Category: US foreign policy

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?”

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.

Black is Black, I Want My Barry Back

NOTE: Helena and I have been thinking quite independently along similar lines, which is not an isolated occurrence.
Approximately half of the CIA budget is reportedly devoted not to intelligence but to operations, such as targeted assassinations. New technology allows the US to use un-manned aircraft to kill people whever and wherever the President directs.
On February 13, 2009 Senator Diane Feinstein reported that the CIA has been flying Predator aircraft armed with Hellfire missiles from a Pakistan base.

    Reporting from Washington — A senior U.S. lawmaker said Thursday that unmanned CIA Predator aircraft operating in Pakistan are flown from an air base in that country, a revelation likely to embarrass the Pakistani government and complicate its counter-terrorism collaboration with the United States.

    Continue reading “Black is Black, I Want My Barry Back”

Iran Revolution at 30: Beyond Paradox

Washington’s venerable Middle East Institute has released a stunning collection of essays entitled, The Iranian Revolution at 30. Featuring diverse contributions from 53 international scholars and policy participants, the collection is dedicated to my own mentor, R.K. Ramazani. (the reputed “Dean of Iran Foreign Policy Studies”)
Andrew Parasiliti’s dedication essay to Ramazani appears on page 10, and the Professor’s extraordinary essay on “Understanding Iranian foreign policy” is featured at page. 12. My own essay on former President Khatami as a bridge “beyond paradox” appears on page 115.
Topics covered among the 53 essays range from foreign policy to societal trends, internal politics, the status of women, economy, and regional dynamics. Editor John Calabrese has brought together a nice mix of familiar and newer voices, providing a splendid array of insights and facts to consider.
Among the sub-themes that recur frequently is that of “paradox.” As I note in my essay, observers

“often emphasize apparent Iranian paradoxes to alert outsiders to Iran’s vibrant and dynamic society, beyond the static, enigmatic “black” clichés so commonly clung to in popular Western discourse.
In the same country where current President Mahmud Ahmadinejad trivialized the Holocaust, a very popular television program sympathetically portrayed an Iranian diplomat who rescued Jews from the Nazis during World War II.”

Yet the emphasis on “paradox” can be used to conceal more than reveal. Abbas Milani’s essay (26), among several, contends that Iran’s core paradoxes are so unresolvable that they inevitably (in Milani’s view) will “bring about its end.”
I take a rather different approach:

“Paradox as a metaphor for Iran becomes less than helpful if it leaves the impression of a ‘hidden Iran’ being incomprehensively mired in its own contradictions. Bewildered perhaps by such analytical frameworks, top Western officials, beginning with former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, commonly admit that “they do not understand Iran” or that they “do not know” if negotiating with Iran will work.”

I illustrate how paradoxes can be transcended via remarks given by former Iranian President Muhammad Khatami at a Monticello luncheon, on September 11th, 2006. Other than Helena’s blog entry at the time, this is the first time that Khatami’s comments at Thomas Jefferson’s home have been published.
Painfully aware of the past problems, Khatami optimistically sees no contradiction between the requirements of democracy and “a progressive reading of Islam.” Curious? Read my essay (p. 115). It’s also been republished (here.)
Bonus Observations:

Continue reading “Iran Revolution at 30: Beyond Paradox”

Smart Power 101

WARNING: There will be a test
Goldilocks was very tired by this time, so she went upstairs to the bedroom. She lay down in the first bed, but it was too hard. Then she lay in the second bed, but it was too soft. Then she lay down in the third bed and it was just right. Goldilocks fell asleep.
That’s beds. Now let’s consider power that’s not too hard, not too soft. It’s just right. What do we call it? Call it Goldilocks power? No, that won’t sell in Peoria. The new in crowd knows what to call it — ‘smart power.’
Here’s Hillary Clinton, the new Secretary of State, in her opening statement at her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee:

    We must use what has been called smart power, the full range of tools at our disposal—diplomatic, economic, military, political, legal, and cultural—picking the right tool, or combination of tools, for each situation. With smart power, diplomacy will be the vanguard of our foreign policy. This is not a radical idea. The ancient Roman poet Terence declared that “in every endeavor, the seemly course for wise men is to try persuasion first.”

Continue reading “Smart Power 101”

IPS articles from Syria and Washington, DC

I’ve been really busy these past couple of weeks– plus, figuring out too much new technology. So, to catch up a little, here are the last two pieces of News Analysis that I wrote for IPS:

Read and enjoy. Or not; it’s up to you.

“National Security Mom” – Gina Bennett

For too long, Americans have been intimidated by TV “experts” who tell them why being “tough” is the only way to defeat terrorism. Gina M. Bennett begs to differ in a splendid little book, entitled National Security Mom: Why “Going Soft” Will Make America Strong.
With Professor Richard Kohn’s forward, I agree that “this is a book every citizen should read, and every government official ponder….” If only.
The deceptively simple premise of the book is that “everything I ever needed to know about securing our nation I learned as a child and practiced in parenting my own children.” The companion educational poster for the book is quite accessible even to elementary children.
Yet this is not mere lipstick from a pit-bull “hockey mom.” To the contrary, Gina Bennett doubles as a multi-tasking mother of five children and a distinguished government analyst of terrorism. As far back as 1993, Bennett was presciently warning of a growing threat from Osama Bin Laden.
More recently, she was the principal author of the 2006 National Intelligence Estimate “Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the U.S.” The boldness of that report is matched by the delightful wisdom found in this slender volume.
I also am happy to note that Gina Bennett is a University of Virginia graduate, and we share the same mentor, in R.K. Ramazani, who helped instill in both of us a devotion to the principles of the University’s founder, Thomas Jefferson. Mr. Jefferson and the Professor will both be impressed.
So too is Oprah. Gina was recently featured as a model “superwoman” on the Oprah Winfrey show, a much deserved accolade.
Bennett writes first to fellow parents, offering hope, encouragement, and courage to believe that the key to national security is within them. She finds much national security wisdom in the guidance good parents give to their children, such as:

“clean up your own mess,” (e.g. Iraq)
“tell the truth,” (no, really!)
“actions speak louder than words,” (think Abu Ghuyraib, Guantanmo, torture, renditions, etc.)
“don’t give in to a bully,” (To defeat him, ignore him)
“choose your friends wisely,” (you’ll be judged by their actions… “Think for yourself.”)
“learn from your mistakes,” (e.g., surrendering our own values)
“think before you speak.” (or don’t speak at all…. )

Bennett encourages us “to think about our nation’s security in very different terms from the way it is typically depicted,” by de-mystifying the issues in a jargon-free manner.

Continue reading ““National Security Mom” – Gina Bennett”

Gaza: the importance of the Bob Gates straddle

Yesterday, as I noted here, Condi Rice gave a degree to acquiescence to a much-needed statement calling for “an immediate and permanent ceasefire” between Israel and Hamas/Gaza, that had been jointly agreed upon by Ban Ki-moon, Bernard Kounchner, Rice, and Sergei Lavrov. Ban had apparently convened the conference call in which the four members of the Mideast “Quartet” all agreed on that position.
Was Condi thereby representing the position of President Bush?
Good question. Bush has been cavorting around his vacation home in Crawford, Texas. But his spokseman Gordon Johndroe came out today to say,

    “President Bush thinks that Hamas needs to stop firing rockets and that is what will be the first steps in a ceasefire.”

Johndroe said that as part of the report he made to journos on a phone conversation Bush had with Olmert this morning.
Reuters added:

Continue reading “Gaza: the importance of the Bob Gates straddle”