Author: Eli Clifton

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 24th, 2010:

The Atlantic: Marc Lynch responds to Jeffrey Goldberg’s cover story on the likelihood of an Israeli air strike on Iran. Lynch disagrees with Goldberg’s assertion that a failure for the Obama administration to act militarily will result in an Israeli strike on Iran’s alleged nuclear facilities. “Instead, I see an attempt on the part of Goldberg’s Israeli sources to prepare a policy climate in which such an attack seems increasingly plausible and other options are foreclosed …” writes Lynch. He concludes that both Israelis and people in the United States are aware of the disastrous consequences of a military strike and are not nearly as fixated on the “never ending series” of deadlines as Israeli and U.S. hawks would like to suggest.

The Wall Street Journal: Gerald F. Seib suggests that as the costs imposed by sanctions on Iran go up, Tehran is looking for a face-saving “exit ramp” to give up its alleged nuclear weapons program. Seib disagrees with hawks, such as John Bolton, that Russia’s assistance in fueling the Bushehr nuclear power plant pushes Iran closer to having a nuclear weapons program. “By providing the fuel, and taking away spent fuel, the Russians have undercut Iran’s argument that it has to do its own enrichment,” said Seib. He continues, “Beyond calling Iran’s bluff, there’s a genuine need to find out whether Iran’s leaders—at least some of them—might actually be interested in a way out.”

The Wall Street Journal: Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Michael Ledeen argues that internal conflict and sabotage are becoming more widespread within Iran and, “[e]ven the government’s campaign of repression seems increasingly sloppy.” Ledeen has been one of the more vocal neoconservative supporters of the Green Movement, even when Iranian pro-democracy reformists have said that explicit U.S. support of the movement could damage its legitimacy within Iran.

Los Angeles Times: Borzou Daragahi and Ramin Mostaghim report on how international sanctions designed to punish Iran for its nuclear program are benefiting Iran’s most hard-line elite and the Revolutionary Guard. The sanctions are succeeding in increasing the cost on items of importance to ordinary citizens but, “key businesses and government operations controlled by the Revolutionary Guard have found ways to skirt the sanctions, which ban trade with state-run firms connected to the nuclear program, by enlisting private-sector firms as fronts.” Well-connected firms are reported to be benefiting from a “sanctions-breaking” industry.

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

Reuters: Ramin Mostafavi reports that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told a Japanese newspaper on Friday that Iran might be willing to stop higher-grade Uranium enrichment. “We promise to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent purity if we are ensured fuel supply,” he was quoted as saying.

Los Angeles Times: Borzou Daragahi reports that fuel roads were loaded into the Bushehr nuclear reactor on Saturday. The move puts the plant within “a few weeks” of being operational. U.S. and Israeli officials have expressed concern that Iran could theoretically make a weapon by extracting plutonium from the spent fuel rods, but Russia has committed to keeping a close watch on the activities at the Bushehr reactor.

The Atlantic: Senior Fellow at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, Reuel Marc Gerecht, argues in favor of an Israeli preventive strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Gerecht advocates not just bombing facilities but targeting Iranian personnel involved in Tehran’s alleged nuclear weapons program. “If Tehran were to lose several of its key nuclear scientists and technicians in such a blow, the Iranian program might sustain a crippling hit from which it would be extremely difficult to recover,” writes Gerecht. He concludes, “Although President Obama may become (privately) furious with the Israelis, any Israeli strike will make the United States, and probably even the reluctant Europeans, more determined to shut down Iran’s program.” Gerecht advocated for an Israeli preventive strike in a July 26th cover story in the The Weekly Standard.

The Weekly Standard Blog: Lee Smith repeats Anne Bayefsky’s warnings (Eli discussed Bayefsky on Friday) that the Park 51 Islamic community center has dangerous ties to Iran. Smith suggests that Imam Feisal Rauf’s unwillingness to denounce Hamas, and his ties to Iran are a threat to national security. He concludes, “… [I]t would be a bad idea to allow an asset controlled by American adversaries to be built anywhere in the United States, including lower Manhattan.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 17th, 2010:

The National: Michael Theodoulou reports that new sanctions will exacerbate corruption and mismanagement in Iran’s economy but do little to change Tehran’s nuclear policy. However, the sanctions could give the White House the “political space” domestically to attempt engagement again, said Sir Richard Dalton, Britain’s former ambassador to Tehran and a fellow at Chatham House, a leading British think tank. “The drumbeat for war from neo-conservative pundits and from Israel has only increased” since the “crippling, indiscriminate” new sanctions were imposed, said Trita Parsi, an Iran expert at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Agence France-Presse (via Defense News): The White House denies reports that Obama warned Turkey that it could lose access to U.S. weapons due to its position opposing UN sanctions against Iran. Turkey preferred a plan for Iran to carry out a nuclear fuel swap, arranged by Turkey and Brazil. While both Turkish and U.S. leaders insisted that relations are positive, Turkey-Israel relations have been tense since the May 31st raid on a Gaza-bound aid ship left nine Turkish nationals dead.

Congressional Quarterly: Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA), “an outspoken Middle East Hawk,” is reportedly preparing a bill that will prohibit foreign subsidiaries of U.S. firms from conducting business in Iran and participating in commercial transactions with Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps. The Obama has yet to fully implement the existing sanctions legislation and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) told the CQ that while Congress now needs to focus on making sure that the administration utilizes all the powers granted it, there is no immediate need to pressure the White House. ” I think when we get to September, October, it may be time for a first review,” Lieberman said.

Slate: Christopher Hitchens argues that a nuclear weapons possessing Iran would threaten more than just the existence of the state of Israel. Hitchens predicts that if Iran becomes a nuclear power, the legitimacy of the UN and the IAEA will be destroyed; Iran’s Revoutionary Guard Corp. will gain domestic power; Hezbollah or “any Iranian collusion with the Taliban or with nihilist forces in Iraq would be harder to counter”; Sunni Arab Gulf states, such as Bahrain, would also find increased Iranian aggression difficult to counter; the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will never be resolved since rejectionist Palestinians will be backed by “a regime which calls for Israel’s elimination” and rejectionist Jews will be vindicated in their belief that concessions to Palestinians are a waste of time; and the concept of “nonproliferation” will be relegated to the history books.

Agence France-Presse (via Yahoo): Former U.S. envoy to the UN, John Bolton warned on Monday that Israel has eight days to launch a military strike against the Bushehr nuclear facility before the plant is brought online on August 21st. “Once that uranium, once those fuel rods are very close to the reactor, certainly once they’re in the reactor, attacking means a release of radiation, no question about it,” Bolton told Fox Business Network. Bolton acknowledged that it was unlikely that the Israelis would launch a bombing mission before August 21st.

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

The Financial Times: Daniel Dombey reports that the White House has warned Turkey that it could lose access to U.S. weapons, including drone aircraft that Ankara wants to acquire for use in their fight with the Kurdish separatist PKK party after the United States pulls out of Iraq next year. Dombey quotes a senior administration official as saying, “The president has said to [Prime Minister] Erdogan that some of the actions that Turkey has taken have caused questions to be raised on the Hill [Congress]…about whether we can have confidence in Turkey as an ally. That means that some of the requests Turkey has made of us, for example in providing some of the weaponry that it would like to fight the PKK, will be harder for us to move through Congress.” The White House was, reportedly, disappointed with Turkey’s opposition to UN sanctions against Iran.

The Weekly Standard Blog: Michael Anton suggests that the “endgame” for Iran’s alleged nuclear program might be coming as soon as next week if, as planned, Russia will fuel and start Iran’s nuclear reactor at Bushehr by August 21^st. Anton concludes that, “[a]ny nation prepared to incur all that risk from striking Iran’s HEU sites may as well take out Bushehr as well.” Once the Bushehr facility is fully operational an attack might result in a release of poisonous radioactive materials, “Which means that if the story is true, and if the Israelis judge Bushehr to be a dangerous installation, they will have to move quickly – as in, within the next week.” Anton suggests that the Russians might be fueling Bushehr in order to bring about an Israeli or U.S. attack on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons facilities. “Certainly Moscow has reasons not to welcome a nuclear armed Iran. Goading someone else into doing the dirty work has significant advantages.”

The Cable: Josh Rogin writes that the Obama administration may become more vocal in its criticisms of Iranian human rights violations. Rogin suggests that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s statement criticizing the sentencing of seven Baha’i leaders was the start of a new trend of speaking more openly about Iranian human rights abuses.

The Christian Science Monitor: Dan Murphy offers three reasons that Israel will bomb Iran. First, Israelis fear that a nuclear Iran may tip the balance of power in the region and spark an arms race among countries which deny Israel’s right to exist. Second, Israeli leaders may think that Iranian leaders are fundamentally irrational and will use a nuclear weapon even if such a decision will result in the destruction of Iran. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg, “You don’t want a messianic apocalyptic cult controlling atomic bombs.” Third, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust-denying rhetoric makes Israeli leadership concerned that he might act irrationally, creating an existential threat for Israel. (Murphy also offers his three reasons that Israel won’t bomb Iran in a separate article.)

The Washington Post: George F. Will argues that criticism of Israel’s Gaza War has left Israeli leadership and Benjamin Netanyahu believing that an international consensus is emerging that, “Israel is not allowed to exercise self-defense.” Will writes, “Any Israeli self-defense anywhere is automatically judged “disproportionate.” Israel knows this as it watches Iran.” U.S. willingness to pursue engagement with Iran and, according to Will, exhibiting “fatalism” towards Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon, will ultimately push Netanyahu to unilaterally attack Iran.

The New York Daily News: AEI’s Michael Rubin echoes George F. Will’s concerns that the Obama administration is exhibiting signs that it might tolerate a nuclear weapons possessing Iran. Rubin argues that the acquisition of nuclear weapons will position Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as kingmakers and, in a worst case scenario, “…with regime survival a moot point, true believers might use their last moments to launch the bomb to fulfill objectives of destroying Israel or wounding America.” Rubin concludes, “Denying Iran nuclear capability requires tough choices. The Obama administration appears willing to embrace containment and deterrence in order to avoid them. Avoiding decisions is not leadership, however, and may prove deadly.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for August 13th, 2010:

Huffington Post: Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch calls for the United States to bomb Iran. Citing the concerns of Sunni Arab allies, Israel, and even Europeans, who Koch says would be within range of rockets being developed by Iran, Koch quotes 2008 Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain that, the only “thing worse than military action against Iran… is a nuclear-armed Iran.” Koch concludes, “President Obama hopefully will reach the same conclusion.” Most of the post is dedicated to calling for an end to negotiations and comparing U.S. “carrots” for Iran to Neville Chamberlain’s concession of Czech Sudetenland to “Herr Hitler” before World War II, going so far as to explicitly compare Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to Hitler. For a take-down of the right’s constant use of the Hitler analogy, check out Matt Duss’s Wonk Room post on the subject where he writes, “Just as Churchill had to deal with the consequences of Chamberlain’s misjudgment of the historical moment, so Obama continues to wrestle with problems created and exacerbated by the incompetence of his predecessor, George W. Bush.”

The Weekly Standard Blog: Michael Makovsky and Lawrence Goldstein argue that in order to secure crude supply oil from the Persian Gulf the Obama administration must pursue a three-track policy of diplomacy, sanctions, and a visible preparation for a U.S. strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities. “The Obama administration has focused mostly on the first two tracks. However, diplomacy and sanctions will only have the chance to be effective when simultaneously coupled with an active and open preparation for the military option,” they write. Makovsky and Goldstein do acknowledge that, “U.S. or Israeli military action in Iran would trigger a jump in oil prices,” but, “A far greater threat to the oil market would be Iran’s attainment of a nuclear weapons capability.”

The Washington Post: Janine Zacharia reports on the growing disagreement between the White House and members of Congress seeking to cut U.S. military aid to Lebanon. Several members of Congress have called for a discontinuation of U.S. military aid to Lebanon after last week’s deadly skirmish between Lebanese soldiers and the Israeli Defense Forces. But the State Department has emphasized that supporting the capacity and capability of the Lebanese army is in the United States’ national interest. The United States has supplied over $700 million in military aid to Lebanon since 2006 to help train and equip the Lebanese army and help counter Iran’s support of Hezbollah. Zacharia interviewed many policy-elites in Lebanon and reports that, “…many expressed concern that severing U.S. aid could feed instability in Lebanon and weaken democratic forces that have lost ground since the Cedar Revolution in 2005 swept a pro-Western government to power. Iran immediately said it would make up whatever shortfalls the Lebanese army incurs by a U.S. aid cut.” (Eli wrote about the attempts to suspend military aid to Lebanon on Wednesday.)

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

Foreign Policy: Michael Eisenstadt and David Crist, both fellows at the AIPAC-formed and often hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy, write that President Obama must “convince Tehran that his outstretched hand can be formed into a fist.” Eisenstadt and Crist argue that some “key” Iranian leaders are likely to instigate a confrontation with the U.S., “unless Washington, acting with both caution and firmness, moves to avert such an eventuality.” They call for a warning that the U.S. will “not necessarily respond in a symmetrical or proportionate manner to Iranian provocations,” citing the example of the failed containment effort against Iraq in the 1990s.

The Washington Post: While not specifically addressing and Israeli strike against Iran, Columnist George Will feeds the talking point of a weak Obama and a determined Netanyahu, with his “focus firmly on Iran.” Will, writing from Jerusalem, draws a caricatured contrast between the two: “Netanyahu, the former commando and fierce nationalist, and Barack Obama, the former professor and post-nationalist.” Will ends with an anecdotal boast about Netanyahu’s unwillingness to bend to Washington: “Netanyahu, whom no one ever called cuddly, once said to a U.S. diplomat 10 words that should warn U.S. policymakers who hope to make Netanyahu malleable: ‘You live in Chevy Chase. Don’t play with our future.’”

The Atlantic: Robert D. Kaplan makes the case that containment might be the best strategy to deal with a nuclear Iran. Basing his argument on Henry Kissinger’s writings on limited nuclear war, Kaplan concludes that the costs of stopping Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program is dangerously high while the real risks posed by a nuclear weapons possessing Iran is lower than many would acknowledge. The numerous shared interests between Shiites and the U.S. and the demographic and likely positive ideological and philosophical shifts underway in Iran lead Kaplan to conclude that, “Given this prognosis, and the high cost and poor chances for success of any military effort to eliminate Iran’s nuclear program, I believe that containment of a nuclear Iran is the most sensible policy for the United States.”

Reuters: Russia’s LUKOIL together with China’s state-run Zhuhai Zhenrong are resuming gasoline sales with Iran. Chinese companies have provided half of Iran’s gasoline imports in recent months.