There are two countries in the world which are routinely described by American politicians across the political spectrum as having a “special relationship” with the United States–Israel and the United Kingdom. We have all grown more familiar than we probably like to acknowledge with Israel using its channels to Capitol Hill and in America’s pro-Israel community to “outflank” an American administration–and virtually always to the right. (As we discussed earlier this week on www.TheRaceForIran.com, this dynamic was on high-profile display in the context of AIPAC’s recent policy conference.) By contrast, we are not at all accustomed to seeing the most senior diplomatic representatives of Her Majesty’s Government doing this. But that may be what Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the British ambassador in Washington, and Foreign Secretary David Miliband are doing.
On Monday, March 22—the day that the annual AIPAC conference opened in Washington—Sir Nigel spoke to The American Jewish Committee of Miami/Broward County on the topic, “Iran: The Threat and Our Strategy: The British Approach.” Today, Sheinwald has published an Op Ed in POLITICO highlighting the Iranian threat. In his speech and follow-on Op Ed, Sir Nigel acknowledged that, at times, Tehran has cooperated with U.S. and Western initiatives (although he is factually wrong to describe Iran’s post-9/11 cooperation with Washington on Afghanistan and Al-Qa’ida as “occasional contacts”). But the Ambassador’s summary judgment about the Islamic Republic’s diplomatic record is that, since the Iranian Revolution in 1979, “Iran has preoccupied foreign policy makers largely for the wrong reasons”. More specifically, he cites
“…Iran’s aggressive attempts to export the Revolution in the 1980s and its continued state support for terrorism, including groups that use violence to undermine the Middle East Peace Process: today Iran is the only state in the region that does not support the idea of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. My own government has strongly condemned the Iranian regime’s repugnant threats to the State of Israel and denial of the Holocaust. We also have longstanding concerns about Iran’s human rights record, concerns that have deepened during the prolonged period of disturbances and state intimidation since last June’s elections.”
Sir Nigel’s dominant focus, though, is clearly the nuclear issue. On this issue, the Ambassador’s rhetoric is subtle, and one must know something about the details of the P-5+1 nuclear talks (as a proper European, Sheinwald describes them as the “EU-3+3″ talks) and the discussions about how the Tehran Research Reactor (TRR) might be refueled to appreciate the full significance of his words. In this regard, two topics in Sir Nigel’s speech deserve special attention.
First, the Ambassador heaps considerable praise on the P-5+1/EU-3+3 incentives “package” as a “generous package of benefits”, to which Iran could enjoy access if only it would suspend uranium enrichment. But this characterization, both of the incentives package itself and the requirement that Iran first suspend its fuel cycle activities, is disingenuous on three levels.
Sir Nigel’s characterization of the suspension requirement is disingenuous because it completely overlooks the fact that Tehran suspended its fuel cycle activities for almost two years, during 2003-2005, when the “EU-3″-Britain, France, and Germany-were conducting their own nuclear negotiations with Iran. Conversations with a wide range of current and former Iranian officials from across the Islamic Republic’s factional spectrum indicate that there is a widespread sense in Iran today that the decision to suspend, which is commonly attributed (at least in its instigation) to then-President Khatami, was a strategic and tactical mistake. Iran received no tangible benefits for this suspension, the Europeans largely failed to carry through on their reciprocal commitments because of pressure from the George W. Bush Administration in Washington, and Tehran lost valuable time in developing its fuel cycle infrastructure. Indeed, it is not hard to find people in Tehran today who supported and, in some cases, even worked for President Khatami who believe that he did not serve Iran’s national interests well by pushing within the Islamic Republic’s decision-making circles for a commitment to suspend Iran’s enrichment activities.
Sheinwald’s characterization of the P-5+1/EU-3+3 incentives package as “generous” is also disingenuous because that package does nothing to address the Islamic Republic’s core security concerns. To understand this point, it is illuminating to compare the incentives package finally and grudgingly tabled by the EU-3 (without Washington) in August 2005 as the Iranians were taking the decision to resume enriching uranium, to the package tabled by the P-5+1/EU-3+3 in June 2006, after the George W. Bush Administration had consented to join the multilateral process regarding Iran’s nuclear program.
Regarding the prospects for economic and technological cooperation with Iran, the two packages are broadly similar—indeed, in a few passages, the two documents are almost identical, word-for-word. But there is a profound disconnect between the two packages regarding regional security issues.
–The 2005 EU-3 package offers the Islamic Republic positive security assurances, negative security guarantees and a commitment to cooperate in establishing ”confidence-building measures and regional security arrangements” as well as a regional weapons-of-mass-destruction-free zone. But, as European diplomats involved in nuclear discussions with Iran readily acknowledge, security assurances and guarantees from Europe alone were never especially interesting to Tehran—to be meaningful for the Islamic Republic’s strategic needs and interests, it was essential that the United States endorse such measures.
–But the George W. Bush Administration refused to join in offers of security assurances and guarantees to the Islamic Republic. In contrast to the 2005 EU-3 package, there is little mention of security issues in the 2006 P-5+1/EU-3+3 package endorsed by the United States, except for an offer of ‘’support for a new conference to promote dialogue and cooperation on regional security issues”. Conversations with officials from P-5+1/EU-3+3 governments indicate that the George W. Bush administration insisted that fuller references to security be removed as a condition for US endorsement. Within the EU-3, Britain took the lead in arguing that it was more important to get the George W. Bush Administration into the diplomatic process than to get the substance of the policy right.
Having helped to sell this flawed bill of goods to the P-5+1/EU-3+3, Britain has been determined ever since to make sure that the flaws are not addressed. Certainly, the deficits in the package were not substantially corrected in the ”revised” P-5+1/EU-3+3 package tabled in June 2008. Although the revised package included more language on regional political and security issues than the 2006 package, on the core issue of the Islamic Republic’s national security, the document only reaffirms states’ ”obligation under the UN Charter to refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the integrity or political independence of any state or in any manner inconsistent with the Charter of the United Nations”. But, unless the United States and the United Kingdom are prepared to acknowledge that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was inconsistent with those countries’ obligations under the UN Charter, it is not clear why Iranian leaders should be satisfied with this revised P-5+1/EU-3+3 package.
Strikingly, when the Obama Administration, in its initial months in office, considered whether the incentives package should be modified to correct these deficiencies and, perhaps, make the package actually respond to Iranian security interests, Her Majesty’s Government—with Sheinwald in the lead here in Washington—lobbied hard against any substantial modification of the package. China and Russia both understood very well why the package needed to be modified, and Germany was quietly supportive of such an approach. But Britain, with French support, worked hard to ensure that this did not happen—and in the end, it did not, an outcome that has helped to render the Obama Administration’s vague expressions of interest in negotiations with Tehran incredible in the eyes of Iran’s leadership.
Additionally, Sir Nigel’s characterization of the suspension requirement is disingenuous because it obscures the reality that Her Majesty’s government is determined to avoid any diplomatic outcome that would legitimate enrichment on Iranian soil, and has been deeply concerned from before Obama’s election as president that he would be willing to accept such an outcome. On this point, the Daily Telegraph reported during the 2008 campaign that Sir Nigel had sent a cable to London warning that
“If Obama wins, we will need to consider with him the articulation between (a) his desire for ‘unconditional’ dialogue with Iran and (b) our and the [United Nations Security Council]’s requirement of prior suspension of enrichment before the nuclear negotiations proper can begin.”
Similarly, the Washington Post’s Glenn Kessler reported during the campaign that British officials including senior diplomats here in Washington, were concerned
“that Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign pledge to begin direct talks with Iran on its nuclear program without preconditions could potentially rupture U.S. relations with key European allies early in a potential Obama administration.”
Kessler’s report, as well as our own conversations in Washington and Europe, indicate that this perspective was shared by senior French diplomats as well.
Against this backdrop, Sir Nigel’s speech and Op Ed should be read, at least in part, as a reflection of further British efforts to keep the Obama Administration from going “wobbly” (to use Mrs. Thatcher’s famous phrase) on the enrichment question. Zero enrichment might be an ideal outcome from a strict non proliferation standpoint—and would keep Iran’s nuclear progress from eroding whatever strategic value London believes it accrues from its own small nuclear weapons arsenal. But, to insist on zero enrichment as the goal of nuclear negotiations with Tehran, at this point, is a wholly unrealistic proposition that undermines possibilities for winning Iran’s agreement to rigorous international monitoring of its fuel cycle activities to minimize their associated proliferation risks. Her Majesty’s representatives are working to minimize the chances—which we do not believe are that high to start with—that the Obama Administration might actually end up taking a diplomatic position with some higher probability of sparking productive negotiations with Tehran.
The second issue raised by Sheinwald that warrants a corrective look is the discussion about refueling the TRR. The Ambassador points to Iran’s “refusal to engage” with the ElBaradei proposal for refueling the TRR, but this formulation is inaccurate to the point of being misleading. As we have demonstrated repeatedly on www.TheRaceForIran.com, Iran has accepted the idea of a “swap”, in which some part of its current stockpile of low-enriched uranium would be exchanged for new fuel for the TRR. However, Tehran wants to negotiate important details of the arrangement. It is the Obama Administration which has defined the ElBaradei proposal as a “take it or leave it” proposition. What is particularly galling about Sir Nigel’s presentation is that some of his senior colleagues in the Foreign Office have told us that, as a matter of policy, Her Majesty’s Government does not want a deal on refueling the TRR to go through—because, as a practical matter, that would preclude movement in the United Nations Security Council to impose additional sanctions against the Islamic Republic, which is the real goal of British policy at this point. So, just in case President Obama and his advisers might be considering a more flexible position on the details of the ElBaradei proposal, Sheinwald is seeking, ever so subtly, to hem them in.
Sir Nigel’s efforts this week were reinforced today by the publication of an Op Ed in the International Herald Tribune by the Ambassador’s boss, Foreign Secretary David Miliband. Miliband’s piece is an argument for moving forthwith to new sanctions in the Security Council, without stopping to explore whether diplomatic proposals which actually met Iranian needs and accommodated Iranian interests might work better than the initiatives currently on the table.
It is bad enough that Her Majesty’s Government is promoting such predictably counterproductive policy approaches to Iran. But it is especially appalling given the Blair Government’s dismal performance in empowering the Bush Administration’s disastrous decision-making in the run up to the Iraq war—an initiative that has done profound damage to America’s long-term strategic position.
Her Majesty’s government may be doing the same thing now with regard to Iran. Sheinwald’s speech and op-ed and Miliband’s op-ed are permeated with fulsome rhetoric about the potentially transformative character of the Green Movement and suggestions of the current power structures’ illegitimacy. We, of course, believe this is a fundamentally wrong-headed reading of Iranian politics. Is London really ready to help Washington go down the primrose path of regime change in the Middle East one more time? Because, if Washington follows London’s diplomatic advice, that is, in all probability, the place where American policy will end up.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Fiorangela,
Yes, Doug Feith was at the heart of the disinformation scheme, based in the Pentagon, that set out to bring on the invasion of Iraq by feeding directly into the White House. Feith worked under Wolfowitz, and Rumsfeld protected the operation. The chairman of the Defense Policy Board, Richard Perle, wanted to overthrow the governments of Iraq. Syria and Iran – – to secure Israel’s future. Perle, Feith and Wolfowitz all worked as paid consultants to Netanyahu in the 1990s. Advising him on how to manipulate US power to “protect” Israel (and keep the Golan Heights and the West Bank).
In the Name of GOD
A Theory for Understanding International Politic
There is no doubt that any political course has a theoretical background. Cognition is the essence of understanding the present international politics. What shall we do to find out the best foreign policy to follow? Example of British Prime Ministers used their “Special Relationship” with the US Presidents to bring US foreign policy into the path of “Interdependency” and “Engagement” with the aim to manipulate US power. In 1940s Churchill manipulated Roosevelt to formulate the “Post War Order”. Churchill was successful because uncovered information proves it. Again, in 1960s, Macmillan manipulated Kennedy for nuclear “interdependency” and containment of France. Macmillan was successful due to new information. In 1980s, Thatcher too, “manipulated” Regan to formulate “Post German Reunification”. In 2000s, Blair, “manipulating” George Bush to get US “engaged” to formulate the “Middle East”.
Examples:
During Second World War, in a meeting between US and British officials, a note was fond in the dustbin. The note belonged to British delegation but was found by American official. It was published after three decades as follow:
“In Washington, Lord Halifax (British wartime ambassador)
Once whispered to Lord Keynes:
It’s true they (US) have the money bags
But we (British) have all Brains”.
(Richard N. Gardner, “Sterling-Dollar Diplomacy in Current Perspective”, International Affairs, London, winter 1985/6, vol. 62, no. 1, p. 21)
When Churchill was asked by de Gaulle to form a new alliance with France for European cooperation, Churchill replied: “In politics as in strategy, it is better to persuade the stronger than to pit yourself against him. The Americans have immense resources. They do not always use them to the best advantage. I am trying to enlighten them, without forgetting, of course, to benefit my country. I proceed by suggestion in order to influence matters in the right direction”.
(Complete War Memoirs of Chares de Gaulle, tr. by Simon & Schuster, vol. I to III, p. 727)
Macmillan also said: “We are like the Greeks in the late Roman Empire. They ran it because they were so much cleverer than the Romans, but they never told the Romans this. That must be our relations to the Americans”.
(Randall B. Woods & Howard Jones, Dawning of the Cold War: The US quest for Order, (University of Georgia Press – 1991), pp. 11-12)
Thatcher said: “We aren’t worried about the abuse of American power. Our principal worry is that American troops will go home. We need to pursue policies that will persuade America to remain a European power”.
(Robin Harris, ed., Margaret Thatcher, The collected speeches, (Harper Collins Publisher – 1997), pp. 517-518)
Blair encourages Bush to act unilaterally. Shortly after Iraq’s invasion he said to the Congressman if any American asked you the political leader “why me? Why us? Why America?” tell him: “destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time and the task is yours to do”.
(Blair’s speech to the US Congress, 10 Downing Street, 18 July 2003)
In April 24, 1999, (7 months before Bush’s Administration), Blair in Chicago said: “We are witnessing the beginning of a new doctrine of international community. If anything Americans are too ready to see no need to get involved in affairs of the rest of the world. The most pressing foreign policy problem we face is to identify the circumstances in which we should get involved in other people’s conflicts. Non-interference has long been considered an important principle of international order. If we wanted to right every wrong we would do little else than intervene in the affairs of other countries. So we decide when and whether to intervene.”
(Blair’s at Economic Club, Chicago, 24 April 1999)
A report by Congress on Iraq War inquiry reads: “The Intelligence Community relies too heavily on foreign government services and third party reporting, thereby increasing the potential for manipulation of US policy by foreign interests.”
(Report on the US intelligence community’s pre-war intelligence assessment on Iraq, Senate Committee on Intelligence, 108th Congress, 07.07.2004, p. 34)
On page 66 it reads: “On January 28, 2003, the President noted in his State Union address that: The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa.” On page 71, the report reads: “The Iraq-Niger uranium deal was on false documents.” Senator Barbara A. Mikulski, who also was a member of the Senate committee said: “US intelligence agencies were wrong about Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. Errors were not limited to the CIA. They also occurred at the Department of Defense and State. Flawed intelligence was fuel for activating the policy of pre-emption” (P. 508)
On 23rdOctober 2004, in an article in the Guardian newspaper, it was reported that “Tony Blair is the original neoconservative”. It reads: “In domestic and foreign policy, Blair has always been ahead of Bush.”
(Ben Rawlence, “Tony Blair is the original neocon”, The Guardian, 23.10.2004)
From 1940, due to the lack of experience in international relations, US power and resources has been abused and “Manipulated” for the benefits of others via “Interdependency” and “Engagement”. Stop it.
Vahid KARIMI (Ph. D)
James, Yes, it is disturbing that UK is being zionized. Blair does seem to be the link, and a well paid link, according to a recent report.
Another very distressing issue raised in the article is the parallel between Doug Feith’s Office of Special Plans, which fed false intelligence to US lawmakers (while making deals with Chalabi for the benefit of Israel), and Stuart Levey’s post at Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence.
Joachim Martillo has a special dislike for Levey’s evil deeds: http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2009/06/from-epistemic-to-bureacratic.html
“One of the ways in which pressure is exerted on Iran is the TFI, the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Grant Smith, director of the IRmep, the Institute for Research: Middle Eastern Policy, writes that ‘AIPAC and its associated think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), were instrumental in lobbying the president for the creation of the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence unit early in 2004′. This entity employs financial resources like a crowbar against the defenses that Iran tries to maintain.
Smith explains in an interview (4:25) that since 2004 the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) has been housed in the Treasury Department. It’s led by someone appointed by Bush and retained by Obama, Stuart Levey. The Wall Street Journal writes: ‘[...] Stuart Levey, will travel to Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. “We are pointing out that they face dramatic risks by doing business with Iran,” Mr. Levey said in an interview Tuesday’. Smith: ‘It looks as though what it’s trying to do is to surround and encompass Iran and maybe, if they’re really lucky, get them to leave the Non Proliferation Treaty so that Iran can become an even easier target. [...] It’s rapidly proven itself to be mainly a sharp edged tool for setting a lot of these trip wires’.
‘The TFI Is Like the OSP, the Office of Special Plans’
Smith compares the TFI with the OSP, the Office of Special Plans”
James, this idea will never work, not because Ahmadinijad will approve or not, he is not the problem,
The real problem is the Israel’s demography for years Israel is trying to reduce it is already apartheid Arab population, how in the world would they agree to add by migration to their Palestinian Arab population, while they have tried for years in every which way to get them out of the land?
Not even Tony the British comedian can sell this.
The director of the Middle East Centre at St. Anthony’s College at Oxford has an interesting piece in the Financial Times today: “Refugees for settlers is the way forward for Israel”. It is a position Ahmadinejad should study carefully. Eugene Rogan calls for an independent Palestine, West Bank plus Gaza, allowing currently illegal Jewish settlers to remain, living under Palestinian law, with an equal number of Palestinians allowed to settle in Israel, relocating from refugee camps in Lebanon and Syria.
Fiorangela,
Glad you like the article. You put your finger on one of the key issues of the day, in my opinion, which is: Why should the UK advocate Middle East policies that seem to emanate for Aipac, Winep, the neocons, and other right-wing Zionism-promoting groups?
The Israeli tail has wagged the American dog for decades now, but to have the Israeli tail wag the British dog is disturbing. The UK was a crucial part of the false-inelligence planting and circulation that led up to the insane invasion of Iraq. Tony Blair foolishly aided and abetted the circulation and re-circulation of the false intelligence used to dupe the American public. Has Blair been rewarded financially, with millions of pounds, for his services in this regard?
Mark – I think the actual Iranian suspension of enrichment was total, the problem was the flawed nature of the Tehran Declaration and the Paris Agreement, neither of which were worded in a sufficiently clear way to delineate precisely what each party thought the other was signed up to.
Regarding the 18 years of systematic violation of safeguards, the only thing that can be shown with any degree of certainty is that Iran failed to report certain activities. There were no covert facilites for example that should have been subject to safeguards and were not. The nature of these reporting failures would not normally be considered sufficient to escalate it to the UNSC.
Interestingly, it was reported yesterday that a committee of parliamentarians meeting to consider whether the UK had a “special relationship” with the US concluded that it did not, and that politicians should refrain from using the phrase in the future.
I don’t think David Miliband’s personal motives should be questioned. He has a number of very interesting views on the Middle East, one of which has been his advocating for a dialogue with Hamas, which places him in a very small group of enlightened Anglo-Saxon politicians.
Overall though, it is hard to explain the UK position on Iran. The Conservative opposition is very hawkish on Iran, and it may have something to do with the impending election and Labour not wanting any exploitable space on the subject in the campaign. Also, Gordon Brown is a patron of the JNF, and the Labour Party’s chief fundraiser (and Middle East envoy of sorts) is the zionist Lord Levy. However, elections are funny times; it shouldn’t be forgotten that Brown tried to use Blair’s support for the simultaneous Israeli bombardment of Lebanon and Gaza in 2006 as grounds to depose him.
While the Lobby’s fingerprints are all over the place, they don’t wield the same power in the UK as the US. The recent passport spat demonstrated a certain resistance; what would be more telling would be if the Israeli pressure to change UK law to prevent universal jurisdiction cases being brought against visiting Israelis in UK courts was rejected.
Britain’s stance on Iran is not something I believe will be of an order of magnitude sufficient to warrant the expenditure of big political capital one way or the other.
there’s an interesting conversation taking place, between man-on-the-street bloggers, like us, on the Mondoweiss blog http://mondoweiss.net/2010/03/self-determination.html
The topic is Self determination, and the conversation (esp. comments by Mooser and Benjamin Geer) addresses the sensitive issue of “Jews” vis a vis “zionism” vis a vis “antisemitism”.
some quick background: The blogger, “Mooser,” is Jewish, and has argued in the past that zionism endangers Jews like him and subverts the meaning of Judaism. “Benjamin Geer” is a PhD candidate in history, in the Mediterranean-Middle East region, if I recall correctly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mScWWtRfGQ
This video explains US media treatment of Ahmadinijad for US audience consumption
Thank you Shabnam, fantastic, this video should be played in UN repeatedly. Everyone should ask these same questions from every western leader.
If Western countries really want to see peace in the middle, in particular US and UK they first need to answer this questions that Ahmadinijad is raising, otherwise we can all rest assured there will be no peace in near future. Europeans and now also Americans not only have to apologize to Jews for the holocaust, but indeed, they need to apologize to the Palestinians, since they are continuing the genocide on the Semites
Thank you for another excellent article from Flynt and Hillary Leverett. Also thank you for many good comments on this article including comments from “Fiorangela Leone”.
Many people still repeating Zionist propaganda regarding Ahmadinejad’s statement on ‘wipe off Zionism from the page of time’. People should not waste their time to convince what Ahmadinejad has actually said because enough has been said already and whoever is interested knowing the facts can obtain it from different sources. Many people are not interested in the facts, rather they want to inject confusion to create doubts to buy credibility for an apartheid state. People should not listen to zionist propaganda and watch the following video to find out what Ahmadinejad actually said about a chapter of human history. millions of people including Jews agree with Ahmadinejad’s position.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykd-syzZ4ZY
It is unfortunate to see the Zionist propagandists are using ‘holocaust industry’ to silent critics of Israel’s policy.
we know what/whose agenda drives US policy toward Iran.
What is the dynamic behind UK’s (equally) counterproductive approach to Iran? How does UK calculate that it is beneficial for it to threaten Iran rather than trade and relate on a pragmatic basis?
More news on US human rights abuses. I’m sure many CIA employees will be going to jail now and Obama will show himself to be a real defender of human rights (in our dreams):
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100328/ap_on_go_ot/us_cia_salt_pit
James Canning – interesting article, not least because it provides a perspective of how US is seen in other countries.
thanks
Daan de Wit has some interesting comments in “Obama continues Bush’s Iran policy”
http://www.truthout.org/part-iii-obama-continues-bushs-iran-policy58014
Fiorangela,
Dennis Ross is in charge of Iran desk at the national security council, and he tries to arrange matters to conceal differences between US policy, and what Israel is doing in the face of that policy, so that a “united front” can be presented toward Iran. Pure lunacy, in my opinion. I think Iran is a red herring, used to distract attention from the Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
kooshy – - I think Ahmadinejad does greater service for the Iranian people when he makes clear the murder of millions of Jews had nothing to do with the Palestinians, and that the Iranian people want justice for the Palestinians. Obviously, millions of people other than Jews were murdered during the Second World War, and Ahmadinejad has a valid point that the promoters of Israel tend to regard anyone standing up for the Palestinians, as being a Holocaust denier, or an anti-Semite. Or both.
Jon, John, Fiorangela
Ahmadinijad is not questioning Israel for the holocaust, Iran doesn’t even recognize the state of Israel, in fact he is questioning the west, his question is simple and straightforward, he asks if the holocaust happened where did it happened and who is responsible for it. Then he goes on and says, if did this crime happen in Europe and in between the Europeans how come and under what justification, the winners of the war awarded someone else’s land to their victims of the war. Then he continues, if they really feel bad of their crimes why they did not offer them a land in Europe or Alaska, and why only this 6 million out of the 60 millions victims are getting special arrangement.
I agree that he is exploiting this issue to hit back at the west; arguably, this was a great tactic, and has actually worked to increase Iran’s regional balance of power more so then a rapprochement with US.
What Ahmadinijad did, he brought the holocaust question out to open, for sure now it will not go away anytime soon, this is just like when US needed to pressure Iran it brought Iran’s nuclear issue out of closet. US and the west now have learned that Iran can also exploit issues to its benefit and at their expense.
We all can agree that his question of the holocaust has put the west on defensive regardless of the Hitler and demonization propaganda that I am sure Ahmadinijad cares less. He said it correctly; that it is time for the west to explain to the people of the region and the world what was the justification for creating the state of Israel.
Let me also add, for sure, no one buys what some have argued on this blog that the state of Israel created itself. If truly it did, why did everybody had to jump to recognize them knowing that the new state was created by force on someone else land, if this is the case why the west does not recognize the sate of Abkhazia it also created itself a few years back.
The holocaust and WWII are not private issues of the west or Israel, to permit other people or countries to research its cause, events, and results, Fiorangela
correctly, assessed that prevention by discouragement and threat will exploit a hidden motif.
One more problem with Fitzpatrick’s comment, perhaps the greatest problem of all: Fitzpatrick picks at the nits and details of how-long, how-much, how-fulsomely Iran agreed to refrain from doing that which it is entitled to do BUT FOR the opposition to it doing so by a state that is itself carrying on a clandestine nuclear program.
In a comment on the IISS website, Fitzpatrick said this:
“You also asked what the worst scenario would be. In one way, it’s if Iran builds a nuclear weapon.
But the real worst case would be if there’s a war to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and then it goes ahead and does so anyway, possibly in as much time or earlier than it would have in the first place.”
http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/november-2009/understanding-the-nuclear-negotiations/
The absurdity of this statement is stunning.
“the real worst case would be it there’s a war to prevent Iran ….”
Shouldn’t there be a FULL STOP after the word, War?
isn’t it bad enough that war would be waged upon a nation of 70 million civilians with no more reason than flimsy logic?
But if merely killing people doesn’t concern you, does Fitzpatrick know that there are nuclear facilities only a few kilometers outside Isfehan, and that Isfehan is a United Nations World Heritage site? Any war on Iran that would damage Isfehan would be the cultural equivalent of the Taliban’s destruction of the Buddhas, in 2001.
And if descending to the moral plane of the culture-destroying Taliban does not concern you, how about the effectiveness this easy-breezy war? As Joseph Cirincione has argued compellingly, Israel’s destruction of Osirak in 1981 motivated Saddam to redouble Iraq’s efforts to develop a nuclear arsenal. Saddam’s efforts at nuclear development frightened neighboring Iran to restart their nuclear research programs. Israel’s rogue (and false-flag) destruction of Osirak was a bonehead move from multiple perspectives, a move for which hundreds of thousands of Arabs have paid with their lives.
But if the ineffectiveness and strategic inadvisability of war on Iran does not concern you, does it concern you, Mr. Fitzpatrick, that even to threaten Iran with war, or to meddle in its internal affairs, is a breach of the Algiers Accord.
But if you’re not concerned with losing, rather than gaining, the confidence of the Iranian people in the integrity of the word of the United States, how about the fact that to wage war on Iran — even to THREATEN to wage war on Iran, is a f&%#ing violation of the UN Convention Against Genocide:
“The Convention defines genocide as any of a number of acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group, and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
But you didn’t stop with the word, War.
You wrote this logical doosey: “In one way, it’s if Iran builds a nuclear weapon. But the real worst case would be if there’s a war to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon, and then it goes ahead and does so anyway, possibly in as much time or earlier than it would have in the first place.”
Now, numerous Israeli officials have stated, in print, (historically verifiable) that “Iran with nuclear weapons is NOT the problem.” Former Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh said the same thing at an AIPAC conference in 2008: Iran with nuclear weapons is not a problem. Israeli words. Iran building a nuclear weapon is NOT the real worst case. Your words.
Likewise, Waging war on Iran is NOT the real worst case.
The “real worst case” after a war on Iran to prevent it from building a nuclear weapon (which Israel has said is not a problem), Iran builds a nuclear weapon anyway, which, as you stated at the outset, is not the real worst case.
I gotta say, though, I’m still trying to figure out how Iran is going to survive a war and ramp up its nuclear weapons arsenal in less time than if it had not endured a war. I visited Iran in 2008, 10 years after the end of Iraq’s war on Iran. Numerous towns and villages still showed heavy damage from that war.
Furthermore, your suspicion that, if it is warred upon, Iran will accelerate efforts to build nuclear weapons, you have validated Cirincione’s conclusion that Israel’s attack on Osirak was misbegotten.
So, Mr. Fitzpatrick, why are you wasting your time rehashing the details of the 2003 agreement that didn’t agree, and further demonizing Iran, when instead, you should be attempting to persuade parties who are all too eager to attack Iran militarily, that that would bring about THE WORST CASE SCENARIO?
The fact that Milibank and Sheinwald are both Jewish is significant, but even more important is the fact that Iranians no longer have any illusions about Obama and change. Many see him, at best, as a weak president who is unable to bring about meaningful change to US foreign policy. However, many others are beginning to see him as a dishonest American leader who is essentially not very different from George Bush.
Many in Iran believe that further UN sanctions will force an Iranian response and that ultimately the region is moving towards another war.
Arnold — Fitzpatrick’s statement is inaccurate that “Iran got exactly what it sought and what was agreed to in the November 2003 suspension agreement: the Europeans prevented Washington from bringing Iran’s case to the Security Council”
The Europeans promised more — they promised a package of economic goodies. The Europeans delivered less — they completely failed to deliver on the economic promises.
I have no idea why Fitzpatrick, who is here to “correct the historical record,” would fail to include this important piece of information. Muhammed Sahimi explains the details of the 2003 agreements:
“Beginning on December 18, 2003, Iran did begin to carry out the provisions of the AP on a voluntary basis, until the Majles ratifies it. Even the European Union that had negotiated the implementation of the AP by Iran recognized its volunteer nature. Iran continued doing so until October 2005, when it declared to the IAEA that it would no longer abide by the AP. The reason was that the proposal that the European Union had presented to Iran in August 2005, according to which Iran was to receive significant economic concessions and security guarantees, was deemed by Iran to be totally inadequate.
At the same time, angered by the European Union attitude toward Iran, the Majles never ratified the AP. Thus, unlike what the IAEA claim, Iran cannot be required to implement the AP. No sovereign nation has any obligation to sign and implement any international agreement that it does not deem it to be in its national interests.” http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/9604
Mark Fitzpatrick:
The Leveretts claim many Iranians believe the suspension was a mistake. Nothing you write counters an Iranian claim that Iran made more and better progress in its nuclear program between 2006 and 2008 than it did between 2004 and 2006 when its enrichment was suspended.
In 2006 Iran was reported to the Security Council. The Leveretts are saying that many in Iran believe if all the West was willing to offer for a suspension was a suspension in bringing Iran before the Security Council, then that was not a good deal for Iran. The Iranian argument is bolstered by the fact that Iran considers itself to have made progress overall during the period in which it was brought before the UNSC.
Your argument about disagreements about the scope of the suspension strikes me as unimportant. Everyone agrees that the production of enrich uranium did not proceed during the suspension. If the West wanted Iran to stop building centrifuges and to take other further steps, I guess that’s too bad on the West. But if Iran had given into Western wishes, their argument that the suspension was not worth it overall would be even stronger today.
Liz, you wrote, “The Iranian dislike for the British regime is nothing new, but it is interesting to see how Obama’s policies towards the Islamic Republic of Iran are in line with those countries that have traditionally shown the largest amount of hostility towards the Iranians, meaning Israel and the UK.”
Thanks for that.
I’ve made three tries at a response to Mark Fitzgerald’s comment; your comment highlights one of the main points important to recognize about Fitzgerald’s stance.
In their writing and public appearances on US-Iran relations, Drs. Leverett and Mann have emphasized their commitment to examining how relations with Iran could serve American interests, employing sound reason applied to firm facts to arrive at analyses and policy choices that are consonant with American values (I hope I interpret the Leveretts’ accurately; if I fail, the fault is mine).
Comments by Fitzpatrick on the website of the International Institute of Strategic Studies http://www.iiss.org/whats-new/iiss-in-the-press/november-2009/understanding-the-nuclear-negotiations/ suggest that he’s willing to rely on information provided by other state governments, who are undoubtedly acting in THEIR own interests, if that information supports Fitzpatrick’s underlying preassumptions.
For example, in the link, above, Fitzpatrick responded to a question about the 2007 NIE by dismissing the conclusions of American agencies, who were, presumably, acting in furtherance of American interests and based on American values, in favor of conclusions reached by “British, French, German, and Israeli” investigators.
No doubt those four states had alternative perspectives that are useful to incorporate in a total assessment of a situation. But the first caveat should be that those foreign states are acting and speaking with their own interests in view.
Liz pointed out that UK has a long history of bad relations and intentions toward Iran. In 1953, when Iran sought to gain more equitable control of Anglo-Iranian Oil Company, US State Department agents argued tirelessly with British and Scottish owners of AIOC and with the British government to moderate their ‘take’ and to improve the conditions under which Iranians worked for AIOC. UK was intransigent; AIOC would not budge, and Churchill supported them fully in their stubborn stance. Mossadeqh was toppled, the US lost a friend in Iran, and the rest …. So why should US trust UK predilections regarding Iran?
We know from statements by persons such as Keith Weissman, AIPAC agent who helped write Iran sanctions in 1995, that those sanctions HARMED American interests, and were put in place at the urging of AIPAC, and we know that AIPAC was acting in response to prerogatives of the Israeli government.
We know from statements by Gen. David Petraeus that policies and actions of the Israeli government are causing harm to US interests.
We know that Angela Merkel’s Germany is selling submarines to Israel, and investing heavily in the Arabian peninsula, with the goad and goal of ‘landlocking’ Iran: Israel has stated it will deploy its subs to monitor the Persian Gulf, and Germany’s railway investments will provide a link to the Red Sea, obviating Persian Gulf transit to access the Mediterranean. Merkel is salivating at the prospect of owning a significant leg of a “new Silk Road”.
France? Are we over Freedom Fries?
So why does Fitzpatrick prefer to rely on “UK, French, German, and Israeli” perspectives, and to dismiss American conclusions, when assessing US interests vis a vis Iran?
I’ve posted this video link a number of times; http://www.edmaysproductions.net/webvideo/irannuke.wmv I’ll shamelessly do so again and urge you to listen to (Jewish) professor of political science Ian Lustic’s comments on the crucial importance of Holocaust in fulminating Israeli “hysteria” (Lustick’s word) against Iran.
Lustick says Israelis are “constantly re-traumatizing themselves” with Holocaust; that it’s become a “death cult,” that it’s like PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). Lustick’s final comment on Holocaust hysteria is, “It’s very dangerous.”
Lustick’s analysis from the pov of a political scientist meshes perfectly with the diagnosis of (Jewish and former Israeli) Avigail Abarbenal, who writes on “Israel’s growing insanity.”
I don’t know what the APA protocol for resolving PTSD is. A person suffering from PTSD must be treated with gentleness and understanding. But a person self-traumatizing himself, 60 years separated from a “trauma” that did not affect him personally, has got to be called out, got to be made to function in the real world, not in a delusional world.
Lustick’s closing comment, that the psychological state of more and more Israelis is “dangerous,” persuades me that it’s important to stick my neck out and call to account those who would exploit Holocaust. Jon H, people are being killed in alarming numbers and by horrendous means, and the crime glossed by Holocaust psychosis. Iran was targetting by Israel ten years BEFORE Ahmadinejad appeared on the scene; Ahmadinejad’s words were the dash of cold water that drew the world’s attention to the delusional state Israelis have talked themselves into.
I also fundamentally disagree that “The Holocaust has been investigated to the hilt” and, by implication, that further research is ill-advised. Turn the concept around: if Holocaust has been “investigated to the hilt,” what does Israel have to fear from one more round of research? If all of the research sustains the Israeli view, than Iran will, indeed, have “shot itself in the foot” with its own weapons, and Israel could save a few American taxpayer dollars of their US military stipend. That Israel reacted so hysterically to the Iran holocaust conference suggests there’s something important that Israel is very afraid of. Earlier you argued for truth, Jon; silencing someone does not presage truth-finding; it suggests fear of exposure.
Ahmadinejad Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map”
The false charge that Ahmadinejad wants to “wipe Israel off the map” is based on an incorrect translation that many language experts have exposed. Yet the entire western media continue to report every time Ahmadinejad is mentioned that he wants to wipe Israel off the map.
This is purely propaganda to demonise Ahmadinejaad.
Ahmadinejad Did Not Say “Israel must be wiped off the map”.
He never uttered the word “map” or even “Israel”.
This is what he said; “This Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.
Ahmadinejad simply compared the demise of the “Jerusalem regime” to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
His emphasis was on “The Zionist regime” and not “the state of Israel”
Zionist regime is often compared with Hitler and fascism;
If someone says, “Hitler and fascism must vanish from the page of time”, does this mean, “Germany must be wiped off the map”?
Ahmadinejad’s statement has deliberately been altered to sound more threatening.
The criminal Zionist regime is desperate to paint Ahmadinejad as a threat to divert attention from their own atrocities.
The fake quote “wiped off the map” has been spread worldwide by Israel lobby Organisations.
The unsuspecting public reads this, forms an opinion and supports unnecessary wars of aggression, presented as self-defence, based on the misinformation.
The propensity for western governments to manufacture or exploit ahmadinejad’s statement could eventually have catastrophic implications.
An excellent analysis
“Wiped off the map”
The rumour of the century
http://www.mohammadmossadegh.com/news/rumor-of-the-century/
This is a repeat post but related to today’s topic
The Iranian dislike for the British regime is nothing new, but it is interesting to see how Obama’s policies towards the Islamic Republic of Iran are in line with those countries that have traditionally shown the largest amount of hostility towards the Iranians, meaning Israel and the UK.
Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted about the Holocaust
Mr. Ahmadinejad did not say what the US Subcommittee on Intelligence Policy reported that he said: “They have invented a myth that Jews were massacred and place this above God, religions and the prophets.” He actually said, “In the name of the Holocaust they have created a myth and regard it to be worthier than God, religion and the prophets.” This language targets the myth of the Holocaust, not the Holocaust itself – i.e., “myth” as “mystique”, or what has been done with the Holocaust. Other writers, including important Jewish theologians, have criticized the “cult” or “ghost” of the Holocaust without denying that it happened. In any case, Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main message has been that, if the Holocaust happened as Europe says it did, then Europe, and not the Muslim world, is responsible for it.
Why is Mr. Ahmadinejad being so systematically misquoted and demonized? Need we ask? If the world believes that Iran is preparing to attack Israel, then the US or Israel can claim justification in attacking Iran first. On that agenda, the disinformation campaign about Mr. Ahmadinejad’s statements has been bonded at the hip to a second set of lies: promoting Iran’s (nonexistent) nuclear weapon programme.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14733.htm
Jon:
you make things personal. and distort the words said by others, sometimes just to say you didn’t understand it clearly. read the last paragraph of my last long post again please. I myself have no question about the Holocaust. it’s not my concern at all. well, I heard the name of the subject first when it was in the media after 2005. we don’t read about it in school in Iran as we have more than enough mess in our long history to be aware of. I even get satisfied by reading about it in Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust). I have no time, nor the interest, to go through the detail. after all, it was a crime by Europeans not Iranians. my country’s history is full of similar crimes by people like Changiz Khan and Teimor Lang to name a few.
what I said was pretty simple. I don’t understand the link between antisemitism and questioning the Holocaust, if somebody does that (NOT me). and the fact that it has been investigated extensively does not exclude it from further research in academia. surely physics and biology were the subject of researches for hundred years universally, and still people go through the very basics. may be, experimental sciences are different from the social ones anyway.
To the extent that Iranians actually deny the holocaust, I agree that it is not in Iranian interests. However, much of what the Iranians say has to do with the way the holocaust as been interpreted and shamelessly exploited by the Israel government to justify all sorts of bad behavior. Of course, there is a kernel of truth in some of what the Israelis say. As there is some truth in what the Iranians say. IMHO both sides should stop exploiting the issue. But if the Israelis can exploit it with impunity, I see no reason to criticize the Iranians for doing the same, drawing the line of course at holocaust denial.
Much of the Iranian exploitation of the issue is directed at the Arab sense of victimization and serves to keep the sore open at a time when many Arab leaders would just as soon forget about the Palestinian issue and their fealty to Western interests. Calling attention to it helps delegitimize those regimes and weaken their ability to target Iran.
On the other side, Israeli exploitation still serves to garner widespread sympathy for Israeli victimhood among Americans, generate billions of US government welfare along with generous donations from the diaspora.
Persian Gulf: “Ahmadinejad should tell what is best for the Iranian nation . . . foreign policy is to serve interests and not to make you feel good.” Exactly my point! Is does NOT serve Iranian interests or the prospect of US-Iranian friendship to go around questioning the factual basis of the Holocaust. Ahmadinejad did his nation very serious harm by his comments, no matter what his motive may have been. Surely you can perceive this?
The Holocaust has been investigated to the hilt. If you all continue to pursue this line, you are simply shooting yourselves — not in the foot, but in the head. Like it or not, you will be destroying your own cause.
This posting opens itself to criticism on various grounds, beginning with the contentious headline. I will confine myself for now to correcting the historical record about the 2003 suspension. Ahmadinejad’s repeated claim (which I hope the authors did not mean to put in their own words and thereby give it credence) that Iran suspended its enrichment-related activities for almost two years and received no tangible benefits for it is misleading in two ways.
First, Iran got exactly what it sought and what was agreed to in the November 2003 suspension agreement: the Europeans prevented Washington from bringing Iran’s case to the Security Council, despite the documented evidence of 18 years of systematic violations of its safeguards agreement and the IAEA Statute provisions that call for reporting this to the Council. As a result, Iran bought a two-year reprieve in the application of UN sanctions. This meant a great deal to Tehran at the time and was clearly a tangible benefit to Iran. Siding with Ahmadinejad’s claim on this point does a disservice to Khatami and to prospects for a future negotiated deal.
Second, Iran’s ‘almost two-year suspension’ was intermittent and incomplete. Throughout most of 2004 Iran continued to engage in various enrichment-related activities, on disingenous grounds of disagreement on definitions. The suspension became more meaningful when it was renegotiated in October 2004 (taking effect in November) but this lasted only 9 months, and was still incomplete. For example, Iran had undertaken “not to import enrichment related items” but there is good evidence to suggest that its attempts to acquire such items through the black market never stopped.
The Leveretts provide a useful service to all readers in explaining what Iranians say and how they are likely to interpret Western speeches. But it would be even more useful if the authors also explained, even parenthetically, where and how Iranian viewpoints are factually wrong.
sorry for sending the part of the post twice. i was distracted and I didn’t realize part of it was sent before. i made slim change to the first one.
Fiorangela:
with your tally expression, you have exempted me for more clarification of that post, though it was pretty obvious what I said, even in a quick look!
you best described actions taken by appeasers like Rafsanjani and Khatami. Rafsanjani thought that he disclosed a noble term like Pragmatism! Khatami once described himself as being a Yazdi (somebody who comes from Yazd city in central city. he is from Yazd) in terms of not willing to go to the confrontational phase! he shrewdly understood that he can’t run for presidency again while Ahmadinejad is there.
Jon:
Ahmadinejad should tell what is the best of Iranian nation. foreign policy, as Flynt Leverett once said, is to serve interests not to make you feel good. he is not required to talk as an act of nicety, as people like me may need to do sometimes. after all, he has only one passport as I do!(well, I can get the second one if I just want to). his PR is pretty good I think. the problem is, people here in NA think we are the whole world. who said 330 million (I am not sure the whole population is agaisnt him though) is world opinion? there are 6 billion more in the world. in few places in western Europe the situation might be like here. actually, many of friends born and raised here told me he is pretty rational and his comments make sense. ironically, the ones imported here have very wild view about him.
Iran is in the Mideast and Asia in general not in North America. so the immediate public is more important than let’s say the districts of Philadelphia.
and I don’t understand why should questioning the Holocaust be an act of antisemitism (Jewish religion was existed long before world war II. it didn’t start with the Holocaust). world war II is part of history and will remain so forever. so, it should be looked at in the historical context. that means, historians and also ordinary people can agree or disagree about literally everything that happened in that period. this is what students of history practice, I guess. as kooshy rightly says, what happened to other minorities? should they capture the world hostage for the crime of now all dead people against their ancestors? over the course of history, we have had a lot of unjust killing in Iran and the Mideast, often against the believers of specific religion or sect. and for many of them, there are historians who simply don’t buy the idea at all which is ok.I assume, freedom of expression is more in the west. in a scientific perspective, we question everything. literally everything imaginable. the whole notion of religion and God are questioned to the point of denial. people even question the validity of father’s name in the birth certificates!, and yet there are people that demonize others for questioning an event of 65-70 years ago! it is obvious who the real racists and fascists are.
Here is a great interview of Helen Thomas, it is getting easier to ask, and some of this is because of Ahmadinijad’s questions and interviews that made possible for others to ask http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25089.htm
Binyamin Netanyahu humiliated after Barack Obama ‘dumped him for dinner’:
For a head of government to visit the White House and not pose for photographers is rare.
For a key ally to be left to his own devices while the President withdraws to have dinner in private was, until this week, unheard of. Yet that is how Binyamin Netanyahu was treated by President Obama on Tuesday night.
“The Prime Minister leaves America disgraced, isolated and altogether weaker than when he came,” the Israeli daily newspaper Haaretz said.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article7076431.ece
Fiorangela:
with your tally expression, you have exempted me for more clarification of that post, even though what I said pretty obvious even in a quick look!
Jon, Ahmadinejad should tell what is the best of Iranian nation. foreign policy, as Flynt Leverett once said, is to serve interests not to make you feel good. he is not required to talk as an act of nicety as you and I may need to do sometimes. after all, he has only one passport as I do!(well, I can get the second if I just wanted to). his PR is pretty good I think. the problem is, people here in NA think we are the whole world. who said 330 million (I am not sure the whole population is agaisnt him though) is world openion. in few places in eastern Europe the situation might be like here. actually, many of friend born and raised here told me he is pretty rational. ironically, the ones imported here have very wild view about him.
Iran is in the Mideast and Asia in general, so the immediate public is more important than district of let say
I too agree with James and Fiorangela on the subject of anti-Semitism that should not be in any political comments period, however one cannot escape the fact that anybody’s background, race or religion can also be part of the motive for the actions he or she takes,. Now days one cannot publicly question an elected US official if his or her support of Israel is because of her background or religion or if the unconditional support is to uphold his /her countries interest in the region. No matter what the intention is and even if we cannot publicly question official’s religion never less everyone privately will consider the background as part of the motif.
Fiorangela
You made a very power full argument with regard to holocaust, Ahmadinijad’s comments on holocaust also includes that we understand that over 60 million people died in WWII why there should be any special treatment only for this 6 million, while we can investigate and question the entire war, why you are not allowed to investigate the holocaust. He goes further, and he says the lives of all 60 million is dear to all of us, and not only the 6 million Jews. He says if this is an historic event, it should be allowed to be investigated and researched just like any other historic event.
So far, I have not seen anybody who has interviewed him or any scholar to ‘come up with an acceptable counter argument to satisfy his questions, they all end up calling him holocaust denier, and a Hitler, that is not an argument that further exposes there is no answer. But we some westerners that have been paying for this for 60 odd years
Will eventually starting to echo the sound.
thank you for a thoughtful response, Jon H.
One difference between Ahmadinejad and Sheinwald is that Ahmadinejad has moderated his rhetoric about the Holocaust, while Sheinwald perpetuates the same old talking points.
Barbara Slavin testified before a State Department Commission on International Religious Rights in 2008. http://www.c-spanarchives.org/program/204135-1 She told the Commissioners that in her (then) most recent conversation with Ahmadinejad, she scolded him for his denial of the Holocaust. She said that Ahmadinejad acknowledged that the Holocaust DID occur. Indeed, in his speech at Columbia University, Ahmadinejad repeated the formulation that you commented on earlier: he stated: GIVEN that the Holocaust occurred, why should Palestinians be punished for a crime committed in Europe? That presupposes that Ahmadinejad does NOT “deny” the occurrence of Holocaust.
Over the course of some 50 years of sensitivity training, Westerners have been conditioned to consider any mention of Holocaust that is out of sync with certain expectations to be Holocaust “denial.” Many Jews — Norman Finkelstein comes to mind — are increasingly repelled by the abuse of Holocaust as psychological as well as financial blackmail.
Persian Gulf can speak for him/herself; I understand what PG said in terms of an old Italian tale about two men, a farmer and a merchant, who were trying to get a donkey to move. The farmer cursed and shouted at the donkey, but the beast wouldn’t budge. The merchant happened upon the scene and chastised the farmer: “You shouldn’t shout at the donkey; speak gently to the animal.” Whereupon the merchant reached for a stout stick and whacked the donkey on the head.
“I thought you said to be gentle to the donkey,” the farmer cried.
“Ah, yes, but first you have to get his attention.”
Rafsanjani made critical overtures to the west (the 1995 Conoco deal) and was rebuffed; in 2003, Khatami sent the blueprint for a grand bargain to the US and was ignored. Ahmadinejad took a stick to Israel’s hottest of hot buttons, the Holocaust. He got Israel’s attention. As Ian Lustick said at a conference in Seattle in Dec. 2009, Ahmadinejad cleverly exposed the hypocrisy of the west’s insistence on freedom of speech. And please note, Jon, on which side truth lies: it is not Iran that is oppressing Palestinians, it is Israel. Iran is not defying international law; Israel is.
Fiorangela, I’m happy to say that we are now in agreement, except — I can’t go along with your view of Ahmadinejad. (I did read Persian Gulf’s comment, but frankly, was not sure I understood what he was saying.)
If we are going to attack Sheinwald for his language (and I agree we should), how can we let Ahmadinejad’s apparent denial of the Holocaust go unremarked upon? Both are perversions of the truth. I can’t give Ahmadinejad a free pass simply because Sheinwald is “gunning for Iran,” or because I favor US-Iranian friendship. Moreover, flirting (even unintentionally) with extremist views (like Holocaust denial) is the surest road to irrelevance I can think of. It is hard enough as it is to get a hearing for our case. And, as I said, it’s wrong.
Fiorangela,
Great post (5:01). Sir Nigel’s intellectual dishonesty is worth of contempt. There seems no possibility he is not aware that Ahmadinejad does not “deny” the Holocaust, and in fact points out that millions of people other than Jews were liquidated in the same program (which of course had nothing to do with the Palestinians). I very much doubt Sir Nigel is not also fully aware Ahamdinejad’s predictions of an end to the Israeli state refer not to the results of military action, but to natural processes (demography being one of them).
Regarding Chalabi, and business deals for those who would help him displace Saddam Hussein, my understanding is that Doug Feith planned to operate an investment bank in Baghdad, using Iraqi oil funds for capital, and that a member of the Chalabi family was to be Feith’s partner. Feith “stovepiped” the false intelligence about WMD directly into the White House, from the Pentagon, so it could be used to bamboozle the moron occupying the White House (in the run-up to war in 2003).
pmr9,
Great post. A Zionist cabal around Tony Blair makes sense in light of Blair’s shared religious delusions with G W Bush. Bush’s original Texan political base included Christian Zionists as a key element. These foolish people actually want Israel to oppress the Palestinians, in hopes of getting Christians and Muslims out of the “Land of Israel”. They are hostile to Iran because Iran defends the Palestinians (Christian and Muslim).
Persian Gulf,
Iran quite rightly wants the US to cease giving support to terrorists operating within Iran. The risk of war with Iran rests in the possiblity Israel would be so insane as to attack Iran, figuring it would bring in the US. Saakashvili started the Georgian war with Russia, figuring the US would step in to make sure the Russians did not punish him. Bad call.
US failure to comply with Algiers agreement is sadly par for the course, what with Aipac and the numerous stooges of Israel in the US Congress.
The capture of the UK Labour government’s foreign policy by Zionists happened long before David Miliband became foreign secretary in Gordon Brown’s first cabinet in 2008. The Scottish Labour MP Tam Dalyell was one of the few politicians to detect and warn of a Zionist “cabal” surrounding Tony Blair, as early as 2003. Until recently most critics of UK policies on Israel/Palestine had assumed that the government was simply trying to keep in favour with Washington. What is fascinating about this post is that it’s now clear that for some time the UK government has been not the poodle of Washington, but rather an active provocateur seeking to draw the US into confrontation with Iran, however harmful this would be to UK interests.
The best chance for reversing this may be if the general election produces a hung Parliament, with Lib Dems and other minority parties holding the balance. This will make it harder for a cabal to control government policy.
Jon Harrison, I did misunderstand your comment, “antisemitism and antizionism are antipodes…” I took the phrase to mean that BOTH antisemitism and antizionism are to be held as things which must be disdained/opposed. That’s why I focused on antizionism. It is my understanding that antisemitism is pernicious because it relies on a generalization; zionism is a specific, historical political movement; it can be rationally criticized on its principles.
I will concede that it is a mistake to discount Sir Nigel’s comments on the basis that “he is Jewish.” His rhetoric is abhorrent because it is intellectually dishonest. Consider this sentence:
“today Iran is the only state in the region that does not support the idea of a two-state solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. My own government has strongly condemned the Iranian regime’s repugnant threats to the State of Israel and denial of the Holocaust. ”
1. Ahmadinejad himself has stated, repeatedly and from public platforms in the UN, that the issue of Palestinian and Israel governance ought to be decided by a referendum of the people involved. It’s a stretch to move from that declaration to, “Iran does not support a two-state solution.” On the other hand, by its repeated actions and policy devised by Ariel Sharon, Israel has made the two-state solution impossible.
2. Which “repugnant threats to the state of Israel” does Sir Nigel rely upon to support this statement? Does he mean Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric stating that “zionism will disappear from the pages of time” (because of its own internal contradictions, as communism ‘disappeared’ from USSR? Is Nigel ignorant of the accurate translation and meaning of Ahmadinejad’s remarks? If so, then he has no business commenting on something he knows nothing about. If he DOES know the accurate meaning of Ahmadi’s statement, then Nigel is spreading untruths, which undermines his credibility.
3. Regarding “denial of the Holocaust,” true, Ahmadinejad touched the third rail of foreign relations in the post-WWII world. I point you again to Karin Friedemann’s essay, as well as to Persian Gulf’s response to you yesterday, regarding the “enigma” of Ahmadinejad. Persian Gulf said,
“if you don’t talk to the extreme, you may not even be able to get the midway. the fact that he has been in that stage is because of what he said, otherwise, the Islamic of Republic of Iran was just doing those pragmatic approaches for years and nothing substantially happened.”
I believe Ahmadinejad is a courageous person; he has certainly shifted the Overton window. It’s important to realize that Ahmadinejad’s “extremist” strategy is defensive: Israel had been gunning for Iran for 10 years before Ahmadinejad was elected. As AIPAC’s Keith Weissman stated in December 2009, the first sanctions on Iran were put in place in 1995, at the insistence of AIPAC; according to Yossi Melman in his biography of Ahmadinejad, Ahmadi was unknown to MI5, to Mossad, and to CIA until his election to Iran’s presidency in 2005.
To get back to Sir Nigel’s statement: The inquiring mind has to ask WHY would Nigel repeat assertions that he knows or should know are inaccurate and that are intellectually dishonest, and use those statements to urge nuclear armed states to threaten a nation of 70 million. Cui bono? We know that the US will not benefit from the actions Nigel demands; it’s unclear how Nigel’s country, the UK, would benefit from a devastated Iran and an inflamed Middle East. We know that Israel is at the forefront of efforts to sanction Iran; we know that persons acting on behalf of Israeli business concerns made deals with Ahmed Chalabi to benefit Israel if Chalabi could displace Saddam Hussein in Iraq; we know that American Jewish organizations such as UJF have launched nationwide campaigns to financially cripple Iran by divesting American pension funds from corporations doing business with Iran, even if it meant harming the security of those pension funds. Again, cui bono?
You’re quite right, we cannot read a person’s soul, but we can and may evaluate his words and actions for their veracity and integrity.
Washington denounces other governments for human rights violations while itself violating human rights every day.
Washington puts foreign leaders on trial for war crimes, while committing war crimes every day.
What happens when the dollar goes and Washington no longer has the money to bribe compliance with its demands? When that day arrives, freedom will re-emerge.
The EU has given in to Washington’s demand for “free access to the banking data of the central financial service provider, Swift, in Europe. All financial flows in Europe (and between Europe and the rest of the world) will now be monitored by the CIA and other American and Israeli intelligence services.”
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/100322_privacy.htm
Fiorangela, first, no one need pay the slightest attention to what I have to say. That said, the term “ZOG” was coined by the extreme right — by people who pretty much follow the Hitler line. The person who used it here may not have understood this. Nevertheless, it is a mistake to let it pass. Such commentary can be used to discredit the entire site.
It is my view that to attribute motive to a person’s ethnic background, absent proof of bias, is a mistake. The Nixon-Kissinger conception mentioned by James Canning is fine in the abstract, but to go from there to specifying that such-and-such a Jew is biased simply because he is a Jew — well, it’s wrong. Once again, it may tend to damage the credibility of the site on which such commentary appears.
I’m not clear on your view of my comment, “Anti-zionism and anti-semitism are and must remain antipodes.” I meant that we must not allow the former to be contaminated by the latter. Surely you don’t believe that the anti-zionist cause is promoted by descending into anti-semitism? Going that road leads straight to the pit.
Jon Harrison, I heartily agree that the quality and character of the work the Leveretts are doing on this blog must be respected by all who participate in it. I disagree that “antizionism … must remain antipodes.”
While your caution to Raceforiran participants is understood, it is also important to recognize, as Michael Scheuer has argued, that Americans have the right to an open and vigorous debate on the forces that are shaping their nation and their- and their children’s- futures. Zionism is a political movement. It had a distinct beginning and a traceable history. If zionists can’t stand strenuous critique — even name-calling that might just get ugly — they ought not be in the game. Recall that Netanyahu said in his speech at AIPAC: “your lawmakers refer to each other as ‘my friend…’ In Israel, you don’t want to know how we talk to each other.” Why should Americans, who are enduring harm because of zionist policies and actions, be more fearful of discussing zionism than are zionists?
Your comment suggests that commentors should ‘pull their punches’ lest certain sensitivities be aroused. I think it might be time to stop pulling punches: nobody on this planet is entitled to exceptional treatment, least of all parties who have killed untold numbers of innocents and who are threatening to kill many more, in the name of zionism.
The United States and Europe have spent the years since the end of WWII under a veil of guilt over the Holocaust. Karin Friedemann wrote a compelling essay on how that guilt has been used. http://karinfriedemann.blogspot.com/2009/02/emotional-abuse-of-israel-advocacy.html Friedemann recommends that Americans learn to deal with their “inner Jew” in a more adult fashion, without fear, but, I would add, with the sense of rationality, objectivity, and integrity that characterizes the Leveretts’ writing on this blog.
The “generous offer” that the EU gave Iran in return for Ieans suspension of enrichment was characterized by analysts at BASIC as “an empty box with pretty wrapping”
http://www.basicint.org/pubs/Notes/BN050811-IranEU.htm
deamnding on zero enrich is a way to ensure that the conflict is not resolved just as ingoring IRanian compromise offers are intended to ensure the same. The nuclear issue is merely a pretext and justification, so it has to be kept deliberately open so as to justify gradual escalation.
Ray Tekeyh once ,in a panel discussion and when he used to be relevant!, said something like this: no reasonable and proud nation has ever sought its core security from the hands of its mortal enemies. and, I think, it can be perfectly applied to Iran’s case. in any case, the U.S’ past commitments are not, as sakineh Bagoom also suggests, promising at all. I really don’t know what the U.S security guarantee really means. there is always a possibility of war and hostility even among nations that have good relation…. To put the notion of security guarantee as pre-requisite for the U.S-Iran relation or nuclear issue or anything for that matter is, I think, wrong from the very beginning.nor should I Iran accept it.
It’s been said that when the Europeans were negotiating with Iran, US was not on board with regard to security guarantees. Negotiated security guarantees from US for Iran are meaningless. They are not worth the paper they are written on. US does not abide by it’s agreements.
The Algiers Accords come to mind. The Algiers Accords of January 19, 1981, were brokered by the Algerian government between the United States and Iran to resolve the Iran hostage crisis. In it US agrees to, among others: * The US would not intervene politically or militarily in Iranian internal affairs. * The US would remove a freeze on Iranian assets and trade sanctions on Iran. Neither of which have been enacted to this day. Congress appropriated $400 million for covert and overt initiatives, and there are more trade and other sanctions developed and pushed forward.
So, why should Iran believe anything that US agrees to, when nothing but bad faith from US has marred the relationship, if there ever was one?
Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger agreed that it was poor policy to have too many Jews involved in foreign policy decision-making regarding the Middle East because it was too much of a stretch to expect them to be impartial in issues involving Israel.
A grave danger is highlighted here. For decades, the Israel lobby has compromised the ability of the US to act intelligently in its own best interests in the Middle East. Increasingly, the Israel lobby is compromising the ability of the UK to act in the best interests of the UK (and the US) in the Middle East.
Iran has made clear it will accept Israel within its pre-1967 borders, if the Palestinians accept that result. Sheinwald does the UK and the US a disservice by demonizing Iran on this issue.
Another excellent essay. It brings to the fore important info that few would otherwise be aware of. Regarding b’s point, that the Jewish background of Milibank and Sheinwald determines their outlook, it would hardly do to say so in the article, as that could be construed as stereotyping (if not something worse). We need to remind ourselves that no one can see inside another’s soul. As grownups we may say to ourselves that b is probably right, but can we be absolutley certain? We cannot.
This brings me to a larger point. Someone used the term ZOG in a post recently. That particular term is associated with neofacist groups here in the U.S. The credibility of this blog ought to be extremely important to anyone who favors peace and friendship between the US and Iran. It is incumbent upon those of us who comment to rise above the resentments and anger we feel toward our opponents, even if we believe they are dragging us toward disaster. Nothing is gained, and much can be lost, by commenters using language that can be used in attempts to discredit this blog — which I repeat is an important avenue for bringing our views into the mainstream.
No one is a more determined opponent of Israel’s policies than I am. I do not believe that a Jewish state should have been created in Palestine to begin with. But anti-Zionism and anti-semitism are and must remain antipodes. To go down the road of anti-semistism, or to start on that slippery slope, as a couple of commenters may have done, is counterproductive and wrong.
Good piece, thanks.
It only misses one little point that I do think is significant. Both, Milibank and Sheinwald, are Jewish and will prefer any policy that is in Israel’s interest no matter who will have to die for it – Iranians, Brits or Americans.
That, and the interests of big oil, is the motivation behind their policy stand.