Author: Scott H

Rafsanjani: “Let’s negotiate”

Iran’s Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani is akin to that old advertising pitch for E.F. Hutton: when he speaks, people listen… or at least they should. It’s so much “easier” for the western MSM to quote the incendiary comments by Iran’s current President. Besides, if you want to support going to war with Iran, why bother to print the comments of someone who speaks rather plainly of how to avoid war?
For more years than I’m prepared to admit, I’ve been reading the speeches and Friday “sermons” by Iran’s Ali Akbar Hashemi-Rafsanjani. When Rafsanjani speaks, I’ve listened and taken volumes of notes..
I have nearly all of Rafsanjani’s major speeches and Friday “sermons” since the early days of the Iranian Revolution. I have them in translation, thanks to what used to be the indispensible US Government “Foreign Broadcast Information Service” (now fledgling as the “Open Source Center”). I tracked Rafsanjani’s comments first as Parliamentary Speaker, as Khomeini’s designate in the latter stages of the war with Iraq, as President, as Chairman of Iran’s rather unique “Council for the Discernment of Expediency” (e.g., the “fixers”), and in a half dozen other roles, including top vote recipient in last November’s elections for Iran’s Assembly of Experts.
In 1985, I started analyzing and writing about what Hans Morgenthau would have seen as a “realist” streak in Rafsanjani. My first major oped was about Rafsanjani and his fellow “pragmatists” in 1989 – for the Christian Science Monitor. I later published a biographical sketch of him.
To be sure, Rafsanjani is very much of the Islamic Revolution in Iran; yet he’s also been a key articulator, at least since 1983, of the need for that revolution to adjust its “Islamic” message in light of the needs of Iran’s interests. Indeed, I’ve just learned that Iran’s Center for Strategic Research, a think tank of the Expediency Council and close to Rafsanjani will entitle its newest journal as, “National Interest.” For fellow interenational relations theorists out there, this too is news, as it should also be to those still thinking that it’s “ideology” alone that drives Iran’s foreign policy.
I kept reading Rafsanjani, even when his popularity waned badly inside Iran. He’s gone from being cast aside as too conservative by reformists to now being at the forefront of a multi-faction coalition of reformists, pragmatic “technocrats,” and “conservatives,” candidly formed to stop and reverse the damage caused by Iran’s current President Ahmadinejad.
As such, Rafsajanjani too has a phoenix-like quality. (Yet unlike Chalabi) Rafsanjani’s sources of power and support are more easily recognized. When Rafsajani or his lieutenants speak or make “grand bargain” offers, we indeed should be taking him very seriously. (Take notes Condi — you apparently chose to ignore Rafsanjani’s “grand bargain” in 2003, among the worst mistakes of your career!)
With that in mind, I offer the ending two sections of a political sermon delivered by Rafsanjani on Friday. In my view, AP mischaracterized the speech as essentially saying the same thing as current President Ahmadinejad. Read the text yourself: note especially the ending paragraphs.

Note on this translation:Ordinarily, I would have posted the translation from our taxpayer funded “Open Source Center” – (FBIS). Yet when I first started working on this post, I only had the BBC World Service version (funded by the British taxpayers), which, by the way, is usually identical to the OSC version. The decades long FBIS/OSC/BBC relationship is still not admitted publicly, perhaps to guard the BBC’s reputation, but it’s widely known. The subheadings below are by the BBC.

Continue reading “Rafsanjani: “Let’s negotiate””

Iraq’s Phoenix Rising Again?

(with thanks to Donald A. Weadon, Jr. for his comments – below))
Heeee’s back. No, not Virgil Goode, (!) but Ahmad Chalabi. Friday’s Wall Street Journal cover headline proclaims that the American “Surge” has returned Chalabi to the “Center Stage” of Iraqi politics.
I wonder how many coffee cups spilled over this one.
Chalabi has become so infamous that his very name deserves a Webster’s dictionary entry. Just as one would not want one’s reputation “Borked” or “Swift-boated,” one would not want to have the “Chalabi” pulled over one’s eyes.

If we observe (correctly) that the neocons wish to anoint an Iranian “Chalabi,” it will be understood that we mean a “fraud,” a “slippery character” who speaketh, as one line of my ancestors might say, “with forked tongue.” An Iranian Chalabi would be an Iranian expatriate who will prattle nicely in English about “democracy” and Israel, will prophecy that an American military overthrow of the Iranian government will be easy and popular, and will boast of a huge personal following inside Iran.
An “Iranian Chalabi” would also have influential MSM columnists publishing glowing tributes to his “leadership” credentials. In case anyone is paying attention (as we all should be), the current neocon frontrunner candidate for “liberating” Iran is Amir Abbas Fakhravar.

JWN regulars over the past four years will recall that Chalabi has long been at the top of Helena’s least favored list, and she has appropriately taken apart (in)famous colleagues like Jim Hoagland (“Hoagie”) and Judith Miller for their willing roles in promoting Chalabi’s frauds. (Type in “Chalabi” on the jwn search feature, and you’ll get a feast of Chalabi bad memories.)
Chalabi’s star status in Washington deteriorated along with America’s misadventure in Iraq, as it devolved from “mission accomplished” to “central front in the war on ter-er.” Over the past year or so, key neocons and even intelligence veteran Pat Lang intimated that Chalabi must have been an Iranian double agent all along. After all, the logic went, how could somebody that nefarious, unscrupulous, and prone to dissimulation have been anything but Iranian connected? Besides, he visits Iran. (as if that proves anything – in itself.)
I was never convinced of this argument. That the Iranians might have endeavored to connect to Chalabi is hardly suprising, as the Iranians have every “rational” interest in trying to have ties to as many Iraqi poltiical players as possible, from Talibani to Sadr to Hakim, to Maleki, to yes, Chalabi.
The Iranians, by the way, were similar disposed to assorted Afghan players in the late 1990’s – amid Iran’s severely strained relations with the Taliban. I recall even warlord Gulbuddin Hekmatyar finding exile in Iran…. even as it was clear Iran was less than thrilled to have him. (He was expelled in early 2003.)
Still, the bizarre, if tantalizing suggestion that Chalabi was a deep cover Iranian agent back when he was being hawked so rapturously by Miller, Hoagland,(Bernard) Lewis, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, etc. is too “good” to be believable…. no? Were Miller & Hoagie that blind? Well, the possibility at least made for delicious irony…. :-}
As the neocons and Chalabi went through bitter reciminations and public mutual finger pointing, Chalabi’s political stature appeared to hit rock bottom when his (American favored) list of candidates failed to win a single seat in the December 2005 elections for Iraq’s Parliament.
Phoenix….
Alas, reports of Chalabi’s political demise were premature.
Today’s Journal reports he’s back at the center stage of Iraqi politics, having been appointed by Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki to serve as “chairman” of a “popular committee to mobilize public support…” for the surge. Astonishingly, Chalabi has been installed as the top “liaison,” the “indispensable link” between the counter-insurgency and the people.
Excerpts of the WSJ report follow below. Yet first, here’s a brilliantly sardonic take on Chalabi’s rising from the ashes, from Donald A. Weadon, Jr. — a distinguished international lawyer, and friend in Washington. Don first contributed this comment on “peace, harmony, & bunny rabbits” to the closed “Gulf 2000 forum.” I re-post here, with Don’s permission and his edits:

“Like a mischievous cat, Ahmad Chalabi bears close watching as he runs through his nine lives.
After dodging a bullet in Jordan for massive bank fraud, he ran to the United States to parlay his intellect and his guile into a close connection to a band of lost intellectuals with grandiose plans, the neoconservatives.
While it is difficult in retrospect to imagine a University of Chicago professor who, being followed by an InterPol warrant for his arrest, comes to Washington D.C. as the darling of a cabal of folks who want to unleash their mindless vision of harmony by way of the sword in the Middle East and provides them the werewithal to give it a try at the public’s expense — well, that’s what happened.
Feeding the neocon butterflies who hovered about the early Bush 41 White House the nectar of fraudulent defectors with fabulous tales of secret WMD shenanigans, mobile nerve gas vans and the like to bolster their grandiose fantasies, he seduced the Administration and Congress into feeding him tens of millions of dollars a year for his most bogus Iraq National Congress and then even more national treasure into a Defense Department petri dish — a building next to the Pentagon under Wolfowitz’s patronage where AC toiled to create a government in exile, ready to “plug in” the minute Saddam was toppled. No wonder Rumsfeld didn’t want to know about “Day 2” onwards — he, too, had been bamboozled by AC, the celestial fraudster, into believing that all one had to do was to topple Saddam and plug him and his coterie in, and all Americans could just go home, and AC would lead the newest, friendliest client state for America smack dab in the middle of the Middle East. Peace, harmony and bunny rabbits.

Continue reading “Iraq’s Phoenix Rising Again?”

Farzaneh Milani: “Iran as Enigma to Americans”

I have the pleasure to highlight an important essay by another leading light here at the University of Virginia – Farzaneh Milani. Professor Milani, a distinguished scholar of Persian literature and women’s studies, focuses attention on the misleading narratives about Iran that provide fertile soil for those bent on provoking a US attack on Iran.
Her timely essay in The Daily Progress urges us to recognize the sources of such myths and cast off the blinders that publishers and our government perpetuate and exploit:

“Although the American public has begun to speak out against a catastrophic attack on Iran, it’s important to remember the quarter-century unpopularity of this previously close ally. At a time when the stories we believe can guide U.S. foreign policy, we cannot afford to suspend critical judgment or accept as facts compelling, but misleading, narratives about Iran.
Despite a long history of friendship and cooperation between the two nations, Iran is now seen as a purveyor of aggression in the United States. What used to be Persia, “the land of the rose and the nightingale,” is now Iran, the vanguard of a terrorist apocalypse.
It is an “axis of evil,” a rogue state, a “greater challenge” than any other country, according to President Bush’s 2006 National Security Strategy.”

It didn’t start with Bush II or I.

“The genesis of this hostility can be traced back to Nov. 4, 1979, when a group of militant students stormed the American Embassy in Tehran, taking 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. A sense of anguish etched itself into the collective consciousness of a justifiably outraged nation.
“America in Captivity” was the headline that captured the mood of a country in psychic pain.
“Nuke Iran,” read graffiti and T-shirts and posters.
“The only thing that could ever straighten out this screwed-up country is an atomic bomb! Wipe it off the map and start over,” recommended “Not Without My Daughter,” the most popular book about Iran ever published in the United States.”

Remember that last quote next time you hear reference made to the current Iranian President’s overheated rhetoric about a “map” and “Israel.” As a first step in reducing the temperature between Iran and the US, I propose a mutual moratorium on “map wiping” rhetoric.

Twenty-eight years later, Iranians find themselves hostages of their own hostage-taking.

Continue reading “Farzaneh Milani: “Iran as Enigma to Americans””

Virgil Goode: “In Mohammed We Trust?”

Heee’s baaaack. No, not “Chuckie,” that ” sneering, mean-hearted, movie doll,” nor “Q” from Star Trek fame. But our “Q-ran” fearing Congressman Virgil Goode.
Goode has been the subject of several extended entries here at jwn. He’s the “gift” that keeps on giving – if you like satire. Goode is the Congressman who infamously made a name for himself by portraying incoming Congressman Larry Ellison’s use of {Jefferson’s} Koran for his swearing-in ceremony as a threat to America’s traditional “values and beliefs.”
Hat tip to Eric H. for the alert: our “goode-ole-boy” who represents some of Virginia’s 5th District citizenry is at it again, this time rationalizing his vote for Bush’s “surge” by spreading fear of a mean-green Islamic machine marching on Washington.
Only Virgil Goode could transform his allotted five-minute speech yesterday on whether or not to support President Bush’s “surge” plan for Iraq into another dark warning against a “sea of illegal immigrants” in which more terrorists will swim. That is, if we don’t support the President, a “calamity” will surely befall us in which more Muslim “jihadis” invade our shores.
Below, I provide the transcript, from the Congressional Record, with my annotations inserted between paragraphs. Phonetic transliterations from the video version are kept to a minimum this time. Readers should view the “youtube” version themselves here. Goode’s “stie-ul” is rather unique. Render your own opinions in the discussion.

“We are in the middle of a 4-day marathon here. While I cannot say that I agree with all of the actions of the President in dealing with Iraq, I will not be supporting H. Con. Res. 63. The eyes of the world are upon this House, and there will be commentary from the Middle East to the streets of small-town America about what we do here over this 4-day period, even though this resolution does not carry the weight of law.”

“Eyes of the world?” Since when did Virgil care about what the world thought of “the Vuhgil Goode” position on anything? Instead, he’s with those who would characterize a resolution critical of Bush as giving “aide and comfort to the enemy.” (It occurs to me that for many neocons, the “eyes of the world” and “the enemy” are flip sides of the same coin.)

“When the commentary begins in the Middle East, in no way do I want to comfort and encourage the radical Muslims who want to destroy our country and who want to wipe the so-called infidels like myself and many of you from the face of the Earth. In no way do I want to aid and assist the Islamic jihadists who want the green flag of the crescent and star to wave over the Capitol of the United States and over the White House of this country. I fear that radical Muslims who want to control the Middle East and ultimately the world would love to see “In God We Trust” stricken from our money and replaced with “In Mohammed {“mooo-hahmat”} We Trust.” (emphasis added)

So much ripe material in this paragraph; where to begin?

Continue reading “Virgil Goode: “In Mohammed We Trust?””

Odom: “Victory is Not an Option”

Preface (note – this is Scott writing).
Lest any jwn readers think my satire of CNN’s 3 General Stooges incorrectly reflects a general hostility towards all things military, I note only that my father once dreamed of a military career, and my son is now living that dream (my nightmare) as an officer in the “Virginia” Guard.
Like Helena, I too have closely followed strategic writings of this and that military think tank, sometimes even with great admiration. General William Odom is a case in point. Odom was an upperclassman at West Point when my late father was a plebe there. I think Dad would have admired General Odom’s steely nerve, his Eisenhower-like capacity to speak truth when his colleagues and allies were koolaid-drunk, and best of all, his track record of being right on target, especially when it wasn’t popular with the prevailing winds.
In Sunday’s Post, Odom again is out with an iconoclastic blast that says what many in Washington think, but don’t yet have the courage to say. Helena has already made reference to the essay via the “Delicious” sidebar, so here’s my quick highlighting – for the record!
For Odom, “victory is not an option.”

The new National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq starkly delineates the gulf that separates President Bush’s illusions from the realities of the war. Victory, as the president sees it, requires a stable liberal democracy in Iraq that is pro-American. The NIE describes a war that has no chance of producing that result. In this critical respect, the NIE, the consensus judgment of all the U.S. intelligence agencies, is a declaration of defeat.

Of course, the Administration lately has been trying to re-define, without admitting, what “victory” means. But Odom is holding up the original standard and pointing out what should have been obvious even before going in — that democracy can’t be imposed at the barrel of a gun, and even it magically does take root, a democratic Iraq will not be predisposed to be pro-American or pro-Israel. These are the two “truths” that American’s need to face:

There never has been any right way to invade and transform Iraq. Most Americans need no further convincing, but two truths ought to put the matter beyond question:
First, the assumption that the United States could create a liberal, constitutional democracy in Iraq defies just about everything known by professional students of the topic. Of the more than 40 democracies created since World War II, fewer than 10 can be considered truly “constitutional” — meaning that their domestic order is protected by a broadly accepted rule of law, and has survived for at least a generation. None is a country with Arabic and Muslim political cultures. None has deep sectarian and ethnic fissures like those in Iraq.

Strangely, American political scientists whose business it is to know these things have been irresponsibly quiet. In the lead-up to the March 2003 invasion, neoconservative agitators shouted insults at anyone who dared to mention the many findings of academic research on how democracies evolve. They also ignored our own struggles over two centuries to create the democracy Americans enjoy today. Somehow Iraqis are now expected to create a constitutional order in a country with no conditions favoring it….

I beg to quibble with the general on the point about American political scientists being “irresponsibly quiet.” I rather think the problem was with the power of those neoconservative agitators – who pressured producers and opinion page editors (even at the once venerable CSMonitor or the PBS NewsHour) to avoid the contributions of major, non-beltway, think-tank academics. It’s happening again in the madness to the rush to pick a war with Iran!

Second, to expect any Iraqi leader who can hold his country together to be pro-American, or to share American goals, is to abandon common sense. It took the United States more than a century to get over its hostility toward British occupation. (In 1914, a majority of the public favored supporting Germany against Britain.) Every month of the U.S. occupation, polls have recorded Iraqis’ rising animosity toward the United States.

Odom notes that these realities are becoming more widely recognized, even as Congress thus far hasn’t had the courage to act on them for fear of four “pernicious” myths – in need of the dismantling Odom memorably provides:

Continue reading “Odom: “Victory is Not an Option””

CNN’s General cheerleader squad: Marx, Shepard, & Grange

Memo to John Stewart – host of the Comedy Channel’s Daily Show: If you need new material, check out the media generals on CNN.
Since at least 2003, CNN has been dueling with Faux to see which network can have the most generals with the most inane, mind-numbing praises of the President and “the troops.” They call it “fair and balanced” reporting. The weekly CNN program, “This Week at War,” still plays from the neocon chorus book. On this week’s “This Week at War,” (!) host John Roberts interviewed 3 different retired generals – all of whom apparently are on the CNN payroll. Oh great you say! 3 generals – 3 different perspectives? Balanced, no?
Not a chance. You’d have better odds with “three blind mice” than with the CNN “hireling” generals for “This Week at War.” The program’s three regulars are Brigadier General James Spider Marx, U.S. Army, Major General Don Shepard, U.S. Air Force and Brigadier General David Grange, U.S. Army — all retired. (I’d put ’em all in the “brig” for commentary unworthy of their fruit salad.)
In case you missed the “Three Stooges” in action this week, and lest you think I’m making this up, here’s the transcript.
The comedy begins with host John Roberts solemnly noting, “Troubling new developments in Iraq, with six helicopters downed in the past three weeks. Is it new technology or new tactics?” Then too, Roberts wonders rhetorically if the new Pentagon inspector general’s report on prewar intelligence will “erase whatever support {is} left for keeping troops in Iraq?”
The first softball question for the “retired” wise ones is served up to “Spider Marx,” who has long struck me as “outrageous.”

ROBERTS: “You’re the intelligence guy. Talk about this inspector general’s report from the Pentagon, which says that the Intel looked like it was shaped to match the policy rather than the other way around.
How outrageous is that?

BRIGADIER GENERAL JAMES SPIDER MARX, U.S. ARMY (RET.): Well, frankly, it is outrageous.
Now, the thing you have to realize about intelligence is it is fundamentally the competition of ideas. What concerns me about this is this came from the office of the director of policy, not intelligence.
So, certainly, that office can have its opinions and it can draw its own conclusions. So you want to have the competition of ideas, but you have to fundamentally fuse and blend together the different forms of intelligence and you’ve got to come up with the solution and, from that solution, you then derive — intelligence drives operations.
It drives operations. It leads you to conclusions. It is a little bit outrageous.

Huh? Hey “Spider,” read that extended quote again yourself and see if you can make any sense of it. So are the allegations really outrageous, or just “a little bit outrageous?” And since when is intel “fundamentally” about the competition of ideas?
Is that like, well, the Israeli intel liaison has his set of “well supported” ideas, and the Egyptian liaison has his “ideas,” then there’s the Ambassador’s ideas, and then there’s this little gem we got from a “well supported” expatriate who thinks “regime change” and installing a pro-American government will be easy?
Whatever happened to facts — those “stubborn things?” Or has intel gone post-modern? Pat Lang where are ye when we need ye?
In any case, the controversy at hand now is hardly about having another “team B” in operation. But the really “outrageous” part was how Douglas Feith’s “Office of Special Plans” cherry-picked intel and then cynically “sexed it up” and shaped it to fit a pre-canned ideology to “justify” an early invasion of Iraq. The policy cooked the intel. And everybody inside then – knew it.
THAT was the outrageous part. Nothing new – but our General Groucho Marx is either clueless or being deliberately “amphlibious” in “ducking” what the real controversy is. He must be still drinking the OSP koolaid himself.
Ok, back to the interview, Roberts next wants to know what the increased casualties from helicopter crashes means.

Continue reading “CNN’s General cheerleader squad: Marx, Shepard, & Grange”

Ramazani: “Wider Conflict Threatens”

The reputed “Dean” in America of Iran foreign policy studies weighs in this morning on the dangers inherent in the looming US-Iran clash and on a better way to engage Iran. Having published widely on Iran-US matters for over five decades (sic), I’m posting Professor Ramazani’s essay here in full – for the interest of jwn readers. (We look forward to your reactions.)
I will be commenting myself on additional materials separately, including the alleged new “intelligence” that Iran is somehow “killing Americans” in Iraq. Before the neocons at Faux and CNN are done, we’ll have the Iranians somehow aligned with the Taliban in Afghanistan — just like Rice ignorantly claimed in 2000. (Oh wait, General Karl Eikenberry, having presided over a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan for the past 21 months, just claimed “links” between Iran and the Taliban — without mentioning Pakistan! Utterly cynical nonsense.)
As argued in the current issue of Vanity Fair, the very same “wonderful folks” who brought us the war with Iraq are yet again pulling the strings to provoke a confrontation with Iran.
Here’s Professor Ramazani’s sober analysis:
—————-
Wider Conflict Threatens
By R. K. Ramazani
(originally published in The Daily Progress, February 11, 2007)

The Bush administration’s aggressive confrontation with Iran over the war in Iraq and Iran’s nuclear program threatens armed conflict throughout the Middle East. A better approach would be for the administration to seek a constructive way to engage Iran.
President Bush’s pledge to “seek out and destroy” the Iranian networks allegedly fueling sectarian war in Iraq and to “kill or capture” Iranian operatives suspected of killing American soldiers could spark a proxy war between Iran and the U.S. on the chaotic battlefield of Iraq.
Furthermore, the Bush administration’s campaign to create a regional alignment of Sunni states against Shia Iran promises to stoke the fire of ancient enmities between Sunnis and Shia, Arabs and Persians, enhancing the prospects of armed conflict throughout the Middle East.

Threats of military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities also could lead to war between America and Iran. Claims by the United States that it desires a diplomatic resolution ring hollow so long as it insists it will join negotiations with Iran only after Iran stops enriching uranium. Iran claims that its nuclear program is essential for producing electricity and helping economic development to meet the needs of a growing population.
But the U.S. pretense of diplomacy with Iran could be a prelude to war just as it was before the invasion of Iraq.

Continue reading “Ramazani: “Wider Conflict Threatens””

Sunni Arab view of US-Iran Tensions

If jwn readers and our generous host will pardon me, I (Scott) wish to draw early attention to Helena Cobban’s important column in today’s Christian Science Monitor. Writing from Cairo, Helena provides us with her reading of Sunni Arab sentiment towards a war with Iran.

As the level of tension rises between the US and Iran, I am very concerned that the Bush administration is trying to paint a scenario of the probable consequences of a possible US military action against Iran that is far more rosy than the situation warrants.
One key example: Both Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley have talked about the great threat that Sunni Arab countries perceive from Iran, which is predominantly non-Arab and Shiite. Some advocates of an attack (in the US and Israel) have argued that a US strike on Iran would be welcomed in Sunni-dominated nations and would therefore generally bolster the region’s forces of stability. My current tour in Egypt contradicts that. The Egyptians I’ve talked to so far – including retired diplomats, experienced political analysts, and journalists – have expressed unanimous opposition to any US attack against Iran.

This profoundly “different” observation challenges depressing contentions here in the US that some Sunni Arab governments may, like the Israelis, be pushing for the US to confront Iran militarily. Helena’s Arab sources are not nearly so enthused.
Recalling how wrong the “cake walk” scenarios for invading Iraq were, the respected Egyptian scholar and reformist, Saad Eddin Ibrahim tells Helena that, “A US attack on Iran could spread the same chaos we now see in Iraq to a number of other Arab countries. No one wants that.”
As for Hadley’s claim that Sunni Arabs feel threatened by an Iranian pursuit of nuclear options, Helena notes the telling counter view of one Egyptian diplomat: “We have lived beneath Israel’s nuclear weapons for many years, so even if Iran gets nuclear weapons it wouldn’t be anything new. Anyway, they are not that close to it.”
To the repeated mantra that Sunnis – as Sunnis – are fearful of an aggressive “Shia arc” stretching from Iran to Lebanon, Helena observes an even deeper rising regional anger – at America:

It’s true there are some concerns among Sunni Arabs about the growing influence of the (sometimes Iran-backed) Shiite populations present in many Arab countries. But well-informed Egyptians have stressed to me that anti-Americanism now runs much, much deeper than any concerns about Iranian or Shiite influence. That anti-Americanism has been hardened, they say, by the policies Washington has pursued toward Iraq and the Palestinian territories, and toward Israel during its destructive attack on targets in Lebanon last summer.
Many Sunni Arab leaders find themselves trapped uncomfortably between those popular attitudes and their own strategic alliances with Washington. Their reactions during last summer’s Israel-Hizbullah war were instructive. They started out expressing timid support for Israel’s attacks on Hizbullah. But as their publics swung behind Hizbullah, they quickly joined the growing calls for a very rapid cease-fire. In the event of a US strike on Iran, these leaders will probably need to show similar responsiveness to public pressure. And that pressure is now strongly anti-American.

How convenient it has been for Hadley & Rice to forget Pogo and instead try to change the subject – to blame Iran for the dark shadow across the region. That might work in America, but not, as Helena sees it thus far, in the Middle East.
In case you missed it, the subtitle for Helena’s column reads:

There’s virtually unanimous opposition to a US attack on Iran.

“Bottom line” implication follows for Americans:

In 2007, as in 2003, they need to be very skeptical indeed of the rosy scenarios being conjured up by the advocates of war. An attack on Iran risks bringing terrible harm to US forces and innocent civilians both in and far beyond the locus of any such attack.
Back in 2002-03, the Bush administration ignored the advice offered by the vast majority of Middle East specialists. Listening only to ideologues and others with a strong pro-war bias, it rushed the US into a war that continues to have terrible consequences for everyone concerned. We cannot let that happen again. Now, as then, there is no rosy scenario. Now, as then, many diplomatic channels for resolving our differences exist. Our leaders must now use them.

Well said Helena! No doubt you will have much more for us to “see” from your independent listening post in Cairo…

Ellison on Islam & Democracy

You have to have some sympathy for the US Information Agency staff. Especially now that they are under Condi Rice’s State Department, it’s been mighty hard, if one has a shred of decency left, to package the United States in a positive light for Arab audiences. Have you heard the one about the US “continuing” its active Middle East peacemaking?
The world doesn’t overwhelmingly resent or fear the US because of “misunderstanding” caused by poor efforts to gets America’s “message “out.” It has not been the record player that’s the problem – but the music being played.
It’s like asking the world to buy another “pig in a poke.” That is, the US has been caught too often with the “cat in the bag” (in Romanian, that’d be a fi prins cu mâṭa în sac) – or, if you will, caught “scamming” the truth.
Ok, enough bad metaphors! You get my drift.
Enter Keith Ellison…
the newly elected Congressman from Minnesota – who happens also to be a Muslim. USINFO’s web site this week features a “feel good” story about the new Congressman and his faith – no doubt as a positive for Muslim readers around the world.

Continue reading “Ellison on Islam & Democracy”

Ramazani: “Surging Backward”

We have featured several essays by R.K. Ramazani here before, and I am happy to draw attention to his latest pithy oped entitled, “Bush’s ‘new way leads backward.”
Ramazani, like most “independent” (e.g., “outside the beltway”) academic observers of the Gulf, is not impressed with President Bush’s plans to add 20 thousand or so additional US troops into the Iraq maelstrom. Deeming the President’s plan as charting “a way backward,” rather than forward, the Bush surge

“promises to deepen the quagmire in which America finds itself. And it carries the enormous risk of widening the theater of war to the detriment of American interests in the Middle East.”

Then and now, blind arrogance guides the Bush-Cheney Administration:

The president made his decision in defiance of counsel from military experts and experienced field commanders. Just as in 2003, when he dismissed the warning of Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, the army chief of staff, that occupation forces at the time were too small, he recently ignored the view of Gen. John P. Abizaid, head of the Central Command, that troop increases were no answer in Iraq.
The president also flouted the advice of civilian experts, most notably, the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, chaired by former Secretary of State James Baker and former Congressman Lee Hamilton. The study group’s report urged the Bush administration to set a goal of early 2008 for the withdrawal of almost all U.S. combat troops.
The Bush administration failed equally to heed the message of the mid-term congressional elections, a message heard loud and clear in the halls of the new Congress. The day after the president’s State of the Union address, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, by a vote of 12-8, repudiated his plan to send more troops to Baghdad.
Yet on the same day, Vice President Dick Cheney voiced the president’s defiant stance. He said: “We are moving ahead… . [T]he president has made his decision.”

But can such arrogance prevail “in the face of deepening frustration” of publics at home and abroad? Ramazani cites polling data indicating a strong majority of Americans oppose increased deployments of troops to Iran. He then contends that the tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of protestors who recently took to the cold streets of Washington “were reminding legislators that the people had elected them and expected them to act as a check on the executive branch.”

Continue reading “Ramazani: “Surging Backward””