Author: Eli Clifton

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 29th, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Harvard professor and Project for the New American Century signatory Stephen Peter Rosen writes that while the United States promotes the elimination of nuclear weapons, Iran and North Korea have made the acquisition of nuclear weapons their high priority. Following the meme of equating North Korea and Iran as similar foreign policy challenges, Rosen argues the United States should not simply accept Iran or North Korea acquiring nuclear weapons but, instead, “If North Korea and Iran want nuclear weapons, and China does nothing to stop them, we can reintroduce tactical nuclear weapons onto American aircraft carriers and attack submarines in the Pacific.” Acknowledging the importance of working with allied nations, Rosen characterizes his call for increased U.S. military readiness as “an old-school response that doesn’t seek war, but that also doesn’t aspire to utopian goals.”

Commentary: Jennifer Rubin is one of dozens of hawks to jump on the WikiLeaks document dump of U.S. diplomatic cables to draw exactly the conclusions she was looking for. Despite confirmation of linkage — that the continuing Israeli-Palestinian conflict hurts U.S. interests in the Mid East — at the highest levels of the Pentagon, Rubin is determined to take the Saudi King’s word that the concept is “nonsense.” “In short, there is zero evidence that the Palestinian non-peace talks were essential to obtaining the assistance of the Arab states on Iran,” she writes. She calls Palestinian-Israeli peace talks a “grand waste of time and a dangerous distraction” and says, “Obama frittered away two years that could have been spent cementing an Israeli-Arab alliance against Tehran.” Her logic relies on the straw-man argument that the peace process is “essential to obtaining the help of the Arab states in confronting Iran’s nuclear threat” — the words “helpful” or “productive” used in conjunction with “peace process” would better describe this linkage.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 23rd, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: The WSJ’s Jay Solomon writes on North Korea’s reported upgrades to its nuclear-fuel production capabilities and the increasing fears among lawmakers that Pyongyang may provide Iran with assistance in its nuclear program. “One has to assume that Iran either has the P-2 centrifuge from North Korea, or could get it very easily,” said Simon Henderson, a proliferation expert at the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP). Solomon ends his article with the acknowledgement that it is unclear which country is actually more advanced in its nuclear program: “Nuclear experts also noted that North Korea could be facing similar technical difficulties as Iran in operating the equipment.”

Los Angeles Times: Former UN ambassador and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Senior Fellow John Bolton opines on North Korea’s new enrichment plant. “There is substantial reason for concern that Tehran’s capabilities and its penchant for cooperating with the North exceed U.S. intelligence estimates,” Bolton warns. “The spinning of North Korea-related intelligence in recent years bears an uneasy similarity to the famously distorted 2007 National Intelligence Estimate on Iran’s nuclear weapons program,” he adds, calling on the new Congress to investigate “such politicization of intelligence.”

Pajamas Media: Foundation for Defense of Democracies scholar Michael Ledeen scribbles on his “Faster, Please!” blog, in a typically scatter-shot post, that the regime in Iran is on the verge of collapse. “The Iranian dissidents have demonstrated remarkable courage and tenacity, and the Green strategy of maintaining pressure on the regime, hoping to eventually provoke its implosion, may succeed,” writes Ledeen. He comments on the government’s stalled efforts to cut off gas subsidies and on a recent pronouncement by opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi about non-violent protests scheduled to take place on the upcoming Student’s Day in Iran. Ledeen’s message of solidarity with — and call for overt support of — Iran’s Green Movement belies the diversity of the opposition. This is particularly noticeable in his praise of Mousavi, who has emerged as a clear reformer, not a regime opponent. Ledeen veers into wild conspiratorial accusations of an Iranian arms shipment through Nigeria/Gambia to Afghanistan, which does not jibe with a simple glance at a map.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 19th, 2010:

The Washington Post: The Post editorial board, led by neocon Fred Hiatt, is challenging Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’s opposition to a military strike on Iran. “To be clear: We agree that the administration should continue to focus for now on non-military strategies such as sanctions and support for the Iranian opposition. But that does not require publicly talking down military action,” writes the Post. The editorial notes that Gates’s comments are widely viewed as pushback against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s assertion that a “credible military threat” is a necessary component of diplomacy with Iran. To pushback against Gates, the Post employs the exact same talking point Netanyahu used: “[W]e do know for sure is that the last decision Iran made to curb its nuclear program, in 2003, came when the regime feared – reasonably or not – that it could be a target of the U.S. forces,” said the editorial. Eleven days ago, Netanyahu said: “The only time that Iran suspended its nuclear program was for a brief period during 2003 when the regime believed that it faced a credible threat of military action against it.” A report from the Stimson Center and the U.S. Institute of Peace recently said that pressure “should be pursued through prudent actions rather than through a language of confrontation, threats, or insults. Threats and coercion will be far more effective if they are implicit rather than explicit: a key element of over-all US policy, but not the sole basis of that policy.”

The Washington Times: Ben Birnbaum reports on the efforts of Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), head of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on terrorism, to get a State Department briefing on why the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) remains on the U.S. list of foreign terror organizations. MEK activists have a well-known presence on Capitol Hill, and members of Congress have as recently as this week taken up their cause. ”This isn’t the same MEK that was assassinating people during the shah’s regime and was committed to Marxism,” said Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA). He added the organization was not the same as 30 or 40 years ago despite its leadership has remaining constant since 1979 and only publicly renouncing violence in 2001. Abbas Milani of the Hoover Institution tells Birnbaum that members of Iran’s Green Movement have a “range of views” on whether the MEK should be brought back into the fold. But Omid Memarian, a dissident journalist who served time in an Iranian prison, said: “Politically, they are dead. They have no place in Iran’s politics.” Most analysts believe this to be the overwhelming view of Iranians in Iran because the MEK fought for Saddam Hussein in the Iran-Iraq war, and continued to take money from him until 2003. Nonetheless, Miliani casts doubt on this view as nearly unanimous, saying only that “some people” believe it.

The Wall Street Journal: Iran has given Germany “a lesson in the futility of appeasement,” writes the WSJ editorial board. Following the return from the trip of five German law makers promoting “cultural exchange”, Iranian authorities moved forward on Tuesday and charged two German reporters with espionage.” The editorial writers suggest that as long as Iran holds the two journalists, German politicians will find it very difficult to impose harsh sanctions against Iranian banks which do business in Germany. “If having their journalists treated as hostages is what Germany gets for its ‘critical dialogue’ and ‘cultural exchange’ with Iran, then maybe it’s time for her government to take a tougher line,” concludes the WSJ.

Foreign Policy: Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) Visiting Fellow Michael Singh writes on Foreign Policy’s Shadow Government blog that Iran’s public campaign of expanding diplomatic and trade relations in Africa is really an extension of its “shadowy network of arms smuggling, support for terrorism, and subversive activities.” Singh warns these activities “paint a picture of a regime which pursues its own security by flouting international rules and norms of acceptable behavior.” He concludes that vigilance will be required in finding “new points of pressure” and enforcing existing sanctions against Iran while, at the same time, “even a resolution of the nuclear issue would only begin to address the far broader concerns about the regime and its activities, making a true U.S.-Iran reconciliation far away indeed.”

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 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.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for November 12th, 2010:

Commentary: Commentary Magazine executive editor Jonathan S. Tobin, hits back against a column by Alon Pinkas, Israel’s former consul general in New York. Pinkas wrote on Politico that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pro-Republican leanings, yet again illustrated by Bibi’s remarks at the General Assembly of North American Jewish Federations, undermined bipartisanship, including his callfor the U.S. to assert a threat of force against Iran. Tobin says that “such arguments are nonsense” and “by decrying the claim of some Republicans that some Democrats have been unsupportive of Israel, all Pinkas is doing is demonstrating that he dislikes the GOP and sympathizes with the Democrats.” Tobin contend both Democrats and Republicans have made pledges that Iran will never acquire nuclear weapons, and “[c]ontrary to Pinkas’s assertion, accountability is the one thing all friends of Israel should welcome.”

The National Interest: Heritage Foundation fellow Ariel Cohen has an NI piece opposing ratification of the New START treaty. He argues that restrictions on ballistic missile defense (alleged), ambiguous language, and a “significant degradation of the START verification regime” will “ limit U.S. defense options not vis-à-vis Russia, but North Korea, China, and in the future, Iran.” Cohen asserts that New START is a result of “Obama’s vision of a world without nuclear weapons,” and “there is a significant probability that if Obama allows Iran to acquire a nuclear-weapons capability, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and possibly Turkey will develop their own nuclear weapons.” Cohen has advised the Endowment for Middle East Truth (EMET), a neoconservative organization that helped distribute the Clarion Fund’s Islamophobic “Obsession” film.

Foreign Policy: Former AIPAC spokesperson Josh Block writes: “The rise of Iranian influence in Lebanon is particularly dangerous at this moment, when moderate Arab countries are desperately looking for the United States to contain Iran.” The Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL), a court set up by agreement between the UN Security Council and the Lebanese government, is investigating the assassination of Rafik Hariri and is expected to indict members of Hezbollah. Block warns that “Hezbollah will stop at nothing to prevent indictments from being handed down.” Block urges the the United States to “ensure that the Special Tribunal goes forward, prosecuting those it indicts.” as well as supportg pro-democracy civil society and media. He concludes: “[T]he administration must make a clear public signal that the United States will not sit on the sidelines while Iran, through its satraps Syria and Hezbollah, successfully exports the Iranian revolution to Lebanon.”

The Washington Times: Shaun Waterman reports on how the incoming Republican-led House Foreign Affairs Committee will pressure the Obama administration on the implementation of sanctions against Iran, thus underminng Obama’s attempts at diplomatic outreach to Tehran. Waterman quotes Foundation for Defense of Democracies‘ Mark Dubowitz, who predicts “we can expect a very relentless and determined focus on holding the administration’s feet to the fire.” Dubowitz adds: “It is useful for the administration to have Congress play the bad cop” in its dealings with Iran.