Month: January 2011

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for January 26th, 2011:

The Washington Times: American Enterprise Institute fellow and former UN ambassador John Bolton denounces the EU and White House’s commitment to P5+1 negotiations with Iran, writing, “There is not, and has not been from the outset of these tortuous negotiations, even the slightest chance Iran will renounce its 20-year goal of deliverable nuclear weapons.” Bolton goes on to argue, “…the Tehran regime has systematically used the talks to buy time to overcome the many scientific and technological obstacles to achieving its objective.”

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, writing on her Right Turn blog, opines on the retirement of Stuart Levey from his position as Under Secretary for Terrorism and Financial Intelligence. Rubin uses this event as an opportunity to review the state of Iran sanctions, writing, “One sanctions expert reminds me that sanctions on the Central Bank of Iran have still not been issued, and no foreign, non-Iranian bank has been sanctioned for its involvement with Iran.” Rubin concludes, “…[n]ow we see that sanctions critics were right all along. Even the best sanctions efforts innovatively implemented have failed to meet our objectives. We need to change the regime, not the rulers’ hearts and minds.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for January 25th, 2011:

The Washington Post: The Post’s editorial board says that “last weekend’s meetings in Istanbul between Iranian representatives and a six-nation coalition can only be seen as a serious setback” for the Obama administration’s sanctions policy. The op-ed asserts, “Iran made no effort to negotiate,” but the lack of progress might make it easier for the administration to find support for more sanctions. Instead of following this approach, the editorial board suggests that the administration shift its focus from “seeking to bargain with the regime” to emphasizing support for the Green movement. Supporting the Green movement “could also send an important message to Iranians: that the international coalition seeks not to punish them but to weaken the government they despise,” they conclude.

The Wall Street Journal: The Journal’s editorial board responds to the terrorist attack at Moscow’s Domodedovo airport, suggesting that perhaps the latest attack in Russia will make the threat of terrorism be taken more seriously. “Mr. Putin tends to view the West as his rival and prefers a softer line toward the world’s main sponsor of terrorism, Iran,” says The Journal. “But the Domodedovo attacks are a reminder of the global nature of this threat, and of Russia’s own stake in defeating terror at home and abroad.”

National Review Online: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Benjamin Weinthal writes on National Review’s The Corner blog that negotiations with Iran have become a “repetitive motion disorder” and “compulsive rituals.” Weinthal urges the P5+1 not to schedule another negotiating session since the West’s willingness to negotiate has “has permitted the tyrants in Tehran to secure much-needed time to develop its nuclear technology and missile program.” “The only cure at this stage is not more negotiations, but sanctions, more sanctions, and even more sanctions,” he argues. But, “[r]epetitive-motion negotiations — without vastly intensified sanctions pressure — are only solidifying the regime’s iron-clad rule.”

McClatchy Newspapers are running a fascinating history entitled “How Congress helped thwart Obama’s plan to close Guantanamo.” The article cites heavily from WikiLeaks cables, showing how the “done deal” announcement by President Obama from January of 2009, promising to close the detention center within 12 months, fell by the wayside.

Fascinatingly, the cables show that the ground was laid for the continuation of the facility’s operation before President Obama even took office, and growing annoyance abroad about the US demands to accept detainees when none of them would ever end up in America clearly didn’t help.

At the same time, the article makes Congressional unwillingness to relocate innocent detainees to the US as a “block” on Obama’s plans, as though they were to be taken at face value. Clearly, President Obama could have closed the facility any number of ways, and civilian trials for detainees would have gone a long way both in removing the taint of the detention system and convincing other nations that the innocent really were just that, innocent.

Instead, President Obama made an announcement in January 2009, then praised Congress when it defunded the closure just a few months later. By the end of the year, officials weren’t mentioning it anymore, and two years later President Obama is still claiming to be sincere about “wanting” to close the facility, even as he lays the groundwork for its continuation long after he is out of office.

The Congressional opposition to Gitmo’s closure was very real, but the notion that innocent people could be detained eternally simply because Congress didn’t like the idea of letting them go is nonsense. President Obama is clearly complicit in keeping the facility going, and his feigned interest in closing it is only making matters worse, by giving the false impression that any such effort is ongoing.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for January 24th, 2011:

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin blogs, after the conclusion of the P5+1 talks in Istanbul, that “Instead of talking to an Iranian regime that has shown no interest in negotiations — and, at the same time, derives legitimacy from the negotiations — maybe there are more fruitful actions that we and our allies could be taking.” Such actions include “stressing that the military option remains on the table; making regime change the official policy of the U.S.; working to isolate Iran from international bodies and heightening the focus on Iran’s human rights abuses.” She concludes that the administration “has to stop trying to engage a regime that refuses to be engaged.”

The Wall Street Journal: Amir Taheri opines that sanctions are squeezing the Iranian economy — “much of Iran’s industry depends on imported parts, many of which are now on the U.N.’s forbidden list because of suspected dual use” — and sanctions are slowing the nuclear program. Taheri argues that sanctions are far more effective than typically thought and “the evidence is that [sanctions are] hurting the economy and could weaken a regime that is also facing a tenacious internal opposition for the first time since 1981.”

The Jerusalem Post: Tovah Lazaroff excerpts former British prime minister Tony Blair’s comments before the British investigative panel on the Iraq War. Blair said, “The West has to get out of this – what I think is a wretched policy, or posture of apology, for believing that we are causing what the Iranians are doing, or what these extremists are doing. We are not [causing this].” Lazaroff looks for Israeli responses to Blair’s remarks and reports, “an Israeli official noted that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu had said on a number of occasions that a military option with respect to Iran should be on the table.” Lazaroff continued, “Netanyahu is of the opinion that for Iran’s nuclear program to be halted, Teheran must believe there is a credible military option, the official told The Jerusalem Post.”

On the House floor Thursday:

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for January 21st, 2011:

Foreign Policy: Josh Rogin, on his Foreign Policy blog The Cable, reports that administration officials are pushing back against a common perception in Congress that China isn’t doing enough to support Iran sanctions. In an update to his post, a senior GOP Senate aide responded to the administration official’s comment, telling Rogin, “These senior Administration officials continue to obfuscate and misdirect. Chinese entities are clearly in violation of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA) and the Comprehensive Iran Sanction, Accountability, and Divestment Act of 2010 (CISADA).” The aide continued with a thinly veiled threat: “If the administration doesn’t act soon, it faces the loss of its waiver authority and investigatory discretion on these matters.”

The Jerusalem Post: The Jerusalem Post’s editorial board writes that revelations from outgoing Mossad chief Meir Dagan, that Iran is unlikely to have the capability to produce a nuclear weapon until 2015, will make reducing tensions with Iran and redoubling engagement efforts more appealing. “But while there might be some truth to some these claims, it would be incredibly naïve to expect a nebulous engagement policy to convince Iran to abandon a nuclear program that has earned it popularity domestically and heightened diplomatic influence internationally,” writes the Post. The op-ed concludes, “Iran is bent on obtaining the bomb. That the danger may have been delayed by a year or two does not make it any less of an existential threat.”