Image 01 Image 03
Sign In or RegisterLogout

Iran Tag

Posted by Amy Miller on February 28, 2015 8 Comments
Obama knows he's vulnerable on Iran, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's impending visit to the U.S. and Congressional address isn't doing him any favors when it comes to gaining a vote of confidence from lawmakers and other world leaders. The White House expects Netanyahu to hit back against its efforts to strike a nuclear deal with Iran---and they're already rebutting what they anticipate Netanyahu will say:
In a briefing for reporters, senior administration officials contended that even an imperfect agreement that kept Iran’s nuclear efforts frozen for an extended period was preferable to a breakdown in talks that could allow the leadership in Tehran unfettered ability to produce enriched uranium and plutonium. “The alternative to not having a deal is losing inspections,” said one senior official, who would not be quoted by name under conditions that the administration set for the briefing, “and an Iran ever closer to having the fissile material to manufacture a weapon.”
Since House Speaker John Boehner announced the invitation, reactions from Democrats and the White House have unraveled, from boycotts, to snubs, to outlandish statements like one from national security advisor Susan Rice, who said that the address would be "destructive" to the U.S. - Israel relationship. This is nothing new. The tension began the moment Obama took control of the White House.

Posted by David Gerstman on February 27, 2015 16 Comments
Yesterday's New York Times editorial on the emerging nuclear deal between the West and Iran is completely delusional. I will try to tackle the editorial's arguments in the order of ridiculousness, from most to least:
Critics of any deal — including those in Congress, such as Senator Mark Kirk, a Republican of Illinois, and Senator Robert Menendez, a Democrat of New Jersey; and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel — demand complete dismantlement of Iran’s program given the country’s history of lying about its efforts to produce nuclear fuel and pursue other weapons-related activities. But their desired outcome simply cannot be achieved. President George W. Bush wasn’t able to secure that goal in 2003 when Iran had only a few dozen centrifuges, the machines that enrich uranium for nuclear fuel. Now, 12 years later, Iran has an estimated 19,000 centrifuges, not to mention scores of other facilities, including some that have been hardened to withstand a military attack.
Hold on. This is saying that a miscreant gets to determine the level of his punishment. We can't get Iran down to zero centrifuges because Iran refuses to dismantle them. This is just saying we don't have the political will to demand such a result. We haven't been able to secure that result is because we haven't tried. Certainly if we say we're going allow 6,000 or 6,500 centrifuges we're not going to get zero. But given Iran's "history of lying" we also don't know how many undeclared centrifuges it might have either. To give Iran veto power over how many centrifuges it gets to keep operating, considering its "history of lying," means that we'll be enabling it to enrich enough uranium for a nuclear bomb.

Posted by New Neo on February 26, 2015 16 Comments
From the headline of this AP article, "Historic US-Iran nuclear deal could be taking shape," the casual reader would be hard-pressed to tell whether the deal was good, bad, or indifferent for the US. The article goes on to offer the usual quotes alternating between those who laud the potential agreement and those who criticize it, and closes on a note of optimism about the talks and sympathy for Iran:
Daryl Kimball of the Washington-based Arms Control Association said that with the IAEA's additional monitoring, the deal taking shape leaves "more than enough time to detect and disrupt any effort to pursue nuclear weapons in the future." In exchange, Iran wants relief from sanctions crippling its economy and the U.S. is talking about phasing in such measures.
Contrast that with this piece by David Horovitz in The Times of Israel. He observes that, although the Obama administration has been engaged in denying Israeli rumors of what might be in the agreement and accusing Israel of "misrepresenting the specifics for narrow political ends," the pending agreement that the AP article describes not only contains many of the things Israel had been complaining about, but is even worse than was previously thought. According to Israel’s "most respected Middle East affairs analyst," Ehud Ya’ari, the deal would be likely to have some catastrophic consequences:

Posted by David Gerstman on February 25, 2015 8 Comments
At a Senate Appropriations Committee Hearing yesterday, Secretary of State John Kerry took aim at critics of the Obama administration's posture towards Iran:
World powers grouped under the so-called P5+1 “had made inroads” since reaching an interim deal with Iran in November 2013 on reining in its suspect nuclear program, Kerry said. “We’ve gained unprecedented insight into it,” Kerry told the Senate appropriations committee at the start of two days of intense congressional foreign policy budget hearings. ... Taking aim at critics, such as official Israel, that are opposed to the agreement, Kerry said they did not “know what the deal is.” “I caution people to wait and see what these negotiations produce. Since 2013, we have been testing whether or we can achieve that goal diplomatically — I don’t know yet,” Kerry insisted.
Testing? 15 months after the P5+1 nations agreed to the Joint Plan of Action (JPOA), the administration is still "testing?" Here's one thing we know. The JPOA (.pdf) required this:
A Joint Commission of E3/EU+3 and Iran will be established to monitor the implementation of the near-term measures and address issues that may arise, with the IAEA responsible for verification of nuclear-related measures. The Joint Commission will work with the IAEA to facilitate resolution of past and present issues of concern.

Posted by David Gerstman on February 17, 2015 7 Comments
Last week, Prof. Jacobson noted that The Washington Post published an editorial criticizing President Obama's handling of the nuclear negotiations with Iran. Prof. Jacobson's mentioned the editorial in the context of arguing that the likely deal is against "the best interests of the American people." But there's something else remarkable about the editorial. It was the fifth one since October in which the Post questioned the concessions being made by the P5+1 nations; and several of the central points of the editorial were buttressed by Sen. Tim Kaine (D - Va.), so they could hardly be called partisan. To quote from the editorial:
A related problem is whether Iran could be prevented from cheating on any arrangement and acquiring a bomb by stealth. Mr. Kaine (D) underlined that an attempt by the United States to negotiate the end of North Korea’s nuclear program failed after the regime covertly expanded its facilities. With Iran, said Mr. Kaine, “a nation that has proven to be very untrustworthy . . . the end result is more likely to be a North Korean situation” if existing infrastructure is not dismantled. The administration at one time portrayed the nuclear negotiations as distinct from the problem of Iran’s sponsorship of terrorism, its attempts to establish hegemony over the Arab Middle East and its declared goal of eliminating Israel. Yet while the talks have proceeded, Mr. Obama has offered assurances to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei that the two countries have shared interests in the region, and the White House has avoided actions Iran might perceive as hostile — such as supporting military action against the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 14, 2015 2 Comments
Argentinian president Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has been formally charged with trying to cover up the involvement of the Iranians in a bombing of a Jewish center. This comes after shocking reports that prosecutor Alberto Nisman had (before his suspicious death) drafted a warrant for the arrest of Fernandez, charging her of attempting to shield Iranian officials from responsibility for the bombing. Nisman was found dead in his home a day before he was slated to testify against the current Argentinian government. BBC News explains how the scandal has ballooned for the Argentinian president:
Although this was an expected move, it could not have come at a worse time for the Argentine president. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was already facing criticism for the way she has been managing the Nisman case, which has become the worst crisis of her political career so far. Now she will also face pressure from the judiciary, which is demanding an unprecedented investigation into a sitting president - one that could end up with an impeachment-like process if she is found guilty. Meanwhile, prosecutors are calling for a massive protest on the streets of Buenos Aires next week in what is expected to become the largest anti-government march in recent years. Opposition leaders, unions and even the Catholic Church are joining calls for a fair and independent investigation into a death that has shocked this nation.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 10, 2015 11 Comments
As threats of congressional boycotts by Democrats swirl, and as his political enemies in Israel and the U.S. seek to use the controversy against him, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu just issued a statement that he still plans to speak before Congress next month:
10/02/2015 Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu issued the following statement: "First, on behalf of the people of Israel, I wish to send condolences to President Obama, the American people and the family of Kayla Mueller. We stand with you. Israel’s survival is not a partisan issue, not in Israel nor in the United States. This doesn’t mean that from time to time Israeli governments have not had serious disagreements with American administrations over the best way to achieve the security of Israel. Israel's first Prime Minister, David Ben-Gurion, declared Israel’s independence in the face of strong opposition from US Secretary of State George Marshall. Likewise, Prime Minister Eshkol’s decisions at the start of the Six Day War, Prime Minister Begin’s decision regarding the nuclear reactor in Iraq, and Prime Minister Sharon’s decisions to press ahead with Operation Defensive Shield; these were all strongly opposed at the time by American administrations.

Posted by Amy Miller on February 08, 2015 4 Comments
Over the past several months, we've watched the situation in Yemen devolve to the point of chaos. In September, Iranian-backed Houthi rebels took informal control of the capital city of Sanaa; then, in mid-January, Yemen's active al-Qaeda cell took credit for the terror attacks on Charlie Hebdo in Paris, and threatened similar acts of violence. Around the same time, American officials in Yemen began to question the security of State Department and other officials stationed at the embassy in Sanaa, and on January 20, were poised to evacuate. Houthi rebels had amped up the violence in the city, and laid siege to the presidential palace and personal residence of Yemeni President Abed Rabbo Mansour Hadi. A compromise was reached between the rebels and the now-hostage government, but negotiations quickly broke down; President Hadi and his government resigned, and the Houdi maintained comfortable control of key areas of the capital. Now, the Houthi have dissolved parliament, and for all intents and purposes taken formal control of the country. Via NPR:
A televised statement read by an unidentified Houthi member called the takeover "a new era that will take Yemen to safe shores." He said the group was forming a 151-member presidential council that would act as a government for two years. Revolutionary Committees would be in charge of forming a new parliament, the statement said. The Associated Press adds:
"The development also plunges the impoverished country deeper into turmoil and threatens to turn the crisis into a full-blown sectarian conflict, pitting the Iran-backed Houthi Shiites against Sunni tribesmen and secessionists in the south."

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 07, 2015 4 Comments
Going through some old bookmarks I never wrote about, I found Israel’s Fair-Weather Fans, an August 7, 2014, NY Times Op-Ed by Shmuel Rosner. The column is a rebuttal to liberal Jewish American critics worrying about the alienation of liberal American Jews from Israel. It seems relevant today, as some Democrats put Barack Obama's alleged hurt feelings ahead of the legitimate security concerns of our friends, from Israel to the Gulf Arab states, over Iranian nuclear and regional ambitions:
Two prominent black Democrats in the House of Representatives are vowing to skip Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech to Congress next month, a move that a White House insider says was put in motion by the Obama administration. John Lewis of Georgia and G.K. Butterfield of North Carolina both said Friday that they disapproved when House Speaker John Boehner invited the Israeli leader to address a joint session of Congress on March 3 without consulting President Barack Obama first.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 06, 2015 12 Comments
It all is proceeding as planned. A nuke deal with Iran, with the quid pro quo of assisting Iran's expansion into a regional power, is working its way forward. For that, Iran gets to keep most of its nuclear program, because it likes it. There are two things standing in the way: (1) Congress, and (2) Bibi Netanyahu's persuasive powers. The Obama administration needs to get rid of both, and it has seized on the opportunity of John Boehner's invitation to Netanyahu to speak before Congress as the tool to accomplish that mission. The White House spun a false tale through anonymous administration comments to reporters, that the invitation was a breach of protocol and that the White House was blindsided. Separately, the White House has been attacking the Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer as the supposed mastermind. In fact, Boehner came up with the idea, approached the Ambassador, conveyed that Boehner would notify the White House of the invitation (which he did), and Netanyahu did not accept until after the White House was notified. The false narrative spread by Obama's operatives has the goal of pulling Democrats away from opposing a nuke deal and attending Netanyahu's speech, by forcing a false choice of Obama or Netanyahu. The third choice -- what is best for America in keeping nukes out of the hands of a regime that still calls us the Great Satan and chants Death unto U.S. -- is not on the table. Obama puts his own cult of personality before anything. I don't believe that he's sincerely offended; he's just not going to let a manufactured crisis go to waste. Interesting thing is, the Editorial Board of The Washington Post pretty much shares Netanyahu's concerns about an impending bad deal, and stands against Obama's attempt to shut Congress out of the process, The emerging Iran nuclear deal raises major concerns:

Posted by New Neo on February 04, 2015 11 Comments
Ever wonder whether Obama's policy towards Iran represents something coherent, or just naive incompetence? Here's an excellent article by Michael Doran in Mosaic that fleshes out the details of a theory about Obama's approach to Iran. It doesn't take the most extreme stance of all---which would be the "Obama is a secret Iranian sympathizer" theory---but the piece's premise is credible, and it is well worth taking the time to read in its entirety. It's a bit difficult to summarize, but the article makes several points. The first two are that much of Obama's approach focuses on his deep contempt for Bush and his powerful desire to differentiate himself, as well as Obama's general penchant for secrecy. But there's much more:
During the Bush years, an elaborate myth had developed according to which the mullahs in Tehran had themselves reached out in friendship to Washington, offering a “grand bargain”: a deal on everything from regional security to nuclear weapons. The swaggering Bush, however, had slapped away the outstretched Iranian hand, squandering the opportunity of a lifetime... Obama based his policy of outreach to Tehran on two key assumptions of the grand-bargain myth: that Tehran and Washington were natural allies, and that Washington itself was the primary cause of the enmity between the two. If only the United States were to adopt a less belligerent posture, so the thinking went, Iran would reciprocate. In his very first television interview from the White House, Obama announced his desire to talk to the Iranians, to see “where there are potential avenues for progress.” Echoing his inaugural address, he said, “[I]f countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Leader of Iran, Ali Khamenei, ignored the president’s invitation...
Because, of course, the entire thing was a myth.

Posted by William A. Jacobson on February 03, 2015 7 Comments
David previously covered the mysterious death of Alberto Nisman the day before he was to testify before the Argentine Congress regarding an alleged government cover-up of Iran's involvement in the bombing of a Jewish Center in Buenos Aires. There has been speculation that it was not a suicide, that Nisman was murdered by agents of the Argentine government. Now comes a bombshell from the NY Times, Draft of Arrest Warrant for Argentine President Found at Dead Prosecutor’s Home:
Alberto Nisman, the prosecutor whose mysterious death has gripped Argentina, had drafted a warrant for the arrest of President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner, accusing her of trying to shield Iranian officials from responsibility in the 1994 bombing of a Jewish center here, the lead investigator into his death said on Tuesday.

Posted by David Gerstman on February 01, 2015 3 Comments
I wasn't looking for anything more than a screenshot when I came across Senator Tom Cotton's (R-Ark.) statement last week (embedded below) before the Senate Banking Committee. But when I heard him speak about Iran's "...nasty habit with their proxies of killing Jews all around the world." I made a mental note of the statement and went back later. The statement was part of a larger argument against the nuclear negotiations with Iran, but what Cotton was establishing in stark terms is that Iran is America's enemy. The enmity can be seen not only by its words but by its actions too:
"Iran is a radical Islamist theocracy whose constitution calls for jihad and its leaders have honored that constitution for 35 years, killing Americans in 1983, killing Americans in 1996 ... having a nasty habit with their proxies of killing Jews all around the world, in Argentina, in Bulgaria, in Israel and most recently, controlling or exerting dominant influence over 5 different capitals in the Middle East, Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut, and now, Sanaa..."
I assume this was a summary of the more extended argument Cotton made Friday in an op-ed published in The Wall Street Journal (Google link). After referring to Iran as America's "negotiating 'partner'" Cotton wrote:

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 31, 2015 13 Comments
David Goldman, aka Spengler, has written extensively about demography. In 2011 we highlighted his argument that Israel is an emerging demographic superpower:
Like the vanishing point in a perspective painting, long-term projections help us order our perceptions of what we see in front of us today. Here’s one to think about, fresh from the just-released update of the United Nations’ population forecasts: At constant fertility, Israel will have more young people by the end of this century than either Turkey or Iran, and more than German, Italy or Spain.
Israel Demographic Chart Spengler Article In The Asia Times, he highlights Iran's demographic death grip of high STD-caused infertility and plummeting birth rates, The Strategic Implications of Iran's STD Epidemic (h/t MidEast Forum):
In the 5th Century BC, the "Persian disease" noted by Hippocrates probably was bubonic plague; in 8th-century Japan, it meant the measles. Today it well might mean chlamydia. Standout levels of infertility among Iranian couples, a major cause of the country's falling birth rate, coincide with epidemic levels of sexually transmitted disease. Both reflect deep-seated social pathologies. Iran has become a country radically different from the vision of its theocratic rulers, with prevailing social pathologies quite at odds with the self-image of radical Islam.

Posted by Amy Miller on January 27, 2015 3 Comments
Iranian media outlet Press TV made a major error yesterday when they mistook an Israeli satire article for actual news. I realize that most of us have been fooled at some point by a link on Facebook or Twitter making some sort of ridiculous claim, but Press TV reached a whole new level of gullible with this one: they actually believed that President Obama used social media to diss Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. By unfriending him. On Facebook. Via Israelly Cool:
The report was based on this satirical piece by The Israeli Daily, which they even cite!
The icy relationship between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu hit a new low this week, with the American president ‘defriending’ the Israeli Premier on Facebook. Though it’s unclear exactly when Obama made the move to delete his Israeli counterpart as a Facebook friend – most likely around the time Netanyahu accepted Boehner’s controversial invite – Netanyahu only learned of the snub yesterday, according to a source close to the prime minister. “Bibi was looking at [Attorney General] Eric Holder’s page, and he happened to check what friends they had in common,” the source explained. “And he sees [Secretary of State John] Kerry, Bill [Clinton], Hill [ary Clinton], Fabio, but no Obama. So he goes to Obama’s page, and sure enough it says ‘Add Friend.’ We were in complete disbelief.” While the White House had no official comment, a source close to the President said Obama had reached his maximum allowed Friends and wished to add Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif after a pleasant meeting on Iran’s nuclear program. The source said the defriending wasn’t personal, but conceded Obama had gotten sick of seeing Sara Netanyahu on his newsfeed and the Prime Minister’s daily invitations to play Candy Crush.
How they could treat that seriously is anyone’s guess. Now if only Obama treated their nuclear ambitions this seriously.
The outlet finally removed the article and associated social media postings, but fortunately for you and me, Google cache is forever: Press TV Obama Unfriends Netanyahu FB post

Posted by William A. Jacobson on January 23, 2015 9 Comments
After several senior Hezbollah military leaders and an Iranian General were killed in the Syrian portion of the Golan Heights, presumably by Israel, there is plenty of speculation as to when and how Hezbollah and Iran will react. An article in The Times of Israel suggests that capturing an Israeli town or sections of northern Israel could be in store, as Hezbollah has threatened to do so in the next conflict:
Nasrallah, [Lt. Col. Dotan Razili] said of the organization’s leader, “wants to conquer a city,” perhaps in the Galilee. The border town at the tip of the Galilee’s panhandle, Metulla, he suggested, “is definitely a possibility.” The army constantly practices perimeter defense and the invasion of enemy strongholds or towns in which the enemy is embedded. It does not, however, drill its infantry soldiers in the practice of taking back an Israeli town seized, in its entirety, by enemy forces. “The main element is to lessen the shock and make sure they’ll act,” Razili said, noting that no Israeli village or town has fallen since Kibbutz Nitzana, in 1948, “and the trauma of that endures till today.”
Longtime readers may recall my trip to Metula in the summer of 2013, where I reported on the vulnerability, Metula and the fake Hezbollah village, including maps and photos showing the geography: [caption id="attachment_60711" align="alignnone" width="505"](Metula, Israel - Map View) (Metula, Israel - Map View)[/caption]
Accessibility by WAH