Elections in Iran – Part V: The Waning of the Protest Movement

Elections in Iran – Part V: The Waning of the Protest Movement  By: A. Savyon* Iran|#529| June 29, 2009

SUBSCRIBE | UNSUBSCRIBE | DONATE | CONTACT US

MEMRI | MEMRI TV | THE MEMRI BLOG | MEMRI ECONOMIC BLOG | JIHAD & TERRORISM THREAT MONITOR PROJECT  TURKISH MEDIA PROJECT | IRAN BLOG | ARAB MOVIES BLOG | ARAB MUSIC BLOG | ARAB LITERATURE BLOG

Two weeks after the elections, it seems that the Iranian regime has managed to suppress the protest movement. This report examines the reasons for the waning of this movement. 1. Violence by the Regime In attempt to quell the protests, which were mostly peaceful, the Iranian regime has employed brutal violence. IRGC and Basij units, some of them in plainclothes, used both cold weapons (clubs and knives) and live fire against the protestors. In addition to employing violence against the demonstrators in the streets, the security forces also raided student dorms, especially in Tehran; arrested protesters, political activists, journalists and intellectuals; and persecuted owners of homes from which the call of "Allah Akbar" was heard in the nights. The heads of the regime made threats against anyone who participated in the demonstrations, blocked websites and media outlets supportive of the protest movement, and waged a media campaign against this movement by describing the protestors and their leaders as hostile elements collaborating with Iran's enemies. Permits for political and party activities were revoked, and a special court was establish to prosecute the protestors. 2. Unlike Some of the Demonstrators, the Protest Movement Leaders Never Advocated a Regime Change in Iran; Their Campaign Is Part of a Struggle between Two Streamswithin the Regime The leaders of the protest movement, Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohammad Khatami, called on the demonstrators to keep their protests peaceful, and stated that they would negotiate with the regime to attain their goals, which are the holding of a new election or the establishment of a committee of ayatollahs, acceptable to all sides, to examine the election results. Unlike some of the protestors, these leaders are not interested in a change of regime in Iran, and have never called to topple Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.(1)       It should be noted that Khatami and Rafsanjani, who stayed behind the scenes of the protest movement, have not managed to recruit the support of any senior ayatollah against Khamenei. Hashemi Rafsanjani, who is the second most powerful figure in the regime and heads two of its most important bodies (the Experts Assembly and Expediency Council), has never purported to lead a movement presenting an alternative to the regime. Despite his blatant disagreements with the Supreme Leader, he hasn't openly challenged the latter's decision to accept the election results, though, according to reports, he has sought to recruit senior ayatollahs to join his camp within the regime. 3. Absence of International Support The policy of the West during this crisis has been one of non-intervention in the events in Iran. Conclusion: The events in Iran following the elections were a public outburst of rage that encompassed many sectors of Iranian civil society. This outburst was made possible by the emergence of a comprehensive national common denominator, namely anger over the rigged elections. The protestors sought a leadership, but did not find one. The regime's power and brutal suppression of the protests, the absence of a religious leadership, and the silence of the world meant that the protest movement could not maintain its momentum, and started to crumble after two weeks. However, it is safe to assume that another, more effective, protest movement will arise when the necessary "ingredients" are present, namely – a public of protestors, a compelling ideological agenda presenting an alternative to the regime, a religious leadership that will head the movement and will be willing to pay the price, and international support. It can also be assumed that the present Iranian protest movement is likely to impact the Sunni Arab societies in the countries neighboring Iran, which are also no strangers to election fraud.  Now that the regime has managed to quell the protests, its various elite groups are busy trying to mediate between its two competing streams, both of which are conservative and accept Khamenei's authority.(2) The desire for reconciliation is clearly evident in Rafsanjani's recent public statement – his first in the last two weeks – in which he declared his loyalty to Khamenei (who has his "unending affection"), and adopted the line of Khamenei and Ahmadinejad that foreign elements were behind the protest movement.(3) *A. Savyon is Director of the Iranian Media Project. Endnotes: (1) The leaders' position was expressed, for example, by Mousavi's supporter Majlis Member Ghodratollah Alikhani, who cried out emotionally during a recent Majlis session, "We are all sons of the Revolution!" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFiv361ycpQ .   (2) See MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 522, "Elections in Iran – Part II," June 9, 2009, http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=IA52209.  Since Khamenei stressed, in his June 19, 2009 Friday sermon, the importance of all the leaders to the regime,  the regime's various elites and mechanisms have been working to appease the disgruntled presidential candidates and offer a solution to the crisis. Among the figures undertaking this effort are Ayatollahs from Qom, such as Mousavi Ardabili, Sobhani and Javadi-Amoli, as well as Majlis Speaker Larijani who has established his own committee for resolving the conflict, members of the Guardians Council and others. On Khamenei's June 19 sermon, see MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 2413, "Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in a Tehran Friday Sermon: In Every Election There Are Winners and There Are Losers," June 21, 2009,http://www.memri.org/bin/articles.cgi?Page=countries&Area=iran&ID=SP241309. (3) ILNA (Iran), June 28, 2009, Mehr (Iran), June 27, 2009.

Revolution in Iran

At first I thought it was a joke. That there could be free elections in "The Islamic Republic of Iran". Then I learned that, indeed, I was right, to a point. The elections held for the Presidency of Iran last Friday in which M. Ahmedinejad allegedly won a 'landslide' were not free. Indeed, even the so-called reform candidates had to be formally approved by the actual power in Iran, the "Guardian Council" and had to meet stringent ideologic requirements before their names could even be put on the ballot.

That aside, the raging protests and the brutality exhibited by "The Islamic Republic of Iran" shows that even they can't, in the name of Allah, pull the wool over every Iranian's eyes. I know that the Persian empire was at one point one of the largest in the world. The Persian culture is one of the most celebrated in the history of humanity. It makes me wonder, then, how long the people of Iran will stand for the theocracy that they got back in 1979, a theocracy that has ruined the Iranian economy, made Iran a paraiah state in the West, and otherwise meddlesome in the politics in the explosive Middle East.

We can trace the 1979 revolution to American meddling. It was the US which helped stage a coup d'etat in 1953 to place the friendly, malleable Shah back in power. It gave the US, for a very long time, a valuable outpost in the region. So the Iranian students who kidnapped the American hostages and held them until the day that Ronald Reagan took office are now the Ahmedinejads of the world. But their cause - continuous rants against the "Great Satan", the US, and the "Little Satan", Israel, are not enough to keep a people clothed, housed, fed, employed and happy. What does the existing government of Iran offer its own people?

What Ayatollah Khomenei and M. Ahmedinejad cannot admit publicly is that their state is in ruin and the people know it. So much so that the Iranians have to resort to violence to quell the righteous outrage that is currently boiling over there. They know when they've been had, when they' ve been sold a bill of goods for which there is no substance. I cannot help but think that at this point, Khameini and Ahmedinejad are, like their brothers in Hamas, holding on to power for its own sake, not necessarily for the sake of the welfare and prosperity of the people they supposedly govern.

The problem for the Guardian Council, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Ahmedinejad and the rest of the current power elite is how to put the toothpaste back into the tube. It can't be done. Let us hope that the actions of so many, and those seven that (so far) have been killed in the name of democracy (albeit flawed, but democracy nonetheless) will not have been in vain. Let us hope that the people of Iran continue to show the rest of the world that power in Iran does truly rest ultimately with the people, not with Ayatollahs and the like who claim a monopoly on truth and justice. There's a revolution brewing in Iran. The question will be who will stand with the Iranian people.

Iranian U.S. Expert Praises Obama and Democrats, Describes McCain as 'Absentminded' and Palin as 'Inexperienced'

In TV Interview, Iranian U.S. Expert Praises Obama and Democrats, Describes McCain as 'Absentminded' and Palin as 'Inexperienced'


Following are excerpts from an interview with Iranian political science professor and expert on U.S. affairs Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh of Shahid Behshti University. The interview aired on IRIB/Jaam-E Jam 2 TV on September 2, 2008.

To view this clip on MEMRI TV, visit http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1843.htm.

Americans "Don't Understand That [Obama's] Education Would Enable Him to Serve Them Better"

Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh: "The difference between Mr. McCain and Mr. Bush is that McCain steps harder on the gas, but he is driving down the same path, and so there is no difference between them.

[...]

"The problem with Mr. Obama is his education. He is a Harvard graduate. The Americans cannot accept him because they consider him an elitist – someone who thinks he is above others, because he is better educated. They don't understand that his education would enable him to serve them better."

Interviewer: "So they will have more money..."

Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh: "This would improve the situation in America in general. The flaw they see in Mr. Obama – which they don't admit – is that he is highly educated and very eloquent. What does he speak so eloquently for?! Mr. McCain, who considers himself such an expert in international politics, still says 'Czechoslovakia.'"

Interviewer: "He doesn't know that Czechoslovakia was divided?"


McCain "Doesn't Know Anything, Poor Thing"

Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh: "He doesn't know anything, poor thing. He is terrible. Let me tell you, he's awful. He doesn't know the difference between Shiites and Sunnis, yet he wants to resolve the problems in Iraq? He doesn't know whether Iran is Shiite or Sunni, or the difference between the two."

[...]

Interviewer: "Many experts believe that the crises in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Palestine are the Achilles' heel of America. Therefore, we should ask whether there is any difference between the Democratic and Republican parties with regard to the issue of Iraq. Is there any difference between them?"


"Biden... Is Respectable and Healthy"

Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh: "Yes. Mr. Obama's perspective is more clear. Only yesterday, they transferred control of the Al-Anbar province to the Iraqi government, on the first day of Ramadhan. This is something Mr. Obama has been saying. Mr. Obama has said several times: 'Al-Qaeda operates in 80 countries, but we got ourselves entangled in Iraq. Our presence in Iraq is what led Al-Qaeda to begin operating there.' That's why Mr. Obama and his team...

"Mr. Biden is a very respectable man. He has a good reputation, and he is respectable and healthy. He has been in the Senate for 36 years, since he was 29. They are more knowledgeable in foreign affairs. True, Obama has no experience, but McCain not only has no experience, but doesn't even know where 'abroad' is. The poor guy is very absentminded."

Interviewer: "McCain has declared that if he is elected, American forces will stay in Iraq 100 years. Based on this, can we draw any conclusion about which party is more likely to win?"

Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh: "My problem is that McCain is a war hero, a veteran pilot, whose plane crashed in Vietnam and who spent eight and a half years at war. He is a respectable, humane, honest, and patriotic man, but when it comes to foreign policy and domestic affairs, he has nothing to offer."

[...]

Interviewer: "Is the fact that [Palin] is a woman likely to appeal to women, and to arouse feminist sentiment in American society?"


Ms. Clinton "Is One of the Strongest Women in American History"; Ms. Palin Has No Experience

Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh: "Definitely. Dr. Kamrava mentioned the question of her experience. I don't think her husband knows about her experience either. She doesn't have any experience."

Interviewer: "She spent two years as governor of Alaska."

Mohammad-Ali Fardanesh: "Sixteen months. She was the mayor of a town of 10,000 residents. The previous governor of Alaska was a very corrupt man, and anybody running against him would have won. That's how she won.

"No. My answer is 'no.' Just like Obama is a phenomenon, as I said, Ms. Clinton, with her academic record, her determination, and her expertise in various issues, was outstanding and prominent. She is one of the strongest women in American history. Now, Ms. Palin – whose name they don't even pronounce correctly... Will she manage to attract Clinton's voters? No."

Moscow halts Iran cooperation with US, will complete Bushehr reactor

View from a booth:

While the US plays tiddlywinks with Sarah Palin and is occupied with Hurricane Gustav, Putin is fighting tigers (and winning) and is making a play to bring Iran into its sphere of influence. I really miss old drunk Boris Yeltsin. I really do. The Russian Bear was easier to deal with when shikker. Oh, I long for the good ol' days when the US wasn't a third-world power in first-world clothes. Time to start shopping smarter. No more retail. Marshalls anyone? TJ Maxx? Ross? The country can't afford more.

Randy Shiner

Moscow halts Iran cooperation with US, will complete Bushehr reactor

DEBKAfile Special Report

August 30, 2008, 7:32 PM (GMT+02:00)

Bushehr nuclear reactor to be ready to go by end of 2008

The Georgia quarrel has all but derailed US-Russian cooperation on the Iran issue. Moscow is not only pulling out of the diplomatic and sanctions front against Iran’s nuclear program; according to DEBKAfile’s Russian sources, Moscow has decided to finally finish building Iran’s nuclear reactor in the southern town of Bushehr before the end of the year, after holding back for five years at Washington’s insistence.

Russian prime minister Vladimir Putin said in reference to the impact of the Georgia row on US-Russian cooperation on Iran Thursday, Aug. 28: “If nobody wants to talks with us on these issues and cooperation with Russia is not needed, then for God’s sake, do it yourself.”

Moscow has now committed to completing the reactor within four months. DEBKAfile’s military sources report that the functioning plant will enable Iran to operate a heavy water plant and produce plutonium as an alternative to enriched uranium for building a nuclear bomb. Tehran had originally counted on the Syria’s North Korean reactor at al Kibar for plutonium. It was demolished by Israel last September.

Putin’s sharp comment means the West can forget about Russian support for another round of harsh sanctions to punish Iran for refusing to suspend uranium enrichment. He made it clear that Western nations will have to resolve the standoff without Russian help if they refuse to cooperate with Moscow on Georgia.

The Russians have lost no time in following through on their threat. This week, they are sending the head of their Nuclear Energy Board, Sergei Kireinko, to Tehran at the head of a large delegation. They will stay for at least ten days to clear away the problems for getting the Bushehr reactor up and running by the end of 2008.

Appeasementgate - Who Is In the White House?

A Surprise Negotiation

A Surprise Negotiation

By David Ignatius

Wednesday, June 25, 2008; A13

What's going on between Syria and Israel? Are the indirect peace negotiations through Turkish mediators that were announced last month for real? I've been talking with sources on all sides, and they present an upbeat view of a peace process that has taken many people (including top Bush administration officials) by surprise.

As with any secret diplomatic initiative, this one is surrounded by mysteries and riddles. So I'll examine the Syria-Israel dialogue as a series of puzzles and offer my best guesses about what's happening:

(1) How did these negotiations begin?

The channel opened in the fall of 2006, just after the summer war in Lebanon that had made both Damascus and Tel Aviv nervous about the destabilizing role of Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon. Syria proposed indirect "proximity" talks and insisted on Turkey, a rare friend of both countries, as intermediary.

For many months, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wasn't sure he trusted the channel. The Bush administration was skeptical about whether the process would lead anywhere, but it didn't try to stop it. About a year ago, Olmert decided to test the Syrian track. He had strong encouragement from the Israeli defense establishment -- the defense minister, Ehud Barak; the army chief of staff, Gen. Gabi Ashkenazi; and Israeli military intelligence.

(2) What's in it for the two sides?

The Israeli military brass favored engagement with Syria because they didn't think the status quo in the region was sustainable. Lebanon had become a surrogate battleground between Israel and Iran, and the Israelis arguably had lost the first round. Meanwhile, the Syrians were increasing their arsenal of missiles and other weapons. The judgment in Tel Aviv was that Israel stood to lose strategically by letting things continue as they were.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad favored an opening to Israel to counter attempts by the United States, France and Saudi Arabia to isolate his country. Syrian confidence in the Turkish negotiating channel increased after Israel indicated informally that it was prepared to accept terms for return of the Golan Heights (and related issues, such as water rights) that had been reached in direct Syrian-Israeli negotiations during the 1990s.

(3) Can Syria be decoupled from Iran?

Israel's overriding goal has been to draw Syria away from its alliance with Iran. So far, the
Israelis see no sign that the peace talks have achieved this goal. Syria-watchers caution that this sort of decisive transfer of loyalties is unlikely. But eventually, Syria may move away from Iran (and toward Turkey) because the Baath regime in Damascus is secular to its core -- and mistrusts the religious fervor of the mullahs. The decoupling would be cultural and political, rather than a matter of security policy.

(4) Who assassinated Imad Mughniyah in Damascus in February?

The car bomb that killed Iran's key covert operative in Hezbollah is still echoing in the Middle East. Suspicion immediately focused on Israel. But on Feb. 27, a London-based newspaper called Al-Quds Al-Arabi, with very good sources in Damascus, alleged that several Arab nations had conspired with Mossad to assassinate Mughniyah.

Adding to the speculation are reports that shortly before his death, Mughniyah was attempting to heal a split within Hezbollah between the group's leader, Hassan Nasrallah, and its former leader, Subhi Tufaily. Tufaily's power base is the Bekaa Valley, which has lost influence in Hezbollah to Shiites from southern Lebanon. According to one Arab source, Mughniyah -- traveling under his longtime pseudonym, "Haj Ismail" -- paid a visit shortly before his death to Tufaily's village of Britel, just south of Baalbek.

Mughniyah usually traveled without bodyguards, believing that his protection was the surgical alteration of his features, which prevented even old friends from recognizing "Haj Ismail." For that reason, the Syrians insisted they weren't at fault. But a sign of tension was Tehran's announcement that a joint commission would investigate the killing, a statement that Damascus promptly denied.

(5) What about Syria's secret nuclear reactor, which was destroyed by the Israelis on Sept. 6, 2007?

Oddly enough, that attack on what CIA analysts called the "Enigma Building" may have helped the peace talks. The Israelis felt that their decisive action helped restore the credibility of their deterrence policy. The Syrians appreciated that Israeli and American silence allowed them time to cover their tracks. Finally, the fact that Assad kept the nuclear effort a secret, and that he managed the post-attack pressures, showed Israelis that he was truly master of his own house, and thus a plausible negotiating partner.
The writer is co-host ofPostGlobal, an online discussion of international issues. His e-mail address isdavidignatius@washpost.com.

The Jewish Nation was reborn in Auschwitz

What is the Jewish nation? What constitutes a nation? Does Religious Zionism have a chance? Does it matter? What of separation of the Jews from the state? Is that violative of Zionism? What do we make of 60 years of Charedi dominance in the religious affairs of Israel? What are the results of that dominance today? This article raises about as many questions as hair on my arms.

Randy Shiner


The Jewish Nation was reborn in Auschwitz

http://zionism-israel.com/ezine/Jewish_Nation_Auschwitz.htm

By

Arie S. Issar

During the last few months I received repeated e-mail letters, in English, Hebrew and even in Esperanto, with an article called "Europe Died in Auschwitz". In all these letters it was claimed that the article is translated from an article written by a Spanish journalist, Sebastian Vivar (or Villar) Rodriguez. All of my efforts and my friends' efforts to identify the journalist failed. Thus, until otherwise proven we can assume that the article is some sort of artful propaganda trick.[1]

I would not have bothered my friends with this article if not for the peculiar chain of events interwoven with the receipt of the e-mails containing it, all associated in this way or the other with its title. This chain of associations, in the first place, raised a chain of personal memories which pushed me to sit down and write this article. In the second place it confirmed the "First Law of unexpected certainty", which I formulated, saying that "The most unexpected is the most certain to occur".

Just in order to familiarize the reader who was not fortunate to get the series of e-mails mentioned above, I will tell in brief that this "journalist" claims that the Europeans "…assassinated 6 million Jews in order to end up bringing in 20 million Muslims! The Europeans he claims….burnt in Auschwitz the culture, intelligence and power to create…… people who gave to humanity the symbolic figures who were capable of changing history (Christ, Marx, Einstein, Freud...) and who is the origin of progress and wellbeing."

The peculiar occurrence, from my point of view, was that just when I got the first e-mail with the title mentioning Auschwitz I was collecting material for an essay, from which I got to learn about the origin of the gas 'Zyklon B.' This gas was used by the Germans in the gas chambers of the above mentioned infamous concentration camp. The essay I was writing was about the question: "Whose forecast will be verified in 2025: Malthus’ or Condorcet’s?[2] In this essay I examined the new prophecies of thirst and hunger to come mainly upon the Third World as a result of the Global Climate Change. One of these prophecies was that of the World Water Forum (WWF), which convened during March 2006 in Mexico City and which stated that an estimated 2.7 billion people, or one third of the world’s population, will face major water shortages by 2025, also foretelling a shortage of food, since irrigation for agriculture is the most important use of water. In my article, I argued that in order that this prophecy should be falsified like that of Malthus, two hundred years ago. In order that Condorcet’s prophecy of abundance, which Malthus disagreed with, will be verified, the world has to invest in progressing the population threatened by the WWF prophecy on the dimensions of democracy, education and science. Progress on these dimensions produced the innovations that brought a surplus of food to the world.

Condorcet argued that liberalism will bring enlightenment and advance in education and science, and even voluntary birth control. These stages of progress will guarantee ample food. The verification of Condorcet's prophecy was the "Green Revolution," one of its major steps was made by the chemist Fritz Haber, A German Jew, who found a way to synthesize ammonia from the nitrogen in the air. This led to the industrial production of fertilizers, which won him the Nobel Prize in 1918. The same Fritz Haber initiated modern chemical warfare by promoting and organizing the use of chlorine gas by the German army during the First World War. When Hitler came to power in Germany, Haber had to leave this country because of his Jewish origin. A byproduct of his invention was the insecticide Zyklon B gas, which the German army used for the extermination of Jews in the concentration camps, among them Auschwitz.

The second association came while I was writing, a few weeks later, another article on the subject of "Progressive Development", which in my opinion should replace "Sustainable Development" in the semi-arid regions, which are going to dry up due to Global Change.[3] The writing of this article involved the study of the successes, as well as failures, of the various projects in which I was involved in the dry countries of the world. Here came the associations of my first steps in this field which were made in the Negev Desert, as a student of Prof. Leo Picard and his assistant Zeev Shiftan.

Both of them were born in Germany, but unlike Fritz Haber, they did not try to assimilate into the German nation, but joined the Zionist movement and migrated to Palestine. Leo Picard, who got his geological education in Germany, was a pioneer in all that relates to groundwater development in Palestine. After the State of Israel was formed, he insisted that exploration wells should be drilled in the Negev Desert, as according to his theory groundwater must exist there. He was backed up by Engineer Simcha Blass, later the inventor of the drip irrigation system, who convinced David Ben Gurion, the first prime-minister of Israel, to supply a budget for buying a few British army surplus percussion drilling machines. With the help of veteran drillers who volunteered for this project, the first wells were drilled along the western escarpment of the Arava Valley. Indeed groundwater was found and since then many wells were drilled. Their water makes possible the thriving special winter agriculture of this valley.

As a student I accompanied my instructors when they sited the wells and later I served as the well sitter, which meant going down to the drilling sites every few days, bringing back the drilled rock samples and reporting the advance, success or failure. During the long days of travel with Picard and Shiftan, I learned about the reasons for their decision to leave Germany and immigrate to Israel. Picard, who first immigrated to Palestine in 1924, then returned to Germany for his Ph.D. studies and in 1934 started his academic career as lecturer at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, told me that because of various experiences as a young men, he came to the decision that anti-Semitism is ingrained in the German population, general as well as academic and there is no future for the Jewish people in this country. The same story I heard from Shiftan, who was detained in Buchenwald concentration camp, after the Nazis gained power, but got a certificate from Palestine, enabling his immigration.[4]

Here comes the next association, namely Iran. In 1960 Picard and Shiftan were invited by the FAO and the Iranian Government to start a project of groundwater development in Iran. As neither could not take on this project, they suggested me as the head of the project, this was accepted and in 1961 I left with my family for Iran, where we stayed for more than three years. One of my tasks was to locate a well for supplying fresh water for the building of the electric power station at Busheir, at that time a conventional power station. After I left Iran I was invited o come back by the UN Atomic Energy Agency to advise the Iranian Government on the application of environmental isotopes in hydro-geologic investigation. I left Iran just a few weeks before the Ayatollas gained power.

The above mentioned e-mails continued to arrive while I was listening to the spiteful orations by Iran's president Ahmedinajad promising the destruction of Israel, and his boast of turning Iran into a nuclear powered state (Not mentioning that atomic power is a brain child of mostly Jewish theoretical physicists, especially a Jewish lady scientist named Lisa Meitner, and was implemented by a team including many Jewish physicists headed by Robert Oppenheimer) and hearing about the conversion of the Bousheir power station to a nuclear station with the help of Russia, the vicious circle closed. This brought to mind Abdul Nasser's boasting speeches in the days before the Six Days War in 1967.

I was mobilized to my reserve artillery unit in Jerusalem (the guns, were positioned on a field a few hundred meters from my home) and we were sitting and waiting. The radio was tuned to Cairo from whence the voice of Abdul Nasser was heard. A fellow soldier in our battery,[5] a refugee from Egypt, translated the speeches from which we learned that the destruction of Israel is near, by the coalition of Egyptian, Syrian, Lebanese, Jordanian and Iraqi armies, equipped by arms manufactured by the USSR. Hearing these promises, one of the fellows got up pulled up his sleeve and pointed at the number tattooed on his arm in Auschwitz and cried out in Hebrew: 'Ya Abdul Nasser. Never Again! No more killing of Jews, one Auschwitz was enough, we have learnt the lesson". As a matter of fact, this fellow gave vent to the feeling of all us and of most Israelis. The burden of anxiety from another stage of extermination, exploded in an outburst of bravery which washed away the Arab armies in the shortest war in our history.

After a day or two the war started, after the Jordanian Arab Legion broke down, we advanced north towards Ramallah, but before reaching it we were informed that it surrendered, so we turned east towards Jericho. We stopped for a while north of Jerusalem. We could see the Old City and hear the fighting. Then there was silence and on the army radio net we could hear the voice of Motta Gur the parachutes division commander: "The Temple Mount is in our hands, the Temple Mount is in our hands". We continued to Jericho, and found out that it surrendered too. We continued northward, participated in silencing Syrian guns which shelled the valley of Genessaret, climbed the escarpment above Kibbutz Shamir and stopped our advance on the Golan Heights facing Damascus, when the cease fire was declared. On our way back we heard that Abdul Nasser resigned and saw convoys of Palestinian refugees returning to their homes, from which they fled when they heard that the Israeli army is advancing.

Notes

[1] I am especially grateful to Ami Isseroff and his friends for ringing the alarm about the identity of the writer. The Spanish original of the article is evidently at http://www.gentiuno.com/articulo.asp?articulo=1865 but the author is unknown except for that article.
[2] The original publication is available at www.springerlink.com Hydrogeology Journal, 2007, 15(2):419-422
[3]"Progressive development in arid environments: adapting the concept of sustainable development to a changing world", Hydrogeology Journal 1431-2174 (Print) 1435-0157 (Online) Springer Berlin / Heidelberg
[4] Was murdered by Arab terrorists in 1990
[5] Later on became one of the senior economists and general director of one of the leading banks of Israel



Arie Issar pioneered hydrogeology in Israel and is a world-recognized authority on the subject. He is an emeritus professor at the J. Blaustein Institute for Desert Research, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Israel, and has authored several books on geology, climate change and philosophy.

Copyright ©2008 by the author. All rights reserved.

Iran's Rafsanjani: US trying to "enslave" Iraq with security agreement

Rafsanjani's reference to "the Islamic world" not allowing the US to stay in Iraq is farcical. It is redolent of the "pan-Arabism" once espoused by Gamel Abdul Nasser and which was destroyed in theory and practice after the Israeli clobbering of 5 different Arab armies in 1967. That Saudi Arabia, Sunni Capitol of the world is holding a summit on Islam, Christianity and Judaism should tell you something about Islamic unity. The Sunni hate the Shia and vice-versa. Each has different agendas. The only reason that Iran is at all concerned is that Iraq could be used as a launching pad for military action into Iran, should circumstances warrant. And that is an option that, for diplomatic purposes, like the Queen in a chess game, has to remain on the table to make sure that Iran knows that we, the US and the rest of the world, mean business when we say that we will not allow a nuclear weapon or the systems to deliver one.

Randy Shiner



Iran's Rafsanjani: US trying to "enslave" Iraq with security agreement

The Associated Press
Wednesday, June 4, 2008
RIYADH, Saudi Arabia: One of Iran's most powerful cleric-politicians said Wednesday the United States is trying to "enslave" Iraqis through a long-term security agreement being negotiated between Washington and Baghdad, and he vowed the Islamic world would stop the deal.

Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani told a gathering of Muslim figures in the holy city of Mecca that the U.S. "occupation of Iraq represents a danger to all nations of the region" and warned that the security deal would create a "permanent occupation."

The comments were the strongest and most high-level public condemnations of the potential security deal by an Iranian official. Rafsanjani, a former president of Iran, heads two of the country's most powerful clerical governing bodies, the Expediency Council and the Assembly of Experts.

"The essence of this agreement is to turn the Iraqis into slaves before the Americans, if it is sealed. This will not happen. The Iraqi people, the Iraqi government and the Islamic nation will not allow it," Rafsanjani said.

Rafsanjani was speaking at a Saudi-sponsored conference aimed at unifying Muslim voices before an interfaith dialogue that Saudi King Abdullah wants to launch with Christian and Jewish religious figures.

Iran has been critical of the security agreement, largely in private talks with Iraqi officials. The deal, which the Iraqis and Americans hope to finish in mid-summer, would establish a long-term security relationship between Iraq and the United States, and a parallel agreement would provide a legal basis to keep U.S. troops in Iraq after the U.N. mandate expires at the end of the year.

Supporters believe the deal would help assure Iraq's Arab neighbors, notably Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, that Iraq's Shiite-led government would not become a satellite of Shiite-dominated Iran as American military role here fades.

But public critics in Iraq worry the deal will lock in American military, economic and political domination of the country. Some Iraqi politicians have attacked the deal, especially those loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, the anti-American cleric whose militiamen fought U.S. and Iraqi troops in Baghdad until a May truce ended seven weeks of fighting.

The agreement is likely to be among the issues discussed this weekend when Iraq's Shiite prime minister, Nouri al-Maliki, is due to visit Iran — his second trip there in a year.

Ahead of the visit, his party sought to calm worries by insisting that the deal would not allow foreign troops to use Iraq as a ground to invade another country — a clear reference to Iranian fears of a U.S. attack.

McCain on Israel, Iran and the Holocaust

McCain on Israel, Iran and the Holocaust
30 May 2008 10:03 am

Two weeks ago, I spoke with Barack Obama about the Middle East, Zionism, and his favorite Jewish writers. Since my blog is both fair and balanced, I had a lengthy conversation with Senator John McCain earlier this week about many of the same subjects.

The two candidates, who are scheduled to address the AIPAC policy conference in Washington, D.C. early next week, have well-developed thoughts on the Middle East, and their differences are stark. Obama sees the Israeli-Palestinian dispute as one of America’s central challenges in the Middle East; McCain names Islamic extremism as the most formidable challenge. Obama sees Jewish settlements as "not helpful" to peacemaking between Israel and the Palestinians; McCain does not offer a critique of the settlements, instead identifying Hamas’ rocket attacks on the Israeli town of Sderot as the most pressing problem. And both men take very different positions on the issue of Philip Roth.

In our conversation, McCain took a vociferously hard line on Iran (and a similarly hard line on Senator Obama’s understanding of the challenge posed by Iran). He accused Iran of not only seeking the destruction of Israel, but of sponsoring terrorist groups – Hamas and Hezbollah – that are bent on the destruction of the United States. And he said that the defense of Israel is a central tenet of American foreign policy. When I asked him why he is so concerned about Iranian threats against Israel, he said – in a statement that will surely placate Jewish voters who are particularly concerned about existential threats facing Israel – “The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust.”

Here is an edited transcript of my talk with McCain:

Jeffrey Goldberg: Is the Zionist cause just, and has it succeeded?

John McCain: I think so. I’m a student of history and anybody who is familiar with the history of the Jewish people and with the Zionist idea can’t help but admire those who established the Jewish homeland. I think it’s remarkable that Zionism has been in the middle of wars and great trials and it has held fast to the ideals of democracy and social justice and human rights. I think that the State of Israel remains under significant threat from terrorist organizations as well as the continued advocacy of the Iranians to wipe Israel off the map.

JG: Do you think the Palestinian cause is just?

JM: In respect to people like Mahmoud Abbas, who want to have a peaceful settlement with the government of Israel, to settle their differences in a peaceful and amicable fashion. If you are talking about Hamas or Hezbollah, which are dedicated to the extinction of the state of Israel, then no. It depends on who you’re talking about.

JG: Senator Obama told me that the Arab-Israeli dispute is a “constant sore” that infects our foreign policy. Do you think this is true, and do you think that the Arab-Israeli dispute is central to our challenges in the Middle East?
JM: Well, I certainly would not describe it the way Senator Obama did –

JG: He wasn’t referring to Israel as an “open sore,” he was referring to the conflict.

JM: I don’t think the conflict is a sore. I think it’s a national security challenge. I think it’s important to achieve peace in the Middle East on a broad variety of fronts and I think that if the Israeli-Palestinian issue were decided tomorrow, we would still face the enormous threat of radical Islamic extremism.

I think it’s very vital, don’t get me wrong. That’s why I’ve spent so much time there. The first time I visited Israel was thirty years ago, with Scoop Jackson and other senators, when I was in the Navy. I visited Yad Vashem (Israel’s Holocaust memorial) with Joe Lieberman the last time I was in Israel. So my absolute commitment is to peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But the dangers that we face in the Middle East are incredibly severe, in the form of radical Islamic extremists.

JG: Do you think that Israel is better off today than it was eight years ago?


JM: I think Israel, in many respects, is stronger economically, their political process shows progress – when there is corruption, they punish people who are corrupt. The economy is booming, they have a robust democracy, to say the least. Bin Laden has not limited his hatred and desire to destroy the United States to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, though Israel is one of the objects of his jihadist attitude. What you’re trying to do is get me to criticize the Bush Administration.

JG: No, I'm not, what I'm --

JM: Yeah, you are, but I’ll try to answer your question. Because of the rise of Islamic extremism, because of the failure of human rights and democracy in the Middle East, or whether there are a myriad of challenges we face in the Middle East, all of them severe, all of them pose a threat to the existence to the state of Israel, including and especially the Iranians, who have as a national policy the destruction of the state of Israel, something they’ve been dedicated to since before President Bush came to office.

JG: What do you think motivates Iran?

JM: Hatred. I don’t try to divine people’s motives. I look at their actions and what they say. I don’t pretend to be an expert on the state of their emotions. I do know what their nation’s stated purpose is, I do know they continue in the development of nuclear weapons, and I know that they continue to support terrorists who are bent on the destruction of the state of Israel. You’ll have to ask someone who engages in this psycho stuff to talk about their emotions.

JG: Senator Obama has calibrated his views on unconditional negotiations. Do you see any circumstance in which you could negotiate with Iran, or do you believe that it’s leadership is impervious to rational dialogue?

JM: I’m amused by Senator Obama’s dramatic change since he’s gone from a candidate in the primary to a candidate in the general election. I’ve seen him do that on a number of issues that show his naivete and inexperience on national security issues. I believe that the history of the successful conduct of national security policy is that, one, you don’t sit down face-to-face with people who are behave the way they do, who are state sponsors of terrorism.

Senator Obama likes to refer to President Kennedy going to Vienna. Most historians see that as a serious mistake, which encouraged Khrushchev to build the Berlin Wall and to send missiles to Cuba. Another example is Richard Nixon going to China. I’ve forgotten how many visits Henry Kissinger made to China, and how every single word was dictated beforehand. More importantly, he went to China because China was then a counterweight to a greater threat, the Soviet Union. What is a greater threat in the Middle East than Iran today?

Senator Obama is totally lacking in experience, so therefore he makes judgments such as saying he would sit down with someone like Ahmadinejad without comprehending the impact of such a meeting. I know that his naivete and lack of experience is on display when he talks about sitting down opposite Hugo Chavez or Raul Castro or Ahmadinejad.

JG: There’s no rationale for sitting down with Iran?

JM: Yes. I could see a situation hopefully in the future if the Iranians would change the policies that you and I have just talked about, but there would have to be negotiations and discussions and all kinds of things happening before you lend them the prestige of a face-to-face meeting with the President of the United States of America. As you know, our ambassador in Iraq, Ryan Crocker, has met with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad on a couple of occasions. Those discussions, according to Ambassador Crocker, have been totally unproductive, because Iran is hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, they’re hell-bent on driving us out of Iraq, they’re hell-bent on supporting terrorist organizations, and as serious as anything to American families, they’re sending explosive devices into Iraq that are killing American soldiers.

JG: Tell me how engaged you would be as President in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations, and give me a couple of names of plausible Middle East envoys.

JM: I would have a hands-on approach. I would be the chief negotiator. I have been there for thirty years. I know the leaders, I know them extremely well. Ehud Barak and I have gone back thirty years. I knew Olmert when he was mayor of Jerusalem. I’ve met many times with Netanyahu. I’ve met with Mahmoud Abbas.

In terms of envoys, there are a large number of people who could be extremely effective, and I apologize for ducking the question, but it would have to be dictated by the state of relations at the time. For example, we know that there were behind-the-scenes conversations Israel was having with Syria. Now it’s broken into the public arena. So it would depend on the state of things. If they were more advanced in talks, which they are not, with Hamas, then you need someone like a mechanic. If it’s someone who needs to lay out a whole framework, it would have to be someone who commands the respect of both sides, someone who has an impact on world opinion.

JG: What is the difference between an American president negotiating with Ahmadinejad and Ehud Olmert negotiating with the Syrians?

JM: You don’t see him sitting down opposite Bashar, do you? (Bashar al-Assad is president of Syria.) I mean, that’s the point here. It was perfectly fine that Ryan Crocker spoke with the Iranian ambassador in Baghdad. The point is you don’t give legitimacy by lending prestige of a face-to-face meeting, with no preconditions.

JG: But Obama has shifted off that position.

JM: Sure, and the next time he sees where he’s wrong, maybe he’ll shift again. The point is is that he doesn’t understand. Look, in the primary, he was unequivocal in his statements. And now he realizes that it’s not a smart thing to say. I didn’t say he wasn’t a smart politician.

JG: Do you think that settlements keep Israel and the Palestinians from making peace?

JM: There’s a list of issues that separate them, from water, to the right of return, to settlements. Look at the Oslo Accords, which basically laid out a roadmap for addressing these major issues. And settlements is one of them, but certainly one of the issues right now is the shelling of Sderot, which I visited. As you know, they’re shelling from across the border. If the United States was being rocketed across one of our borders, that would probably gain prominence as an issue.

JG: Do you believe that Israel will have to go into Gaza in force to deal with the rockets, and if Israel did, would you support it?

JM: It depends on what you mean by force. They’ve responded with air strikes, and identifying Hamas leaders and, you know, quote, responding. Would they respond with massive force? I don’t know. I know from my conversations with them that they are deeply concerned. They’re a democracy. How would an American government, how would American public opinion respond, if there were constant shelling, and kids had fifteen seconds – fifteen seconds – to get into a bomb shelter. I don’t know what the government of Israel is going to do. It somewhat depends on whether these attacks will discontinue or if other things happen. I did get the distinct impression, nothing specific, but I got the impression that the patience of the Israeli government and the people is growing short.

JG: Let’s go back to Iran. Some critics say that America conflates its problem with Iran with Israel’s problem with Iran. Iran is not threatening the extinction of America, it’s threatening the extinction of Israel. Why should America have a military option for dealing with Iran when the threat is mainly directed against Israel?

JM: The United States of America has committed itself to never allowing another Holocaust. That’s a commitment that the United States has made ever since we discovered the horrendous aspects of the Holocaust.

In addition to that, I would respond by saying that I think these terrorist organizations that they sponsor, Hamas and the others, are also bent, at least long-term, on the destruction of the United States of America. That’s why I agree with General Petraeus that Iraq is a central battleground. Because these Shiite militias are sending in these special groups, as they call them, sending weapons in, to remove United States influence and to drive us out of Iraq and thereby achieve their ultimate goals. We’ve heard the rhetoric -- the Great Satan, etc. It’s a nuance, their being committed to the destruction of the State of Israel, and their long-term intentions toward us.

JG: Do you think their intention is the actual destruction of America?

JM: It’s hard for me to say what their intentions are, but the effect – If they were able to drive us out of Iraq, and al Qaeda established a base there, and the Shiite militias erupted and the Iranian influence was expanded, which to my mind is what would happen, then the consequences for American national security would be profound. I don’t know if their intention is to destroy America and what we stand for, but I think the consequences of them succeeding in the destruction of the state of Israel and their continued support for terrorist organizations – all of these would have profound national security consequences.

JG: A question about democratization in the Middle East. Imagine a continuum, Brent Scowcroft on one end, Paul Wolfowitz on the other. Where do you fall on that continuum, five years after the invasion of Iraq?

JM: I think that we’ve got to always balance the realism of a situation with idealism. I’m committed to that fundamental belief that we’re all created equal and endowed with inalienable rights. But there are times when realism has to enter into the equation as well. If you look at Darfur, we don’t want this to go on, but how do we stop it? And what would the consequences of our initial intrusion be? After the initial success, what are the long-term consequences?

I enjoy hearing this debate. There’s no one I love more in the world than Brent Scowcroft. He’s one of the most selfless people I’ve ever seen, never a trace of personal ambition, which is the rarest thing in Washington. But I lean also toward the historic idealism of America. Which means that every situation that confronts us, we have to try to maintain that balance. Have I always been right? No. But I try to learn from the lessons of history.

JG: You bring up an interesting question about the Holocaust, to which you say never again. But do you have an absolute commitment to stop genocide wherever it occurs?

JM: That has to be the fundamental goal, but it has to be tempered by the idea that you have to actually be able to do it, that you can succeed. If you fail in one of these efforts, that encourages others, and increases feelings of isolationism and protectionism in America. It’s hard to convince Americans to send young Americans into harm’s way, as it should be.

JG: It sounds like you’re talking about Iraq.

JM: Well, we haven’t talked about the four years of mishandling this war, which has been devastating, in particular to the families.

JG: A final question: Senator Obama talked about how his life was influenced by Jewish writers, Philip Roth, Leon Uris. How about you?

JM: There’s Elie Wiesel, and Victor Frankl. I think about Frankl all the time. “Man’s Search for Meaning” is one of the most profound things I’ve ever read in my life. And maybe on a little lighter note, “War and Remembrance” and “Winds of War” are my two absolute favorite books. I can tell you that one of my life’s ambitions is to meet Herman Wouk. “War and Remembrance” for me, it’s the whole thing.

Then there’s Joe Lieberman, who lives a life of his religion, and who does it in the most humble way.

JG: Not a big Philip Roth fan?

JM: No, I’m not. Leon Uris I enjoyed. Victor Frankl, that’s important. I read it before my captivity. It made me feel a lot less sorry for myself, my friend. A fundamental difference between my experience and the Holocaust was that the Vietnamese didn’t want us to die. They viewed us as a very valuable asset at the bargaining table. It was the opposite in the Holocaust, because they wanted to exterminate you. Sometimes when I felt sorry for myself, which was very frequently, I thought, “This is nothing compared to what Victor Frankl experienced.”

Hassan Nasrallah is trapping himself

This is from Lebanon's Beirut Daily Star - an interesting analyis. Comments?

Hassan Nasrallah is trapping himself
By Michael Young Daily Star staff
Thursday, May 29, 2008

Listening to the speeches of President Michel Suleiman and Hizbullah's Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah earlier this week, it is becoming apparent that there are really only two projects in Lebanon today: There is the project of the state, which Suleiman and the parliamentary majority embody, assuming the president abides by his public statements; and there is the project of a non-state, supported by Hizbullah and its allies.

If that wasn't plain enough, then consider what happened on Monday night, after Suleiman had spent his first day at the Baabda Palace. Hizbullah and Amal partisans, as has become their habit lately, fired in the air to celebrate Nasrallah's speech, then took to the streets and began firing at their political adversaries. In the Bekaa Valley much the same thing happened. There was a message there, perhaps more a Syrian than an Iranian one this time around, and it was that the new president should not imagine he will be able to build up a state against Hizbullah.

Thanks to the Israelis, who may soon hand a grand prisoner exchange to Hizbullah, Nasrallah may earn a brief reprieve for his "resistance." It's funny how Hizbullah and Syria, always the loudest in accusing others of being Israeli agents, are the ones who, when under pressure, look toward negotiations with Israel for an exit. Hizbullah has again done so to show that its "defense strategy" works and to deflect growing domestic insistence that the party place its weapons at the disposal of the state.

Nasrallah has started peddling what he thinks Lebanon's defense strategy should be. Hizbullah's model is the summer 2006 war, he explained this week. But if the defense strategy Hizbullah wants us to adopt is one that hands Israel an excuse to kill over 1,200 people, turn almost 1 million civilians out into the streets for weeks on end while their villages are bombed and their fields are saturated with fragmentation bomblets; if Nasrallah's strategy is one that will lead to the destruction of Lebanon's infrastructure, the ruin of its economy, the emigration of its youths, the isolation of the Shiites in a society infuriated with Hizbullah's pursuit of lasting conflict; if that's his defense strategy, then Nasrallah needs to get out of his bunker more and see what is really going on in Lebanon.

The only good thing that came out of the 2006 war, the only thing that both a majority of Lebanese and the Shiite community together approved of, was the deployment of the Lebanese Army to the South, the strengthening of UNIFIL, and the pacification of the border area. The Lebanese approved of this because it made less likely a return to Nasrallah's inane defense strategy. Unless of course the Hizbullah leader is now telling us that the neutralization of Hizbullah's military activities along the frontier with Israel was also a part of that strategy, because in practical terms it too was a result of the 2006 war.

Nasrallah's speech only reaffirmed that Hizbullah cannot find an exit to its existential dilemma, other than to coerce its hostile countrymen into accepting its armed mini-state. Very simply, the days of the national resistance are over. The liberation of the Shebaa Farms does not justify Hizbullah's existence as a parallel force to the army, and it does not justify initiating a new war with Israel. After all, the Syrians have a much larger territory under occupation and have preferred negotiations to conflict in order to win it back. As Suleiman implied, the best thing that can happen now is for Hizbullah to share with the state its resistance expertise, which was a gentle way of saying that the party must integrate into the state.

Nasrallah's defensiveness also revealed something else, almost as worrying as his untenable position on Hizbullah's defense strategy. It revealed that the party views Doha as a setback. Nasrallah is right in that respect. The agreement negotiated by the Qataris was several things. It was, above all, a line drawn in the sand by the Sunni Arab world against Iran and Syria, telling them that Lebanon would not fall into their lap. In this the Qataris were part of an Arab consensus, and the Iranians, always pragmatic, backtracked when seeing how resolute the Arabs were.

But the Doha agreement was mainly a failure for Syria. Damascus had planned to use the open-ended political vacuum in Beirut as leverage to bring in a new president and government on its conditions, to negotiate Syria's return to the Arab fold from a position of strength, to torpedo the Hariri tribunal, and to prepare an eventual Syrian military return to Lebanon. The Qataris thwarted this, and in a conversation between Syrian President Bashar Assad and Qatar's Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa Al-Thani, Assad was pushed into approving Suleiman's election. As a last measure he tried to prevent the granting of 16 ministerial portfolios to the March 14 coalition - a simple majority in the 30-minister government allowing the coalition to have a quorum for regular Cabinet sessions. Sheikh Hamad rejected this and Assad had no choice but to relent, before instructing Parliament Speaker Nabih Berri to accept the Qatari plan.

Hizbullah's plan was little different than that of the Syrians, so the Qataris substantially complicated Nasrallah's calculations as well. Suleiman is still an unknown quantity, but if he sticks to the principles highlighted in his inauguration speech, Hizbullah will be squeezed. Unlike the time when Emile Lahoud was still around and formed, with Berri, an alliance against Siniora, if the next prime minister and Suleiman can craft a joint strategy to strengthen the authority of the state, it is Berri, as the senior opposition figure and Shiite in office, who may find himself out on a limb.

Speaking of Berri, Hizbullah's bloc may have made a grave mistake in choosing yesterday to name no favorite as prime minister. That means that the bloc is ignoring the wishes of the Sunni community to bring back Siniora. Recall that when Berri was elected as Parliament speaker in 2005, those parliamentarians voting for him defended the choice on the grounds that "the Shiites want him." By inference, in not naming Siniora yesterday, mainly because the Syrians oppose him, the opposition has given the future majority in Parliament, if it happens to be a majority opposed to Hizbullah and Amal, an opening to reject Berri's re-election as speaker in 2009, regardless of whether the Shiites want him.

The ink on the Doha agreement is barely dry, but already Hizbullah and Syria are trying to water down its terms. Nasrallah's speech showed that he has no intention of entering into a substantive discussion on his party's weaponry. His promise not to use his guns in the pursuit of domestic political goals was meaningless, as he has already done so. In fact, his reading of what he can do with his weapons is much more advantageous to Hizbullah than what the Doha agreement stipulates. But Nasrallah has a problem. Most Lebanese want a real state and most Shiites don't want another war with Israel. Hizbullah, in contrast, doesn't want a real state but needs permanent war to remain relevant. That's Nasrallah's trap.
Michael Young is opinion editor of THE DAILY STAR.

Charles Krauthammer: At best, we can deter Iran from using nukes

We will see if Mr. Bush is listening. Or anybody else.


Charles Krauthammer: At best, we can deter Iran from using nukes
By Charles Krauthammer
April 11, 2008

WASHINGTON - On Tuesday, Iran announced it was installing 6,000 more centrifuges -- they produce enriched uranium, the key ingredient of a nuclear weapon -- in addition to the 3,000 already operating. The world yawned.

It is time to admit the truth: The Bush administration's attempt to halt Iran's nuclear program has failed. Utterly. The latest round of U.N. Security Council sanctions, which took a year to achieve, is comically weak. It represents the end of the sanctions road. The president is going to hand over to his successor an Iran on the verge of going nuclear. This will deeply destabilize the Middle East, threaten moderate Arabs with Iranian hegemony and leave Israel on hair-trigger alert.

This failure can, however, be mitigated. Since there will apparently be no disarming of Iran by preemption or by sanctions, we shall have to rely on deterrence to prevent the mullahs, some of whom are apocalyptic and messianic, from using nuclear weapons.

During the Cold War, we prevented an attack not only on the United States but also on America's allies by extending the American nuclear umbrella -- i.e., declaring that any attack on our allies would be considered an attack on the United States.
Such a threat is never 100 percent credible. Nonetheless, it made the Soviets think twice about attacking our European allies. It kept the peace.

We should do the same to keep nuclear peace in the Middle East. It would be infinitely less dangerous (and therefore more credible) than Cold War deterrence because there will be no threat of annihilation from Iran. Unlike the Soviet Union, Iran would have a relatively tiny arsenal incapable of reaching the United States.
How to create deterrence? The way John Kennedy did during the Cuban missile crisis. President Bush should issue the following declaration, adopting Kennedy's language while changing the names of the miscreants:

It shall be the policy of
this nation to regard any
nuclear attack upon Israel
by Iran, or originating in
Iran, as an attack by Iran on
the United States, requiring
a full retaliatory response
upon Iran.

This should be followed with a simple explanation: "As a beacon of tolerance and as leader of the free world, the United States will not permit a second Holocaust to be perpetrated upon the Jewish people."

This policy -- the Holocaust Declaration -- would establish a firm benchmark that would outlive this administration. Every future president -- and every serious presidential candidate -- would have to publicly state whether or not he supports the Holocaust Declaration. It is an important question to ask because it will be controversial. It will be argued that the Holocaust Declaration is either redundant or, at the other extreme, provocative. Redundant, it will be said, because Israel could retaliate on its own. The problem is that Israel is a very small country with a small nuclear arsenal that could be destroyed in a first strike. During the Cold War, both the United States and the Soviet Union created vast and invulnerable submarine fleets to ensure a retaliatory strike and, thus, deterrence. The invulnerability and unimaginably massive size of this American nuclear arsenal would make a U.S. deterrent far more potent and reliable than any Israeli facsimile -- and thus far more likely to keep the peace.

Would such a declaration be provocative? On the contrary. Deterrence is the least-provocative of all policies. That is why it is the favored alternative of those who oppose a preemptive attack on Iran.

What the Holocaust Declaration does is turn deterrence from a slogan into a policy.
It is, of course, hardly certain that deterrence would work on Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and other jihadists. But deterrence would encourage rational Iranian actors, of whom there are many, to restrain or even depose leaders like Ahmadinejad who might sacrifice Iran's existence as a nation in order to vindicate their divine obligation to exterminate the "filthy bacteria" of the Jewish state, "this disgraceful stain (on) the Islamic world."

For the first time since the time of Jesus, Israel is the home of the world's largest Jewish community. An implacable enemy has openly declared genocidal intentions against it -- in clear violation of the U.N. charter -- and is pursuing the means to carry out that intent. The world does nothing. Some, like the Russians, are literally providing fuel for the fire. For those who believe that America stands for something in the world -- that the nation that has liberated more peoples than any other has even the most minimal moral vocation -- there can be no more pressing cause than preventing the nuclear annihilation of an allied democracy, the last refuge and hope of an ancient people openly threatened with the final Final Solution.


Charles Krauthammer's column is distributed by the Washington Post Writers Group.
© 2008 Star Tribune. All rights reserved.