Middle East Inside Line: Lieberman's "Ambiguity" on Dubai Assassination, Netanyahu Denies Iran War Plans, and More

Israel FM Lieberman "Ambiguity" on Dubai Assassination: Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman did not deny Israeli involvement in the killing of Hamas's Mahmoud al-Mabhouh in a Dubai hotel but said that Israel has a "policy of ambiguity" on intelligence matters and there was no proof Mossad was behind the assassination. Lieberman said, "The Mossad was not behind the assassination of Mahmoud el- Mabhouh, but rather [it is] a foreign organization that is trying to frame Israel."

Middle East Special: “Why Chuckles Greeted Hillary Clinton’s Gulf Tour”
Israel-Russia: Situation Now A-OK on Iran?

Netanyahu "No Iran War": Following a meeting with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu --- in response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's accusation that Israel was "planning a spring or summer war" --- said, "Israel is not planning any sort of war."



Hamas' Tunnel: Haaretz says that Hamas has recently set up 'legal' tunnels, which they use to smuggle merchandise and resources, especially cement and gasoline which have led to an awakening of Gazan factories. The newspaper says Hamas's new policy has hit many "illegal" tunnel owners, with the increase in merchandise leading to sharply decreasing prices and reduced earnings for the "illegal" smuggling industry.

Hezbollah Defiance: Hezbollah leader Sheikh Hassen Nasrallah threatened that "if Israel attacks Beirut in the future, Hezbollah will attack Tel Aviv". He said:

If you hit our ports, we will bomb your ports, and if you hit our oil refineries, we will bomb your oil refineries.

It is untrue that we are giving Israel an excuse to launch an aggression on Lebanon. Israel does not need an excuse, and if it needs an excuse it creates one.

Israel has been living in a state of crisis on the strategic level since the July 2006 and Gaza wars. It can neither impose peace based on its conditions nor wage war.

Iran Analysis: Ahmadinejad Stumbles; "Karroubi Wave" Surges

A curious and possibly important Tuesday. It did not promise drama at the start of the day: the Iran stories were mainly of significant but behind-the-headlines sparring on the economic front, while the Western press were distracted by the chest-puffing of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki over "dictatorship" and the nuclear issue.

But then came a series of developments, punctuated by two events: the press conference of the President and the "Karroubi wave".

Iran Document: Fatemeh Karroubi “My Family Will Continue to Stand for the People’s Rights”
Iran: Why The Beating of Mehdi Karroubi’s Son Matters
The Latest from Iran (17 February): Psst, Want to See Something Important?

EA had the chance to live-blog the Ahmadinejad 2-hour show and it proved a revelation. The President was trying to use this occasion to re-assert his authority after his claimed success of "tens of millions" at the pro-Government 22 Bahman rally, putting out his double line on uranium enrichment --- "we can be self-sufficient, but we will also negotiate" --- plus standard rhetoric of Iran's strength and Western weakness.



But the President's plan unravelled as he was challenged time and again on his economic plans --- because of the opposition within the establishment to the budget and subsidy proposals, not to mention concern over the state of Iran's economy, there is plenty of space for journalists to press the topic. And there were even queries over the realities of 22 Bahman and the post-election detentions. (Credit to the brave reporters who brought up the issue. Take note: pro-regime mouthpieces might deny there is any problem, but almost all Iranian journalists will do their jobs with the knowledge that colleagues are in jail and sometimes serving lengthy sentences.)

Then, only five days after 22 Bahman, there was the clearest sign that this conflict isn't over. A new "Karroubi wave" of opposition has surged. Mehdi Karroubi signalled this weekend that he would soon be meeting with Mir Hossein Mousavi to discuss next steps, but in one sense they are already occurring.

While the cleric stands back for the moment, his wife Fatemeh and son Hossein --- using the detention and beating of Karroubi's younger son Ali but going far beyond it --- have pushed the core issues of the detentions, abuses, and injustices now undermining the values and stability of the Islamic Republic. Most importantly, the Karroubis are now doing so in a direct challenge to the Supreme Leader: none of them bother to mention Ahmadinejad and they explicitly dismiss Iran's judiciary as impotent.

Of course, there is a long way to go with this strategy. One will have to watch for the reaction of other Green factions to the challenge, and it is not clear if the high profile given to Karroubi outside Iran is matched inside the country. That said, it has been Karroubi's interventions --- his open letter at the end of July first raising the detainee abuse issue, his appearances at rallies such as Qods Day and at public events such as the Tehran Fair, his recent declaration on "Mr Khamenei" and a "selected rather than elected" President --- that have contributed to surges in protest.

The regime may have thought they had finally blunted Karroubi when they turned him back on 22 Bahman, tear-gassing his entourage and detaining and beating his son. In fact, the statements of Fatemeh and Hossein Karroubi point to the opposite effect. The attack on Ali Karroubi --- whether it was carried out by security forces or "rogue" units, whether it was sanctioned by the Supreme Leader or occurred without his knowledge --- has offered a new platform for the wider campaign. And this time, the Karroubis are not bothering with the President or his officials; they are going straight to the top with the presentation to Ayatollah Khamenei of the issues.

Neither of these developments is likely to see the light of day in Western media coverage. CNN, for example, cannot see beyond "Iranian president warns against tougher sanctions" and "Iran official (Mohammad Javad Larijani): Clinton 'inconsistent'". The New York Times misses the stories entirely, featuring instead yet another weak analysis of Washington's policy on Iran.

But I think shrewd Iran observers would be wise to keep eyes on the economic situation and the resurgence of a Karroubi-supported opposition. EA is not in the habit of making predictions, but if we're right about yesterday, this conflict ain't over.

Iran Nuke Shocker: Clinton/White House "Tehran Not Building Weapons"

Sharmine Narwani writes for The Huffington Post:

Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs have been on a roll since Friday defending Iran's assertions that it is not pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

You heard right.

In response to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent claims that Iran had enriched uranium to the 20% level required for medical isotopes at the Natanz enrichment facility, Gibbs declared: "The Iranian nuclear program has undergone a series of problems throughout the year. We do not believe they have the capability to enrich to the degree to which they now say they are enriching."

Latest from Iran (17 February): Psst, Want to See Something Important?

If that is the case, then how on God's earth can the Iranians enrich uranium to the 90% level required for a nuclear bomb?



Natanz, where the alleged enrichment took place --- or according to US officials, didn't --- is the site that Israel most threatens to bomb. The Jewish state claims that Iran is on the verge of producing a nuclear weapon. Or maybe not. Last June, Israel's Mossad Chief Meir Dagan extended the date for when Iran could produce weapons grade uranium or have "breakout capacity" to 2014.

While the US media rallied to cover Ahmadinejad's declaration on Thursday that Iran was now a "nuclear state", Gibbs dismissed those assertions, responding that "Iran has made a series of statements that are far more political than they are. They're based on politics, not on physics."

So which is it? Is Iran working on a nuclear bomb or not? Let's look at the evidence most recently cited by US officials. Speaking on Sunday at a US-Islamic World Forum in Doha, Qatar where the US secretary of state is conducting a three-day tour --- in part to persuade Persian Gulf allies to support Obama's initiatives to contain a nuclear Iran --- Clinton said there was mounting evidence that the Islamic Republic was pursuing a nuclear weapon: "The evidence is accumulating that that's exactly what they are trying to do...Iran has consistently failed to live up to its responsibilities. It has refused to demonstrate to the international community that its nuclear program is entirely peaceful."

When asked to point to evidence of a nuclear program, US State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley was quoted by Al Jazeera as saying: "Given the current trajectory that Iran is on - the fact that it still has centrifuges spinning, and the fact that it is unwilling to constructively engage the international community - we have to assume that Iran is pursuing a nuclear programme."

He continued: "Given all the steps that Iran has taken and all the actions that Iran refuses to take, we can only begin to draw the conclusion that Iran's intentions are less than peaceful."

If that is the basis on which the US is assembling a multi-national alliance to apply economic sanctions on the Iranian government, then it is deeply flawed premise. For one, it is virtually impossible to assess "intentions" when there is no real communication with the Islamic Republic, and therefore no way to anticipate or know its psyche.

A hostile stance toward US foreign policy is not a compelling barometer for assessing a country's preparedness to engage in risky belligerent actions --- neither is negative rhetoric or political posturing as Gibbs suggests. If that were the case, we would need to act on the perceived "intentions" of half the world's nations.

Secondly, for every one of the handful of allies who have bought in to our "intentions" theory, there are ten nations who do not see an Iran of harmful intentions. And it isn't just China and Russia that are hesitant. It is Brazil, Turkey, India, Qatar - important US allies - and the vast majority of the 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement.

A RAND report commissioned by the U.S. Air Force Directorate of Operational Plans and Joint Matters to take a fresh look at Iran's military, economic and religious strengths and limitations, last spring cautioned the administration to differentiate between Iran's rhetoric and its actions, an important factor in assessing intentions:

"Its revolutionary ideology has certainly featured prominently in the rhetoric of its officials," the report says. "However, the record of Iranian actions suggests that these views should be more accurately regarded as the vocabulary of Iranian foreign policy rather than its determinant."

The Report concludes that, in spite of its rhetoric and the concerns of neighboring states, Tehran does not seek territorial expansion or ideological exportation of its Islamic revolution. Instead, the report cautions that "the ideology and bravado of Iran's President Ahmadinejad and its religious leader Ayatollah Khamenei mask a preference for opportunism and realpolitik -- the qualities that define 'normal' state behavior."

The reading of events in the world is a major driver of US foreign policy formulation. Which is why these determinations should be taken out of the hands of elected officials and political appointees and placed squarely in the laps of area specialists of the non-ideological variety. There could be no better example of this than the Iraq WMD debacle, where American political ideologues pursued an agenda based on their "perceptions" and skewed world view rather than on reality and accumulated intelligence data.

And now we face more of the same erroneous logic regarding Iran's nuclear program, where "evidence" is based on perceived "intentions" rather than on indisputable fact. Which is why the number of nations willing to participate in rigorous sanctions against the Islamic Republic is miniscule compared to those against.

Worse yet, Gibbs' statement last Friday reveal that we know there is no real evidence of a growing Iranian nuclear capability. If they can't even enrich uranium to 20%, then they can't make a bomb --- period.

Middle East Special: "Why Chuckles Greeted Hillary Clinton's Gulf Tour"

Rami Khouri writes for Beirut's Daily Star:

American secretaries of state have been coming to the Middle East to create all sorts of complex alliances against Iran for most of my recent happy life, but every time this show passes through our region I learn again the meaning of the phrase “lack of credibility.” Hillary Clinton is the latest to undertake this mission, and like her predecessors her comments are often difficult to take seriously.

We are told that her trip to the region has two main aims: to strengthen Arab resolve to join the United States and others in imposing harsh new sanctions to stop Iran’s nuclear development program; and to harness Arab support for resumed Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. In both of these critical diplomatic initiatives the US has taken the lead and achieved zero results. Either the actors involved – Arabs, Israelis, Iranians – are all chronically, even chromosomally, dysfunctional (for which there is some evidence) or the US is particularly inept when assuming leadership.

Middle East Transcript: Hillary Clinton at Qatar Town Hall Meeting (15 February)
The Latest from Iran (17 February): Psst, Want to See Something Important?

The weakness in both cases, I suspect, has to do with the US trying to define diplomatic outcomes that suit its own strategic objectives and political biases (especially pro-Israel domestic sentiments). So Washington pushes, pulls, cajoles and threatens all the players with various diplomatic instruments, except the one that will work most efficiently in both the Iranian and Arab-Israeli cases: serious negotiations with the principal parties, based on applying the letter of the law, and responding equally to the rights, concerns and demands of all sides.



Two Clinton statements during her Gulf trip this week were particularly revealing of why Washington continues to fail in its missions in our region. The first was her expression of concern that Iran is turning into a military dictatorship: “We see that the government of Iran, the supreme leader, the president, the Parliament, is being supplanted, and that Iran is moving toward a military dictatorship,” Clinton said.

Half a century of American foreign policy flatly contradicts this sentiment (which is why Clinton heard soft chuckles and a few muffled guffaws as she spoke). The US has adored military dictatorships in the Arab world, and has long supported states dominated by the shadowy world of intelligence services. This became even more obvious after the attacks of September 11, 2001, when Washington intensified cooperation with Arab intelligence services in the fight against Al-Qaeda and other terror groups.

Washington’s closest allies in the Middle East are military and police states where men with guns rule, and where citizens are confined to shopping, buying cellular telephones, and watching soap operas on satellite television. Countries like Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, Libya, as well as the entire Gulf region and other states are devoted first and foremost to maintaining domestic order and regime incumbency through efficient, multiple security agencies, for which they earn American friendship and cooperation. When citizens in these and other countries agitate for more democratic and human rights, the US is peculiarly inactive and quiet.

If Iran is indeed becoming a military dictatorship, this probably qualifies it for American hugs and aid rather than sanctions and threats. Clinton badly needs some more credible talking points than opposing military dictatorships. (Extra credit question for hard-core foreign policy analysts: Why is it that when Turkey slipped out of military rule into civilian democratic governance, it became more critical of the US and Israel?)

The second intriguing statement during Clinton’s Gulf visit was about Iran’s neighbors having three options for dealing with the “threat” from Iran: “They can just give in to the threat; or they can seek their own capabilities, including nuclear; or they ally themselves with a country like the United States that is willing to help defend them. I think the third is by far the preferable option.”

This sounds reasonable, but it is not an accurate description of the actual options that the Arab Gulf states have. It is mostly a description of how American and Israeli strategic concerns and slightly hysterical biases are projected onto the Gulf states’ worldviews. These states in fact have a fourth option, which is to negotiate seriously a modus vivendi with Iran that removes the “threat” from their perceptions of Iran by affirming the core rights and strategic needs of both sides, thus removing mutual threat perceptions.

This is exactly the same option the US used when it negotiated détente and the Helsinki Accords with the Soviet Union (and whose results ultimately brought about the collapse of Communism). Why the US does not use the same sensible approach to the perceived threat from Iran is hard to explain. Perhaps two reasons explain it: Washington would have to deal with Iran (and other defiant Middle Easterners) through negotiations rather than haughty neo-colonialism; and, Israel would have to submit to nuclear inspections and end its aggressive behavior.

Iran Document: Fatemeh Karroubi "My Family Will Continue to Stand for the People’s Rights"

The translation of the interview of Mehdi Karroubi's wife Fatemeh with Rooz Online, days after the beating of her son Ali on 22 Bahman:

Mrs. Karroubi, except for publishing two letters, you have remained silent and refrained from making comments regarding the 22nd of Khordad [the Presidential election of 12 June] and the events that ensued. Is there a particular reason for this silence?

Iran: Why The Beating of Mehdi Karroubi’s Son Matters
The Latest from Iran (17 February): Psst, Want to See Something Important?

You are very familiar with my mentality and are fully aware of my positions from the days when you were a reporter covering the 5th parliament, and we were in the minority. I am an individual who believes in the ideals of the Imam and the revolution and I have always made great efforts to ensure that my behaviour and words do not harm the system/regime or revolution in any way what so ever. I did this before the revolution, when we lived a very difficult life for 15 years, spending most of our time behind prison doors, and also after the revolution, when we saw it our religious and moral duty to work effortlessly as part of the executive branch. Unfortunately, because of the recent, bitter events I have preferred to speak less.


Is this silence due to the fact that you wish to create a more stable and secure environment so that in the event that your children and Mr. Karroubi are arrested you at least remain free to pursue their freedom? In other words, has it been a form of division of labor

Absolutely not. You have known me for longer than just two days and you are completely familiar with my mindset from the days of the 5th parliament. Even the letter [to the Supreme Leader] I published three days ago is not just for my own child, but for all the children who are spending time behind prison doors.

You referred to your efforts with regards to the ideals of the Imam and the revolution both before and after the revolution, however, today, your husband is referred to by the current regime as one of the leaders of the opposition. They claim that Mr. Karroubi is connected to Israel and the United States and takes his orders from them. How does it make you feel when you have given your life to the revolution and you are now faced with such issues?

These comments and claims are so meaningless and empty that I will neither respond to them nor put any emphasis on them. The gentlemen who take part in these meaningless discussions, will have to respond to God, and realize that vilification and scorning without presenting any evidence what so ever, is meaningless. I am certain that Mr. Karroubi believes in the ideals of the revolution and as such I pay no attention to these empty claims. These claims have no effect on our pursuit of people’s rights and the ideals of the revolution. My family will continue to stand for the people’s rights and the ideals of the revolution and we will not compromise. I know my husband well. I also know my children. If they have any evidence of these socalled claims, I ask that they put them forward.

Prior to publishing this letter, you spoke of the lack of security with regards to your family and stated that you will hold the regime responsible for anything that happens to them. What led you to write such a letter and do you still feel the same level of fear for your family?

The circumstances at the time were very dire and I wanted to release a statement so that if something were to happen to me or my family, they would not come back later and say that they need to hold meetings and investigate the matter, etc. Everything was very clear. Mr. [Hossein] Mozafar, the former Minister of Education, had commented on the IRIB’s Channel 2 that we leave the heads of the opposition in the hands of the people and Mr. [Alaeddin] Boroujerdi, a member of the Parliament had made similar remarks that had been published in the newspapers. These comments insinuated that if something were to happen to us it was because the people had killed us. As such, I was forced to publish a clear statement and warn everyone so the people of Iran would be aware. Today, our security circumstances are slightly better. We are not under as much pressure and feel less threatened.

Is it fair to say that the state of your security and welfare has shifted? One of your sons was summoned, while the other based on the letter published by yourself was threatened to be raped. Not to mention, Mr. Karroubi is also constantly threatened by the aggressive behavior of the security forces. In its essence, your second letter provides an insight into the lack of security experienced by your family. Is that true?

I wrote the letter as a mother and only for one reason because I am extremely worried about the children of our nation and the mothers whose children have been arrested and imprisoned. I wrote this letter with the hope to prevent these arrests. The night my son came back home, I was intensely disturbed by the events that occurred and could not believe how easy it was for them to tell Ali how lucky he was and that if he had stayed a few more hours, his dead body would have been delivered to his family!

Tehran’s prosecutor, however, denied Ali’s arrest yesterday and said that after much investigation it has been concluded that he was not arrested by any government body, requesting that Ali provide proof of his arrest.

I am very sorry to hear that Tehran’s prosecutor has said such a thing, providing his opinion so hastily and without a thorough investigation into the matter. However, the prosecutor is correct when he states that Ali was arrested on the 22nd Bahman by police forces and his mobile phone is with them as we speak. They actually called this afternoon and asked that Ali come by to pick up his mobile. In addition to releasing Ali from the police station late in the evening, while he was there they made him sign a commitment letter that he would not give any interviews regarding this manner upon his release. I must say that in this regard, the prosecutor is completely right, as the judiciary never issued an official warrant for Ali’s arrest rather, they arrested Ali on the night when we were celebrating our most important national victory. You are aware of the rest of the issues related to this matter as I have spoken at length about them in my letter.

Mrs. Karroubi, what do you think is the solution is for the current crisis our country is facing, and in your opinion what should be done to resolve it?

I am hopeful that the leaders of our country, our spiritual leader and those in charge of the government have the foresight to reflect upon their tactics and ways and that they will have a dialogue and create an exchange with those sympathetic to the revolution who have worked so hard for so many years on behalf of the revolution and the country, so that they can find a solution to end this current situation.

But Mr. Karroubi has said that neither the leaders of the Green movement, nor the current regime are ready to negotiate and compromise.

We must see what is meant by negotiation and compromise and whether this negotiation benefits the people or not. In my opinion, the interests of our country and our people’s rights are very important. This discussion is by no means a personal one, and no matter what we do, we must put the country’s interests and the people’s rights first and foremost and move forward only with these two things in mind.

I’m going to ask you directly, Mrs. Karroubi, is there a possibility of potential negotiation by Mr. Karroubi, with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in which he would compromise and accept Mr. Ahmadinejad as the president of Iran?

This would not be possible in any way, shape or form. We have been living together for 47 years and I know him very well. I know that this would be impossible and would never happen. An important part of the current crisis and the country’s problems are a direct result of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s behavior, deeds and mismanagement. Many of our economic and national security challenges are also a direct result of how he has managed the country. Our constitution was designed to address exactly these type of issues and we only ask that the constitution be followed, because if it is, we have one of the most advanced constitutions in the world.

Do you mean to say that you can imagine the impeachment of Ahmadinejad by the parliament?

Yes, our constitution takes into consideration such a possibility and I am hopeful that if our advanced constitutional laws are utilized to their fullest capacity that this issue will be addressed.

Mrs. Karroubi, in the past eight months we have witnessed the arrests of may newspaper reporters and political activists. Can you please let us know if these arrests will resolve any of the issues facing the Islamic Republic?

These arrests will never benefit the Islamic Republic. All those arrested care deeply about their country. If they didn’t care, they would have left the country. Despite all the limitations they have decided to remain in Iran. Our constitution supports the freedom of speech and none of these individuals have said or wanted anything that is against our constitution. Arresting people will not solve any problems. The challenges facing our society and country will not be resolved by arresting individuals. If anything we must resolve these problems judiciously and with foresight. I am very saddened, particularly when female journalists and political activists are arrested and I hope that they will all be released as soon as possible. I recall when I was a member of The Committee for the Freedom of Press that we always sought to minimize the number of women arrested and sent to prison. At the time the publications had more female editors than newspapers did.

Mrs. Karroubi, as my last question I would like to ask you to what degree and how far are you and your family willing to stand up for the people’s rights? Do the pressures on your children and Mr. Karroubi not influence this matter?

I am not a newcomer to politics and these difficulties are not new to me. I was 15 years old when I entered Mr. Karroubi’s house. It was the start of our struggles for the Imam and until this day we have lived through many trials and tribulations. In the previous regime, we faced the constant stress and concerns of arrests by the Savak [secret police]. Now that the children have grown up, because of the recent events I have once again been under a lot of stress. But my worries and stress are not for my husband and children but for my country, my people and the revolution. Some people might think that I say these things because I am being interviewed, but that is not true. I worry for the security of our people. If our people live in a secure environment, my family and I will have security too. I would like to reiterate that the more pressure they exert on us, the more determined me and my family will be.