We were struck by a piece published today by Reza Marashi—former State Department desk officer for Iran who now works as the National Iranian American Council’s research director. For us, the most striking passage is the following:
“It should now be clear that U.S. policy has never been a true engagement policy. By definition, engagement entails a long-term approach that abandons ‘sticks’ and reassures both sides that their respective fears are unfounded. We [U.S. officials working on Iran policy] realized early on that the [Obama] administration was unlikely to adopt this approach. Instead, we pursued a ‘carrot and stick’ strategy similar to the Bush administration, utilizing positive and negative inducements to convince Iran that changing its behavior would be its most rewarding and least harmful decision. The key difference between the Bush and Obama approach is an effort by the latter to fix tactical mistakes by the former. By disavowing regime change, striking diplomatic quid pro quos with key allies, and dropping preconditions to diplomacy with Iran, Obama changed tactics, but maintained an objective similar to his predecessor—making Iran yield on the nuclear issue through pressure…
Moreover, as the leaked cables show, the highest levels of the Obama administration never believed that diplomacy could succeed. While this does not cheapen Obama’s Nowruz message and other groundbreaking facets of his initial outreach, it does raise three important questions: How can U.S. policymakers give maximum effort to make diplomacy succeed if they admittedly never believed their efforts could work? Why was Iran expected to accept negotiation terms that relinquished its greatest strategic asset (1200 kg of LEU) without receiving a strategic asset of equal value in return? And what are the chances that Iran will take diplomacy seriously now that it knows the U.S. never really did? The Obama administration presented a solid vision, but never truly pursued it.”
This, of course, provides additional powerful and public confirmation—from inside the Obama Administration—for our argument, in a New York Times Op Ed published in May 2009, that the Obama Administration’s disingenuous approach to dealing with Iran had already betrayed the early promise of President Obama’s initial rhetoric about engagement. In that article, we recounted how Dennis Ross had told us, before entering the Obama Administration, that he did not believe a U.S. strategy of “engagement with pressure” toward Iran would actually work to stimulate productive diplomacy, but would be necessary to lay the ground work for further sanctions and, eventually, military strikes against the Islamic Republic.
After we published this article, Dennis communicated with us indirectly that he was unhappy about our recounting of his views on Iran policy. Subsequently, he had his then-assistant at the State Department, Ray Takeyh offer the following on-the-record statement to Roger Cohen, who used it in a New York Times Sunday Magazine story published in July 2009:
“”The idea that [Ross is] just looking for engagement with Iran to tick some box before moving to harsh measures is just wrong and fraudulent.”
In light of the Wikileaks cables and Mr. Marashi’s public confirmation that the Obama Administration was, in fact, pursuing engagement to pave the way for more coercive options, including expanded sanctions, we ask Ray Takeyh: who was perpetrating a fraud with regard to the underlying intent of the Administration’s Iran policy? The question is about far more than Dennis Ross’ displeasure that we “outed” him as to his real agenda for “engaging” the Islamic Republic. The case for going to war with Iraq was built on lies—lies perpetrated by Iraqi expatriates with their own political agendas, and taken into the policymaking process by ideologically-driven U.S. officials who set aside concern for both the truth and U.S. interests. President Obama is responsible for allowing a reprise of the same, despicable pattern, this time with regard to Iran.
–Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett
Arnold: “But you have no idea when an attack is going to happen, if it will happen. To be confident enough to call someone else completely wrong in every respect, but not confident to make your own prediction is inconsistent.”
No, it’s not. I have zero need to be right on when the war will occur – only that it will occur. You could even be right and the war won’t come for another twenty years (although I doubt that) – it wouldn’t change my basic assertion that the war must come. The only way in which it won’t come is if Iran actually does submit to the US sufficiently to derail the US war plans – which is even more unlikely. And that’s what the US is COUNTING on.
“You don’t think I’m wrong in the respect that there will not be an attack during this US Presidential term. I guess that’s why you said almost.”
I’m not committing to anything like that. Obama has two years left. Events could accelerate at any time. Israel could evade US restrictions on starting the war at any time – even Gates said they could do it. Anything is possible. I’m not going to be pinned down and say the war has to start during Obama’s administration = or not. I’m saying the inevitable end of the process which is in place and which has been in place for years now is war.
YOUR argument that war is impossible despite all the progress made toward it to this point is based on a complete misunderstanding of the dynamics of US government foreign policy. You continue to assume that the US leadership – and by that I mean the people BEHIND the politicians – has some concern with rational cost/benefit analysis concerning US military problems and economic concerns and concerns about the US electorate – all of which have been demonstrated for decades now to be completely irrelevant to those people. All of those concepts of yours were completely applicable to the Afghan and Iraq wars – and before that, to Vietnam – and yet in NO CASE were they influential at all in determining the outcome.
There is a simple reason for that: The people who run the US are invulnerable to any consequences of their actions. So they don’t care about what you think they care about. They may have this or that concern which controls the timing or the sequence of events on the road to war. But they will not back away from the end game which is 1) total dominance, or failing that, 2) war for profit. Either way, they win, we lose, game over.
You need to wake up to the basic fact of the fundamental corruption of the United States. Unless you do, you will never understand why the US does what it does.
fyi,
Yes, I do agree with you that many of the officers and even a good number of the draftees who served under them actually thought that the US was fighting for its own national interest, in seeking to prevent a re-unification of Vietnam under the Communists.
I was referring to American leaders, and especially to LBJ. Johnson did not want to “be the first president who lost a war” (words he said to friend of mine). Better to squander tens of thousands of American lives, the equivalent of trillions of dollars, and kill hundreds of thousands or even millions of Vietnamese, than admit he blundered and get out.
James Canning:
I think you need to speak to Americans who actually fought in Vietnam to grasp the validity my assertion.
Moshe Dayan actually wrote a book on his observations in Vietnam – finding US officers, Soldiers, and Officals uniformly of high caliber and with great committment to the cause – such as it was.
fyi,
I should add here that Lyndon Johnson liked to boast privately that John F. Kennedy was a “piker” compared to him, when it came to bedding the most women. Monstrous ego, most definately.
fyi,
A quick annecdote to illustrate my previous comment. A friend of mine ran some of the huge construction projects build by the US in South Vietnam as part of the war effort. After Kennedy was assassinated in Nov. 1963, he was summoned to the White House so Lyndon Johnson could tell him his home team, Brown & Root, needed to be cut into the construction deals, or they would have to be put up for bid open to all comers. Brown & Root helped Johnson get into the Senate, into the White House, and helped to make him a rich man.
And the American contractors knew the facilities they were building, including the largest naval base on the planet, would become the property of the Communists when the war was lost. But the contracts of course went ahead nonetheless. You may remember the USSR became the tenant of the world’s largest naval base, build for them by the US taxpayers!
fyi,
The Vietnam War catastrophe had much more to do with gigantic egos, cold hard cash, and gross stupidity, than it did with any notion of pursuing God’s work.
The same factors are at play again, with US support of Israeli oppression of the Palestinians.
Kathleen:
In Vietnam, Americans thought they were doing God’s work.
In Palestine, they still think that they and the Israelis are on the side of the Almighty.
RSH:
Your analysis of why Iran hasn’t been attacked yet or will not be attacked is completely wrong in almost every respect.
Well OK.
That’s a really strong statement.
But you have no idea when an attack is going to happen, if it will happen. To be confident enough to call someone else completely wrong in every respect, but not confident to make your own prediction is inconsistent.
You don’t think I’m wrong in the respect that there will not be an attack during this US Presidential term. I guess that’s why you said almost.
Arnold: “I think you’d agree that by “not prepared” you mean an attack on Iran today or tomorrow would be met by an Iran that still is able to inflict more costs on the US than the US is willing to accept.”
You’d be wrong. It has absolutely nothing to do with what “costs” Iran can inflict because the US policy makers absolutely do not care about that, whatever some Pentagon generals might think.
Your analysis of why Iran hasn’t been attacked yet or will not be attacked is completely wrong in almost every respect.
I’ve been over it enough here. Go back and look at the main points I’ve made in past posts.
I DO agree with you that whatever the US thinks about “being prepared” (which, however, as I say, is mostly irrelevant), it will lose the war in the end, just as it lost the Iraq war and is losing the Afghanistan war. I’ve said that plenty of times here as well.
In the end, however, that doesn’t matter either. What matters is the damage done to the US taxpayer, Iranian civilians, and the geopolitical situation in the Middle East.
What also matters is how the state and corporate criminals who initiated the war will end up profiting from it and thus enabled to institute MORE wars in the future. THOSE are the assholes that need to be taken down. And until the US electorate realizes that, nothing will change.
Jahanpour: US following Israeli 5-Point Plan on Iran: Wikileaks
http://www.juancole.com/
What is truly alarming about the new batch of Wikileaks diplomatic files is the extent to which US politicians and their Israeli allies are obsessed with Iran. There is virtually no talk of Israeli colonial settlements on the West Bank, the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, the war crimes in Gaza, the attack on the aid flotilla, and Israel’s arsenal of hundreds of nuclear weapons, but there is constant preoccupation with Iran’s uranium enrichment and whether Israel or the United States should attack Iran first.
The media has dwelt almost exclusively on the remarks of the Saudi King Abdullah’s ambassador in Washington, calling on America to “cut off the head of this snake”. There are quotes from the rulers of other Western friends in the Middle East, Kuwait, Bahrain, UAE and Jordan, repeating what American officials wanted to hear, namely that Iran’s nuclear ambitions pose an “existential threat” to them…
Dan If Americans Knew is a great resource. Great place to get pamphlets,etc to hand out where ever you go. Allison Weir is a truth and justice seeker.
Flynt and Hillary “President Obama is responsible for allowing a reprise of the same, despicable pattern, this time with regard to Iran.”
Ritters book “Target Iran” a must read
When Obama put Dennis “Israel’s lawyer” Ross in that position the message was clear. Military confrontation with Iran.
Why is it that the so called liberal MSM folks like Rachel Maddow (who has endlessly repeated the debunked “Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map” hooey, Keith Olbermann, and the rest never have Flynt or Hillary Mann Leverett on their programs to discuss the Iran situation? Do you think they are going along with the war agenda again? Seems like it. Guy Ras and Robert Siegel at NPR sure are. It is all bad bad bad Iran over at Siegel’s. And NPR’s Guy Ras is committed to doing lots Israeli feel good stories.
go listen to Siegel’s coverage of the Wikileaks release. focused on who can we use this against Iran
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=2&prgDate=11-29-2010
Leaks Reveal Arab World’s Concerns About Iran
Kooshy, North Korea is quite the unique case. There is no other country like it at the moment. We need another site, Race for North Korea.
For James and Pirouz_2, I don’t think the nuclear issue is as important as the economic health of Iran. Call me an idiot, but the policy in place is to degrade Iran’s economic situation even knowing that has little or no effect on its nuclear capabilities. I know James will say that we’d all be be happier if Iran prospered, and I agree, but that is not how Israel and the US see it.
James is American? But he hears whisperings from across the pond so clearly…
Wikileaks: UK, US Planned to Pressure IAEA on Iran, Tie Tehran to Pyongyang
By Juan Cole
London and Washington intended to get hold of Amano as soon as Elbaradei had departed, and twist his arm to be more alarmist in his reports on Iran.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article26976.htm
Scott Peterson’s fine piece at CSM on Iranian reactions to the Wikileaks cables is given further credence by yet another document that surfaced Tuesday. Peterson says that the Iranians took the documents to suggest that President Obama was all along plotting against them even while pursuing a diplomatic track in public, and that a breakthrough through negotiations is now very unlikely.
James my friend;
Well you know my position regarding US-Israeli relationship. So I don’t see a huge difference between what Israel and US want about Iran (I am not talking about some Americans like you).
Anyway, what I meant was that between the two choices that Arnold presented, I think both US and Israel would prefer an Iran with a few warheads but under strict sanctions to an Iran with full nuclear capability and no physical warheads (just like Japan) without any sanctions in place. By the way, I think that if they are not a prelude to war, sanctions are actually very useful for Iran.
If Americans Knew
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/index.html
Iran and the ‘Zionist pranks’
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/03/iran-and-the-zionist-pranks/
kooshy:
The North Koreans have a concept called “juche” – self-reliance.
They can survive without China.
“Would China object to US forces north of the 39th? Definitely. Does North Korea do what China asks? Hardly.”
Then would you think if not for China the NK leadership can survive? just as the leadership in SA or Egypt or Jordan can survive without US support.
FYI is right that North Korea isn’t a client state to China, but it does remain a buffer state to China.
Would China object to US forces north of the 39th? Definitely. Does North Korea do what China asks? Hardly.
Fyi
“North Korea emphatically is not a client state of China.’
Now that’s a verbal stretch see the link
http://www.canada.com/news/China+says+North+Korea+ties+survived+tempests/3916952/story.html
James
Sorry to continue on my last comment to you
…That is why, according to the poles you have seen the Sunni Muslims street population in the ME region supports Iran’s nuclear capability, this is all because Iran’s nuclear capability will technically make the Middle East a region not possible for nuclear use that reduces the strategic importance of Israel as a bully in the region.
kooshy:
North Korea emphatically is not a client state of China.
For years they played Russia and China against each other; that is one reason that they have all this Russian technology that they are selling to all comers, including Iranian.
Of course, technically, North Korea is still at war with UN, including US.
I am not arging that Iran and North Korea are identical; only that in the nuclear case they have a lot in common.
James
“Are you arguing Iran should have a sufficient capacity to enrich uranium, so as to pose a threat even if Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons? How does this benefit the people of Iran?”
James as you have read on this blog many times, what I am suggesting is by default and according to her NPT rights, Iran is a nuclear capable state as long as she can enrich U and keep them in stock under the IAEA inspections. Now let say Israel decides to attack Iran one day, and Iran retaliates conventionally, would you think Israel would want to increase the anti with using her nukes on Iran as a first strike if she knows Iran can in relatively short time, make nukes and retaliate.
James Canning:
The fact remains that Iran was attacked by WMD and the CWT, UNSC were proven to be useless.
There is no trust in Iran that Iran will not be attacked, sometime in the future, with nuclear weapons.
As I have stated before, Iran should have left NPT in 1998.
In regards to the US/EU businessmen – they are powerless to alter the orientation of their leaders. There is no point in counting on them in any way, shape, or form.
Iranian leaders already have accepted the possibility of US/Israel war against Iran. They have been preparing for it – some of the changes in the organization of the Guardians of the Islamic Revolution must be viewed in that light; anticipating loss of Command/Control/Communication due to US aerial attacks. The Civil Defense Organization also has been active; painting bridges, for example, in order to make them harder to hit from the air. There has been importation and storage of essential goods in Iran – an activity that has been going on for several years.
You are asking “Why make it easier for the Iranophobes?”.
You are missing the point: Iran can only deter the Iranophobes by making it known that it can withstand a war and could, in turn, harm their interests greatly.
Just look at Qatar – her gas life line is vulnerable. And this type of thing can be multiplied. The Iran-US War will be an international war. In this, also Iran will be in a similar position to North Korea.
US-EU Axis has painted themselves and Iran into a corner. They must take major responsibility for this as they enjoy such an asymmetrical power versus Iran. There is no way out without someone loosing. War will only make Iran leave NPT for certain and could conceivably, as it spreads, lead to WWIII.
“Iran will become something more like a North Korea with Oil & Gas – shunned by the US-EU Axis, embittered with Russia and India, but alive in the bitter sea of international politics. “
“She will be maintaining her commerce and intercourse with any and all states that are willing to deal with her. And there will be plenty; specially once the nuclear facts-on-the-groud make UNSC resolutions moot and a relic of the past. But she will remain under UNSC sanctions indefinitely with or without war with US.”
That is not very much similar to NK, NK is a client (buffer) state of China that is how she could survived the pressures, Iran is acting as an economic, strategic partner state that don’t make them similar.
kooshy,
Are you arguing Iran should have a sufficient capacity to enrich uranium, so as to pose a threat even if Iran is not pursuing nuclear weapons? How does this benefit the people of Iran?
Pirouz_2,
No country that I am aware of, wants Iran to have nuclear weapons. Are you suggesting the US would prefer to have an Iran armed with nuclear weapons, so that sanctions can be kept in place? Quie possibly, some of the Iranophobic Israelis might favor that, on grounds Iran is not a threat even if it has a few nukes, and that the primary object should be to try to retard economic growth in Iran. But the business community in Europe, apart from that controlled by the Israel lobby, do not favor sanctions against Iran. And many US businessmen also oppose the sanctions.
Irshad,
China’s focus is economic growth, and it has little interest in forming military alliances.
Fyi,
Once again, you are quick to describe a “US/EU axis” while ignoring the fact a good percentage of European businessmen oppose the latest round of sanctions against Iran. And Boeing in the US opposed it too. Why make it easier for the Iranophobes? The obvious strategy is to seek out differences of opinion and exploit them and try to widen them. Israel has done this for generations now.
irshad:
That scenario is not feasible – Chinese have nothing to gain from it.
The US-EU Axis, Russia, China, India are all intent on keeping Iran down since, in general, weak states are easier to dominate and frighten.
In fact, US-EU Axis strategy towards Iran has been to try to frighten Iran – first by threatening her with UNSC, and then, when that did not work, by sanctions, later war, and still later more sanctions.
It is mostly due to the moral courage of Mr. Khamenei and later Mr. Ahmadinejad that these threats were ignored by the Iranian leaders.
Iran will become something more like a North Korea with Oil & Gas – shunned by the US-EU Axis, embittered with Russia and India, but alive in the bitter sea of international politics.
She will be maintaining her commerce and intercourse with any and all states that are willing to deal with her. And there will be plenty; specially once the nuclear facts-on-the-groud make UNSC resolutions moot and a relic of the past. But she will remain under UNSC sanctions indefinitely with or without war with US.
This is finished.
Arnaold Evans and Pirouz,
can I propose a 4th option – Iran does not build a bomb, reaches the same capacity as Japan, but signs up to the AP if sanctions are lifted AND sign a comprehensive defence agreement with China that allows the Chinese to have a naval base in the Persian Gulf as prid-for-quo for Chinese cover to prevent any further sanctions via UN by vetoing it and also to curtail any military action against Iran.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL01Ak03.html
and see the link to an article about this by Kaveh Afrasiabi
\james;
I think you misunderstood me. I didnt mean that if Iran continues to enrich Uranium into LEU, that it will necessarily make a bomb eventually. My comment was regarding what Arnold had written earlier. He had mentioned two possibilities -Pakistan with sanctions and Japan with no sanctions- and had asked which one would US/Israel prefer to live with. Between those TWO OPTIONS, I said that I thought US/Israel will prefer the pakistan with sanctions choice rather than Japan with no sanctions.
And then I went on added that in my opinion the current situation was closer to a third option: Japan with the full sanctions.
Arnold out of not desiring either one of your two choices a third choice currently available to US which seems the US is pursuing and will continue to pursue is the status quo, the status quo will keep the issue live, till time and strategic events force one side to require to move, considering the current world political and economic, trends and directions, this status quo standing in actuality is beneficial to Iran. As is historically evidenced, every US administration since the 79 has kicked the can further in hope of a non direct confrontational soft change in Iran, that has not materialized yet and there is no evidence it ever, therefore the current US standing will allow time for Iran to reduce US’s strategic soft power when at the same time Iran is increasing its nuclear capabilities.
Iran is not and will not pursue a nuclear weapon program like Israel or Pakistan, but technically will have the capability to imbalance the need for one in the region.
Vladimir Putin told Larry King (CNN interviewer, US TV) that Russia had no reason to believe Iran’s government wants nuclear weapons and is developing them.
How much play will this story get in US newspapers?
fyi,
There has been a number of discussion about inviting Iran to join the Council. Obviously I think it would be a good thing for the Gulf. The neocons in the US frantically oppose it.
Pirouz_2,
Why do you argue that if Iran continues to produce LEU, it means it will go on to develop nuclear weapons? One does not follow from the other, automatically. If Iran for reasons of national pride and demonstrating to itself it can master complex technoligies, wishes to fuel its own nuclear power plants to generate electricity, this does not pose a security theat to any other country.
The situation in Pakistan is proving the wisdom of Col. Gadaffi who said nuclear weapons are dangerous for the country that has them.
irshad:
The Iranians do not have to do anything in Tel Aviv; there are Israeli scientists all over the world.
James Canning:
If they were well-informed, they would have flown to Tehran to invite Iran to the Persian Gulf Cooperation Council.
James C.
I agree with you that the gulf countries have more in common with Iran then what divides them – but the question I want an answer to is why have they not been able to sit down and work together on achieving common goals?
USA, UK and France have a role to play in the divide and ensuring the divide gets bigger between both sides. Just read the Wikileak memo on the meeting between Burns and Daggan where the latter talked about the 5 rules to pressure Iran.
Also did anyone read the recent one, where the USA was using Uks air base in Cyprus to fly US spy planes and spy on Hezbollah for Isreal?
Also – still no condemnation of the murder and attempted murder of the scientists…now we are getting leaks that Isreal may be behind it. They go Dubai. now they are in Tehran. Maybe we will see something similar happen in Tel Aviv as a result.
And whats peoples views on the wikileak memo saying that head of IAEA, Amano is solidly behind the USA?
fyi,
I think a number of leaders of various Gulf monarchies are far better informed, and sensible, than their counterparts in the US.
Spiegal.de has an excellent story today underscoring the astounding incompetence and stupidity of George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice that brought about the Georgian attack on the Russian peacekeepers in South Ossetia.
James Canning:
I never stated that the Arab Leaders were terribly smart; their best was Sadat.
fyi,
The Gulf monarchies want stability in the region, and economic development. And justice for the Palestinians. All three of these objectives are in fact shared with Iran. Cooperation in the common interest should not be all that difficult if common sense continues to prevail.
Arnold,
It is highly unlikely Obama would attack Iran in the absence of an updated NIE on Iran. And the updated NIE on Iran has been stalled because the warmongering neocons and fellow travellers are unhappy the CIA continues to say there is no intelligence that the Iranian government wants nuclear weapons. This is one reason “pro-Israel” newspapers like the Wall Street Journal play up the Iranian enrichment to 20% (without saying the only reason for such enrichment was the failure of the IAEA to approve the Iranian TRR refueling proposal).
This is really an unfortunate incident to have the prison guards killed in a forest near Haifa I wonder what started this fire close to the northern border
At least 40 people on board a bus have been killed in a massive forest fire near the northern Israeli city of Haifa.
All those killed were guards of a nearby prison; AFP quoted a police source as saying.
Many others were injured and hundreds left their houses following evacuation orders.
The blaze started in the Carmel Forest, near the city of Haifa in the north of Israel.
“A bus was caught in the area where the fire was taking place and a number of people were killed,” Israeli police spokesman Micky Rosenfeld earleir said.
Israel’s Channel 2 said the vehicle could have lost control while barreling away from the fire.
“It’s the most difficult incident,” said Eli Bein, director of the Magen David Adom paramedic service.
Helicopters have been flown to the disaster area to assist the present fire squads.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu appealed on Thursday to the international community for help to put out the fire.
“Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke in recent minutes with the heads of Greece, Cyprus, Italy and Russia with the aim of recruiting additional air fire fighters from these countries to help put out the fire in the Carmel,” a statement from the premier’s office said.
Reza,
John Bolton is a dedicated warmonger and certainly one of the more dangerous individuals on the planet. Gideon Rachman, the foreign affairs editor for the Financial Times, only was half joking when he suggested that Bolton be followed continually, as Bolton travels the world pushing for war with Iran (to facilitate continuing oppression of the Palestinians by Israel).
Wikileaks’ Zionist lies about Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/wikileaks-zionist-lies-about-azerbaijan-turkey-and-iran/
Castellio,
I was deeply concerned in 2006 that the Bush administration would be stupid enough to attack Iran, but I thought it unlikely because James Baker and Lee Hamilton were advising Bush to make deals with Iran and Syria, to get out of Iraq ASAP. And there was no N.I.E. on Iran. When the NIE was released in 2007, it made clear there was no legal basis for attacking Iran.
Arnold
“The US would gladly attack Iran if there was a 1% chance that somehow it could lead to regime change, as long as the attack wouldn’t result in harm (meaning deaths of people US policymakers care about, which includes US soldiers, Israeli civilians and US civilians but does not include any Iranians or Arabs) to the US.”
To be precise in past 32 years now, that has been thought and has been done through proxies, and didn’t work, same with various other techniques for a regime change, why would US think or risk it will answer positively if she attacked Iran directly, now that US is in close proximity and more vulnerable to retaliation.
Secondly I can accept that the Saudi king privately encouraged US to attack Iran , but the bigger question is what is preventing him to announce his desire publicly he is either scared of an Iranian retaliation or his own constituency or more likely both, therefore his desire becomes irrelevant to the US’s strategic need for an attack.
Solomon also reported today in the WSJ, same story, that the “reformers” in Iran spoiled the TRR deal last year, by objecting to terms agreed by Ahmadinejad and Khamanei, so that the former changed his position.
Greet, not Freet (in story headline)
Jay Solomon of the Wall Street Journal reports today (“offers, Doubts Freet Iran Talks”): ‘Washington is particularly worried about Tehran’s moves in recent months to geing enriching uranium to levels closer to weapons grade.’
Is “Washington” actually worried, or only pretending? That Iran made a strategic mistake when it started enrichin U to 20% is clear, however. Solomon did not mention Iran’s signals that it would suspend enriching to 20% if the TRR refueling application went through. But he wouldn’t, would he?
Castelio:
I believe however, that the delay is caused primarily by the recognized inability to install a puppet (or friendly) government after the attack, and without that then the attack will do more strategic long term harm than good (not so much for the fear of terrorism, but simply because it will unite Iraq and Iran in a unified defensive posture for the long haul).
I’m recently becoming more aware of the US tendency to do things that won’t work, as long as they won’t actually hurt the US by killing US soldiers.
The US would gladly attack Iran if there was a 1% chance that somehow it could lead to regime change, as long as the attack wouldn’t result in harm (meaning deaths of people US policymakers care about, which includes US soldiers, Israeli civilians and US civilians but does not include any Iranians or Arabs) to the US.
RSH, maybe no so naive.
I had been quite sure that the US would attack Iran in 2006. It didn’t. So, one looks at the reason for the delay, and one begins to consider if there are continuing and sufficient reasons for that delay.
The US wants the war, and for a variety of reasons that respond to a variety of consitituencies, some more important than others. (Lets ignore the elaboration of that for the moment.)
Arnold thinks it boils down to the numbers of US soldiers vulnerable to counter attack. He is quite certain of that. He has a point. I believe however, that the delay is caused primarily by the recognized inability to install a puppet (or friendly) government after the attack, and without that then the attack will do more strategic long term harm than good (not so much for the fear of terrorism, but simply because it will unite Iraq and Iran in a unified defensive posture for the long haul).
Everything revolves around determining greater American influence in the next Iranian government, while maintaining some ‘purchase’ in the Iraqi government. That is the goal.
To acheive that goal, a long term strategy of impoverishing Iran and Iranians appears logical, the people (supposedly) will be fed up and turn to their modern day saviours in the west. All eyes are currently on that policy.
Will there be war? There is war. It is being fought now. The Americans are trying a seige (economic blockade) as part of that war. It is a policy that maintains their reluctant allies while giving them breathing room to move around some of the pieces.
How soon will the next act be? I think sooner than later, actually. For domestic political reasons.
The alternative to this war would be peace, and given peace the Iranian nation would become an ever more powerful economic force. This is anathema to Israel, which seeks to degrade Iranian economic development, as it has sought to degrade Palestinian, Lebanese, Syrian, and Egyptian economic development. (It has added Turkey to that list.) And it is also anathema to those in the US who insist that a prostrate Middle East is essential to American access to the oil and long term strategic ‘depth’ to control India and China.
The Israeli influence plus the American imperial interests determine the American domestic situation.
If the sanctions are shown to work, they may be in place a long time while covert actions are taken to influence the Iranian replacement government…. if the sanctions are not working, the military attack will be sooner than later, as part of a policy of sustained degradation of the economic situation of Iran.
Reza:
The prediction markets at intrade are by far the best place to get a sense of the likelihoods of various people to win the US election in 2012.
https://www.intrade.com/index.jsp?request_operation=trade&request_type=action&selConID=743474
Obama has, according to this, about a 50% chance and Romney comes in second with less than 10%.
We are still far off. Hillary Clinton had about a 50% chance to win according to Intrade this far from election day 2008, but it is better than any other source.
If John Bolton were ever to stand for the presidency in 2012 and win then war against Iran would be inevitable.
The most disturbing observation of the WikiLeaks theatrics is a blatant absence of scruple by the right, the left, the center, the up, the down, the learned, and the ignorant to use it as a “source,” full stop. Servants of Faux news and the types of petty bourgeois pseudo-intellectual Noam Chomsksy seem to be peddling in the same boat. That the authenticity of the source and the content must be verified prior to any use hardly figures even as a footnote in the conversation.
This is how “the best and the brightest” gets mentally habituated to consume garbage and intellectualize the consumption.
The only articles/discussions that are worth the time to review are those which focus on the actual origin of this manure.
RSH:
Tell me again how the US is not preparing a war with Iran. Everyone here is unbelievably naive.
I think we may have an underlying agreement on this.
You think the US is preparing for war with Iran. I think you’d agree the US is not prepared to go to war with Iran today or tomorrow. Further, I think you’d agree that by “not prepared” you mean an attack on Iran today or tomorrow would be met by an Iran that still is able to inflict more costs on the US than the US is willing to accept.
By the phrase “preparing for war”, you’re arguing that the US plans, over time, to degrade Iran’s defensive capabilities while increasing its offensive capabilities until it can attack with less harm to US interests.
I think that is the race. Can the US degrade Iran’s defensive capabilities while increasing its offensive capabilities to the point that it is comfortable attacking. The US is giving that a shot because it has nothing to lose in doing so.
If Obama wakes up tomorrow and has a report that surprisingly Iran’s retaliatory options have evaporated, he will order an attack tomorrow. I think, and disagree with some people here, that the state of Iran’s defensive capabilities is almost the only factor at this point in determining whether or not a US president attacks Iran.
But while the US has a risk-free gamble that Iran will one day be weak enough to attack, and the US is taking that gamble, I don’t expect it to pay off. The US is preparing to attack Iran but will never be prepared. Once Iran’s ability to have US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan killed is reduced, Iran is likely have other ways to kill US soldiers, based in UAE and Kuwait.
I also want to write that I still think the ability to kill US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are Iran’s main deterrent. US generals have seemed confident that they could keep the shipping routes reasonably clear in a war and the US has a strategic reserve of oil that it would use to pressure other countries if the flow is disrupted.
By the time the US is out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then there one of three possibilities will happen: 1) Iran will have developed a credible threat to kill US soldiers in bases other than Iraq and Afghanistan 2) Iran will have developed nuclear weapons and a credible way to deliver them either to Israel or US bases 3) Iran will be attacked.
I think 1) and 2) together, are more likely than 3). So I don’t predict an attack.
About an attack. The US does not think an attack could prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, but instead could delay it for the amount of time it would take to build more centrifuges and set them up and make new fissile material.
The US would take a delay in Iran’s nuclear program if there was no cost. The US does not attack Iran today because it values the US lives it would lose more than it values what it publicly calculates as a two or three year setback in Iran’s nuclear program.
I don’t think the delay would actually be two or three years, especially if LEU is partially recoverable after an attack which seems plausible. And certainly if Iran has enough notice of an attack to put its already enriched LEU somewhere secure. But whatever the delay is, now, when Iran would kill US soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan in response, it is not worth it.
Once the soldiers are gone, the US could attack Iran for free. It would have a chance of harming Iran’s nuclear program and even if it doesn’t work, the US would not have lost anything. “Free” gambles characterizes the US approach to Iran’s nuclear program. The sanctions, aiming for preventing nuclear capability, killing scientists, the color revolution, these are all things that are unlikely to work, but trying them has no consequence for the US so it does.
These no-cost attacks on Iran will continue until Iran can develop and communicate immediate consequences for US actions. Until Iran establishes that the US has something to lose.
I think that over the medium term, Iran can deter a US attack if it establishes a way to kill US soldiers in the region even after the US leaves Iraq and Afghanistan. If not, Richard, you are right that the US will attack Iran. Not necessarily to end Iran’s program or even to delay it, but as a no-cost gamble where if it hurts Iran, good and if it does not, the US has not lost anything.
I still do not see an attack while there are substantial US troops in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.
Persian Gulf:
Yes, the WikiLeaks will only embolden the defense establishment in Iran.
And yes, Southern Persian Gulf Arabs never made up their mind if they are friend, neutral, or enemy of Iran. Too bad for them.
I think the posture of Iran will be closer to that of North Korea moving forward.
For the United States, I do not see any upside in any of these. If I were a US strategist I would go and sign “peace” treaties with North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Burma, Sudan, and settle the War in Palestine. They are draining United States with no benefit.
Arnold Evans:
I think, India’s scenario is more likely here. Pakistan doesn’t have that much of leverage other than what it does in Afghanistan and so she can be contained easily. the U.S will not accept a Japan scenario, nor Iran will stay in that posture. there is no point for Iran to stay there. Iran is already seen that way in the region without tangible outcome. the Japan option is long gone for Iran. it’s like the “grand bargain” the Leveretts advocate sometimes.
Faram & fyi
whatever the purpose of those comments, in Iran’s perspective the reality remains the same, that these states are not reliable by any means. it reinforces the idea of de jure nuclear status. Qatar and Kuwait have shown they do not deserve any respect. I was surprise the Amir of Qatar was not rushed in going to Tehran to explain this act of treason.
I think, in the long run these revelations, like election episode, will only embolden the Islamic Republic of Iran. if we are not going to see a war any time soon, Iran will be benefited in the long term. Iran was trying hard to keep the genie inside the bottle. now, she really doesn’t need that. that was the primary reason probably Reza Marashi was quick to publish an article of that importance. he can certainly sense the shift in power.
Good stuff:
http://mideastshuffle.com/2010/12/02/wikileaks-iran-cables-new-york-times-in-full-spin-mode/
@Kooshy December 1, 2010 at 9:04 pm
A good comment but you go and ruin with this sentence
It would also vastly increase the threat of terrorism against American civilians at home and abroad. It could even trigger a regional war. So according to you if Iran or it friends decide to retaliate over the attack by the USA against Iran then it is terrorism? What about the initial attack by the USA, what is it!
Steven Hack
Well said, point well taken.
Two quick points:
1) First, the Wikileaks documents are from the US State Department and other US sources – meaning they are from biased sources. Nothing in them can be taken at face value except maybe direct quotes from various parties – and even that is subject to someone’s interpretation. Therefore none of this material establishes ANY facts on the ground concerning Iran or any state’s official attitude toward Iran or anything else.
2) I’m amazed at how wrong virtually everyone here is about the context of the Iran situation and what is in the cards going forward. All the speculation about what the US will or won’t “accept” is just completely off base and utterly irrelevant.
As a minor example, a week before talks are to resume, the US has just applied more unilateral sanctions.
Tell me again how the US is not preparing a war with Iran. Everyone here is unbelievably naive.
As an aside concerning Wikileaks, Alan Hart has suggested, based on the emphasis of the initial releases on Iran (and by the way, Julian Assange is on record negatively concerning Iran’s civil rights record), that it should be a serious question whether the release has somehow been “gamed” to emphasize negative issues about the Iran situation, either by persons within Wikileaks, or more likely, the persons who have been providing Wikileaks with the documents. He raises the question of just HOW Wikileaks is getting these huge dumps of documents and whether they are being fed to Wikileaks now as a conduit for disinformation. I’m not sure the Wikileaks staff would be able to determine one way or the other if that was the case.
It is important Iranians comprehend the nature of the so-called Iranian-American organizations, such as NIAC, who support sanctions against Iran which only serve to embolden the Neocons and pave the way for war. Neocons use NIAC, Trisa Parsi and his animal cohorts, to tell congress “look even NIAC beleives the Iranian government desreves to be punished.” If the most “pro-Iran” organization supports punishment, then why not war?
The reality is that all these organizations, such as NIAC, are supporters of a war agenda. They know too well that they cannot maintain credibility if they supported war out in the open. They lie to be anti-war in order to garner support. The position NIAC took about “targeted sanctions,” did not serve to thwart war efforts by appeasing the Neocons, rather it was used yet as another tool to punish Iran and intesify efforts to weaken Iran for an eventual war. Trisa Parsi continues to advocate violence against Iran, simply by supporting a position that Iran deserves to be punished. Once you agree Iran deserves to be punished, it takes very little to convince the audience the punishment should be mass killing of Iranians.
Somewhat similar with the owners of this site views
WikiLeaks Makes Iran Attack Less Likely
By M.J. Rosenberg – December 1, 2010, 1:52PM
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is ecstatic. He’s come to the conclusion that WikiLeak revelations that that the Saudis, and other Middle Eastern potentates, privately favor a military strike on Iran, has vindicated Israel’s hawkish stance. With these Arabs aboard the war train, how can it possibly be derailed?
Aside: Isn’t it unseemly that the the Israeli government, which receives unstinting support, even degrading support, from the United States can so openly gloat when the US is terribly embarrassed. We suppress the Goldstone report for them, we shut up over atrocities in Gaza, we offer $3.5 billion to freeze a few settlements for a few months, but Netanyahu and his crew dance on the rooftops when America is in trouble. Can anyone imagine the Brits behaving this way? The US-Israel alliance is, sad to say, a one-way street.
Of course, Bibi is totally wrong about the impact of the WikiLeaks. The revelation that the Saudi, the UAE and other royals agree with the Israeli position adds exactly nothing to the case for war. The House of Saud? Arab emirs? Whom exactly do they speak for? Not even their own people, let alone anybody else in the Muslim world. In fact, the Saudi endorsement alone could be the kiss of death for Netanyahu’s plans.
A more significant revelation is that the Obama administration has no intention of resorting to force to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. A host of cables indicate that in private, as in public, only sanctions and diplomacy are on the table.
That is why right-wing Israelis (and their neocon cutouts here) hope that the Republicans win in 2012 — preferably former half-term Alaska governor Sarah Palin — and that the nuclear stalemate remains unresolved until she can order “Bombs Away.”
Nothing in WikiLeaks can be legitimately used to advance the case for war despite Netanyahu’s wishful thinking. This is from Ha’aretz:
“Our region has been hostage to a narrative that is the result of 60 years of propaganda, which paints Israel as the greatest threat,” Netanyahu said.
“In reality leaders understand that that view is bankrupt. For the first time in history there is agreement that Iran is the threat,” he said.
“If leaders start saying openly what they have long been saying behind closed doors, we can make a real breakthrough on the road to peace.”
By that, he means, a real breakthrough on the road to war.
But even if the Saudis, etc, agree with the Israelis that a military strike is warranted, it really amounts to a little more than nothing. That is because neither Israel nor Saudi Arabia nor the other reactionary Arab regimes considered US interests when coming to this conclusion, which is the only thing a president of the United States should consider.
Arab monarchs and Israelis support policies which they believe are in their interests. That’s how foreign governments invariably behave and it’s how America would behave toward Israel but for the unique political considerations that impel our national leadership to march in lockstep with Israeli leaders.
Nothing in WikiLeaks affects the clear US national interest which dictates, above all, that we resolve our differences with Iran through diplomacy and not through war.
That assertion hardly requires proving. The United States is involved in two wars in the Middle East already, in which 5,840 Americans (and countless Iraqis and Afghans) have been killed. And we still have well over 100,000 troops in that part of the world.
A strike on Iran by the United States or by Israel would not only put our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan at greater risk, it would destroy America’s standing throughout the Muslim world. It would also vastly increase the threat of terrorism against American civilians at home and abroad. It could even trigger a regional war.
Sure, a few unrepresentative autocrats would privately cheer us on, but those regimes would ultimately either join the opposition to us or be swept away by popular fury.
The Wiki-revealed knowledge that the Israelis and the Saudis, in particular, are tacitly working in concert against Iran would only make things worse, given that among most Arabs and Muslims, the Saudi regime is only a little more popular than the Netanyahu government. A US/Israeli/Saudi tripartite alliance against Iran could be America’s Suez, and could finish us off in the region the way the United Kingdom and France were finished by their anti-Egypt alliance with Israel in 1956.
In addition, of course, no one believes a strike on Iran would eliminate its nuclear facilities.
Nobody wants to see a nuclear-armed Iran. But few are particularly happy with nuclear weapons in the hands of Pakistan, or for that matter, India. And, believe it or not, the Muslim world has never been particularly comfortable with Israel’s uninspected nuclear arsenal. And then there is North Korea which, unlike Iran, has demonstrated its crazy recklessness over and over again. (Iranian recklessness has been confined to repulsive rhetoric, not impulsive actions.)
Israelis say that they don’t want to live under a nuclear shadow. But that doesn’t make them any different than anyone else, or more vulnerable either. There is a gigantic hole in the middle of Manhattan which provides ample evidence that Americans don’t need any lectures from anyone on that score.
The good news is that, unlike Al Qaeda, Iran is a nation that can be engaged in serious negotiations. It is not a nihilist terror group; it is not a suicide cult. Rather, it is a nation that has been a key player in its region for thousands of years.
We have grievances with them and they have grievances with us. That means that we must enter into comprehensive negotiations on all those grievances — starting with their nuclear program and our attempts at overthrowing their government, along with the whole host of issues that divide us, including the security of Israel.
Remember, back in 2003, the Iranians sent the Bush administration a two-page document stating that they were ready for comprehensive negotiations and we refused to even acknowledge the offer. President Obama has done better than his predecessor, but not by much.
He offers friendly greetings to the Iranian people, but like President Bush, he mainly issues demands and sets time-tables. (See this column.) A better model would be President Nixon, who treated a dangerous adversary, China, with respect and an outstretched hand, and changed the world. Is Iran really worse than the place we used to call Red China? More fanatical? What is Iran’s equivalent of invading Korea in 1950 to install a puppet state? (No, we installed Iran’s puppet regime in Iraq for them.)
In short, we can do business with Iran, if we want to — and if we block out the endless war-mongering from the neocons. (AIPAC’s spring conference will be almost entirely dedicated to hyping the Iran threat, with half of Congress in attendance, dutifully memorizing AIPAC talking points.)
There is no alternative to negotiations. Either get serious about them or prepare to live with a nuclear armed Iran. In either case, we’ll be better off following Nixon’s example and not George W. Bush’s.
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/01/wikileaks_makes_iran_attack_less_likely/
Pirouz_2:
I limited the choices to ask what the floor would think of Iran trading Japan-status for ending the sanctions with the alternative presented as Pakistan-status.
Pakistan-status is slightly more dangerous than Japan-status for Israel because there are actual deployable nuclear weapons. It is vastly more damaging to the international non-proliferation structure.
On paper it is a really clear and easy choice. Japan-status is of course vastly preferable to Pakistan-status. If the US is, as a practical matter, indifferent between the two for Iran, meaning if the US treats Japan-status as the same thing as Pakistan-status in Iran’s case then Iran eventually deploying nuclear weapons is much more likely than it would have been if the US could accept Japan-status.
Who knows may be instead of a South African telecommunication co. there could have been an opportunity for an American or a European telecommunication company In Iran if Conoco wasn’t arm twisted back in 90’s, if I was to be the American negotiator this coming Monday I would talk and ask how could we get a piece of the Middle East biggest rich market who don’t need to be financed, instead of talking about the unsolvable nukes.
Middle East mobile subscription hits 202 mln in Q3
Thursday 2 December 2010 | 05:42 CET
“…… Iran is the biggest mobile market in the Middle East in terms of subscriptions, with almost 66 million subscriptions at end-September. Saudi Arabia is the second-biggest mobile market in the Middle East in terms of subscriptions, with almost 43 million mobile subscriptions at end-September. In addition, Saudi Arabia has the most valuable mobile market in the Middle East, with mobile revenues in the country forecast to be USD 11.2 billion this year. Iran recorded the biggest growth in the Middle East in terms of mobile subscriptions, with 12.2 million net additions to the Iranian mobile market over the year to end-September……”
http://www.telecompaper.com/news/middle-east-mobile-subscription-hits-202-mln-in-q3
Pirouz_2:
The Iranians might, just might, suspend enrichment for a few weeks and months when they have installed all the 50,000 centrifuges at Natanz and – at the same time – have comissioned the Arak HWR.
At that time, the UNSC demands on them will have become unachievable and moot.
By the way Arnold;
Why do you limit the choices to Pakistan plus sanctions and Japan with no sanctions?
There is also a third choice of Japan with full sanctions, and at the moment we seem to be closest to that option. Or perhaps you think that within the next couple of years -if the current trend of western pressure continues/grows- Iran will build a few warheads?
Persian Gulf:
You cannot base your judgement on these leaks.
Arabs in general, and their leaders in particular, out of courtesy and politeness will tell their guests what they think those guests want to hear.
Arnold:
I think the most favorable choice for Israel is neither one. The most favorable choice from the Israeli perspective would be a military attack on Iran (and I must immediately add it here that it will be disasterous for the Israelies if a military attack happens against Iran, but Israelies are not in a position to choose any different path).
But if that is not going to happen then probably they would prefer Pakistan plus sanctions, mainly because there is not much of a difference between Pakistan and Japan in the sense that Japan can become Pakistan any time it chooses so. But at least in the Pakistan plus sanction choice they have the snactions to bully Iran.
As for the USA, I think their main preference would be an Iran without any enrichment, or at least without any LEU of significant amount on its territory, but if that is not going to happen -and if they dont go down the military path- then they too will probably choose the Pakistan plus sanctions option, for the same reasons as Israel.
All:
Iran: between international right and duty.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Iran%3A+between+international+right+and+duty.-a0238749339
Question for the floor:
If you had to choose between a nuclear-armed Iran, the way Pakistan is, but under sanctions or a nuclear capable Iran, the way Japan is, but with all sanctions released, which one would you prefer?
Which do you think Obama would prefer/choose?
Which do you think Israel would prefer/choose?
I ask because it seems to me that these will clearly and obviously be the two options available to the US in a relatively short period of time. In just five or seven years. (And if the US was to attack Iran today, that would not change the medium term outcome except to push Iran toward the nuclear weapons scenario.)
I think Israel would actually choose Pakistan, plus sanctions over Japan without sanctions, but that could be a very dangerous choice for Israel, given the relations Iran has already established regionally and the fact that change in some ways may favor Iran which can hope for broader regional relations in the future – for example, if the dictatorships in any of the US colonies of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and UAE fall, whatever replaces them – democratic, military junta, whatever – will likely have good relations with Iran.
Pak:
When the text of an article is available, then deliberately misinterpreting it is a very poor tactic. You’ve discredited yourself much worse than you did the Alan Hart article.
So Alan Hart’s overriding argument is that Assange is a US stooge because he does not believe 9/11 was a conspiracy. Oh, Hart also argues that the US was complicit in the leaks because aliens say so.
What a wonderful article.
It is not Iran but Israel that routinely slaughters civilians in Lebanon, Gaza, and the West Bank, and that it is not Iran but the U.S. and its NATO mercenaries who slaughter civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Pakistan.
Iran has not invaded any of its neighbors, but the Americans are invading countries halfway around the globe.
The “Iranian experts” treated the Saudi and Egyptian rulers’ hatred of Iran as a vindication of the U.S. and Israeli governments’ demonization of Iran. Not a single “Iranian expert” was capable of pointing out that the tyrants who rule Egypt and Saudi Arabia fear Iran because the Iranian government represents the interests of Muslims, and the Saudi and Egyptian governments represent the interests of the Americans.
Think what it must feel like to be a tyrant suppressing the aspirations of your own people in order to serve the hegemony of a foreign country, while a nearby Muslim government strives to protect its people’s independence from foreign hegemony.
Undoubtedly, the tyrants become very anxious. What if their oppressed subjects get ideas? Little wonder the Saudi and Egyptian rulers want the Americans to eliminate the independent-minded country that is a bad example for Egyptian and Saudi subjects.
http://www.vdare.com/roberts/101130_who_attacking.htm
Persian Gulf;
I don’t believe the Persian Gulf (as well as Arab) colonies have any serious fear of Iran. Their only concerns are; (1) their governments are overthrown by their constituencies taking Iran as an example of an independent muslim conutry, and (2) they get dumped by the US, or don’t get as much attention from the US, once the US is peacefully engaged with Iran. The latter will also enhance the liklihood of the former. This is why both Jordan and Saudi Arabia insisted (according to the leaked cables) that the US negotiate with them FIRST before any engagement with Iran.
The Folly of the Israeli AND Arab Approach to Iran
Is Wikileaks being manipulated by an intelligence service?
By Alan Hart
December 01, 2010 “Information Clearing House” — The Wikileaks revelation that some Persian Gulf Arab leaders wanted (and still want?) America to attack Iran is confirmation of what some of us thought we knew – that Arab leaders are not merely impotent but as dangerously deluded as their Israeli counterparts.
Netanyahu was absolutely correct when he told a group of editors in Tel Aviv that “Israel has not been damaged at all by the Wikileaks publications.” A senior Israeli government official went further in his response to questions from AFP. He said: “We have come out looking good.” The leaked documents, he added, “confirm that the whole Middle East is terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Iran… The Arab countries are pushing the United States towards military action more forcefully than Israel.”
Actually the assertion that “the whole Middle East is terrified by the prospect of a nuclear Iran” is nonsense. The Arab regimes which more or less do the bidding of America-and-Zionism are terrified, but the same cannot be said of many of their repressed subjects. As Noam Chomsky pointed out in a recent interview with Open Democracy’s Amy Goodman, a poll of Arab opinion indicates that 80% regard Israel as the major threat in the region. Iran is seen as a threat by only 10%. The poll also indicated that 57% believe the region would be a more safe place if Iran had nuclear weapons. (As with Israel/Palestine, the regimes are effectively on one side – that of America-and-Israel, and the Arab masses are on the other side – that of the Palestinians).
The only good news confirmed by the latest Wiki leaked documents is that President Obama has so far resisted pressure from both Israel and the Arabs. (In fairness it should not be forgotten that President George “Dubya” Bush also said “No” to an attack on Iran when Vice President Cheney wanted him to authorize it).
There is no mystery about why any U.S. president who is not completely nuts will refuse to authorize an American attack on Iran (and do his best to stop Israel going it alone, no doubt with clearance through Saudi airspace). An American attack on Iran would have huge and possibly incalculable consequences for American interests. It would set in motion an escalating and possibly unending counter offensive including unbridled terrorism against American forces and facilities (civilian and business as well as military) around the world. And while that was happening, what is left of the global economy could be wrecked by sustained rises in the price of oil.
If those Arab leaders who pressed America to attack Iran discount the catastrophe scenario indicated above, they are very, very irresponsible. But there is more to their folly.
I don’t believe Iran’s ruling mullahs want nuclear weapons, but under pressure from the Revolutionary Guards (the real power in the country when push comes to shove?), they may have agreed in principle a while ago that Iran should have at least the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb for deterrence.
Prior to the publication of Wiki’s latest leaks, the question of how far and how fast Iran should go to have the possibility of developing a nuclear bomb was still the subject of debate in the leadership in all of its manifestations. It may be that Wiki’s revelations will play into the hands of those in Tehran who are insisting that Iran must have a nuclear bomb for deterrence.
While I was absorbing what the Wiki leaks confirmed about the attitudes of Arab leaders, I asked myself this question: What would I want if I was an Iranian, even one who hated the present regime?
My answer?
I would want my government, whatever its composition, to crash ahead with developing a nuclear bomb for deterrence. I would tell myself that was the only way to keep Iran safe from Arab-backed Israeli threats. And when challenged in argument, I would say, “Do you think America and Britain would have invaded Iraq if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons?”
My main point?
If Iran does becomes a nuclear-armed state, it will be because of Israeli threats and Arab leadership’s endorsement of them.
Now to a most controversial question, one at least as controversial as the various 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Is Wikileaks being manipulated by intelligence services – one or several?
There are a number of bloggers – some of them informed writers with credibility, some of them uninformed, anti-Semitic conspiracy theory nutters – who think the answer is “Yes”. More to the point is that no less a figure than Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, thinks the answer could be “Yes”. He said so in an interview with PBS’s Judy Woodruff and also in a subsequent BBC World Service (Radio) interview. To Judy Woodruff he said:
“The real issue is, who is feeding Wikileaks? They’re getting a lot of information which seems trivial, inconsequential, but some of it seems surprisingly pointed… The very pointed references to Arab leaders could have as their objective undermining their political credibility at home, because this kind of public identification of their hostility towards Iran could actually play against them at home…It’s a question of whether Wikileaks are being manipulated by interested parties that want to either complicate our relationship with other governments or want to undermine some governments… I have no doubt that Wikileaks is getting a lot of the stuff from sort of relatively unimportant sources, like the one that perhaps is identified on the air. But it may be getting stuff at the same time from interested intelligence parties who want to manipulate the process and achieve certain very specific objectives.”
Another way to look at the matter is to ask this question. If a visitor from Outer Space studied the first two days of Wikileak’s revelations, what preliminary conclusion would he (or she) come to?
I think it’s entirely possible that he (or she) would say: “The main message is clear. Iran is the biggest single threat to the peace of the region and the world and not only because the Israelis say so. Arab leaders agree with them. The secondary message is that apart from the Arab leaders who say they share Israel’s assessment, other Muslim leaders, those in Turkey and Pakistan especially, are not to be trusted.”
And here’s another question. Which party benefited most from the first two days of Wikileaks revelations? The obvious answer is the Zionist state of Israel.
I must also confess that I have a nagging worry (small but real) about the possibility that Julian Paul Assange, Wikileaks’ founder, has been compromised in some way and is open to manipulation. My concern on this account is the fact that he is a 9/11 conspiracy denier. He is firmly on the record as saying: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.”
As I have said on public platforms in America and written in a number of articles for the worldwide web, I think there is irrefutable evidence that the Twin Towers were not brought down by the planes and their burning fuel.
My own conclusion at the present time is that I don’t have a conclusion; but I think the question of whether or not Wikileaks is being manipulated, and if so by whom, is worthy of investigation.
Alan Hart is a former ITN and BBC Panorama foreign correspondent who covered wars and conflicts wherever they were taking place in the world and specialized in the Middle East. Author of Zionism: The Real Enemy of the Jews: The False Messiah (Zionism, the Real Enemy of the Jews). He blogs on http://www.alanhart.net
late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year.
These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials.
Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
Read more
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/07/080707fa_fact_hersh#ixzz16ulqbr6S
War cries ringing in Obama’s ears:
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LL01Ak02.html
I am surprised on Qatar’s rulers saying this. I thought Iran’s vision was to replace Dubai by Doha. why should Qatar feel threaten by Iran’s rise? and to a lesser extent Kuwait? I think this revelation was a disastrous one for Qatar. can’t believe these stupid people are ruling those wealthy countries.
Iran’s independent stance is hugely popular among Arabs.
Without a doubt, Iran does represent a threat to U.S. imperial interests in the Middle East. Thanks to its large oil and gas reserves, and the fact that those resources are controlled by its government, Iran has been able to emerge from a devastating Western-supported eight-year war of aggression by Iraq as an independent economic, military and political regional power. Iran takes no orders from Washington or London, its natural resources are off-limits to exploitation by Western corporations and it has no love for the wealthy, corrupt, pro-Western governments that dominate the area.
As such, Iran represents an obstacle to the hegemony the U.S. desires. But openly declaring hegemony to be its goal would win no friends among either local governments or populations, so the U.S. has resorted to fabricating the myth of an Iranian nuclear weapons program, much as it promoted support for a war against Iraq by creating a myth about weapons of mass destruction, ties to al-Qaeda and links to the attacks of 9/11. President Bush also authorized support for a number of terrorist organizations to destabilize the Islamic Republic of Iran. (3)
Although the U.S. has been charging for some eight years that Iran is using its nuclear energy program as a cover for the development of nuclear weapons, it has never provided the first shred of proof. And yet, U.S. charges of an Iranian nuclear weapons program have formed the basis for four sets of U.N. sanctions against Iran.
http://www.campaigniran.org/casmii/index.php?q=node/11086
Wikileaks: The US ‘spy nest’ in Tehran
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/12/02/wikileaks-the-us-spy-nest-in-tehran/
@CIS
I hardly think the fact that the Iranian authorities grant Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett visas means they are working for the IRI. They do indeed have high-level contacts in the Iranian government but that then so does Michael Ledeen who wants to overthrow the regime.
I don’t know of anything the Obama administration has done to reach out to Iran other than the Now Rooz message and the canceled invitation to the July 4th embassy celebration. All it has issued are more threats and sanctions.
You make a contradictory statement: You claim the Iranian people are “natural allies of America” , who should be supported, yet you agree with measures which would potentially harm their interests. How does trying to isolate Iran endear its population to the United States? That seems patently illogical and irrational.
Reza,
You’ve got to be out of your mind to come to the conclusion that the US hasn’t done enough to reach out to Iran, engage the mullahs or try to appease them
As a matter of fact, Reza Marashi, Trita Parsi and his other fellow NIAC lobbyists have been misleading the Obama administration (As well as Bush’s) about the policy of engagement with the regime. In fact NIAC’s co-founder, Siamak Namazi owns an oil and export consulting company that works exclusively for the Islamic Republic.
Mr. & Ms. Leveretts also work for the Islamic Republic, while the US citizens are banned from traveling to Iran, the Levretts travel to Iran at least once a year to meet with high level officials such as Khemenei, Rafsanjani and Ahmadinejad.
Islamic Republic is a terrorist fascist occupying regime and is the most hated by the Iranian people, has to be isolated financially, economically and politically while supporting the Iranian people to bring regime change.
The Iranian people are America’s natural allies and the Obama adminstration has failed to support their struggle for regime change while trying hard to appease the terrorist mullahs. The Iranian people chanted “Obama, Ya Ba oona Ya baa ma” meaning Obama, either with us or with them(mullahs) . Did Obama support them ? instead Obama took leads from Trita (Iranians call him traitor) Parsi, Leveretts, pro-Sharia terroris-supporting radical Muslim Imam Rauf who calls the dictatorship in Iran a “democracy” still evolving after nearly 1,000,000 Iranians massacred by the mullahs since the 1979 Islamic revolution! Heres’s Rauf’s advise to Hussein Obama http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=40291 and Obama did exactly what Ayatollah Imam Rauf told him to do
Please don’t call me a warmonger neo-con redneck, I was born and raised in Iran and lived in Iran until a decade ago, so I know what’s going on both inside Iran and in America
Rehmat,
The 500 or so cables released are mostly just propaganda against America’s enemies. There really is very little that can embarrass the United States. Indeed, the Americans often come out of it looking like the good guys.
James,
The two-state soluton is not viable and Iran has been claiming this all along. Even in Israel, the left realize the futility of the idea. You can extricate Israel from Gaza but it gets really messy when you deal with the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
Eventually, Israel will have to accept that a “state for Jews” cannot be reconciled with democracy or with security and that they will have to become a “state for Israelis” irrespective of race or creed.
I am surprised the Wikileaks has no spooky revelations on Israeli involvement in Rafik Hariri’s assassination in 2005 – which has become USrael’s hotest potato in the middle East.
http://rehmat2.wordpress.com/2010/12/01/stl-protecting-rafik-hariris-killers/
We should remember here that a “senior State Dept. official” admitted to the Financial Times that the US and the other members of the P5+1 “tried to do too much” last year regarding the Iranian IAEA application to reefuel the TRR. Perhaps this official was Hillary Clinton.
Reza,
I quite agree everyone should be sure to see that interview (with Charlie Rose). Five highly accomplished brothers in one already famous family. Remarkable.
On another note, Hamas has confirmed it will accept Israel if the Palestinians vote to do so in a referendum. Hamas previously has made clear it will accept Israel within its June 1, 1967 borders if this is acceptable to the Palestinians generally.
I think it is improtant for the Iranian government to “keep its eye on the ball” and not get distracted by all the noise. Iran remains on the moral high ground regarding its IAEA application to refuel the TRR. It should proceed in the expectation the application will be approved.
Reza,
the resignation of Hillary Clinton would be most welocme. She is a whore of the Israel lobby.
It appears Obama was simply too ignorant about Iran, and unwilling to obtain good advice from people who were not working closely with the Israel lobby. Talking about sticks, as in carrots and sticks, was a sure way to achieve failure. I assume many of Obama’s close advisers knew this.
George W. Bush was played for a fool by his own advisers. Is this happening with Obama too?
Fyi,
The most salacious piece of gossip to be revealed so far has to be this:
http://www.thespoof.com/news/spoof.cfm?headline=s3i87544
It could force Clinton to resign.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 TEHRAN 08980
E.O. 12065: GDS 8/12/85 (TOMSETH, VICTOR L.) OR-P
TAGS: PEPR IR
SUBJECT: NEGOTIATIONS
¶ 1.
(C – ENTIRE TEXT).
¶ 2.
INTRODUCTION: RECENT NEGOTIATIONS IN WHICH THE
EMBASSY HAS BEEN INVOLVED HERE, RANGING FROM COMPOUND
SECURITY TO VISA OPERATIONS TO GTE TO THE SHERRY CASE,
HIGHLIGHT SEVERAL SPECIAL FEATURES OF CONDUCTING
BUSINESS IN THE PERSIAN ENVIRONMENT. IN SOME INSTANCES
THE DIFFICULTIES WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED ARE A PARTIAL
REFLECTION ON THE EFFECTS OF THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION,
BUT WE BELIEVE THE UNDERLYING CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL
QUALITIES THAT ACCOUNT FOR THE NATURE OF THESE DIFFICULTIES
ARE AND WILL REMAIN RELATIVELY CONSTANT. THEREFORE,
WE SUGGEST THAT THE FOLLOWING ANALYSIS BE USED TO BRIEF
BOTH USG PERSONNEL AND PRIVATE SECTOR REPRESENTATIVES
WHO ARE REQUIRED TO DO BUSINESS WITH AND IN THIS
COUNTRY. END INTRODUCTION.
¶ 3.
PERHAPS THE SINGLE DOMINANT ASPECT OF THE PERSIAN
PSYCHE IS AN OVERRIDING EGOISM. ITS ANTECEDENTS LIE
IN THE LONG IRANIAN HISTORY OF INSTABILITY AND INSECURITY
WHICH PUT A PREMIUM ON SELF-PRESERVATION. THE PRACTICAL
EFFECT OF IT IS AN ALMOST TOTAL PERSIAN PREOCCUPATION
WITH SELF AND LEAVES LITTLE ROOM FOR UNDERSTANDING POINTS
OF VIEW OTHER THAN ONE’S OWN. THUS, FOR EXAMPLE, IT
IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO AN IRANIAN THAT U.S. IMMIGRATION
LAW MAY PROHIBIT ISSUING HIM A TOURIST VISA WHEN HE HAS
DETERMINED THAT HE WANTS TO LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.
SIMILARLY, THE IRANIAN CENTRAL BANK SEES NO INCONSISTENCY
IN CLAIMING FORCE MAJEURE TO AVOID PENALTIES FOR LATE
PAYMENT OF INTEREST DUE ON OUTSTANDING LOANS WHILE THE
GOVERNMENT OF WHICH IT IS A PART IS DENYING THE VAILIDITY
OF THE VERY GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE CLAIM IS MADE WHEN
CONFRONTED BY SIMILAR CLAIMS FROM FOREIGN FIRMS FORCED
TO CEASE OPERATIONS DURING THE IRANIAN REVOLUTION.
¶ 4.
THE REVERSE OF THIS PARTICULAR PSYCHOLOGICAL COIN,
AND HAVING THE SAME HISTORICAL ROOTS AS PERSIAN EGOISM,
IS A PERVASIVE UNEASE ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE WORLD IN
WHICH ONE LIVES. THE PERSIAN EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT
NOTHING IS PERMANENT AND IT IS COMMONLY PERCEIVED THAT
HOSTILE FORCES ABOUND. IN SUCH AN ENVIRONMENT EACH
INDIVIDUAL MUST BE CONSTANTLY ALERT FOR OPPORTUNITIES
TO PROTECT HIMSELF AGAINST THE MALEVOLENT FORCES THAT
WOULD OTHERWISE BE HIS UNDOING. HE IS OBVIOUSLY
JUSTIFIED IN USING ALMOST ANY MEANS AVAILABLE TO EXPLOIT
SUCH OPPORTUNITIES. THIS APPROACH UNDERLIES THE SOCALLED
“BAZAAR MENTALITY” SO COMMON AMONG PERSIANS, A
MIND-SET THAT OFTEN IGNORES LONGER TERM INTERESTS IN
FAVOR OF IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE ADVANTAGES AND COUNTENANCES
PRACTICES THAT ARE REGARDED AS UNETHICAL BY OTHER
NORMS. AN EXAMPLE IS THE SEEMINGLY SHORTSIGHTED AND
HARASSING TACTICS EMPLOYED BY THE PGOI IN ITS NEGOTIATIONS
WITH GTE.
¶ 5.
COUPLED WITH THESE PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS IS A
GENERAL INCOMPREHENSION OF CASUALITY. ISLAM, WITH ITS
EMPHASIS ON THE OMNIPOTENCE OF GOD, APPEARS TO ACCOUNT
AT LEAST IN MAJOR PART FOR THIS PHENOMENON. SOMEWHAT
SURPRISINGLY, EVEN THOSE IRANIANS EDUCATED IN THE
WESTERN STYLE AND PERHAPS WITH LONG EXPERIENCE OUTSIDE
IRAN ITSELF FREQUENTLY HAVE DIFFICULTY GRASPING THE
INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF EVENTS. WITNESS A YAZDI RESISTING
THE IDEA THAT IRANIAN BEHAVIOR HAS CONSEQUENCES ON THE
PERCEPTION OF IRAN IN THE U.S. OR THAT THIS PERCEPTION
IS SOMEHOW RELATED TO AMERICAN POLICIES REGARDING
IRAN. THIS SAME QUALITY ALSO HELPS EXPLAIN PERSIAN
AVERSION TO ACCEPTING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONE’S OWN
ACTIONS. THE DEUS EX MACHINA IS ALWAYS AT WORK.
¶ 6.
THE PERSIAN PROCLIVITY FOR ASSUMING THAT TO SAY
SOMETHING IS TO DO IT FURTHER COMPLICATES MATTERS.
AGAIN, YAZDI CAN EXPRESS SURPRISE WHEN INFORMED THAT THE
IRREGULAR SECURITY FORCES ASSIGNED TO THE EMBASSY REMAIN
IN PLACE. “BUT THE CENTRAL COMMITTEE TOLD ME THEY
WOULD GO BY MONDAY,” HE SAYS. AN MFA OFFICIAL REPORTS
THAT THE SHERRY CASE IS “90 PERCENT SOLVED,” BUT WHEN
A CONSULAR OFFICER INVESTIGATES HE DISCOVERS THAT NOTHING
HAS CHANGED. THERE IS NO RECOGNITION THAT INSTRUCTIONS
MUST BE FOLLOWED UP, THAT COMMITMENTS MUST BE ACCOMPANIED
BY ACTION AND RESULTS.
¶ 6.
FINALLY, THERE ARE THE PERSIAN CONCEPTS OF INFLUENCE
AND OBLIGATION. EVERYONE PAYS OBEISANCE TO THE FORMER
AND THE LATTER IS USUALLY HONORED IN THE BREACH.
PERSIANS ARE CONSUMED WITH DEVELOPING PARTI BAZI–THE
INFLUENCE THAT WILL HELP GET THINGS DONE–WHILE FAVORS
ARE ONLY GRUDGINGLY BESTOWED AND THEN JUST TO THE
EXTENT THAT A TANGIBLE QUID PRO QUO IS IMMEDIATELY
PRECEPTIBLE. FORGET ABOUT ASSISTANCE PROFERRED LAST
YEAR OR EVEN LAST WEEK; WHAT CAN BE OFFERED TODAY?
¶ 7.
THERE ARE SEVERAL LESSONS FOR THOSE WHO WOULD NEGOTIATE
WITH PERSIANS IN ALL THIS:
- –FIRST, ONE SHOULD NEVER ASSUME THAT HIS SIDE OF
THE ISSUE WILL BE RECOGNIZED, LET ALONE THAT IT WILL
BE CONCEDED TO HAVE MERITS. PERSIAN PREOCCUPATION WITH
SELF PRECLUDES THIS. A NEGOTIATOR MUST FORCE RECOGNITION
OF HIS POSITION UPON HIS PERSIAN OPPOSITE NUMBER.
- –SECOND, ONE SHOULD NOT EXPECT AN IRANIAN READILY
TO PERCEIVE THE ADVANTAGES OF A LONG-TERM RELATIONSHIP
BASED ON TRUST. HE WILL ASSUME THAT HIS OPPOSITE
NUMBER IS ESSENTIALLY AN ADVERSARY. IN DEALING WITH
HIM HE WILL ATTEMPT TO MAXIMIZE THE BENEFITS TO HIMSELF
THAT ARE IMMEDIATELY OBTAINABLE. HE WILL BE PREPARED
TO GO TO GREAT LENGTHS TO ACHIEVE THIS GOAL, INCLUDING
RUNNING THE RISK OF SO ALIENATING WHOEVER HE IS DEALING
WITH THAT FUTURE BUSINESS WOULD BE UNTHINKABLE, AT
LEAST TO THE LATTER.
- –THIRD, INTERLOCKING RELATIONSHIPS OF ALL ASPECTS
OF AN ISSUE MUST BE PAINSTAKINGLY, FORECEFULLY AND
REPEATEDLY DEVELOPED. LINKAGES WILL BE NEITHER READILY
COMPREHENDED NOR ACCEPTED BY PERSIAN NEGOTIATORS.
- –FOURTH, ONE SHOULD INSIST ON PERFORMANCE AS THE
SINE QUA NON AT ESH STAGE OF NEGOTIATIONS. STATEMENTS
OF INTENTION COUNT FOR ALMOST NOTHING.
- –FIFTH, CULTIVATION OF GOODWILL FOR GOODWILL’S SAKE
IS A WASTE OF EFFORT. THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AT ALL
TIMES SHOULD BE IMPRESSING UPON THE PERSIAN ACROSS THE
TABLE THE MUTUALITY OF THE PROPOSED UNDERTAKINGS, HE
MUST BE MADE TO KNOW THAT A QUID PRO QUO IS INVOLVED
ON BOTH SIDES.
- –FINALLY, ONE SHOULD BE PREPARED FOR THE THREAT
OF BREAKDOWN IN NEGOTIATIONS AT ANY GIVEN MOMENT AND NOT
BE COWED BY THE POSSIBLITY. GIVEN THE PERSIAN
NEGOTIATOR’S CULTURAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL LIMITATIONS, HE
IS GOING TO RESIST THE VERY CONCEPT OF A RATIONAL
(FROM THE WESTERN POINT OF VIEW) NEGOTIATING PROCESS.
LAINGEN
CONFIDENTIAL
fyi “That the United States is incapable of delivering anything positive in the international arena (positive change, in the language of Mr. Obama). That she is essentially a negative power that can only inflict pain and harm.”
this may be timely fronazemroya
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22140
Mackinder’s Geo-Strategic Nightmare
by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
If anyone hasn’t seen the interview with MJ Larijani, I advise you watch it:
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11315
It is quite interesting.
The zionist warmongering and their grip over US media and US gov must end. Wikileaks overwhelmingly documents on Iran makes me wonder who supply the material to Wikileaks. There arent impossible at all that WL get SOME files from Mossad etc.
Reza – OK, but can two-track engagement be serious engagement too? The Iranians are died-in-the-wool bargainers from way back, surely they can’t expect a capitulation before they get started?
My sense of the cables I have seen so far about Iran, and I fully appreciate that there must be plenty more to come out which could cast a different light, is the US has been juggling the views of all the interested parties. They seem to be mildly mocking of the Israeli view on Iran, while in one case Gates was counselling the French with a more moderate view that seemed to OK domestic enrichment (although not explicitly so).
Pak
“With all due respect, Eric’s work was not academic. And just because it is really long does not make it comprehensive either, especially when it overwhelmingly relies on online news articles and publications.”
Nice try Pak Jan, once again you are dogging by the way of twisting (Maghlateh), the question was why there is no study to prove your point that Eric work is wrong and not to academic standard that you and Scott uphold see that was my question, which again you did not answer due to the reason of, not having one.
There is a old Yazi Iranian proverb that says “asbab-e-zaneh gazor, kafsh asth-o-Koss-o-chador’ would you want to translate that for scot
All of us should bear in mind Dennis Ross’s comment during the 2008 presidential campaign, that the strategy should be to pretend to engage with Iran, to grease the skids for sanctions, more sanctions, and maybe war. And this sh*t is working at Obama’s side in the White House!
Dear kooshy,
With all due respect, Eric’s work was not academic. And just because it is really long does not make it comprehensive either, especially when it overwhelmingly relies on online news articles and publications.
Nice try though.
It would be interesting to know how would Eric assess and compare the views of the two American academicians Scott Lucas and Juan Cole particularly on their views and motifs regarding the 88 elections.
In this past eighteen months a question that constantly comes to one’ mind is, why unlike what Eric Brill (who probably is not particularly too fund of the current Iranian Government on many issues) did, the pro green western academician camp who presumably are free and not afraid to write have never seriously bothered to invest their personal time and resources like Eric to draw a comprehensive and tight study of the election to prove their point that the 88 Iranian elections were compromised by the “regime” that they hate so much ( the study by “ChaKhan” Chatham House’ Ansari was promised to be completed but never materialized)
Can Scott Lucas presumably a world class scholar of Iranian studies and who he has the staff and resources enlighten us with a comprehensive academic study like Erics how the elections were rigged?
@Alan;
Re your comment on December 1, 2010 at 11:26 am.
Alan:
I am curious to know what it is that you would like to achieve in talks with Iran. So let’s assume that you are in a position of authority in US.
Be it with a dual track approach or a grand bargain approach, it really does not matter at the moment, what I would like to know is what you would like to achieve?
First of all what would be the issues that you would like to discuss, Palestinian issue, HAMAS and Hezballah (lebanon), Iraq and Afghanistan? And I am assuming the Iranian nuclear issue? Any thing else?
And what is it that you want?
For example what is your IDEAL goal in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian issue? What would be the ideal and just settlement on that issue from your perspective and what would you like for Iran to do in that regard?
Similarly, what is it that you would like to see as the final settlement on Iran’s nuclear issue? What is it that you want Iran to do for which you are proposing a dual track approach to push Iran to do?
You may have already answered these questions and I may have not read it. If thats the case, then I am sorry, but could you briefly repeat your point again?
And please, give me the specifics of the final deal that you would like to realize.
Thank you.
Alan,
The two-track approach only means greater confrontation and perhaps even war.
http://www.raceforiran.com/can-washington-read-iran%e2%80%99s-signals-in-the-leadup-to-resumed-nuclear-talks
Scott Lucas
Don’t trivialize your betrayal of academic integrity.
Alan,
Only serious engagment – at the strategic level – can bring about any rapprochement with Iran. The Leveretts have been arguing that Iran is a rising power that cannot be contained, and that the United States needs to reach a grand bargain and full deal.
I guess the question here as put forward by the Leveretts is what constitutes genuine engagement. The Leveretts appear to consider it should be the Grand Bargain approach, putting all cards on the table and drawing a line under the past.
The “other” engagement is the two-track approach that takes a positive Plan A with a negative Plan B approach.
External to whichever engagement process is adopted, there are at least two camps. In one camp, there is the sanctions/bomb first lot that includes, to varying degrees, the US lobby groups, France, the UK, Israel, and assorted Arab Kings and Crown Princes, and in the other camp there are the diplomacy first lot – Russia, China, Turkey, Brazil, Syria, and intriguingly various lower level functionaries in the Arab dictatorships.
It’s a challenge, but I don’t think the adoption of the two-track approach is all bad. It is not all good either, but there are no easy options.
Scott Lucas,
Make sure you do that and don’t forget to pay your taxes. The armed forces need your support to defend freedom. After all your not the only freedom fighter.
It’s always so good to feel the love from RFI readers….
Off to give a public lecture to all those colleagues and students who don’t respect me any more. (And maybe to collect some CIA money on the way home.)
S.
I do not know that Scott Lucas beating the dead horse or he is dead horse, sombody help.
Scott Lucas:
You’ve become quite a bore. Your calculations on Iran turned out to be false – you probably relied too much on a few Iranian kids in your town – and it’s really time for you to move on. Even your own colleagues don’t have much respect for you any more.
Scott Lucas:
You’ve become quite a bore. Your calculations on Iran turned out to be false – you probably relied to much on a few Iranian kids in your town – and it’s really time for you to move on. Even your own colleagues don’t have much respect for you any more.
Scott Lucas,
As I said, there is no need. It’s clear where your funding comes from…In any case, no one really cares, you have no significance.
Liz/Reza,
“There is a possibility that the leaked cables may provide insight into Scott Lucas’ close ties to the intelligence community –– which he almost certainly has. They might even list the main donors to and sponsors of ‘Enduring America’.”
I look forward to the revelations on IRIB….
S.
S.
Reza,
Re US-Egypt: “In other words, business as usual.”
I think that assessment is on the mark.
S.
They don’t need to do that.
Liz,
There is a possibility that the leaked cables may provide insight into Scott Lucas’ close ties to the intelligence community – which he almost certainly has. They might even list the main donors to and sponsors of “Enduring America”.
Then again, we should be so lucky.
Scott Lucas has put himself at the service of the US government. Hence, you shouldn’t expect him to get worked up about Egypt or anywhere else for that matter, except for Iran, of course. Pathetic, but that’s just how some people are.
Scott,
The reaction is pretty blunt. But what matters is next year’s presidential election because Hosni Mubarak is not expected to run again – his son Gamal may succeed him.
I sense that the American press is prepared to admit the elections were flawed and rigged but that Egypt has always been another Arab dictatorship and so what is all the fuss about?
The US government also issued this statement:
“We look forward to continuing to work with the Egyptian government and Egypt’s vibrant civil society to help Egypt achieve its political, social, and economic aspirations consistent with international standards.”
In other words, business as usual.
Ben Obama was never serious about anything related to the Muslim world. The reason lies in the association he kept in his political career. It were Chicago’s Zionist Jewish gangster families who helped Obama to reach where he is now.
Obama: “All options are on the table”
http://rehmat1.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/obama-all-options-are-on-the-table/
Salam Reza,
The US has issued this official comment….
http://www dot enduringamerica dot com/home/2010/11/30/egypt-elections-the-official-us-statement-reports-give-us-ca.html
S.
Reza Esfandiari
There is a lot of good coverage in the Lebanese and Iranian press. Understanably, very little has been said in the “Free World”. Scott Lucas is like a petty salesman who wants to sell us a lemon, but he doesn’t realize that he’s wearing no clothes.
Scott,
Given that 96% of seats in the first round have been won by the ruling NDP and turnout may be as low as 15%, should the United States refuse to comment and be seen as interfering or should it make it clear that the democratic deficit in Egypt will affect relations? Should the NED and others support the opposition in Egypt or not?
Also,
President Carter discusses sanctions on Iran, the nuclear program and wikileaks:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20024201-503544.html
It is, of course, easy to be sagacious once one has left office.
Scott Lucas
Don’t be a joke. Your material is garbage and your supposed coverage of Egypt pales in comparison to your anti-Iranian propaganda.
Salam Iranian,
You should find some of the best coverage of the Egyptian elections from Sunday to today on this website. Latest updates:
http://www dot enduringamerica dot com/home/2010/12/1/egypt-latest-the-ruling-party-wipes-out-the-opposition.html
Best,
S.
Duh.
Big surprise.
Klaus:
Yes, it is interesting that the documents released so far are so focused on Iran and report all sorts of “unflattering” things on the country and its government.
Btw, wikileaks is down again
http://cablegate.wikileaks.org/
Are they pretending that they have been hit by another cyber attack?
Interesting,
up till now 71 % of wikileaks’ new materials are about Iran.
http://irananders.de/nc/home/news/article/wikileaks-71-der-depeschen-ueber-den-iran.html
Wikileaks-IAEA-Iran
Since Amano took over as director-general at the IAEA, his reports seemed to me much more biased against Iran than those of his predecessor ever were.
But now a wikileaks cable proves that Amano simply can’t be objective and neutral as he is firmly in line with the US vis-a-vis Iran:
Amano reminded [the] ambassador on several occasions that he would need to make concessions to the G-77 [the developing countries group], which correctly required him to be fair-minded and independent, but that he was solidly in the U.S. court on every key strategic decision, from high-level personnel appointments to the handling of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2010/nov/30/iaea-wikileaks
@Iranian
ABNA has an article on the subject of the Egyptian elections
http://abna.ir/data.asp?lang=3&id=215183
There is criticism in the U.S of the poll, but it is largely muted and feeble.
However, I am sure that the opposition in Egypt will avoid confrontation.
“would be necessary to lay the ground work for further sanctions and, eventually, military strikes against the Islamic Republic.”
Dennis Ross is a chickenhawk who would crap his pants if a balloon exploded next to him. This is what you get with so-called “civilian control of the military” and volunteer armies in liberal democracies. Contrary to popular belief, liberalism leads to more war, death and destruction, not less. We will never let that happen in Iran (just a reminder to the liberal green slime reading this).
The defensive jihad-martyrdom model is much more peaceful, humane, rational and CIVILIZED model than the secular liberal democracy model when it comes to managing war and conflict.
During the 2008 election campaign, candidate Obama said he would seek an approach based on mutual ” interest and respect ” towards Iran.Two years later , his administration`s approach towards Iran is certainly not based on mutual ” interest and respect ” , instead it is based on double standards and hostile sanctions against the people of Iran ! I think the reason for Obama`s failure is simply because he appointed the wrong people to key positions on foreign policy – most of his appointments are people with strong links to AIPAC ! Unless Obama appoints people with a clear understanding of Iran`s legitimate concerns on both security and economics , there will be no real engagement towards Iran ( the Middle East in general).
Has anyone noticed ho outraged Scott Lucas has been over the last few days over the fraudulent Egyptian elections? I guess green mercenaries are not funded for these things.
I have to post this again:
Just think of Obama’s Norouz address. This guy was lying through the camera to an entire nation, his own supporters who for good reason did not come out to vote for his party this last election, and to his own administration officials.
Not even George Bush was so versed in lying as to look straight at the camera and so profoundly lie to millions of people. But this is consistent with everythingelse Obama has done, including the bailout of banks, tax-cuts for the rich which he intends to compromise, the fake healthcare reform, and the ballooning of the deficit. This hopefully will have a far greater blowback that anyone anticipated as it clearly demonstrates a man capable of lying at a level unseen in history.
This article is a good example of what is called payback.
When I read Marashi’s article this afternoon, I immediately knew this was good martial, just hope more candid people will have the courage to come out and start writing, which that would be the kind of blowback which could not have been expected with the careful release of the so called secret documents by the US’s Department Of Information.
Leveretts:
A clear posting. The response to this challenge, one would hope, would be a serious questioning of your articulated position to forward the discussion, or a re-positioning based on the facts as you present them.
This public questioning of how American diplomatic history is evaluated and recorded is beginning to have a cumulative effect.
Courage.
Leveretts:
I think the ramifications of the WikiLeaks and Mr. Reza Marashi’s article are actually much more serious that simple dissimulation and diplomatic trickery.
What is being implied, in my opinion, is this:
That the United States is incapable of delivering anything positive in the international arena (positive change, in the language of Mr. Obama). That she is essentially a negative power that can only inflict pain and harm.
If I am right, US will not deliver (to Russia) the ratification of the START treaty.