Month: September 2010

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 27th, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: L. Gordon Crovitz opines that Ahmadinejad’s statements and interviews over the past week, which twist or deny accepted truths—such as no one is in prison for participating in protests—makes him “an information pariah” needing to be taken seriously. “A leader who mocks all questions is thumbing his nose at core beliefs of our era, including that information wants to flow freely and that no one is above this law of increasing openness. What to do with an information pariah?” asks Crovitz. Borrowing a familiar neoconservative talking point, he concludes Winston Churchill knew the real nature of evil when he “…blamed his countrymen for adopting policies based on the hope that Hitler was not for real.”

Reuters: The Russian decision to ban the delivery of the S-300 air defense system to Tehran last week were done in compliance with UN sanctions. Moscow remains opposed to unilateral sanctions against Iran, Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Saturday. “If we work jointly, and if our Western partners are saying all the time that it is necessary to maintain a consolidated position on Iran, we need to decide whether we will have a consolidated position on all issues… but if something cannot be achieved, individual states will do it beyond agreements reached with the Security Council,” Interfax cites Lavrov as saying.

The Weekly Standard Blog: Jamie Fly, the Executive Director of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, asks “Is Obama up to the task?” of stopping Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. Fly, who appears to have completely disregarded the possibility of a diplomatic breakthrough writes, “…the fact that President Obama went to New York even thinking that there might be some progress on the diplomatic front with Iran raises serious questions about his strategy for preventing a nuclear Iran.” Fly considers Obama’s efforts insufficient, aimed only at getting Iran back to the bargaining table rather than halting its alleged nuclear weapons program. Referencing Bob Woodward’s description of Obama in “Obama’s Wars” as “an indecisive president uncomfortable with his role as commander in chief,” Fly ends by questioning whether Obama can take on Iran.

The Weekly Standard: Reuel Marc Gerecht, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Foundation for Defense of Democracies, argues the west fails to grasp that “…the Iranian president lives in a parallel universe.” Gerecht, who made the case for an Israeli military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities in July, warns: “When we see Ahmadinejad solicit the arrival and “victory” of the Mahdi, who will usher in the end of time and paradise, our instinct is to pass over such words as a personal eccentricity or a pro forma invocation that must be a matter of politesse for pious Iranians…The General Assembly for him is the most important bully pulpit—a dais built by infidels who must give him, a devout Iranian peasant, the chance to speak for Allah, the Prophet Muhammad, Imam Ali and his descendents, and the glorious Iranian nation, the great bulwark against unbelief and Western oppression.” Gerecht argues, that is impossible for Ahmadinejad or Supreme Leader Ali Khameni to make peace with the U.S. since it would go against their belief that they are, “insan-e kamil, ‘the perfect person,’ an age-old Islamic philosophical ideal.” In a rather ominous and cryptic final sentence, Gerecht concludes, “Perhaps before Obama leaves office, we will get to see whether ‘perfect men’ handle nuclear weapons better than capitalists and Communists.”

As part of a sting against antiwar activists suspected of connections to terrorism, on September 24 the FBI raided six homes in Minneapolis-St. Paul and elsewhere in the country. At the Hard Times Cafe in the Cedar-Riverside neighborhood, The UpTake interviewed peace activist Mick Kelly while the FBI searched his apartment above the cafe.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 24th, 2010:

Washington Post: In an article focused on President Barack Obama’s address to the UN, Scott Wilson leads with Obama’s reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s insinuation that the U.S. government played a role in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Obama told BBC Persian, which broadcasts into Iran, Ahmadinejad’s remarks were “offensive”, “hateful” and unacceptable: ”Particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable.”

Huffington Post: In a Q&A with Shaun Jacob Halper, leading non-proliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick says he is convinced that Iran wants a nuclear weapons “capability” if not the weapons themselves. Fitzpatrick answers questions on whether there is a legal and moral double standard applied to the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran (legally, says Fitzpatrick, Israel is not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but morally the answer is more murky); grades Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on how they deal with Iran (both A’s); and on the viability of a sanctions regime and negotiations. While Iran does not have an “apocalyptic worldview” and is not “irrational,” he’s not sure if the Iranians are “appeasable” if the desire for “a nuclear weapons capability [is] more than anything else.” He concludes, “And if so than no, they are not appeasable.”

National Review Online: Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, compares the speeches of Ahmadinejad and Obama at the UN General Assembly. She writes Obama extended his hand for diplomacy with Iran and used his speech to corner Israel. “Ahmadinejad got the message,” she contends, adding that “Israel is vulnerable with President Obama in office, and Iran has no serious reason to believe that hate and terror will be on the losing end any time soon.” She said the speeches demonstrate that Obama “does not understand the threat facing America and the world from Iran,” and that “Ahmadinejad, therefore, took the opportunity provided by the U.N. to slam the door once more in President Obama’s face.”

Commentary: Jennifer Rubin contrasts President Obama’s UN speech, which she labels “namby-pamby” for its failure to detail military options, with the current push by the far-right Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and a group of House Republicans to escalating measures — including a military strike — against Iran. CUFI’s video accuses Ahmadinejad of committing “incitement to genocide” and urges his prosecution by the International Criminal Court. (Eli has written about the hypocrisy of this tack from right-wing supporters of Israel.) The letter from Republican members of the House calls for Obama to “take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. All options must be on the table.” Rubin laments that Obama is not taking Iran’s threats seriously and that should Israel act unilaterally against Iran, the U.S. should “stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.”

While most of the attention in yesterday’s UN speeches was centered around the US delegation’s faux-impromptu walkout on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s talk, President Barack Obama’s own talk had a notably absent delegation, the Israeli one.

Officially the Israeli government denies that this was an organized boycott and insists the absence of their delegation was planned well in advance, and was related to the relatively minor Jewish holiday of Sukkot. The weeklong holiday does not appear to have traditionally meant Israeli officially snubbing major international events, however.

Moreover President Obama’s speech sparked no small level of outrage among top Israeli officials, and a number of Israel’s ruling coalition MPs made public comments in condemnation of the president and the speech late last night. This is only adding fuel to the belief by many that the snub was about the speech and not the holiday.

AIPAC spokesmen angrily denied this belief, however, and insisted that it was a “malicious” lie against Israel. The empty chairs seem to remain an issue for many, however.

Antiwar.com’s Eric Garris appeared on WBAI (New York — Pacifica Network) yesterday to talk about the state of the antiwar movement.

The interview starts at the 12 minute (12:00) mark.

Listen.

Antiwar Radio’s Scott Horton did an excellent job debating the “Iran threat” issue on Russia Today TV yesterday. Here is the clip: