Month: November 2010

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

The Wall Street Journal: Soner Cagaptay, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), writes that Turkey’s governing Justice and Development Party (AKP), due to its identity as the defender of “Islamic Civilization,” may have already signaled a rift with NATO over Iran. In an op-ed entitled “NATO’s Turkey Problem,” Cagaptay says the AKP is expected to drags its feet in implementing the NATO missile defense shield because “it is directed against potential threats from two fellow Muslim countries—Syria and Iran.” Cagaptay adds, “Given that Turkey is the only NATO member bordering Iran and Syria, viewed by the U.S. as ballistic missile threats to NATO, this is a troubling strategic shift.”

Pajamas Media: Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow Michael Ledeen rails against Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s recent comments that an attack on Iran would devastate the nascent opposition movement there. He calls Gates a “blind man” and that there is no evidence for Gates’ assertion, never mentioning that top-level current and former Pentagon brass and diplomats — as well as, notably, Iranian dissident figures — believe otherwise. “I try to imagine one of the tens of millions of Iranian opponents of the regime,” Ledeen fantasizes, rather than asking experts and actual Iranian dissidents. “And then one day somebody blows up a bunch of nuclear labs, some secret military installations, and [Revolutionary Guard] headquarters in the major cities. Does that guy now rally round the supreme leader? I don’t think so.”

Think Progress: At the Center for American Progress’s Think Progress blog, analyst Matt Duss reports on a conference at D.C.’s National Press Club dedicated to boosting the case for war on Iran. At the conference, Michelle Bachmann (R-MN) cited unspecified “intelligence” to allege that “we know that they [Iran] already have a nuclear capability.” Duss notes that the CIA disagrees with this assessment. Bachmann also called for overt U.S. support for the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK), an Islamist-Marxist organization (commonly accused of having a cultish outlook) that fought against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war, and since 1997 has been designated a “foreign terror organization” by the State Department. “We have shackled this freedom-seeking group which has the ability to help Iranians rise up against that tyrannical regime,” Bachmann said.

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

FrumForum: Arsen Ostrovsky highlights an interview with Bahazad Massawi, a former Iranian Air Force pilot who defected to France. The segment aired on Israeli Channel 10 News. Writing on David Frum’s blog, Ostrovsky says that Massawi described Iran as “the world’s biggest supporter of terrorism” and that “Ahmadinejad creates terror and incites war in the region.” Ostrovsky opines, “far too many people still choose to turn a blind eye or seek to rationalize this.” He ends by asking, “How long will the world continue to ignore the voices of brave people like Bahazad Masawi before it’s too late?”

Weekly Standard: In both the print and web editions of the magazine, Hoover Institution fellow Tod Lindberg reports on the Halifax International Security Forum, where Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised eyebrows with his belligerent rhetoric on Iran, that was part of a weekend-long burst of hawkishness against Iran. (Jim Lobe wrote about Graham’s comments, noting that Atlantic Council chairperson and former Sen. Chuck Hagel said such war talk was “dangerous.”) Even Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO) asserted that Iran needed to know the United States was serious. “All in all,” writes Lindberg, ”Graham’s performance was a tour de force. First, it was a bucket of cold water in the face of anyone harboring the impression that the United States would drift without comment toward eventual acceptance of an Iranian bomb.” Just a few days later, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates in turn threw cold water in the faces of those who hope the likelihood of a U.S. attack on Iran is on the increase.

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

The Wall Street Journal: Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) fellow Benjamin Weinthal categorized a trip by five German parliament members to Iran last month to meet with their Iranian counterparts as that nation’s “bizarre way of working through its history” and“court[ing] Tehran’s Holocaust deniers.” The German lawmakers defended their trip as an example of valuable cultural exchange. Weinthal takes issue with the group’s unwillingness to ask questions about Iranian human rights abuses and limitations on freedom of religion. With other German politicians scheduled to tour, Weinthal concludes that “[i]t appears that for Berlin, promoting its flourishing trade relationship with Tehran and preserving the ‘historical treasure of the German-Iranian friendship’ trump concerns for human rights and nuclear proliferation.”

Defense News: Efraim Inbar, a Bar-Ilan University professor and director of the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, makes the case for military action against Iran. Inbar argues that “diplomacy has run its course,” “economic sanctions are generally futile” and that further negotiations just gives Iran more time to complete its nuclear program. Inbar says that an Iranian nuclear program could threaten the regional stability of the Middle East, Europe and South Asia. Inbar is resolute: “The discussions on postnuclear Iran scenarios underestimate the strategic repercussions of an Iranian nuclear arsenal. At this late stage, only military action can prevent the descent of the greater Mid-east into a very brutish region.”

The Wall Street Journal: With foreign policy not having been on the mid-term election agenda, neoconservative Senator Joe Lieberman makes the case for resurrecting an internationalist (read hawkish) bipartisan foreign policy. After indefinitely continuing the Afghan war, Lieberman’s “second priority for national security bipartisanship” is Iran. He wants to “ensure that sanctions are aggressively enforced” and to keep the military option on the table – euphemistically referred to by stating: “We must also work together to send a clear message to the Iranian regime that the U.S. is unified and determined to prevent it from acquiring a nuclear weapons capability—through peaceful means if we possibly can, by other means if we absolutely must.” Lieberman asserts that an Iranian bomb “would dramatically undermine our national security” and lauds bipartisan support for the most recent rounds of U.S. sanctions on Iran.

Antiwar.com’s editorial director Justin Raimondo has fallen ill over the weekend and we regret that we were forced to cancel his talk at UC Berkeley on Thursday, November 18. Our apologies to SFL and to organizer Casey Given who worked hard to plan and promote this event. We hope to reschedule in the future.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 15th, 2010:

The Hill: Rebecca Heinrichs, an adjunct fellow at the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), blogs that the $60 billion arms sale to Saudi Arabia should not be allowed to “sail through without serious oversight from Congress.” Heinrichs argues that although arming Saudi Arabia is widely seen as part of a containment and deterrence strategy against Iran, “The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is governed by a monarchy in accordance with Sharia Law…” and “…like the majority of Muslim countries, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia does not recognize the statehood of Israel.” She admits the United States does enjoy access to Saudi oil exports and that the country’s leaders oppose Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program but, “…but if a country’s mores are more like those of our enemies than our allies, we should be careful how we reciprocate those benefits.”

The Atlantic: Jonathan Schanzer, vice president of research at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), blogs that Egypt, through Misr Iran Development Bank (MIDB), an Egyptian-Iranian financial institution, has become a vehicle for Iran to circumvent international sanctions. “It is a testament to how difficult it can be for the U.S. to enforce international sanctions, even among countries that appear to be natural allies in the effort to deter Iran,” writes Schanzer. He allows that, “Egypt, one of America’s closest allies in the Middle East and the recipient of more U.S. foreign aid than any country in the world save Israel, is certainly not planning on becoming a rogue state allied with Iran,” but “…Egypt is clearly hedging between Iran and the U.S.”

Der Tagespiegel: The American Jewish Committee’s David Harris has an op-ed in the German daily (translated on AJC’s website) on the possibly forthcoming talks between the West and Iran. Harris cites experts who think Iran can be contained, then demurs: “[Iran] is driven by a theology which believes in hastening the coming of the so-called Hidden Imam. If unleashing war would help, it cannot be ruled out.” Even an Iran that doesn’t use weapons could make the world “a more dangerous place” by sparking an arms race that could lead to proliferation all the way in Greece. Harris then addresses potential dangers to Israel because of Iranian threats and client groups on Israel’s borders. Harris concludes by calling for explicit military threats against Iran: “The best way to avoid [the military option] is by making clear that it is on the table in all dealings with Iran. Only if Iran’s leaders grasp that the world is truly serious about preventing it from acquiring nuclear weapons can we hope for a diplomatic solution.”

Antiwar.com editorial director Justin Raimondo spoke in Boston yesterday on “Getting Beyond ‘Left’ and ‘Right’.” The event was sponsored by the new antiwar coalition, Come Home, America, which seeks to unite conservatives, liberals and libertarians against militarism and Empire. Thanks to The Daily Paul for the video.