Iran Affairs

Majority of Americans Favor Obama Meeting Iranians

Business Wire, Jan 23, 2009 pNA

2-to-1 Majority of Americans Favor Obama Meeting with Iranian Leaders, but only 1-in-3 Favor Sending More U.S. Troops to Afghanistan.

Full Text: COPYRIGHT 2009 Business Wire

New Financial Times/Harris Poll examines U.S. and European attitudes to key foreign policy issues

ROCHESTER, N.Y. -- Most Americans feel very positively about President Obama, but that does not mean they support everything he says he plans to do. A new Financial Times/Harris Poll finds that they support his positions on some foreign policy issues but not on others. The poll, which covers not just the United States but also the five largest European countries, measures public attitudes on some of the key foreign policy issues facing the new president.

A 46% to 30% plurality of Americans is opposed to the president's plan to send more U.S. troops to Afghanistan. On other hand, a 65% to 35% majority of Americans supports meeting with Iranian leaders, something he has said he would consider. The poll also finds Americans to be split on continuing the embargo on Cuba: 35% favor continuing it, 22% oppose it while fully 42% neither support nor oppose it.

These are some of the findings of a Financial Times/Harris Poll conducted online by Harris Interactive[R] among a total of 6,299 adults (1,000 or more in each country), aged 16-64, within France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and the United States and adults (aged 18-64) in Italy between 8 and 15 January 2009.

In Europe, there is no public consensus on whether to send more of their troops. Substantial numbers of people (60% in Germany, 57% in Britain, 53% in Italy, 53% in France, and 45% in Spain) are opposed to sending more of their troops to Afghanistan. And these numbers are probably influenced by the extraordinary popularity of the new president ("European Reactions to President Obama Overwhelmingly Positive". January 22, 2009), with many more people now wanting their countries to support President Obama and the United States than wanted to support President Bush's policies.

Other interesting findings include:

* In Europe, majorities (61% in Britain, 51% in France) or pluralities (50% in Germany, 43% in Italy and 32% in Spain) are "neutral" on whether or not President Obama should continue the U.S. embargo on Cuba. Most Europeans with opinions on the subject think the U.S. should end the embargo.

* The international financial and economic crisis is by far the dominant issue that people think President Obama should address. By wide margins, many more people (from 58% in the U.S. to 35% in Germany) mention this crisis than mention any other issue on his agenda.

* Most people in the United States (77%), Britain (77%) and France (71%) think Britain and France should keep their seats on the U.S. Security Council. Most people in Italy (70%) and Spain (58%), and 49% in Germany, think they should give up their seats and be replaced by a single European Union seat.

* Very large majorities of adult Europeans, from 84% in Italy to 68% in Germany, agree with the 65% of Americans who think President Obama should meet with Iranian leaders to discuss Iran's production of nuclear weapons.

* Majorities in all the five European countries, from 75% in France to 58% in Britain think President Obama should place less emphasis on the "war on terror" than did President Bush. Americans are split 45% to 45% on this.

So What?

Many Europeans indicate by their replies to this survey that they are hoping that President Obama's foreign policies will be different from President Bush's policies, for example, on talking to Iran or ending the embargo on Cuba. President Obama's astronomical popularity in Europe will make it easier for him to request and receive support from Europe. However, this popularity does not mean that Europeans give, or will give, his policies unconditional support.

Methodology

This FT/Harris Poll was conducted online by Harris Interactive among a total of 6,299 adults (aged 16-64) within France (1,021), Germany (1,107), Great Britain (1,071), Spain (1,007) and the United States (1,066), and adults (aged 18-64) in Italy (1,027) between 8 and 15 January 2009. Figures for age, sex, education, region and Internet usage were weighted where necessary to bring them into line with their actual proportions in the population. Propensity score weighting was used to adjust for respondents' propensity to be online. Full data tables and methodology are available at www.harrisinteractive.com.

These statements conform to the principles of disclosure of the National Council on Public Polls and of the British Polling Council.

------------

Harris Interactive is a global leader in custom market research. With a long and rich history in multimodal research, powered by our science and technology, we assist clients in achieving business results. Harris Interactive serves clients globally through our North American, European and Asian offices and a network of independent market research firms. For more information, please visit www.harrisinteractive.com.

Harris Interactive Inc. 1/09

TUrkey to export gas to India via Israel?

According to the Jan 2009 issue of Pipeline & Gas Journal:

Turkey eyes Israel for pipeline route.

Following the failure of the Turkey-Iran-Pakistan-India oil and gas pipeline plan due to security and cost pressures, Turkey is considering shipping oil and gas to India via Israel. The proposed route, through the Red Sea, will avoid the over-crowded Suez Canal and the longer route around the Cape of Good Hope.

Turkey would supply India with not only oil and gas but also water, electricity and fiber optic cables. The project is expected to cost more than US$10 billion. ..

Since collapse of the Iran-Pakistan-India pipeline proposal, Pakistan has been talking to Beijing about building pipelines to transfer Iran's natural gas to China through Pakistan to meet its increasing energy demand.

The article claims that officials from India, Israel and Turkey are likely to meet in Istanbul shortly to work out the details. Turkey imports gas from Iran so how do they plan on exporting it to India, regardless of the route? Talk about going the long way around anyway.

"Obama must talk to Iran"

The January 26th issue of the New Statesman an interesting article on the state of US-Iran relations entitled "Why Iran must be brought in from the cold" by Dominic Sandbrook which is bound to send shivers up the spines of the Israelis since it concludes: 

It is now more than three decades since an American president was in Tehran. And while the image of the American head of state shaking hands with the ayatollahs may seem unlikely, few people would have imagined that they would see Richard Nixon on the Great Wall of China and shaking hands with Chairman Mao, or Ronald Reagan in Red Square, exchanging jokes with Mikhail Gorbachev. Nothing would do more to coax the Iranian regime towards liberalisation, and nothing would do more to change America’s image in the Middle East, than for Barack Obama to follow their example, and to bury the bitter legacy of three decades ago, once and for all.

Well, when Nixon went to China, he had to disassociate the US from China's foe and competitor for US attention: Taiwan. Nixon had to push aside the (one powerful) pro-Taiwanese lobby. Naturally, Israel doesn't want to be put in the position of Taiwan. Can Obama overcome the influence of the far more influential pro-Israeli lobby? I seriously doubt it.

Carter explains power of Pro-Israeli Lobby in Congress

When a former PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES says this, then there's just no denying it:

It’s politically impossible, as you know, for any member of Congress to make a public statement condemning or criticizing the policies of Israel. It would be political suicidal for them to do so. A lot of the members of Congress agree with me, some very high up in the Congress. But if they came out publicly and said it, their seats would be in danger.

Now tell me again how Israel doesn't run this country' foreign policy.

Israel is lying about Gaza and Hamas

Henry Siegman writes in the Jan 29 2009 issue of the London Review of Books:

Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza...

Middle East peacemaking has been smothered in deceptive euphemisms, so let me state bluntly that each of these claims is a lie.

More here.

IISS: Iran to have nukes in 2009! Not really.

The Jerusalem Posts claims that Iran will have nukes in 2009, attributing this to the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS .) Only upon reading the article are we presented with a bity of nuance: According to the IISS paper by Mark Fitzpatrick, by the end of 2009 Iran will have obtained enough low-enriched uranium which could hypothetically be used to make 1 nuclear bomb if it is subjected to further enrichment. However this doesn't stop IISS from claiming "the question of how Iran can be stopped from having the Bombwill become increasingly urgent" -- despite the utter lack of any evidence that Iran is in fact seeking the bomb in the first place.

In short, this is nothing more than speculation and scaremongering especially considering some facts left out of the IISS report and the Jersualem Post article, both of are reaching oh so hard to make a rather tenuous connection between low-enriched nuclear fuel manufactured at a civilian, IAEA-monitored facility and an Iranian nuclear weapons program (which has thus far inconveniently failed to materialize, thus explaining the need to engage in such speculation instead.)

The fact is that Iran's enrichment program is conducted under IAEA safeguards and monitors, and cannot be used to make highly-enriched uranium without being noticed (it would take months just to make the necessary changes to the centrifuge pipes, even before the additional enrichment started.)

Could Iran one day possibly make HEU from LEU? Yes -- so could any other country with an enrichment program (BRazil, Argentina, etc.) But is there any actual evidence that Iran plans on doing so? No actually there's contrary evidence because contrary to IISS's claim that Iran has offered nothing but non-response counter-proposals, Iran has made concrete offers to place additional restrictions on its nuclear program, beyond its legal obligations, in order to further ensure that the enrichment program cannot be used to make bombs -- for example by opening its enrichment program to international participation. This proposals was endorsed by both American and international experts but was simply ignored by the US.

Notice also how the IISS report speaks of a nuclear weapons "capability" -- this is a deliberate conflation of a perfectly legal nuclear energy program with  nuclear weapons. As I have written before about this sort thing:

The absence of any actual evidence of an Iranian nuclear-weapons programme is being smoothed over through the use of ambiguities. This is usually done by conflating a nuclear-weapons programme with a nuclear-energy programme . . .  For example, in addition to overt references to a weapons programme, there may be references to Iran's nuclear "threat", or vague statements about Iran's nuclear "ambitions", or even more tenuously, allusions to Iran's "intentions" to obtain a nuclear-weapons "capability". . . The ambiguity is useful precisely because such questions don't have to be answered, provided the implied "threat" is communicated.

And finally note how the IISS paper resorts to the old and familiar tool of a false choice fallacy on Iran by framing the issue in a manner according to which coercive diplomacy (aka sanctions) or outright aggression are supposedly the only ways to deal with Iran and its alleged rush to "get the bomb" -- conveniently leaving aside the option of simply accepting Iran's inalienable and perfectly legal right to enrich uranium.

SO in short the IISS paper by Mark Fitzpatrick is pushing an agenda and should not be considered to be objective.

Iran: hype and speculation posing as news

It seems that there's more than the usual amount of hype and speculation posing as news on Iran lately.

- "Tungsten Copper Metal"? The WSJ reported on "fresh clues of Iranian Nuclear Intrigue" which involved supposed Iranian imports from China of tungsten copper. Problem is that even if true, tungsten copper has widespread commercial applications, never mind the fact that it is used to make arms (not necessarily nuclear missiles...and Iran is quite proud of its missiles anyway, so no secret there.) So what's the story here except to push speculation and fear mongering?

Nevertheless, and true to form, the WSJ revives discredited "arms control expert" Gary Milholland of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control who naturally declares that "There doesn't seem to be any real doubt or debate whether Iran is going for the bomb." Gee Gary, isn't that what you said about WMDs in Iraq too? As I have written previously:

And regrettably, some of the same pundits and think tanks that helped peddle the "Iraqi WMD" threat are now active in promoting the idea that an Iranian nuclear weapons programme exists. For example, during the build-up to the Iraq invasion, the director of the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control repeatedly claimed that Iraq had "an active programme for building weapons of mass destruction", though in fact the IAEA inspectors had concluded otherwise. In editorials published in the Wall Street Journal he even went so far as to repeatedly accuse Hans Blix, then-Director General of the IAEA, of being "timid"-and "irrelevant" because of the IAEA's "failure" to find the non-existent WMD in Iraq. The editorials are still conveniently posted at IragWatch.org, a special website created by the Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control dedicated to "accounts of Iraq's efforts to build weapons of mass destruction". There were no attempts to withdraw these statements after the IAEA was vindicated and no WMD were found in Iraq. Instead, without missing a beat, the same organisation has simply shifted its attention to Iran: it has a started a new website called IranWatch.org, which urges policies to "stop the Iranian bomb". The fact that there is no actual evidence of any "Iranian bomb" appears to be as irrelevant to these pundits today as the non-existence of Iraqi WMD was in 2003.

- "Arms shipment intercepted"? In a redo of the Karine-A affair (an Israeli PR stunt wherein they "heroically captured" an "Iranian ship" carrying weapons for the Palestinians...just in time to undermine growing US-Iran rapprochement developing over Afghanistan) there are anonymous sources which claim that an Iranian-owned vessel was intercepted carrying artillery shells for someone (Hamas doesn't have artillery.) And what does "Iranian owned" mean, and how is that even relevant (and would the Iranians use an Iranian-owned vessel to smuggle arms when they could easily charter millions of other vessels?) And would it be possible for the Iranians to smuggle weapons all the way through the Red Sea and Suez Canal where shipping is regularly monitored? LOL Meanwhile the US is busy shipping explosives to Israel itself.

No actual proof exists that the shipment was from Iran, or who the intended recipient was, or what the shipment really consisted of (1 artillery shell? 10? 100?) and so there was no evidence that any of the suspicions about the shipment were founded, but naturally that doesn't stop the Likudnik Jerusalem Post from featuring the neocon, MEK-backer Raymond Tanter from giving some extra juice to the story anyway by promoting yet more speculation.

Similar stories had been promoted in the media about Iranian arms smuggling in the past, which were eventually discredited, and have been the subject of Right-wing blog conspiracy theories too. So again, what's the real  story here other than an opportunity to create screaming headlines about "Iranian ship caught smuggling arms to Gaza"?

- "Running out of Uranium"? - I don't have time to mention this story in detail, suffice to say, what's the source? Again, anonymous leaks.

Could it be that the media are making things up out of sheer boredom for lack of substantive news due to the Obama turnover? Or is this scaremongering intended to ensure that Obama doesn't substantively change US policies with respect to Iran?

Guantanamo prison closure: the damage has been done.

Obama has ordered the closure of Gitmo prison. Do doubt there will be a lot of rejoicing among people who are interested in civil liberties, as not only Gitmo but the whole Bush administration was a blight on the record of civil liberties and constitutional rights in the US (more on that later)

However rejoicing over the closure of Gitmo should be short. Obama  may have closed Gitmo, but the existence of Gitmo has extablished a precedent that can be invoked yet again at any time in the future.

This is much like the Japanese-American internment camps created during WWII, into which American citizens who had as little as 1/16th Japanese ancestry were forcibly relocated. Even though the internment camps were judged by history to be a stain on the civil liberties of Americans and a national disgrace, and even though the Japanese-Americans who were kept in the camps eventually received an apology and compensation from the US government, the legality of the internment camps was supported by the US Supreme Court in the Korematsu case. So in other words, it was judged to be a perfectly legal thing to do then, and so it could happen again. That's why a dissenting judge in the Korematsu case characterized it as a "loaded weapon" waiting to go off again:

"The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon, ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. Every repetition imbeds that principle more deeply in our law and thinking and expands it to new purposes."

 -- and the same thing is true of Gitmo: 

And another reason not to celebtrate too much: Aside from the whole question of Gitmo, the cause of civil liberties in this country has suffered massive, permanent damage. We have lost precious freedoms and rights that were once judged to be fundamental to the Anglo-American system of justice, and which will not come back (once a precedent has been set that a fundemental right can be taken away, even temporarily it then becomes much more of a conditional thing, much less "Fundamental".)

For example, when I was in law school, the idea that the government could charge someone with a crime using "secret evidence" that the accused (nor the jury -- assuming you get a trial) could neither see nor challenge -- would have been considered to be repulsive and highly unlikely. In fact, the hated Star Chamber court that the American revolutionaries complained about so bitterly didn't even do that. Well, guess what! Today in the United States, defendants can be (and have been) sent to prison based on "secret evidence" that they never had a chance to challenge in court. In fact, people have been imprisoned without ever seeing the inside of a court house!

It is a fundamental rule of police states that once they start to tread on civil liberties, they will always continue to demand yet more concessions and powers, always with the excuse that "emergency situations" or "public safety" or "national security" requires us to give up yet more rights.

To be fair, this trend towards a police state started before Bush II, but greatly accelerted under his administration. What with domestic spying programs, warrantless eavesdropping, imprisonment without charge, legalization of torture, etc etc etc -- not to mention the wholesale failure of the system of checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches which was SUPPOSED to prevent the likes of Wolfowitz and Cheney and Douglas Feith from misleading us into a war -- it would be no exaggeration whatsoever to say that the cause of civil liberties (indeed, the concept of constitutionalism itself) has suffered a mortal wound, and the constitution has been exposed as a paper tiger that fundamentally failed its purpose. 

AIPAC spying trial set for April 21

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency reports:

Trial in AIPAC case set for April 21

January 15, 2009

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- A new trial date has been set in the classified information case against two former AIPAC staffers. Judge T.S. Ellis III of the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, Va. on Wednesday set April 21 for the trial of Steve Rosen, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee's former foreign policy chief, and Keith Weissman, AIPAC's former Iran analyst.

The government contends that Weissman and Rosen obtained classified information from a Pentagon official and relayed to colleagues, journalists and Israeli diplomats. The case came to light in August 2004 when AIPAC's offices were first raided; Rosen and Weissman were indicted a year later, and since then at least six trial dates have been set and canceled. Disputes over the admissibility of classified evidence have slowed the pre-trial phase.

Obama and Iran: don't expect much to change

I don't expect that Obama will introduce anything other than a tactical, mostly public relations-level change when dealing with Iran. As Moon of Alabama and Cernig point out, his administration's rhetoric on the non-existent "Iranian nuclear weapons program" thus far has been quite similar to the Bush administration in that it displays a deliberate intent to disregard facts in order to push a predetermined agenda that paints Iran as a threat.

Remember when...no WMDs found in Iraq

weapons of mass destruction related program activities

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/01/20040120-7.html

Sarkozy on Iran's nuclear program: "No civilian purpose"??

So President Sarkozy of France has declared that "everyone knows" Iran's nuclear program has no civilian purpose.

Kinda like how "everyone knew" that Iraq had WMDs, right? 

Everyone knows this...except, oh say, a whole slew of studies which show that Iran has a valid economic case for nuclear power.

In fact, this is what Gordon Brown had to say about nuclear power:

“Nuclear is clean, secure and affordable. Its expansion is crucial for Britain’s long-term energy security.”

ANd, this is the same France which relies on nuclear power for about 80% of its energy needs.  Even as of right now, there are 33 reactors under construction worldwide, plus another 94 on order, which has caused Uranium prices to spike. Meanwhile the UK, China, Russia and many other countries have announced significant expansion plans for their nuclear power programs too.

And yet magically, Iran is supposed to power itself with pixie dust.

Israel commands Bush: vote against your own UN resolution!

So apparently Israeli Prime Minister Olmert commanded Bush to order Rice to vote against her own UN resolution. WHat is the source of this information? Olmert himself bragged about how he pushed Bush around in a speech in Israel. But now the Bush administration is denying it. So, someone is lying, either Olmert or the White House. Now, I'm just too bored to care.

Bow to your masters, Goyim!

Akbar Etemad's letter on his interview with Maziar Bahari

Some of you may have read Maziar Bahari's interview with Akbar Etemad, the former head of Iran's nuclear program, which was published in the New Statesman under the title "The Shah's Plan was to Build Bombs".

However, you may not have read his letter published in the Dec 1, 2008 issue of the New Statesman about that interview:

Maziar Bahari's interview with me, published in your Iran Special (15 September), contained a number of mistakes, and the headline "The shah's plan was to build bombs" was misleading. I told Mr Bahari that I had to know what the shah had in mind regarding the nature of the nuclear programme. I also said that during a long discussion, the shah told me that Iran did not need nuclear weapons, because our strong conventional forces would guarantee our security and national interests. Furthermore, if we opted for nuclear weapons the western countries would not co-operate with us and this would be detrimental to our civil nuclear programme.

Dr Akbar Etemad

Paris, France 

Israel to spoil US-Iran talks

As I have long said, the biggest danger than Iran poses to Israel is that Iran and the US may start to get along, leaving Israel out in the cold - which is why the pro-Israeli agents are so active at undermining any such potential event. Now, according to Arm Control Today:

In recognition that U.S. and Israeli aims regarding Iran may diverge, part of Israel's security establishment also appears to fear that a U.S.-Iranian dialogue may be successful in addressing U.S. concerns, but not those of Israel. The Israeli newspaper Ha'aretz reported Nov. 23 that a draft Israeli National Security Council annual situation assessment, which is to be presented to the Israeli cabinet in December, "recommends close cooperation with the U.S. to prevent a deal between Washington and Tehran that would undermine Israel's interests."

The article continues:

One key Israeli official, however, suggested a potential benefit from U.S. talks with Iran: the likelihood that such dialogue will be a route to stiffer sanctions. Amos Yadlin, the head of Israeli Military intelligence, said in a Nov. 17 lecture in Tel Aviv that he is not opposed to U.S,-Iranian talks, highlighting that if such talks should fail, "there could be a greater realization that sanctions and the diplomatic campaign against Iran should be stepped up." He added that Iran is "very susceptible" to economic pressure at present due to the global economic crisis.

So in short, the Israelis are out to sabotage and undermine any potential US-IRan talks. Look forward to AIPAC and their friends acting all loony when it comes to pressuring Obama to not talk to Iran, or trying to brand any such talks as "failures" which "only" leave open the option of more confrontation that Israel desires I predict this will be the major theme of the Israeli's anti-Iran PR work for the next 4 years or so.

Anti-Iranian discrimination = big fat lawsuit

Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc. has agreed to pay $1.55 million to settle a lawsuit involving an employee who said he was fired because he was an Iranian Muslim, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission announced last week.

The lawsuit, which was filed by the EEOC in the Southern District of New York in June 2007, alleged that the New York-based brokerage giant failed to promote the complainant, a quantitative analyst in its Model Development Group, in August 2005 and ultimately terminated him because of his national origin and religion.

"Biggest challenge to Obama" -- Iran or Pakistan?

Apparently Stephen Hadley, a Bush national security advisor and Cheney associate, can't decide whether the "Biggest Challenge to Obama" is Iran or Pakistan.

This is part of the effort of the Bush administration and pro-Israeli lobbyists' on-going efforts to impose their own agenda on the in-coming Obama administration with respect to dealing with Iran.

Remember when...Iranians were Nazis?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/01/08/INGODGH99Q1.DTL

http://www.iranian.com/AbbasMilani/2006/February/Black/index.html

Iran and Israel in Gaza

As usual, the pro-Israeli pundits are laughably trying to spin the Israeli war crimes and attacks against Palestinian refugees in Gaza as some sort of broader war against the "Iranian Empire" (as if the Israelis weren't killing Palestinains long before Iran got involved.) Jim Hoagland of the Washington Post for example raises the old claim that Israel's attacks on civilians is justified since Hamas rocketeers "hide amongsy" civilians in the Gaza strip -- precisely the same bullshit justification raised by Israel for shelling the UN compound full of civilians in Qana, Lebanon, in 1996, and again in 2006. 

Anyway, I thought this would be a good time to remind everyone about Chris Hedge's "A Gaza Diary" published in the Sept-Oct 2001 issue of Harpers magazine, in which he recounts first-hand what Israel has been doing to the Palestinian refugees:

Children have been shot in other conflicts I have covered—death squads gunned them down in El Salvador and Guatemala, mothers with infants were lined up and massacred in Algeria, and Serb snipers put children in their sights and watched them crumple onto the pavement in Sarajevo—but I have never before watched soldiers entice children like mice into a trap and murder them for sport.