Iran Election Guide

Donate to EAWV





Or, click to learn more

Search

Tuesday
Sep222009

Enduring America on the Road

EA LOGOI'll be carrying out the most important of diplomatic business, accompanying my parents to Scotland on their 50th anniversary tour. Mike Dunn will be watching the EA shop, so keep comments and ideas coming. I'll be checking in, for example on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's speech tomorrow afternoon to the United Nations and today's talks between Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas, and returning to duty from Friday morning.
Tuesday
Sep222009

Iran: Welcoming Obama's Missile Defense Plan, Signalling to Moscow

The Latest from Iran (22 September): A Trip to New York

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

untitledOn Monday, Hassan Qashqavi, spokesman for the Iranian foreign ministry, welcomed the Obama Administration's declaration that it was abandoning plans to base missile defence in Eastern Europe:

"The Islamic Republic of Iran welcomes any act or plan which results in the removal of weapons of mass destruction throughout the world, and, considers the removal of nuclear and other destructive weapons by the big powers as a service to world peace and security, if it is real and true."

However, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has reiterated that Iran is still the main threat justifying the deployment plan of defense missile system. Indeed, she said that Washington was going to deploy missiles sooner than the Bush Administration planned to do so, albeit from ships rather than the sites in Poland and the Czech Republic.

So, what does Teheran's statement mean, especially after Moscow's recent carrot/stick policy, offing diplomatic protection against any international sanctions and military support in return for political influence in Iran? It appears to be a clever move to keep attention on a US-Russian rivalry, with Iran as an excuse rather than a cause for missile defence. Qashqavi claimed, "Adopting the claim of a missile threat from the Islamic Republic of Iran was an opportunistic and domination-seeking US scam with political aims." He added:
From the beginning, the Islamic Republic of Iran has seen the basing of the missile system in Eastern Europe as part of the missile [force] rivalries between Russia and the US, and the expansion of the penetration of extra-regional security areas and a continuation of the penetration of the big powers in the Central European countries.
Tuesday
Sep222009

Brzezinski: Grand Strategy and Shooting Down Israel's Jets Over Iraq

brzezinski_zbigniewIn an interview with the Daily Beast's Gerald Posner, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to U.S. President Jimmy Carter, said on Sunday that President Obama's scrapping missile defense was the right thing to do. The George W. Bush Administration's defense missile shield project had been based on "a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat".

This, however, become an irrelevance next to Brzezinski's more provocative assertion: Washington has to shoot down Israeli jets over Iraqi airspace if they are en route to attack Iran. This would be an example of US assertiveness to ensure the success of engagement with Tehran and Middle Eastern states. It would be a marker of a "strong strategy" backed-up with decisiveness, lacking in US foreign policy.

Transcript:

Is the Obama administration decision to end the missile-defense program the right one?

Well, let me first of all say that my view on this subject for the last two years has been that the Bush missile-shield proposal was based on a nonexistent defense technology, designed against a nonexistent threat, and designed to protect West Europeans, who weren’t asking for the protection.

Does scrapping the missile program weaken our defense options in Europe vis-à-vis the Russians?

Not at all. What is left is militarily sounder. It gives the U.S. more options while still enhancing America’s ability to develop more effective defense systems, which is what the Russians really dislike. But now they have less of an excuse to bitch about it.

What about the way we informed our allies of our decision?

The way it was conveyed to the Czechs and Poles could not have been worse. It involved [laughs] waking up the Czech prime minster after midnight with a sudden phone call from President Obama. The Polish prime minister was at least allowed to sleep late. But as far as Poland was concerned, unfortunately, poor staff work did not alert the United States that today, September 17, is a particularly painful anniversary for Poland. In 1939, the Poles were still fighting the Germans when on September 17 the Russians stabbed them in the back. To the Poles, that is something very painful. And since they misconstrued—and I emphasize the word “misconstrue”—that the missile shield somehow strengthened their relationship with the U.S. when it comes to Russia, it was immediately suggestive of the notion of a sellout. It’s the wrong conclusion, but in politics, even wrong conclusions have to be anticipated.

How is it possible that the State Department did not bring up the sensitivity of this day to the Poles?

Lousy staff work. Period. I don’t know who precisely to point the finger at. It was obviously not anticipated in this case.

There are some pundits who believe that by abandoning the missile-defense program, we will gain the help of Russia when it comes to arm-twisting Iran over its nuclear weapons program. Anything to that?

I doubt it. The Russians have their own interests in Iran, which are far more complex than the simplistic notion that the Russians want to help us with Iran. The Russians have a complicated agenda with Iran. They also know in the back of their heads that if worse came to worse—and I am not saying they are deliberately promoting the worst—but if worse came to worse, which is an American-Iranian military collision, who would pay the highest price for that? First, America, whose success in ending the Cold War the Russians still bitterly resent. And we would also pay a high price in Iraq, Afghanistan, and massively so with regards to the price of oil. Second, who would suffer the most? The Chinese, who the Russians view as a long-range threat and of whom they are very envious, because the Chinese get much more of their oil from the Middle East than we do, and the skyrocketing price would hurt them even more than us. Third, who would then be totally dependent on the Russians? The West Europeans. And fourth, who would cash in like crazy? The Kremlin.

Is the fallout as bad if Israel preemptively strikes Iran?

Absolutely. That is the way, more importantly, how the Iranians would view it. They really can’t do much to the Israelis, despite all their bluster. The only thing they can do is unify themselves, especially nationalistically, to rally against us, and the mullahs might even think of it as a blessing.

How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

What if they fly over anyway?

Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]

Did it surprise you that it took the Obama administration so long to do away with the missile-defense program? Is he setting firm lines that can’t be crossed, such as with Iran and Israel?

Well, Obama has been very impressive in refining our policy toward the world on a lot of issues, very impressive. But he has been relatively much less impressive in the follow-through.

You mean his policy sounds ideal but the follow-up isn’t good?

Not as precise, clear-cut, and forthcoming as would be desirable.

What would you like have seen already from this administration?

By now we should have been able to formulate a clearer posture on what we are prepared to do to promote a Palestinian-Israeli peace. Simply giving a frequent-traveler ticket to George Mitchell is not the same thing as policy. It took a long time to get going on Iran, but there is an excuse there, the Iranian domestic mess. And we are now eight months into the administration, and I would have thought by now we could have formulated a strategy that we would have considered “our” strategy for dealing with Iran and Pakistan. For example, the Carter administration, which is sometimes mocked, by now had in motion a policy of disarmament with the Russians, which the Russians didn’t like, but eventually bought; it had started a policy of normalization with the Chinese; it rammed through the Panama Canal treaty; and it was moving very, very openly toward an Israeli-Arab political peace initiative.

Where did the impetus come from in the Carter administration, and why aren’t we seeing it with Obama?

There was a closer connection between desire and execution. Also the president was not as deeply embroiled, and buffeted, by a very broad, and commendable and ambitious domestic program as President Obama is. I think the Republican onslaught to the president, the wavering of some Democrats, has vastly complicated not only his choices in foreign affairs, but even limited the amount of attention he can give to them.

Is there truth that the more issues he is embroiled in, the less he can act?

I don’t think it’s the number of issues; it’s how decisively a president acts. A president, in his first year, is at the peak of his popularity, and if he acts decisively, even if some oppose him, most will rally around him, out of patriotism, out of opportunism, out of loyalty, out of the crowd instinct, just a variety of human motives.

Some in the Obama administration have told me that it’s only just over half a year, and we are jumping to too early conclusions about anything. Are the early months more critical than other times in an administration?

The first year is decisive. How much you can set in motion the first year sets the tone for much of the rest of the term. In part, that’s because all these things take more than one year to complete. But the point is you want to have a dynamic start that carries momentum with it.

President Carter early on ran into strong opposition from American-based pro-Israeli lobbying groups that opposed the administration’s ideas for a peace initiative in the Middle East. What lesson should the Obama administration learn in formulating its own approach to an Israeli-Palestinian dialogue?

The lesson is if you are forthright in what you are seeking, you tend to mobilize support within the Jewish community. Because a majority of American Jews are liberal, and in the long run they know that peace in the Middle East is absolutely essential to Israel’s long-term survival.

Are you concerned about Afghanistan?

Quite unintentionally, but potentially and tragically, we are sliding into a posture which is beginning—and I emphasize the word “beginning”—to be reminiscent of what happened to the Soviets.

We have plenty of time to reverse course?

There is some time to reverse course. But time flies.
Monday
Sep212009

The Latest from Iran (21 September): Distractions

Iran: More on Rafsanjani and Khamenei’s End-of-Ramadan Speech
NEW Iran: Khamenei Scrambles for Position
The Latest from Iran (20 September): Khamenei’s End-of-Ramadan Speech

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

IRAN NUKES

2010 GMT: The buzz over Imam Khomeini's grandson, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, continues. After his appearance yesterday at the Supreme Leader's speech (analysed in a separate entry), the Islamic Republic News Agency has attacked him for his continued visits to the families of detainees (see 1510 GMT).

1535 GMT: Revelation of the Day. Rooz Online claims that the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps has ordered the Ministry of Health not to release the medical records of recently injured protesters, thus covering up the cause of their wounds.

Afternoon Update (1510 GMT): A New Act in the Crackdown? State TV has again put high-profile reformist detainees Saeed Hajjarian, Mohammad Atrianfar, and Saeed Shariati on air in a two-day roundtable to explain and analyse their transgressions, no doubt re-drawing the picture of foreign-directed attempts at regime change. The trio were featured in a roundtable last month after the first wave of Tehran trials.

Seyed Hassan Khomeini, the grandson of Imam Khomeini, has continued his visits to the families of post-election detainees. The visits have been seen as symbolic of Khomeini's challenge to the current Government and have resumed a day after his appearance at the Supreme Leader's Eid-al-Fitr address.

Parliament Qualms? Deputy Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar has again raised the prospect of a legislative clash with the President after the cease-fire that led to approval of the Ahmadinejad Cabinet. Bahonar has expressed qualms about the President's power, saying he is worried that Ahmadinejad will start changing Ministers and declaring that Parliament will force Government to abide by laws.


0820 GMT: A quiet morning, as all sides continue to manoeuvre for position. The major political story is the Supreme Leader's attempt in his speech yesterday both to stabilise his position and to push for a settlement including both the President and Hashemi Rafsanjani. We've analysed that in a separate entry, "Khamenei Scrambles for Position".

Unfortunately, this story is now beyond the comprehension of most "mainstream" media outside Iran. So, instead of considering the internal dynamics, they will be distracted this week by President Ahmadinejad's visit to New York. They will not pick up on the most important aspect of this trip, namely that Ahmadinejad will use it to show Iranian people that he is in control and that protest against him jeopardises Iran's prominent position in world affairs. (Not many people, even veteran Iran-watchers, have figured out that this is why he gave the "exclusive" interview to NBC's Anne Curry.) They will not realise that the importance of Iran's nuclear programme is more in the prestige that it gives the President, especially as he can show defiance against "Western" and Israeli attempts to curb it, than in any imminent military use.

The headlines on the Supreme Leader's speech this morning give the game away: It's Not about Iranians, It's About US. CNN blares, "Iranian leader decries Obama's missile defense plan". The BBC adds, "Khamenei denies US nuclear claims". NBC, having tried to dine out on the interview with President Ahmadinejad, falls back into the superficial with "Iran's leader says U.S. nuke accusations wrong". The New York Times avoids the pitfall by saying nothing at all. (The honourable exception is The Los Angeles Times, which recognises,"Iran's Ayatollah Khamenei Says Opposition Protests Failed".)
Monday
Sep212009

Iran: More on Rafsanjani and Khamenei's End-of-Ramadan Speech

The Latest from Iran (21 September): Distractions
Iran: Khamenei Scrambles for Position
The Latest from Iran (20 September): Khamenei’s End-of-Ramadan Speech

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

AHMADI RAF 2Complementing our reading of the dynamic between the Supreme Leader and Hashemi Rafsanjani, Pedestrian summarises the post of blogger Agh Bahman. Bahman also adds useful thoughts on the positions of Imam Khomeini's grandson, Seyed Hassan Khomeini, and Mohammad Khatami:


Everyone has been criticizing Rafsanjani and Hassan Khomeini for showing up at the Fetr prayer yesterday, and I just didn’t think the criticism was founded. We’ve had very few “real” politicians in our recent history, people willing to bend and compromise and adapt to circumstances. And I think Hashemi Rafsanjani, for all his shortcomings, is of this rare breed. Agh Bahman captures it perfectly (this is a summary of his post):

What got the most attention in yesterday’s prayer was the presence of Rafsanjani and Hassan Khomeini, and after them, Nateq Nouri in line behind the leader and beside Ahmadinejad. Many went so far as to interpret this as Rafsanjani’s betrayal of the people’s movement. When I got up and heard the news, I too was surprised. But when I thought a little more, my opinion changed completely. If you felt like me, read this, maybe your opinion will change too.

The Fetr prayer is one of the few state events which practically all high officials attend. Personally, I don’t remember any other even in which all officials participate. I think not showing up at Fetr prayer is like saying you don’t want to pray behind the leader. Did Rafsanjani do anything in the past three months that meant this remotely, so that now, showing up in the prayer is surprising?

In the past three months, Rafsanjani  did not attend two events which he was expected to attend: the two inauguration ceremonies. Both of these events had to do with Ahmadinejad and giving legitimacy to his government and this Rafsanjani did not want to do. Notice, just a few days after those ceremonies, he went to the goodbye and welcoming ceremonies for Shahroudi and Sadeq Larijani, the previous and current head of the judiciary. Probably one reason for his attendance was to show his respect to Shahroudi, but in any case, the judiciary head is appointed by the leader, and if Rafsanjani had reached a point where he wasn’t willing to pray behind the leader, he shouldn’t have showed up there either. And of course, Rafsanjani did not attend the two Friday prayers led by the leader, which was natural. From what I remember, unless Rafsanjani was prayer leader, he never attended the prayer  no matter who was leading. [notice, Rafsanjani sees himself, or at least used to see himself, as man #2. So just as the leader is not willing to pray behind anyone, and thus never shows up, neither does Rafsanjani].

Of course Rafsanjani did something else yesterday which didn’t get anyone’s attention and that was his absence in the leader’s meeting with the officials which takes place every year after the Fetr prayers in the leader’s beyt [the religious center adjacent to the leader’s home I think, or since “beyt” means “home” in Arabic, it’s supposed to be adjacent to his home, as was Khomeini’s, even if it isn’t.] From the photos we have of yesterday’s meeting, only the heads of the three branches of government are sitting behind the leader and Rafsanjani is very noticeably absent.

I went and found the photos from previous years. In the last four years, Rafsanjani was only missing in 2005. He was there last year and the year before that. I think by not going, he’s sending a message to the leader that he’s only willing to participate in events so far as he is formally obligated and no more. For instance, in a few days when the annual meeting of the Assembly of Experts with the leader takes place, I think Rafsanjani will go, and will sit beside the leader.

And now for Seyed Hassan Khomeini

I think Hasan Khomeini has a similar circumstance [as Rafsanjani]. He was in the first line of prayer every year at Fetr. In the past three months, he’s done nothing and said nothing which would mean that he’s turning his back on the leader. Khomeini showed his complaint out in the opinion on two occasions: not showing up at the inauguration, and not going to meet with Ahmadinejad in Imam Khoemini’s masoleum. Again, both these acts showed his disregard for Ahmdinejad and the legitimacy of his government.

And in fact, after the prayer, Khomeini did something that would obviously show his position: he went to see the family of Mohsen Mirdamadi (the chief officer of the Participation Front who is prison, and whose son was taken into custody just a few days ago) and Javad Emam (a recently released member of the Mojahedin party).

The Great Absence: Khatami

I think the biggest news from the prayer was not the presence of Rafsanjani or Khomeini, but the absence of Khatami.  Khatami too was first in line every year, and his absence sends a very clear signal: that he no longer accepts the leadership of this leader. Karoubi and Mousavi have been very vocal and have gone very far, and anyways, they were never seen in the first line of prayer these past few years. We can guess that they were absent for the same reasons as Khatami, but since Khatami was always first in line, his absence is much more noticed.

I should also add that I think one of the people to whom the leader’s words were address was Khatami. He said that confessions against other people in court was not credible. In court, a lot was said against Khatami. Against Karoubi and Mousavi too, but most was said about Khatami. I think the leader intended to appease Khatami with those words.