Archive for the ‘Supreme Leader’ category

« WarSclerotic home page
Newer Entries »

Obama’s Parallel Universe

November 26, 2014

Obama’s Parallel Universe, Front Page Magazine, , November 26, 2014

obama_iran_0117-383x350

[T]here is not a single aspect of Iran’s nuclear program that has stopped advancing. On the contrary, they are making progress by leaps and bounds.

******************

You’ve got to hand it to Obama. He is no slouch when it comes to redefining reality.

He can look at an elephant and proclaim it a donkey without a bat of the eye. Or in the case of Iran, look at spinning centrifuges and see no threat.

Over the weekend he told George Stephanapolous that the nuclear deal with Iran, which his negotiators extended for another eight months on Monday without a single concession from Iran, has “definitely stopped Iran’s nuclear program from advancing.”

Welcome to Obama’s Parallel Universe.

Iran continues to spin centrifuges and expand its stockpiles of enriched uranium. It continues to develop new generations of centrifuges that will allow Iran to race to the bomb five times faster than it can today. As we learned earlier this month, the International Atomic Energy Agency even found that Iran was feeding uranium gas into some of these new generation centrifuges in violation of the interim nuclear deal. The U.S. declined to call out the Iranians for cheating.

Iran also continues work on the plutonium bomb plant at Arak, rather than dismantling it as the U.S. initially demanded. It continues to deny full scope inspections and to refuse inquiries from the IAEA to explain its past nuclear weapons-related activities, without which the United States and its allies cannot map the full scope of the Iranian program or verify it.

In fact, there is not a single aspect of Iran’s nuclear program that has stopped advancing. On the contrary, they are making progress by leaps and bounds.

When Stephanapolous played the sceptic and asked Obama whether he could get the deal through Congress, Obama said he was “confidant that if we reach a deal that is verifiable and assures that Iran does not have breakout capacity, not only can I persuade Congress but I can persuade the American people that it’s the right thing to do.”

The problem is, no one believes that is what this deal will accomplish, including the French and German foreign ministers who took part in the months-long farce in Vienna, Austria that gave birth to yet another extension of talks.

Former CIA Director General Michael Hayden told Congress last week that without an “invasive inspections regime” attached to any deal, “I am unwilling to guarantee American intelligence can sufficiently verify the agreement on its own.”

That’s a pretty damning admission. Given the track record so far – massive U.S. and Western concessions on sanctions relief and enrichment, and no meaningful concessions on Iran’s side – it’s unlikely such an inspection regime will ever exist.

Former U.S. Ambassador Eric Edelman told a Washington, DC conference last week that the Western powers have been in “serial retreat” on their negotiating demands toward Iran since the EU-3 first started unsuccessful talks in 2003.

At the start of the current process, one year ago, Secretary of State John Kerry was still talking about “dismantling” Iran’s centrifuge enrichment program.

But in the first stage of talks, the P5+1 (US., UK, France, Russia, China + Germany) swept that demand off the table, caving into Iran’s demand that the great powers recognize a supposed “right to enrich,” which I and others argue Iran forfeited in the mid-2000s when the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions condemning Iran for violating its commitments under the Nonproliferation treaty.

Why would Iran agree to make meaningful concessions when the United States continues to back off its demands and to throw away its trump card: the complex tissue of U.S. and multilateral sanctions that had crippled Iran’s economy and brought it to the negotiating table in the first place?

The Economist published a series of revealing economic charts on the impact of the Iran sanctions in its November 1st edition, drawing on sources from the Economist Intelligence Unit, the Energy Information Administration, the Statistical Centre of Iran, and the Central Bank of Iran.

Once crippling oil and financial sanctions imposed in 2010-2011 began to kick in, Iran’s economy went into a freefall. Iran’s GDP has been gradually expanding for several years. In 2012, the economy went into full recession, retracting by 6%. Consumer prices skyrocketed by 40%, as did the youth unemployment rate. Vehicle production plunged, the currency collapsed, while both imports and exports declined dramatically.

By all accounts, the halving of Iran’s oil exports – a much greater impact than most analysts had expected – resulted in bringing Iran to the table.

But now, all of that is changing.

Mark Dubowitz, of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, estimates that real sanctions relief over the first year of negotiations was close to $20 billion – far more than the administration has claimed.

“The Geneva process has turned around Iran’s economy,” he told a Washington, DC conference last week. As a result, “their nuclear intransigence has increased, not decreased.”

Former IAEA nuclear safeguards chief Olli Heinonen told the same conference that the negotiations were “rewarding Iran for its past bad behavior,” and set a “bad example for future proliferators.”

The Iranians “will just lie their faces off to get a bomb,” Senator Mark Kirk (R,IL) added.

On Monday, Secretary of State John Kerry declared in Vienna that a final agreement, to be negotiated in the coming months, would “close off all the pathways for Iran to get fissile material for a nuclear weapon.”

The formula was designed to meet a key criterion set down by Democrats in the House and Senate, such as Florida Rep. Ted Deutch, who agree with their Republican colleagues that Congress must set a high threshhold for what an acceptable deal must look like.

For these security-minded Democrats, an acceptable nuclear deal “must dismantle Iran’s centrifuge program to prevent Iran from becoming a threshold nuclear state, create robust verification and monitoring mechanisms to prevent undetectable breakout, force Iran to come clean on its past nuclear activities including possible military dimensions and cover a long enough duration that the regime won’t simply ‘wait it out.’”

If a deal along these lines cannot be reached, “Congress must make clear to Iran that sanctions will be ratcheted up dramatically at the end of the extension period,” he added.

The problem is, Obama has no intention of letting that happen, and has made it clear he will remove additional sanctions by the stroke of his Executive Order pen or by issuing waivers to legislative sanctions. (On pages 5-7 of his excellent testimony before Congress last week, FDD’s Dubowitz outlines “the administration’s plan to circumvent Congress” through executive branch sanctions relief).

Die-hard Obama loyalists in Congress, such as Virginia Democrat Gerry Connolly, argue that a bad nuclear agreement is better than no agreement. “Beware making the perfect the enemy of the good,” he said last week. “Without an agreement, we are condemning the world to a conflict with Iran.”

That in the end is Obama’s hammer. He will accuse anyone who opposes his massive concessions to Iran as a war-mongerer – a charge that Rep. Ted Deutch has tried to tackle head on. “Those who oppose a bad deal do not support a ‘march to war,’ but refuse an agreement that allows Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon,” he said.

Want to bet what Obama will be saying about him when he and Kerry finally reveal the terms of the bad deal they want Congress to approve? “They’ve red-teamed this. They will paint their opponents as war-mongers,” Dubowitz says.

Get ready to enter Obama’s parallel universe.

Like Hassan ibn Saba, leader of the 11th century hashish cult fictionalized by novelist Vladimir Bartol, Obama believes himself to be a master of illusion. If you can make people believe the illusion, then the illusion becomes reality. Perception is everything.

So here we go. Obama wants us to watch his hands and repeat after him: Iran is not a threat. We have stopped Iran’s nuclear weapons development. Iran is our ally against ISIS. Iran is a rational regime.

It’s up to us and to Congress to break the spell. Don’t look at his hands but at the fire burning just behind him.

Categories: IAEI, Intelligence, Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Supreme Leader
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 8 Comments

McCain: Failed Korea Nuke Negotiators Now Bringing You Iran Talks

November 24, 2014

McCain: Failed Korea Nuke Negotiators Now Bringing You Iran Talks, National Review, Michael Auslin, November 24, 2014

Halifax — As news spreads that the failed Iranian nuclear talks require a second extension, this time for seven-months, U.S. officials at an international security conference here essentially admitted that North Korea was now a nuclear power, underscoring the failure of decades of high-level diplomacy. Yet the White House is doubling-down on its equally suspect negotiations with Tehran.

General Charles H. Jacoby, outgoing commander of U.S. Northern Command and NORAD, told the Halifax International Security Forum that he was treating North Korea as a “practical threat” due to its nuclear and ballistic missile capability that could potentially reach the U.S. homeland. Jacoby did not specify whether this meant that North Korea’s missiles and nukes were an operational threat, nor how he had changed NORAD’s operating posture, if at all. Admiral Cecil Haney, commander of U.S. Strategic Command (in control of all of America’s nuclear weapons), refused to answer whether he also considered Pyongyang a practical threat, but noted that he wanted more focus on trying to understand North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un. The generals’ comments came just weeks after General Curtis Scaparotti, commander of U.S. Forces Korea, testified before Congress that he believed Pyongyang could build a nuclear warhead and mount it on a ballistic missile.

There is little doubt that America’s policy towards North Korea has failed, and that Pyongyang has played Democratic and Republican administrations alike, promising concessions, making agreements, and playing for time. Time enough to be close to a nuclear break out, which may be imminent. When Pyongyang mates a functional nuclear warhead with a reliable long-range or intercontinental ballistic missile, then two things will happen: first, the nuclear balance in Asia will tip, second, the Iranians will be opening their checkbooks immediately for access to both technologies. Above all, Japan will begin thinking seriously about either dramatically expanding its strike capabilities or maybe even its own nuclear deterrent. After all, given that two decades of American diplomacy resulted in a rogue regime with nukes, how much can the U.S. nuclear umbrella be trusted? Will Washington really be willing to trade Los Angeles for Tokyo? Our ally won’t admit it publicly, but highly doubts it.

To paraphrase: Diplomacy has consequences. Unfortunately, it seems that Washington doesn’t quite get that. Instead, the dialogue dependency trap continues to ensnare our top officials, who convince themselves that talking is always better than the opposite, that rationality and self-interest will ultimately win out. That’s probably true, but the Obama administration’s problem (like the Bush administration’s) is that they don’t understand North Korean concepts of self-interest. Hence, an Asia about to get much more dangerous.

The real dangers of our failed diplomacy were summed up by Senator John McCain in Halifax, who bluntly stated that the North Koreans have nuclear weapons and delivery systems. “It’s a wake up call,” said McCain, who topped it off by looking at the greater danger of Iran. “The same people who negotiated with North Korea are now negotiating with the Iranians,” McCain explained, likely referring to Acting Deputy Secretary of State and Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman. Sherman, who is lead negotiator for the flailing Iranian talks, was the point person for talks with the North Koreans back in the Clinton administration, under Madeleine Albright. If McCain is right, then expect years more of failed negotiations and a nuclear Iran sometime this decade or next.

Categories: Iran, Iran scam, Iranian nukes, McCain, Obama, P5+1, Supreme Leader
Tags: , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

[Satire] Iran’s Letter to Obama: Thanks for the Nukes!

November 15, 2014

Iran’s Letter to Obama: Thanks for the Nukes! Israel Today, Noah Beck, November 14, 2014

131015_iran

Dear President Obama,

You’ve been a great friend for the last six years and, to express our appreciation, we’d like to acknowledge some of your many helpful actions:

1) In 2009, our presidential election results were so dubious that millions of brave, pro-democracy protesters risked their lives to demonstrate throughout our country. When our Basij paramilitary force brutalized them, you kept your response irrelevantly mild for the sake of “engaging” us. That surely helped Iranians understand the risks of protesting our “free” election of 2012 (involving our eight handpicked candidates). It was indeed a very orderly rubberstamp.

2) After eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, we KNEW you’d fall for the smiles of his successor, President Hassan Rouhani! Human rights abuses have actually worsened under his rule and his polished charm only makes him better at duping the world into acquiescing to our nukes, so we LOVE how you’ve overlooked these facts.

3) You’ve been unilaterally weakening the sanctions against us by simply not enforcing them (which reassures us that you’re desperate to avoid any real confrontation).

4) You’ve threatened to thwart any Congressional attempt to limit your nuclear generosity by simply lifting sanctions without Congressional approval. Good stuff!

5) You isolated Israel on the issue of how close we are to a nuclear capability – we love how your estimates are so much laxer than theirs are!

6) The diplomatic snubs and betrayals of Israel by your administration have been EPIC. We couldn’t have asked for more – from your humiliation of Prime Minister Netanyahu in 2010, to Secretary of State John Kerry’s betrayal of Israel during Operation Protective Edge, to calling Netanyahu a “chickenshit” a few weeks ago, without even apologizing later. We found it hilariously ironic that your administration’s accusation of Israeli cowardice was made anonymously! And, FYI, Netanyahu is actually the only leader in the world with the guts to defy us, respond to Syrian border violations, enforce his own declared lines, etc., so we thought that this was particularly priceless.

7) Speaking of enforcing red lines, we LOVE how you backed off yours, after our Syrian buddy, Basher Assad, used chemical weapons on his own people. That was a very helpful signal to everyone that we need not take your threats too seriously (contrary to those scary words you issued in 2012 about how stopping our nukes militarily was still an option, unlike containment, and how you don’t bluff). But we understood back then that you were trying to get re-elected, so we didn’t take it personally.

8) It was adorably naive of you (in 2011) to request so politely that we give back your drone that went down on Iranian soil. In fact, your request was so quaint that we couldn’t resist recently showcasing our knock-off based on that drone.

9) Fortunately, you don’t take our Supreme Leader Khamenei seriously when he tweets out his plan for destroying Israel (why let our true motives get in the way of a fantastic nuclear deal, right)?

10) We LOVE how you obsess over Israel building apartments in Jerusalem because it’s the perfect distraction from our deal.

11) You’ve been pressuring Israel to retreat from more disputed territory, effectively rewarding Palestinians for launching the third missile war against Israel from Gaza in five years last summer and, more recently, the third Intifidah inside Israel in 17 years. You’re almost as awesome as the European appeasers who think Palestinian bellicosity merits statehood!

12) It’s so cute of you to write us these letters asking for help against ISIS and showing us how desperately you want a nuclear deal. All we had to do was hint at an ISIS-for-nukes exchange and you got so excited!

13) You’re smart to go behind everyone’s backs when dealing with us. That’s a bummer that your top aide, Ben Rhodes, was caught saying how a nuclear accord with us is as important to you as “healthcare.” But we’ve got the perfect slogan to sell our deal to Americans: “If you like your nukes, you can keep them.”

14) What’s really awesome about the deal that we’re “negotiating” is that it allows us to continue nuclear enrichment but makes it even harder for Israel to take any military action against our nuclear program. And our agreement will give the press even more ammunition against such an attack. We already know about the world media’s anti-Israel bias – they can’t even get a simple story about vehicular terrorism against Israelis correct. Even we were surprised at how The Guardian writes accurate headlines when Canada suffers an Islamist car attack but not when Israel does). So if you accept our nukes and Israel then attacks them, the media will be even harsher on Israel (even though the world will be silently relieved, if Israeli courage succeeds at neutralizing what scared everyone else).

But we kind of feel sorry for you, because nobody takes you seriously and you’re a lame duck now. Putin is unabashedly conquering neighboring countries while going all Cold War on you with 40 provocative security incidents involving Western nations and Russian flights into the Gulf of Mexico (despite your promise of greater flexibility after your 2012 reelection). The North Koreans are closer than ever to building nuclear missiles. China is dangerously testing disputed borders with India, growing increasingly assertive in the contested Spratly archipelago, and stealing your sensitive defense and corporate data. Oh, and ISIS has grown into a veritable jihadi lovefest thanks to your excellent strategy against them.

Indeed, your foreign policy seems like a massive FAIL, but we’re super ready to help! Your trusted Russian friends have suggested continuing our nuclear talks past the November 24th deadline, and we’re totally down with more enrichment time (that’s another reason we’ve stonewalled the IAEA’s investigations into our nukes), so count us in on this extension like the one from last July (and any future ones). Hey, it’s good for you too: an extension (or agreement) looks so much better than calling out our manipulations and issuing more empty threats to stop us, right?

And after everyone sees the killer deal that you’re giving us, the world’s bad actors will line up to talk to you, with demands of their own that you can try to satisfy in the hope that they’ll stop opposing your national interests so much.

Overall, we appreciate you even more than we did President Carter, because getting nukes is WAY COOLER than holding 52 American diplomats and citizens hostage for 444 days.

With our deepest gratitude,

Your Friends in the Iranian Regime

p.s. We’re glad you didn’t take any personal offense when one of our officials used the N-word to describe you back in 2010. He actually has nothing but respect for you, as do we.

Noah Beck is the author of The Last Israelis, an apocalyptic novel about Iranian nukes and other geopolitical issues in the Middle East.

Categories: Humor, Iran, Islamic State, Israel, Middle East, Netanyahu, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Palestinians, Rouhani, Supreme Leader
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: 4 Comments

Iran Nuclear Talks and North Korean Flashbacks

November 7, 2014

Iran Nuclear Talks and North Korean Flashbacks, Forbes, Claudia Rosett, November 7, 2014

(During Clinton’s efforts to achieve detente with North Korea, Wendy Sherman found hope for change — for the better —  in every hostile utterance from NK leaders. Now she is Obama’s boot on the ground in the P5+1 negotiations with Iran. What can possibly go right wrong? — DM)

Now, in the Obama administration’s increasingly desperate quest for an Iran deal, comes news that President Obama is proposing to Iran’s Khamenei, ruler of the world’s leading terror-sponsoring state, that Iran and the U.S. cooperate to fight the terrorists of ISIS. This has a familiar ring. Back in 2000, the visit of North Korea’s Vice Marshal Jo to the White House was preceded, shortly beforehand, by a “Joint U.S.-D.P.R.K. Statement on International Terrorism,” in which both the U.S. and North Korea agreed that “international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global peace and security.” Apparently this was all part of the negotiating process of finding common ground. What could go wrong? Not that anyone should pin all this on Wendy Sherman, who is just one particularly active cog in the Washington negotiating machine. But there’s a familiar script playing out here. It does not end well.

*****************

With the Iran nuclear talks nearing a Nov. 24 deadline for a deal, U.S. chief negotiator Wendy Sherman is under pressure to bring almost a year of bargaining to fruition. While U.S. policy rests ultimately with President Obama, and the most prominent American face in these talks is now that of Secretary of State John Kerry, the hands-on haggling has been the domain of Sherman. On the ground, she has been chief choreographer of the U.S. negotiating team. The President has been pleased enough with her performance to promote her last week from Under Secretary to Acting Deputy Secretary of State.

The talks themselves have been doing far less well, marked by Iranian demands and U.S. concessions. This summer the U.S. and its negotiating partners agreed to extend the original July deadline until November. Tehran’s regime, while enjoying substantial relief from sanctions, is refusing to give up its ballistic missile program and insisting on what Tehran’s officials have called their country’s “inalienable right” to enrich uranium.

The Obama administration badly wants a deal. This week The Wall Street Journal reported that last month Obama wrote a secret letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, which “appeared aimed both at buttressing the campaign against Islamic State and nudging Iran’s religious leader closer to a nuclear deal.” Speaking to reporters in Paris this week about the Iran nuclear negotiations, Kerry said “We believe it is imperative for a lot of different reasons to get this done.”

So, now that crunch time has arrived, what might we expect? If precedent is any guide, it’s worth revisiting Sherman’s record from her previous bout as a lead negotiator, toward the end of the second term of the Clinton administration. Back then, Sherman was trying to clinch an anti-proliferation missile deal with another rogue despotism, North Korea.

That attempt failed, but only after then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, together with Sherman, had dignified North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Il with a visit to Pyongyang in late October, 2000. These American top diplomats brought Kim the gift of a basketball signed by one of his favorite players, Michael Jordan. Kim entertained them with a stadium display in which tens of thousands of North Koreans used flip cards to depict the launch of a long-range missile.

Less well remembered was the encounter shortly before Albright’s trip to Pyongyang, in which the State Department hosted a visit to Washington, Oct. 9-12 of 2000, by one of the highest ranking military officials in North Korea, Vice Marshal Jo Myong Rok. The centerpiece of Jo’s trip was a 45-minute face-to-face meeting at the White House, in the Oval Office, with President Clinton. It was historic, it was the first time an American president had met with an official of North Korea’s totalitarian state.

And it was a deft piece of extortion by North Korea, which had parlayed its missile program — including its missile trafficking to the Middle East, and its 1998 test-launch of a missile over Japan — into this lofty encounter in which the U.S. superpower was pulling out all the stops in hope of cutting a deal before Clinton’s second term expired in Jan., 2001. By 2000 (or, by some accounts, earlier) the Clinton administration was also seeing signs that North Korea was cheating on a 1994 denuclearization arrangement known as the Agreed Framework. Eight months before Jo arrived in Washington, Clinton had been unable to confirm to Congress that North Korea had abandoned its pursuit of a nuclear weapons program. Nonetheless, Jo’s visit rolled ahead, with Sherman enthusing in advance to the press that “Chairman Kim Jong Il has clearly made a decision — personally — to send a special Envoy to the United States to improve relations with us.”

Officially, Jo was hosted in Washington by Albright. But it was Sherman, then the Special Advisor to the President and Secretary of State for North Korea Policy, who orchestrated the events, squired Jo around Washington and briefed the press. It was Sherman who had helped prepare the way while accompanying her predecessor, the previous North Korea policy coordinator and former defense secretary, William Perry, on a trip to North Korea in 1999.

Jo arrived in Washington on Oct. 9, staying at the venerable Mayflower Hotel, where Sherman went to greet him. The next morning Jo and his delegation began their rounds with a courtesy call on Albright at the State Department. Then, before heading to the White House, Jo engaged in a symbolically freighted act. According to an account published some years later in the Washington Post by the senior State Department Korean language interpreter, Tong Kim, who was present for the occasion: “The marshal arrived in Washington in a well-tailored suit, but before going to the White House, he asked for a room at the State Department, where he changed into his mustard-colored military uniform, with lines of heavy medals hanging on the jacket, and donned an impressive military hat with a thick gold band.” Perhaps it did not occur to anyone at the State Department that North Korea was still a hostile power, a brutal rogue state fielding one of the world’s largest standing armies, and that this donning of the uniform on State premises was not just a convenience, but an implied threat. Or perhaps the zealous hospitality of the occasion just over-rode any thought at all. In any event, it was in his uniform that Jo went from the State Department to the White House.

Following those meetings, Sherman briefed the press. She made a point of mentioning that Jo had worn a business suit to the State Department. but changed into full military uniform for his meeting with the President of the United States. Sherman chose to interpret Jo’s wardrobe change as happy evidence of North Korean diversity under Dear Leader Kim: “We think this is very important for American citizens to know that all segments of North Korea society, obviously led by Chairman Kim Chong-Il in sending this Special Envoy, are working to improve the relationship between the United States and North Korea and this is obviously an important message to the citizens of North Korea as well.”

Actually, there were substantial segments of North Korean society whose chief preoccupation was finding enough food to stay alive, toward the end of a 1990s famine in which an estimated one million or so had died — forbidden by Kim’s totalitarian state to enjoy even a hint of the freedom that had by then allowed their brethren in South Korea to join the developed world. This was known at the time, but did not figure in Sherman’s public remarks.

On the second evening of Jo’s Washington visit, Albright hosted a banquet for him and his delegation at the State Department. She welcomed the “distinguished group” to the “historic meeting,” and invited everyone to relax and get better acquainted. There was laughter and applause. Jo made a toast — a disturbing toast — in which he said there could be “friendship and cooperation and goodwill, if and when the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and our leadership is assured, is given the strong and concrete security assurances from the United States for the state sovereignty and the territorial integrity of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea.”

If the State Department’s chief North Korea policy coordinator, Wendy Sherman, noticed a problem with that toast, and its mention of territorial integrity, it seems she did nothing to alert the assembled American dignitaries. The crowd clapped and raised a toast to North Korea’s envoy. It was left to outside observers, such as American Enterprise Institute scholar and North Korea expert Nicholas Eberstadt, to point out, as Eberstadt stressed at an AEI forum in 2008, that North Korea lays claim to the entire Korean peninsula, including South Korea. “Take a look at the maps; take a look at the preamble to the Workers’ Party charter,” said Eberstadt; the real message is, “We can be friends with North Korea if we are willing to subsidize North Korean government behavior and throw South Korea into the bargain too, but that is a pretty high opening bid.”

Jo’s visit ended with a U.S.-D.P.R.K Joint Communique, full of talk about peace, security, transparency and access. There was no missile deal. Kim Jong Il wanted Clinton, leader of the free world, to come parley over missiles in totalitarian, nuclear-cheating Pyongyang. Clinton demurred. In late October, Albright and Sherman went instead. As the clock ticked down on the final weeks of the Clinton administration, Sherman reportedly traveled to Africa with a bag of cold-weather clothes, to be ready in the event of a last-minute summons to North Korea.

In 2001, President Bush was inaugurated. Sherman left the State Department, and soon afterward she wrote an Op-ed for The New York Times, headlined “Talking to the North Koreans.” Sherman noted that “Some are understandably concerned that a summit with President Bush would only legitimize the North Korean leader” — nonetheless, she urged Bush to try it. Bush tried confrontation in 2002 over North Korea’s nuclear cheating, followed by years of Sherman-style Six-Party Talks, including two agreements, in 2005 and 2007, which North Korea punctuated in 2006 with its first nuclear test, and has followed during Obama’s presidency with two more nuclear tests, in 2009 and 2013.

Vice-Marshal Jo died in 2010. Kim Jong Il died in 2011, and was succeeded by his son, current North Korean tyrant Kim Jong Un, whose regime carried out the 2013 nuclear test, and threatened earlier this year to conduct another. Wendy Sherman rejoined the State Department under Obama, and has moved on from wooing North Korea to the bigger and potentially far deadlier project of negotiating a nuclear deal with Iran. Considerable secrecy has surrounded many specifics of these talks, while Americans have been asked to trust that this is all for their own good. In a talk last month at Washington’s Center for Strategic and International Studies, Sherman said: “As Madeleine Albright once observed — a wonderful Secretary of State, a dear friend, and a business partner to boot at one point in my life — negotiations are like mushrooms, and often they do best in the dark.”

Now, in the Obama administration’s increasingly desperate quest for an Iran deal, comes news that President Obama is proposing to Iran’s Khamenei, ruler of the world’s leading terror-sponsoring state, that Iran and the U.S. cooperate to fight the terrorists of ISIS. This has a familiar ring. Back in 2000, the visit of North Korea’s Vice Marshal Jo to the White House was preceded, shortly beforehand, by a “Joint U.S.-D.P.R.K. Statement on International Terrorism,” in which both the U.S. and North Korea agreed that “international terrorism poses an unacceptable threat to global peace and security.” Apparently this was all part of the negotiating process of finding common ground. What could go wrong? Not that anyone should pin all this on Wendy Sherman, who is just one particularly active cog in the Washington negotiating machine. But there’s a familiar script playing out here. It does not end well.

Categories: Iran, Iranian nukes, Islamic State, Kerry, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Supreme Leader, Terrorism, Wendy Sherman
Tags: , , , , , ,

Comments: Be the first to comment

Iran’s Ideological Camp Fears The Possibility Of A Nuclear Agreement Between Iran And The P5+1, Warns Rohani Government

November 7, 2014

Iran’s Ideological Camp Fears The Possibility Of A Nuclear Agreement Between Iran And The P5+1, Warns Rohani Government, MEMRI, A. Savyon, Y. Mansharof, and E. Kharrazi, November 6, 2014

(What might Obama and Kerry give the “ideologues” to encourage them to board their ship of State, the BHO Titanic? — DM)

Kayhan: “In Negotiations That Could Take Place In 2024, Iran Will Undoubtedly Come To The Negotiating Table With Tens Of Thousands Of Centrifuges That Are More Advanced Than Those It Has Today”; The Nuclear Mushroom Yields Results Once In A Decade

“Under Section 125 of our constitution, international commitments must be approved by the Majlis. But unfortunately, the Majlis members are not being updated at all in the nuclear negotiations issue… Government actions that disregard Majlis opinion will cause future problems, and will cause [the Majlis] to reject agreements that are against the interest of the people – which will have direct repercussions for the negotiating team.”

Democrats in the White House will try to turn their defeat in the elections to their diplomatic advantage. Obama is like a gambler who has lost everything, and he is sending his representatives to the [negotiating] table with empty pockets…

****************

Introduction

Both the U.S. administration and Iran’s pragmatic camp were last week preparing public opinion in their respective countries for the possibility that a nuclear agreement will be reached between Iran and the P5+1 by the November 24, 2014 deadline.[1] According to the emerging contours of the agreement, Tehran will apparently be allowed to operate 4,000 to 6,000 first-generation centrifuges,[2] and in return, in a move that will not require Congressional approval, the U.S. administration will suspend American sanctions.

The pragmatic camp in Iran, headed by Hashemi Rafsanjani and his proxy President Hassan Rohani, is pressuring the White House to reach an agreement with Iran right now, and identifying President Obama as “the weakest American president.”[3] At the same time, this camp’s leaders are laying the groundwork for obtaining Iranian approval for an agreement.

On October 22, 2014, President Rohani emphasized the need for engaging and negotiating with the enemy, framing doing so as the lesson that should be taken from the Shi’ite legend of Karbala – in contrast to the interpretation of these events commonly accepted in Iran.[4] On October 27, the pragmatic camp’s main organ, the Jomhouri-ye Eslami daily, called on the ideological camp not to sabotage the emerging agreement, stressed that the agreement was within the red lines set out by Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and warned the Khamenei camp that it must not cause Iran to miss this golden opportunity.

Furthermore, on November 2, 2014, two days before the nation marked the anniversary of the 1979 seizure of the U.S. Embassy and capture of its staff in Tehran, which this year coincides with Iran’s Ashura rituals, Ali Khorram, senior advisor to Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, told the reformist pro-Rohani newspaper Shargh that U.S.-Iran relations are now no longer hostile, and are even “friendly.” He claimed there had been a change for the better in U.S. policy, that the two countries need not wait for Judgment Day to trust each other, and that the time had come for them to end the hostility between them. He also said that they had common interests in Iraq and Syria, and that the Americans considered the U.S. Embassy takeover an “old wound.”[5]

In contrast, the ideological camp is alarmed at the prospect of an imminent nuclear deal, voicing its apprehensions that the national interests of the regime would be damaged and that there would be a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. On October 28, 2014, the day after Jomhouri-ye Eslami called on the ideological camp to refrain from sabotaging the agreement, Majlis member Ali Reza Zakani urged the Iranian security apparatuses to intervene, and warned the negotiating team that it would bear responsibility for a “bad agreement” that both crossed the regime’s red lines and failed to completely lift the sanctions.

At the same time, the daily Kayhan, which is close to Khamenei, attacked the emerging agreement from two angles: First, the agreement crosses Khamenei’s red lines and fails to immediately lift all anti-Iran sanctions, and second, following the defeat for U.S. President Barack Obama in the November 4 midterm elections, Iran could, in another decade, according to the newspaper, come to a possible negotiating table as a nuclear power with tens of thousands of advanced-generation centrifuges. It urged the negotiating team not only to not be deterred by White House threats that once the newly elected Republicans take office the sanctions will be increased and thus Iran should sign an agreement now, but also that Iran must give the U.S. an ultimatum. The newspaper also warned of plots and of an organized scheme led by “the men of fitna” past and present – hinting at collaboration among pragmatic camp leaders Rafsanjani and Rohani and Green Movement leaders and former presidential candidates Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, both of whom have been under house arrest for several years for what the regime alleges was their role in the unrest of the 2009 presidential election. He was also hinting at coordination between them and the West, in order to anesthetize the public and Iran’s elites into inaction so that a nuclear agreement could be attained “no matter what the cost.” The paper also warned President Rohani to follow the orders issued by Khamenei on the nuclear negotiations, and even to refrain from talking with the U.S.

The website Afsaran, which is close to security circles, also expressed fears that Iranian negotiating team chief and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif – and by allusion his entire camp – is seeking to depose Khamenei by securing a nuclear deal with the U.S.

This paper will review the reaction of Iran’s ideological camp to the possibility of an Iran-P5+1 nuclear agreement:

The Pragmatic Camp: Laying The Groundwork For An Agreement, Urging Ideologues To Accept It

Rohani: From Imam Hussein And The Legend Of Karbala, We Learn We Must Engage And Negotiate

In his October 22, 2014 speech in Zanjan, in northwest Iran, Rohani called on the ideological camp to accept his camp’s policy of engaging the U.S., depicting the legend of Imam Hussein’s martyrdom at Karbala as a paradigm justifying negotiating with the enemy, rather than its customary interpretation of promoting martydom. He said: “The lesson and message of Imam Hussein is brotherhood, unity, forgiveness, [and] accepting the other’s side’s repentance. The lesson of Karbala is one of constructive engagement and negotiation, as part of the logic and the instructions [of the religion or the leader].”[6]

This statement provoked considerable criticism from the ideological camp, especially from Khamenei’s close associate and the editor of Kayhan, Hossein Shariatmadari. Shariatmadari accused Rohani of distorting the Karbala legend, stressing that that the only way to follow its example was to hold fast and to resist the oppressive enemies, even at the price of martyrdom in following God’s path.[7]

Jomhouri-ye Eslami: The Agreement’s Opponents Must Not Make Iran Miss This Chance To Resolve The Nuclear Issue

On October 27, 2014, Jomhouri-ye Eslami wrote: “For over a week, there have been positive reports from both within and without [Iran] about the progress in the Iran-P5+1 nuclear negotiations – within Iran, from statements [by officials from] President Rohani himself to the foreign minister and members of the negotiating team, and outside Iran from senior Russian, Chinese, German, French and American officials. All have emphasized the imminence of a comprehensive nuclear agreement signed by November 25…

“While it is true that there may be some changes in the decision before all members of the P5+1 sign the agreement, it is clear – and this must be noted – that there is practically zero disagreement [among the parties]. Thus, in contrast to what is depicted in the Iranian media, all the parties are more optimistic than ever that the agreement will be signed by November 25. Under the agreement, Iran is satisfied with regard to [what is agreed about] the sanctions, the centrifuges, the [uranium] enrichment, and the nuclear facilities; according to some conservative leaders, the agreement is a victory for Iran…

“Those within [Iran] who oppose the nuclear agreement must be aware of reality – this opportunity to resolve the issue must not be missed. This is because the agreement was drafted within the framework of [Iran’s] national interests and is within the red lines that were set out; also, as senior members of the negotiating team and President Rohani himself have emphasized several times, Iran will not back down one single inch from its [nuclear] right. Additionally, the entire Iranian nation desires to reach an agreement that [both] includes the nation’s right and conclusively resolves the nuclear issue. Therefore, everyone must work for the success of the negotiating team and must refrain from taking measures and from [disseminating] propaganda that will cause problems on this path.[8]

In Ideological Camp, Great Fear Of The Emerging Agreement

Majlis Member Zakani: The Agreement Crosses The Regime’s Red Lines; I Am Asking The Security Apparatuses To Act; The Negotiating Team Will Be Held Responsible

In an October 28, 2014 Majlis speech, Majlis member Ali Reza Zakani warned: “News is coming in that an agreement has been reached between Iran and America. According to this information, red lines set out by the Islamic regime are crossed in it. I hereby warn the foreign minister on the issue of the nuclear boundaries [i.e. red lines]…

“The silence of the country’s diplomatic apparatus in the face of the babbling of the American negotiation representative [Wendy Sherman] – [babbling that] constitutes a reiteration of their exaggerated declarations – is leading to impudence, greed, and nonsensical statements on the part of ‘the Great Satan,’ America.

“I see the campaign promoted by those connected to the nuclear dossier [i.e. Foreign Minister Zarif] that is called ‘any bad agreement is preferable to none at all’ as a humiliation, and I vigorously condemn it. I am asking the security apparatuses to clarify to the Iranian nation what is behind this.

“The news coming in attests that the red lines set out by the Islamic regime have been crossed in the agreement; this will undoubtedly lead to the loss of the Iranian nation’s rights and to the trampling of its nuclear achievements. Accepting the oppressive demands of the American side regarding cutbacks in our [uranium] enrichment, transforming the very essence of parts of our nuclear industry, in return for the lifting of a small part of the sanctions, is unacceptable to the Iranian nation, and will harm the national interests and the interests of the Islamic Revolution.

“Under Section 125 of our constitution, international commitments must be approved by the Majlis. But unfortunately, the Majlis members are not being updated at all in the nuclear negotiations issue… Government actions that disregard Majlis opinion will cause future problems, and will cause [the Majlis] to reject agreements that are against the interest of the people – which will have direct repercussions for the negotiating team.”[9]

21114November 2, 2014 on Tasnimnews.com, which is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC): “Kerry’s Greedy Declarations.” U.S. Secretary of State Kerry the eagle, who is sharpening his talons against the backdrop of an Israeli flag, says: “I am optimistic with regard to the nuclear agreement with Iran.”

Kayhan: “In Negotiations That Could Take Place In 2024, Iran Will Undoubtedly Come To The Negotiating Table With Tens Of Thousands Of Centrifuges That Are More Advanced Than Those It Has Today”; The Nuclear Mushroom Yields Results Once In A Decade

On November 6, 2014, two days after the Republicans swept the U.S. midterm elections, Kayhan wrote: “Obama is now at his lowest point of popularity since he was elected… At the last nuclear negotiating venue [in Oman, at the level of Foreign Minister Zarif, U.S. Secretary of State Kerry, and EU High Representative on Foreign Policy Catherine Ashton, November 9-10, 2014], the Democrats in the White House will try to turn their defeat in the elections to their diplomatic advantage. Obama is like a gambler who has lost everything, and he is sending his representatives to the [negotiating] table with empty pockets… Apparently, the White House emissaries will recommend to the Iranian team to sign the nuclear agreement as soon as possible, since if they do not, Congress will enter the arena with a stick, threats, and sanctions…

“The [negotiating] venue in Oman must be the place where the [Iranian team] gives the Americans a final ultimatum, instead of listening to their boasts… Recently, American negotiating team leader Wendy Sherman quoted former U.S. secretary of state Madeleine Albright as saying that negotiations are ‘like a mushroom that grows best in the dark.’ Soon the result of the[se] negotiations, which have been conducted in the dark for over a year, will become clear.

“The last time that Western [officials] tried to feed Iran this poison mushroom and to force it to submit to the American greed was a decade ago. Undoubtedly, the 2014 mushroom will contain poison that was concocted in 2003. This is because at that point in the negotiations [i.e. in 2003], Iran was operating very few centrifuges, while today it has some 20,000 centrifuges. The Americans need to know that in the most optimal situation [for them], the nuclear mushroom yields results once in a decade… In negotiations that could take place in 2024, Iran will undoubtedly come to the negotiating table with tens of thousands of centrifuges that are more advanced than those it has today.”[10]

Kayhan: Rafsanjani And Rohani Are Bringing Up Various Issues To Distract The Elites From The Upcoming Agreement

On October 28, 2014, Kayhan wrote: “In the Geneva agreements, we put on the table [i.e. we were forced to give up] the product of three years of [uranium] enrichment to 20%, and [agreed to accept] a freeze on activity at the Fordow [enrichment facility] and a halt to the operations to complete the Arak [heavy water] facility, in return for the release of some $7 billion in Iranian funds…

“During the four-month extension [of the Geneva document] we expanded this give-and-take – and now America covets another part of Iran’s assets, saying ‘close Fordow or turn it into a research center; cut back your reserves of enriched [material] to 3.5%, to a quantity that we will tell [you], and remove [it] from Iran; [and] shut down 5,400 of your9,400 operating centrifuges, etc., etc. In return, we will examine your intentions for a period of seven to 20 years, [so that we can ascertain] whether or not we can trust you, or for example, [in return for] our promise not to impose new sanctions.’ This is truly a win-win game and constructive engagement [a jibe at President Rohani].

“The question is, to what point and from what assets does the government intend to pay for this extension of the negotiations and the incremental freeze [on Iran’s nuclear activity]?… When [Iran’s] nuclear technology peaked, Rafsanjani, Rohani, and even [Mir Hossein] Mousavi, and others, saw themselves as major shareholders in this progress. However when the [P5+1] began to impose its impediments, a green light was given for [Iranian] concessions based on a freeze on a small or large part of the [nuclear] program. Rafsanjani even announced his satisfaction with the Geneva negotiations, [saying], ‘Thanks to the negotiations, the taboo [on engagement] with America has been broken.’

“The negotiations apparently had two objectives: The first was to preserve the nuclear program, from the standpoint of [Iran’s right to] enrich [uranium]; the second was to get the sanctions lifted. If some political figures do not attach the requisite importance to the first, they undoubtedly need to explain the second. Therefore, [they must be asked] why not a single sanction was lifted after [Iran] made all these concessions [in the negotiations] – but the sanctions were only made harsher?…

“The acceptance of the West’s demands is the same mistake in judgment that has repeatedly led to an impasse, to the squandering [of Iran’s] strategic assets, [and] to defaming and labelling the critics [of the government] who support [the regime] in an effort to render them passive. The storm surrounding the law to preserve the hijab and modesty, the support for the modesty police, the accusations that the Majlis removed the science minister due to the scholarships scandal[11]… the exploitation of the crime of the acid attacks [against women in Isfahan by claiming that the ideological camp was behind them] – all these are taken from the script and from the organized attempt by the men of fitna and their supporters outside [Iran], with the aim of stirring up marginal scandals within Iran so that [the main issues] are ignored.

“The West sees that Iran’s irreplaceable role has redrawn the map of western Asia and the Middle East, [adding] the qualities of resistance and Islamic awakening in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen,l and Bahrain, [and says] ‘Iran must be stopped from playing this role.’

“The men of fitna and the bankrupt extremists… believe that the only way to rebuild their organizations is by dealing with marginal issues and [news-grabbing] explosions that make a huge splash. A group of them… is operating based on a plan given to them, and their media and statesmen are moving ahead in coordination with the Western scheme.

“This hypocritical combination stands out clearly in the government [of Rohani] – revolutionary national enthusiasm [combined with] whispers aimed at trapping critics of the government into dealing with marginal issues to render them passive… to the point where neither the elites nor the people will ask why the negotiations are at an impasse, so that in the atmosphere of passivity and obliviousness it will be possible to reach an agreement, no matter what the cost. [Therefore], by the time the elites and the people wake up and ask what happened, what we gave, and what we got, it will be all over [that is, the deal will be signed]. Most statesmen oppose this harmful approach.

“The government and the president have already learned from the experience acquired in their 14 months in office. They are now at a point of evaluation and course correction. It is always beneficial to prevent damage and dangerous conduct. The leader [Khamenei]… said that the American regime, which stands with Israel, is the exception to Iran’s foreign policy of engagement. The accuracy of his declaration [that we cannot talk to either the U.S. or Israel] was revealed to all over time. Obeying this instruction is the path that will benefit the government and bring it honor. Otherwise, [the Rohani government] will owe a debt to the arrogant ones outside [Iran] and to the seekers of fitna within [Iran], who are skilled in this matter; in this way [i.e. if it talks to the U.S., Iran] will gain  no victory and no prestige…”[12]

Website Affiliated With Ideological Camp: The Pragmatists Are Trying To Remove Khamenei

On October 29, 2014, Afsaran.ir, which is close to Iranian security circles, published an article titled “What Is The Real Objective Of The Line Of Obliviousness [i.e. the pragmatic camp] – Taking The Majlis Or Replacing The Supreme Leader?” The article hinted that Foreign Minister Zarif is party to a Western plot to depose Khamenei, using the pragmatic camp’s strategy for dealing with the Americans, saying that if no agreement is reached, then the ideological stream that opposes rapprochement with the West will seize key political positions in Iran.[13]

The article stated: “Although America’s hostility towards the leader of the revolution [Khamenei] is nothing new, and they have acknowledged this a number of times… the [Americans’] attacks [against Iran] since the New York negotiations… [including] Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman’s interview on the Voice of America in Persian and [Foreign Minister Javad Zarif’s] entreaties before America’s Council of Foreign Relations have colored it a different hue. Besides the abovementioned incidents, [the Iranian-American academic] Vali Nasr and other American senior officials and influential figures have mentioned Iranian leader Khamenei as the main reason why no agreement has been reached, going so far as to consider replacing him.

“Nasr said: In December 2015, elections will be held in Iran for the Iranian Assembly of Experts, which will appoint Iran’s next leader. He also said: The next [Assembly of Experts] election can change the political direction in Iran.’

“Therefore, it must be asked: Who are the people [in Iran] who directed the policymakers of the enemy [i.e. the U.S.] towards supporting this strategy of deposing the leader Khamenei during direct negotiations with America?

“After consulting with which Iranians does America now consider the nuclear negotiations as an obstacle to its realization of its objectives, and as fertile ground for changing the course of the [Islamic] Revolution [i.e. the regime]?

“In all honesty, is the foreign minister really aiming, in his request to the American Congress to cooperate with the line of obliviousness [i.e. the pragmatic camp], to [obtain American] help so that they [i.e. the pragmatic camp] can win the Majlis elections? Or is he, like Nasr, really referring to a change in the makeup of the Iranian Assembly of Experts [so that it will remove or replace Khamenei]?

“Maybe some within Iran are not yet speaking as frankly as Nasr.”[14]

Basij Posts Signs In Iranian Cities Saying ‘Know The Shimr Of Our Time’

Also, the Basij has recently posted signs in Tehran and Shiraz stating, “Know The Shimr [who in Shi’ite legend murdered Imam Hussein] Of Our Time”; the signs clearly depict President Obama and the dome of the U.S. Capitol.[15]

21115

Endnotes:

[1] See October 23, 2014 statement by U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs Wendy Sherman, State.gov/p/us/rm/2014/233306.htm.

[2] Most reports refer to 4,000; however, two Iranian sources have referred to at least 6,000. Majlis Nuclear Committee head Ebrahim Karkhanehi reported that P5+1 had agreed to approve the operation of 6,000 to 9,000 centrifuges. Tasnim, Iran, November 2, 2014.

[3] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1127, Iran’s Pragmatic Camp Calls For Exploiting Obama’s Weakness To Attain Comprehensive Nuclear Agreement On Tehran’s Terms, October 26, 2014.

[4]  The Shi’ite legend of Karbala underpins Iranian culture, particularly political culture, in post-Islamic Revolution Iran; it tells of the first Shi’ite martyr, Imam Hussein Ibn Ali, the grandson of the Prophet, at Karbala in 680 CE, after he demanded power and refused to accept the authority of Umayyad caliph Yazid ibn Mu’awiyah.

[5] Shargh (Iran), November 2, 2014. An anonymous party familiar with dealings in the Foreign Ministry told Tabnak in an interview that Khorram is not an advisor to Foreign Minister Zarif, and that his views do not represent the negotiating team or the foreign ministry. Tabnak, Iran, November 4, 2014.

[6] President.ir, October 22, 2014.

[7] Kayhan (Iran), October 23, 2014.

[8] Jomhouri-ye Eslami, (Iran), October 27, 2014.

[9] Tasnim (Iran), October 28, 2014.

[10] Kayhan (Iran), November 6, 2014.

[11] Recently, the ideological camp succeeded in removing Rohani’s science minister for having a record as a reformist.

[12] Kayhan (Iran), October 28, 2014.

[13] See MEMRI Inquiry & Analysis No. 1127, Iran’s Pragmatic Camp Calls For Exploiting Obama’s Weakness To Attain Comprehensive Nuclear Agreement On Tehran’s Terms, October 26, 2014.

[14] Afsaran.ir, October 29, 2014.

[15] IRNA (Iran) November 2, 2014; Tasnim, October 30, 2014.

Categories: Ideology, Iran, Iranian nukes, Israel, Kerry, Middle East, Nukes, Obama, P5+1, Supreme Leader, U.S. Congress
Tags: , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Is Ahmadinejad making a comeback?

November 7, 2014

Is Ahmadinejad making a comeback? Al-Monitor, Arash Azizi, November 5, 2014

(Since it now appears that a nuke deal may well be signed by the November 24th deadline — well before the new U.S. Republican Congress takes over in January — what difference does it make now? In any event, with the Supreme Leader in charge regardless of whether Iran’s President is a “moderate” or an “extremist,” what difference does it make, ever? Even a “good” deal can and will be violated with impunity. — DM)

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad meets with Iraq's Vice President Khudair al-Khuzaie during his visit in BaghdadMahmoud Ahmadinejad (C) meets with Iraqi Vice President Khudair al-Khuzaie (not seen) during a visit in Baghdad when Ahmadinejad was still president of Iran, July 18, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Hadi Mizban)

The media activities and meetings of former Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad signal that he is keeping his name before the public and trying to forge new alliances for his political comeback.

A three-story building in a quiet one-way alley in northern Tehran is the headquarters of an unlikely campaign that opposes both the administration of President Hassan Rouhani and many of the Islamic Republic’s establishment figures.

The Velenjak building is the base of activities for former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has his offices on its third floor.

Ahmadinejad has been relatively quiet since the ascendance of the moderate Rouhani, but the Iranian Labor News Agency (ILNA) is only one of many outlets that have reported on his desire to make a comeback.

According to Amir Mohebbian, a leading political analyst, Ahmadinejad’s attempt to return to power is obvious as he “quietly awaits favorable conditions and occasionally tests the waters.”

The provincial trips that the former hard-line president makes are one indication.

In addition to making many trips to southern and northern Iran, Ahmadinejad celebrated the end of Ramadan by visiting Taleqan with the family members of four celebrated Iran-Iraq war “martyrs” in a trip that, according to ILNA, was coordinated by the Quds Force, the formidable international arm of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps.

In April, Ahmadinejad ruled out a return to politics but many of his supporters beg to differ.

They are tirelessly organizing and insist on his return. These are an unlikely bunch. Their young cadre runs many blogs and social media accounts. They draw controversy by their occasionally unconventional mixing of Islamism with an anti-wealthy and anti-establishment discourse, and many have spent time in jail for their activities. Their targets are not only the Reformists but many of the traditional conservatives.

Take Ahmad Shariat, who heads the Internet committee of an Ahmadinejad organization. In his blog, he attacked the policy of backing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, called for a boycott of the last Majles elections in 2012 (because many Ahmadinejad forces were barred), attacked establishment religious figures such as Ayatollah Mesbah Yazdi and, finally, dared to criticize Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei himself (the latter, in early 2013, led to the closing of Shariat’s blog and his arrest).

These supporters leave no doubt as to their allegiance to the ex-president. One name they go by is “Homa,” a Persian acronym for “Supporters of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.” An online newspaper with the same name (Homa Daily) opened last week on the occasion of Ahmadinejad’s 58th birthday. (“Square 72” is another outlet, named after Ahmadinejad’s neighborhood in northeastern Tehran).

Abdolreza Davari — who was a vice-president of IRNA, the national news agency for the administration under Ahmadinejad — is a leading organizer of Homa. A controversial figure who was fired from a teaching post for “political activities,” Davari was reported by ILNA as one of the top three media campaigners attempting an Ahmadinejad comeback.

“As an Iranian, I hope for the return of Mr. Ahmadinejad to politics,” Davari told Al-Monitor, before adding that he thinks the ex-president is currently focused on “scientific” activities.

To my question about the regular meetings of Homa in the Velenjak building, Davari says that such meetings are not organized but that “all kinds of people, commentators, students or ordinary people come to meet and talk to Dr. Ahmadinejad.”

Davari also denies that Homa is attempting to organize for next year’s Majles elections. Ahmadinejad’s return to power needs no less than “changes in the current relation of forces,” Davari says, seeming to imply that many of the establishment figures wouldn’t want the ex-president back. Many such figures are especially opposed to Ahmadinejad’s entourage.

Enter Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, Ahmadinejad’s chief of staff, who was openly rebuked by Khamenei for his maverick mixing of Shiite millennialism, Persian nationalism and leftist language. Despite Khamenei’s personal rejection and the sustained attacks of many who accused Mashaei of leading a “deviationist current,” the ex-president has continued backing his close friend (whose daughter married Ahmadinejad’s eldest son) even after the Guardian Council rejected Mashaei’s candidacy in last year’s presidential elections.

Mashaei’s offices are on the second level of the Velenjak building, and he is known to take part in Homa meetings.

Homa Daily ran Mashaei’s picture in the first page of its first issue, while reprinting his most controversial interview, where he had defended the necessity of “friendship with the Israeli people” — an interview personally criticized and attacked by Khamenei.

Davari says Mashaei doesn’t want to return to politics due to his “cultural and spiritual sentiment.” Taking a note from Mashaei’s book, he says Ahmadinejad’s concept of the Islamic Revolution and his belief in the coming of the hidden Imam is not “meant for a specific geography or religion as the hidden Imam’s global message is aimed at all nations and groups.”

“Freedom-loving and justice-seeking fighters” like Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Djamila Boupacha, Bobby Sands, Hassan Nasrallah and Hugo Chavez belong to the same global front as Ahmadinejad, Davari insists.

Acolytes of Mashaei seem to have especially targeted Iran’s nuclear negotiations. A group called the “the National Movement for Iran’s Independence” (NAMA, for its Persian acronym) was formed with the declared goal of fighting any compromise with the West. Its unusual name (not mentioning Islam) has the Mashaie imprint.

Mashaei’s presence has always driven away many of Ahmadinejad’s backers. One of them is Mohammadreza Etemadian, a trade adviser to the ex-president. Etemadian told Al-Monitor that he would like to see Ahmadinejad back, but he has always told him to keep Mashaei away since “he is not on good terms with the supreme leader and is a deviant.”

Etemadian is a leading member of the Islamic Coalition Party, the traditional organization of Bazari Islamists and an important part of the establishment. Its leaders seem to detest the populist excesses of Ahmadinejad.

Sensing this, the ever-adventurous Ahmadinejad has been trying to find new allies, even if among the Reformists. He met with Hassan Khomeini, the 40-year-old grandson of the founder of the Islamic Republic, known for his proximity to the Reformists. The ex-president boldly asked Khomeini to lead a group of young clerics to contest the next year’s election of the Assembly of Experts, the body that chooses the supreme leader.

He has also reportedly tried to meet the Reformist ex-President Mohammad Khatami and Ambassador Sadeq Kharazi, an influential diplomat from a key political family.

Meanwhile, it was reported that Gholam-Hossein Elham, the spokesman of Ahmadinejad’s government, has started campaigning for the ex-president and last week met with the governors-generals of the previous government to organize. Elham, however, spoke with the pro-Ahmadinejad “Square 72” website to deny this news.

Unceremoniously bowing out after the disqualification of the candidate he supported in the 2013 presidential elections, Ahmadinejad seems to be busy plotting a comeback.

 

Categories: Ahmadinejad, Iran, Iranian nukes, Kerry, Obama, P5+1, Rouhani, Supreme Leader
Tags: , , , ,

Comments: 1 Comment

Newer Entries »