Iran Snap Analysis: A Rights-First Approach in Washington?

A three-minute news clip to note: Al Jazeera English considers the US policy towards Tehran and uses two analysts --- Trita Parsi of the National Iranian American Council and Arash Aramesh --- to suggest that attention to human rights should take over from a focus on the nuclear programme.

That in itself might not be stunning were it not for context and timing:

The Latest from Iran (21 March): Happy New Year, Mr Ahmadinejad

1. At Parsi's NIAC hearing 10 days ago, the panel on US-Iran relations was totally focused on the nuclear issue and a possible "grand settlement" with Iran. There was scarcely a word on rights. Parsi seems to be promoting a policy beyond that "realist" promotion.

2. But it may not just be Parsi; it may be folks inside the US Government. Beyond Barack Obama's Nowruz message calling on Tehran to accept the rights of its people, there are signs that this might be part of a new policy and not just rhetoric.



Indeed, it may be possible that the US Government is now letting Iran dangle on the engagement of nuclear talks precisely because it does not think a deal should be the be-all and end-all, given the internal tensions in the country. That would explain why the State Department has been so stand-offish on weeks of Iranian signals that it wanted to reopen discussions on an uranium swap.

More in an analysis later this week....

Middle East Analysis: Syria, Thomas Friedman, & "Why We Fail" (Narwani)

Sharmine Narwani writes in The Huffingon Post:

Nothing annoys me more about New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman than his tendency to scuttle his occasionally insightful commentary with fabricated assumptions to fit his narrative.

This makes it really hard for me to like him.

You know that irritation that grows under your skin when somebody is making a lot of sense and then suddenly -- wham -- they hit you with a doozy so ridiculous you feel disproportionately deflated?

Well, that is my Friedman experience time and time again. Not always though -- sometimes I am irritated from the get-go.



In his latest column on Tuesday, Friedman shines a light on a very true Middle East reality -- one that quite deliberately gets downplayed in Washington's power centers: The Mideast is now, for the first time since the Cold War ended, largely defined by two blocs of influence and their respective worldviews.

The first, is the US-led bloc consisting of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan -- the latter three often ignominiously referred to as the "moderate" Arab states. The second, is the grouping sometimes referred to as the "resistance" bloc that consists of Iran, Syria, Hezbollah and Hamas.

Friedman's column posits that there are five key actors in the Israeli-Palestinian equation today: Israel, America, the "moderate" Arabs, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, and the resistance bloc.

Look, I can give him that -- I don't have a fundamental problem with the fact that he only includes one key individual from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority to represent the entire Palestinian side. Fatah, on its own, is rather irrelevant these days, except in the minds of the US bloc. And kudos to Tom for recognizing this nuance.

Friedman then makes his main thrust, which is that only two of these actors actually have clear strategies for a Palestinian-Israeli solution:  Fayyad, the former World Bank economist who, peace or no peace, wants to create a de facto Palestinian state on the ground within two years -- and the resistance bloc. That's true enough. Friedman goes on to press the other three players to forge a clear, unified strategy -- preferably backing Fayyad's plan -- which can foil the agenda of the resistance bloc.

And then I did my double take. Iran... Hezbollah... Hamas... Where was Syria?

Ah, Thomas. You did that doozy-thing.

The Alliance of Syria, Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas

It is more than abundantly clear that in Washington, Tel Aviv, Riyadh and Cairo, all efforts are being made to wrest the reluctant Syria from this "resistance" bloc. It is equally obvious for those who live in the real world, that Syria has no intention of parting ways with its longtime friends.

When US President Barack Obama moved ahead with plans to reinstate an American ambassador in Damascus in 2009, the gleeful thinking in Washington was that Syria would prostrate itself in gratitude, jump at bilateral peace talks with Israel and walk into the US bloc's fold. Increasingly, however, even US analysts are grumpily acknowledging that the chances of this now happening are akin to Sarah Palin embracing a vegetarian diet.

But not our Thomas. He decided that this is how he wanted things to be, and so -- voila -- it just was.

As an opinion writer, Friedman still has the responsibility to convey the facts as they are - he can always spin his analysis around them or not include them in his deliberations if he wants to produce substandard commentary. But to just unilaterally change the facts? That isn't just wishful thinking -Friedman is trying to create the facts. And here is why his exclusion of Syria from this bloc is so completely disingenuous:

Syria Makes Its Position Clear

Renewed Syrian-US relations, rapprochement between Damascus and Riyadh, and Syria's disengagement from Lebanon brought hopes last year that the government of Bashar Al-Assad would take a more independent regional stance. When speculation reached a fevered pitch, Assad decided to nip it in the bud by staging a photo op worth a thousand words.

Last month, he convened a high-profile meeting with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejadand Hezbollah Secretary-General Hassan Nasrallah just to underline the cohesiveness of this bloc and quash all speculation of potential rifts.

The message, according to savvy, Damascus-based political analyst, journalist and author Sami Moubayed, was two-fold. Firstly, it was a warning for Israel to abandon all thoughts of launching another war in the region -- as in Gaza in 2008/9 and Lebanon in 2006: "The meeting de-escalated tension in the region and served as a deterrent by reminding all parties that the amount of destruction that would result from any war would be too much to bear."

Secondly, the meeting represented a clear signal to the US that this alliance will stand firm and cannot be ruptured because of the will of external players. Moubayed explains:

You don't sever relations just because another party wants you to -- you only do so when you have been wronged or there is a state of war, and those conditions don't apply at all to Syrian-Iranian relations.

In fact, throughout the 1990s Syria enjoyed relationships with Iran, Saudi Arabia and the US -- relationships with one party never precluded relations with another. That is not the way of diplomacy.

London-based Syrian diplomat Jihad Makdissi concurs: "We have always enjoyed good relations with both Iran and the West, so why is there suddenly a necessity to break links? This Iranian-Syrian relationship is devoted to the stability and security of the region, and the West should take advantage of this friendship instead of antagonizing both countries."

Invest, Not Divide

What does this mean? In the world of realpolitik, far, far away from Friedman's Mideast musings, this means that the US and others can "use the leverage that Syria has within this group to moderate them", says Moubayed.

He believes that after over a year of active engagement with Syria, the US bloc has in effect tacitly surrendered to the notion that "if they can't break this alliance, the best possible alternative is to invest in it instead."

There is evidence of this "investment" already: in the past two years, Syrian backdoor diplomacy has gained the release of high-profile Western captives in both Iran and Gaza. And recognition of Syria's role has come from the highest quarters in European capitals.

As Moubayed notes, the departure of US troops in 2012 will leave a vacuum in Iraq, which Iran and Saudi Arabia will compete to fill. Secular Syria is in the enviable position of enjoying a "cross-confessional network of allies (read Shiites and Sunnis) which it can use to stablilize and normalize Iraq - to the collective benefit of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States".

Even if the Syrians and Israelis struck a deal to swap the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights for peace -- highly unlikely given the make-up of the current, right-wing Israeli government -- Jihad Makdissi insists that nothing would fundamentally change in relation to an alliance with Iran:

In Syria's view, for normality to prevail in the Middle East, Israel needs to withdraw from all occupied Arab land. The occupation is the problem in the region, not Iran.

So, Tom -- peace talks or not, nuke talks or not -- Syria is an active adherent of the increasingly popular regional worldview that includes Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas. All the wishful thinking in the world won't alter a relationship that has outlasted five US presidents, and provides vital strategic value to its participants.

In all fairness, Friedman is just doing something that has been a hallmark of US policy in the Middle East for decades. Denying inconvenient facts that have left us deaf, dumb and blind to the realities we face in the region. It is no wonder we cannot claim any lasting victories.

Blind spots everywhere, and then we wonder why we fail.

Iran Video and Summary: Karroubi's New Year Message

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TodPGumtlvk[/youtube]

Amidst the Nowruz messages inside and outside Iran, Mehdi Karroubi made his contribution yesterday. There was a lot more beside New Year Greetings --- Mr Verde analyses:

Karrroubi says that he does not believe in an Islamic Republic which is limited to a few clerics like Ahmadinejad supporters such as Mesbah-Yazdi, Jannati, Shojooni, Hassani, Hosseinian, Ahmad Khatami or an Iran which only includes officials like Ahmadinejad, Mohammad Reza Naqdi, Gholam-Hossein Elham, Saeed Mortazavi, and Jalalladin Farsi (who he says is a murderer). Ridiculing Ayatollah Khamenei's reference to the "ship of the regime", he says that the current regime is like a "meagre barge" not a large "galleon".


Karrtoubi also talks about the martyrs of the street protests, the tortures, the detentions, the press closures and imprisoned journalists and former regime officials.

He says that he will give his life in order to defend the country, Islam and the Islamic Republic, but he adds that he does not believe in a regime that belongs only to a small group and their beliefs

Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Obama's Nowruz Message (20 March)

Today, I want to extend my best wishes to all who are celebrating Nowruz in the United States and around the world. On this New Year’s celebration, friends and family have a unique opportunity to reflect on the year gone by; to celebrate their time together; and to share in their hopes for the future.


One year ago, I chose this occasion to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and to offer a new chapter of engagement on the basis of mutual interests and mutual respect. I did so with no illusions. For three decades, the United States and Iran have been alienated from one another. Iran’s leaders have sought their own legitimacy through hostility to America. And we continue to have serious differences on many issues.

I said, last year, that the choice for a better future was in the hands of Iran’s leaders. That remains true today. Together with the international community, the United States acknowledges your right to peaceful nuclear energy – we insist only that you adhere to the same responsibilities that apply to other nations. We are familiar with your grievances from the past – we have our own grievances as well, but we are prepared to move forward. We know what you’re against; now tell us what you’re for.

For reasons known only to them, the leaders of Iran have shown themselves unable to answer that question. You have refused good faith proposals from the international community. They have turned their backs on a pathway that would bring more opportunity to all Iranians, and allow a great civilization to take its rightful place in the community of nations. Faced with an extended hand, Iran’s leaders have shown only a clenched fist.

Last June, the world watched with admiration, as Iranians sought to exercise their universal right to be heard. But tragically, the aspirations of the Iranian people were also met with a clenched fist, as people marching silently were beaten with batons; political prisoners were rounded up and abused; absurd and false accusations were leveled against the United States and the West; and people everywhere were horrified by the video of a young woman killed in the street.

The United States does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs. Our commitment – our responsibility – is to stand up for those rights that should be universal to all human beings. That includes the right to speak freely, to assemble without fear; the right to the equal administration of justice, and to express your views without facing retribution against you or your families.

I want the Iranian people to know what my country stands for. The United States believes in the dignity of every human being, and an international order that bends the arc of history in the direction of justice – a future where Iranians can exercise their rights, to participate fully in the global economy, and enrich the world through educational and cultural exchanges beyond Iran’s borders. That is the future that we seek. That is what America is for.

That is why, even as we continue to have differences with the Iranian government, we will sustain our commitment to a more hopeful future for the Iranian people. For instance, by increasing opportunities for educational exchanges so that Iranian students can come to our colleges and universities and to our efforts to ensure that Iranians can have access to the software and Internet technology that will enable them to communicate with each other, and with the world without fear of censorship.

Finally, let me be clear: we are working with the international community to hold the Iranian government accountable because they refuse to live up to their international obligations. But our offer of comprehensive diplomatic contacts and dialogue stands. Indeed, over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself, and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future.

Last year, I quoted the words of the poet Saadi, who said: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence.” I still believe that – I believe it with every fiber of my being. And even as we have differences, the Iranian government continues to have the choice to pursue a better future, and to meet its international responsibilities, while respecting the dignity and fundamental human rights of its own people.

Thank you. And Aid-e-Shoma Mobarak.

The Latest from Iran (20 March): Nowruz

1400 GMT: The Next Nowruz Message...is reported to have come from Mehdi Karroubi.
(http://bit.ly/bLnMG0)

1245 GMT: Rumour of Day/Rafsanjani Watch. Two features in one, as news flies that Hossein Marashi, a relative and ally of Hashemi Rafsanjani, will be released
within days of his Thursday sentencing to one year in prison.
(http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,5374138,00.html)
Iranian media are speaking of “hidden hands” behind Marashi's release (http://www.khabaronline.ir/news-50341.aspx)

Deutsche Welle argues that this is bad news for the President, given the pressure of the Expediency Council (headed by Rafsanjani) to change electoral laws. Rafsanjani has also apparently managed to gain the support of the Combatant Clergy Assocation, headed by key conservative Ayatollah Mahdavi Kani. Another sign of Rafsanjani’s growing influence is the lifting of the ban on Shargh newspaper, which is meant to restart publication in two weeks.

So was Marashi’s arrest due to Ahmadinejad supporters trying to clip the challenge of Rafsanjani? And have they only succeeded in making that challenge stronger?

NEW Latest Iran Video and Transcript: Obama’s Nowruz Message (20 March)
NEW Iran Appeal: Japan’s Deportation of Jamal Saberi
NEW Iran Analysis: Ahmadinejad Fails in Qom? (Verde)
NEW Iran: Inside the Mind of the Interrogator
Iran: Ethnic Minorities and the Green Movement (Ghajar)
Iran Academic Question: Suspending North American Studies?
Latest Iran Video: Mousavi’s and Rahnavard’s New Year Messages (18 March)
The Latest from Iran (19 March): Untamed?

1125 GMT: Another Nowruz Message. A special greeting from Parvin Fahimi, the mother of Sohrab Arabi, who was slain by Government forces on 15 June:

Our dear slain children are not next to us on the New Year’s eve, but their memories shall live forever.

I hope that those prisoners whose empty place is felt strongly by their families are released and returned to the arms of their loved ones.

As a mother with an aching heart, I take refuge in God’s grace. What crime did our children commit that they should be subject to such injustice?

Our youth only demanded to have the same rights every human being is entitled to.

Once again, as a mother, I wish peace, freedom, joy, and health upon everyone. My son wanted the same thing.

(http://persian2english.com/?p=8659)


0733 GMT: Have a spare moment on Nowruz? Global Freedom Movement has created a"virtual solidarity" protest for those held in Evin Prison.

0725 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. No Nowruz release for Mashhad journalist Sadegh Javadi-Hessar.

0720 GMT: A New Year Approach. And, even before President Obama, was offering his Nowruz greeting, British Foreign Minister David Miliband was signalling the importance of Iran on the "Western" agenda and offering confirmation that "rights" are now going to accompany any nuclear approach:

The past year has been a difficult one for many in Iran but Norouz is a time of new beginnings. I hope that in 1389 the Iranian people will be able to enjoy a year that fulfils their hopes and ambitions, and allows them to express freely their own aspirations for the future. Noh-rooz eh hoob dashteh basheed.

The leader of the French Socialist Party, Martine Aubry, has also posted her best wishes.

0700 GMT: First and foremost, EA wishes everyone the best for Nowruz (Iranian New Year), wherever you might be celebrating. Here is to a fantastic and wonderful 1389.

We are not the only ones offering best wishes this morning. The White House has sent out a press release, now racing through the "Western" media and even on Press TV, offering President Obama's greetings to the Iranian people.  Last year, the Nowruz message was of a desired engagement with the Islamic Republic; this year, there is criticism of the Tehran Government on top of the extended hand to Iran's public:

Over the course of the last year, it is the Iranian government that has chosen to isolate itself, and to choose a self-defeating focus on the past over a commitment to build a better future. Even as we continue to have differences with the Iranian government, we will sustain our commitment to a more hopeful future for the Iranian people.

We've just located the video and transcript and will be posting soon.