WarSclerotic

Iran’s Leader, Denouncing Holocaust, Stirs Dispute – NYTimes.com.

By MARK LANDLER and THOMAS ERDBRINK

Published: September 25, 2013 

Mr. Rouhani, in an interview on Tuesday with CNN, described the Holocaust as a “crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews” and called it “reprehensible and condemnable.” It was a groundbreaking statement, given that his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, denied the systematic extermination of Jews during World War II. Mr. Rouhani largely repeated his comments in a meeting with news media executives on Wednesday.

But a semiofficial Iranian news agency accused CNN of fabricating portions of Mr. Rouhani’s interview, saying he had not used the word Holocaust or characterized the Nazi mass murder as “reprehensible.” Mr. Rouhani spoke in Persian; officials at CNN said they used an interpreter provided by the Iranian government for the interview, which was conducted by Christiane Amanpour.

The dispute over his comments reflects the extreme delicacy of the Holocaust as an issue in Iranian-American relations. More broadly, it speaks to the political tightrope Mr. Rouhani is walking, trying to negotiate a nuclear deal with the United States that will ease sanctions to please everyday Iranians, without provoking a backlash by hard-liners.

Such careful calculations prompted Mr. Rouhani to eschew a handshake with President Obama at the United Nations General Assembly. After weeks of conciliatory moves, including Iran’s freeing of political prisoners, Iranian and American officials said they believed Mr. Rouhani needed to placate hard-liners in Tehran, who would have bridled at images of an Iranian leader greeting an American president.

“Shaking hands with Obama would have won Rouhani huge points with the Iranian public, but it would have caused Iran’s hard-liners a conniption,” said Karim Sadjadpour, an expert on Iran at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Mr. Rouhani avoided other land mines at the United Nations. His comments to the General Assembly, though less inflammatory than those of Mr. Ahmadinejad, touched on similar themes and grievances: the lack of respect for Iran, the West’s refusal to recognize its right to enrich uranium, and the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory.

But when Mr. Rouhani sat down later with Ms. Amanpour, he moved into fraught territory. Asked whether he shared his predecessor’s belief that the Holocaust was a myth, Mr. Rouhani replied, according to CNN’s translation, that he would leave it to historians to judge the “dimensions of the Holocaust.”

But he added, “In general, I can tell you that any crime or — that happens in history against humanity, including the crime that the Nazis committed towards the Jews, as well as non-Jewish people — is reprehensible and condemnable, as far as we are concerned.”

The Iranian news agency Fars, which has ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, posted its own translation of Mr. Rouhani’s answer, and claimed that he did not use the word “reprehensible” and that he said historians should be left to judge “historical events,” not “the Holocaust.”

That translation resembles more closely the way Mr. Ahmadinejad used to discuss the issue. In an interview with CNN in 2012, he said: “Whatever event has taken place throughout history, or hasn’t taken place, I cannot judge that. Why should I judge that?”

In what appeared to be an effort to head off criticism of Mr. Rouhani, Iran’s official Islamic Republic News Agency reported Wednesday that the chief of staff of Iran’s armed forces, Maj. Gen. Hassan Firouzabadi, said the president had presented Iran’s clear and revolutionary stands in his United Nations speech.

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s refusal to recognize the Holocaust became a symbol of Tehran’s implacable hostility. For Israel, it is evidence that Iran is bent on its elimination, and this is why Israel is so determined to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.

While American Jewish leaders characterized Mr. Rouhani’s remarks as a modest step forward, they remained deeply skeptical of Iran’s intentions and its readiness to abandon its nuclear ambitions.

“Assuming the accuracy of the translation, for me his comments are duly noted,” said David Harris, the executive director of the American Jewish Committee. “But he’s only acknowledging, and rather belatedly, the universally acknowledged truth of the last 70 years. That does not warrant a standing ovation.”

Israeli officials reject Mr. Rouhani’s claim that the factual details of the Holocaust are a matter best left to historians. In fact, some analysts say, even raising doubts about the scope of the genocide is itself a form of Holocaust revisionism.

A statement issued last week by the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared, “It does not take a historian to recognize the existence of the Holocaust — it just requires being a human being.”

Mr. Netanyahu, rattled by Mr. Obama’s desire to engage Iran, has warned that Mr. Rouhani, with his professorial demeanor and moderate tone, is a wolf in sheep’s clothing. Yet Iran’s hard-liners, Mr. Sadjadpour said, “probably view him as sheep in wolf’s clothing.”

The complex political crosscurrents were on display in the Iranian news media’s coverage of Mr. Rouhani’s day at the United Nations. A reformist newspaper, Shargh, published pictures of Mr. Rouhani and Mr. Obama during their speeches, with the headline “Perhaps Another Time” — a reflection of the letdown among average Iranians about the missed opportunity for a handshake.

But another paper, Kayhan, which is close to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei expressed horror over the possibility that “the clean hand of our president would for moments be in the bloody clench” of Mr. Obama.

Advisers and analysts close to the government in Tehran said that after weeks of conciliatory statements and gestures by Mr. Rouhani, the excitement had gotten out of hand.

“We need to gain something from the Americans, before we pose and smile with them,” said Hamid-Reza Taraghi, an official who is one of the few trusted to interpret the speeches of Ayatollah Khamenei. “Of course, Mr. Rouhani also needed to convince some at home that he is not making any wild moves.”

Mr. Rouhani himself suggested that a meeting would have been premature and might actually have jeopardized the longer-term goal of striking an agreement on the nuclear program. Speaking to editors and columnists in New York on Wednesday, he said, “I believe we did not have enough time to make it happen.”

“If we do not take our first steps carefully,” he said, “we may not at the very least be able to obtain mutual goals that are in our minds.”

White House officials, though deflated, said Mr. Rouhani’s decision showed he is an astute political player who knows how to calm hard-liners at home while charming audiences abroad. Those are skills they say he will need to navigate the treacherous waters of Iranian politics.

“The issue of the relationship between the United States and Iran is incredibly controversial within Iran,” said a senior administration official. “For them it was just too difficult to move forward with that type of encounter at the presidential level, at this juncture.”

Skeptical Netanyahu knows he’s ‘spoiling the party’ on Iran | The Times of Israel.

PM doesn’t want anyone easing the pressure until there’s real change in Tehran’s nuclear program. But it’s a stance that isolating Israel, while Rouhani leads his country in from the cold

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during a meeting with French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius at the Prime Minister’s Residence in Jerusalem, August 25, 2013 (photo credit: Marc Israel Sellem/Pool/Flash90)

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his ministers aren’t alone in their skepticism of Tehran’s newly friendly face. But Jerusalem’s refusal to consider giving the Iranians a chance to prove their sincerity, and to do as little as possible to acknowledge the ostensible goodwill gestures — as underlined by the Israeli delegation solo boycott of President Hasan Rouhani’s UN speech on Tuesday — threatens to isolate Israel rather than the Islamist foe it so mistrusts.

Jerusalem is well aware of this. Netanyahu knows he’s “spoiling the party,” an official told The Times of Israel with striking candor. But the prime minister, said the official, sees a “moral obligation” in insisting that Iran be measured by deeds not speeches, in urging the world not to be misled by empty rhetoric.

The Iranian charm offensive has been gathering momentum since Rouhani was elected in June. It has included ostensible respect for Jewish sensitivities, featuring Rosh Hashanah greetings from Rouhani or his Twitter managers. More substantively, it saw (quickly denied) reports last week that Iran might be prepared to close its underground enrichment facility in Fordo.

And on Tuesday, the outreach became an onslaught. In his first appearance at the United Nations General Assembly, Rouhani sought to woo the world with a brief, direct speech in which he used the word “peace” 19 times (and mentioned the Torah). Soon afterwards, in a CNN interview, he starkly separated himself still further from his easy-to-demonize predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, by acknowledging the Holocaust, though not its scope, and condemning it.

Much of the international community, though wary of Iran’s new outreach, is “tired of war” as Rouhani put it, and therefore willing to wait and see if Tehran will take actions to match its president’s new fine words. France’s president met with him on Tuesday; America’s would have done.

During his speech, before he had even heard Rouhani’s conciliatory address, indeed, President Barack Obama signalized readiness to engage with Rouhani’s government, speaking of the imperative to test the preferred diplomatic route to thwarting Iran’s nuclear weapons drive. Secretary of State John Kerry is scheduled to meet his Iranian counterpart, Mohammad Javad Zarif, on Thursday, the first meeting at that level in three decades.

But for all that readiness to engage, Obama also declared that Washington “will not tolerate the development or use of weapons of mass destruction” and clarified that he is “determined to prevent [the Iranians] from developing a nuclear weapon.” The US is prepared “to use all elements of our power, including military force,” to secure its interests in the Middle East, he stressed.

Likewise, British Foreign Secretary William Hague, who on Monday met Zarif, said that while London is “open to better relations” with Tehran, the Iranians’ ostensible change of heart must be tested. “The time is now right for those statements [from Iran’s leaders] to be matched by concrete steps by Iran to address the international community’s concerns about Iran’s intentions.”

Germany, too, plainly remains thoroughly cautious. Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, who met Rouhani in New York, said Berlin would use the upcoming nuclear negotiations with the Iranians “to test if recent statements are rhetorical or could lead to action.”

Only Israel has made up its mind, with Netanyahu adamant that Rouhani’s comments and tone are disingenuous, “hypocritical,” “cynical” — designed solely to buy time while Iran inches toward the bomb.

Before Rouhani had even spoken, Netanyahu was declaring that he wouldn’t be fooled by Iran’s “smokescreen” and urging the world not to be fooled either. In a video statement after Obama’s speech, the prime minister, quoting the US president, said he too would “welcome a genuine diplomatic solution that truly dismantles Iran’s capacity to develop nuclear weapons.” His emphasis was on the words “genuine” and “truly,” and he uttered them in tones that bespoke his immense skepticism.

The decision to then order out the members of Israel’s UN delegation meant Netanyahu was dismissing Rouhani’s rhetoric before even hearing it. And he justified the move as soon as Rouhani had finished his address because, he said, for them to have stayed “would have given legitimacy to a regime that does not accept that the Holocaust happened and publicly declares its desire to wipe Israel off the map.” As Israel’s prime minister, Netanyahu said, “I won’t allow the Israeli delegation to be part of a cynical public relations charade by a regime that denies that Holocaust and calls for our destruction.”

As it turned out, from the UN podium, Rouhani vowed that “Iran poses absolutely no threat to the world or the region,” and spoke of ways to go about “ensuring the legitimate rights of all countries in the world, including in the Middle East.” And no sooner was he finished at the General Assembly than he was heading off to tell CNN that “any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime the Nazis created towards the Jews, is reprehensible and condemnable.”

Some analysts had felt the Iranians’ refusal to acknowledge the Holocaust might be the last ace up Netanyahu’s sleeve, as ostensibly peace-loving Rouhani conquered the hearts and minds of the international community. Iran’s enriching uranium and sponsoring terrorism – these are issues that Western countries, especially those that believe they can remain unaffected, think they can live with. But Holocaust denial is a universal red flag.

Netanyahu did not immediately comment on Rouhani’s Holocaust remarks, but his loyal Minister of Intelligence, Yuval Steinitz, was reduced to complaining that Rouhani “didn’t condemn those who have denied” the Holocaust. Deputy Foreign Minister Ze’ev Elkin opined that just because the Iranian president recognized the Shoah, didn’t mean the Islamic Republic is “enlightened and cultivated,” since “Iranian spiritual leaders who have denied the Holocaust are still in place.” Is it Israel or Iran that looks small-minded after those comments? Who seems magnanimous and who petty?

Israel’s position was set out by Netanyahu before Rouhani went to New York and it evidently remains unchanged: unless or until Iran fulfills Israel’s four conditions — halting uranium enrichment, removing already enriched material, shutting down the Fordo facility and discontinuing the plutonium track – there should be no easing the pressure on the regime.

“The prime minister is aware that he’s spoiling the party,” the Israeli official told The Times of Israel, referring to Jerusalem’s insistent skepticism in face of the world’s cautious optimism. “Many people in the international community want to believe in Rouhani’s charm offensive. But the prime minister believes firmly that we haven’t seen change of substance. And he will make his case even if there are those who believe that he’s spoiling the party, even if he risks sounding like a broken record. He believes that’s his moral obligation.”

Maybe so. But so long as Jerusalem holds to that line, its isolation is likely to grow, and Iran’s supporters will be able to depict the Jewish state as the intransigent party.

As Obama showed on Tuesday, it is possible to welcome Iran’s overtures without compromising on core demands, and even without taking the military option off the table, in the likely case that Tehran fails to live up to the expectations its new president is raising.

US renews global terror alert | The Times of Israel.

State Department urges ‘worldwide caution’ in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East, following devastating Kenya attacks

Police stop cars at a checkpoint near the US embassy in Sanaa, Yemen, Tuesday, Aug. 6, 2013. (photo credit: AP/Hani Mohammed)

NEW YORK — The State Department renewed its global terrorism alert for US citizens following the attack by al-Qaeda linked extremists on an upscale shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya.

In a new “worldwide caution” issued Wednesday, the department said it continued to be concerned about threats to US citizens and interests in Europe, Asia, Africa and the Middle East. It said attackers could use a variety of tactics, including suicide operations, assassinations, kidnappings, hijackings and bombings.

It said potential targets could be high-profile sporting events, residential areas, business offices, hotels, clubs, restaurants, places of worship, schools, public areas, shopping malls and other tourist destinations where Americans gather in large numbers.

The new warning follows the Nairobi mall attack in which at least 67 people, including 18 foreigners, died.

Earlier this month, Taliban militants in Afghanistan unleashed a series of car bombs at the US consulate in Herat, triggering a firefight with security forces that killed two Afghans and wounded over a dozen people

In August, the US shut down 19 embassies and diplomatic posts in 16 countries across the Middle East, Africa and Asia for several days due to terrorist threat. The US Embassy in Israel was included in that list for a short time.

An intercepted message between al-Qaeda officials about plans for a major terror attack triggered the closures.

Trouble at the core of U.S. foreign policy – The Washington Post.

( The bottom line on the impact of Obama’s speech at the UN. – JW )

By Editorial Board, Thursday, September 26, 2:24 AM

IN HIS second inaugural address, President Obama delivered a ringing pledge of U.S. support for American ideals around the world. “We will support democracy from Asia to Africa, from the Americas to the Middle East,” he promised, “because our interests and our conscience compel us to act on behalf of those who long for freedom.”

Just eight months later, the idealism is gone. In what may be the most morally crimped speech by a president in modern times, Mr. Obama explicitly ruled out the promotion of liberty as a core interest of the United States. Instead, he told the U.N. General Assembly on Tuesday, America’s core interests consist of resisting aggression against allies; protecting the free flow of energy; dismantling terrorist networks “that threaten our people” and stopping the development and use of weapons of mass destruction.

No president should cite democracy promotion as the United States’s only core interest or even, invariably, its first priority. A superpower always must juggle competing concerns of security and commerce. But has a president ever boasted that promoting democracy will not be a core interest? To say that America cares more about the flow of oil than the rights of men and women is to diminish the U.S. soldiers and diplomats who have sacrificed to far higher purpose than Mr. Obama would acknowledge. It is to cede the exceptionalism argument to Vladi­mir Putin.

In his speech, Mr. Obama said that America’s core interests are not “our only interests” and that the United States “will continue to promote democracy and human rights and open markets, because we believe these practices achieve peace and prosperity.” Presidents from Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy to Ronald Reagan have promoted these “practices” not just to “achieve peace and prosperity,” as Mr. Obama said, but because they believed deeply that every human being has an inalienable right to live in freedom and dignity and that the United States is uniquely positioned to help other people achieve those rights.

As a practical matter, if a president signals that democracy is not a core interest, if it ranks fifth or lower on his list of priorities, it won’t be promoted at all. Mr. Obama made that clear in his discussion of Egypt’s military government, which, since overthrowing a democratically elected government, has slaughtered hundreds and stifled freedom of the press and association. Mr. Obama noted that “we have not proceeded with the delivery of certain military systems,” but he reassured the generals that the United States will continue working with them on “core interests like the Camp David accords and counterterrorism.” The president insisted that “we will not stop asserting principles that are consistent with our ideals.” But if the generals know that those principles don’t count among U.S. “core interests,” why would they pay any attention to Mr. Obama’s “assertions”?

Mr. Obama may believe that minimizing values in foreign relations is tough-minded and realistic. In fact, it can only diminish U.S. influence, including in matters that he defines as core. “It was not all that long ago that farmers in Venezuela and Indonesia welcomed American doctors to their villages and hung pictures of JFK on their living room walls,” Mr. Obama wrote as a presidential candidate in 2007. “We can be this America again.”

He was right. We could be that America again — but not by cherishing oil over liberty.

Read more about this topic: Hilary Krieger: The blurred focus of Obama’s U.N. diplomacy Jennifer Rubin: Obama at the United Nations David Ignatius: Obama lays groundwork for diplomacy with Iran

Iran’s Rouhani says he seeks nuclear deal with West in 3-6 months | JPost | Israel News.