Author: Eli Clifton

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

The Weekly Standard: The Foundation for Defense of Democracies’ Benjamin Weinthal blogs on The Weekly Standard that the detainment of two German journalists in Iran should put call attention to German politicians who have travelled to Iran and continued to maintain contact with members of the Iranian government. “The taxpayer sponsored political junket with some of Iran’s leading Holocaust deniers raised hardly any attention within the German media at a time when the U.S. is trying to isolate Iran,” writes Weinthal. He concludes: “Twenty-six-years of German ‘critical dialogue’ and political appeasement toward the Iranian regime is finding its mirror image among many German news outlets and Germany’s democracy (and pro-Iranian democrats) is taking the hard hits,” and calls for Germany to implement human rights sanctions against Iran and recall their ambassador from Tehran.

The National Post: Jonathan Kay, a visiting fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, attended the FDD’s “Countering the Iranian Threat” conference last week in Washington, and reports on a presentation by Uzi Rubin, the former head of Israel’s Missile Defense Organization who told the conference, “don’t be fooled by those who say the Iranians are incapable of [advanced projects],” and “I can see the confidence of their engineers. I’ve seen the technology. I can see the way they are solving problems faster and faster.” Rubin concluded his presentation by suggesting that Iran is building a nuclear ICBM. “An ICBM program would be more consistent with a long-term strategy that imagines Iran being in conflict with the West for decades, or perhaps generations,” writes Kay.

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

The Diplomat: American Enterprise Institute Scholar Michael Rubin is interviewed on The Diplomat blog on “how sanctions can work with Iran.” Rubin says that sanctions are having both an economic and reputational impact. “[Iranians] look at themselves as a country that was once on par with European countries like Spain and Portugal, and they see themselves now following headlong into the third world,” he says. Rubin advocates tightening sanctions on Iran’s banking sector and on passenger air travel as a way of “[making] life a little bit more inconvenient.” Rubin says he’d “never rule out a military option” but acknowledges that containment might be a more likely path than bombing. He concludes that he’s pessimistic about stopping Iran’s nuclear program with either diplomacy or a military strike and questions whether Israel has the capability to launch military strikes on Iran.

The Washington Post: The neoconservative blogger Jennifer Rubin writes that “pundits on the left” have for years said that negotiations with Iran should focus on Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei instead of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. “Scholars and pundits critical of the administration’s Iran engagement policy” have argued that Ahmadinejad is a central player and “talking him out of pursuing nuclear weapons is a dangerous fantasy,” she argues. Rubin points to Ahmadinejad’s firing of Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki as the latest evidence backing up the ‘critics.’ Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations tells Jennifer Rubin that the move is part of an ongoing consolidation of power by Ahmadinejad. The Washington Institute for Near East Policy’s (WINEP) Michael Singh e-mails her and says: “I view this as just the first move in a power struggle over foreign policy, and it is too soon to tell how it will shake out.” Rubin suggests the latest events support the idea of “reflect[ing] on our current policy,” presumably switching to her own flawed prescriptions for aggressive military action. She concludes: “Those who advocate continued engagement, I would submit, have the burden of proof to demonstrate that we are doing more good than harm in continuing to participate in the Ahmadinejad-orchestrated charade.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for December 14th, 2010:

The Weekly Standard: Stephen F. Hayes and Foundation for Defense of Democracies fellow Thomas Joscelyn write, in an article called “The Iran Connection”, that Undersecretary of State William Burns, in his Dec. 1 appearance before the House Foreign Affairs committee, “chose not to mention that the leaders of Iran have been fighting a stealth war against the United States, its soldiers, and its citizens.” Hayes and Joscelyn point back to the WikiLeaks cables alleging that Iran hosted Osama bin Laden’s son Ibrahim, and repeat the allegations that Iran has hosted senior al Qaeda terrorists “for years,” provided assistance to the Taliban and armed “violent extremists” in Iraq. They conclude, “Nearly a decade after the 9/11 attacks, not only do we have abundant evidence that Iran, the world’s foremost state sponsor of terror, supports al Qaeda. We also have evidence that Iran actively assists terrorists and insurgents targeting our soldiers and diplomats in two war zones.”

Pajamas Media: Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) “Freedom Scholar” Michael Ledeen attempts to draw parallels between the current state of domestic politics in Tehran, particularly in light of the firing of Iranian Foreign Minister Manoucher Mottaki, and Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan. Ledeen concludes, “Don’t try to decipher the ‘meaning’ of any one of the melodramatic events in Iran today or tomorrow; just remember that the leaders of the regime are fighting for survival, knowing that the Iranian people hate them, and suspecting each other of betrayal.”

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

The Wall Street Journal: Ronen Bergman, a military analyst for the Israeli daily Yedioth Ahronoth, opines that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has barely been able to contain his satisfaction over WikiLeaks cables showing Arab leaders so afraid of Iran that “they even appear to be doing their best to persuade the United States to attack Iran’s nuclear installations.” Bergman acknowledge that Arab leaders are not prepared to join forces with Israel against Iran because “the Palestinian problem has not been solved,” but comes up short of fully endorsing a “linkage” argument. “Unless the concerned states of the Middle East drastically change the way they collaborate (with the U.S. acting as mediator), the campaign to stop Iran from getting the bomb will be lost,” he concludes.

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, the neoconservative Post blogger, writes that it’s “time to reset Iran policy.” Rubin says the current dual-track policy of pressure and engagement is failing on both fronts and dismisses the need to build international consensus on any matter related to Iran. She suggests robust support for the Green Movement, to ”continue and enhance espionage and sabotage of the Iranian nuclear program” (including assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists — the “ultimate targeted sanction”), making “human rights a central theme in our bilateral and multilateral diplomacy,” and “begin[ning] to make the case and agree on a feasible plan for the use of force.” She contends that an attack on Iran will not allow the current regime to consolidate power. In conclusion, Rubin writes: “The goal should be to do what we can to accelerate the regime’s collapse while we work to retard or force surrender of its nuclear program.”

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin, writing on the Post’s Right Turn blog, interviews Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT). Lieberman tells her that statements from EU and Russian officials indicating support for limited Iranian enrichment”‘is the wrong message’ to send to a regime that has ’such a pattern of deceit.’” He argues that should Iran get a nuclear weapon, “the consequences are so disastrous for us and our allies” that “it’s time to get tough.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for December 10th, 2010:

The Journal of International Security Affairs: Senior Heritage Foundation fellow Peter Brookes writes in the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA) journal that Arab concerns over Iran’s nuclear program “is increasingly palpable in the Middle East, where a dangerous domino effect is taking shape.” Brookes acknowledges that stopping Iran’s nuclear program with a military strike “may delay, but not derail” Iran’s nuclear ambitions. But if Iran acquires nuclear weapons, Brookes predicts Tehran will increase support for Hamas and Hezbollah, “further roiling the region’s security situation, especially for arch-nemesis Israel.” Brookes concludes, “Unless Tehran changes course, or is compelled to abandon its nuclear program, the Middle East may be bound for a destabilizing explosion of nuclear weapons-capable states and more dangerous times ahead.”

The Wall Street Journal: Michael Auslin, director of Japan studies at the American Enterprise Institute, examines the implications of Turkey’s growing relationship with China and asks, “Could Mr. Erdogan’s ties to Iran somehow facilitate future North Korean-Iranian missile and possibly nuclear cooperation, even as Turkey begins to have its own civilian nuclear power plants built?” Auslin suggests that Western policy analysts should examine the “possible scenarios of greater Sino-Turkish ties and play out the ramifications of an enhanced anti-Western network of states.” Auslin calls for Turkey to return back to its “old and trusted partners” and warns that if Ankara continues to ally itself with “authoritarian regimes, such as China, Syria, and Iran then Turkey will quickly find itself isolated from the liberal West.”

FoxNews.com: Reza Kahlili, a former CIA spy in the Iranian Revolutionary Guard writing under a pseudonym for hawkish media, attempts to build on the discredited assertion that the WikiLeaks cables offer evidence of North Korean and Iranian collusion on nuclear technology. “The radicals in Iran are very close to successfully weaponizing their missiles with nuclear warheads and have openly talked about a ‘New World Order’ where Israel ceases to exist and America will no longer be the superpower that it is today,” warns Kahlili. He concludes, “America needs leadership, courage and commitment to our fundamental principles. It is time to side with and the Iranian people. It is time to help Iranians overthrow this regime. If we do, it will go a long way toward winning a peaceful future for the world. If we don’t, millions of lives could be lost.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for December 9th, 2010:

The Washington Post: The Post’s editorial board opines that the P5+1 talks in Geneva benefited Iran by introducing Turkey into the negotiations, where negotiations will continue next month, and provided Tehran with a means to postpone further additional international pressure. “[Iran] seeks to delay further sanctions, create dissension among the United States and its allies, and distract attention from its continuing crackdown on the opposition Green movement,” writes the Post. The editorial board concludes that the United States should continue to participate in negotiations, “but it does mean that they should press forward simultaneously with other strategies to stop the Iranian nuclear program.” Such “strategies,” include “a full ban on landings by Iranian airliners in Europe,” and “great efforts to support Iran’s internal resistance.”

The Washington Post: Jennifer Rubin writes on her Right Turn blog that “we really have no effective policy to thwart an Iranian nuclear program.” Rubin interviews the American Enterprise Institute’s Danielle Pletka who tells her that, “Every negotiation [with the Iranians] is like Groundhog Day, but at the end of the process, instead of spring, Iran gets a nuclear weapon.” Rubin cites Sen. Joe Lieberman’s speech at the Council on Foreign Relations earlier this year and his call for putting a military strike on the table. She concludes, “Having taken the use of force effectively off the table, can the administration credibly put it back on, and if not, are we resigned to a nuclear-armed revolutionary Islamic state?”

Commentary: Omri Creen blogs on Contentions that “Egypt — perennially a bullet and a disgruntled general away from being the most dangerous country in the region — is not going to cope well with Iranian nuclearization,” citing a WikiLeaks cable which describes Egyptian president Hosni Mubarak telling U.S. officials that Egypt may seek nuclear arms if Iran develops a nuclear weapon. Creen warns that “There’s little doubt that Cairo would take to bullying neighbors over how the Nile is divvied up, for instance,” and “Muslim radicals will run roughshod over religious minorities, correctly guessing that no one will pressure the fragile Egyptian regime to stop them.”

National Review Online: Clifford May, president of the hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies, writes critically of the Obama administration’s response to the WikiLeaks cable scandal and questions the U.S.’s preparedness for cyber attacks. May argues that “[Iranian President] Mahmoud Ahmadinejad might view such a cyberattack as contributing toward his long-term goal: “A world without America.” He suggests, recycling the meme that Iranian leadership is irrational, that Iran’s leaders might not care if the U.S. retaliated with “a rain of fire.” May cites the Stuxnet computer worm, which reportedly attacked Iran’s nuclear facilities, as an example of effective use of cyber warfare against Iran. He concludes, “Deductive speculation has led many to the belief that the Israelis developed this sophisticated search-and-destroy device. Did Americans partner with them? I hope so.”