Category: Iran

More dishonest argumentation from the WaPo’s Hoagland

Veteran WaPo columnist Jim Hoagland was a big drum-beater for the US invasion of Iraq, and he is now playing a belligerent and fundamentally dishonest role in trying to win US support for a still very possible Israeli attack against Iran.
In his column yesterday, Hoagland seems to be adopting a strongly Israelo-centric– or let me say Likudo-centric– perspective.
He writes,

    Obama has already offered diplomatic engagement to Iran without preconditions — making Tehran’s behavior, not Washington’s conduct, the dominant issue for international opinion. The policy adjustments have been necessary and adroitly handled.
    But they have also stirred doubts in Israel’s untested and politically heterogeneous government about Obama’s commitment to Israel’s security, as Netanyahu defines it…

And then this extraordinary piece of misjudgment:

    The nightmare scenario for Obama is that Israel launches an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities that is largely unsuccessful but that provokes an Iranian missile retaliation against Israel and all-out guerrilla campaigns by Hamas and Hezbollah. Could any U.S. president, however angry, turn his back on Israel in that situation?

No, Jim Hoagland. The nightmare scenario for any American president is that Israel launches an attack against Iran that then invites– and under international law, almost certainly justifies– Iranian retaliation against the vulnerable, over-extended supply lines in the Middle East of Israel’s strategic ally, the United States.
Not even one whisper of a mention of that possibility, Jim Hoagland? What an incredibly dishonest and extremely dangerous silence on your part!
Hoagland alludes to what is the most compelling evidence the Iranians would have, in certain circumstances, for retaliating against the US. Namely, that Israeli aircraft used in an attack on Iran would most likely have to have either flown through US-controlled airspace, whether in Iraq, Saudi Arabia, or elsewhere, or to have used refuelling planes supplied by the US to Israel for specifically defensive purposes.
If Israel uses other delivery platforms for munitions used against Iran, including missiles or drones, US collusion in the development of those weapons could also be argued by the Iranians.
In any case, the Iranians would have a very strong case under international law for an argument that retaliating against such a close Israeli ally in military affairs as the US would be justified in the event of an attack against them by Israel.
It has been that contingency that has kept several high-level American military planners up late at nights with worry for the past few years. It was that contingency that persuaded even the Bush administration to state forcefully to Israel last year that it would not give Israel the permission (and associated IFF codes) its planes would need if they were to fly to Iran over Iraq’s extremely sensitive airspace.
Hoagland referred to last year’s Israel-US exchange about overflight rights– but he made no reference at all to the concern many in the US military have about the blowback their very vulnerable forces would most likely suffer in the event of an Israeli attack against Iran. Why is he being so dishonest?
Elsewhere on the same page yesterday, I note, David Ignatius scored a hole in one by asking this simple question, in response to a series of vivid war reports the NYT has carried about firefights the US forces have been engaged in in Afghanistan’s remote Korengal Valley:

    I found myself wondering: Why is the United States fighting insurgents in the remote Korengal Valley in the first place? The story described the enemy as “Taliban,” but it said the locals are angry “in part because they are loggers and the Afghan government banned almost all timber cutting, putting local men out of work.” There’s apparently no sign of al-Qaeda in the valley, where people are fiercely independent and speak their own exotic language.
    While applauding the bravery of the U.S. soldiers, we should also ask the baseline question: Is this use of American military power necessary or wise?

He only raises the questions and is not yet prepared to give the only answer that makes sense to me. (Neither necessary nor wise.) But at least he’s heading in the right direction.
Unlike that dishonest old war-monger, Jim Hoagland.

Ahmadinejad: “Whatever decision they (Palestininians) take is fine with us”

ABC’s This Week program today featured an extended interview, conducted apparently last Wednesday, with Iran’s President Ahmadinejad. (A/N) Here’s the full transcript, and (H/T to Nader) here’s a new link to the full video.
As usual, it seems the western media is missing the significance of what he said. The discussion on ABC’s “This Week” after the interview is even worse; They essentially ignored what Ahmadinejad said. ABC had a scoop on their hands, they sat on it for several days, and flat missed it!
But contrary to VOA and AFP headlines, I don’t think it’s at all clear that A/N has added “preconditions” for US-Iran talks. At one point in the interview, yes, he indicates that any talks should have a clear agenda, and that should be worked out ahead of time. But he isn’t about to do so in public for ABC. Is that so shocking? (And it’s light years different from the old Bush/Rice position that Iran had to stop enrichment first, then we could talk about it.)
In any case, at another spot in the interview, Ahmadinejad insists: “We are always ready to talk… with no preconditions.” (so no headline there)
Second, yes, A/N does comment on the holocaust, its ramifications for the Middle East, and its study. Readers can read the passage for themselves. While grating, I don’t see any holocaust “denial” here, per se.
Most newsworthy, and of surprise to those who subscribe to the Ahmadinejad as “Hitler” motif, the Iranian President had this to say about a two-state solution for Israel-Palestine.

Continue reading “Ahmadinejad: “Whatever decision they (Palestininians) take is fine with us””

Baskerville Q&A with Thomas M. Ricks

At the end of this morning’s entry about the centennial of Iran’s “American martyr,” I noted that Dr. Thomas M. Ricks was to discuss his forthcoming book about Howard Baskerville via a live global chat, hosted via the US State Department’s Bureau of International Information Programs. While the technology apparently didn’t cooperate, I am grateful to receive a raw transcript, prior to its formal publication.
With my own minor edits and a reordering of the topics, here are Ricks’ replies from today’s very interesting session. Topics covered include: How does Ricks know so much about Baskerville, and how is he studying him? Was Baskerville an idealist? How important was he? Might Baskerville even now be a bridge between Iran and the US?
Ricks describes his project:

[Baskerville] is the subject of my present research which should be completed this fall and resulting in a book. In doing this history work, I have come to realize how many ways we are affected by the world around us, the joys and sufferings people undergo, and the ways people solve problems. Baskerville was very affable young man and may I be so bold as to say an excellent ambassador of many of our American ideals and bravery. He truly enjoyed his life in Tabriz and lived life to its fullest.”

Question: “Is Mr. Baskerville a martyr, a hero, or an “example”?

Thomas M. Ricks: “I believe that Baskerville shows us Americans the potentially good role we as a people may pursue with the “other” people of the world. He is an excellent example, in my mind, of our own ideals (he says so himself) of commitment to just and progressive causes in the name of the majority (environmental issues, human and civil rights of women and children, etc.), rather than supporting the myriad of hard liners and global tough guys. Baskerville was motivated as much by his commitment to the Presbyterian mission spirit of public service as he was by his own reading of French and modern US history and the aspirations (and political culture) of his family and the atmosphere in the 1900s when there were so many diverse actions and political positions in the US.”

Continue reading “Baskerville Q&A with Thomas M. Ricks”

100 years ago: An American Martyr

Today marks the 100th Anniversary of the death of Howard Baskerville, a 24 year-old American who literally gave his life for Iran. Even now, his name is remembered fondly among Iranians, as their “American martyr.”
Baskerville’s story ought to be better known in the US, for in it Americans will learn of Iranian struggles for freedom and of a still lingering reservoir of goodwill for Americans. For starters, I recommend the essay in the Princeton Alumni Weekly by Mark Bernstein. Ironically, it’s also available in Persian, courtesy the US State Department web site here.
The short version begins when Baskerville, a Nebraska native and a fresh 1907 Princeton graduate, took his first post as a teacher at the American school in Tabriz, run by Presbyterian missionaries. Iran, or Persia as it was then known, was in the throes of its Constitutional Revolution era. Sustained protests had forced the reigning shah to permit the election of Iran’s first parliament (majlis) which in turn wrote the first constitution anywhere in the region.
But by mid 1908, a new Shah, Muhammad Ali Shah was colluding with Russians and British imperialists to crush the constitutional reformers. (a reason why Iranians to this day remain intensely suspicious of British intentions) Tabriz, then Iran’s second largest city and located in northwestern Iran, was the heart of reformist resistance. Baskerville’s students included the best from leading Tabriz families, and as he learned more of their struggle, he in turn shared his understanding of America’s own rebellion from imperial control and its constitutional liberties, a subject he had learned directly from no less an authority than a Princeton professor by the name of Woodrow Wilson.
When royalist forces put Tabriz under seige, Baskerville felt he could not stand by while the strangled city was reduced to starvation, much to the consternation of the US consul and to his Presbyterian mission. Baskerville took up the sword, and in March 1909, organized 150 of his students to help defend the city. The story does not end well for Baskerville, as he was killed while on a desperate mission to lead a small force through the siege lines to retrieve food.
Yet Baskerville’s sacrifice was neither in vain, nor forgotten.

Continue reading “100 years ago: An American Martyr”

Five+One… +One => Seven

A LOT has been happening the past two weeks relating to US-Iran relations, much of it catalyzed by President Obama’s NowRuz Address to Iran. Scott Peterson summarizes major developments in this CSMonitor article. Note especially Farideh Farhi’s comments, explaining what’s potentially different from previous Bush and Clinton era approaches.
In the same realm, Roger Cohen continues to make waves with his extraordinary NYTimes opeds, variations on the taboo theme of how the “treacherous alliance” involving the US, Israel & Iran needs… rebalancing. Who wags this dog? Today’s Cohen essay entitled “Realpolitik for Iran” features memorable quotes from an interview with IAEA chief Mohammad El-Baradei, like these two:

“I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the (nuclear) technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy….
Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran,… I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crash course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.”

Now for the higher math: And it likely won’t quite make the headlines, but it matters: 5+1…+1 => 7 equals. My turn to explain:

Continue reading “Five+One… +One => Seven”

Startling news

First, Iran and the US have just announced the appointment of ambassadors to each other. Impressive choices. According to The Iranian,

Mr. Haji Firooz will be representing the Islamic Republic of Iran as ambassador to Washington and Dr. Azar Nafisi will serve as the U.S. ambassador to Tehran. These distinguished individuals have been carefully selected for their deep understanding of political and cultural matters in our respective countries and we are confident that they will take important steps in rebuilding ties between our two great nations.

No doubt. As will the recent exceptionally balanced Miller Center/PBS debate over whether or not to bomb Iran.
The most startling news of the day comes from Jim Wallis who explains here how he parted the Red Sea in getting Rush Limbaugh to speak at a Sojourners “Mobilization to End Poverty.” I had heard Wallis was building bridges to conservatives, but this one surprised me. Just the other day, I heard Rush going on and on about how the “the vast majority” of CEO’s getting huge bonuses and government bailouts were “liberals.” Here’s the youtube clip from Limbaugh’s Sojourners address.

Netanyahu, Iran, and the US MSM’s shameful silence

Aluf Benn writes in Haaretz today that,

    In political circles the view is that yes, Netanyahu as prime minister brings Israel closer to war with Iran. Politicians in touch with Netanyahu say he has already made up his mind to destroy Iran’s nuclear installations. People close to him wonder how the public would receive a joint decision by Netanyahu and Ehud Barak to attack Iran, and whether the move would boost the two men’s popularity. The basic assumption is that diplomacy and sanctions will not gain a thing, and the only way to stop Iran’s nuclear program will be by force, which only Israel is motivated to apply.
    This is also the assessment of the international media, who consider an Israeli strike against Iran a near certainty.

Actually, Benn is wrong to claim that “the international media” have expressed themselves clearly one way or another regarding the probability of an Israeli attack against Iran. Here in the US, the big MSM prefer not to think, or say anything, about this matter, at all.
Because if they did, they would have to come to the same conclusion that I reached long ago– and that I see M.J. Rosenberg expressed yesterday on TPM Cafe, namely that, as he wrote:

    An Israeli attack on Iran would jeopardize a myriad of American interests in the region, starting with 130,000 US troops but Netanyahu talks as if he can call the shots without any regard for our interests.

That’s why the MSM really don’t want to deal with this. They seem completely reluctant to admit that on some extremely important topics, Israel’s interests can diverge radically from those of the US citizenry— and indeed, can put in direct jeopardy the lives of many scores of thousands of our citizens.
MJ also wrote this:

    In this week’s New Yorker, Seymour Hersh reports that, just before leaving office, Dick Cheney told the Israelis that Obama is a wimp and could be ignored.
    Netanyahu appears to have bought into the Cheney thesis and is now testing it by insulting the President on the day he is sworn in as Prime Minister. Let’s see if Obama let’s him get away with it. My guess is that Bibi just made the first major blunder of his tenure. [MJ: the eternal optimist, I see. ~HC]
    It is also not a coincidence that Netanyahu trash talked Iran while US Special Envoy Holbrooke was holding the Obama administration’s first face-to-face meeting with an Iranian official in The Hague. This is in keeping with the pattern set by President Shimon Peres who sent a nasty greeting to the Iranian people simultaneously with Obama’s friendly overture. The name of the game is to make it impossible for Obama to achieve a breakthrough with Iran by always leaving the impression that America is in thrall to Israel. Clever. And dangerous.

Meanwhile, over in the blog post in which Jeffrey Goldberg wrote up his “exclusive interview” with Netanyahu, he also writes that Moshe Ya’alon, who’s a leading security adviser to Netanyahu, “told me that a nuclear Iran could mean the end of American influence in the Middle East.”
Is Jeff Goldberg extremely stupid (in that he does nothing to distance himself, as the reporter, from this deeply flawed and disingenuous judgment)– or did Ya’alon just successfully play him along as being extremely stupid?
It is an Israeli military strike against Iran that would signal “the end of American influence in the Middle East” more than anything else. A nuclear-capable Iran is something that both the US and Israel could live with (as Efraim Halevy and others have written, with regard to Israel.)
Much better for everyone in the region and all round the world, of course, would be complete, negotiated denuclearization as advocated by Global Zero. But the idea that an Israeli act of war against Iran would be anything other than catastrophic for the US in the region is complete nonsense.
Btw, the often very well-informed Richard Sale also has some interesting tidbits of info about aspects of the covert ops the Israelis and US worked on against Iran’s nuclear program in the George W Bush era, here. (HT: B of Moon of Alabama.)
Among Sales tidbits: that for almost a decade Israel has been trying, often with US help and encouragement, to assassinate “key Iranian assets”.
Sale continues,

    But U.S. opposition to the program has intensified as U.S. President Barack Obama makes overtures aimed at thawing 30 years of tension between the two countries.
    Part of this is due to the U.S.’s desire to use Iran’s road networks into Afghanistan to help resupply U.S.-NATO forces there.
    But Israel’s interests in the region are not the same as those of the United States, several U.S. officials said.

I’ll say!
Later, Sale adds these further details:

    Israel’s targeting killing program was done in concert with the [George W.] Bush administration, former U.S. sources said.
    A former senior CIA official described several joint U.S.-Mossad operations to derail Iran’s nuclear program as “something out of slapstick.” All had failed miserably, he said.
    A new wave of assassination and sabotage programs were launched in spite of the fact that in 2005, the United States had little to no intelligence about the status of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
    According to U.S. sources, in 2004, the CIA had lost its entire agent network in Iran when a CIA headquarters communications officer was about to send instructions to an agent via its Immarsat transmitter/receivers. The CIA officer attempted to download data intended for a single operative, but accidentally hit a button that sent it to the entire U.S. spy network in Iran, these sources said.
    The information was received by a double agent who forwarded it to Iranian counterintelligence, which quickly wrapped up the entire network, leaving Washington completely blind.

Ah, the much-feared CIA.

Was Peres trying to “Sabotage” Obama?

Two days ago, in the discussion under my entry about Obama’s NowRuz message to Iran, I noted that Israel’s President Shimon Peres had issued his own NowRuz message to Iran and suggested that it appeared calculated to “sabotage” Obama’s intentions. In the extension, I transcribe an Israeli press release (dated March 22nd) that provides translated text of both Peres’s NowRuz message, as well as excerpts from a separate interview, also broadcast to Iran.
Readers can consider it themselves.
The tonal contrast between the Obama and Peres NowRuz messages could not be sharper. Peres morphs George Bush. Unlike Obama, Peres is not speaking to the Islamic Republic, waxes nostalgic about the Shah, predicts that Iran’s people will “bring down” these “religious fanatics,” and characterizes the Islamic Republic’s disposition towards Israel as driven by “blind hatred” rather than anything Israel does.
As M.J. Rosenberg asked, it hardly seemed coincidental that Peres, long an Israeli superhawk on Iran,

suddenly sends “greetings” to the Iran people urging them to rise up against their government at the same moment that Obama respectfully addressed the “Islamic Republic of Iran” with the most conciliatory US message in decades…. [Was Peres responding] “with a hasty and insulting message in order to kill the effect of President Obama’s? If so, it was a serious breach. If the shoe was on the other foot, Jerusalem would go ballistic.”

As one friend and close observer of Iran/Israel matters puts it,here at tpmcafe, “there is little doubt that Shimon Peres’ subversion of Obama’s Nowruz message was as deliberate as it was destructive.”
Not surprisingly, some Israeli sources have claimed that the Peres message and comments were “coordinated” with Obama’s, and “similar.”
“Similar” as oil and water, night and day, maybe.
Ironically, the same Israeli and neoconservative voices who fret loudest over whether Iran will seriously talk to the US seem determined to undermine and prevent the US from seriously talking to Iran.
In a column in The International Herald Tribune, Roger Cohen reviews the Khamenei, Obama, and Peres messages, and adds this sober assessment of what may be required for a US-Iran dialogue to bear fruit:

“Obama’s new policies of Middle Eastern diplomacy and engagement will involve reining in Israeli bellicosity and a probable cooling of U.S.-Israeli relations. It’s about time. America’s Israel-can-do-no-wrong policy has been disastrous, not least for Israel’s long-term security.”

(Israeli press release in continuation)

Continue reading “Was Peres trying to “Sabotage” Obama?”

What Khamenei really said. (text)

To hear the rolling US corporate media refrain, US President Obama’s extraordinary NowRuz day message to Iran was dismissed, rejected, rebuffed, and trashed by Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, in a speech delivered yesterday in Mashhad, Iran. See, for examples, the Fox, MSNBC, Washington Post, Voice of America, variations on the theme .
The Associated Press, the source for much of the negative reporting, even carried a commentary characterizing the rebuff as illustrating Iran’s “mindset.”
So say we all? Deja vu to 2003? Kool-aid anyone?
Not quite. At Reuters, a very different headline read: “Iran Sets Terms for US Ties,” and similarly, at the French News Agency (AFP): “Iran ready to change if US leads way.”
Ignored in most US media reports about Iran’s reactions was this rather positive comment from Iran’s foreign minister, as reported by the Iranian news agency:

Concerning US President Barack Obama’s message to Iranians on the occasion of Nowroz, Mottaki said,” We are glad that Nowroz has been a source for friendship and we are pleased that Nowroz message is a message for coexistence, peace and friendship for the whole world.”

In the extension here, see the full text of Khamenei’s remarks in English as pertain to ties to America. (Translation provided late today by BBC/OSC — the latter being the valuable US government “open source center” service.) Underlining highlights are my own.
For commentary, consider Farideh Farhi’s excellent analysis.
For my own part, Khamenei’s speech covers the standard list of Iran’s grievances with the US since the revolution, some old, some ongoing, like still frozen assets and the perceived US support of various “bandit” and “dise\integrating” forces around Iran’s periphery….

Continue reading “What Khamenei really said. (text)”

Obama’s NowRuz Message: “A New Beginning”

About an hour ago, the White House web site released a startling video message from President Obama to all those who celebrate NowRuz, the (Persian) New Year.
Taking advantage of the single most important holiday season in Iran, the text of President Obama’s message emphasizes “respect” and signals “a new beginning” in America’s policy towards Iran.
The first subtle, yet critical change is the audience: Obama is speaking “directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran.” No more condescension in speaking only to Iran’s people, as if inviting them to rise up and change their system at America’s command. Such “interference,” whether by the Bush or Clinton Administrations, tended to stiffen resolve, close minds, circle wagons; In short, it backfired.
Obama sets the backdrop for his different approach by recognizing Nowruz as an integral part of Iran’s “great and celebrated culture,” and that despite the strains between Iran and the US, the holiday season reminds us “of the common humanity that binds us together.” In many ways, Nowruz in Iran is like the American holidays of Christmas, New Years, Thanksgiving, Easter, and Halloween — all compressed within two weeks. Friends, family, gifts, fun — “and looking to the future with a renewed sense of hope.”

“Within these celebrations lies the promise of a new day, the promise of opportunity for our children, security for our families, progress for our communities, and peace between nations. Those are shared hopes, those are common dreams.
So in this season of new beginnings I would like to speak clearly to Iran’s leaders. We have serious differences that have grown over time. My administration is now committed to diplomacy that addresses the full range of issues before us, and to pursuing constructive ties among the United States, Iran and the international community. This process will not be advanced by threats. We seek instead engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.“

It appears then that Dennis Ross is not controlling US Iran policy after all. No more (un-)”smart power” language of “carrots and sticks,” which Iranians view as fit for “donkeys.”
Obama isn’t forgetting the differences, but he is offering Iran a different path, a choice, one that doesn’t threaten Iran with being “obliterated,” invaded, or, “regime changed” if it doesn’t “cry Uncle” first. To the contrary, Obama calls upon Iran to live up to its own heritage:

“The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization.

That “greatness is not the capacity to destroy,” but rather an “ability to build and create…” exchanges, partnerships, commerce, where “old divisions are overcome,” and where Iran, its neighbors, and the outside word can live in security and peace.
The road to that future “won’t be easy,” especially given “those who insist that we be defined by our differences” (whether that be “neocons” in Iran, Israel, or the US). Yet remarkably, Obama invokes the 13th Century Persian poet Sa’di as the sage on our potential common ground:

“The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.“

“With the coming of a new season, we’re reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.”

I anticipate with Trita Parsi, President of the National Iranian American Council, that “[t]his historic message… will be the topic of conversation at every Norooz celebration in Iran and in America.”
Obama is doing something fundamentally different than Bush II, at the level of “strategic intent” to change the nature of relations between the US and Iran, to not just seek “tactical” cooperation on Iraq, Afghanistan, on oil shipping.
As a footnote, I am intrigued that much of Obama’s message to Iran follows suggestions that my own mentor, R.K. Ramazani, sketched in an early February oped on what “respect” means to Iran.
Less than a week later (on Feb. 9th), even Iran’s President Ahmadinejad also picked up on the respect theme:,

“The new US government… wants to create change and follow the path of talks. It’s very clear that true change should be fundamental and not tactical. It’s clear that the Iranian nation will welcome genuine changes. The Iranian nation is prepared to talk. However, these talks should be held in a fair atmosphere in which there is mutual respect.”

Make it so.