WarSclerotic

Why Arab regimes don’t do more.

Photo by: Associated Press

By BARRY RUBIN
07/25/2010 22:57

If the Arab world feels so threatened by a nuclear-armed Iran, shouldn’t it cooperate more closely with the West to seek a solution?

Mossad chief reportedly visited Saudi Arabia for talks on Iran – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Account on WorldNetDaily follows series of recent reports on increasing secret cooperation between Israel and the Saudis, including defense coordination on matters related to possible military action.

Mossad chief Meir Dagan visited Saudi Arabia recently, if unofficial reports published over the weekend on the WorldNetDaily website are accurate. The Internet news site attributed the story to Arab sources.

According to the reports, the talks conducted in Saudi Arabia with the head of Israel’s espionage agency dealt with Iran and its nuclear program. The account follows a series of recent reports on increasing secret cooperation between Israel and the Saudis, including defense coordination on matters related to possible military action against Iran’s nuclear facilities.

	Mossad chief Meir Dagan

Two months ago, the Times of London reported that during the course of a Saudi military exercise, air defense system operations were halted for a few hours to rehearse a scenario whereby Israeli fighter planes would cross Saudi Arabian air space en route to an attack on Iran.

Arab and Iranian media outlets have also reported Israeli air force planes and helicopters landing in Saudi Arabia for the purposes of positioning equipment there.

Three weeks ago, it was reported that the United Arab Emirates’ ambassador in Washington said at a conference that the consequences of nuclear weapons in the hands of the Iranians would be more serious than an Israeli assault, because a nuclear Iran could not be tolerated. His remarks reflect a common concern felt in Israel and the Persian Gulf states over nuclear weapons in Iranian hands.

The new, improved Obama.

By CAROLINE GLICK
07/26/2010 22:09

Just when you thought he was shifting gears he pulls out a zinger.

You have to hand it to US President Barack Obama. He is relentless. Just when you thought he was shifting gears – easing up on Israel and turning his attention to Iran’s nuclear weapons program – he pulls out a zinger.

His recent courtship of Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu led some Israelis and supporters of Israel in the US to believe the administration had seen the light. After 18 months, we were told Obama finally realized that contrary to what he had thought, Palestinian statehood is not the most urgent issue in the Middle East, Iran’s nuclear weapons program is.

In the past week alone, two prominent commentators – Aluf Benn from Haaretz and Ehud Ya’ari from Channel 2 both wrote articles claiming that Obama’s Middle East policy has undergone a transformation. As Benn put it, “President Barack Obama’s campaign of wooing Israel reflects a fundamental about-face in US policy in the Middle East.”

And in Ya’ari’s words in an article in the Australian, “The foreign policy team of US President Barack Obama is undertaking a reassessment of its policy all over the Middle East, including Israel.”

Both claimed the administration has resolved to cooperate with Israel as an ally rather than attack it as an obstacle to peace, and that Washington has recognized that Iran must be prevented from acquiring nuclear weapons.

The basic notion informing both of these nearly identical articles is that the Obama administration’s foreign policy is fundamentally pragmatic rather than ideologically motivated. Both Ya’ari and Benn, like many of their fellow commentators on the Left, argue that Obama’s decision to invite Netanyahu to Washington and treat him like an ally rather than an enemy is proof that when stripped to its essentials, his foreign policy is pragmatic.

After a year and half in office, Obama recognized that his previous view of the Middle East was wrong. And as a pragmatist, he has embarked on a new course.

Yet before the ink on their proclamations had a chance to dry, Obama demonstrated that their enthusiasm was misplaced. Late last week the administration decided – apropos of nothing – to upgrade the diplomatic status of the PLO mission in Washington.

From now on, the PLO will be allowed to fly its flag like a regular embassy.

Its representatives will enjoy diplomatic immunity just like diplomats from states.

Indeed the PLO delegate in Washington Maen Areikat claimed that the administration’s move equates the PLO’s diplomatic status in the US to that of Canada and states in Western Europe.

Some in the media have claimed that this is a symbolic act and essentially meaningless.

But this is not true. While this step does not constitute US recognition of a Palestinian state in the absence of a peace treaty between the Palestinians and Israel, it certainly sends a clear signal that this is the direction the US is heading. As such, it represents a dangerous step that will encourage continued Arab hostility.

TO PUT this move in perspective, it is worth comparing the PLO’s new status to that of the US’s firm ally and fellow democracy – Taiwan, the Republic of China. Whereas the PLO now has a “delegation general” in Washington, Taiwan has the “Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office.”

When asked to comment on the move, White House spokesman Thomas Vietor said, “This decision reflects our confidence that through direct negotiations, we can help achieve a two-state solution with an independent and viable Palestine living side by side with Israel. We should begin preparing for that outcome now, as we continue to work with the Palestinian people on behalf of a better future.”

Like the decision itself, Vietor’s explanation signals that the Obama administration has not embraced pragmatism over ideology. Vietor could never have made his statement if it had.

Any pragmatic analysis of the situation leads to the clear conclusion that there is little chance of the Palestinians agreeing to a settlement anytime soon. Just this past week Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas escalated still further his already unacceptable preconditions for direct negotiations.

Now in addition to his absurd demand that Israel agree ahead of time to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, Abbas is demanding that it also agree to withdraw all of its forces to those lines and accept the deployment of foreign forces along its borders with the Palestinian state.

These are demands that no government in its right mind would accept in direct negotiations, let alone as a precondition for them.

And any pragmatic US administration upon hearing these demands would recognize that there is no chance that the Palestinians will agree to any reasonable offer of a peace treaty in the foreseeable future.

Indeed, for any pragmatic US administration, the message to send at this time is that statehood can be achieved only by getting serious about negotiations. That means clarifying that statehood is not inevitable but, rather a potential result of Abbas deciding to abandon his preconditions and get serious about talks.

In line with this, if the US intends to recognize a Palestinian state formed in the framework of a negotiated peace settlement, then it is utterly ridiculous, in the face of Abbas’ latest pronouncements, for it to upgrade the Palestinians’ diplomatic status. The move makes sense only if the US is secretly preparing to help the Palestinians avoid negotiations and obtain a state that is not established in the framework of a peace treaty.

But then, an administration that is willing to recognize a Palestinian state outside the framework of a peace agreement is an administration that is motivated by ideology and not by pragmatism. Moreover, it is motivated by an ideology that is fundamentally opposed to a strong democratic Israel.

This is the case because there is no Palestinian leader – not the US favorites Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad and not their competitors in Hamas – who accepts the legitimacy of the Jewish state. And so any state formed outside the framework of a peace treaty will be in a de facto state of war with Israel. Indeed, its legitimacy with the Palestinian people and other Arabs will be defined by its commitment to the eventual destruction of the Jewish state. And now, by upgrading the PLO’s mission, the Obama administration is actively encouraging just such an outcome.

OBAMA’S DECISION shows that he has not allowed reality to interfere with his perception of the absence of a Palestinian state as the most urgent problem he faces in the Middle East. He has adopted other measures that indicate that he remains fundamentally unconcerned about the threat that Iran poses to both US national security and to regional security in the Middle East.

That threat has been spelled out clearly in recent weeks by top US officials. Last week the outgoing US commander in Iraq, Gen. Ray Odierno, told reporters that Iran fields three Shi’ite militias in Iraq whose forces are attempting to attack US troops as they withdraw from the country. Iran’s goal is to present the image that the US is withdrawing in defeat.

As for Afghanistan, last March the Sunday Times reported that Iran is training Taliban fighters at camps inside Iran. Last Wednesday the deputy commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps threatened that US commander Gen. David Petraeus will be overwhelmed by terror in Afghanistan.

Brig.-Gen. Massoud Jazayeri told the Iranian media, “The presence of Petraeus in Afghanistan will increase terrorism and seal the expansion of American failures.

The US government has no chance of success as the igniting flames which will engulf America in Afghanistan are already visible.”

Then there is Iran’s nuclear weapons program.

As CIA Director Leon Panetta said last month, sanctions on Iran will “probably not” deter the regime from moving forward.

This understanding would be sufficient to convince a pragmatic administration that force must be used to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. A pragmatic administration, after all, could be expected to understand what a nuclear armed Iran would mean for the US’s strategic interests in the region.

If Iran becomes a nuclear power it will be able to wreak havoc on oil shipments from the Persian Gulf. So too, it will make it all but impossible for the US to safely project is military force in the region. The current threat that Iranian proxies will force US troops to flee Iraq and Afghanistan will likely be realized.

Furthermore, Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar can be expected to expel US forces from their territory as the regimes cut deals with the new regional nuclear power.

Obama recently ended his public support for appeasing Iran and seemed to adopt a more confrontational approach as he moved to pass a new round of sanctions at the UN Security Council and when he signed congressional sanctions. But rhetoric aside, as Michael Ledeen reported at Pajamas Media Web site last week, his appeasement policy remains in force.

Since 1979 the Swiss Embassy in Teheran has represented US interests. According to Ledeen, last week the Swiss ambassador submitted a request from US congressmen to meet with their Iranian counterparts. The Iranians rejected their request out of hand.

What this means is that the Obama administration – now working through congressional proxies – is still trying to cut a deal with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ali Khamenei.

All of this makes clear the sort of leader Obama is. He is a pragmatic politician and a radical ideologue all rolled into one. The pragmatic politician understands that going into the congressional elections in November, he has to convince the US public that he is a reliable ally for Israel and that he is credible on Iran. So he invited Netanyahu to Washington for a public hug and he made angry declarations about Iran’s nuclear program.

As an ideologue though, even in the midst of his charm offensive he couldn’t resist the urge to attack the Jewish state, so he signaled that he will recognize a Palestinian state that does not recognize it. And as an ideologue, he can’t stop begging the Iranians to love him.

The desire of commentators like Benn and Ya’ari to believe that the US government is behaving rationally is understandable.

But their wish is unsupported by facts. We can only hope that Netanyahu has not been similarly fooled.

Iran opposition warns of revolution.

By ASSOCIATED PRESS
07/26/2010 19:29

Internal strife as Canada, EU slam Iran with unilateral sanctions.

Iran’s opposition leader said Monday that Ahmadinejad’s regime could suffer the same fate as the deposed Shah if they continue to consolidate their grip on power.

The internal pressure comes as western countries imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran, including Monday’s sanctions from both the EU and Canada, which came in the wake of UN sanctions and a harsher set of unilateral US sanctions in June.

The comments by opposition leader Mir Hossein Mousavi represent a clear break with a ruling system he was once firmly a part of. The former prime minister was a fervent supporter of the 1979 revolution that brought cleric-led government to Iran before recasting himself as a leader of the reform-seeking opposition in last year’s disputed presidential election.

In comments on his website Monday, Mousavi accuses hard-liners of moving toward an oppressive, one-party system. Previously, he limited his criticism to authorities’ post-election crackdown rather than taking on the ruling system.

Unilateral sanctions:
Canada’s Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon announced unilateral sanctions against Iran, saying the new measures will include a ban on any new Canadian investment in Iran’s oil and gas sector, and restrictions on exporting goods that could be used in nuclear programs.

Iranian banks will also will be barred from opening branches in Canada and Canadian banks will not be able to operate in Iran.

The European Union formally adopted new energy sanctions against Iran earlier Monday which target the country’s energy, banking, and foreign trade sectors.

The move came on the heels of the unilateral US sanctions passed last month by the Senate. The EU sanctions were agreed to in principle by European leaders in June, and are the latest in a series of measures taken by the international community in an effort to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

“We have a comprehensive set of sanctions. This is something where we have all 27 countries working together,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said ahead of the meeting.

According to the decision reached in June, the sanctions will target dual-use items that could be used as part of a nuclear program, and Iran’s oil and gas industry — including the “prohibition of new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies.”

Iran’s shipping and air cargo companies will be blacklisted and banned from operating in EU territory, and new visa bans and asset freezes will be imposed on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The sanctions also encompass trade insurance and financial transactions.

EU exports to Iran — mainly machinery, transport equipment and chemicals — amounted to euro 14.1 billion in 2008.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s response to the June around of sanctions passed by the UN was that they were “worthless” and should only go into “the trash bin,” in a report cited by Bloomberg News.

Iran’s UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee has accused the United States, Britain and their allies of abusing the Security Council to attack Iran.

“No amount of pressure and mischief will be able to break our nation’s determination to pursue and defend its legal and inalienable rights,” said Iran’s UN Ambassador Mohammad Khazaee. “Iran is one of the most powerful and stable countries in the region and never bowed — and will never bow — to the hostile actions and pressures by these few powers and will continue to defend its rights.”

Iran says ready to talk as EU approves new nuclear sanctions – Haaretz Daily Newspaper | Israel News.

Tehran says ready to restart negotiations without preconditions after EU move targets the Iran’s foreign trade, banking and energy sectors.

Iran is ready to return to negotiations on a nuclear fuel swap without conditions, its envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) said on Monday, the official IRNA news agency reported.

Talking of a letter that Iran handed to the IAEA about the proposed nuclear fuel swap, Iran’s envoy to U.N. agency, Ali Asghar Soltanieh said:

	Technicians measuring parts of Iran’s Bushehr nuclear power plant in this undated photo.
	Photo by: AP

“The clear message of this letter was Iran’s complete readiness to hold negotiations over the fuel for the Tehran reactor without any conditions.”

International concerns about Iran’s uranium enrichment program have led to a tightening of economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. The European Union on Monday formally adopted a package of new sanctions against Iran, targeting the country’s foreign trade, banking and energy sectors.

The move, which EU leaders had been agreed to in principle in June, is the latest in a series of measures taken by the international community in an effort to halt Iran’s nuclear program.

In Tehran, Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast denounced the EU decision.

“Moving toward confrontational measures and supporting unilateral actions and damaging the atmosphere are not considered by us to be a good use of the opportunity,” Mehmanparast said, according to the state television network’s website.

In Brussels, EU foreign ministers adopted a decision on a package of restrictive measures in the areas of trade, financial services, energy and transport, said a diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity under standing rules.

Israel, meanwhile, lauded the move: “We welcome any diplomatic process that can cause Iran to reconsider its intention to acquire a nuclear capability,” said Deputy Defense Minister Matan Vilnai.

The new measures will come into force in the next few weeks, after they are published in the bloc’s official gazette, officials said.

“We have a comprehensive set of sanctions. This is something where we have all 27 countries working together,” EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton said ahead of the meeting.

According to the decision reached in June, the sanctions will target dual-use items that could be used as part of a nuclear program, and Iran’s oil and gas industry – including the prohibition of new investment, technical assistance and transfers of technologies.

Iran’s shipping and air cargo companies will be blacklisted and banned from operating in EU territory, and new visa bans and asset freezes will be imposed on Iran’s Revolutionary Guard. The sanctions also encompass trade insurance and financial transactions.

EU exports to Iran – mainly machinery, transport equipment and chemicals – amounted to euro 14.1 billion in 2008.

Imports from Iran, the EU’s sixth largest energy provider, amounted to euro 11.3 billion, with energy being 90 percent of the total.

The new European restrictions will come on top of a fourth round of sanctions imposed last month by the UN Security Council to curtail Iran’s nuclear program over fears it is developing weapons. The council endorsed those sanctions after Iran rebuffed a plan to suspend uranium enrichment and swap its stockpiles of low-enriched uranium for fuel rods.

The new restrictions are similar to measures adopted by the Obama administration, which has imposed penalties against additional individuals and institutions it says are helping Iran develop its nuclear and missile programs, and evade international sanctions.

Iran denies that it is working on a nuclear weapon, saying its program is intended solely for peaceful purposes such as energy-generation, and that it has the right to enrich uranium under the international nonproliferation treaty.

EU foreign ministers also are expected reaffirm the bloc’s invitation to Tehran to hold talks on the issue.

“Our aim is to bring Iran back to the negotiating table,” said German State Secretary Werner Hoyer. “We’re offering our hand, and all they have to do is to take it.”

Iran has sought to deflect pressure and further sanctions by displaying a willingness to talk about nuclear issues – a line reinforced Monday by Ali Ashgar Soltanieh, Tehran’s senior envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency.

“Iran is ready to go back to the negotiating table quickly to discuss exchanging some of its enriched uranium for fuel rods for Tehran’s nuclear reactor,” Soltanieh told reporters in Vienna.

He spoke after presenting revised proposals on a possible swap to IAEA chief Yukiya Amano, who was expected to relay them to the U.S., France and Russia – the three nations engaged with Iran in such an exchange.

No details of the latest offer were available. But under a similar deal in May with Brazil and Turkey, Iran agreed to ship 1,200 kilograms (2,640 pounds) of low-enriched uranium to Turkey, where it would be stored. In exchange, Iran would get fuel rods made from 20 percent enriched uranium. That level of enrichment is high enough for use in research reactors but too low for nuclear weapons.

‘If Hizbullah strikes, we hit Lebanon’.

The IDF will attack Lebanese government institutions if Israel is again subjected to rocket attacks, Defense Minister Ehud Barak said in an interview with The Washington Post published Sunday.

He told the newspaper that since the Lebanese goverment is allowing Hizbullah to rearm, “we will not run after each Hizbullah terrorist or launcher. . . . We will see it as legitimate to hit any target that belongs to the Lebanese state, not just to Hizbullah.”

RELATED:
Israel urges world: Stop Lebanese ships
Barak: Flotilla a ‘provocation’

Ahead of his visit to Washington today, Barak drew attention to this issue as well as his views on the Iranian nuclear threat and the actions currently being taken by the international community.

“There are differences about what could be done about it, how it should be done, and what [is] the timeframe within which certain steps could be taken,” he told the newspaper.

The defense minister also reiterated his support for further sanctions against Iran, but said that there needs to be an awareness of the limitations.

“It’s still time for sanctions,” he said, though he added that “probably, at a certain point, we should realize that sanctions cannot work.”

Addressing the peace process, Barak told The Washington Post that the government’s will to move forward “is there. But, of course, the proof of the pudding is in the eating. We have to prove it in actions, in the negotiations.”