Israel vs Turkey: Which Serves US Interests Better? Wednesday, Oct 27 2010 

Israel and Turkey and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 2:06 pm

In light of Turkey’s reaction to the Israeli attack on the Gaza-bound flotilla last week, media pundits and policy wonks are already underlining the demise of the US-Turkish special relationship. The growing chorus of critics miss one vital point. Turkey was criticizing Tel Aviv’s military overkill off the Gaza coastline, not Washington’s.

So closely aligned have we become to Israel since the Reagan era, we now find ourselves reacting on behalf of the government of Israel. Instead of basing our policy determinations and official statements on the US’s national security interests, we find ourselves uniquely defending the indefensible over and over again — expending precious global political capital on Israel and attracting the whispered derision of even our allies.

In their book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt claim that “since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members.”

By another count, between 1984 and 2006, the US has used its UN Security Council veto privilege 27 times on resolutions criticizing illegal Israeli actions or demanding Israel’s adherence to international law – even when the resolutions were consistent with our own official policy. In all 27 instances, we were the solitary veto in the Security Council.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but the last time a permanent member cast a lone veto was France, which refused in 1976 to recognize its former colony Mayotte as part of newly-independent Comoros.  (more…)

 

98% of US Jews Won’t Cast Votes Based on Iran Issue Wednesday, Oct 27 2010 

Middle East and US Foreign Policy and US Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 1:10 pm

Ninety-eight percent of American Jews do not rank Iran as a major factor influencing their vote in the 2010 midterm elections, according to a poll sponsored by the “pro-Israel, pro-peace” J-Street group.

The J-Street poll, announced on Monday, comes on the back of the highly publicized AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) conference this week, where speakers ranging from US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to congressmen and other dignitaries, spent three days loudly warning about an Iranian nuclear threat.

But only two percent of American Jews said Iran actually figured into their votes.

This is the first time that a J-Street poll has included “Iran” as an option in this capacity. Most polls ask Jewish Americans how they “feel” about aspects of Iran, as opposed to whether it enters into their voting deliberations.

Jim Gerstein, the public opinion research specialist who conducted the poll on behalf of J-Street, agreed that this result was unexpected: “It caught my attention as well – I didn’t expect it to be that low.”

Gerstein points out that Jewish Americans consistently prioritize US domestic issues over a foreign policy focus – something not reflected in the rhetoric of many major national groups representing this constituency.

The J-Street poll results reflect his claim to a large extent. The top priorities of respondents were the economy, healthcare, the deficit/government spending and social security/ Medicare. Immediately following were three foreign policy hot buttons issues – terrorism/national security, Israel and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan – trailed by a range of other domestic concerns.

Iran was at the very bottom of the list, and ranked even lower on the radar of Jewish-Americans than the issue of separation between religion and state. The poll has a margin of error of +/- 3.5 percent.

J-Steet’s Director of Policy and Strategy Hadar Susskind also found the poll’s result on Iran to be noteworthy. “It’s not what you heard at the AIPAC conference,” he says. His guess is that Iran won’t play a role in the Midterm elections for a variety of reasons, one being that both Republicans and Democrats agree on a tough sanctions regime – if that comes to pass.

J-Street does not support either US or Israeli military intervention in Iran as a policy option.

Susskind also explains that AIPAC – and the deafening anti-Iran rhetoric that was voiced at its recent conference – only represents a “subset” of the American Jewish community. He adds:

“Broadly, they (American Jews) do think there is a threat from Iran. There is a large number, however, who don’t think that the apocalyptic political rhetoric serves us well.”

Gerstein, who has conducted extensive public opinion research within the American Jewish community and in Israel, says of the J-Street poll’s result: “There’s definitely a gap between the priorities of American Jews and the priorities of some of the organizations lobbying in the name of American Jews.”

2010-03-23-pp3.JPG.jpeg

First published on the Huffington Post, March 23, 2010

 

Looking Under My Bed For Al Qaeda Wednesday, Mar 10 2010 

Uncategorized , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 7:11 pm


by Sharmine Narwani
I looked under my bed last night. Just in case. And don’t tell me you haven’t either. With Al Qaeda popping up in new countries every day, it seemed prudent to make sure a spanking new Salafi jihadist cell wasn’t being formed under my California Kingsize mattress.

Known Al Qaeda host nations: Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, Pakistan, Jordan – purportedly even Algeria, Egypt, Morocco, Turkey, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Syria, Xinjiang in China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Myanmar, Indonesia, Mindanao in the Philippines, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Libya, Nigeria, Tunisia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya, Dagestan, Jammu and Kashmir, Sudan, Kenya, Tanzania, Azerbaijan, Eritrea, Uganda, Ethiopia, and – drum roll – the United States.

Actually, with Al Qaeda’s strong internet recruitment abilities, let’s just scratch that last paragraph and grandly state that this entrepreneurial Salafi franchise is in potentially as many nations as McDonald’s.

Afghanistan was the start-up incubator. Operating out of a cave and strapped to a dialysis machine, the canny Saudi-born businessman Osama bin Laden took advantage of the hospitality of fellow Salafists — the Taliban — to engineer a magnificent American investment in his franchise, and grow a global brand. And so, thanks to the US’s penchant for disproportionate reaction, a rag-tag group of Saudi-funded jihadists hiding out in rough Afghani terrain with a small cadre of operatives scattered around the world, became the new hot stock overnight.

And like any investor worth his salt, the United States looked to an untapped market — Iraq — where it then launched its first world-class subsidiary. Yes, that’s right. There was no Al Qaeda in Iraq before the Bush administration initiated its ill-fated market penetration. Not under the watch of the fiercely-secular dictator Saddam Hussein, certainly.

But then American troops swooped in and Al Qaeda, Iraq was born. Every Salafi jihadist still smarting from the US occupation of sacred Muslim soil in Saudi Arabia during Iraq War I — the raison d’etre of Al Qaeda — now flocked into the new Iraqi battlefield to prevent a second occupation.

And when the US “surged” in Iraq and Afghanistan, they went elsewhere to revamp, re-arm and recruit. Hence, the presence in Pakistan. And when we “drone-d” in Pakistan, they swarmed to Yemen and Somalia. And when we “funded” Yemen, they reared up in Jordan.

Ergo, every time we make a move in the Muslim world, we invest in Al Qaeda’s nimble fund-and-recruit franchise enterprise. In the world of venture capital, the US would be akin to a Greylock, Softbank or Kleiner-Perkins.

Read full article

 

Being Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist Is the “New Anti-Semitism” Monday, Jan 4 2010 

Human Rights and Israel and Politics , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 11:33 pm

A Jewish woman, deriding protesters at a UK rally on Sunday in support of charging former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni with war crimes, declared loudly into a TV camera that being anti-Israel and anti-Zionist is the “new anti-Semitism.”

Such licentious language. Meant primarily, I might add, to inflame passions and mislead public opinion by invoking a word – anti-Semitism – that we have been well-conditioned to condemn above all other forms of racism or prejudice.

I am sorry the woman fears anti-Semitism, pogroms and hatred around every corner. It’s not my problem, frankly. Let her get therapy. Does that sound harsh? Sorry, again. But I for one get pretty irritated hearing false cries of anti-Semitism against anyone who criticizes Israel, its human rights crimes, its crazy settler movement, its unique brand of crypto-racism against non-Jews living within the state and its occupied territories.

These targets include Jews as well. Like Richard Goldstone – a man who served the international community honestly and fairly by rooting out the perpetrators of real evil and putting them on trial for the most despicable of human rights violations in Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. A Jewish man, a Zionist too. “Anti-Semite,” they roared when he charged Israel with war crimes in his UN report on the 2009 Gaza War.

Or Harvard scholar Stephen Walt and the University of Chicago’s John Mearsheimer, whose paper The Israel Lobby And US Foreign Policy was skewered in a Washington Post column as anti-Semitic. Writer Eliot Cohen says:

If by anti-Semitism one means obsessive and irrationally hostile beliefs about Jews; if one accuses them of disloyalty, subversion or treachery, of having occult powers and of participating in secret combinations that manipulate institutions and governments; if one systematically selects everything unfair, ugly or wrong about Jews as individuals or a group and equally systematically suppresses any exculpatory information — why, yes, this paper is anti-Semitic.

I read this paper, and it is well researched, fair and thought-provoking. Cohen’s claim is far and away the most emotionally muddled interpretation by an academic I have yet to encounter.

Yet other targets of this convoluted connection between criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism are – well – entire countries. Like Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, for instance. Yup, anti-Semites, one and all. “Norway is the most anti-Semitic country in Scandinavia,” said Dr. Manfred Gerstenfeld, a scholar of Western European anti-Semitism from the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, who spoke last year at a gathering of Israeli scholars highlighting anti-Semitism in Scandanavia. Read full article

 

US Swagger Equals Foreign Policy Disaster Monday, Jan 4 2010 

Nuclear and US Foreign Policy , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 7:25 pm

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on Saturday announced Iran’s willingness to begin swapping in increments its enriched uranium for the higher-grade uranium offered by six world powers. But the concession is unlikely to be accepted by the United States, in what has become an old pattern: “Do it our way or else.”

US officials are already suggesting that Mottaki’s proposal — which would see Iran immediately part with one-third of the low-enriched uranium (LEU) requested by the five Security Council nations and Germany (P5+1) — is a deal-breaker.

As we near President Obama’s end of year deadline for Iran to accept a proposal to — get this — immediately surrender 75% of its LEU for a whole year without a reciprocal swap of higher-enriched uranium “guaranteed” by our side, one wonders why this intransigence on our part?

Surely a deal that begins an era of Iranian cooperation and concessions on the contentious nuclear issue is far more desirable than winning a staring match? And if this opportunity is lost, can we genuinely claim to know the range of consequences we may face down the line?

A small reminder of what can happen when our foreign policy officials start assuming the now familiar “American Swagger:”

The Bin Laden Deal:

A Washington Post article in 2001 revealed that in 20 meetings over three years, the US met with Taliban officials to broker a deal delivering Osama bin Laden to US courts for trial. The Taliban needed a “face-saving” way to do this deal, asking for evidence of bin Laden’s crimes and insisting he be sent to a Muslim country for trial instead.

“We never heard what they were trying to say,” said Milton Bearden, a former CIA station chief who oversaw U.S. covert operations in Afghanistan in the 1980s. “We had no common language. Ours was, ‘Give up bin Laden.’ They were saying, ‘Do something to help us give him up.’ “

Shortly after 9-11, the Taliban softened their demands significantly, dropping the requirement of evidence and agreeing to send bin Laden for trial to a third country.

But by then, President Bush’s rhetoric was unstoppable. As US bombs rained on Afghanistan, the swagger went into full swing: “You’re either with us or against us.” We’re going “to smoke them out of their caves.” Entreaties by the Taliban were “non-negotiable.” And the one that magically absolved Bush from ever publically explaining any connection between bin Laden and 9-11: “There’s no need to discuss innocence or guilt. We know he’s guilty.” The Taliban offer, it seems, was dismissed. Read full article

 

Netanyahu’s ‘Shame’ And The Fiction He Weaves Monday, Jan 4 2010 

Gaza War and Human Rights and Israel and Politics and United Nations , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 5:32 pm

Almost a week after the UN General Assembly speeches by various heads of state, where one statement after another was dissected and laid bare by the thousands of reporters and analysts covering the annual plenary session, one speech has almost universally been ignored. And something rankles.

“Have you no shame,” thundered Benjamin Netanyahu to the throngs of senior diplomats, heads of state and assorted dignitaries watching the Israeli prime minister admonish those who remained in the room when Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad delivered his speech a day earlier.

Shame, indeed. This, from the leader of a nation that has a pitiful human rights record, standing accused by a United Nations body for War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity. A country that has an illicit stash of weapons of mass destruction which it refuses to subject to international scrutiny of any sort. A state whose very existence seems possible only through the systemic persecution of the non-Jewish population under its protection.

Break down Netanyahu’s speech and you have more fiction than fact, albeit fiction that has very adeptly been spun by successive Israeli governments into the lexicon of our political language.

“For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks,” accused Netanyahu, before the very audience he scorned in his speech.

Fact: Between 2005 and 2007, Palestinian groups in Gaza fired about 2,700 rockets into Israel. Israel fired more than 14,600 artillery shells into Gaza during this same period, a statistic Israeli government officials always seem to omit.

But the essence of Netanyahu’s fiction remains that Palestinians, and specifically the resistance group Hamas, are the ones who initiate armed conflict.

In a far-reaching and exhaustive study of the issue, MIT Scientist Nancy Kanwisher tracked the entire timeline of killings of Palestinians and Israelis by the other between September 2000 and October 2008. In an article right here on the Huffington Post, she draws some telling conclusions about ceasefires, lulls in conflict, and resumption of hostilities between the two sides:

“It is overwhelmingly Israel that kills first after a pause in the conflict: 79% of all conflict pauses were interrupted when Israel killed a Palestinian, while only 8% were interrupted by Palestinian attacks (the remaining 13% were interrupted by both sides on the same day). In addition, we found that this pattern — in which Israel is more likely than Palestine to kill first after a conflict pause — becomes more pronounced for longer conflict pauses. Indeed, of the 25 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than a week, Israel unilaterally interrupted 24, or 96%, and it unilaterally interrupted 100% of the 14 periods of nonviolence lasting longer than 9 days.”

Kanwisher’s data goes on to contest the assumption popular with American and Israeli politicians that Hamas broke the ceasefire leading up to Israel’s brutal December 2008 Gaza onslaught:

“The ceasefire was remarkably effective: after it began in June 2008, the rate of rocket and mortar fire from Gaza dropped to almost zero, and stayed there for four straight months…what happened to end this striking period of peace? On November 4th, Israel killed a Palestinian, an event that was followed by a volley of mortars fired from Gaza. Immediately after that, an Israeli air strike killed six more Palestinians. Then a massive barrage of rockets was unleashed, leading to the end of the ceasefire.”

But Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu was just getting started, and with all the righteous indignation he could muster, proclaimed: “In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza.”

Oh. The withdrawal of Israeli troops from Gaza had nothing whatsoever to do with the fact that the Gaza Strip, one of the most densely populated territories in the world, had become an impoverished hell-hole that nobody wanted to deal with – or that daily confrontations with Palestinian resistance groups and, well, school kids hurling rocks, had taken a toll on the battered Israeli Defense Forces. “Disengagement” from Gaza achieved several other objectives too. It reduced the growing non-Jewish demographic problem for Israel, and freed up resources to focus on carving up the West Bank and significantly increasing the population of Jewish settlers there.

But again, the devil is in the details. Lost in the media euphoria over Israeli troops rolling out of occupied Palestinian territory, a vital fact was overlooked: the occupation of Gaza never actually ended. According to the United Nations, the US State Department, Amnesty International and a whole slew of other NGOs, Israel is the occupying power in the Gaza Strip. It “retains sole control of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters and does not allow any movement of people or goods in or out of Gaza via air or sea,” says Amnesty International. And we have seen how often and easily the IDF tanks roll in and out at will.

Back at the General Assembly podium, Netanyahu’s fiction-spinning tirade was reaching a fevered pitch – the crux of his message, the thing that Israel most fears. Understand now, that the Jewish state’s raison d’etre has always been based on the mass persecution and genocide of Jews by Nazi Germany – the nation was a gift, so to speak, to the victims who deserved a break. So what would happen if, even for an instant, the entire international community catches a view of Israel outside the parameters of victimhood, an image, if shattered, that could undermine its very premise as a safe haven for the persecuted?

Never say. Netanyahu’s two-fold mission at the UN last Thursday was firstly to whip up animosity against Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his alleged nuclear weaponization program, and secondly, to neutralize the damaging effects of the Goldstone Report on Israel’s three-week military adventure into the Gaza Strip earlier this year.

Selected by the UN High Commission for Human Rights to conduct an investigation into “Operation Cast Lead,” Israel’s code name for the Gaza War, Richard Goldstone was ideal for the role in part because he is a Jew, an acknowledged Zionist, and importantly, the well-respected former chief prosecutor of the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia. In other words, beyond reproach.

In a September 15 press release introducing his 574-page report, Justice Goldstone concluded that “Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.”

Netanyahu at the UN: “Faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel.“

He fails to mention that given ample opportunity to participate in the investigation, his government not only refused, but also denied the Mission access to both Israel and the West Bank for interviews related to the inquiry. Palestinian authorities in both the West Bank and Gaza cooperated.

The damning parts of the report undermine entirely Israel’s assertions to the international community about its conflict with Gaza, Palestinians and Hamas. It states that “in the lead up to Israel’s assault on Gaza, Israel imposed a blockade amounting to collective punishment and carried out a systematic policy of progressive isolation and deprivation of the Gaza Strip.” So much for disengagement.

“Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way,” claims Netanyahu.

But Goldstone’s Mission found instead “that the following grave breaches of the
Fourth Geneva Convention were committed by Israeli forces in Gaza: willful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health, and extensive destruction of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly.”

The Report continues: “The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses.” Furthermore, “There were almost no mistakes made according to the Government of Israel. It is in these circumstances that the Mission concludes that what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population.”

Yet with no hint of embarrassment whatsoever, Netanyahu insisted, “”Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.”

Ah, yes. Human shields. During the carnage, our media and our politicians belted out the Israeli propaganda line that “barbaric” Hamas was using its own population as human shields. Instead, it turns out “the Mission investigated several incidents in which Israeli armed forces used local Palestinian residents to enter houses which might be booby trapped or harbour enemy combatants (this practice, known in the West Bank as “neighbour procedure”, was called “Johnnie procedure” during the military operations in Gaza).”

And so on and so forth.

Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel once before – from 1996 to 1999 – has had a history of scandal plague him in office, even an indictment for which he was later acquitted. Former Clinton White House Spokesman Joe Lockhart, in his book “The Truth About Camp David” calls the Israeli prime minister, “one of the most obnoxious individuals you’re going to come into – just a liar and a cheat. He could open his mouth and you could have no confidence that anything that came out of it was the truth.”

Netanyahu replaced former PM Ehud Olmert, who was brought down by corruption allegations, and indicted on three charges this past August. And that, just a month before former Israeli President Moshe Katsav’s trial for rape and other sex crimes got underway.

The apple is rotten at its core. The international community must turn the cries of “shame” back on Israel and its human rights record. And the US administration, which stands so staunchly behind Israel at every turn, must play fair with the Goldstone Report if it is to maintain any credibility in the Middle East as it attempts to launch yet another round of peace talks.

First published: October 1, 2009

Bookmark and Share

 

Lights, Camera, Action: Why the Iranian Nuclear Drama Took Center Stage Last Week Monday, Jan 4 2010 

Nuclear , , , , , , , , , , , , , Sandboxer 5:11 pm

Prepping for some nuclear razzle-dazzle

The news cycle on the Iran nuclear story never seems to end. It is one sound bite after another. On Friday, we had to endure a pre-announcement (read drum-roll) that there would be a formal announcement by US President Barak Obama, French President Nicholas Sarkozy and British Prime Minster Gordon Brown on the existence of a secret Iranian nuclear enrichment facility under construction near Qom. This, just a day after the UN Security Council meeting where all three took a bash at Iran’s nuclear program before passing a resolution on global denuclearization. And that, following two days of relentless UN General Assembly speeches by various heads of state blasting Iran’s nuclear agenda.

As the news leaked out, we learned that the US had known about this facility for years, while other news sources claimed that French, British and American officials have worked all summer on presenting a disclosure of this secret underground facility to the IAEA — the international agency that oversees and maintains compliance on the nuclear activities of member states — this week.

They must have been furious to learn that Iran, of its own volition, beat them to the punch in a letter to the IAEA last Monday, alerting the agency that “a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country,” according to a statement released by the IAEA on Friday. “The Agency also understands from Iran that no nuclear material has been introduced into the facility,” it continued.

Fact: The current rate of inspection of Iran’s nuclear facilities is an inspector’s visit every other week. It is by far the most heavily enforced inspections regime in IAEA history. Approximately half of these visits are unannounced.

Per the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), member states have the right to enrich uranium. Iran signed onto the treaty the year it became open for signature, in 1968, a year after the United States provided Iran with its first nuclear plant, and two years before the NPT came into force. In 2002, it became known that Iran was pursuing a nuclear enrichment program, which it acknowledged in 2003, and subsequently opened its doors to the IAEA to place these facilities under the required safeguards.

But, after enduring years of scrutiny, Iran started complaining that the cycle of questions never ends. In a letter to the Agency’s board of governors on June 17, 2009, the Permanent Representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the IAEA argued:

“After six years of the most robust and intrusive inspection in the history of the Agency, and in spite of the continuous declaration of the Director General (of the IAEA, Mohammad El Baradei) in over 20 reports to the Board of Governors, that there is no evidence of diversion of nuclear materials and activities to prohibited purposes (i.e., weaponization), the issue is still on the agenda. The simple question is: why?”

He goes on to allege that the issue of Iran’s nuclear program remains on the table because of the political motivations of a few nations, who would like to turn the Agency into a “watchdog, with maximum intrusiveness in safeguards in order to interfere in the national security…of Member States, under the pretext of proliferation.”

To be fair, while the IAEA’s exhaustive inspections have found no evidence that the Iranians are diverting nuclear technology or materials to a weapons program, Iran has not helped its own case. It continues to be less than transparent about its activities, perhaps in part because it does not expect a fair hearing, but also undoubtedly because the impression that it may be developing nuclear weapons capability doesn’t exactly harm its deterrence position vis-a-vis regional and foreign foes.

But back to the events of Friday. The endless days of orchestrated sound bites on Iran’s nuclear intentions were frankly overkill by week’s end. The indignant Security Council trio, who displayed dismay and shock at the revelation of this new enrichment facility, were surely shamed by the news that they had been sitting on this nugget of information for years, and had spent the summer secretively trying to maximize its impact on the IAEA.

Surely if Iran’s nuclear enrichment program was actually the imminent threat that is so often alleged, these nations would have immediately alerted the agency responsible for safeguards and inspections?

This cannot sit well with the IAEA, which spent the early part of September defending the conclusions of its last report on Iran, which again, confirmed the non-diversion of the country’s nuclear enrichment program. Agency head El Baradei went out of his way to dispute claims by several countries, including France and Israel, that the report results were cooked, saying that these accusations “are politically motivated and baseless.”

So what’s with the relentless scrutiny of Iran’s nuclear intentions? Let me go out on a limb here: Iran, which is a major oil producing state in a strategically important region, has a very independent foreign policy stance on issues that are of concern to the United States and many of its allies. They don’t like that. Israel, the US’s main regional ally, needs to keep itself relevant to Western powers now that the Cold War is well and truly over, divert attention from it’s own covert nuclear weapons stash, and avoid accountability for its failure to address the Palestinian issue. It needs a big old bogeyman. Enter Iran, the convenient scary kid on the block. Iran isn’t exactly an angel — it has powered up its anti-Israel rhetoric to stay relevant on the Arab and Muslim Street. These two blocs clash, and they seek continuously to curb the other’s influence.

The bluster, threats and sound bites we have heard this past week were nothing more than an effort to create maximum pressure on Iran as the October 1 meeting between the Islamic Republic and the group of five permanent Security Council members plus Germany draws near — a meeting where the group of Western nations hopes to secure compromises on Iran’s nuclear program. It was political posturing in technicolor — live footage beamed to millions of TV screens across the globe — using the annual UN General Assembly Plenary Session as a stage, and counting on the thousands of gathered reporters as the playwrights of this unfolding drama.

When Iran sits down with the US to discuss nuclear and other issues in October, it will not likely budge on the state’s “inalienable right” to enrich uranium for peaceful purposes. Energy independence is a vital issue of national security for any country, and Iranians are unified on this subject, particularly as the years of living under foreign sanctions regimes has left the country mistrustful about depending on imports. Iran also enjoys the support of much of the developing world on the nuclear enrichment issue, where it has taken time to build coalitions through shared visions and the offering of financial and humanitarian assistance.

And talks of double-standards are playing throughout much of this bloc of nations, particularly after the United States and its Western allies voted against a September 18 IAEA resolution that called for Israel to join the NPT and subject its nuclear facilities to the same oversight as other countries.

But the events of this past week have upped the ante, and the US and its allies will be hard-pressed to back down from the line in the sand drawn on Friday. So, sadly, sanctions it may be — to the detriment of common sense and constructive engagement. Memories of another misguided WMD pogrom in neighboring Iraq not too long ago are surfacing. And yet the drama continues.

First published September 26, 2009, Huffington Post

Bookmark and Share

 

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,695 other followers