Month: August 2010

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 18th, 2010:

Washington Times: In an editorial, the über-hawkish DC daily echoes John Bolton (referenced in our last entry here) and calls for a strike against Iran’s Bushehr reactor before fuel rods are inserted in the plant. Their revised timeline gives the United States or Israel just two days to act — though they state that it might not be so bad to wait because the radiation-fallout that Bolton seeks to avoid would be a way for a potential strike to “hinder Iranian attempts to get it back up and running.” The editors opine that “action is needed,” but admit that it’s unlikely.

NY Times.com: At the Opinionator blog, Robert Wright offers a nuanced reading of Jeffery Goldberg’s recent Atlantic story on the likelihood of an Israeli military strike on Iran in the coming year (50-50, Goldberg says). Wright says that while there is a “bit of channeling” Bibi Netanyahu, “the piece is no simple propaganda exercise.” Wright concludes that while the piece is, if anything, a poor piece of war propaganda, it is instructive because it answers questions about the weak Israeli public (and private) reasons for bombing, and also offers the United States a map for constructing a plan to avoid that scenario, especially given that the piece offers “no sound rationale for bombing Iran.”

Arms Control Wonk: Joshua Pollack, an occasional U.S. government consultant, laments that the arms control community — “nuke nerds” — are not playing a big enough role in discussions over what to do about Iran’s nuclear program, often only speaking amongst themselves in acronym-heavy jargon. So he offers, in plain English, a little parsing about the different views of Iran’s nuclear goals: What, for instance, does “going nuclear” even mean? “If Iran is going to achieve breakout capability at a hidden facility somewhere — call it Son of Qom — then bombing Natanz won’t address that problem,” write Pollack. “The name of the game today isn’t bombing, it’s intelligence.” (Hat Tip to Laicie Olson)

Washington Post: On the anniversary of the 1953 coup d’etat that unseated the democratically elected and secular Iranian prime minister Mohammad Mossadegh (and re-installed the dictatorial Shah), Council on Foreign Relations fellow Ray Takeyh examines the events and offers an unusual account that places the blame for the failure of democracy fifty-seven years ago squarely on the same societal forces responsible for last summer’s squashing of democratic expression: Iran’s clerics.

OK, so he’s not really “our” man, he’s Inter Press Service’s (IPS’s) man in Turkey, but the articles of Jake Hess, as was reported by a number of media outlets, his writings have appeared on Antiwar.com.

But who is this 25 year old New Hampshirite and why does it matter? Jake Hess was arrested on Wednesday, nearly a week ago, on terrorism charges in Turkey.

From Hess’ writings one can see that he is passionate about human rights and critical of the Turkish government, but a terrorist? Not hardly. Still, Hess was interrogated for days by the Turkish police because his name showed up on a list of pro-Kurdish activists linked with the KCK, an umbrella group which includes a number of banned groups including the PKK.

According to Hess, the interrogations focused exclusively on his articles, including the one that appeared on Antiwar.com, and he was told he is “harming Turkey’s image” with his writing.

When the US offered to intervene on his behalf Hess really did a gutsy thing though, he told them to leave him alone. In a quote he told the diplomats “It would be hypocritical to support an American journalist who is persecuted for human rights journalism while at the same time supporting the Turkish policy of criminalizing Kurdish political activists.”

Prosecutors are seeking to have him deported from the country now, and his lawyer says he will likely be expelled in a week to 10 days. In the meantime he remains in custody in Turkey simply for writing analysis pieces that were a little too critical for the Turkish government’s taste.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 17th, 2010:

The National: Michael Theodoulou reports that new sanctions will exacerbate corruption and mismanagement in Iran’s economy but do little to change Tehran’s nuclear policy. However, the sanctions could give the White House the “political space” domestically to attempt engagement again, said Sir Richard Dalton, Britain’s former ambassador to Tehran and a fellow at Chatham House, a leading British think tank. “The drumbeat for war from neo-conservative pundits and from Israel has only increased” since the “crippling, indiscriminate” new sanctions were imposed, said Trita Parsi, an Iran expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Agence France-Presse (via Defense News): The White House denies reports that Obama warned Turkey that it could lose access to U.S. weapons due to its position opposing UN sanctions against Iran. Turkey preferred a plan for Iran to carry out a nuclear fuel swap, arranged by Turkey and Brazil. While both Turkish and U.S. leaders insisted that relations are positive, Turkey-Israel relations have been tense since the May 31st raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship left nine Turkish nationals dead.

Congressional Quarterly: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), “an outspoken Middle East Hawk,” is reportedly preparing a bill that will prohibit foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms from conducting business in Iran and participating in commercial transactions with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Obama has yet to fully implement the existing sanctions legislation and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told the CQ that while Congress now needs to focus on making sure that the administration utilizes all the powers granted it, there is no immediate need to pressure the White House. ” I think when we get to September, October, it may be time for a first review,” Lieberman said.

Slate: Christopher Hitchens argues that a nuclear weapons possessing Iran would threaten more than just the existence of the state of Israel. Hitchens predicts that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, the legitimacy of the UN and the IAEA will be destroyed; Iran’s Revoutionary Guard Corp. will gain domestic power; Hezbollah or “any Iranian collusion with the Taliban or with nihilist forces in Iraq would be harder to counter”; Sunni Arab Gulf states, such as Bahrain, would also find increased Iranian aggression difficult to counter; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never be resolved since rejectionist Palestinians will be backed by “a regime which calls for Israel’s elimination” and rejectionist Jews will be vindicated in their belief that concessions to Palestinians are a waste of time; and the concept of “nonproliferation” will be relegated to the history books.

Agence France-Presse (via Yahoo): Former U.S. envoy to the UN, John Bolton warned on Monday that Israel has eight days to launch a military strike against the Bushehr nuclear facility before the plant is brought online on August 21st. “Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they’re in the reactor, attacking means a release of radiation, no question about it,” Bolton told Fox Business Network. Bolton acknowledged that it was unlikely that the Israelis would launch a bombing mission before August 21st.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 16th, 2010:

The Financial Times: Daniel Dombey reports that the White House has warned Turkey that it could lose access to U.S. weapons, including drone aircraft that Ankara wants to acquire for use in their fight with the Kurdish separatist PKK party after the United States pulls out of Iraq next year. Dombey quotes a senior administration official as saying, “The president has said to [Prime Minister] Erdogan that some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill [Congress]…about whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally. That means that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress.” The White House was, reportedly, disappointed with Turkey’s opposition to UN sanctions against Iran.

The Weekly Standard Blog: Michael Anton suggests that the “endgame” for Iran’s alleged nuclear program might be coming as soon as next week if, as planned, Russia will fuel and start Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr by August 21^st. Anton concludes that, “[a]ny nation prepared to incur all that risk from striking Iran’s HEU sites may as well take out Bushehr as well.” Once the Bushehr facility is fully operational an attack might result in a release of poisonous radioactive materials, “Which means that if the story is true, and if the Israelis judge Bushehr to be a dangerous installation, they will have to move quickly – as in, within the next week.” Anton suggests that the Russians might be fueling Bushehr in order to bring about an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities. “Certainly Moscow has reasons not to welcome a nuclear armed Iran. Goading someone else into doing the dirty work has significant advantages.”

The Cable: Josh Rogin writes that the Obama administration may become more vocal in its criticisms of Iranian human rights violations. Rogin suggests that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement criticizing the sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders was the start of a new trend of speaking more openly about Iranian human rights abuses.

The Christian Science Monitor: Dan Murphy offers three reasons that Israel will bomb Iran. First, Israelis fear that a nuclear Iran may tip the balance of power in the region and spark an arms race among countries which deny Israel’s right to exist. Second, Israeli leaders may think that Iranian leaders are fundamentally irrational and will use a nuclear weapon even if such a decision will result in the destruction of Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs.” Third, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denying rhetoric makes Israeli leadership concerned that he might act irrationally, creating an existential threat for Israel. (Murphy also offers his three reasons that Israel won’t bomb Iran in a separate article.)

The Washington Post: George F. Will argues that criticism of Israel’s Gaza War has left Israeli leadership and Benjamin Netanyahu believing that an international consensus is emerging that, “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.” Will writes, “Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged “disproportionate.” Israel knows this as it watches Iran.” U.S. willingness to pursue engagement with Iran and, according to Will, exhibiting “fatalism” towards Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, will ultimately push Netanyahu to unilaterally attack Iran.

The New York Daily News: AEI’s Michael Rubin echoes George F. Will’s concerns that the Obama administration is exhibiting signs that it might tolerate a nuclear weapons possessing Iran. Rubin argues that the acquisition of nuclear weapons will position Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as kingmakers and, in a worst case scenario, “…with regime survival a moot point, true believers might use their last moments to launch the bomb to fulfill objectives of destroying Israel or wounding America.” Rubin concludes, “Denying Iran nuclear capability requires tough choices. The Obama administration appears willing to embrace containment and deterrence in order to avoid them. Avoiding decisions is not leadership, however, and may prove deadly.”