NY TIMES OP-ED CLAIMS ISRAEL WILL ALMOST SURELY ATTACK IRAN

Just when I thought things were improving between the Bush regime and Iran, out comes an op-ed today in The New York Times by Benny Morris, a professor of Middle Eastern history at Ben-Gurion University. Morris says that Israel will almost certainly attack Iran in the next four to seven months.
Writes Morris:

"Israel will almost surely attack Iran’s nuclear sites in the next four to seven months — and the leaders in Washington and even Tehran should hope that the attack will be successful enough to cause at least a significant delay in the Iranian production schedule, if not complete destruction, of that country’s nuclear program. Because if the attack fails, the Middle East will almost certainly face a nuclear war — either through a subsequent pre-emptive Israeli nuclear strike or a nuclear exchange shortly after Iran gets the bomb."

Everything about Morris's assertions is open to disbelief and doubt. Apart from the near certainty of an Israeli attack which is not that certain, consider some of Morris's other wild claims:

• Teheran is almost every day making threats to wipe Israel off the map - ". . . Israel — the country threatened almost daily with destruction by Iran’s leaders."
• Most Israelis fear that their country's life is at stake - "Nonetheless, Israel, believing that its very existence is at stake — and this is a feeling shared by most Israelis across the political spectrum — . . ."
• Every intelligence agency around the world believes that Iran is intent on making nuclear weapons - "Every intelligence agency in the world believes the Iranian program is geared toward making weapons, not to the peaceful applications of nuclear power."
• There is no diplomatic solution but only one option available - the military one - "Which leaves the world with only one option if it wishes to halt Iran’s march toward nuclear weaponry: the military option, meaning an aerial assault by either the United States or Israel."
• The current leaders of Iran are not rational - "Given the fundamentalist, self-sacrificial mindset of the mullahs who run Iran, Israel knows that deterrence may not work as well as it did with the comparatively rational men who ran the Kremlin and White House during the cold war."

Everyone of these reckless statements by Morris is based on conjecture and fear-mongering. Even if Ahmadinejad did say that Iran should wipe Israel off the map (something, he did not at all say, but only that he predicted the Israeli government would topple), are words enough to start a war, much less a nuclear conflagration? Would your kid be justified in beating up another kid for calling his mother a bad name? Since when does a country attack another for mere words?

Second. Morris should show which public opinion polls show most Israelis fearing their very survival because of Iran. Where are the poll numbers? What are the poll questions?

Third. Not every intelligence agency believes that Iran is intent on developing nuclear weapons. Consider the National Intelligence Estimate released last December that said that Iran had given up such plans back in 2002. Furthermore, Morris, if he is so sure, should have listed the agencies that believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons.

Four. Morris minimizes a diplomatic solution. How like Bush and Cheney he sounds. We have seen how effective the military option is in Iraq and Afghanistan. And how about the Israel fiasco in Lebanon against Hezbollah and in Gaza against Hamas?

And finally, Morris demeans and belittle Iran's leaders by saying that they are not as rational as the leaders in Washington or Moscow. The Iranians seem very rational to me. Having seen what the U.S. did to Iraq over the last five years, would it be irrational for the Iranians not to want a nuclear weapon as protection from the militaristic Americans and their Israeli allies?

Benny Morris sounds like another neo-con war monger, a brother militarist to John Bolton and David Addington. The false assumptions and bad judgments in his article will not stand.

U.S. NEEDS RE-THINKING OF POLICY TOWARDS IRAN, IMPORTANT OP-ED IN NY TIMES

Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett write an important op-ed today in The New York Times. In effect, they present a detailed intelligent policy for the next president in dealings with Iran. The Leveretts dismiss the current Bush/Cheney policy as being unrealistic towards Iran's requirements for respect and acknowledgement of Iran's desire for national security.

The Leveretts write:

"The idea of “engaging” Iran diplomatically is becoming less politically radioactive than it was early in the Bush years, when any officials who broached it were putting their careers in jeopardy. Given official American-Iranian cooperation over Afghanistan and Al Qaeda after the 9/11 attacks (one of us, Hillary, was involved in those negotiations) and the current sets of talks between American and Iranian officials in Baghdad, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s claim that she is willing to change “28 years of policy” and negotiate with Iran is disingenuous."

What the Leveretts want is a policy that takes into account concerns on both sides. The U.S. is concerned about Iran's nuclear ambitions and its support for Shiite communities throughout the Middle East, many of which are active opponents of Israel. Iran wants to be treated as a sovereign nation and not as some rogue regime that needs to be toppled.

Write the Leveretts:

"From an Iranian perspective, serious engagement would start with American willingness to recognize Tehran’s legitimate security and regional interests as part of an overall settlement of our differences. But neither Republicans nor Democrats have been willing to consider such an approach, because of the pursuit of a nuclear weapons option and support for terrorist organizations that Iran employs to defend what it sees as its fundamental security interests. Successful United States-Iran engagement requires cutting through this Gordian knot by undertaking comprehensive diplomacy encompassing the core concerns of both sides.

"From the American side, any new approach must address Iran’s security by clarifying that Washington is not seeking regime change in Tehran, but rather changes in the Iranian government’s behavior. (While Secretary Rice has said recently that overthrowing the mullahs is not United States policy, President Bush has pointedly refused to affirm her statements.) To that end, the United States should be prepared to put a few assurances on the table."

The Americans would have to announce publicly that the U.S. foreign policy did not seek the overthrow of the Iranian government. Also the U.S. would need to end sanctions against Iran and stop demonizing Iran as an official state sponsor of terrorism. On its part, Iran would need to recognize a two-state solution in Palestine and urge its fellow Shiites such as Hezbollah to accept Israel as a legitimate nation and people in the Holy Land.

Furthermore, the Leveretts urge a community or organization of nations be formed that deal with the political instability in Iraq, nations that have an interest in Iraq, such as Iran, Syria, Israel and Saudi Arabia.

"The goal of such cooperation would be a multilateral body analogous to the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe. Each member nation would commit to abide by international norms regarding respect for other states’ sovereignty, the inviolability of borders and the observance of international conventions and United Nations resolutions on conflict resolution, economic relations, human rights, nonproliferation and terrorism.

"Since Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomenei’s death in 1989, United States policy toward Iran has not served American interests. Neither continuing to disregard legitimate Iranian interests nor timid incrementalism will improve the situation. In the long run, the real lesson of the new National Intelligence Estimate is that we need a comprehensive overhaul of American policy toward Iran."

This is an important article by two foreign policy experts that needs to be carefully considered by Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and the other Democratic candidates. The U.S. can ill afford another foreign policy fiasco as that brought by the present rogue administration of George Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleeza Rice, John Bolton and the other war-mongering neo-cons. The last thing world peace needs is a military attack by the U.S. on Iran. The Leveretts are right - the U.S. needs a complete rethinking of American policy towards Iran.

BUSH'S MISSILE DEFENSE THREATENS BOTH IRAN AND RUSSIA

Why are Bush and Cheney so enamored of a missile defense system based in some of former Soviet bloc countries such as Poland and the Czech Republic? It is as if they are obsessed with Iran.

Putin is right. There is no need for a missile defense system. First of all, it does indeed threaten Russia. If I was Putin, I too would be completely against the United States on this hair-brained idea.

Furthermore, there is no threat from Iran. The Iranians would be our friends if we agreed to sit down with them and talk to them as equals instead of the Bush/Cheney SOP of hectoring and threatening them with missiles and bombs. The Iranians have no reason to act hostilely towards the U.S. There are many Iranians who live in the U.S. and who go back and forth regularly to Iran to visit relatives. Why would the government of Iran launch an attack against a country that is the home to many Iranian ex-patriates?

It is the U.S. that has threatened Iran, not Iran the U.S.

Bush and Cheney should back off their war mongering against Iran. And the costly missile defense system that they propose against some imaginary Iranian threat should be discarded in favor of respect, diplomacy and negotiation

U.S. DIPLOMATS WALK OUT ON CUBA AT UNITED NATIONS

I see today on CNN that the U.S. was a no-show for the speech by the Cuban minister at the United Nations, just as it was for Iran. I don't get it. If the U.S. perceives another country as an "enemy," then it refuses to listen to its delegates or engage in negotiation or diplomacy. Something is wrong in this picture. This is how wars start, especially wars started by the U.S.

U.S. ARRESTS ANOTHER IRANIAN IN IRAQ, CLAIMS HE IS PART OF QUDS FORCES

Here's another dubious story put out by U.S. forces in Iraq. They claim they seized an Iranian member of the Quds force, part of the Revolutionary Guard. The BBC reports:

"US-led forces in Iraq say they have arrested an Iranian officer operating in the north of the country. They say the man was a member of the Quds Force - an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guards - and was detained in the Kurdish city of Sulaimaniya."

I say it is dubious because there is no verifiable proof or evidence that the captured Iranian has anything to do with Iran's military forces or that he was an Iranian officer. Most probably he was just an ordinary Iranian businessman. The BBC reports:

"According to a spokesman for the regional government in semi-autonomous Kurdistan, he was taken away overnight in a raid on a Sulaimaniya hotel. A government official in Baghdad said the arrested man had been part of a commercial delegation, but gave no further details."

There is a 400-mile border between Iraq and Iran, and many Iranians do business in Iraq. Furthermore, many Iranian pilgrims come to the holy Shiite shrines and mosques in Iraq.

It would seem that the U.S. wants to keep all Iranians out of Iraq, no matter what their purpose or intent, no matter how peaceful or legal.

Instead of trying to provoke the government of Iran into some bellicose act, I want American leaders to sit down and begin peaceful discussions with Iran on how the two great countries can work together to bring calm and stability to the region. Barack Obama said if elected he would do just that. I need to hear this from the other Democratic candidates, especially John Edwards and Hillary Clinton.

OBAMA IS RIGHT IN EMPHASIZING TALK RATHER THAN WAR

Steve Clemons at The Washington Note writes today on the disagreement between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton over the question of dealing with those leaders and regimes that Republicans like to call "enemies," for example, President Ahmadinejad of Iran and Hugo Sanchez of Venezuela.

Steve says exactly the right things. We should praise Obama for being willing to break the current Bush policy of refusing to talk or negotiate with those regimes and leaders who disagree with Bush or U.S. policies and actions. Bush believes that anyone who disagrees with him is "evil" and an "enemy." Obama believes that the U.S. should deal with such leaders and discuss differences. After all, talking and diplomacy never killed anyone.

Hillary is too politically calculating to come right out and agree with Barack. She says she would be resistant to engage in talk and diplomacy until it was clear these antagonistic world leaders were not simply using her for propaganda purposes. But then she adds she would elevate diplomacy to a new higher level.

Obama is correct in calling her "Bush-lite." Many in the U.S., especially Republicans, think that the only way to solve world disagreements is through waging war and dropping bombs. Hillary needs to admit that this is the wrong approach, just as she still needs to admit she made a horrible mistake in voting for the AUMF, the authorization for Bush to use military force in Iraq.