israeli military action against Syria “would move to [Israeli] cities”, Ahmadinejad’s visit to Damascus—are better understood as efforts by regional resistance forces to bolster their own deterrent posture by reminding Israel of the potential consequences of another large-scale attack on Lebanon and/or Gaza. (In this regard, Mishal suggested to us that one consequence of the Goldstone Report about violations of international humanitarian law during the 2008-09 Gaza war might be that Israel is now more likely to attack Lebanon than Gaza—where Israeli military action would probably generate higher numbers of civilian casualties.) In his speech last week, Nasrallah noted with apparent satisfaction that,
“when Israel threatened Syria with war, the foreign minister, who is the top diplomat, responded. This was intentional and not just a coincidence. I am sure that Israel and Arab regimes were stunned when they heard the Syrian response because it was clear and transparent. Two hours after the response, everyone in Israel was denying threatening Syria. This is an example. You remember [Israeli Defense Minister Ehud] Barak speaking about a swift and decisive victory…But what we are hearing today is that any Israeli war should have “modest objectives”.
If Hizballah and HAMAS are not seeking an armed confrontation with Israel in coming months, does Israel want another war in Lebanon and/or Gaza? Certainly, the Israeli posture toward both Lebanon and Gaza has grown increasingly provocative. Violations of Lebanese airspace by Israeli military aircraft are not new, but have increased dramatically in recent weeks. For the past several weeks, Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri has been warning of escalating Israeli threats against Lebanon. On a state visit to Italy earlier this week, Hariri said explicitly that Israel is seeking war with “Lebanon, Syria, and Iran”. Likewise, earlier this month, Syrian President Assad said that Israel is “pushing the region toward war”. Israel also appears to be stepping up the pace of its military incursions in Gaza and engaging in more skirmishes with HAMAS fighters there. Mabhouh’s assassination in Dubai indicates that Israel has not abandoned its policy of targeted killings, and is now prepared to violate longstanding agreements with European countries not to forge these countries’ passports in order to facilitate Mossad operations.
Why is Israel doing these things? Three possible explanations suggest themselves.
First, it is possible—though, in our view, not likely—that Israel is deliberately laying the predicate for major military action against Hizballah and/or HAMAS later this year. Israeli intelligence estimates that Hizballah has more than replenished its military stockpiles since the 2006 war, and has acquired longer-range and more capable rockets that significantly increase the damage it could do to Israel in a conflict. In the wake of last year’s elections in Lebanon, Hizballah showed that it remains indispensable to the country’s political stability, and Hariri’s government has formally endorsed Hizballah’s weapons as an integral part of Lebanon’s national security posture. Israel also believes that HAMAS is rebuilding its military capabilities in Gaza. Politically, Egyptian efforts to force HAMAS to accept a blatantly pro-Fatah “unity” agreement have blown up, damaging the credibility and standing of both Egypt and Fatah in the eyes of many Arab observers. Under these circumstances, it is not wholly implausible that the Israeli security establishment (the IDF, the intelligence services, and the Foreign Ministry) and the Netanyahu Government calculate that Israel needs to strike before the region’s two most prominent resistance groups—as well as their chief regional backers, Syria and Iran—grow even stronger.
But all-out war in the Levant during the next several months is a high-risk and potentially high-cost option for Israel. Consequently, Israel may have adopted a more aggressive posture toward Lebanon and Gaza with the aim of bolstering what Israeli military commanders like to describe as their country’s deterrent edge. Current and former senior Israeli military officers tell us that, in the view of the Israeli security establishment, Israel’s military initiatives in Lebanon in 2006 and Gaza in 2008-09—along with its 2007 air attack on an alleged nuclear facility in Syria—actually “worked”. As Nasrallah himself acknowledges, the Israeli-Lebanese border has been quiet since 2006. Furthermore, since the 2008-09 Gaza war, HAMAS has been substantially observing a ceasefire with Israel. Against this backdrop, the Israeli security establishment—now with the backing of the decidedly right-leaning Netanyahu government—may well calculate that a more aggressive day-to-day posture toward Hizballah, HAMAS, and Syria could extend the deterrent benefits of the Israeli military’s most recent engagements.
Finally, Israel’s more aggressive posture toward Lebanon and Gaza may be part of a broader strategy for dealing with the Obama Administration regarding Iran. This strategy grows out of two assessments that seem to be becoming consensus positions among political and policymaking elites in Israel.
–First, conversations with a range of Israeli interlocutors indicate that there is profound skepticism within the Israeli establishment that President Obama will deal effectively with Iran. Israeli elites do not expect that there will be successful diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear program; likewise, they do not expect international sanctions to effect significant change in Iran’s nuclear activities.
–Second, at the same time, Israeli politicians and national security experts judge that it is increasingly likely Obama will be a one-term President.
Given these assessments, Israeli political and policymaking elites anticipate that the next two years in U.S.-Israeli relations will be—as an Israeli colloquialism puts it—“garbage time”, particularly with regard to the Iranian nuclear issue. For the Israeli security establishment and the Netanyahu Government, the strategic priority for the “garbage time” will be to prepare the ground so that the United States will be more favorably disposed to the imperative of eventual military action to contain the Iranian nuclear threat. (This could mean preparing the ground so that President Obama’s successor will be inclined to support military action against Iran. It could also mean preparing the ground so that, if Israel decides it must strike before President Obama’s term is over, public opinion and the political establishment in the United States are so strongly supportive of military action against the Islamic Republic that Obama cannot effectively oppose an Israeli unilateral initiative.)
The Israeli agenda to prepare the ground so that the United States will be more favorably disposed to the imperative of military action has several interlocking elements.
–The Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States will continue pressing for a “maximalist” U.S. agenda in whatever nuclear talks with Iran that might take place—including a complete suspension of Iran’s fuel cycle activities. This position clearly reflects the strategic preferences of the Israeli government; if pursued by the United States, it also would undercut any prospects for a nuclear deal with the Islamic Republic.
–The Israeli government and the pro-Israel lobby in the United States will continue to push for tougher sanctions against Iran. While Israeli political and policymaking elites are deeply skeptical that sanctions could actually leverage Iranian decision-making about the nuclear issue, they nonetheless believe that it is necessary to go through the process of debating and imposing sanctions on the Islamic Republic in order to focus U.S. and Western opinion on the futility of sanctions and the imperative for military action against Iranian nuclear threats.
–Alongside these steps, the Israeli security establishment and the Netanyahu government will work through multiple channels to condition American policymakers and public opinion to be more receptive to the possibility of military action against the Islamic Republic.
–And, of course, the Netanyahu Government will continue to be unforthcoming on the Palestinian issue. The position clearly reflects the government’s strategic and political preferences; it also is calculated to compound Obama’s image in the United States as a foreign policy “failure” in addition to his domestic policy break downs.
–In this context, keeping tensions relatively high between Israel, on one side, and Hizballah, HAMAS, Syria, and Iran could also fit into the Netanyahu Government’s emerging “garbage time” strategy.
We are inclined to believe that Israel’s current actions reflect both the IDF’s interest in boosting Israeli deterrence and the Netanyahu Government’s interest in pursuing its “garbage time” strategy. But, even if the Netanyahu Government is not deliberately seeking to spark a military confrontation in the next few months, Israel’s more aggressive posture increases the risk of such a confrontation. This is a situation that cries out for “adult supervision” of Arab-Israeli security affairs. Is the Obama Administration up to the task?
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
rjfk – all I would say is that the Madrid peace talks amounted to nothing, and George Bush Snr’s presidency went the same way. The Israelis still worked the system. Of course Eisenhower was dealing with a non-nuclear state and a Lobby in its infancy, and even he daffed around with their sensibilities for a while, but ultimately his stand became the type of stand we all yearn for today.
Regarding the public, I recall how in the early 1990s, the Conservatives in the UK had been in power for 13 years, and had just won power for another 5. They had 10 times more funding than the opposition, 75% of the press in their pocket, and the entire financial sector prepared to practically blackmail the country into keeping them in power. But the public just got sick of them, and within a couple of years, everything they relied on deserted them in the scramble to change sides and not be left behind. Of course the net result if that was Tony Blair, but that’s another story.
You may be right about the American public, but it would be nice to think a similar thing could happen to the Lobby.
Kooshy,
Very good on the “It takes a village” remark. If some credit for thinking of it is left over, let me lay claim to it: I actually thought of using it myself. In any case, there’s a well-populated village at the NY Times when it comes to Iran.
Eric
I guess for war and propaganda ‘It takes a village” too
Cheers
Kooshy wrote:
“Nice article by Peter Casey pulling apart NYT reporting by David Sanger (Aka replacing Judith Miller) on last IAEA report”.
Kooshy: Replacing Judith Miller requires a team, but the leader is Michael Slackman, not David Sanger.
I read that article and had posted its link here yesterday, what the author fails or wouldn’t describe is that this two existing conditions not necessarily cancel each other but they rather more inflame the overall existing political posture, this two conditions for fact have existed at least for the last 30 years then how come they have not yet materialized the result that he for seas
It’s more of the Lotus feeding type of the article by NYT
Interesting is how the trend of the conversation on this blog that was started with the question of what would be the necessary conditions for a US, Iran rapprochement? , eventually ended with the
US, Israel relation as the main condition for setting a new Iranian, USA condominium, and how impossible is to change this US, Israel relations short of a real public opinion demand, it will be a revolution, and now that we understand the changes required on this side we should also understand how difficult is on the other side
For those who haven’t read it, I recommend this op-ed in the 2/28/10 NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28karsh.html?pagewanted=2
The author discusses two prominent Middle East conflicts, in each of which one party has clear military superiority over the other. In one conflict, the stronger party is happy with the status quo, if only the weaker party would stop bellyaching about it. In the second conflict, just the reverse: the weaker party is (more or less) happy with the status quo, if only the stronger party would stop bellyaching about it.
The author’s prescriptions for both conflicts are laid out in one tidy sentence:
“In these circumstances, one can only welcome the latest changes in the Obama administration’s Middle Eastern policy, which combine a tougher stance on Iran’s nuclear subterfuge [defined elsewhere in the article to mean "military strikes"] with a less imperious approach to the Arab-Israeli conflict [defined elsewhere to mean: ignore it "unless all sides are convinced that peace is in each of their best interests"].”
rfjk
You are right, Obama has an opportunity to be a real “game changer.” but I do not think he has the balls to do it.
If he says anything against Israel or Israel’s interest, the Israel lobby will crucify him.
During Israel’s massacre of Palestinian people in Gaza, Obama kept his silence.
In January 2009, when Israel slaughtered more than 700 innocent and defenceless Palestinian women and children, Obama and the leaders of the European countries did not have the balls to condemn Israel once.
They are simply frightened to lose power if they condemn Israel.
Ahmadinejad was the only president who had the balls to condemn Israel publicly and
this is the main reason why he is demonised in western media on a daily basis.
We live in a dirty world where money is power and for The western leaders to hold on to their power, they are prepared to scarify their principles.
The west preachers democracy and justice but violates its fundamental principles.
Alan
I totally agree with your comments regarding Israel/ Palestine.
You wrote and I Quote:
“It is Israel who has never wanted peace”
“The US public hold the key”
The real power in USA is in the hands of Israel lobby organisations that control the media and the finance.
So far, Israel lobby with the help of their corrupt media has manage to brainwash the American public opinion.
Unless and until their power base is destroyed, there will be no peace with Palestinian or rapprochement with Iran.
The Israelis told George Bush Sr in 1991 to go screw himself over the Madrid peace talks, and imperiously told him they would defeat him and get what they wanted in the US Congress.
It was James Baker the III who put the iron into the old man’s spine beating the Israeli Lobby and putting the screws to them by withholding a tiny portion of the loan subsidy for Russian immigration. The so-called bad ass Likudnik alliance with so-called tough guy Yitzhak Shamir as prime minister cracked up and totally caved to Bush/Baker demands.
Granted, this and Eisenhower were the only two presidencies who grabbed the Israelis by the throats like a chicken and shake some sense into their lizard noggins. But the examples demonstrate how easily presidents can bend Israelis to their will, if they have the intestinal fortitude to face down the domestic, political onslaught the Israeli Lobby and traitors will instigate against POTUS.
This president has even more going for him than those two past presidencies, because the Israeli lobby is a house divided, with most Jews in American considering themselves Americans first and any affection for Israel last. Among Jewish youth Zionists fear there is none. Lobbies among Arab, Muslim and Palestinian Americans are taking root and getting face time with the US government, when a decade ago there were none of note.
No question about it, this president has an opportunity to be a real “game changer.” The big question is does he have the balls to do it. As regards the American people, the masses or “population,” we will have to agree to disagree. I can’t think of anything more suicidal than relying upon the myth of the American people, which in the constitution only references the ‘people’ who had the franchise and ratified the constitution in the latter 1780’s and early 1790’s. The herd in a republic was designed to be “deaf, dumb and blind” by the founding fathers in the constitutional convention of 1787.
rfjk – with reference to your comments about Israelis and Palestinians not being able to save themselves, too much hatred etc.
I fear the problem with those comments is the tacit equivalence it accords both parties. There is no physical equivalence, no economic equivalence, no power equivalence, no moral equivalence, and certainly no equivalence in terms of the level of violence perpetrated by one on the other. There is the overarching issue of “security” – Israel, who doesn’t need it, is “entitled” to it, and the Palestinians, who desperately need it, are not entitled to it. Israel has the support of the US, the EU and Russia; the Palestinians are sanctioned by them all, and don’t even have the support of fellow Arab governments.
Peace is simply not within the gift of Palestinians. In essence, Palestinians have always supported a one-state settlement, be it 1947, 1967 or 2010. Since 1991, they would have taken sovereignty over any part of Palestine if they could get it. It is Israel who has never wanted peace, be it one-state or two-state; 1947, 1967 or 2010; Carter’s Camp David, Oslo or the Roadmap. Not even Rabin or Peres in the course of the Oslo agreement ever envisaged a Palestinian state.
I could go on. But put simply, there can’t be peace until the US changes sides and supports the Palestinians.
rfjk – there is a tipping point with regard to Israel and the US public. There comes a time when the population doesn’t want to be a deaf, dumb and blind supplicant to the PR machine that tells them how to think. When that happens, the Lobby is dead in the water, no matter how clever they are. The US public hold the key. At the moment whatever figs they give for Israel are vastly more than what they give for Palestine, because the US public remains duped by what is probably the biggest wheeze of the last 100 years.
Presidentially, Obama can change that by giving Israel the rope to hang itself with. If he does a deal with Iran, he makes it very difficult for Israel to act unilaterally against Iran. By bringing Syria in from the cold, he does the same thing. Accepting a Lebanese government that includes Hizballah, a Palestinian “government” that includes Hamas are all steps that eliminate the commonality of US and Israel’s enemies. It means the price Israel will pay for any belligerent moves, which for most of their history has been zero, rapidly increases in terms of lost goodwill amongst the public in the US, and brings that tipping point closer.
There is a window here for Obama to be a real game-changer. But Israel has levers over the US too in addition to the Lobby. They can keep a “special relationship” going through blackmail – they have done it before and will have no compunction about doing it again. They can cause the US an awful lot of problems in the Middle East if they have a mind to – as per Moshe Dayan “Israel needs to be like a mad dog – too dangerous to bother.” But would they do it without the cover of the Lobby? That is the question. Like you, I suspect not. But to defang the Lobby, it must be politically expedient for Obama to do so first.
I’m interested in Persian Gulf’s proposition that there really isn’t an Arab-Persian (or Arab-Iranian) divide; only a Sunni-Shia one. Could readers of this blog who are either Arabs or Iranians give us their views? Also, anyone who has worked or spent considerable time in the region — could we have your take on this, please?
My last post should have been addressed to Alan.
If you mean public as to include all the American people, the masses in truth could give a fig or two-shakes for the state of Israel. But if you mean it more accurately as the opinion of those who are engaged in and conduct the public affairs of the US of A, you are spot on. That’s the battlefield where Israelis are keenly aware they will lose or win it.
A lot of individuals in the sphere of public affairs are of the opinion neither the Israelis or the Palestinians can save themselves. Polling indicates majorities of both desire a two state solution, but their politics prevents them from achieving it. The window of opportunity for a copacetic one-state solution where Jew and Palestinian may have lived in peace was shortly after the 6 day, 1967 Arab/Israel war. Unfortunately, maniac Zionists and crazed Palestinian terrorists put paid to that possibility.
The hatred today is so palpable and enduring that only separation into two sovereign entities is the only reasonable outcome for Israeli and Palestinian. At this point in time a one state solution will end badly for both. It will not be a S. African miracle, but end up more like the Rhodesian/Zimbabwe tragedy with Jews fleeing the holy land and Palestinians at each others throats. Aliyah is already working in reverse among the wealthy and professional classes, immigration is negative causing the need to import some 300,000 non-Jewish foreigners to fill jobs once reserved for Palestinians. Another emerging fifth column of the destitute and oppressed who have their share of complaints with the state of Israel.
Most Israelis fear losing the ’special relationship’ they have with the US, because they know without the support of a powerful patron in the UN and the billions in annual foreign and military aid they are finished. Zbigniew Brzezinsk estimates that the current state of Israel has 5 years tops in the region should the US abandon that ’special relationship.’ Nor is he the only one in the US F/P making community who believes that.
The US has lots of levers to pressure the Israelis. What appears to be missing is a top Kahuna with the cajonies to be Presidential like Kennedy during the Cuban missile crises, or Nixon with China or Carter at Camp David. Whether the lack of nerve in the US presidency is a symptom of the man or his advisers we will shortly know. But fine speeches are obviously not enough to do the job domestically, and not by a long shot in the realm of foreign affairs.
rfjk – perhaps “beholden” was the wrong word. What I meant was that we have no power to control the Israeli government until the Israeli people decide they want to do so themselves. As they bounce further and further to the right as a whole, it can only lead to disaster.
The only thing they seem to value is US public opinion. Once that goes, and it will, it will be a very dangerous time. My feeling is that they will moderate, because even they can see the danger of total isolation, but if they don’t we will be in a situation where Israel will threaten whoever they like with whatever they like to protect themselves. In a sense, we are there already, it’s just that it will be much more blatant; nuclear brinkmanship gone mad. It’s not a pleasant thought when 25% of the population vote for messianic nutters who think they can bring about the End of Days.
It is only the Israeli public that can save themselves, and the rest of us, from that kind of disaster.
Nice article by Peter Casey pulling apart NYT reporting by David Sanger (Aka replacing Judith Miller) on last IAEA report
Although this analysis of NYT misleading reports might not get the same exposure as an article in the so called “paper of records”
Is good that people read this article as a counter weight to this biased so called “paper of the records” war mongering and misleading reports
Read the IAEA Reports on Iran
By Peter Casey, March 01, 2010
http://original.antiwar.com/peter-casey/2010/02/28/read-the-iaea-reports-on-iran/
IAEA clarifies misleading media reports on Iran
Following the release of IAEA’s latest report on Iran last week, a number of scaremongering anti-Iran headlines appeared in the Western media. The LA times chose its headline as “Iran has enough fuel for a nuclear bomb”. The New York Times went for “Iran Said to Have Nuclear Fuel for One Weapon” and FOX news reported: “Iran Produces Enough Uranium to Build Nuclear Weapon”. In the UK, the Daily Telegraph’s article titled “Iran has enough uranium ‘to build a nuclear bomb’” and the Daily Mail announced: “Iran ‘has the fuel to build nuclear bomb’”. The anti-Iran articles also gave the impression that Iran had deliberately underreported the production of low enriched uranium at Natanz.
In response to questions by Dr. Kaveh Afrasiabi, the IAEA spokesperson, Melissa Fleming, has issued a statement clarifying the IAEA’s position regarding the misleading articles in the US and European press concerning Iran’s production of low-enriched uranium.
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/7517
Do you know your president ?
Ahmadinejad was born near Garmsar in the village of Aradan, in Semnan province, the fourth of seven children.
His father, Ahmad, was an ironworker, grocer, barber, blacksmith, and religious Shi’a who taught the Qur’an. His mother, Khanom, was a Seyyede, an honorific title given to those believed to be direct bloodline descendants of the Islamic prophet Muhammad.
Ahmadinejad’s father changed his name from “Sabourjian”or “Sabaghian”when Ahmadinejad was four years old to avoid discrimination when the family moved to Tehran as the rural name inferred a lowly social standing.
Sabor is Farsi for thread painter, a once common occupation within the Semnan carpet industry. Ahmadinejad was chosen as it means from the race of Ahmad, one of the names given to Muhammad.
In 1976, Ahmadinejad took Iran’s national university entrance contests. He was ranked 132nd out of 400,000 participants that year, and soon enrolled in the Iran University of Science and Technology (IUST) as an undergraduate student of civil engineering.
He received a PhD in transportation engineering and planning from IUST in 1997.
Supporters of Ahmadinejad consider him a “simple man” that leads a “modest” life. As president,
he wanted to continue living in the same house in Tehran his family had been living in, until his security advisers insisted that he move.
Ahmadinejad had the antique Persian carpets in the Presidential palace sent to a carpet museum, and opted instead to use inexpensive carpets.
He is said to have refused the V.I.P. seat on the Presidential plane, and that he eventually replaced it with a cargo plane instead
Also upon gaining Iran’s presidency, Ahmadinejad held his first cabinet meeting in the Imam Reza shrine at Mashhad, an act perceived as “pious”.
Ahmadinejad is married with two sons and a daughter. One of his sons formerly studied at the Amirkabir University of Technology (Tehran Polytechnic).
the U.S. government claims that Iran represents a serious threat to the Middle East region and the entire world. Without a shred of evidence
Those who desire hegemony over the oil-rich Middle East can tolerate no independent regional powers, whether or not they present a threat to any other country. This reality was dramatically demonstrated in 1953, when the CIA toppled Iran’s democratically elected prime minister, Dr. Mohammad Mosaddegh, for the “crime” of nationalizing Iran’s oil industry.
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103106988909&s=107098&e=0017AOg4EQ1zmVXIafPAfJHt2fqjYjzAMo4SEZm-TGjadaBmgeLt9rILHNPSFVKL58XFslPqy8kZbCmVNPoguIXMzmhCaJC8uZjl2Qk8rklLHyc2OzGddWrwSqKiNvxKwVkX-cX5qtNNWOiOCHCiPbJ3Gyvwap0LxAQok7P35V8CMo=
Iran says UN nuclear watchdog bends to political influence.
http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?et=1103106988909&s=107098&e=0017AOg4EQ1zmXXatEmG7KMp1247xh0iklnPRDoXY3Nx7xJFxX7DLD1Y5jAHVDnw1rJN3txAbiFwtyTk9kuwck9EO-XvtuSdBnGo9dSd6RNJyVVsCmvj6O7nw==
I want to disagree with Jon for the Arabs-Persians divide. it’s an old pattern. however, he is, I think, right about Sunni-Shiite divide. Actually, I am not sure how much a name like Persian Gulf is going to trigger a divide of that magnitude (the athletic episode is a desperate move of some Arab regimes who are hated at their home openly). the younger generation of Arabs, even the very pan-Arabist of my friends, show very little, or almost no, sensitivity to this name, contrary to a taboo issue like Israel. Unlike Shah’s regime, Iran is not emphasizing on its Persian identity. you can barely see even an educated Iranian inside the country to call himself/herself a Persian. as I wrote here before, this pattern is seen more among some Iranian expatriates. Arab-Persian divide, if ever greatly existed, would have been a good opportunity for the U.S to exploit, but it actually doesn’t exist on the ground. what kind of divide it is that big Iranian communities live in the Arab states of the Persian Gulf?
However, the Sunni-Shitte one is a serious matter. it’s almost impossible to find an Arab arguing for Israel’s rights. as my friends from Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt…say, Israel doesn’t exist in the Arab consciousness. they just don’t want to hear anything good about Israel. it would be a fool policy on the part of the U.S to rely on this shaky alliance for the long run. indeed, as my personal, and limited, experience shows, only among Sunnis and somehow Christians community of Lebanese people there is a sort of resentment about Iran. the U.S and the Saudis were trying to hard to exploit that. in other Arab states, they see their own governments illegitimate, corrupt, incompetent, undemocratic, and the Iran threat doesn’t resonate, as the U.S may wish, in the Arab world (almost the same argument could be said about part of Iranian bourgeois; the ones chanting Na Ghazze, Na Lobnan, janam fadarye Iran; slogan)
Jon
We are finally on the same page.
Alan
It was estimated the USSR had over 39,000 nuclear devises before it fell, and not one of those nukes could save the FSU. The only country in the world that held a terror monopoly of nukes was the US of A after nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But that didn’t last.
In a world of nuclear proliferation, the very next nation to use a nuke or nukes will probably face annihilation from the entire global community united behind an alliance led by the rest of the nuclear powers. Such a nation would be considered an existential threat no less than the Nazis or Imperial Japan.
Though, as I have said before, the Israelis are about the stupidest people on the planet. They are of course liable to do anything, or at any rate encourage people to believe that. If those fools want the world to accomplish what the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians, Romans and Nazis couldn’t do, than all they have to do is light one of those candles up and see where that gets them.
I am not beholden to the Israelis. I know the Leverett’s sure as hell aren’t. And no one can speak for the American people, especially those bullshit artists individually or severally in Congress. They can only speak for their constituents, who aren’t all American citizens. There are of course politicians in the US government who are co-opted or bought, and American traitors who collaborate in front groups with the Israelis to the disadvantage of US interests in the M/E. But that’s a problem that has its origins in the previous cold war era, which is slowly dissolving as new groups arise to compete against it.
God help us if Karsh is educating our next generation of Middle East analysts.
Karsh in his piece wants us to use Muslim divisions to take a harder line with Iran. To me the opposite should apply. It is the Shia-Sunni and Persian-Arab divides that allow us room to maneuver and (theoretically, at any rate) seek a relationship with Iran. The Arab-Israeli conflict hurts US interests in the region; the Arab-Persian conflict potentially can further our interests. The last thing we want to see is a united Muslim front. A united Muslim world leaves us with the choice: abandon Israel completely (impossible given the US domestic situation) or face implacable Muslim hostility. Arab-Persian hostility can serve our interests just as the Sino-Soviet split did in the 1970s and early 1980s.
Rfjk, just go to the National Security Archive website and check into Kissinger’s July 1971 secret trip to China. K agreed that the US would adopt a one-China policy; this was the sine qua non for Nixon’s trip. By agreements I did not mean a formal, signed document. Meetings of heads of state seal the deals that subordinates work out (at least in outline) ahead of time.
Jon thank you
I Just saw this very interesting article among other places in today’s opinion section of NYT
Pay attention as who the article is written by
Muslims Won’t Play Together By EFRAIM KARSH
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/28/opinion/28karsh.html
rfjk – regarding I/P, I would say a one state solution is probably the only viable long term solution for Israel. Politically it’s miles away of course, but there are Israelis who support it.
The truth is we are all beholden to the Israeli electorate – until they decide to moderate as a whole, nothing will be achieved. One can only hope the loss of US support would have that effect, but it could also have the opposite effect – where they start brandishing their nukes around the place in order to get their way. In which case we genuinely will be in a new cold war situation, except it won’t be Israel v. Muslims, it will be Israel v. us.
Very interesting several point of views with regard to moving the enriched uranium
Iran Exposes Nukes
http://www.themedialine.org/news/news_detail.asp?NewsID=28159
Your not listening to me Jon.
The Leverett’s are clearing saying team Obama should effect an action similar to what Dick did with China, and the only reason they pulled it off was because the entire US foreign policy establishment, as well as everybody else, were totally in the dark regarding what Dick and Kissinger were up to with the ChiCom Charlies.
There were no “previously negotiated agreements” publicly or privately prior to the 1972 visit. And had there been an attempt to secure such before Nixon’s visit, the uproar waged by the opposition would have killed that act in the bud. The US F/P establishment is not by any means a unitary creature that speaks with one voice. Its composed of many factions foreign and domestic of which the Israel Lobby and neocons are only two small actors in a stage crowded with players.
Nixon for all his faults can never be accused of being a wimp. What Obama needs to do is grow a pair as ‘realists’ and progressives in the foreign policy making apparatus are urging him to do, and start effecting some decisive action on policies he signed on to during the campaign and the first half of his year in office.
Rfjk, I still don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I personally support full speed ahead on engagement with Iran. Indeed, I support full strategic partnership between the two countries, if it can be achieved. I merely observed that the American f.p. establishment would not support a meeting between the two presidents, absent previously negotiated agreements. If the Leveretts know of anyone in said establishment who would support such a meeting (again, absent previously negotiated agreements), I’d like them to tell us. I’d like to know if anyone with government experience or establishment cred supports a meeting between the two presidents before the groundwork has been laid by others.
Kooshy, thanks for your latest points. I still disagree with some of what you say, but then complete agreement gets boring pretty fast, doesn’t it?
Jon
“Kooshy, are you saying that Sunni reaction to an Iranian “wrong move” represents a bigger threat to Iran than Israel? I see no evidence that the Sunni and/or Muslim world would unite against Iran on any count.”
Yes that is my position , just check what happened with Islamic Unity Games with regard to Iran’s Persian Gulf stand, the Arab governments took the advantage and easily call it off on the count of Iran’s Persian Gulf that name that Iran could not have back out.
“I do agree that Iran must contemplate with trepidation a Sunni-Shih conflict, but wouldn’t that fact make them more likely to at least explore US overtures? Why have they done so little in response to Obama’s (admittedly tepid) overtures so far? Internal Iranian politics?”
If you mean that if Iran doesn’t cooperate with US regional goals than US will stirrup the Sunni, Shih conflict, I think they already tried hard but could not get Iran to play, Iran and the Shih
Clergy were able to control (Moghtada Sadr), that messed things up for US in Iraq even more then the invasion and that was the points of now forgotten negations with Iran on Iraq.
And About the Obama part why?
Because with all due respect Mr. Obama tried to do it on the chip and without any substance and Iranians realized that from the beginning, with appointments of Clinton,Halbrook, Ross they knew it’s a rhetoric, Mr. Obama’s advisers thought with a Video message of pleasantries and acknowledgment of “Islamic Republic of Iran” instead of “state of Evil” they will force the Iranian government with changing Iranian public opinion if he was genuine at least he should have offered like Mr. Clinton did to show his good will with lifting the sanctions on carpet or pistachio, or something insignificant ( in the Occasion of Norouz as a good will Iranian’s give gift to each other it is called Eaydee) or like McFarlane send a cake, pleasantries and acknowledging for the first time ”Islamic Republic of Iran” was so arrogant that it really did not even change the street opinion the Maryland POP that you have probably seen is attest to that. Mr. Obama thought that the Iranians should fall to pray immediately and thank god for being acknowledgment and accepted that they are an Islamic state by an American statesman. Lastly you say that you will want to negotiate with Iran without pre condition and with mutual respect but first you send the same guy to negotiations that Bush did with difference of now he can actually speak, wow that is a lot of improvement it really shows that the policy has actually is changed, Mr. Khamenai read right through it right during last Norouz when the video was released and in Mashhad said “when you change we will” now do you really believe that a genuine change was offered
Look I whole heartedly agree with you and Flynt that a US, Iran alliance of sort will be big brake for both sides but I also think the price for both sides is to great to pay, for US side even more
They realistically will need to rethink their Israel problem first, interestingly for the first time this week I heard that an Israeli statesman (Barak) stating that Iranians are very calculated and Israel is not on an existential threat (see Barak in CFR Q&A from Politico), may be some change is talked about or they are thinking to pull down the rhetoric a bit, or maybe Ahmadinijad after his trip to Syria is shaving his Hitler mustache off.
Ok Jon, have it your way, but according to your red lines Nixon’s trip to China, which was sprung on an entirely clueless US foreign policy establishment, Congress and the American people took place in the midst of the Chinese Cultural Revolution that slaughtered approximately 3 million people.
Comparatively Khamenei, Ahmadinejad and gang are kids in the alley compared to Mao and his genocidal hoodlums.
Furthermore, all negotiations were handled secretly by Nixon’s National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger and his immediate entourage, who slithered into Peking in 1971 to set up the meeting. Not only was this the first time a US president visited Peking, but the People’s Republic of China was at that precise time considered America’s staunchest foe.
If Obama is going to make a deal with the Iranians similar to Dick’s, he will have to do it in much the same way. If he does it openly the opposition you describe is sure to explode and strangle any possibility in the cradle. That’s why everyone for or against is focused on this like a laser beam and why the Leverett’s say: JUST DO IT, DUDE!
You misunderstood what I wrote. I said everybody would be opposed to a meeting of the presidents without agreements having been reached beforehand. I’m quite aware that there are members of the f.p. establishment who favor engagement with Iran in a general sense.
For the past 5 years Israel and the US have declared all options are on the table and that Iran risks a violent response if it becomes a nuclear power. By removing all of the LEU out of safe and secure locations right out into the open where it can be easily targeted by the US the Iranians are calling our bluff big time.
Right off the top I can list big time leaders in the US ‘establishment’ like Baker, Scowcroft, Brzezinski, Hamilton and a host of others who have been strongly urging the President towards normalized engagement and relations with Iran. The whole US establishment is not lock-stepped into an adversarial posture against the Persians, nor are the Leverett’s the sole voices for rapprochement or a grand bargain. They are just the loudest and carry the torch for one a lot more vigorously and publicly.
‘Realists’ and progressives in the foreign policy establishment have been exceedingly displeased with Obama’s performance during the latter part of his first year in office. There have been calls for him to make some big changes among his inner circle of advisers, whom are principally seen as the major cause for Obama’s failures, specifically his band of Chicago soul mates who helped him win the election. This pressure may be having an effect. And should the rumors and scuttle but about bringing an experienced hand like Zbigniew Brzezinski on the team come to pass, well, defibrillators and heart mediation need be on hand for all the anxiety that will cause in the breasts of Zionist.
New Social Secretary Obama’s First Step Away from a Chicago Team
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288268
rjfk: I agree completely re your last comment on I/P.
I don’t necessarily agree on your take re Iran calling our bluff. Mebbe so, but where’s the evidence? I think we need time to see.
I just read the Al Jazeera article Liz highlighted. The writer advocates a meeting between the American and Iranian presidents. This shows a profound ignorance of the American scene. Were Obama to announce such a meeting, he would be immediately attacked from every part of the political spectrum. I can think of no member of the foreign policy establishment (except perhaps the Leveretts) who would not pour scorn on the idea. This sort of thing simply “isn’t done.” As the American foreign policy establishment sees it, heads of state do not meet unless agreements have been worked out first at a lower level. And this is not just the State Department’s way of keeping undersecretarys employed. One-on-one meetings of heads of state, absent agreements already arrived at, are very dicey propositions indeed — witness Kennedy’s trip to Vienna in 1961, which almost resulted in World War III. Additionally, the average American views the Iranian president as a nut case (Fox News has done its work well). Obama would be crucified if he went to Iran, or invited the Iranian president here, just willy-nilly.
The article shows a profound lack of understanding of American realities (just as America has little understanding of the internal dynamcis of the Muslim world).
The ONLY path to Israel’s survival in the M/E is by a two state solution. Once a majority of Palestinians embrace a one-state end game in Palestine, Israel is finished. It won’t matter what Israel does, nor would the US be able to sustain, let alone save the fools from themselves. In fact, the US would have even less leverage and influence in such a development than the game played today.
“….Who’s got ideas on what’s happening on this? I’m baffled….”
The answer is right in the article:
….”As one senior adviser to Mr. Obama said late last year, “We’ve got a near-perfect record of being wrong about these guys for 30 years.””
The Iranians are calling our bluff over all the knuckle dragging talk and embarrassing us with our impotence.
I saw the Barak speech and was struck by two things. First, his mention of the “biblical” justification for Israel’s existence — sure to play well among America’s conservative Christians, especially those who believe the recreation of Israel prefigures the Rapture.
The second thing was his mention of the fact that Isarel can only be a democratic state if remains a Jewish state, i.e., one person one vote only works for the Israelis if the Palestinians are, one way or another, excluded. What he was saying explicitly was that a two-state solution is necessary for Israel’s continued existence. Implicitly he was acknowledging the dire peril Israel faces of being swamped demographically (higher Palestinian birthrate) at some future point. That would mean the destruction of Israel. The problem is that the Israeli notion of a two-state solution is so one-sided in their favor that no (except they themselves and their supporters) takes it seriously. Even the deal Barak himself agreed to in 2000 is nowhere near where the Israeli position is today. Israel is like a man who has a wolf by the ears. Unless it makes real, substantial concessions to the wolf, it will eventually be devoured.
Some interesting reading this morning. Alan, I will have to do more research on what you say in your second paragraph before I can discuss it intelligently.
Kooshy, are you saying that Sunni reaction to an Iranian “wrong move” represents a bigger threat to Iran than Israel? I see no evidence that the Sunni and/or Muslim world would unite against Iran on any count. If Iran did something like restore the old special relationship with Israel (which continued at a somewhat reduced level even after the overthrow of the Shah), that would provoke Muslim indigantion, no doubt, but what’s the likelihood of that happening — zero? Less than zero?.
I do agree that Iran must contemplate with trepidation a Sunni-Shia conflict, but wouldn’t that fact make them more likely to at least explore US overtures? Why have they done so little in response to Obama’s (admittedly tepid) overtures so far? Internal Iranian politics?
Obviously, my sketch of a US-Iranian combination is “utopian” under current conditions. Yet the logic of it is so strong, I don’t entirely discount it happening at some future point.
Matthew S., I saw the NYT article yesterday afternoon, and I’m as puzzled as you are. I’m almost surprised that the Israelis haven’t taken immediate advantage of the situation and hit the stuff. Who’s got ideas on what’s happening on this? I’m baffled.
Diplomatic jargon shouldn’t be believed so intently and uncritically. Alan’s comment about Israel being unworthy of US trust made by Jone’s, demonstrates that US rhetoric is all over the place in the M/E regarding anyone.
The Israelis are feeling besieged not only in the M/E and by the global community, but their redoubt of unshakable and certain US support isn’t all that assured anymore. During Ehud Barak’s recent visit to Washington, the only place he felt fully comfortable was at WINEP were he gave a speech to a “…friendly Washington audience with lots of familiar faces for him…” Barak was nailed right from the start with a question regarding “how well he thought the U.S. and Israel were coordinating on the Iran issue…,” he temporarily dodged the question until he had enough time to frame the answer properly.
Its not just HAMAS, Hezbollah or Syrians who are adapting and learning, its an emerging fifth column of Arabs, Palestinians and Muslim Americans who are adapting, learning and taking pages right out of the playbook of the Likudnik/Zionist front groups right here in the US of A. And if that’s not bad enough, liberal American/Jews are disgusted with the extremism of Zionist and Israeli crimes against humanity and forming opposition groups to AIPAC, WINEP, etc. These public affairs are nascent and in their beginning stages, but Zionists and traitors rightly feel and fear these developing constraints and threats. There is no longer a toll free and open road to work their will on the US ‘establishment.’
All this talk about another round between Israel and Hezbollah or HAMAS is sloppy thinking. The fundamental and principle reason there won’t be another major conflict or fight is because Israel’s IDF —- CAN’T FIGHT! —-
That’s what was proved conclusively in Israeli/Lebonan borderlands where Hezbollah stopped Israel cold and put paid to the armored, blitzkrieg of Chevauchée the Israelis were once famous for. And proved again before Gaza city, an advance of a few kilometers it took the IDF nearly a month to accomplish and where HAMAS was prepared to fight a last stand. At the decisive moment, when in the face of an adapting and determined enemy all the ordinance and firepower in the world could not annihilate, the Israelis ran away rather than close with the enemy and finish the job. Should the garrison/occupation IDF ever face a fight like the US Marine’s have fought and won in Marjah, Afghanistan, within a week the Israeli people would crack up and the IDF would run all the way home.
Being a conscript military Israelis cannot sustain causalities. Nor can all the retraining in the world improve Israeli tactical performance on the field. The IDF is an occupation force that has caused a cultural transformation with the IDF from a force that won the wars of 35 plus years ago, to the kind of thugs who are only adept at knocking down arthritic old people and shooting children in the face. Such a force cannot fight.
But then we can’t totally disregard the enormity of Israeli stupidity. Should the fools in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem pick another fight the result will be the same, but the adverse consequences will be infinitely worse.
Persian Gulf – interesting points. I don’t think Iran-US rapprochement necessarily equates to Iran sacrificing its principles of course. Rapprochement is possible without Iran compomising their desire to remain independent of undue US influence, or subscribing to the US vision of the region.
Perhaps the likeliest formula for a successful recalibration for both sides would be an initial de-escalation with Iran so that both sides can talk to each other in the future sensibly without the perpetual suspicion and bad blood. That could create the space for a wider regional reassessment for the US, particularly over I/P, and any changes in stance over that will deliver all kinds of different strategic options.
Matthew – I don’t think the amount or location of the LEU is all that important any more. They can make it quite quickly now, and the whole argument over the last 20+ years has been over their right to enrich. Iran has now taken the opportunity to prove they can enrich to 20% which I think has surprised a lot of people. They’ve made their point, now they can do a deal. The letter from Iran to the IAEA that Kooshy refers to seems to indicate a united political front in Iran over the issue, which was perhaps the biggest obstacle to doing it sooner.
Israel is not nearly as powerful as some think. The fact that Hezbollah’s small military wing humiliated them along with the fact that they couldn’t take Gazza which was under siege for almost two years and was protected largely with light arms shows how vulnerable they are.
Much of this article is reasonable, but the argument about the Israeli policy of “deterrence” is total balderdash and you know it. Israel has all the deterrence it can ever need. It’s military dominance is total. It is by far the most powerful small country in the world, more powerful than most big countries, and by far. And it has the unconditional backup of the most powerful country the world has ever seen, a country so powerful that not even Russia or China dare to even think about crossing swords.
Israel clearly wants another war, and it’s not for deterrence. So what is it for? Why do they want another war? Well one reason we know from history (eg.from Dyan’s theory about the occupied territories – keep a low level war going,to justify the occupation, til we have it all): the wars they fight justify and at the same time distract attention from their steadily increasing land grab in the West Bank. But does anybody really think Israel will be satisfied with the West Bank? Lebanon has water resources and Gaza has hydrocarbons. I believe it was the leader of the knesset who let it slip earlier this year – Israel’s unspoken goal is Greater Israel. But to get that, they need a Big One. A really big war. Israel’s opponents know this – the next war will be for all the marbles. And it will almost certainly start with an attack on Iran.
I think the 2 states solution would also be in Iran’s interests if the Palestinian state made out of that would be strong enough to defend itself at the minimum, and Iran should not be worried about Israel in that front. the 2 states solution means: dismantling nearly 350,000 settlers in the East Jerusalem and the West bank (5% of the whole population), and most importantly returning the Golan High without which Israel would lose its supremacy in its immediate neighborhood (actually I think the day Golan high is returned, Israel is gone, and I don’t think Israel would ever do that). In the long run, Israel is out of the question, no matter how much noise they are trying to make. it has more than double people above 65 years old compare to its neighbors (more than 10% which is pretty high in the region’s standard). it also has more than 23% Arabs (these are from CIA fact book for 2007) and it’s growing fast. I don’t have the data for 10 or 20 years ago, but if the trend goes like this, 10 or 20 years from now the situation would be totally different. and Israel would not be welcomed in the Arab and the Muslim world anytime soon, that’s enough time for Iran to make heavy gains. I am not sure how much Muslim opinion really matters in the case of a de-facto nuclear Iran. Iran could take the path of Turkey, at least. and I don’t think, Iran should fear a unified Arab front like few decades ago. the Arab world is divided and will be divided for the time being. modernization (if not modernity brings more tribes and clans and races in the equation) would certainly make the those Arab regimes hostile to Iran less secure, if not even some its friends like Syria and Ghatar, if only Iran could be a role model of an Islamic nation, not necessarily the kind of spoiler today is. the objectionist policy of Iran is detrimental for the U.S, and has given Iran a lot of leverage. but I don’t Iran would gain anything very tangible in the long run. in the long run, it would be a lose-lose situation, the kind of the game Iranians are a master of!
the question is, how far U.S is going to go for a new Iran and ascendant in the middle east? Iran certainly don’t want to get very closed to the U.S, not just because of the Arab worlds (the Muslim world, excluding the Arabs, is not necessarily seen U.S-Iran rapprochement a lose of face for Iran. many of those states, such as Turkey, Malaysia…have been U.S friends for some times), and it will never be. unlike what you say, an Iran-U.S rapprochement would not necessarily be a death kiss for Iran. indeed, the situation now is a win for Iran in any circumstances for the short term. the current situation is detrimental for the U.S and still beneficial to Israel. in the case of a rapprochement, Iran would get a lot of benefits. at the minimum the country’s very high educated people would have a great contribution for the well being of the country (as much as Iran’s rulers were afraid of the agitation of these educated people in the past few months, they would also be wise to use them to build the country. Ahmadinejad’s camp seems to be appreciating this fact. I am not sure of the supreme leader, he wouldn’t be that secure). that would also inject hope to a 70 million people. with a Shiite Iraq friendly to Iran, and probably Bahrain underway, there is not such a bloc of immediate anti-Iran front in the Arab world. making a comparison between the Shah’s era and current situation is not a realistic one.
Matthew
Well for the same kind of argument it can also be interpreted that they are so sure there wouldn’t be attacked that they are willing to bring it up to the ground level
So the jets wouldn’t be burdened with carrying the heavy bunker busters.
But for years the argument of an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was to destroy Iran’s enrichment capability and not only the product, if the propose is to get read of the product there is an easier way just confirmed by Iran with its recent letter to IAEA proposing trade with 20% fuel for Tehran TRR in batches and inside Iranian soil, Valla no need to bomb
This childish arguments coming out of NYT by Ross and co. shows that they chiefs are running out of propaganda too
I have previously been trying to include a link to Iran’s Feb 18 letter to IAEA but, this site wouldn’t upload it
The link bellow is a picture of Assad and Ahmadinijad in his recent trip to Syria praying in a Sunni Mosque in Damascus behind a Sunni mufti
The title of the picture is “Picture of president’s respect to the Sunni sect “
In description it explains that for the unity of Sunni, Shih the president prays behind a Sunni mufti
It also explains that for the propose of unity of the Sunnis and shih Muslims there has been a fatwa by shih grand ayatollahs that will allow the shih sect to pray behind a Sunni mufti without the use of Mohr (prayer clay) Sunnis do not allow use of prayer clay and shih prayers can now observe that
With reference to my pervious arguments I brought this up so you understand how important this unity is for Iran
http://jahannews.com/vdcc4oqo.2bq4o8laa2.html
What do you all make of Iran moving its nuclear fuel stockpile out into the open on Feb. 14? http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/wo…ref=middleeast
The choices suggested by the article are: 1) brinksmanship to force US negotiations; 2) inviting an Israeli attack; or 3) that the Iranians simply ran out of storage space.
At this point, I am leaning toward 2, but would love to hear what you all think.
It was Friday night and like old collage days was the night to be out
Jon
“Kooshy, I can’t agree that a US-Iranian combination or condominium would be a “kiss of death” for Iran, as you aver. If we fantasize for a moment that the two states (US and Iran) perceive their common interests and choose to work together in partnership, there is no possible power combination that could challenge them. Saudi Arabia, or any combination of Sunni states, would basically be helpless before a US-Iranian alliance.”
Yes Jon that can happen but only if we were living in a Utopia. But the real facts on the ground are that after Iran, Iraq war the Saudi state or for fact any other state in the region doesn’t poses a military threat to Iran, and certainly Iran is not threaten by the Arab Shih street, actually the region’s Shih seek and need Iran’s support and Iran dutifully has to provide but that is as long as Iran is not also subverting their Arab nationalism in an overt way.
I believe the biggest threat to Iran’s national security from its immediate region, can currently come from Sunni Muslim Arab street vs. Iran/Persian/Shih and this can happen if Iran is complacent to US without a just and fair resolution of I/P/ issue in regular Muslim/Arab street eye (see I used Muslim and not Shih or Sunni), I think this is why Iran needs and is insisting on Muslim unity, this is why you never hear any Iranian statesman promoting or empowering shih but they consistently emphasis on Muslim unity a good example is the current events in Yemen. Currently the biggest threat for Iran is a Sunni vs. Shih inflammation in the region caused by an Iranian/Persian wrong move.
Alan
I agree with your last post, the essence of the problem is that Iran doesn’t need the US to solve its political problem in the region, Iran actually sees that a condominium with US will add to its current regional political problem since it will need to carry the heavy weight of US, this is will be similar with US’s current regional political problem vis-à-vis US/ Israel/Arab policy in the region (between the rock and the hard place), Iran truly needs US help with some economic as well as development and access to a broader market, that is why a cost benefit from an Iranian point of view is so delegate. I do share your view that if US is seeking a new long term security structure in the ME region for brooder global balance of power issues it will definitely need to change its current I/P policy, otherwise I personally don’t see any negotiations with Iran will have any meaning way for both sides. You know that will require a lot of impossible house cleaning on this side of table.
John
“I agree. But it depends on the terms of the condominium. If the United States were to deal with Iran as an equal, at least in the Persian Gulf, Iran would gain enormous prestige. And the US would gain a powerful partner.”
In my opinion Iran doesn’t necessarily seek to be treated as an equal vis-à-vis US’s Arab allied states, as l mentioned above more impotently Iran does not need to add US’s current bad image in the region to its own somewhat currently recuperated image, that will have to be fixed before a meaningful security condominium can be formed. Contrary to what is perceived in the media here, to my opinion the guys in Tehran are very calculated, especially when it comes to Iran’s national interest, and I also believe they are very nationalist, considering the circumstances I don’t see that they have made too many mistakes with their FP positions.
Jon – there is no way Iran places the Palestinians before their own interests, and there is no way the Palestinians place Iran before their’s. Most of Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric on it is purely populist, but it is consistent because it chimes with the whole rationale of their own form of government. It also chimes with their other source of legitimacy, the international non-aligned movement, where both Iran and Palestine have considerable support. The important point though is Iran does not have the power to kick something off in Palestine or Lebanon. Both Hamas and Hizballah will only act in the interests of Palestinians and Lebanese.
On the Iran I/P link in Obama’s policy, it seems there was a co-ordinated proposal in May/June/July 2009 between the US, EU and the PA to declare a Palestinian state in 2011 and put it to the UNSC, an effort to put I/P firmly back on the 2003 Roadmap. I wasn’t aware of the extent of co-ordination over it, believing it was largely Fayyad’s idea. This is what Israel now seeks to kill off, and Obama knows he has to tie Israel’s hands if he is to make any progress with it. He can only do that by bringing Iran in from the cold, because Israel will exploit that open flank mercilessly unless he does. To be sure, Israel have a host of other tricks they can pull, and the increasing provocation of Syria, Hamas, Fatah and Hizballah are examples, as is the listing of the mosques in Hebron and Bethlehem for seizure and demolition.
An interesting read:
http://blogs.aljazeera.net/imperium/2010/02/27/it-time-obama-meet-ahmadinejad
John H:
“It depends on the terms of the condominium” — of course, that goes without saying.
Certainly an arrangement would have to be on a basis of equality — equal obligations (to the extent the disparity in power allows) and equal benefits. It’s my view that U.S.-Iranian freindship, if entered into sincerely, can only be a win for both sides.
You say that if the US were truly working in its self-interest, it would partner with Iran. Quite so. But unfortunately in this day and age diplomacy does not operate in a vacuum, or near vacuum (it never did operate in a vacuum). Politics, religion, influence-peddling all play a part in mucking up what should be a fairly straightforward business. It’s critical that people like the Leveretts — people with establishment cred — keep pushing on this. And we all need to do what we can to stir up public support for them.
Alan:
I’m not convinced that Iran’s positioning itself as the “vanguard of Islamism” is completely sincere, anymore than I’m convinced that it would place the Palestininas above its own state interests. Its efforts in these areas can be tactical without being insincere — I certainly don’t think that the Iranians care for nothing but their own interests. Be that as it may, no state lasts for long if it doesn’t look to its own interests first. But I don’t claim to have expert knowledge on the matter. Vali Nasr had some interesting thoughts on this is his book on Shiism (unfortunately, I no longer have a copy to hand).
Are Obama’s Iranian and I/P policies truly linked? I don’t see it. I will try to read the piece you mention and let you know what I think (assuming I have anything I think is useful to say).
If you guys reply to any of this I’ll respond tomorrow. I’ve got to shovel the driveway, go to the transfer station, and do some painting in one of my apartments. And tonight is “movie night” with my wife and daughter. Plus I’d like to so some writing. So I’ll read your stuff tomorrow.
For the sake of clarity, in my post below I meant Iran’s “principled stand” being complementary to the Palestinian stand.
kooshy – I agree with you. Iran sees itself in the vanguard of not so much Shi’ism, but Islamism. It’s principles and international strategy depend on articulating the interests of the Muslim street. To sacrifice that for an accord with the US would not be acceptable at home, and be at the price of their legitimacy abroad.
Iran seeks to be treated as an equal player in the region. They don’t want to be in the pocket of the US, or dependent on them in any way, and the US will not be able to achieve this without regime change, which in any case would not work beyond the short term because the Iranian people wouldn’t stand for it. Passive nuclear state status is essential (and inevitable), and I think the US is resigned to this fact, and can even see the benefits of it. The key for the US now is, ironically, to bring that to the fore in a peaceful way (i.e. without Israel setting the region alight again).
But this principled stand is complementary to the Palestinian stand, because the same premise underpins both. Nothing will work in Palestine that doesn’t satisfy the Palestinian street, which is no different to the Muslim street.
I have just read a fascinating piece in Jerusalem Quarterly – “A New Convergence” – which convinces me even more that Obama’s Iranian and I/P policies are linked, and that Israels actions under Netanyahu are specifically targeted at undermining it. That is where the risk of war lies today.
I agree. But it depends on the terms of the condominium. If the United States were to deal with Iran as an equal, at least in the Persian Gulf, Iran would gain enormous prestige. And the US would gain a powerful partner.
If the condominium resulted in US domination of Iran, then Iran would be viewed as having surrendered and lose its influence on the Arab street. In essence, Iran would become another Saudi Arabia, independent, but widely viewed as totally corrupt.
The hang-up here is the US need to assert hegemony instead of being open to the idea of shared hegemony. Over the years the idea of shared hegemony has worked well in Europe, where the Europeans are largely independent of the US in Europe but cede leadership outside the region to the US.
Of course, Israel is aghast at the prospect of the US sharing regional hegemony with Iran, which would damage their privileged position and hegemonic aspirations. Much of Israel’s overt belligerence and AIPAC orchestrated pressure probably stems from the fear that Israel could easily be relegated to the position of being just another tribe in the Middle East.
If the US were truly acting in its self interest, it would seek to partner with the biggest, most powerful player in the region. And that would not be Israel.
kooshy, I can’t agree that a US-Iranian combination or condominium would be a “kiss of death” for Iran, as you aver. If we fantasize for a moment that the two states (US and Iran) perceive their common interests and choose to work together in partnership, there is no possible power combination that could challenge them. Saudi Arabia, or any combination of Sunni states, would basically be helpless before a US-Iranian alliance. How could they act in opposition to a military-economic bloc Iran-Iraq-USA? What would they do, call in the Russians or the Chinese? (They certainly wouldn’t turn to the Israelis!) That would be impossible in the face of the geography alone, not to mention the military power the bloc would be able to muster. The oil weapon would be gone from their hands, given that the second and third largest reserves in the world are in Iran and Iraq. Indeed, Saudi Arabia would be forced to remain friendly with the US (and therefore its partner Iran), given that the Eastern province is majority Shia and would be a mere stone’s throw away from both projected US power and the centers of Shiism in Iran and southern Iraq. A US-Iranian combination would overawe the Sunni states, not provoke them to hostility.
Certainly, one can make the argument that such a US-Iranian combination is very, very unlikely to assume tangible form. But were it to do so, it would dominate the entire Middle East and Central Asia, with Russia, China, and the EU left to pick up whatever scraps we decided to leave to them. And the Sunni states, while they might be highly resentful, would have no choice but to accomodate to the US-Iranian hegemon.
Dan thank you
If you haven’t seen yet here is a link to an article I just read that explains why that earlier article can’t be published here
http://www.counterpunch.org/weir02262010.html
Jon
“Surely, Iran is no longer completely surrounded by non-Shia states? What is Iraq today if not a Shia-dominated state?”
Jon southern Iraq and Iran are and will be an hemisphere of Shih influence there has been no change in that, the same is true with Iran and Kurds although they are not Shih, this was true during sadam it is true now removal of sadam has tilted the balance of power toward Iran which is the biggest shih dominated country but Iran can immediately lose this hard gained ground by supporting a hostile US or Israel toward an Arab state. That is a big price to pay in this current atmosphere
Iran has worked hard for gaining this support in the Arab world for all 8 years of Iran Iraq war Iran unlike Sadam correctly adopted a policy not to bomb populated areas, unlike Sadam who probably got a bad advise from his supporters did not use chemical weapons, did not put down Arabs in its propaganda campaigns, did not attack any religious suni or shih buildings they adopted a policy of Islam against Sadam not Persians against Arabs that was a correct strategic decision and they also did not call it a crusade like JWB did to take back the old Persian empire, if you are in war with a historically hostile neighbor that you will know you will have to live with that is a good investments that you should not loose easily
Kooshy, Thanks
Good comparisons regarding the Dubai assassination.
When it comes to Israel’s atrocities, the west deliberately avoids using equilibrium comparisons in order to protect Israel at all costs, however if Iran was accuse of such blatant disregard for international law, Ahmadinejad would have been crucified by now.
As both “Seumas Milne” and “Aijaz Zaka Syed” put in their respective articles;
“If Iranian intelligence was involved in Dubai assassination it would have -triggered a major international storm and declarations that Iran is a state-sponsored terrorism, and a debate at the UN ¬security Council, with demands for harsher ¬sanctions against Islamic republic.”
Disregard for justice and the hypocrisy and double standard of the western governments in this case and many other cases, is the reason for the rise of fundamentalism around the world and the biggest threat to world peace.
Israel is clearly involved in state-sponsored terrorism and getting away with murder again.
Professor “James Petras” has written an article about it which is interesting:
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1797&more=1&c=1
“Israel’s practice of extra-judicial, extra-territorial assassinations, exemplified by the recent murder of Mahmoud al Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel room, violates all the fundamental precepts of the rule of law. Extra-judicial killings ordered by a state, mean its own secret police are judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner, unrestrained by sovereignty, law and the duty of nations to protect their citizens and visitors. Evidence, legal procedures, defence and cross examinations are obliterated in the process. State-sponsored, extra-judicial murder completely undermines due process. Liquidation of opponents abroad is the logical next step after Israel’s domestic show trials, based on the application of its racial laws and administrative detention decrees, which have dispossessed the Palestinian people and violated international laws.”
Alan
“The only real chance of an I/P solution would be if it was in the strategic interests of the US to force one. This could only be where the US no longer views Israel as an asset, and the Lobby has been neutered. The only circumstances where I can see that happening would be where Iran has already made its peace with the US, and the US has changed its approach to the region as a whole.”
Agreed but as I mentioned on my last post this two are too closely interlinked one would unbalance the other, the only way that could be possible to happen is the Pakistan, India solution that
is if Iran becomes a declared or a non declared (modeled after Japan) nuclear state, then US will have a forceful hand to force Israel to a mining full settlement acceptable to Arab street with regard to I/P in that case since Israel no longer can be an strategic, US will be able to negotiate with Iran for a regional security structure
Jon
That is why Iran is between the rock and the hard place, without a FAIR and JUST resolution to the eye of Muslim /Arab street a condominium between Iran and US will be a kiss of death for Iran as well as for the entire Shih population of the region, in this case Iran will reverse all the ground that has gained since the 2003 Iraq invasion.
What kind of shield can US provide to Iran? sure it can provide protection from Israel and Arab allied kings but it can’t provide protection from the hostile Muslim opinions.
Iran is no longer threaten by USSR or even Russia or China so why would it need a shield by a super power, why should Iran become a friendly complacent government to a superpower that is hated by all the people in his immediate neighborhood, it’s like to be a loan broker in a foreclosed neighborhood I agree that Iran needs US but at what price currently the price is too high to pay. Since the fall of the soviets, Iran can’t and doesn’t need to adopt the foreign policy of the Shah and Nixon era.
To my opinion this is the core of the problem, the irony is that US / European will need Iran in a greater way than Iran needs them with regard to future global balance of power, however in the current structural format they can’t comprehend in a way that is beneficial enough to Iran regional balance of power.This is why a regime change in Iran regardless of its impact on the region is preferable then the statuesque and this is why the US policy has not been and can’t be changed in a substantive way even with Mr. Obama in the office regardless of all of the fists and hands and all of that.
kooshy – interesting points. I don’t think there is any chance of a US/European engineered 2-state solution. Such a solution would be so inadequate that if Abbas were to agree to one, he could never take the Palestinians with him, let alone the Muslim street as a whole. So Iran is safe on that score.
However, if the impossible happened and they did come up with the type of solution that the majority of Palestinians would support, I don’t think there is the remotest chance Hamas or Hizballah would scupper it on behalf of Iran. I think Hizballah would stay out of it altogether, while Hamas would only act within its core nationalist Palestinian values.
The only real chance of an I/P solution would be if it was in the strategic interests of the US to force one. This could only be where the US no longer views Israel as an asset, and the Lobby has been neutered. The only circumstances where I can see that happening would be where Iran has already made its peace with the US, and the US has changed its approach to the region as a whole.
In those circumstances, the type of settlement would be more likely to be one that the Palestinians and Muslim street would accept. Iran would have already secured its own interests and be back at the top table in the region.
That is an interesting piece from the Guardian.
I’m interested in kooshy’s take on how a 2-state solution affects Iranian national security (in theory, that is; I agree any resolution of the Palestine issue seems remote). Surely, Iran is no longer completely surrounded by non-Shia states? What is Iraq today if not a Shia-dominated state? Also, Iran may not desire a superpower “shield” anymore, but what about a strategic arrangement based on equality and mutual benefit with a superpower — say, the USA? Assume for a moment that the US is willing. Wouldn’t such an arrangement more than shield Iran from the historic hostility of the Sunni states? Indeed, if we consider that the Saudi Eastern Province (where all the oil lies) is majority Shia, wouldn’t a US-Iranian condominium incorporating Iraq leave the Sunni states at the mercy, as it were, of that combination? Wouldn’t a US-Iranian strategic partnership be an unchallengeable arbiter of the Gulf and beyond?
Alan
I forgot to mention Iran took similar position in regard to invasion of Afghanistan and specially Iraq although both nations were hostile to Iran
Iran disapproved the invasions to maintain its popular standing but as Levretts written she was cooperative to restore
That is you to have someone else keep your troubles away without you being blamed for unpopular actions.
Alan
Here is my short analysis with regard to Iran’s position on I/P resolution is that, Iran is between the rock and the hard place very similar to the US position but in a different way.
Here are a few facts that we need to considered to understand the current Iranian position on this issue
Iran is a Shih Muslim nation and it can’t change out of that,
Iran is surrounded by non Shih Muslim Arabs and Turkic nations
Iran has had a distant history of hostility with both of these groups, up until the Europeans moved in to the Middle East
Iran no longer has or can accept a super power shield like it did before the revolution;
Iran’s market for industrial and agricultural development will be its immediate surrounding countries including Central Asia
Regardless of cultural and geopolitical differences Iran will need the Muslim street support that Iran currently enjoys and to some extend it is shielding it from the historic wrath. Iran’s acceptance of a US/ European engineered solution (2 states) will end this Muslim street support which is now a permanent part of Iran’s balance of power
So what position Iran should take that will maintain the current balance of power, and keeps both sides engaged for foreseeable future?
A good solution would be what the Muslim street would like but can’t happen. Here we have it a Referendum on the future of Palestine that includes all the present and migrated Palestinians as well as the Jews. You know that can’t happen since US/European and Israelis will not accept and the Muslim streets think you are fair and just.
Kooshy – what is your view of the impact of an I/P 2-state solution on Iran’s national security interests?
Not that the situation is likely to arise any time soon.
Dan FYI
“EU collective recall of ambassadors from Iran took place for the first time with the Mikonos trial in Germany that led to an international arrest warrant for then Iranian intelligence minister Ali Fallahian. As a precedent, Britain had recalled its ambassador from Tehran in late 1980s after Imam Khomeini’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses. There were calls for a similar measure after the controversial presidential election in Iran, but such a tough diplomatic measure is unlikely at the present. Europe has decided to wait and see how things turn out in the domestic scene of Iran’s politics.”
And here is the link
http://www.irdiplomacy.ir/index.php?Lang=en&Page=21&TypeId=12&ArticleId=6636&BranchId=42&Action=ArticleBodyView
Dan FYI
This exact same situation (excluding the passports) has happened before with regard to Mykonos restaurant assassinations of 1992. As the results the European states recalled their ambassadors from Tehran till 1997 right after Khatami was inaugurated president, I wonder why nobody likes to make the comparison , could it be if you did then you need to keep the same standard ?
Having read the op-ed kooshy brought to our attention, I managed to find the following link from it which is equally interesting to read.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/18/dubai-hamas-murder-uk-israeli-ambassador
Imagine for a moment what the reaction would be if Iranian intelligence was almost unversally believed to have assassinated a leader of one of the organisations fighting the Tehran government in a western-friendly state. Then consider how Britain, let alone the US, might respond if the killers had carried out the operation using forged or stolen passports of citizens of four European states, including Britain, with dual Iranian nationality.
Thanks for a very informative cost benefits analysis from the Israeli point of view and Israel’s options with regards to the US / ME/Iran. To understand the politics of the entire region it would be informative if Dr. Levrett does a similar essay for the Iranian point of view. Especially if a resolution of I/P in its current proposed format (2 states) would be in Iran’s national security interests. After all no one believes that the balance of power in the region is still in the same format as it was in 2003.
The op-ed kooshy brings to our attention is well worth the read.
Jon – “I would tend to agree with Alan that Iran and Palestine are closely linked, except I’m not so sure that the Iranians really think that way (except as a tactical expedient, when needed).”
The link is not made by Iran, it’s made by Israel. It is Israel threatening to bomb Iran if the US doesn’t, because Israel sees a nuclear capable Iran not as an existential threat, but as a strategic threat to their regional hegemony. The immediate manifestation of this threat is detente between Iran and the US. The minute that happens, the US will start looking at both sides of the I/P story and that Israel just cannot countenance for all sorts of reasons.
Another Israel-instigated war would be most likely as a spoiler to US/Iran rapprochement, because as I said below, after such a rapprochement Israel’s room for manoeuvre will be much reduced.
That photo is from 2002. (Khatami era)
A very interesting picture, indeed.
An interesting picture. The person sitting between Seyed Hassan Nasrallah and Khalid Mishal is the reformist Mohtashami, who was one of Mousavi’s closest allies during the presidential election.
It pretty clear that Shaykh Hassan Nasrallah is warning Israel not to start another war. There is now a balance of terror between Israel and Lebanon.
An Arab point of view you would not find in western media
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2010/987/op153.htm
Great article.
Fascinating. Thank you for this. I agree that it is unlikely that Israel is preparing the groundwork for another preemptive war. I think both your second and third thoughts are in fact in play. As to the third, the Israelis are taking a big gamble in betting Obama won’t be reelected. The recent election successes of the Republicans in Virginia, New Jersey, and Massachusetts may be telling us something about 2010, but 2012 is a political lifetime away. All my adult life I’ve been hearing, during the second and third years of an administration, that the president’s chances for reelection are poor. It actually happened to Carter and Bush I, true. But no Republican likely to be nominated in 2012 (What am I saying? No Republican, period.) is likely to beat Obama. In my view after 2010 we will be looking at a replay of Clinton after the ‘94 Republican sweep. The Israelis are being rather cocky if they think Obama’s a goner in 2012.
I would tend to agree with Alan that Iran and Palestine are closely linked, except I’m not so sure that the Iranians really think that way (except as a tactical expedient, when needed).
Is the Obama administration up to the task? They have capable people like Gates, Jones and Holbrooke, but do they (that is, the president, Biden, Rahm) truly understand the issues, and are they willing to spend political capital in a big way to move forward? Based on what we’ve seen so far, one would have to say no.
So where does that leave us? Suppose the next 30 months are indeed “garbage time,” but that over time he Israelis come to see Obama’s reelection as likely. Do they then hit the Iranian nuclear facilities, since four more years of Obama would mean no U.S. military action? Certainly the Israelis don’t want to hit Iran unless they (as they see it) have to. But if U.S. action appears unlikely, won’t they feel compelled to act? And then where are we? What would follow in Iraq, Lebanon, the Gulf, Afghanistan?
Drift is our enemy. The Obama administration has a duty before the American people to make every effort to engage Iran before the region explodes.
Thanks again for this excellent piece. Concentrate on putting out stuff like this, and don’t trouble yourselves about the Lee Smiths of the world.
Wow! There is so much to discuss here that I don’t know where to start. It’s rather astonishing that Jim Jones said that, because it is a very basic misreading of both Hamas and Hizballah to believe they do Iran’s bidding. I take solace in the fact that Jones once told someone I know that the US doesn’t trust Israel one inch, and hope that is the overarching view that dictates US strategy.
I would say neither Hamas nor Hizballah would ever provoke a war with Israel; they haven’t before and won’t now. To say that the 2008-09 war was a success because Hamas have observed a ceasefire since doesn’t take account for the fact that they were observing a strict ceasefire before it as well. With Hizballah, it is certainly true that the Israeli attack of 2006 has dissuaded them from the very occasional cross-border attacks that did take place beforehand, however the same is true for Israel because the Hizballah response to the 2006 invasion dissuades another Israeli attack.
The Israeli assassination of Mabhouh and the attacks on Hamas people in Gaza recently are clear attempts at provocation, while the Israeli attacks on Fatah people in the West Bank seem geared toward intimidation. Al Ahram reported that reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas was getting closer, but the rather clumsy revelations of Fatah people involved with the Israelis in Mabhouh’s assassination seem designed to upset it.
As far as Obama is concerned, it shows how interlinked Iran and Palestine is. I still think Obama can pull off a serious political coup if a deal is done with Iran, because it pulls the rug out from under Israel and forces their machinations into public view. In an environment where there is detente with the Iranians, I don’t believe the US public will be easily persuaded they should be bombed. In fact, any Israeli belligerence is much more likely to rapidly burn through their goodwill. It enables Obama to bring real pressure to bear over Palestine, and Arab faith in him as an honest broker would surge. Might even win him an election.
Great article.