Admiral Mullen, the Chairman of the US joint chiefs of staff:
Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us...This is a very unstable part of the world, and I don’t need it to be more unstable.
Iran is a signatory to the NPT and there is no evidence of an Iranian nuclear weapons program according to the latest reports by the IAEA and the US NIE. The NPT has 189 signatories and only four states who are not parties to the NPT: Israel, North Korea, Pakistan and India.
It is not clear what would be attacked, anyway. Civilian enrichment labs permitted by the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty?
Apparently under Cheney’s CIA it was it was not allowed for an analyst to say that Iran and Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction or that Iran had given up any weapons research in early 2003.
Irancove @ July 3, 2008
David Ignatius reports in the Washington Post:
The danger of these cross-border activities was explained to me by one intelligence source. He said the Iranians had recently captured several dissident Iranian operatives who had been recruited by U.S. military officers inside Iraq and then sent into Iran. The Iranians, whose intelligence network inside Iraq is pervasive, surveilled the meeting, then followed the agents across the border and seized them.
Irancove @ July 2, 2008
Israel’s former Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami and NIAC President Trita Parsi on the flaws in the outlook of Tel Aviv and Washington toward Iran:
from the July 2, 2008 edition
Washington and Jerusalem - Is war between Israel and Iran inevitable? To listen to Iran’s radical President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or Israel’s Iranian-born transportation minister Shaul Mofaz, or even recent reports that Israel carried out a major military training mission over the Mediterranean to rehearse an attack on Iran, you might be left with that impression.
Mr. Mofaz’s comments last month indicating he would attack Iran didn’t help perceptions either. The immediate effect of his statement was a record increase in oil prices – giving Mofaz’s Iranian nemeses a windfall of several million dollars.
Mofaz and Mr. Ahmadinejad are wrong. Israel and Iran are not destined to be enemies, nor does the military option present a real way out of the current impasse. In reality, it doesn’t offer a solution at all. More on page 501
Irancove @ July 2, 2008
Jason Leopold interviews Scott Ritter—former Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq and ex-Marine Corp’s intelligence officer—on the Bush Administration’s ill-advised plans to attack Iran:
In 2002, Scott Ritter, the former Chief United Nations Weapons Inspector In Iraq, publicly accused the Bush administration of lying to Congress and the public about assertions that Iraq was hiding a chemical and biological weapons arsenal.
By speaking out publicly, Ritter emerged as one of the most prominent whistleblowers since Daniel Ellsberg leaked the Pentagon Papers to The New York Times in the early 1970s.
Ritter’s criticisms about the Bush administration’s flawed prewar Iraq intelligence have been borne out by numerous investigations and reports, including one recently published by the Senate Armed Services Committee that found President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, and other senior administration officials knowingly lied about the threat Iraq posed to the United States.
Now Ritter, who was a Marine Corps intelligence officer for 12 years, is speaking out about what he sees as history repeating itself regarding U.S. policy toward Iran and the inevitability of a U.S.-led attack on the country, which he believes will happen prior to a new president being sworn into office in January 2009.
“We’re going to see some military activity before the new administration is sworn in.” Ritter said. But he added that “Iran is not a threat to the United States and Iran is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program. That’s documented.” More on page 500
Irancove @ July 1, 2008
CASMII board member speaks with Iran’s Ambassador to the IAEA, Dr. Ali Asghar Soltanieh. The interview reveals an interesting point-of-view on Iran’s nuclear energy program which is not usually considered in the US media.
Dr. Soltanieh explains the reasons behind Iran’s determination to develop an indigenous uranium enrichment capability and why Iran believes the countries pursuing or relying on nuclear weapons are making a mistake. He also gives his viewpoint on how international institutions such as the UN Security Council are in practice used as instruments of political pressure by a select few member states, ultimately undermining the authority and credibility of those institutions.
A podcast is available here. See transcript below:
Mohammad Kamaali: Thank you Mr Ambassador for agreeing to talk to us. If you
could please briefly explain the history of Iran’s nuclear programme, where
it started, what stage is it at present and what are your future plans.
Dr Ali Asghar Soltanieh: It is simple, Iran’s nuclear programme did not
start yesterday for it to be stopped tomorrow as it is today demanded by
some countries like the US. Nuclear activities in Iran go back to half a
century ago, before and after the [1979] revolution. In fact, I myself
started my work before the revolution in the Atomic Energy Organisation
(AEO) and I have witnessed the double standard approach before and after the
revolution.
A very simple question that is always addressed to us is what is the
justification for Iran to have nuclear energy while it has huge amounts of
natural resources of oil and gas. This question was never raised before the
revolution when the [oil] resources were much more than today and the
population was about half. [Today] the added value of the oil bid for
application in our chemical and petrochemical industry is much more because
we now have a lot of advancements in this area which we can use for
producing a great amount of by-products. So the added value is much more
than thirty years ago, in addition to the price of oil which is of course
increasing everyday. More on page 498
Irancove @ June 30, 2008
US Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson discusses imposing new sanctions against Iran with Moscow. The end of the article quotes Paulson on a tangential issue:
The US treasury secretary added he hoped US legislators could make enough progress on legislative changes to allow Russia to join the World Trade Organisation before US President George W. Bush leaves office in January.
“I would very much like to see Russia’s accession to the WTO. We’re making progress on Russian accession.”
Irancove @ June 30, 2008
Joby Warrick reports in the Washington Post on Sy Hersh’s report of US financial support for terrorist groups like the MEK and “Baluchi” groups to undermine the Iranian regime and cause unrest. According to various reports the CIA has in the past supported a Baluchi terrorist group Jundullah (with ties to the Taliban) to carry out bus bombing and beheadings in Iran. The MEK is a Marxist-Islamist group with a long history of terrorism inside Iran and cooperation with Saddam Hussein— the group is even included in the US State Department’s list of “foreign terrorist organizations.”
Despite all this, the Washington Post does not see fit to use the word “terrorist” to describe the groups instead opting for “rebel groups,” dissidents,” or even “established resistance groups.” Curiously, this same standard is not applied when discussing other “terror”—related subjects by the same author in the same paper.
Irancove @ June 30, 2008
Laura Rozen at Mother Jones asks Daniel Levy, Yossi Melman, Trita Parsi, Danny Postel and Jacqueline Shire about Iran (this is part of an ongoing conversation, check back with MJ site for updates):
QUESTION: How likely is a scenario in which the US or Israel strikes Iran before Bush leaves office? (Or is the Left falling for the hawks’ propaganda?
Daniel Levy, a former Middle East peace negotiator, is Director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative at The Century Foundation, and of the Middle East Initiative at the New America Foundation:
I’m going to look at the Israeli side of the equation as I think this is the direction that any action is most likely to come from, although the blowback would of course most likely impact the US (and perhaps embroil it in a war with Iran). Also I will not address how disastrous the consequences of a military strike would be in my opinion, notably for Israel and its supporters in the US.
Bottom line: I still think a strike is still less rather than more likely, although I am increasingly concerned, more so than in the past. The Israeli political timetable may add a new element encouraging action, given that Prime Minister Olmert will remain in office only a limited number of months and Defense Minister Barak needs to justify why he has stayed in the Olmert government. This of course dovetails the US political calendar. These considerations are not sufficient to precipitate action, but if the Israeli Defense establishment is of the opinion that eventually a strike is inevitable (and I am not convinced it is) then the chances of a short timetable are enhanced.
The bombing of the Osirak Iraqi reactor in 1981, and of a suspected Syrian nuclear site in September ‘07, are problematic precedents in that they encourage a false Israeli presumption regarding the efficacy and minimal cost of a military strike. Iran is a different story. Israel’s recent regional moves—negotiations with Syria, cease-fire with Hamas, and even the likely prisoner exchange with Hezbollah—all suggest a concerted effort to blunt some of the instruments that Iran could deploy in the region. Actually all of these moves make sense, but would be smarter as a backdrop to American engagement with Iran (I could explain more on this later). So why all the Israeli bluff and bluster? Well, it might be to push the P 5+1 and others into squeezing Iran harder, or part of Olmert’s domestic spin that this is the wrong time to change Prime Minister. But few believe that the sanctions will lead to a unilateral Iranian climb down, and the political explanation is unsatisfying. Hence the worry. Still, the Israel-America no-surprises rule would certainly apply to a mission against Iran, so if Israel is planning something (and again I’m not convinced) then opposition from the Pentagon can prevent it.
Yossi Melman is national security correspondent for Israeli daily Haaretz and co-author of Every Spy a Prince, and The Nuclear Sphinx of Iran: Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the State of Iran:
Very, very unlikely. The military and intelligence contingency plans to attack Iran are still in the making. From the operational point of view, Israel and the US are not ready yet. The supportive political-diplomatic environment has not been created yet. Attacking Iran is considered by Israeli military and political decision makers as a last resort. I assume that they and the international community, including the US, are waiting to see the results of next year’s presidential elections in Iran, to be held in May 2009.
Trita Parsi is the author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the US and president of the National Iranian American Council: The recent war rhetoric coming out of Israel seems more geared towards ensuring that America keeps its military option on the table, than towards signalling that Israel itself is prepared to take military action. Even if Israel does have the capability to strike Iran—which is debatable—Israel certainly does not have the capability to successfully eliminate all Iranian nuclear facilities. Would Israel initiate an attack—knowing it would fail—only to force the US to step in and utilize its military option? Possibly, but it would come at a great expense to Israel: the Jewish state’s deterrence is to a large extent based on the outside world not knowing what Israel can and cannot do. By attacking Iran and failing to destroy the Iranian facilities, Israel would reveal the limitations of its capabilities and strike a major blow against its own deterrence.
Danny Postel is the author of Reading “Legitimation Crisis” in Tehran: Iran and the Future of Liberalism and a member of Chicago’s No War on Iran Coalition:
None of us can be certain at this point whether the US or Israel will attack Iran, but I read recent signs as being just ominous enough that I’d rather err on the side of being too worried than of not being worried enough. Even that paragon of cool sobriety The Economist now concludes that Israel’s recent maneuvers suggest that it might not be bluffing. One thing we do know is that the intellectual runway is being slicked for an attack. John Bolton has floated the suggestion that Israel will attack after the November elections but before the next president takes office, while Daniel Pipes has evoked the same scenario, only with the US doing the job. Pipes thinks Bush will attack only if Obama wins (the assumption being that McCain would take care of business himself), whereas Bolton sees Israel attacking no matter who wins. Norman Podhoretz not only “prays” that Bush will bomb Iran but has personally urged the president to do so in a private meeting between the two. (Bush, according to Podhoretz, “gave not the slightest indication of whether he agreed,” but “listened very intently” and “looked very solemn.”) The writing on the wall looks deadly serious to me. I’d rather fall for the hawks’ propaganda than awake one morning to find out that I’d underestimated the threat. But even if it is just posturing, it’s a very dangerous game with potentially cataclysmic consequences.
Jacqueline Shire is a senior analyst at the Institute for Science and International Security, and served previously as a foreign affairs officer in the Department of State’s Bureau of Political-Military Affairs:
For a host of reasons, ably articulated by others, I think the likelihood that the US attacks Iran before Bush leaves office to be quite low (due to reluctance to undermine Iraq’s fragile stability or take on another military conflict with uncertain consequences, the economic impact of higher oil prices, opposition from international partners, and a pragmatic understanding that a strike may only drive Iran’s nuclear program underground or fail to set back irretrievably the enrichment effort).
For similar reasons I believe that Israel too will ultimately decide to hold off, and suggest that if Israel were going to strike Iran, it might have already done so.
That aside, there is an uncertainty to the Israel-Iran-strike calculus that bears examining. Over the summer and into the fall, we can expect that Iran will continue doggedly, if imperfectly, installing and operating centrifuges at Natanz, expanding and improving upon their uranium enrichment efforts where possible. Barring a last minute breakthrough, we can also expect the formal rejection of the latest diplomatic offer made by the EU’s Javier Solana in June, and the start of more sanctions discussions at the UN Security Council.
Add to this dispiriting mix some incendiary rhetoric from an over-confident Tehran toward Israel, and Israel’s reported conclusion that Iran’s timetable to a bomb is closer to late-2009 than the US intelligence community’s assessment of mid-next decade, and we may wake up to a smoldering Natanz some morning before 2009.
While not likely in a greater-than-50-percent sense, this avoidable scenario depends largely on how Tel Aviv reads the news from Tehran—continued progress on enrichment, a rejection of diplomatic overtures, over-confidence in the political leadership—and marries it with other factors, in particular its own domestic political considerations, its assessment of how Sens. McCain or Obama would address Iran, and whether there has been any progress internationally on how to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In short, who knows? Israel has very deliberately maintained opacity on this question, veering between shows of force and official denials. We are left to continue watching closely all the variables and pressing for
Irancove @ June 30, 2008
Farideh Farhi has a very interesting post at ICGA on comments made by General Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander of the Islamic Revolution’s Guard Corps (IRGC) in an interview with Jam e Jam. As Farhi points out, the interview reveals how Tehran views the possibility and aftermath of a US/Israeli attack:
The wire services have generally picked up Jafari’s counter-threats regarding what Iran would do in case of an attack by the United States (including missile attacks against Israel, chocking off the Hormuz Straight, and reliance on ideological assets throughout the Middle East). Still quite a bit of nuance has been left out regarding his thinking.
First and foremost are his thoughts about the possibility of US or Israeli attack. On this issue, Jafari deviates from the usual pronouncements and suggests that the next few months are indeed dangerous months in which the threat of military action against Iran has been enhanced by the “impasse” facing the United States. This is how he explains it:
“The analysis of political, security, and defense experts is that that the United States is in a special situation and, because of this, it is trying to implement its threats. If the conditions are really there and it finds an opportunity and it has confidence that its action will at least have a percentage of success, it will implement its threat… The limited amount of time that Bush has until the end of his presidency and also the Republican hopelessness regarding the victory of their candidate have created conditions that have led us at present to take the possibility of a military attack in comparison to other junctures more seriously. Of course, I don’t want to say that military action is certain. But in comparison to the past, it seems that the enemy sees one of the ways of exiting the impasse facing it to be military action.”
The focus on political conditions in the United States is further emphasized in Jafari’s rejection of Israel as the source of military action: “We believe that Israel is much smaller to be able to take action against the Islamic Republic alone. Hence, the axis of threats is the United States. However, this country [the U.S.] will undoubtedly benefit from the Zionist regime’s support.” He further states that this same point - that the US cannot attack Iran without Israeli support – “because of the Zionist regime very high vulnerabilities’ is a deterrent factor.”
The point made is that Iran perceives the difficulties of concealing the Israeli support for the US action combined with Israeli vulnerabilities, both because of its lack of strategic depth as well as “Iran’s external capabilities” in harming Israeli interests, as important deterrent to US military action against Iran (along with other deterrents, including the U.S.’ own particular vulnerability caused by the extensive presence of its forces in the region).
But if military action does come, then Iran’s response will be quick: “We cannot reveal the kind of action we will take. But it can be said that we see our time frame for response to be very short; this is because we see the extent of our enemy’s action to be limited and this limited extent forces us in a short period of time to give swift, decisive, and blunt responses so that they will have impact.” He later adds “unimaginable” to the list of adjectives describing the response.
Bravado and bluster aside, the point made by Jafari directly questions the argument laid out in a recent report by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) that, given Tehran’s past moves and history, it will probably employ restraint and rely on a “delayed asymmetric response in a distant theater of operations (using proxies or terrorist surrogates).” Jafari is explicit in this interview that Iran will respond immediately and this immediate and blunt response, presumably begging the subsequent possibility of immediate escalation and further commitment on the part of American forces, must be taken into account in the American calculations of a limited aerial strike against nuclear facilities and/or IRGC facilities.
In short, Jafari is very clear that Tehran is ready to match the Bush Administration’s words and deeds if need arises, even at a time when the Iranian government is taking the possibility of a military attack more seriously than before. Now, to me, this is truly a scary dynamic for both countries as well as the region as a whole.
I am of course still counting or hoping that sanity will prevail in Washington. While some may explain away the US invasion of Iraq as a tragic mistake or miscalculation, nothing short of madness can account for an attack on Iran even if political expediency turns out to be the reason for some to contemplate the attack.
Irancove @ June 29, 2008
Source: The New Yorker
by Seymour M. Hersh
Operations outside the knowledge and control of commanders have eroded “the coherence of military strategy,” one general says.
Late last year, Congress agreed to a request from President Bush to fund a major escalation of covert operations against Iran, according to current and former military, intelligence, and congressional sources. These operations, for which the President sought up to four hundred million dollars, were described in a Presidential Finding signed by Bush, and are designed to destabilize the country’s religious leadership. The covert activities involve support of the minority Ahwazi Arab and Baluchi groups and other dissident organizations. They also include gathering intelligence about Iran’s suspected nuclear-weapons program.
Clandestine operations against Iran are not new. United States Special Operations Forces have been conducting cross-border operations from southern Iraq, with Presidential authorization, since last year. These have included seizing members of Al Quds, the commando arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, and taking them to Iraq for interrogation, and the pursuit of “high-value targets” in the President’s war on terror, who may be captured or killed. But the scale and the scope of the operations in Iran, which involve the Central Intelligence Agency and the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC), have now been significantly expanded, according to the current and former officials. Many of these activities are not specified in the new Finding, and some congressional leaders have had serious questions about their nature.
Under federal law, a Presidential Finding, which is highly classified, must be issued when a covert intelligence operation gets under way and, at a minimum, must be made known to Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and the Senate and to the ranking members of their respective intelligence committees—the so-called Gang of Eight. Money for the operation can then be reprogrammed from previous appropriations, as needed, by the relevant congressional committees, which also can be briefed.
“The Finding was focussed on undermining Iran’s nuclear ambitions and trying to undermine the government through regime change,” a person familiar with its contents said, and involved “working with opposition groups and passing money.” The Finding provided for a whole new range of activities in southern Iran and in the areas, in the east, where Baluchi political opposition is strong, he said.
Although some legislators were troubled by aspects of the Finding, and “there was a significant amount of high-level discussion” about it, according to the source familiar with it, the funding for the escalation was approved. In other words, some members of the Democratic leadership—Congress has been under Democratic control since the 2006 elections—were willing, in secret, to go along with the Administration in expanding covert activities directed at Iran, while the Party’s presumptive candidate for President, Barack Obama, has said that he favors direct talks and diplomacy. More on page 493
Irancove @ June 29, 2008
As Rep. Gary Ackerman’s Iran war legislation makes it’s way around Congress, the OPEC president warns of $170 barrel of oil by the end of summer:
ALGERIA. OPEC President Chakib Khelil predicted that the price of oil will climb to US$170 a barrel before the end of the year, citing the dollar’s decline and political conflicts.
In a Bloomberg telephone interview Khelil said: “Oil prices are expected to reach US$170 as demand for fuel is growing in the US during the summer period and the US Dollar continues to weaken against the Euro.”
Political pressure on Iran and the depreciation of the US currency have caused a surge in oil prices, Khelil said. More on page 492
Irancove @ June 29, 2008
According to announcements by a senior Iraqi police officer:
The bases, equipped with missile launch pads, have been set up over the past four months on the Iraq-Iran border; Iraqi al-Noor newspaper quoted the official as saying.
He added that one of the bases has been located 30 km (20 miles) from the first border town with Iran and houses remote-controlled launching pads as well as radar systems similar to ones used in Kuwait during the first Persian Gulf war.
For more, read Tom Engelhardt and Noam Chomsky’s “What if Iran had invaded Mexico?”
Irancove @ June 29, 2008
Sarah van Gelder of Yes! Magazine:
Until recently, the power struggle within the Bush administration over whether to attack Iran seemed to be going badly for the hawks. Their disastrous record in Iraq coupled with flimsy arguments for attacking Iran meant they were gaining little support. But now it appears congressional Democrats may be riding to the rescue of those pushing for war.
In the fall of 2007, top Bush administration officials began stoking up the rhetoric about the danger of Iran and its nuclear weapons program. But then the National Intelligence Estimate came out showing that efforts to develop nuclear weapons were dropped in 2003, in large part because of international pressure. Wow — diplomacy does work!
Claims that Iran was arming insurgents fell apart due to flimsy evidence — weapons that were supposedly supplied by the Iranian government appear to have been purchased on the open market or acquired through means other than official Iranian support.
So with the case for attacking Iran in tatters, why are congressional Democrats taking up the cause?
House Resolution 362, sponsored by Rep. Gary Ackerman, a New York Democrat, is moving quickly through the House. The resolution urges the Bush administration to prohibit the export to Iran of refined petroleum products, impose “stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran,” and to prohibit all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program from travel outside the country.
Imposing “stringent inspection requirements” would amount to a naval blockade, many believe, and thus constitute an act of war. At the very least, it would be perceived by Iranians of all political persuasions as a hostile act, further marginalizing moderate voices, unifying the country behind the most belligerent leaders, and bolstering the argument of those within Iran who are pushing for the rapid development of nuclear weapons as a defense against U.S. attack.
Why are 96 House Democrats (along with 111 House Republicans) co-sponsoring this resolution? Aren’t these the Democrats who rode into majorities in both houses on public revulsion against war in the Middle East?
More on page 489
Irancove @ June 29, 2008
(tip via Eteraz)
Iran War Resolution May Be Passed Next Week
Quick Links
H. Con. Res. 362
S. Res. 580
Newsletter Take Action
Donate
Introduced less than a month ago, Resolution 362, also known as the Iran War Resolution, could be passed by the House as early as next week.
The bill is the chief legislative priority of AIPAC. On its Web site, AIPAC endorses the resolutions as a way to ”Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program” and tells readers to lobby Congress to pass the bill. In the Senate, a sister resolution, Resolution 580, has gained co-sponsors with similar speed. The Senate measure was introduced by Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh on June 2. It has since gained 19 co-sponsors.
The bill’s key section “demands that the president initiate an international effort to immediately and dramatically increase the economic, political, and diplomatic pressure on Iran to verifiably suspend its nuclear enrichment activities by, inter alia, prohibiting the export to Iran of all refined petroleum products; imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran; and prohibiting the international movement of all Iranian officials not involved in negotiating the suspension of Iran’s nuclear program.”
“Imposing stringent inspection requirements on all persons, vehicles, ships, planes, trains, and cargo entering or departing Iran” can be read to mean that the president should initiate a naval blockade of Iran. A unilateral naval blockade without UN sanction is an act of war.
Resolution 362 has already gained 170 co-sponsors, or nearly 40 percent of the House. It has been referred to the Foreign Affairs Committee, which has 49 members, 24 of whom, including the ranking Republican, are co-sponsors. The Iran Nuclear Watch Web site writes, “According to the House leadership, this resolution is going to ‘pass like a hot knife through butter’ before the end of June on what is called suspension - meaning no amendments can be introduced during the 20-minute maximum debate. It also means it is assumed the bill will pass by a 2/3 majority and is non-controversial.”
Our national legislators deem it non-controversial to recommend to a president known for his recklessness and bad judgment that he consider engaging in an act of war against Iran. Those of you who consider this issue controversial can go to the Just Foreign Policy Web site and tell your representative to oppose this resolution.
For more information about this action item, media requests, donations or other information, please contact Angela Keaton at 310-729-3760 or akeaton@antiwar.com.
Irancove @ June 29, 2008
According to Swoop:
The June 20th exposure of Israeli long-distance aerial strike exercises over the Mediterranean, two months after a nationwide civil defense simulation of a non-conventional weapons attack, underscores the seriousness with which Tel Aviv regards Iran’s uranium enrichment program. Israel’s track record of striking at the nuclear facilities of neighboring antagonists, at “Osirak in 1981 and in northern Syria in September 2007, lends credence to threats against Tehran. However, we remain unconvinced of any impending action. As a prominent pro-Israeli think tank in Washington has indicated in a recent analysis, such a strike would be severely complicated by distance, and the camouflaged, hardened and dispersed nature of Iranian nuclear facilities. Instead, recent Israeli saber-rattling can be interpreted as an effort to ratchet up international pressure on Iran, as part of a broader attempt to constrain its moves towards regional hegemony. Such posturing complements Tel Aviv’s diplomatic efforts to drive a wedge between Iran and its clients in Syria and the Levant. The Administration, while adhering to its public stance that “it does not take any cards off the table“, remains leery of losing control of international escalation, either to Iran or to Israeli hawks. Rumors have emerged of US efforts to reestablish informal diplomatic representation in Tehran. Despite an increasingly turbulent summer, US officials are still backing the success of the current round of diplomacy.
Irancove @ June 28, 2008
Jim Lobe has a humorous post on Lally Weymouth’s interview with Jordan’s King Abdullah for the Washington Post. In the interview, Lally continues to push King Abdullah to consider Iran a threat. When King Abdullah will not concede, Lally obstinately continues to return to her Iran fixation:
I don’t follow the politics of the Washington Post’s Graham family, but Lally Weymouth (daughter of Philip and Katherine, mother of Katharine Weymouth, the newspaper’s current publisher) specializes in touring the globe, performing exclusive interviews with consequential world leaders, publishing them in Newsweek, for which she is a senior editor, and the Post, and thus helping to define conventional wisdom in Washington. Almost as much as her brother Donald, so far as I understand, she has contributed to the steady rightward drift of the Post’s editorial line over the past two decades, a drift that, in my view, made the paper one of the most influential, if often overlooked, “enablers” of Bush’s first-term neo-conservative foreign-policy trajectory in Washington.
It now appears that Weymouth is trying to “enable” an attack on Iran. Consider her latest interview with Jordan’s King Abdullah published in the Sunday Post’s “Outlook” section. While the king repeatedly warns that the failure of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process poses the greatest threat to stability and moderation in the region, Weymouth seems impervious to this analysis and instead keeps returning to Iran throughout the interview. To almost comical effect, she simply won’t take no for an answer. Consider the three Qs and As:
Q. Is [the] Annapolis [peace process] dead?
A. I’m actually very concerned since President Bush’s visit to the region, to Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. I think the peace process has lost credibility in people’s minds in this area. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has been in the region and is working very closely with the Israelis and the Palestinians to move the process forward. . . . We’re all very pessimistic at this stage.
Q. Do you view Iran as the number one threat in this region?
A. I think the lack of peace [between Israel and the Palestinians] is the major threat. I don’t see the ability of creating a two-state solution beyond 2008, 2009. [And] I think this is really the last chance. If this fails, I think this is going to be the major threat for the Middle East: Are we going to go for another 60 years of “fortress Israel,” or are we going to have a neighborhood where Israel is actually incorporated? That is our major challenge, and I am very concerned that the clock is ticking and that the door is closing on all of us.
Q. But aren’t you concerned that Iran is a threat both to your country and to other countries in the region?
A. Iran poses issues to certain countries, although I have noticed over the past month or so that the dynamics have changed quite dramatically, and for the first time I think maybe I can say that Iran is less of a threat. But if the peace process doesn’t move forward, then I think that extremism will continue to advance over the moderate stands that a lot of countries take. We’ve reached a crossroads, and I’m not too sure what direction we’re heading in.
But she’s clearly not satisfied with the king’s answers, and, after a few questions about intra-Palestinian politics, Iraq, Jordan’s own economic challenges, and the region’s interest in nuclear power, she returns to her bete noire, even as Abdullah insists on the primacy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Q: I remember a couple of years ago, you warned against the danger posed by Iran to moderate Arab regimes. Aren’t Iran and Syria the big winners today in this region?
A: If we look at what happened in Lebanon [last month when Hezbollah routed government-backed forces in street fighting to win major political concessions], I think the perception here is that that round was won by Iran and her proxies. We just have to be careful as to what happens in round two. Again, this is why I am so concerned about the peace process.
Then, after a few more questions about Hamas and Lebanon and whether Saudi Arabia might reduce the price of oil, she abruptly returns to and concludes with her idee fixe, like a moth to flame:
Q: So you’re not in favor of military action against Iran?
A: I am not in favor of military action against Iran. I think you’d be playing with Pandora’s box.
Q: So you’re willing to live with a nuclear Iran?
A: What do we mean by nuclear Iran? Some people are saying they have a nuclear weapons program, and some people are saying they don’t. The latest American intelligence estimate released a couple of months ago was that their nuclear program has diminished or stopped. Now the British-Israeli view of that is not as positive as the American one, so I’ve been told.
Q: The American view was that the military program was diminishing in 2003, but not that it had stopped. [Ed’s note: This, of course, is a very debatable assertion, since the U.S. intelligence community concluded last December that the military program had indeed stopped in 2003 and since re-iterated that view.]
A: I think that you need to engage with the Iranians. A military strike in Iran today will only solicit a reaction from Iran and Iranian proxies, and I don’t think that we can live with any more conflicts in this part of the world.
One of the most remarkable things about the interview is that Weymouth fails to ask Abdullah a single question about his views regarding the Turkish-mediated talks between Israel and Syria and whether he believes that Damascus can be persuaded to distance itself from Tehran if given sufficient concessions by Israel. After all, if she is persuaded that Iran poses the greatest threat to U.S. interests in the region, then Israel’s engagement with Syria — which could result in an unprecedented summit between Olmert and Assad in Paris next month — could be critical to reducing that threat. But she doesn’t even raise it.
Irancove @ June 24, 2008
The LA Times Blog on McCain’s adviser, Charlie Black:
A recent Washington Post piece on Black aptly described him as “John McCain’s man in Washington,” a “longtime uber-lobbyist” and “political maestro” who hopes “to guide his friend, the senator from Arizona, to the presidency this November.”
Now comes a Fortune magazine article that, even more aptly, notes the “startling candor” with which Black discussed how a spotlight on national security would serve McCain’s political purposes.
[…]
Then, the longtime political pro got a bit too honest. Asked about the political impact of another terrorist attack on U.S. soil, Black replied: “Certainly it would be a big advantage to him.”
Juan Cole says:
You worry that people who think like Black would not be above a little wagging the dog, say, a provocation against Iran in October.
Irancove @ June 24, 2008
Does Your representative support war with Iran?
You may be surprised at the answer; there are already over 169 cosponsors of H.Con.Res. 362.
This resolution demands that the president initiate an international effort to impose a land, sea, and air blockade on Iran to prevent it from importing gasoline and to subject all cargo entering or leaving Iran to stringent inspection requirements.
For such a blockade to be imposed without United Nations authority (which the resolution does not call for) would be considered an act of war. Some congressional sources say the House could vote on the resolution as early as this week.
Adoption of this resolution would pave the way for such a war and bypass diplomacy. Sensing that the threat of war has once again increased, IAEA Head El Baradei warned yesterday that he would resign if any country attacked Iran.
The immediate effect would be a further increase in oil prices - with gas prices in the US incing closer to $5/gallon and beyond.
Is your representative a cosponsor?
Email your representative today and ask him or her to oppose this measure for war!
Irancove @ June 23, 2008
Col. Pat Lang asks which neighboring countries—such as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Jordan and Iraq (whose airspace is now under US control)—would permit overflight clearance in the case of an Israeli strike at Sic Semper Tyrannis:
“Overflight Clearance” is the granting of permission for one country’s military or civilian aircraft to fly over and through the air space of another sovereign political entity. For one country to overfly the territory of another without permission is a clear violation of international law which invites engagement by air defense forces of the country overflown or any country that has effective authority to grant or deny overflight permission.
Irancove @ June 21, 2008
Helen Cooper asks:
But with seven months left in this administration, Iran appears ascendant, its political and economic influence growing, its historic foes in Iraq and Afghanistan weakened, and its nuclear program continuing to move forward. So the question now is: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney resigned to leaving Iran more powerful than they found it when they came to office?
Vali Nasr concludes:
Many foreign policy experts are now looking to the next administration for a possible new approach to the standoff with Iran. “The Europeans all understand that the carrots-and-sticks approach is not working, and the entire Iran diplomatic policy has to be rethought,” said Vali R. Nasr, an Iran expert at Tufts University. Until a new administration takes over, he said, “we’re stuck in a process where the ball is kicked to the bureaucrats.”
Irancove @ June 21, 2008
DUBAI (Reuters) - The chief of the United Nations nuclear watchdog said in remarks aired on Friday that he would resign if there was a military strike on Iran, warning that any such attack would turn the region into a “fireball”.
“I don’t believe that what I see in Iran today is a current, grave and urgent danger. If a military strike is carried out against Iran at this time … it would make me unable to continue my work,” International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Director General Mohamad ElBaradei told Al Arabiya television in an interview.
“A military strike, in my opinion, would be worse than anything possible. It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said, emphasizing that any attack would only make the Islamic Republic more determined to obtain nuclear power.
“If you do a military strike, it will mean that Iran, if it is not already making nuclear weapons, will launch a crash course to build nuclear weapons with the blessing of all Iranians, even those in the West.”
The New York Times reported on Friday that U.S. officials said Israel carried out a large military exercise this month that appeared to be a rehearsal for a potential bombing attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. The newspaper said Israeli officials would not discuss the exercise.
Irancove @ June 21, 2008
The Israeli military exercise consisted of more than 100 F-16 and F15 fighters, helicopters and refueling tankers, which flew over 900 miles (about the same distance to Iran) over the Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June.
One Israeli goal, the Pentagon official said, was to practice flight tactics, aerial refueling and all other details of a possible strike against Iran’s nuclear installations and its long-range conventional missiles.
A second, the official said, was to send a clear message to the United States and other countries that Israel was prepared to act militarily if diplomatic efforts to stop Iran from producing bomb-grade uranium continued to falter.
“They wanted us to know, they wanted the Europeans to know, and they wanted the Iranians to know,” the Pentagon official said. “There’s a lot of signaling going on at different levels.”
Irancove @ June 20, 2008
The National Iranian American Council has some new developments on the ongoing effort to confiscate priceless Persian relics on loan to Chicago University’s Oriental Institute as reparations to private parties suing the Iranian state for a 1997 suicide bombing in Israel.
The claimants argue that the Iranian state is responsible for the bombings due to its support of Hamas and are trying to gain possession of the ancient clay tablets from American museums and universities. Since Iran is marked as a state sponsor of terror by the US government, it is not protected by sovereign immunity—an international standard that protects governments from getting sued in the courts of foreign nations.
On March 29, new plaintiffs emerged seeking the clay tablets from Persepolis which are already targeted by the victims of a 1997 Jerusalem attack, Rubin et al. these additional plaintiffs want to lay claim to the artifacts so as to sell them and receive payment for a $2.7 billion decision in their favor.
According to reports, families of the victims of the 1983 marine barracks bombing in Beirut have sued Iran using the same Iran-terrorist link as the aforementioned claimants. As Iran is marked as a state sponsor of terror by the United States government, it is not protected by sovereign immunity, an international standard that protects governments from lawsuits in other nations’ courts.
Irancove @ June 19, 2008