Lebanon: Did Hillary Clinton Just Change US Policy on Hezbollah?

Sharmine Narwani for Huffington Post:

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to break with US policy on Tuesday when she discussed Lebanese resistance group Hezbollah on the Charlie Rose show, identifying only the organization's "military wing" as a terrorist concern.

Discussing the recent negotiations between the five UN Security Council nations plus Germany -- P5+1 -- and Iran, Secretary Clinton told Rose:

"I mean, the Iranians not only worry us because of their nuclear program, they worry us because of their support for terrorism, their support for the military wing of Hezbollah, their support for Hamas, their interference in the internal affairs of their neighbors, trying to destabilize gulf countries and other countries throughout the greater region."

Hezbollah has been on the US State Department's List of Terrorist Organizations since 1999, with no distinctions thus far made between the group's military or political branches. Hezbollah itself rejects distinctions between its various bodies.

Earlier this summer, the British government did make that distinction however, placing only Hezbollah's military wing on its list of organizations banned under the 2000 Terrorism Act. Globally, only the United States, Canada and Israel view Hezbollah as a terrorist group.

A State Department spokeswoman, however, denied any policy shift, saying: "The Secretary's statement is fully consistent with our existing policy. Hezbollah is a terrorist organization."

But if Clinton's statement during the lengthy interview with Rose was a mere slip of the tongue, it was a very precise and specific gaff.

Which begs the question, is the US administration about to tweak its decade-long position on Hezbollah, and if so, why now?

The US Secretary of State's new phrasing comes exactly one day after the formation of a unity government in Lebanon, led by US-backed Prime Minister Saad Hariri.

The government's new cabinet includes ten ministerial positions for the Hezbollah-led opposition, two of which will go to Hezbollah members.

Any change in the US's position on the Lebanese resistance group could reflect this new reality: that Hezbollah participated in democratically held elections and is now part of Lebanon's official governmental body.

In the background, however, lurks another possible incentive for a US policy shift. A war of words between Israel and Hezbollah has persisted since the end of Israel's 33-day war on Lebanon in mid-2006. The stalemate that resulted was widely viewed as a defeat for Israel, a country that has relied on the psychology of victory to act as a deterrent for its Arab neighbors. And this perception of defeat has caused significant frustration within Israel's military establishment.

This past summer, Israeli rhetoric threatening Lebanon peaked when it became clear that although the pro-US coalition had won the Lebanese elections, a unity government including Hezbollah was inevitable.

"If Hezbollah joins the Lebanese government as an official entity, let it be clear that the Lebanese government, as far as we are concerned, is responsible for any attack -- any attack -- from its area on the state of Israel," Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said as recently as August. These comments followed similar statements by Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, increasing speculation that another military conflict could be in the offing.

Could the US administration be softening its stance on Hezbollah in order to give Lebanon's new government a shot at succeeding, and simultaneously warning Israel to back off? President Obama has a lot on his plate, juggling talks with Iran -- an Israeli foe and Hezbollah ally -- managing US military activities in Afghanistan and Iraq and trying to jumpstart peace talks between Palestinians and Israel. The last thing he needs is another large-scale armed conflict in the region to distract from his Mideast agenda.

In August, Obama's Assistant on Homeland Security and Counter-terrorism, John Brennan introduced more moderate language about the Lebanese resistance group at an event held at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in DC.

While reiterating the US position on Hezbollah as a terrorist organization, Brennan painted a more nuanced picture of the group:

"Hezbollah started out as purely a terrorist organization in the early '80s and has evolved significantly over time. And now it has members of parliament, in the cabinet; there are lawyers, doctors, others who are part of the Hezbollah organization ... And so, quite frankly, I'm pleased to see that a lot of Hezbollah individuals are in fact renouncing that type of terrorism and violence and are trying to participate in the political process in a very legitimate fashion."

In an article in The Nation a few days later, a State Department spokesman responded to Brennan's comments: "U.S. policy toward Hezbollah has not changed. We do not make any distinction between the political and military wings."

But his Secretary of State just did.

Whether Clinton on Tuesday deliberately meant to redefine US policy on Hezbollah or not, it seems the thinking within the administration has taken a turn anyway.

The Latest from Iran (13 November): Accusations

NEW Iran Text: Khatami on Legitimate Protest and Illegitimate Government (13 November)
Iran: Is This an “Unravelling” Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?
Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (12 November): Ahmadinejad Moves for Nuclear Deal

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

1805 GMT: Another Move for the Nuke Deal. Looks like the Ahmadinejad-military axis has put down another marker with the statement of the head of Iran’s armed forces, Major-General Hassan Firouzabadi, supporting the uranium enrichment agreement: “We will not suffer a loss from the exchange of fuel. Rather, in obtaining fuel enriched to 20 percent as needed by the reactors, nearly one million of our people would take advantage of its medical possibilities annually....The quantity of 3.5 percent enriched uranium [to be shipped out] is not so large as to cause damage to Iran’s supply."

1605 GMT: What's Happening at the Revolutionary Guard? Radio Fardi summarises the changes in higher commander at the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, including the head of the Tehran command. I'll have to leave it to others to assess whether these are "normal" changes in the organisation or whether there is a political story behind them.

1515 GMT: Confidence or Concern? Reuters has now picked up the statement of Mojtaba Zolnour, a representative of the Supreme Leader in the Revolutionary Guard, that the Assembly of Experts cannot remove him from office.

Zolnour told a gathering of Khamenei's representatives in Iranian universities, "The members of the assembly...do not appoint the Supreme Leader, rather they discover him and it is not that they would be able to remove him any time they wish so."

Now is Zolnour saying this because he is feeling good that the Supreme Leader is secure in his seat of power or is his warning prompted by fears that members of the Assembly, who raised the possibility of removal in August/September, may not be pacified?



1500 GMT: Football Story of Day. Or maybe, thanks to the Green movement, a non-story because there was a non-crowd. Persian2English writes about a disappointing turnout for the Iran v. Iceland match in Azadi stadium on Tuesday, citing state media: “In spite of efforts...to have spectators show up in the stadium, only 100 attended to watch the match between the two countries' national teams." (Goal.com say "only a few hundred" turned up to watch a "low-key friendly".)

1400 GMT: We've posted a long statement, adapted from the website linked to Mir Hossein Mousavi, made by former President Mohammad Khatami to academics. Khatami appears to be going to great lengths to set out "legitimate" protest (as opposed to "radical" activity) criticising the failure of the Government to serve the Iranian people and uphold the Constitution.

1315 GMT: Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has announced that Shapour Kazemi, the brother of Mir Hossein Mousavi's wife Zahra Rahnavard, will be tried in Revolutionary Court.

1200 GMT: Your Tehran Friday Prayer Report.

Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, the former head of the Guardian Council, used his speech to put 13 Aban in the "right" context. The presence of students has demonstrated the Revolution's resolve against the "enemy flag" of the United States. Washington also gave Jannati the opportunity to attack the Iranian opposition --- despite the fact that he did not see them on 13 Aban --- "$55 million" authorised by the US for subversive activities.

1100 GMT: Persian2English reports on the Revolutionary Court's sentencing of Hassan Salamat, a master’s student at Tehran University, to four years in prison. Salamat was arrested in post-election protests on charges of "propagating aganist the regime and conspiracy to disrupt national security". He spent two months in Evin Prison before being released on $200,000 bail.

1010 GMT: An intriguing interview with Tehran Chief Prosecutor Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi on the Islamic Republic News Agency website. It's intriguing in part because Doulatabadi is clearly on the defensive about allegations of abuses by the regime. He admits that the Constitution in principle puts forth open trials but gives a convoluted explanation as to why this is not possible. He also expresses the hope that some trials can be completed in the next month.

Even more interesting, however, is the politics in the interview. Pointing to the regime's ongoing manoeuvres against former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, Doulatabadi says Rafsanjani's son Mehdi Hashemi --- accused in the first Tehran trial of corruption and intrigue in the Preisdential election --- should return from Britain to Iran if he believes the charges are false.

0825 GMT: Just catching up with news this morning.

Both The New York Times and Press TV share an interest in the seizure by US Federal prosecutors of properties, including the land where four mosques sit, of the Alavi Foundation. The prosecutors claim that the Foundation, whose 36-story office tower is also being taken, is illegally providing money and other services to Iran.

The Los Angeles Times goes instead for The Bomb, with a survey considering the reactions of Arab states and people to Iran's nuclear programme.

As for us, we're starting the day with two features outlining our concern over "Western" images of the Green Wave, which may point to a US Government policy shifting against the Iranian opposition: "Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?" and "Is This an 'Unravelling' Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?"

Iran Text: Khatami on Legitimate Protest and Illegitimate Government (13 November)

Iran: Is This an “Unravelling” Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?
Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (13 November): Accusations

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis



Adapted from the report on the Facebook site associated with Mir Hossein Mousavi:

Former President Mohammad Khatami, in a meeting with a group of faculty members of Iran University of Science and Technology, has strongly criticised the continuation of the militarised environment and the security measures enforced on Iranian society. He added that one of the problems of the society is the lack of understanding and not taking advantage of the role of academia: “In the current situation, unfortunately the [academic] environment is getting more restricted, and regretfully the losses that the country will suffer because of these limitations are unrecoverable.”

The former reformist president, emphasising the necessity of independence of the universities, said:

In our reformist administration, the concern of the government was for the universities to be independent and respected, and we tried so that the 'outside forces' would not get the authorisation to intervene and enforce their views by any means.

An intellectual is someone who recognises the expectations of his/her time....Our time is the time that no one accepts tyranny and dictatorship and rejects it in all forms....Today the dictators of our time are claiming to be from the people; these are the problems of our time and are not related to East or West. Today criticising Government and freedom of expression should be accepted as rights.

The main factors in weakening the system are people’s dissatisfaction and use of violence by the Government] in any form....The violence by the government will cause radicalism and distrust, and if there is increasing dissatisfaction and distrust in a society, Islam and an establishment that carries the Islamic title will receive the first blow. If God forbid...violence, intimidationm and threats are recognised means of the establishment, and the enemies take advantage of this fact as well, more than anything, it would be the establishment that is harmed by this.”

Today the question is whether the satisfaction of the society, especially of the intellectuals, has been increased, particularly during the events after the election? If not, one should find out what the problem is and those who created this situation and caused the increase of the dissatisfaction in the society are those who are weakening the establishment.

This society belongs to us, but why is it that environment has been restricted so much? Why is it that the valuable figures who have a [different] view or an objection, not only are being eliminated [from political scene] but are suffering all kinds of insults and have been put under pressure?

Students, professors, scholars, artists, and intellectuals who have a great background and even served the country during the Iran-Iraq war...are saying that they recognise the Constitution but have some criticisms as well. They are being insulted and falsely accused. So unfortunately some [radical] slogans of which none of us approve are being heard in the country. The establishment is weakened, and Iran suffers domestic and international damage.

These [problems] have been created because people are not being respected. Objection and criticism are being considered as efforts to topple the establishment, the [national] media have insulted and falsely accused those who people are looking up to, and all of this is harming the system.

We should all return to the Constitution and act according to the Constitution and teachings of Islam. It should be accepted that it is not possible to run the society and the universities with military force and this kind of management is harmful for the interests of the country including its wealth, moral values and dignity.

The expectation was that the military and security measures would be eased, not that criticism and objection would be so costly for the society. It should be remembered that those who are criticising are not trying to topple the establishment but rather are care about the revolution and the society.....

Isn’t it that those who are criticising [the government] are being accused of all kinds of allegations that are true for the worst enemies of the country and the nation? If the answers to these questions are positive; these are the signs of the diversions that should be modified and corrected.

The basis [of the nation] is the Constitution; we want to have a glorious Iran. We want the people to consider the government as part of them and for the government to see people as part of itself. We want the government to welcome the criticisms against it as a blessing.

Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?

Iran: Is This an “Unravelling” Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?
The Latest from Iran (12 November): Ahmadinejad Moves for Nuclear Deal

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

Recently I had sharp words for an article by Borzou Daragahi of The Los Angeles Times because it was "so partial, so distorting, so wrong that it verged on sabotage of the demands, aspirations, and ideas of the Green movement". Daragahi cited a few "analysts" who, more from their personal interests than from knowledge of the opposition, denounced Mir Hossein Mousavi and called on the US Government to recognise the outcome of June's Presidential election.

Fortunately, in my opinion, Daragahi quickly walked away from that piece, recognising that the 13 Aban protests would be "significant". However, he has now posted an interview with Karim Sadjadpour, one of the most prominent US-based analysts of Iran, which revives my concerns: "Is Obama administration dissing the 'green' opposition movement?"

Sadjadpour claims, in support of the headline, "There are certainly analysts in Washington, including within some branches of the U.S. government, who believe that Iran’s opposition movement is either dead or does not deserve to be taken seriously," then adding --- in an apparent contradiction --- "[But] I’ve never found them to be dismissive or unsympathetic towards the green movement". However, whether Obama's officials love, loathe, or have no time for the Green Wave, "They feel they can’t put all their eggs in the basket of the opposition."

My concerns are not over Sadjadpour, whose analysis I appreciate. Instead, it is with the "they" who he is invoking. I do not know their names. I do not know on what basis they are making their judgements. And I certainly do not know their motives for proclaiming the Death of the Opposition.

Sadjadpour throws out clues. Part of Washington's distance could be benevolent: "The Obama administration worries that if it is seen as too vocally supportive of the opposition...it could end up sabotaging the movement." On the other hand, it could be the calculation that a nuclear deal with Tehran trumps all other considerations: "The prospect of political reform in Tehran appears to be at best a medium-term process, while the prospect of Iran reaching a nuclear weapons capability is an immediate concern.

The point remains, however: We Just Don't Know. And my concern remains and now grows with each article --- the original Daragahi piece, the snide comments of Jackson Diehl on "Iran's Unlovable Opposition" in the Washington Post, and the distortions of David Ignatius in the same paper  --- that claims to "know" the Iranian opposition. Are the ignorance that poses as knowledge and the insults that pose as analysis not only representative of the authors but of Government officials who stand as unnamed sources behind them?

----
Is Obama administration dissing the 'green' opposition movement?
Borzou Daragahi

As the United States attempts to grapple with Iran over its nuclear program, some worry that it will sacrifice the Islamic Republic's grass-roots opposition movement.

Karim Sadjadpour is an Iran analyst at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. He's regularly hobnobbing with Beltway policymakers and advisors as well as those within the kaleidoscope of think tanks issuing reams of recommendations for them.

He says that opinion in Washington is mixed. Though he himself believes that Iran's opposition movement remains a force to be reckoned with, some disagree.

"There are certainly analysts in Washington, including within some branches of the U.S. government, who believe that Iran’s opposition movement is either dead or does not deserve to be taken seriously," he said.

But, he said, "in numerous conversations with the key formulators of Iran policy in the Obama administration I’ve never found them to be dismissive or unsympathetic towards the green movement."

Still, for a whole bunch of reasons, the administration is also hedging its bets.

"They feel they can’t put all their eggs in the basket of the opposition," he said.

or one thing, they worry that Iran's drive to master nuclear technology is moving faster than its move toward democracy. "The prospect of political reform in Tehran appears to be at best a medium-term process, while the prospect of Iran reaching a nuclear weapons capability is an immediate concern," said Sadjadpour, who was last in Iran in 2005.

But there's another matter, says Sadjadpour. The Obama administration worries that if it is seen as too vocally supportive of the opposition, as has been demanded by some commentators, it could end up sabotaging the movement.

"They’re concerned that enthusiastic U.S. patronage of the opposition movement could prove more hurtful than helpful to their cause," he said.

The administration's uncertainty stems in part from mixed messages it's getting from Iran and supporters of the opposition.

"Some think the U.S. could and should be doing much more, others argue that this is an internal Iranian drama and further American support would be counterproductive," he said.

Following the beatings, mass imprisonments and televised trials of opposition members, Sadjadpour said he thinks the administration could get away with being more outspoken in criticizing Iran for failure to measure up to globally accepted standards of human rights and justice.

"I have no illusions that raising the issue of human rights will compel the regime to have second thoughts about employing repression and brutality," he said. "But if we continue engagement while neglecting to talk about human rights, the United States sends the signal to the Iranian people that America is a cynical superpower willing to 'do a deal' at their expense."

While dialog with Iran is important, diplomatic engagement is not an end in itself, but a way to curb Iran's nuclear program and moderate its foreign policy, he said.

Sadjadpour, for one, said he very much doubts that the current ruling establishment in Tehran seeks an accommodation with the U.S.

"As long as Ahmadinejad remains president and [Supreme Leader Ali] Khamenei remains leader, I am skeptical about Iran’s willingness to make and adhere to meaningful compromises on issues like the nuclear issue and Israeli-Palestinian conflict," he said.

That doesn't mean the U.S. should revert back to the "regime change" policies and rhetoric of the Bush administration. In fact, Sadjadpour said he was convinced that that Khamenei and Ahmadinejad would actually welcome a military strike.

"It may be their only hope to silence popular dissent and heal internal political rifts," he said.

But ruling out war doesn't mean the U.S. should get all lovey-dovey with Tehran's current establishment.

"We should certainly refrain from employing policies that dampen the momentum of the green movement, or alter its trajectory," he said. "This means treading carefully on 'engagement,' broadening the conversation beyond just nukes and avoiding military confrontation."

Iran: Is This an "Unravelling" Protest Beyond Mousavi and Karroubi?

Iran: Why is Washington Belittling the Green Movement?
The Latest from Iran (12 November): Ahmadinejad Moves for Nuclear Deal

Receive our latest updates by email or RSS SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FEED
Buy Us A Cup of Coffee? Help Enduring America Expand Its Coverage and Analysis

I will be honest. I saw this article by Brian Murphy of the Associated Press earlier in the week but decided not to post it or even refer to it. I did so because I could not find the basis for his claims about the Green movement. Neither the quotes from his "some experts" do not or his knowledge of the situation (he claims, for example, that only "several thousand" demonstrators turned out in Iran on 13 Aban) support his sweeping conclusion of a "potential unravelling" of the opposition. They do not back his speculation that "Mousavi and Karroubi's reluctance could leave room for more militant opposition leaders to emerge in the future" --- indeed, Murphy's implication is that the mainstream of the Green protest desire revolution while Mousavi and Karroubi "have repeatedly said they do not seek to overthrow the ruling clerics".



On second thought, however, the far better-informed and thoughtful discussion amongst EA readers has considered the direction of the Green Wave after the latest protests and statements and actions by its leaders. So I'm posting Murphy's piece as his personal contribution to the debate and looking forward to the ideas and critiques of our own "experts" on the Comment board.

Iran's opposition steers challenge toward the top
Brian Murphy

Just minutes before anti-riot police charged opposition marchers in Tehran last week, a new chant bubbled up from the crowd: "Death to Nobody."

It was more than just a play on the "Death to America" slogans that are staples of Iran's political life. The cries give a sense of how much the protest movement has evolved since the raw outrage of last summer.

The demonstrations have moved beyond narrow attacks on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his disputed re-election in June. They are now drifting toward a blanket challenge of the Islamic leadership's right to rule.

"It's gone from anti-Ahmadinejad to more of anti-regime in general," said Mustafa Alani, a regional analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Dubai. "That's an important shift."

And here lies the protesters' strength, but also their potential unraveling, some experts say.

An overall challenge to the powers of non-elected clerics — headed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — could provide the big picture goal to sustain the demonstrations for years. But it also carries risks. Top among them: alienating the opposition leadership, who remain still loyal to the Islamic system, and bringing even harsher crackdowns by authorities who can justify use of violence to protect the status quo.

The two senior figures in the opposition, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mahdi Karroubi, have repeatedly said they do not seek to overthrow the ruling clerics. Since July, authorities have put on trial more than 100 pro-reform figures accused of being part of a plot to topple this religious hierarchy.

Mousavi and Karroubi's reluctance could leave room for more militant opposition leaders to emerge in the future.

The protests last week coincided with state-run rallies marking the 30th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. The timing, like the shouts of "Death to Nobody," were a symbolic challenge to one of the ideological pillars of the regime — the anti-U.S. fervor of the 1979 Islamic Revolution that toppled the pro-American shah.

Just blocks away from the opposition marches, the pro-government demonstrators were bellowing the standard beat of "Death to America" to mark the Nov. 4 embassy seizure.

Many pro-reform marchers still wore the green colors of Mousavi, who claims he is the rightful winner of the June 12 presidential election.

But much of the protesters' defiance went beyond Mousavi's complaints over the election and the subsequent crackdown and targeted Khamenei in acts that were almost unthinkable before the postelection meltdown. Protesters tore up or trampled images of the supreme leader, whose most ardent backers believe is answerable only to God.

Demonstrators also called on President Barack Obama to pick a side, in apparent frustration with White House efforts for direct talks with Iran's leaders. "Obama, Obama, you are either with them, or with us," they chanted.

The opposition leaders were not among the crowd. Reformist web sites say hard-line vigilantes kept Mousavi from leaving his office. Karroubi was overcome by tear gas and left before riot police moved in, according to his Web site.

More than 100 people were detained, including several journalists, but most were later released.

Karroubi later denounced the "very ugly" tactics of police, which he claimed included attacking women. Mousavi issued a statement calling for the rights of all Iranians to be respected. But there was nothing to suggest they would follow the protesters' lead in hardening their stance against Iran's political system.

After security forces crushed that massive protests that erupted after the election, opposition groups in recent months have used major state-backed events to stage rival rallies.

The next test could come Dec. 7, which marks the death of three students in 1953 during protests of a visit by then-Vice President Richard Nixon for talks with the shah.

Reform groups appear focused on trying to build a credible turnout for the next marches after just several thousand joined last week's protests.

Some reformist Web sites have urged students to stay off campus on the days of future marches so they can't be blocked from joining by security forces. Many other sites are carrying one of the new symbols of the opposition: a green-hued drawing of a young woman wearing a headscarf and thrusting up her fist in protest.

"The long-term crisis for the government isn't over," said Alireza Nader, an analyst of Iranian affairs at the RAND Corp. in Washington.

Still, authorities must be careful about how hard they push back or else they risk a backlash. The government crackdown so far "has been very violent but measured in some ways," Nader said. But if authorities carry out threats to arrest Mousavi and Karroubi, "this could fan the flames," he said.

Some high-level officials have offered talks with the opposition as a way to keep the tensions from spilling over to recurring cycles of protests and violence.

The former chief of the judiciary and close ally of Khamenei, Ayatollah [Hashemi] Shahroudi, was quoted Monday in Iranian newspapers as calling the postelection rifts a "family dispute" that can be worked out through dialogue.

But Meir Javedanfar, an Iran analyst based in Israel, said Khamenei "sees the reformist movement as a threat" and aims to "stifle its growth and, if he can, to completely suffocate them."

But the greater the pressure, the more risk he could rally people around the protests.

"Khamenei's actions could actually strengthen the reformist movement," he said.