Author: Ali Gharib

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 24th, 2010:

Washington Post: In an article focused on President Barack Obama’s address to the UN, Scott Wilson leads with Obama’s reaction to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s insinuation that the U.S. government played a role in the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. Obama told BBC Persian, which broadcasts into Iran, Ahmadinejad’s remarks were “offensive”, “hateful” and unacceptable: ”Particularly for him to make the statement here in Manhattan, just a little north of Ground Zero, where families lost their loved ones, people of all faiths, all ethnicities who see this as the seminal tragedy of this generation, for him to make a statement like that was inexcusable.”

Huffington Post: In a Q&A with Shaun Jacob Halper, leading non-proliferation expert Mark Fitzpatrick says he is convinced that Iran wants a nuclear weapons “capability” if not the weapons themselves. Fitzpatrick answers questions on whether there is a legal and moral double standard applied to the nuclear programs of Israel and Iran (legally, says Fitzpatrick, Israel is not party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty, but morally the answer is more murky); grades Obama and German Chancellor Angela Merkel on how they deal with Iran (both A’s); and on the viability of a sanctions regime and negotiations. While Iran does not have an “apocalyptic worldview” and is not “irrational,” he’s not sure if the Iranians are “appeasable” if the desire for “a nuclear weapons capability [is] more than anything else.” He concludes, “And if so than no, they are not appeasable.”

National Review Online: Anne Bayefsky, a senior fellow at the neoconservative Hudson Institute, compares the speeches of Ahmadinejad and Obama at the UN General Assembly. She writes Obama extended his hand for diplomacy with Iran and used his speech to corner Israel. “Ahmadinejad got the message,” she contends, adding that “Israel is vulnerable with President Obama in office, and Iran has no serious reason to believe that hate and terror will be on the losing end any time soon.” She said the speeches demonstrate that Obama “does not understand the threat facing America and the world from Iran,” and that “Ahmadinejad, therefore, took the opportunity provided by the U.N. to slam the door once more in President Obama’s face.”

Commentary: Jennifer Rubin contrasts President Obama’s UN speech, which she labels “namby-pamby” for its failure to detail military options, with the current push by the far-right Christians United for Israel (CUFI) and a group of House Republicans to escalating measures — including a military strike — against Iran. CUFI’s video accuses Ahmadinejad of committing “incitement to genocide” and urges his prosecution by the International Criminal Court. (Eli has written about the hypocrisy of this tack from right-wing supporters of Israel.) The letter from Republican members of the House calls for Obama to “take whatever action is necessary to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. All options must be on the table.” Rubin laments that Obama is not taking Iran’s threats seriously and that should Israel act unilaterally against Iran, the U.S. should “stand shoulder to shoulder with Israel.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 23rd, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Jay Solomon and Richard Boudreaux (with Farnaz Fassihi) write that while Iran hints it might be ready to resume talks on its nuclear program, U.S. and EU officials remain skeptical of any breakthrough. They note criticism from U.S. “allies such as Israel” who think “Tehran could be only months from achieving a nuclear weapons capability” and that talks are just a stalling technique. Nonetheless, an unnamed U.S. official tells the Journal that the U.S. and its allies are “focused heavily on preparations for […] talks.” Even so, the sanctions track continues with the U.S. applauding a Russian ban on selling missiles to Iran (see below). Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to meet her counterpart from Syria on Monday for the first time. The authors note that, with Syria as one of Iran’s closest allies, this could portend an effort to weaken the ties between these two countries.

Foreign Policy: Former National Iranian American Council assistant policy director Patrick Disney writes about the Mujahideen-e Khalq (MEK) — the dissident Iranian exile group labeled a “foreign terrorist organization” by the State Department — and its efforts to make inroads on Capitol Hill. Disney frames the piece with a resolution sponsored by Rep. Bob Filner (D-CA), which already has 83 co-sponsors, which calls on the U.S. government to support regime change by supporting the MEK. Disney gives a summary of the group and its activities, its supporters (in and outside of Congress) and detractors (including former members), and what appears to be MEK’s ultimate goal: “to be removed from the terrorist list and to gain US backing in their fight against Iran’s clerical government.” Describing the group as a sort of “Ahmad Chalabi for Iran” (something we’ve written about), Disney enumerates reasons why using the MEK for regime change — and regime change itself — is not such a great idea: “[T]hey continue to call for American bombing, invasion, and occupation of Iran. De-listing the MEK would signal US backing for the group’s agenda, including regime change operations…” He concludes, “It should go without saying that Rep. Filner’s proposal is the wrong way for Iran”

The New York Times: Andrew E. Kramer reports Russia has ended its talks on exporting S-300 air defense missiles to Iran. Through a post on his website, Russian President Dmitri A. Medvedev announced that Russia interprets the latest round of UN sanctions as prohibiting the sale of major weapons systems to Iran. This announcement puts to rest U.S. and Israeli concerns that Russia might go forward with a major arms deal with Tehran, which could have strengthened Iran’s air defenses against a military strike on Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program.

The Wall Street Journal: In his weekly column, Bret Stephens describes attending a Tuesday morning breakfast host by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Stephens, known for his hawkish views on Iran, describes the breakfast as, “We get access to Ahmadinejad—and the feeling of self-importance that goes with that. In exchange, we pay him court.” Ahmadinejad, according to various accounts, deflected questions by offered lengthy monologues tangential to the issues. He denied the Iranian economy was negatively impacted by sanctions and rejected allegations that opposition leaders’ offices were raided last month. He also stated, “There is a good chance that [nuclear] talks will resume in the near future,” and downplayed the threat of an Israeli or U.S. military strike. Stephens concluded with a cautionary warning. “Perhaps I haven’t achieved the appropriate degree of jadedness, but my own impression of Ahmadinejad was that he was easily the smartest guy in the room. He mocked us in a way we scarcely had the wit to recognize. We belittle him at our peril.”

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 22nd, 2010:

Politico: Former Amb. Stuart Eizenstat and Mark Brzezinski, a former Clinton NSC official and Obama campaign adviser, write an opinion piece raising the curtain on the upcoming National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran. They call the 2007 NIE, which said Iran had halted its nuclear weapons program, “a severe setback for U.S. efforts to isolate Iran,” and hope this year’s incarnation “answer the right questions and get the analysis straight.” They then launch into a series of those “right questions,” such as wondering just how big Iran’s stockpile of nuclear material is, what advances it makes toward potential weaponization, what Iran’s nuclear time frame is, and whether the IAEA would “be able to even detect a rapid push by Iran for a weapon” (the Arms Control Assoc.’s Peter Crail answered the last question with a definitive ‘yes’ a week ago). They also wonder if there is a consensus in Iran about acquiring nuclear weapons and ask if a “democratic Iran” would still pursue the alleged weapons program. They also ask questions about the sanctions-busting of Turkey and China; wonder about the prospects for the opposition Green Movement; and what type of regional role Iran seeks.

Los Angeles Times: Paul Richter writes from New York that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has said that there is a “good chance” that Iran will come back to the negotiating table with the West over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program. The talks are “bound to happen,” Ahmadinejad told a group of reporters who ate breakfast with him Tuesday morning. “What is left is talks…. There’s no other way,” he added, also saying, “there is no alternative.” Ray Takeyh, a former Obama administration and fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said that while Ahmadinejad has been a booster of engagement, Iran’s real head-of-state, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, remains opposed. Richter also reported other statements from Ahmadinejad where he warned that war “has no limits” — a reference to a potential U.S. or Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear sites. An Iranian political scientist traveling with the Iranian delegation to the UN General Assembly told Richter that “there had been behind-the-scenes diplomatic conversations and that a resumption of U.S.-Iran talks might be announced soon.”

The Washington Post: In an interview with Lally Weymouth, Turkish president Abdullah Gul defended his country’s enforcement of sanctions against Iran and Ankarah’s relations with Israel and the U.S. Gul said that Turkey abides by binding sanctions against Iran and will not allow a controversial Iranian bank to operate within Turkey, called on Iran to be more transparent with its nuclear program and denounced Israel’s raid on the Gaza flotilla. Defending his willingness to meet with Ahmadinejad, Gul said, “We tell them to be more conciliatory,” and called on the U.S. to better understand the constructive role that Turkey plays in diplomatic negotiations with Iran. “[W]e have the capacity to help and I believe the U.S. administration has understood that, and they want us to continue to go that route,” he said.

Foreign Policy: Mohammad Ayatollahi Tabaar writes about the Iranian perception of U.S. sanctions and warns that while “these ongoing pressures might bite, but they can also empower the IRGC and other institutions that are able to do an end run around the sanctions and get the country what it needs from the black market.” More importantly, says Tabaar, the sanctions reaffirm Ayatollah Khamenei’s strategy of portraying his country’s domestic policies through an ant-U.S. prism. With a sanctions regime, “Khamenei remains content with the status quo: more sanctions and isolation. It conforms to his worldview, his experience and his vocabulary,” but “if Khamenei sees a possible scenario that ensures his (and I emphasize his, not the moderates’, not the conservatives’, not the clerics’, not even Ahmadinejad’s, but his) grip on power, he may very well take it into consideration.” Tabaar reports that news sources traditionally aligned with Khamanei have indicated the Turkish-Brazilian mediated agreement on nuclear fuel shipment could offer a real opportunity for meaningful progress to be made towards a mutually acceptable negotiated agreement between the U.S. and Iran.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 17th, 2010:

The Wall Street Journal: Joe Parkinson reports on Turkish Prime Minister Tayyup Erdogan’s comments on Thursday that Ankara is seeking to triple its trade with Iran over the next five years. Erdogran told business delegates in Istanbul that Turkey and Iran were on the verge of signing a “preferential trade agreement” and that trade volumes between the two countries could swell to $30 billion. Turkey has been seeking to strengthen ties with its neighbors, including Iraq, Syria and Russia, after the recent deterioration of relations with Israel. “I can’t see any reason why we can’t establish an unimpeded trade mechanism with Iran similar to the one with Europe,” Erdogran said. “There are lots of things that we can give to Iran, as Turkey has made a serious industrial leap.” Erdogan’s announcement is likely to further strain relations between Washington and Ankara, as the Obama administration is seeking to tighten sanctions enforcement and deter investors from trading with Iran.

Washington Post: Columnist David Ignatius hints the Obama administration may be ready to take up Iran on its offer of cooperation in Afghanistan — and endorses this possibility. He notes that Iran, which has its own interests in combating Afghan drug smuggling and hardline Sunni influence on its borders, has made some positive moves with regards to stabilizing Afghanistan. Now the administration must weigh whether engaging Iran on a “separate track” — i.e., Afghanistan — “might blunt U.S. pressure on the nuclear issue” or whether engagement “could be an important confidence-building measure.” Neoconservative writer Michael Rubin has already attacked the notion of such cooperation on the National Review’s The Corner blog.

Foreign Policy: Marc Lynch, in a cross-post on his own FP blog and its Mid East Channel, writes that the Obama administration appears to be pursuing a path of “Keeping Tehran in a Box”, à la U.S. policy toward Iraq in the 1990s. “Eventually, as with Iraq,” he writes, “the choices may well narrow sufficiently and the perception of impending threat mount so that a President — maybe Obama, maybe Palin, maybe anyone else — finds him or herself faced with ‘no choice’ but to move towards war.” He observes it’s “not a pretty scenario”, and “variants of the status quo” are needed as clearly designated “off-ramps” to avoid getting stuck in dead end policy positions. He posits an enrichment deal or a change in Iranian internal politics as the sort of “off-ramp” that might avoid the current trajectory of the U.S.’s Iran policy, but he concedes neither are incredibly likely.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 15th, 2010:

The Washington Post: Thomas Erdbrink reports on comments made Tuesday by former Iranian president Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, in which the cleric criticized the government for not taking U.S.-led sanctions seriously and warned that Iran could become a dictatorship. “The remarks by Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani represent a rebuke of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, though Rafsanjani did not mention him by name,” writes Erdbrink. The Iranian government maintains that sanctions have strengthened Iran, but Rafasanjani, speaking at the influential clerical council, said, “I would like to ask you and all the country’s officials to take the sanctions seriously and not as a joke.” Rafsanjani is seen as a major force behind the opposition Green Movement and longstanding rival of Ahmadinejad. Ahmadinejad has faced increasing criticism from all strata of the Iranian political system.

Washington Post: The Post picks up an AP article by George Jahn chronicling the U.S.’s request that the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) take “appropriate action” in response to alleged Iranian intimidation of nuclear inspectors. The message was delivered to the IAEA in Vienna by Glyn Davies, the U.S. representative to the UN’s nuclear watchdog. The request for “action” came after Iran barred two inspectors several months ago. Jahn reports that Iran’s representative to the IAEA, Ali Asghar Soltanieh, accused the agency and its director general, Japanese diplomat Yukiya Amano, of “entering into a political game of certain countries,” a clear shot at the U.S. and its allies. Reuters has reported similar comments from the head of Iran’s atomic program, Ali Akbar Salehi. Earlier this week, Amano said Iran had not provided “necessary cooperation” that would allow the IAEA to ensure that the Iranian nuclear program is peaceful. Salehi responded yesterday that, if Amano knew what he was implying, “he made a big mistake which is very dangerous because it indicates that he has been under political pressure.” Iran, which like all participants in inspections, is entitled to approve inspectors, last banned particular inspectors in 2007, after the IAEA reported Iran to the UN Security Council.

Huffington Post: John Feffer, the co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus (FPIF) at the Institute for Policy Studies, has a new post up outlining some basics of Iran’s conflict with the West and pointing to FPIF pieces about how war with Iran is avoidable. The piece is a solid primer of where the sides stand now and where they are coming from. Feffer thinks a U.S. or Israeli strike is not likely, nor does he think economic and other international sanctions will work. An expert on North Korea, Feffer makes this apt observation: “The Bush administration’s failure to continue Clinton’s engagement of North Korea shows us what happens with the isolation strategy. With no other options, North Korea simply pushed ahead with its nuclear program.” Obama should wait until after the political dust of the mid-term U.S. Congressional elections settles, writes Feffer, then use help from third parties such as Turkey to cut a deal with Tehran.

from LobeLog: News and Views Relevant to U.S.-Iran relations for September 7th, 2010:

ABC News: Iran was a hot topic of conversation on ABC’s Sunday talk show, “This Week with Christiane Amanpour”. In addition to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s restating that bombing the Islamic Republic is not to be ruled out (picked up from “This Week” in the Wall Street Journal), there was a back-and-forth between New York Times columnists Tom Friedman and Paul Krugman, Washington Post columnist George Will and Post editor Mary Jordan. Friedman alleged a “natural Sunni-Israel alliance.” Jordan noted people in the U.S. are “war-weary”, and although “all options are on the table,” war against Iran is the last option. Will said while Israel hopes it has a partner in attacking Iran (the U.S.), they will go it alone because “the Israelis are not going to wait on regime change to save them from a nuclear weapon.”

The Sunday Times (via Fox News): The Sunday Times reports that five Iranian companies in Kabul are providing cash for the Taliban and bonuses for killing Americans. An anonymous Afghan intelligence officer and Taliban sources tell the Times that Iranian companies win reconstruction contracts, often funded through foreign aid, and then use the money to support the Taliban. MSNBC, Commentary’s Jennifer Rubin, and the Weekly Standard’s Thomas Jocelyn also picked up The Sunday Times story.

The Associated Press: The AP reports on comments made Sunday by Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he warned that an Israeli attack, “…means the annihilation of the Zionist entity.” Ahmadinejad, who delivered the remarks in Qatar, sought to reassure neighboring Arab states, many of which host bases for U.S. forces, that he would not target them should a conflict break out between western states and Iran. During his visit, Ahmadinejad also called for reconciliation and greater cooperation between Shiite-dominated Iran and other, largely Sunni dominated, Gulf states.