Author: Eli Clifton

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 3rd, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), who made his first trip to the Middle East last month, applauds the talks between Mahmoud Abbas and Benjamin Netanyahu but warns that “[t]here can never be peace in the Middle East with a nuclear-armed Iran.” The first term Senator calls for additional “punishing” sanctions against Iran and reports that the possibility of a nuclear weapons possessing Iran is the biggest concern of both Israeli and Jordanian leadership. Brown concludes that, “While we should encourage the Israelis and Palestinians as they return to the negotiating table, let’s not lose sight of the real threat to peace in the Middle East: Iran, the leading state sponsor of terror in the world, armed with a nuclear weapon.”

Politico: Fredrik Stanton, author of “Great Negotiations: Agreements That Changed the Modern World,” argues that sanctions against Iran’s economy are failing to deter Tehran from its nuclear ambitions but that more aggressive steps—in line with Britain, Germany and Italy’s 2003 boarding of the BBC China, a ship carrying centrifuge parts for Libya’s nuclear weapons program—could deter Iran from its current path. Stanton proposes that the U.S. should pursue policies of, “visible and tangible support for domestic opponents of the regime, greater focus on Iranian human rights violations, public seizures of nuclear proliferation material and an embargo of refined petroleum fuels.”

International Herald Tribune: Earlier this week in the global edition of the New York Times, Iranian-American Reza Aslan and Israeli Bernard Avishai conclude that were the West to be “confronted by an Iran crossing the nuclear threshold, that would be a lesser evil than what we will confront in the wake of an attack to prevent this.” They sum up some of the recent war-drum-chatter around Jeffrey Goldberg’s Atlantic piece on an Israeli attack on Iran, noting that the “logic” of what Goldberg writes points towards a U.S. strike. “This drumbeat must be silenced, and only President Obama can silence,” they write. “An Israeli attack on Iran would almost certainly precipitate a devastating regional war with unforeseeable global consequences.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 2nd, 2010:

The Washington Post: Scott Wilson writes that shared regional fears of a nuclear weapons possessing Iran might be a catalyst for a breakthrough in this week’s Arab-Israeli peace talks. “Iran’s ambitions, which have cast a long shadow over the greater Middle East, may serve as a common bond keeping a frail peace process intact despite threats that have arisen even before the negotiations open Thursday at the State Department,” he says. Wilson suggests that, if Israel is seriously considering a unilateral strike on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities, Netanyahu will need to stick with peace talks and win goodwill with the White House.

The Wall Street Journal: Daniel Henninger defends the U.S. invasion of Iraq as preemptively cutting off Iraq’s nuclear ambitions. Henninger theorizes that had the U.S. not invaded, Saddam Hussein would have been driven to pursue nuclear weapons in order to match Iran’s alleged pursuit of the bomb. “In such a world, Saddam would have aspired to play in the same league as Iran and NoKo. Would we have ‘contained’ him?” he asks. Henninger continues his exercise in hypothetical history by suggesting that Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Sudan would enter the “nuclear marketplace” if Iran and Iraq acquired nuclear weapons. He concludes: “The sacrifice made by the United States in Iraq took one of these nuclear-obsessed madmen off the table and gave the world more margin to deal with the threat that remains, if the world’s leadership is up to it. A big if.”

Foreign Policy: Author Hooman Majd contests a recent U.S. talking point that sanctions are working. Citing political infighting between various conservative factions, the Obama administration argues that sanctions are having an effect. But Majd asserts that this is politics as usual — not a sign that there might be political space for a resurgent Green Movement. In fact, he says, no matter what happens, the real power center in Iran, the Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, remains firmly in the driver’s seat and the nuclear calculus is still a point of mutual agreement between the many political factions.

JINSA Report: The ultra-hawkish advocacy organization, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), issued it’s latest e-mail blast calling Iran the “elephant” in the room in nearly every U.S. and Israeli strategic challenge in the region (this mirrors the ‘road to peace leads through Tehran’ meme discussed in yesterday’s TP’s). The U.S. needs “to tame it or remove” that elephant from Lebanon, Syria, Turkey and the “the Israel-Palestinian ‘peace’ talks,” JINSA argues.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 1st, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: The WSJ editorial board uses two 30-year-old letters from the Imam of the Park 51 community center, Feisal Abdul Rauf, to show Rauf’s alleged anti-Israel and pro-Iranian revolution leanings. Egyptian president Anwar Sadat’s 1977 outreach to Israel led Rauf to write, “In a true peace, Israel will, in our lifetimes, become one more Arab country, with a Jewish minority.” In a letter written after the 1979 Iranian revolution, he observed the American and Iranian revolution shared “the very principles of individual rights and freedom”. In Rauf’s response to the WSJ’s publication of his letters, he wrote, “As I re-read those letters now, I see that they express the same concerns—a desire for peaceful solutions in Israel, and for a humane understanding of Iran.”

National Review Online: At NRO’s The Corner blog, Benjamin Weinthal lays out a ‘reverse linkage’ — turning around the usual military/realist thinking that Israeli-Arab peace will help the U.S. deal with other regional issues. He writes, “To bring about peace with longevity between the Palestinians and Israel, the Obama administration has to confront Iran, which means promoting democracy in Iran and terminating its nuclear-weapons program.” Weinthal asserts, “if the sanctions prove impotent, Obama will then have to turn to serious saber-rattling and lay out a blueprint for military intervention.” The statement rehashes the catchphrase from the early 2000s that ‘the road to Mid East peace runs through Baghdad’ – only now it’s rerouted through Tehran.

The New York Times: David Sanger writes about the linkages between Israeli-Palestinian peace, Iraq and Iran. He argues while other presidents have dealt with these linkages, Obama faces a new variation with U.S. forces pulling out of Iraq, tough sanctions on Iran and and the slow emergence of a working Palestinian government in the West Bank. With the withdrawal from Iraq, Obama can claim victory over that source of instability and, according to Sanger’s sources, progress on Iran. Sanger interviews WINEP cofounders Martin Indyk, the Vice President for Foreign Policy at the Brookings Institution and former U.S. ambassador to Israel and Senior Mideast diplomat Dennis Ross, special adviser for the Persian Gulf and Southwest Asia to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Ross currently works out of the National Security Council, where he focuses on Iran, and has served in the past two administrations. Indyk and Ross agree sanctions have made progress in isolating and containing Iran. “We finally have leverage,” said Ross, pointing to talk from Iranian officials about the possibility of negotiations with the West.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 30th, 2010:

Haaretz: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is calling for Lebanon’s resistance groups to stand together with Iran. Ahmadinejad’s comments come after last week’s announcement from Iran’s defense minister that Tehran was prepared to sell weapons to Lebanon’s government. Tehran’s overtures to the Lebanese government and Hezbollah have picked up in pace after $100 million in US military aid to Lebanon was suspended earlier this month following a skirmish on the Israel-Lebanon border which resulted in the death of two Lebanese soldiers, a Lebanese journalist and an Israeli officer.

Reuters: Iranian Intelligence Minister Heidar Moslehi says that investigations into spying allegations against three American hikers detained in Iran will be completed soon. The three hikers–Shane Bauer, Sarah Shourd and Josh Fattal–have been detained since July 2009 when they crossed into Iran from northern Iraq. The hikers have not formally been charged with spying and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in February that the three Americans might be swapped for Iranians jailed in the US. Families of the hikers say the trio strayed across the border accidentally.

Iran Review: Dr. Kayhan Barzegar, Director of International Affairs at the Center for Middle East Strategic Studies in Tehran, writes that the launch of the Bushehr nuclear plant will, “enhance the peaceful nature and legitimacy of Iran’s nuclear program,” and shows that Russia has conceded that Iran is a nuclear state. Barzegar suggests that Russian cooperation in bringing the Bushehr nuclear plant online will bring Moscow closer to Tehran and result in future bilateral nuclear cooperation. Barzegar argues that it is too late to stop Iran’s nuclear program with an airstrike. He concludes, “…[A]irstrikes alone will not be able to stop Iran’s nuclear program and may prompt the country to withdraw from the NPT and pursue, as some western analysts predict, a nuclear weapon capability. In any event, the United States or Israel will be unable to stage air attacks on Iran on grounds that it is enriching uranium. It is also already too late to attack Bushehr, as nuclear fuel has been uploaded into the reactor and any military assault would be concomitant with major health hazards resulting from nuclear radiation and exposure.”

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

Reuters: According to Olli Heinonen, the former chief of U.N. nuclear inspection, Iran has stockpiles of enough low-enriched uranium for as many as two nuclear weapons but will not build a weapon at this time. “In theory, it is enough to make one or two nuclear arms. But to reach the final step, when one only has just enough material for two weapons, does not make sense,” Heinonen said in an interview carried out just before he left office earlier this month.

The Washington Post: The American Enterprise Institute scholar Michael Rubin writes that missing from the list of U.S. consulates in Iraq is any plan for permanent U.S. representation in Najaf. Rubin argues that the importance of Najaf in the Shiite world and the high number of Iranian visitors means, “[t]here is no better place outside Iran for diplomats to interact with ordinary Iranians across socioeconomic divides because everyone, rich or poor, wants to make a trip once prohibited by war and politics.” If the U.S. fails to establish an official presence in Najaf, says Rubin, Iranian influence in the area will rise and, “America’s enemies will define our legacy.”

Sic Semper Tyrannis: Colonel Pat Lang theorizes that Michael Rubin might be angling for an appointment as the first U.S. consul to Najaf.

The Weekly Standard blog: Michael Weiss asks why Obama has failed to do more to help Shiva Nazar Ahari, an Iranian human rights advocate. She has been arrested several times and will stand trial on September 4th for disseminating “anti-regime propaganda” and participating in an “act contrary to national security” through her attendance at gatherings in November and December. Weiss characterizes Ahari, who may face the death penalty, as “clearly pro-West and philo-American.” Weiss’s calls for Obama to publicly show solidarity with Ahari contradicts the advice of Akbar Ganji, the celebrated Iranian journalist and former political prisoner, who warned in May that explicit U.S. government support for the Green Movement would hurt the movement’s legitimacy in Iran.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 26th, 2010:

Reuters: John Irish reports that French President Nicolas Sarkozy has warned Iran that, “If a credible agreement [over its nuclear program] cannot be reached, Iran’s isolation would only worsen.” Sarkozy continued, “And in the face of worsening threat, we would have to organize ourselves to protect and defend states that feel threatened.” Sarkozy has said he supported the start up of the new nuclear power plant at Bushehr, fueled by Russian fuel rods, as long as it adheres to international law. (Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin is encouraged, calling Sarkozy’s comments “Better Than Nothing.”)

Associated Press (via Yahoo): Nasser Karimi reports that Tehran is proposing to jointly assemble nuclear fuel for the Bushehr nuclear plant alongside Russian technicians. The U.S. and Western allies agreed to lift their opposition to the Bushehr on the condition that Russia handle all the nuclear fuel. “We have made a proposal to Russia to create a consortium under Russian license to do part of the work in Russia and part in Iran,” the head of Iran’s atomic energy agency, Ali Akbar Salehi, told the Iranian state-run Press TV. Moscow is reported to be studying the new proposal.

International Herald Tribune: Avner Cohen and Marvin Miller make the case for Israel ending its longstanding policy of nuclear opacity. “International support for Israel and its opaque bomb is being increasingly eroded by its continued occupation of Palestinian territory and the policies that support that occupation. Such criticism of these policies might well spill over into the nuclear domain, making Israel vulnerable to the charge that it is a nuclear-armed pariah state, and thus associating it to an uncomfortable degree with today’s rogue Iranian regime,” they write. “Indeed, while almost all states publicly oppose the acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran, there is also growing support for dealing with this problem in an ‘evenhanded’ manner, namely, by establishing a nuclear weapons free zone across the entire region.” The authors emphasize that international support for Israel and its policy of opacity is eroding as Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories drags on. (Ali wrote about Cohen and Miller’s op-ed yesterday.)