Month: October 2010

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for October 8th, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Dow Jones Newswire reporter Benoit Faucon writes that oil companies Total SA and Royal Dutch Shell contacted Iranian authorities last week to reassure Tehran that their long-term business interests in Iran will remain. The messages to Iranian authorities appear to have been intended to assuage concerns over the Obama administration’s announcement that the two companies had no further investment plans in the Islamic Republic. European nations have historically had a different take on sanctions. “Given the size and global importance of Iranian hydrocarbon resources, Shell finds it hard to see a future in which production of these resources would not, at some point, play an important role in the global energy supply and demand balance,” Shell said in its 2009 annual report to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, according to Faucon.

The Washington Times: Ben Birnbaum reports that Bahrain’s ambassador to the U.S., Houda Nonoo, told the paper she “fears her country” would be a target for a nuclear-armed Iran, given its proximity to Iran and past Iranian claims on its territory. Bahrain is also home to the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. While Nonoo only expressed concern about Bahrain’s security, Birnbaum interviews hawks from both the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and the Israel-based Institute for Policy and Strategy Studies, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ), who expressed their positions that the U.S. has not gone far enough to remove the Iranian nuclear threat.

The Guardian: Iranian-born Israeli Meir Javedanfar does a round up of views on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s upcoming trip to Lebanon. He cites the Israeli and U.S. governments, as well as a bloc in Lebanon’s parliment, who describe the trip as possibly “provocative”. He says the trip could confirm some Israeli fears “that the Iranian regime has truly arrived on its doorstep.” But ultimately, he writes, the trip is about Iranian domestic concerns with Israel and the US “further down his list of priorities”: ”The Iranian president is visiting Lebanon mainly because of his growing unpopularity at home.” He says another goal of the trip is to help solidify a somewhat weak anti-Israeli sentiment within Iran; the opposition has been explicit that they are more concerned with their own fates than those of the Palestinians. Javendanfar concludes that the trip may cause ”more trouble and headache for Hezbollah, both at home, and in the Arab world.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for October 7th, 2010:

National Review Online: Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ president Cliff May writes that Iran and Al Qaeda are “two sides of the jihadi coin,” adding that “[s]ometimes they cooperate.” He pronounces the Islamic Republic of Iran “the first modern jihadi state” and calls for “agressive enforcement of sanctions” — something he maintains the Obama administration has failed to do. “Iran’s rulers should be under the guns — metaphorically for the present,” he asserts. Iran’s leaders have the “goals and a strategy to achieve” Al Qaeda’s “mission,” he concludes.

Foreign Policy: On the Middle East Channel blog, Century Foundation Iran program director Geneive Abdo encourages the U.S. to take up Iran’s offer to renew discussions on the Tehran Declaration–a fuel swap deal brokered between Turkey, Brazil and Iran– as a confidence building measure toward resolving the West’s nuclear crisis with Iran. She reports that a Turkish delegation has twice been in Washington, including last week, to jump start the talks. Since it was introduced last May, Washington has spurned idea. “Rather than pursue talks over Iran’s broader nuclear program and risk failure,” she writes, noting little Iranian interest in the broader track, “a wiser move would be to talk with Iran first over the Tehran Declaration as a way of building trust.”

National Review Online: Victor Davis Hanson writes that two years into the Obama administration, it’s becoming clear that Obama’s worldview, based partly on appeasement, has resolved few of the problems facing the U.S. in the international arena. “[F]ailing to support the Iranian freedom protestors, ignoring the abuses of the Cuban and Syrian totalitarian regimes, and keeping silent about the destruction of democracy in Venezuela — has resulted in even more animus, just as appeasement of the unhinged and dictatorial always does,” contends Hanson. While listing the numerous ways that rising powers are becoming more confident in challenging the U.S., Hanson concludes Russia “… weighs the downside of having a nuclear Islamic Iran in its neighborhood against the upside of having such a rogue state, which, at least in the short term, is more a problem for America than for Russia. Chaos in the Middle East, Putin knows well, is always good for the oil business.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for October 6th, 2010:

Wall Street Journal: John Hopkins professor Fouad Ajami defends the whole of the Iraq War and addresses concerns that the country is subject to undue Iranian influence. He acknowledges that many commentators see evidence of Iran’s influence in the election last March — and the ongoing jockeying for power — in the role of anti-American cleric Moqtada al-Sadr and his exile in Iran. Ajami, who holds positions at the neocon Middle East Quarterly journal and the hawkish United Against a Nuclear Iran, credits Iraqis, especially Shiites, with a “healthy fear of Iran and a desire to keep the Persian power at bay.” He thinks al-Sadr’s defection to PM Muri al-Maliki’s re-election camp is because of the cleric’s desire for “access to state treasure and resources” and that Iraq needs “Pax Americana” to “craft a workable order in the Persian Gulf” in order to flourish.

Commentary: J.E. Dyer, in the Contentions blog, claims to have found evidence that Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wants to lead an invasion of Israel. Or, as Dyer phrased it, “plant the Revolutionary Iranian flag in Jerusalem.” On Ahmadinejad’s visit to Southern Lebanon next week, Ahmadinejad is scheduled to appear before a model of the holy city’s al-Aqsa mosque flying an Iranian flag. Dyer views the move as “a symbolic announcement that the ‘race to Jerusalem’ is on.” Insisting “[t]his is not meaningless symbolism,” he says the “blatant signal is something Ahmadinejad should be prevented from sending,” and wants the United States to pressure Lebanon to do just that.

Foreign Policy: The American Enterprise Institute’s Roger Noriega claims his research reveals Venezuela has been pursuing a nuclear program for the past two years with Iranian assistance. Noriega says, “documents suggest that Venezuela is helping Iran obtain uranium and evade international sanctions, all steps that are apparent violations of the U.N. Security Council resolutions meant to forestall Iran’s illegal nuclear weapons program.” Even more conspiratorially, he adds that “other documents provided by sources within the Venezuelan government reveal a suspicious network of Iranian-run facilities in that South American country that could contravene Security Council sanctions.” Noriega concludes that Venezuela’s nuclear program and participation in sanctions busting trade with Iran should lead the U.S. and the UN to “challenge Venezuela and Iran to come clean and, if necessary, take steps to hold both regimes accountable.”

Tablet Magazine: In looking at the relationship between Iran and Hezbollah, visiting Hudson Institute fellow Lee Smith backs up his belief that the formation of Hezbollah had nothing to do with Israel’s 18-year occupation of Southern Lebanon. For him,”Hezbollah is a projection of Iranian military power on the Eastern Mediterranean.” He adds, “There is nothing Lebanese about Hezbollah except the corporal host; its mind belongs to the Revolutionary Guard.” As proof, Smith points to captured Hezbollah documents show telltale signs of having been translated from Farsi into Arabic. This runs counter to other perspectives, including Ehud Barak’s understanding of Hezbollah: “It was our presence [in southern Lebanon] that created Hizbullah.” Smith’s account of history removes all Israeli responsibility for the growth of Hezbollah and shifts the focus to Iran – a variation on the “reverse linkage” argument.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for October 5th, 2010:

Bloomberg: Raj Rajendran reports that recent Japanese sanctions against Iran may reduce oil exports from Iran by 25-percent, a reduction of 500,000 barrels per day. The sanctions, which were announced on September 3, lead to the suspension of new oil and gas investments in Iran and froze the assets of 88 organizations and 24 individuals who do business with Iran. Projections estimate Iranian crude oil production will drop from the pre-sanctions target of 5.3 million barrels to 3.34 million by 2015.

The Weekly Standard Blog: While The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’ Mark Dubowitz applauds the State Department’s announcement last week about sanctions enforcement, he calls attention to the “many European and Asian companies [that] continue to make deals with Iran,” including Chinese and Swiss companies. Last week FDD revealed the Swiss firm Cresesola TLS had sold Iran €1 billion of tunneling and heavy earth-moving equipment. Dubowitz, who calls for punitive measures against European, Chinese and Russian companies on a nearly weekly basis, warns that “If the Obama administration opts for only symbolic and selective measures, it could collapse our Iran policy, making it likely to require more drastic measures to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.”

Financial Times: Najmeh Bozorgmehr writes Iran has dropped the espionage charges against Hossein Rassam, an Iranian national employed as the chief political analyst at the British embassy in Tehran. Although cleared of those charges, Rassam was hit with a charge of “propaganda against the regime.” That carries a 12 month sentence that will be suspended for five years, meaning Rassam can’t have any contact with foreign embassies or political groups. Nonetheless, the reduction of the charge indicates the weakness of those conspiracy theories that the British were behind the unrest following Iran’s disputed June 2009 presidential election.

The Wall Street Journal: While some hawks have squaked about an unnatural and nefarious Iranian influence in Iraq, WSJ’s Sam Dagher reports from Baghdad that Iranian clout over the Shiite community is an “unexpected casualty” of the post-election wrangling. While the anti-occupation cleric Moqtada Al-Sadr, by lending his support, appears to have put Prime Minister Nouri Al-Maliki in a good position for a second term, Dagher notes that the Islamic Supreme Council of Iran (ISCI) is no longer backing Maliki. ISCI is the Shiite party considered closest to Iran. The report also notes that the key Kurdish player in coalition negoatiations is not Jalal Talabani, the current president with strong ties to Iran, but Masoud Barzani, who “has had a difficult relationship with Iran” and holds the most Kurdish seats.

On Wednesday, October 6, 2010 at 6 pm, a panel of speakers from a variety of political positions, all of whom oppose the war in Afghanistan, will meet at First Unitarian Universalist Church in San Francisco to discuss how to build a consensus to end the war in Afghanistan.

Panelists:
John Dennis, Republican Candidate, 8th Congressional District
Daniel Ellsberg, Author and Activist
Michael Eisenscher, US Labor Against the War Nat’l Coordinator
Karel, Green 960 AM Radio Talk Show Host
Angela Keaton, Antiwar.com Developmental Director
Moderator: Jeff Johnson, PeacePundit.com

Time and Place:
Wednesday, October 6, 2010, 6 pm
First Unitarian Universalist Society of San Francisco
1187 Franklin Street, at Geary Blvd
Admission: FREE

On October 7th 2001 US military aircraft began bombing Kabul. Nine years later, US military operations continue in Afghanistan with no end in sight. Within the next year, the US-led war on Afghanistan will exceed the length of the 1980s Soviet occupation of that unfortunate country.

The war has already claimed the lives of over 1100 American service men and women; while more than 7500 have been wounded. Much larger numbers of Afghan and Pakistani civilians have lost their lives due to US and NATO bombing, including by pilotless drones.

A recent opinion poll shows that 58% of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan, yet both Democratic and Republican leaders still support it.