Thoughts on Iran, Nuclear Weapons, and Tehran's Regional Role

By Barry Rubin

"Hitler's primary task was to put himself over as a misunderstood moderate....Trotsky summed it up neatly: 'Anyone who expects to meet a lunatic brandishing a hatchet and instead finds a man hiding a revolver in his trouser-pocket is bound to feel relieved. But that doesn't prevent a revolver from being more dangerous than a hatchet.'"" --Joel Carmichael, Trotsky: An Appreciation of his Life, p. 396.

Months ago, when it was at its height, I wrote that the hysteria about Israel allegedly being about to attack Iran and the argument by some that Israel should do so were nonsense. Now it is clear that there was never any chance that such a thing would happen. And that idea was a bad one expressed by non-Israelis who didn't know what they were talking about.

Now former Mossad head Meir Dagan, identified, along with former Israel Security Agency director Yuval Diskin, as the main critic of any such preemptive attack, has made some interesting remarks.

Dagan explained that he agreed that the international community wasn't doing enough to stop the Iranian nuclear project. Israeli threats were made to prompt more action, not as a signal of an imminent attack.

While sanctions are high against Iran, the Obama Administration is also granting exemptions to key countries like China, Russia, and Turkey. While the burden on Iran's economy remains onerous, a regime like that in Tehran is not going to buckle to such pressure, especially since it believes that once it has nuclear weapons that will secure the government's safety from foreign threats. The ongoing negotiations,, which seem eternally able to trigger naive hopes in Western circles, will go nowhere.

For his part, Dagan correctly noted, "The military option must always be on the table with regards to Iran,but it must also always be a last option." Israel always retains such a choice even if Tehran does get some deliverable nuclear capability. And such an outcome is still years away. The idea of a crazy Iranian government eager to launch nuclear missiles against Israel at the first opportunity is not realistic, though the Tehran regime is bad enough. At any rate, if and when Iran actually has a small number of weapons and if Israeli leaders feel there is sufficient danger, they can preempt then. And a wide variety of Israeli defensive measures--ranging from sabotage to computer viruses, to electronic countermeasures and to planes and missiles--should not be underestimated either.

The Israeli position is clearly explained by President Shimon Peres in an interview:

"The problem is the following: If we would say only economic sanctions [will be imposed], then the Iranians will say, `Okay, we will wait until it will be over.' Now what the Americans and Europeans and Israelis are saying is, `If you won’t answer the economic challenge, all other options are on the table.' It will not end there. Without that, there is no chance that the sanctions will [work]....The Iranians must be convinced [the threat of a military attack] is not just a tactic."

Click here to read the entire article

As The Planes Take Off Bibi Thanks Barack for Convincing Him to Bomb Iran (Realistic Satire)

By Barry Rubin

"Sen. Barack Obama’s campaign is now on the air with an ad that directly responds to the `3 am phone call' commercial launched by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in Texas earlier today. The commercial touts Obama's `judgment and courage’ in opposing the Iraq war from the start and his clarity to see that the war distracted the country from rooting out terrorists in Afghanistan. `In a dangerous world, it's judgment that matters,’ says the ad's narrator." -- Washington Post, February 29, 2008.

The White House. 3AM. Some time in the future.

Ring! Ring!

“Michelle, can you get that?”

“Now, Barack you know you have to answer the phone when it rings at 3AM! After all, it might be Hillary and she’d tell everyone that you were….

“Ok, ok, but remember how well I answered that ad of hers! I reminded everyone that she voted for that inevitably losing war in Iraq while I wanted to quit because I knew the war was lost. Of course, that's before I led the country to victory there….”

Ring! Ring!

“Hello? Yes, this is the president."

“It’s me, Benjamin Netanyahu."

“Bibi? Hi, old buddy, I was just telling Michelle that I really can stand you. Ha! Ha! (Winks at Michelle who rolls her eyes and goes back to sleep.) So what are you calling about at 3AM? I guess it’s 3AM in Israel, right?”

“No, Mr. President it is morning here. There's a seven-hour time difference.”

“Oh, okay. What’s up?”

“Mr. President I just wanted to tell you that our planes are about to take off and bomb Iran’s nuclear installations just as you recommended.”

“What? You’re going to bomb Iran! What gave you that idea?”

“You did, Mr. President. Let me explain. You see, Mr. President, No Israeli government can tolerate a nuclear weapon in the hands of a regime that denies the Holocaust, threatens to wipe Israel off the map and sponsors terrorist groups committed to Israel's destruction. Right?”

“That’s your view?”

“Yes, Mr. President but it’s also your view in the AIPAC speech. 

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,883. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com
-----------------------

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

Click here to read the entire article

No Picnic: What a War with Iran Really Means

By Barry Rubin

It is quite right to be worried and hesitant about entering a war with Iran. War, as recent events in Iraq and Afghanistan show, is a dangerous, bloody, often dirty mess in which things go wrong, civilians are killed inadvertently, your own side loses people, and goals are not necessarily achieved.

Sometimes war is necessary. That was clearly true in Afghanistan in 2001 but less clear regarding Iraq in 2003. What are the goals? How are they to be gained? In what way can a war be brought to an end? How is victory defined? These are all serious issues.

Regarding a war with Iran, all of the above is especially true. Iran is a large country with almost 80 million people. A sizeable portion of that population—the ones with the guns--is ideologically fanatical. The idea that a few planes will drop bombs, return home, and victory can then be declared is naïve. 

Once begun, such a conflict will go on for many years and take unexpected turns. Iran's regime would become desperate, vengeful, and concluding it had nothing to lose would be all the more determined to obtain nuclear weapons and far more likely to use them. Understanding that factor might not deter an attack completely but it should be very much taken into consideration in assessing what to do.

At any rate, while war with Iran might be eventually inevitable and necessary that’s not true at this moment, when Iran is far from being able to build nuclear weapons, much less deliver them on missiles. And such an operation genuinely does pose serious problems for Israel and also, even if it does not participate directly in any way, for the United States.

-----------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,883. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

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

On the positive side, not a single Arab state would lift a finger to help Iran.  The moderates would be happy that Israel bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, hope it succeeded, and demand that the United States keep them out of any fighting. The radical Sunni Islamists would worry about the precedent and make some propaganda but view the Iranian regime as a rival, not a brother. The Turkish regime would foam at the mouth but do nothing while the Syrian regime, allied with Iran, is too preoccupied by a civil war and fears confrontation with Israel.

Hamas is happy to take Iran’s money but is now pretty much a client of Egypt. It might want to start its own war with Israel but doesn’t want to risk everything to defend Iran.  But the Palestinian Resistance Committees and Palestinian Islamic Jihad will fire rockets on Israel while trying to attack in other ways. Up to a point, Hamas will stand aside and let them do so.

The most serious organized force on which Iran could depend would be Hizballah in Lebanon.

It is likely that Hizballah would fire rockets against Israel and mount some cross-border raids. The question is whether Hizballah would mount an all-out campaign as in 2006 or merely stick to a symbolic demonstration of loyalty to Iran.   There are also Iranian forces in Lebanon that would be more energetic.

The large UNIFIL force supposed to block Hizballah from staging a military build-up in the south and attacking Israel will be useless. Yet Israeli defensive operations could end up accidentally killing UNFIL soldiers.

Finally, Iranian assets would stage terrorist attacks on Israelis and Jews all over the world. The number of attacks might be limited. The question is whether one or some would succeed in inflicting lots of casualties.

Still, Hizballah plus terror attacks is not a price too high for Israel to pay for ending—if that indeed can be accomplished—an Iranian nuclear threat. Yet the picture on the U.S. side is much more complex and worrisome.

 In two ways, the U.S. situation would resemble that of Israel. No country other than Iran would hit at America or Americans; terrorism would be a problem.  The rest of the story would depend on decisions made by Iran’s government and also by its local commanders.

Ostensibly, the attack on Iran would come from Israel. But even if the United States does nothing overt, Obama’s AIPAC speech is enough to associate America with the operation. Iran has some choice. It could decide to try to avoid confrontation with the United States.

Still, while Tehran’s decision could go either way, the worldview of that country’s rulers is unlikely to make a calm, cool assessment along those lines. For them, America is the Great Satan, the Islamist revolution’s nemesis and Israel’s patron. Would Iran’s leaders really say: Yes, let’s be “smart” and keep the battle confined to Israel, using American reluctance to fight as a way to keep that superpower out of the war?

Again, that might be how Western armchair strategists expect Iran to act but it’s hard to believe that’s what would happen.  Moreover, local commanders of either military and naval units or terrorist cells, irrationally confident of an Allah-granted victory, would not easily give up a chance to wage the ultimate Jihad.  Then, too, Iran’s inability to hit Israel would set off frustration leading to attacks on Americans.

U.S. forces and facilities are more accessible than those of Israel. This could include terrorist attacks in Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, and the smaller Gulf Arab states against any available American civilians, institutions, or soldiers. And the biggest front of all might be the Persian Gulf itself. Would small Iranian boats stage suicide operations to hit tankers or try to block traffic?   

       

As happened in the latter phase of the Iran-Iraq war in the late 1980s, the Gulf Arab states would likely ask the United States, European countries, and NATO to convoy their tankers. A shooting war could lead to the dragging of the United States into a military conflict with Iran. Whatever happened on the ground (and water) the price of oil would skyrocket. 

These factors also affect Israeli interests since that country would be blamed for resulting carnage and disruptions. Antisemitism would increase and a lot of people would claim that Israel dragged America into an unnecessary war.  Promises of quick, easy victory, the disappearance of any Iranian nuclear capability or threat, and even the fall of the Iranian regime would prove false, stirring bitter controversy.

There are, then, major dangers and real strategic problems in any campaign to attack Iranian nuclear installations that require serious thought and a rejection of recklessness.  A war with Iran, if conducted at all, should only happen when it seems otherwise unavoidable. And that is far from true this year.

But that day will come and people better be psychologically ready for it.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. Other recent books include The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center  and of his blog, Rubin Reports. His original articles are published at PJMedia.

A different version of this article is published in the Jerusalem Post. Please read and link only to my blog which contains my fuller, better version of the text.

Middle East Myths Metastasize, Iran War Hysteria Rages Onward

Apology: On the February 27 subscription feed I had the wrong link to the full article, "Combating Media Manipulation: Just Say `No.'” I have fixed it on the article's site. And here once again is the correct link for that article. Sorry!

By Barry Rubin

Much written and said about the Middle East has always been fantasy. But nowadays the proportion of fantasy to reality is higher than ever. And number one on that list is the war hysteria with Iran.

Israel may have to attack Iran some day. But not this week, month, or even year. That's true for very good reasons.

Iran doesn’t have deliverable nuclear weapons. It is not about to have deliverable nuclear weapons. Israel is not about to attack Iran. The United States is certainly not about to attack Iran. The whole idea that the leaders of Iran are crazed suicide-oriented people who expect the twelfth imam to arrive next Thursday is simply not true. 

------------------------------
We need your support. To make a tax-deductible donation to the GLORIA Center by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

Please be subscriber 28,883. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

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

Yes, the Iranian regime is radical and yes it throws threats in all directions and yes, too, it is the world’s biggest sponsor of terrorism. Yet after 32 years in power the Islamist regime in Tehran has yet to do something really adventurous abroad.  This regime wants to stay in power and it has shown restraint. And when it committed terrorist attacks against Americans in Lebanon, Iraq, and Saudi Arabia it did so with the correct calculation that it could get away without paying any price.

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad doesn’t run Iran and many of his statements are intended for domestic consumption to boost his claim to leadership. I don’t want to say that Iran’s leaders are calm pragmatists but they are power-hungry people intent on the survival of themselves and their regime. Iran’s government is bad enough but the caricatures we are seeing go far beyond the reality.  

Does this mean that we know that Iran will never ever use nuclear weapons? Of course not. But this merely tells us that there is not a 100 percent or anywhere near it certainty that they will do so.  To start a war with Iran by attacking its nuclear facilities means that a full and open war exists that will be far more likely to escalate to a nuclear level in the future.  In other words, an attack makes a future Iranian use of nuclear weapons far more likely than it is already.

Iran’s main goal, like that of Pakistan, is to make itself immune to any reprisals for terrorism and subversion by having nuclear weapon. In part, the rationale for the nuclear program is outdated, though that certainly won’t stop Tehran from pursuing it. The project was launched to make Iran into the leader of the Middle East and even of the whole Muslim world.

Yet the rise of Sunni Arab Islamists, notably the Muslim Brotherhood, has sharply reduced Iran’s potential sphere of influence.  Tehran’s broader ambitions have been shrunk to include only Lebanon, Syria (where its ally is facing major problems), southwest Afghanistan, and Iraq (where its clients are proportionately small in size). Throw in some ambitions toward Bahrain and the ability to scare the Persian Gulf Arabs and that’s about it. Turkey has its own ambitions; the newly empowered Sunni Arab Islamists hate Iran and don’t think they need Tehran at all.

That doesn’t mean Iran might not some day attack Israel if and when it has nuclear weapons. Obviously a mixture of containment, defensive measures, and the ability plus willingness to stage a preemptive attack if necessary is vital for Israel which isn’t going to depend on Iran’s good will or assume that Tehran will never attack.

At the same time, though, the chances of avoiding a nuclear war are quite positive.  What is Iran going to do, put two to six missiles on launching pads to shoot at Israel without being detected beforehand and having no second wave that can be used once devastating Israeli attacks start? Is Iran going to attack Israel purely out of spite, from blind fanaticism, knowing not only that Iran will be devastated but that Israel has a high likelihood of preempting and destroying them on the launching pad or shooting them down?

To start a war with Iran now doesn’t make any sense. It will not stop that country from getting nuclear weapons and it would make a nuclear war in the coming years more rather than less likely. Israel has no international support. Russia is practically threatening a war against Israel if it does launch such an operation.

The logistics of an attack are difficult, though not impossible. A lot can go wrong. You don’t want to try such an operation unless you really have to do so. The bottom line is that an Israeli attack on Iran at present is simply not necessary. A lot of the Israeli rhetoric is clearly intended to press the West toward greater activism and tougher sanctions.

Indeed, all of the reasons why Israel is not about to attack Iran are just plain ignored in the media. Defense Minister Ehud Barak explains that no decision is made and that Israeli policy is only to attack if Iran is about to get deliverable nuclear weapons. He suggests that this won’t happen in the next year. The biggest Israeli critic of launching an attack states that Israel decided not to do so and his worst complaint against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is that he wants to keep discussing the possibility, not that he has decided on an attack.

President Barack Obama—a man who would never attack Iran or support an Israeli action—has publicly state that Israel isn’t about to do so. The president of the United States, whatever his other faults, would not say such a thing unless he has been clearly promised by Netanyahu that it isn’t going to happen.  If Israel were to break that promise the entire bilateral relationship would blow up in a way that would make recent tiffs seem like a picnic.

In short, the whole idea is nonsense. Numerous reasons can be given to explain why it is not on the agenda for this year. But the media and various analysts—many of them self-proclaimed experts—simply ignore all the evidence. Some want to get Israel into a war with Iran to please their own ideological agenda; others want to claim Israel is going to attack in order to prove their thesis that Israel is the evil cause of all regional—or even world--problems.

This hysteria really should stop.  Israel isn’t going to get into a long, bloody, and avoidable  war because bloggers and op-ed writers are screaming for it.

Briefly here are some other myths that deserve to be abandoned as soon as possible.

--There is an Israel-Palestinian peace process. That’s probably dead for decades because the Palestinian side doesn’t want a compromise deal.  Obama’s mistakes, the Palestinian Authority-Hamas coalition, the Islamist “spring,” and the UN unilateral independence bid all makes it even more obviously deceased.

--The Muslim Brotherhood is moderate. Wake up and smell the jihad.

--The Syrian regime is about to fall. The opposition knows that without international intervention—which isn’t going to happen—they can’t win.

--Turkey is the very model of a moderate Islamic democracy. Actually, it’s a repressive Islamist dictatorship in training. Look at the massive arrests, the trumped-up treason charges, the trampling on free speech, and the assault on the country’ armed forces.

Unless there is some real understanding of what’s going on in the Middle East any hope for useful analysis, much less predicting the most likely future scenarios or charting a successful Western policy, is out of reach.


Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center. His book, Israel: An Introduction, has just been published by Yale University Press. He is also editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and Middle East editor and featured columnist at PJMedia http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). GLORIA Center site is http://www.gloria-center.org.His articles published originally outside of PajamasMedia are at <http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com>



A version of this article was published in the Jerusalem Post. I own the rights and ask you to read this version and link to this site.

Top U.S. Military Officer: Iran Is In a Shooting War With America. OK, Where's the Policy Response?

By Barry Rubin


Let's pretend we are living in a sane and normal era with a sane and normal U.S. government. In that context, read the following paragraph from the Wall Street Journal and then let's think out loud about it.

"The top U.S. military officer accused Iran...of shipping new supplies of deadly weapons to its militia allies in Iraq, in what he described as Tehran's bid to take credit for forcing American troops to go home....`Iran is very directly supporting extremist Shiite groups which are killing our troops,' said Adm[iral] Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. `There is no question they are shipping high-tech weapons in there…that are killing our people. And the forensics prove that.'"

What does the Obama Administration do? Nothing. What should it do?

Read more

Guess What: Sanctions on Iran Achieve (Almost) Nothing

Please be subscriber 21,970 (daily reader 39,570) to GLORIA Center articles. Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com


We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

This article was published in the Jerusalem Post. However, I own all rights so please link and give credit to this site if reprinting or forwarding.

By Barry Rubin

It's becoming an open secret--though not open enough--that the U.S.-led, UN-approved sanctions on Iran are having no serious strategic effect and only a limited economic effect on the country.

The reasons are clear:

1. To get the sanctions through the UN, the U.S. government basically told Russia, China, and Turkey that it would ignore their violations.

2. Iran has shifted its trade patterns eastward and southward generally, to Asia and the Middle East, including a very successful smuggling effort through the Gulf Arab states.

3. The price of oil has zoomed upward, in no small part due to mistaken U.S. foreign and energy policies, putting more money into the pocket of the Iranian regime.

And, of course, regional developments and U.S. policies--including coddling Syria, distancing itself from Israel, urging the total downfall of a relatively moderate Arab regime--also make the Iranian leaders feel that they are winning and thus should stay the course.

This is not to say that Iran's economy is doing well. Due to mismanagement and other factors, prices are steadily climbing and breeding discontent. But this has little to do with the sanctions and is hardy enough to get a determined, one might even say ideological fanatical, government to change its course.

Sanctions have become the soothing pill for the West in beieving it is doing something about Iran rather than confront its growing influence contrasted with Western confusion and weakness.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government persists in seeing the current Turkish regime as an ally despite far more evidence that it is an ally…of Iran. In the midst of a sanctions’ regime, Iran-Turkey trade has increased by almost 44 percent over last year. In the month of February alone, the trade volume was almost $1.5 billion. Last year it was $10 billion. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan says the two countries are about to sign a preferential trade agreement that he believes will triple trade.

Yet the U.S. government has not criticized the Turkish regime despite such developments as its opposition to sanctions, its violation of sanctions, and even announcement that the Turkish army will now train the Syrian army. If this government is reelected on June 11, it will be a major defeat for Western interests, whether or not anyone notices.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center, editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal, and a featured columnist for PajamasMedia at http://pajamasmedia.com/barryrubin/. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org. His PajamaMedia columns are mirrored and his other articles are available at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

President Obama's Failure to Support--With Words Not Guns--Iranian and Syrian Oppositionists Is A Disgrace

By Barry Rubin

At the moment in history when people are not just rebelling in the Middle East but when the opposition movements in Iran and Syria are at a high point, the fact that the U.S. government is standing by and not only doing nothing but virtually saying nothing.

No, it is even worse. For Secretary of State Hillary Clinton actually praised Syrian dictator Bashar al-Asad. She said that "members of Congress" who have gone to Damascus (notably Senator John Kerry who should henceforth be known as an apologist for an oppressive anti-American dictator), have found Bashar al-Asad to be a "reformer."

Can anyone tell us what reforms he has made? This is a dictator who is Iran's chief ally; who has actively encouraged and helped terrorists in Iraq to kill Americans; who has tried to launch his own secret nuclear weapons program (stopped only by an Israeli bombing attack); who is chief backer of Hamas in killing Israelis; and who has reimposed Syrian control over Lebanon by using terrorism against Lebanese moderates.

And so, the secretary of state of the United States has praised a dictator who is murdering unarmed demonstrators in the streets of Syria. Mubarak, a U.S. ally and far less oppressive than Syria or Iran, was bad; but Asad, an enemy of the United States and a far more repressive dictator is good?

Note that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates took a much tougher stance on criticizing Syria. I suggested that he was contradicting administration policy in doing so. Unfortunately, that assessment was correct. But good for Gates in taking a good stance. Presumably, he won't be around much longer. Note that he also correctly said that intervention in Libya wasn't a vital U.S. interest, again contradicting Clinton and the White House.

Let's be clear here: Administration officials are (deliberately?) misinterpreting what's they're being asked to do. The issue is not a Libyan-style military intervention but rather daily statements and covert aid if appropriate.

NOBODY IS ASKING THE UNITED STATES TO SEND MILITARY FORCES TO SYRIA OR IRAN. We are only asking that U.S. policy give support to oppositionists trying to overthrow repressive dictatorships that are America's worst enemies in the Middle East and--arguably--in the world.

Is that clear enough?

Remember covert operations? It's something the United States used to do during the Cold War, sometimes with great effectiveness. Doing something like that on the side of people who want freedom seems a good idea. But won't the regimes denounce the opposition as American agents? The fear of this seems to be one factor paralyzing the Obama Administration.

Guess what? They'll do it anyway! Every day and with every means at their disposal.

Yes, I know some claim that in his Iranian NewYear's message, President Obama did support Iranian oppositionists one time. But my reading of that statement is that it did the exact opposite, skirting the issues to avoid offending the Iranian regime too much.

It is time for the U.S. government to speak up. By making it publicly clear that the United States will not even end the engagement with Syria and start bashing it publicly, it is signalling the Syrian government that it can shoot down as many demonstrators it wants and torture people with no international consequences.

This is against U.S. interests, against democracy and freedom, and against common sense. If President Obama can say that "Mubarak must go" and "Qadhafi must go" why can't he at least say: "Ahmadinejad must go" and "Asad must go."

Middle East on Fire: March 21, 2011

Please be subscriber 19,229 (daily reader 36,169). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Events are happening so fast that I can only summarize, trying to add some analytical depth to each development. So here goes….

Egypt

The referendum resulted in a 77 percent “yes” vote on constitutional amendments to reduce the powers of the president and ensure fair elections. The changes were reasonable ones.

BUT the two leading presidential candidates Amr Moussa (nationalist) and Muhammad ElBaradei (democrat) opposed the referendum. They claimed that the changes would help the Muslim Brotherhood take power. This means the result is a defeat for them both.

The army, which currently rules Egypt, and the Muslim Brotherhood supported the amendments. So does this mean that the “yes” vote is a victory for the Brotherhood? Yes, in part.

There are three reasons people voted “yes”:

--The amendments are good ones.

--People want to move forward, have elections, and get things back toward a more normal situation.

--They want to show support either for the army or the Brotherhood. Some think this is also a victory for the old regime as well, the former ruling National Democratic Party, though I’m not sure on this last point.

Yet there is no way to avoid seeing this as a victory for the Muslim Brotherhood which, a growing number of pro-democratic people in Egypt worry, has support within the army. That's why the National Democratic Party's resurgence is an idea that's popping up: because people want to believe there is some organized force other than the Brotherhood!

What is important here is that the political forces that seemed to be emerging have undermined their own popularity and shown how few people they can actually mobilize. Remember also the fact that the Brotherhood isn’t going to run a candidate for president and has now fallen out with ElBaradei.

So will Moussa or ElBaradei be president? Who will the Brotherhood support? Where do Egypt’s people stand? Can the nationalists and democrats organize? These are the questions to be determined.

Libya

The United States and other countries are now at war with Libya, now engaged in a third war in a Muslim-majority country (Afghanistan and Iraq)! President Barack Obama has said Libyan dictator Muammar Qadhafi must go.

But what is the commitment—justified by a UN resolution but not a congressional one!—on this issue?

If it is just a campaign to wipe out Libya's air defenses and stop the regime from using planes in its war effort, why have some Libyan ground forces been attacked? If it is limited to a bombing campaign, that won't bring the rebels a victory or stop Qadhafi from winning the war.

In short, is this a limited but meaningless public relations' oriented feel-good operation to declare "victory" by having a "no-fly" zone that changes little or nothing on the ground?

And is this policy a good thing or a bad thing?

I’m quite sympathetic with the idea of overthrowing Qadhafi but this is precisely the kind of operation that everyone always says should be avoided: no clear objective, no apparent strategy, an open-ended commitment, no serious thought about what happens if “we” win.

Not to mention the fact that deciding on when the United States makes war now seems a function of the UN and not the U.S. Congress. Imagine if President George W. Bush launched a war without even asking for a congressional resolution!

Oh, and guess what! After supposedly endorsing Western intervention the Arab League (predictably!) has condemned it. And who did the condemning? Why none other than the League's leader Amr Moussa, who may become Egypt's president in a few months, a position he will use to bash the United States on a daily basis. It might not be long before Arab media, regimes, nationalists, and Islamists will be condemning "Western imperialist aggression" against Libya.

And the total mess in the decision-making process leading to the war, indecision, and internal conflicts are all readily apparent, too. The situation screams out: this will not end well.

Finally, who the heck is the Libyan opposition? At least in Egypt the administration could pretend to answer the question of to whom it was turning over power, nice Facebook-using equivalents of the Founding Fathers. The U.S. government cannot answer the question about who it is at war to put into power in Libya!

The opposition seems to be a combination of factors: those who (understandably) hate Qadhafi, young people who want to emulate Egypt’s revolution, tribal forces from eastern Libya (for much of history a separate country) that view the regime as an alien presence in their region, and Islamists of various types. 

In contrast to the (anti-Islamist, though being a club for dictators) Arab League, Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the leading Muslim Brotherhood cleric, has actually supported the Western offensive against Qadhafi! One should not assume that this is an Islamist-led revolt by any means, but who knows? That’s the kind of thing you’d like to understand before launching a war to bring victory to this side, right?

In other words, Obama has just launched a possibly open-ended war to overthrow a dictator and bring democracy to an Arab country, albeit by using the minimal amount of troops. Doesn’t this seem just a bit like his predecessor’s war in Iraq but less planned, less based on U.S. strategic interests, and with less understanding of the country and the forces being supported there?

Even if the goal of overthrowing Qadhafi and to keep him from massacring thousands of people is a good one in principle, the procedure is dangerously inept.

Syria

Despite ferocious repression, the anti-regime demonstrations in Syria have gained momentum. I doubt that they are going to cause the regime serious problems in the end but it is encouraging to see that a lot of the Syrian people are fed up.

Particularly significant is the opposition in the long-discontented Kurdish region, where an ethnic-nationalist impulse joins other factors in prompting opposition. Meanwhile, the Syrian Muslim Brotherhood, which is part of the leading exile opposition group, has shaken up its leadership, perhaps believing it must prepare for new opportunities to challenge the Assad dictatorship.

U.S. policymakers have not—and will not—say one word in support of Syria’s opposition, which is a scandalous omission.

Iran

And speaking of scandalous omissions, you can read President Barack Obama’s Iranian New Year’s statement and note how careful he is to avoid giving support to the Iranian opposition. The administration has clearly decided (this has been clear for a long time) that backing Iran’s dissidents will discredit them in the eyes of the masses (funny, it doesn’t take this into account in every other country—as in Egypt--where it is more likely to be true!)

“The United States,” Obama says, “does not meddle in Iran’s internal affairs,” but merely stands up for “rights that should be universal to all human beings.” What happened to multiculturalism?

Some in the West may misinterpret Obama's message as support for the Iranian opposition but I'm certain no one in Iran will look at it this way. Saying that the Iranian regime is repressive and the United States likes human rights and democracy is hardly backing the regime's overthrow and helping the opposition. On the contrary, it is in line with the policy articulated by Undersecretary of State Burns and which I'd summarize like this:

The United States will help bring down "pro-Western" Arab regimes in order to prevent them from being even more unpopular or overthrown by radical Islamists. They will then become good democracies, in part by integrating most of the Islamists who will become moderate. As good democracies they will then furnish a good example to people living under radical regimes (Iran) who will then overturn their rulers without the United States doing anything.

I'm not satirizing, I'm summarizing.

Compare the Obama and Bush policies:

Obama: Help overthrow "pro-American" Arab regimes (and now, also Libya's dictatorship for humanitarian reasons). Avoid exercising American leadership in the region.

Buth: Help overthrow "anti-American" Arab regimes and Iran.  Exercise American leadership in the region.

While both strategies have their flaws, how the heck can Obama say that Mubarak must go and Qadhafi must go but not dare say that the Iranian Islamist regime must go? Mubarak was, after all, a U.S. ally, and Qadhafi was a terrorist troublemaker but who has not bothered the United States much in recent years.

In contrast, Iran is sponsoring anti-American terrorism; killing Americans in Iraq and Afghanistan; harboring al-Qaida; calling for genocide in Israel; and seeking to overthrow every government friendly to America in the Middle East.

How can anyone dare say that the Obama Administration makes sense, at least in a good way?

Barry Rubin is Director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Important Political Changes in Iran

By Barry Rubin

I'm not going to write about this in detail but just so you're aware, there are some important shifts in Iranian ruling circles.

1. Rafsanjani, the most "moderate" leader in the establishment has been pushed out. He has favored a more pragmatic policy aimed at making money than at pursuing ideological aggression. He has been dissatisfied since the regime stole the election in 2009. Cautious and power-oriented, Rafsanjani won't take any steps to join the opposition or to oppose the regime but this does not mark some weakening in the ruling coalition.

2. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad continues to expand his power, even challenging Supreme Guide Khamenei. Ahmadinejad has the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) behind him.

3. But the IRGC is also developing an independent role. Might it one day stage a coup? Some Iranians refer to what's happening now as a "silent coup" given the IRGC's unprecedented power.

4. Khamenei is competing with Ahmadinejad in part by becoming more openly radical and strident.

In short, while these are interesting developments to watch they signal neither the weakening of the regime nor a change in policy. If anything, the most extreme ideologues are gaining even more power.

Iran: Regime Escalates Repression. Where's The International Reaction?

By Barry Rubin

It is now confirmed that the Iranian government--taking advantage of the world being distracted by events in Arab countries--has kidnapped the two leading opposition leaders, Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi. They are being held in an undisclosed location and, since their abduction has not been made official, could be facing torture or even death.

This is the most serious single act of repression there in recent times. The situation demands the strongest possible reaction from the U.S. president, the Western world, the media, and everything else in what is so often called the "international community."

If the Iranian regime gets away with this and there's no significant cost, no one in that country is safe from the most dire treatment. The Iranian government is denying the kidnapping but their families say they haven't seen them in 18 days. Here's a protest by an Iranian  human rights group on the issue.

Incidentally, the president of the United States has called so far for the ouster of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Libyan ruler Muammar Qadhafi. When is he going to call for the ouster of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, whose fradulent election brought congratulations from the State Department, and Syrian President Bashar al-Asad, who backs terrorists in Iraq to kill Americans?

Iran: A Game-Changer Escalation of Repression?

By Barry Rubin

A story has been developing in Iran that has so far been at the rumor level but seems to be emerging as accurate (though it is not yet fully confirmed):  According to friends and neighbors of these two men, the regime has kidnapped the two main opposition leaders. Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi are said to have been taken by pro-regime Islamic Revolutionary guards to prison along with their wives.

Iran's government is denying that this has happened. The two leaders have been under house arrest for the last two weeks.

If the story is true, it constitutes an all-out crackdown by the Islamist regime in Tehran. Western governments should verify or debunk this story fast. If it is true, the effort to publicize the repression in Iran and act against the regime there should be greatly escalated.

Sanctions on Iran? What Sanctions on Iran?

By Barry Rubin

According to an Iranian news agency, China is investing $2.5 billion in the South Azadegan oilfield near the Iraqi border. The field's production is expected to be increased in two phases from 55,000 to 600,000 barrels a day. The word "sanctions" does not appear in the article.

The Obama Administration got Russia and China to support sanctions against Iran in the UN by...exempting them from implementing sanctions against Iran. A Japanese company had to drop out of the project since that country, according to the article, was pressured to drop out. In a real sense, the restrictions merely promote China's economy at the expense of others, while growing prohibitions on U.S. domestic oil production increases America's dependence on other, especially Arab, sources.

New Word Order: Iranian Admiral Coins New Political Sin: Iranophobia

By Barry Rubin

During an interview on Iranian television, the Iranian admiral who led a two-ship flotilla up the Red Sea, through the Suez Canal, and to Syria--asserting Iran's expanding power--made the following statement:

"Of course, what has caused the raising of tensions is normally the action of the enemy. It uses any action by the Islamic Republic of Iran in order to promote its agenda of Iranophobia."

Of course, according to him, everyone loves Iran except the evil "Zionist regime." But since, he adds, everyone else in the world hates the "Zionist regime" that's not much of a problem.

Will "Iranophobia" become the latest no-no on the Politically Correct (rather than Factually Correct) list? Stay tuned.

Oh, and by the way, now that the Iranian navy can use the Suez Canal, it is beginning joint training with its ally, the Syrian navy. Hasn't the U.S. government spent two years engaging Syria to wean it away from Iran? Guess that didn't work out, did it? Any sign that policy is being reconsidered? No, not at all.

Oh, and speaking of Syria and the idea that we are all anti-dictatorship now, Vogue magazine just did a glowing piece about how wonderful the anti-American, terrorist-supporting dictatorship there is. I guess an anti-American, terrorism-supporting dictatorship is much better than a pro-American dictatorship that maintains regional peace and fights terrorism.

U.S.Intelligence at Work: Iranian Warships? Yeah, I Heard Something about That

Please be subscriber 18,775 (daily reader 33,175). Put email address in upper right-hand box: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We need your contribution. Tax-deductible donation by PayPal or credit card: click Donate button: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com. Checks: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Fl., NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Following on the theme that the Muslim Brotherhood is a secular organization and that U.S. intelligence gets its breaking information from CNN, we have this remarkable statement in the State Department briefing by Assistant Secretary of State Philip Crowley:

"I believe there are two Iranian warships or, I mean, I don't know what kind of ships they are. There are two ships in the Red Sea. What their intention is, what their destination is,
I don’t – I can’t say. Look, there are reports that there are a couple of ships in the Red Sea.
What they do, where they go, we’ll follow this with some curiosity."

Curiosity indeed! Here's what appeared on my blog four days before this press briefing:

"Two Islamic Republic of Iran warships just visited the Saudi port of Jeddah in the Red Sea. No, that wasn't a misprint, I said "Red Sea," and not "Persian Gulf." This is the first time Iranian warships have been in the Red Sea, just down the coast from Israel and just across from Egypt.

"Not only is this a strategic alarm bell for the United States and Israel but also for the Saudis themselves. Bereft now of their last significant Arab ally and feeling unable to depend on the United States, the Saudis are facing their worst strategic situation since the 1950s at a time when Iran is spreading its influence and racing toward nuclear weapons."

I'm sure you readers understand the strategic significance of this move by Iran to file a claim as the region's leading power. Yet it was not the United States but Israel that told the Egyptian government (that is, the army) that letting these warships through the Suez Canal would be deemed to be an unfriendly act. The Egyptians refused passage. That's the military government. What would an elected Egyptian government do a year from now?

So here we have a major move by Iran that the United States ignores, not even understanding the significance of this flotilla. On the wider stage, the U.S. government is largely ignoring the advances of the Iran-Syria-Hamas-Hizballah-Turkish government-Lebanese government-Iraqi insurgent alliance.

Notice how the list of those on the other side keeps getting longer and the list of allies on the U.S. side in the Middle East keeps getting shorter. Perhaps the U.S. government will follow the loss of its whole position in the Middle East "with some curiosity."

It is hard to believe the kinds of things being said by U.S. government officials nowadays. So much of it reads like satire. Of course, it is not only funny but scary. Very very scary. If the Obama Administration played the Ahmadinejad team in the international affairs Superbowl, I'd put my money on Iran by two touchdowns. 

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His books include Islamic Fundamentalists in Egyptian Politics and The Muslim Brotherhood (Palgrave-Macmillan); and The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East, a study of Arab reform movements (Wiley). GLORIA Center site: http://www.gloria-center.org His blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Iranian Warships Send Message: Tehran Now Number-One Muslim Power in Region

By Barry Rubin

It is common today to speak of the U.S. overthrow of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein as having unintentionally made revolutionary Islamist Iran from more powerful. Will the overthrow of Egyptian dictator Husni Mubarak have a similar effect?

Here's something that might be a sign in that direction. Two Islamic Republic of Iran warships just visited the Saudi port of Jeddah in the Red Sea. No, that wasn't a misprint, I said "Red Sea," and not "Persian Gulf." This is the first time Iranian warships have been in the Red Sea, just down the coast from Israel and just across from Egypt.

Not only is this a strategic alarm bell for the United States and Israel but also for the Saudis themselves. Bereft now of their last significant Arab ally and feeling unable to depend on the United States, the Saudis are facing their worst strategic situation since the 1950s at a time when Iran is spreading its influence and racing toward nuclear weapons.

But that's not the only kind of weapon Iran is getting. It just sank a floating target with a new missile having a 250-300 km. range with high accuracy. Called, rather significantly, "Persian Gulf" (Khalij Fars), it has a sophisticated guidance system, is based on Chinese versions, and operated by the Islamic Revolution Guards Corp (IRGC).


Defense News explains: "The implications for the U.S. Navy are serious....Iran could potentially track U.S. Navy carrier groups at long distances [and] try to target [them] without early warning. It also means that the U.S. Navy cannot consider the [Persian]Gulf as safe....

Nor the Red Sea either.









Gradually but steadily, the Iranian regime is building up its power, even aside from nuclear weapons. Though it might take many years, one day--through Iranian miscalculation or hubris--there might be a U.S.-Iran war in the Persian Gulf.






"

Two Iranian Dissidents Disagree On Egypt

By Barry Rubin

While his view is not the same as mine, I respect the arguments made by Mir Hossein Mousavi, leader of the democratic opposition in Iran (without romanticizing his moderation excessively) and think they are worth considering. But then check out the very cogent points made by an Iranian dissident blogger.

There are two different Iranian models for what's happening now. I am not saying that anyone is consciously thinking in these terms; this is just from the point of view of outside analysts:

--The Iranian revolution of 1978-1979: That is, a protest movement that evolves into a new Islamist dictatorship.

--The Iranian rebellion of 2009: That is a democratically minded protest movement which was repressed.

Both were against dictatorships. But, of course, in each case left a radical Islamist regime on power. Ironically, if the Egyptian rebellion fails it can easily be romanticized and is more like 2009; if it succeeds, the outcome could be very bad and more like 1979.

His January 28th statement is as follows. The translation is unofficial and Mousavi is not responsible for it:

"The Middle East is at the brink of great events that could affect the future of the nations of this region and the rest of the world. Certainly the ultimate aim of what is happening is the disruption of the unjust order....

"Today the Iranian people's slogan of “where is my vote” is echoed in the slogan of “the people demand the overthrow of the regime” in Cairo, Suez and Alexandria...."

After hinting that Egypt's regime was tyrannical like that running Iran today, he concludes:
"Our nation admires the glorious revolution of the people of Tunis and the uprising of the people of Egypt and Yemen and other nations in the region to attain their rights."

Now, here's a dissident Iranian blogger:

"I would like to remind people that after the 1979 revolution in Iran, the secularists and the various religious groups united to form a coalition government. Within a year, the Islamic Republic party (two of the members of which were Rafsanjani and Khamenei) completely took control and turned Iran into a totalitarian state in the guise of a so-called 'Islamic' republic that took away many of the hard-earned rights that Iranians had gained in the last century. This regime is still in power in Iran today, executing opposition members and Iranian citizens who dare oppose them.


"I would like to remind people that when Khomeini came to Iran he promised freedom, democracy and human rights. As we are seeing today—with people telling us not to worry about the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt— in Iran in the early days of the revolution people said the same about Khomeini and his minions."

Iran's New Foreign Minister Tells Us His Number-One Target: Getting the Saudis to Bow Down

Please be subscriber 18,081 (and daily reader 20,081.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.


By Barry Rubin

What is the highest priority for Iranian foreign policy--I mean the official and public foreign policy, not spreading revolution and terrorism--today? According to the new foreign minister it's developing strong relations with Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

Ali Akbar Salehi, who by the way holds a degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), explained this in his first speech as foreign minister. His last job was running Iran's nuclear program. "Saudi Arabia deserves to have special political ties with Iran. Iran and Saudi Arabia," says Salehi, "as two effective countries in the Islamic world, can resolve many problems together."

The means of  persuasion are indicated by Salehi's former job. Perhaps he can tell a few anecdotes about the nuclear program [warning: satire]:  "When I was busy getting our nuclear weapons ready--I told you we will have nuclear weapons soon, right?"

He will tell the Saudis that the United States cannot and will not protect them so they better accept the new era of a nuclear Iran and play ball with Tehran. Remember, as we know from Wikileaks, what Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told India's leaders when he visited that country: Iran is getting stronger; America, under Obama, is getting weaker.

The Saudis, who aren't stupid, won't really submit to Iran but they will hedge their bets. After all, the United States isn't keeping Iran from getting nuclear weapons and isn't countering the spread of Iranian influence in the region.

One can imagine the dialogue taking place in Saudi palaces [warning: more satire]:

Prince A: "That President Obama is a really nice guy! He likes us. He sort of bowed to our king. He says nice things about Islam. He just appointed a Muslim to head NASA."

Prince B: "Yes, and that President Ahmadinejad is not a nice guy. He won't hesitate to trample on us if we cross him. He will send terrorists to assassinate us and to blow up oilfields. Soon he will have nuclear arms and nobody will stand up to him. The Americans can't stop him from getting these weapons. They are afraid to attack him, as we asked them to do. They keep apologizing about past uses of force. They are pulling out of Iraq. They didn't help us save Lebanon from Iran and Syria. They let the Shah fall, ran from Somalia, left Vietnam. Shall I go on?"

Prince A: "Yes, I see what you mean. So what should we do?"

Prince B: "Well, we can start by getting Ahmadinejad a really really nice birthday present, say, the Persian Gulf."

Prince A: "Persian Gulf? Don't you mean the Arab Gulf?"

Prince B: "Not any more!"

Note: If you are wondering and want to get in good with Iranian leaders with a nice greeting card, reemember that Ahmadinejad's birthday is October 28. Supreme Guide Ali Khamanei's is July 17.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

The Poisoned Fruits of Appeasement Come Home to Roost

Please be subscriber 18,078 (and daily reader 20,078.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com

We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

The U.S. weakness in countering Iran and other radical forces in the Middle East is beginning to bear poisoned fruits. Jordan is already moving toward getting on Iran’s good side; Lebanon has been captured by the Iran-Syria camp; Turkey has moved into its orbit, becoming an ally of Iran and Syria, while the Obama Administration merely makes counterproductive speeches emphasizing how important the relationship is with that country despite differences (that is, the Turkish regime sabotaging U.S. interests repeatedly).

Now Qatar--which hedges its bets between cooperating with the United States on basing rights, sponsors the radical anti-American al-Jazira network, and works with Iran on regional issues—has also moved closer to Tehran. Qatar participated in joint war games with Iran and has now invited Iranian Revolutionary Guards troops for a visit including five warships to inspect Qatar’s defenses. Deputy head of the Revolutionary Guards' navy, Alireza Tangsiri, said, "Such programs will definitely pave the way for mutual cooperation."

You bet.

Meanwhile, in the Gaza Strip all the influx of Western aid and the reduction of sanctions hasn’t helped matters one bit when it comes to the terrorism of its Hamas rulers. On the contrary, 14 rockets were fired at Israel on December 19 and 20 (one narrowly missing a kindergarten class), by far the highest number since the war caused by massive Hamas attacks a year ago.

But guess what? Aid groups are now campaigning for reducing sanctions even more! And after the restrictions have been narrowed to cover only military-related material, Reuters describes this as a "blockade."

Could it be that Western support for Hamas, or at least for stabilizing its rule in the Gaza Strip, is making Hamas bolder?

Might it be that Western criticism of Israel for its military campaign two years ago--without seriously condemning Hamas's aggression and use of civilians as human shields--has convinced Hamas that it can attack Israel regularly but Israel will hesitate to retaliate lest it incur international condemnation again?

Is it possible that Hamas is confident that if Israel does attack it can use this as leverage to gain even more Western concessions and apparent sympathy by cynically sacrificing its own people? [Sarcasm alert] No doubt, when there are no sanctions at all, Hamas will become moderate.

In fact, Israel has already learned the lesson that the more land it withdrew from and the more concessions offered, the more militant, confident, and intransigent the other side became. That's why nowadays those demanding even more concessions--if there is some real cost or risk involved--are going to be ignored if at all possible.

Can there be any correlation between Western eagerness to engage Syria while ignoring its continued aggression in Iraq and Lebanon with that dictatorship's growing boldness and arrogance? (Indeed, at this very moment, Lebanese moderates are complaining that France is making a deal with Hizballah to sell out the investigation of Syrian (and possibly Hizballah) involvement in assassinations and terrorism against Lebanese moderates.)

And might it further be credible that by making the Palestinian Authority feel that it can get international recognition by refusing to negotiate with Israel or compromise is sabotaging the peace process that Western governments so passionately advocate?

Here's UPI's strange fable about the situation:

"Palestinian Authority leader Mahmoud Abbas]...has sought to negotiate a peace agreement with Israel rather than wage war against it to liberate Palestinian land from 43 years of occupation. As such, he has been central to U.S. efforts to move the foundering peace process forward....His popularity, such as it was, has ebbed, particularly among Arafat's Old Guard, as the prospect of a Palestinian state faded in the face of Israel's intransigence."

Yes, we live in a bizarre world in which Israel has offered to negotiate for two solid years and froze construction for ten months at U.S. request while the Palestinian Authority has refused to negotiate and yet it is Israel that is allegedly showing "intransigence." And in which explanations of the conflict always mention Palestinian demands but never the fact that Israel wants to be secure from 62 years of war waged against it to wipe it off the map.

All of these points are obvious; none of these points seem to shape Western policy or mass media coverage. Probably a year or two from now when the relationship of appeasing or ignoring radical forces is apparent these links will be discovered with astonishment by those who should be coping with them now.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com.

Pro-Nazi Sites and Iran's Regime: An Update

By Barry Rubin

I first broke the story internationally of Nazi sites apparently under Iranian government supervision or even control. Here’s an update on the story showing that the regime has only made minor modifications trying to camouflage its direct support or such activities. The sites have not been shut down. Here’s an update on the story.

Exclusive: Is Iran's Regime Officially Running--Or Merely Helping--a Pro-Nazi Site?

Please be subscriber 17,898 (and daily reader 19,898.). Put your email address in the upper right-hand box of the page at http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com [Note: For those following this closely we have raised our daily reader figure due to a consistent readership rise on the GLORIA site.]


We rely on your contributions. Tax-deductible donation via PayPal or credit card: click Donate button, top right corner of this page: http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/. By check: "American Friends of IDC.” “For GLORIA Center” on memo line. Mail: American Friends of IDC, 116 East 16th St., 11th Floor, NY, NY 10003.

By Barry Rubin

Is Iran’s government sponsoring an Internet site that extols the German Nazis, their history and achievements, including the antisemitism that the current Iranian regime also supports? Or is it merely permitting one to operate in its highly censored communications' system?

Here are the facts. There is a discussion group site entitled IranNazi that has an Iranian internet URL. It is written in Persian and seems to have begun on August 24. All the material on the site is pro-Nazi and features pictures of Adolph Hitler, the swastika, and goose-stepping German soldiers. There is an English-language part as well.

This site pretends to be an association for the research of Nazism and to be "completely historical and scientific."

کاملا پژوهشی و علمی تاریخی است

It includes such topics as claims that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the well-known antisemitic forgery is true; insistence that the mass murder of Jews by the Nazis ever happened and is in fact a lie; makes the prediction that Israel will collapse in five years; and highlights cartoons and satire ridiculing the Holocaust. All four of these positions are also taken by the Iranian government and official media.

The main page includes the following message:

این تارنما طبق قوانین جمهوری اسلامی ایران و تحت نظارت کارگروه رسانه های دیجیتال وزارت فرهنگ و ارشاد جمهوری اسلامی فعالیت می کند .

In English it means: "This website is under Islamic Republic of Iran laws and it is under the supervision of the working committee on Digital Media of the Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance."

The site is registered to this place under the IRNIC, Iran's domain manager and an arm of the government. It is owned by a company in Isfahan. There is also evidence, however, that the site goes through a server in Arizona. The Phoenix hosting company is called Atjeu.com. This doesn't prove, however, that the site is not sponsored by the Iranian government. It does go out on the state-controlled server and is allowed to claim government sponsorship.

Iran does not have freedom of speech and certainly not freedom of the Internet. Given the tight censorship in Iran and the fact that all sites are closely monitored, permission to publish--especially to claim government sponsorship--is evidence of state backing.

So is this, then, a state-backed site, showing just how far the regime has gone in boosting Nazism historically and antisemitism or a private initiative by some Iranian immigrants in the United States who are supporters of the Iranian regime? Is the statement on the site, which has not been suppressed by the government, accurate? It isn't completely clear.

A very well-informed and highly credible Iranian notes that the fact that it isn't blocked "is a significant indication that the government at least does not have problem with it." The deputy minister of Culture and Islamic Guidance is Muhammad Ali Ramin, who was President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's advisor on Holocaust issue and founder of Holocaust Institute in Tehran and the president of the conference of Holocaust; A Global Perspective, which denied that the mass murder of Jews never took place.

A reader asked me whether anyone would be surprised to see something like this happen.

Obviously, one more Internet site doesn't prove anything huge. Yet the fact that it is in line with the Iranian government's public positions is a reminder of just what these stances are and what they signify.

Well, except for the explicit boosting of the German Nazi regime itself--rather than just denying its crimes and basically endorsing its policies--this is not really different from the regime's positions. It is shocking, but more on a symbolic than a substantive level. If this is a private group lying about its sponsorship that point should be made clear, but it still reminds us of what the current Iranian regime is saying...and doing.

My broader answer is that while many observers won't be surprised, given the regime's hatred of Jews as well as of Israel, the national home of the Jewish people, there are others who will be genuinely shocked.

The conventional wisdom in many quarters that Iran's regime is a rational government that looks only to its national self-interest. There is something to be said for this view. We have seen times when Iran's rulers--some if not all--exercised caution and showed that the regime's survival was their highest priority. The decision to end the war with Iraq in 1988 and avoiding direct aggression or armed conflict with other neighbors provide examples.

On the other hand, Iran has been able to be more provocative without incurring armed conflict because the other side, including the United States, is so reluctant to counter its actions, including state sponsorship of terrorism and covert, indirect attacks on American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Certainly, the answer is not to launch an armed attack on Iran. But the proper answer has been to exert sufficient threats, pressure, and support for Iran's foes to deter, contain, and frighten Iran into being more cautious.

The Iranian regime is a radical Islamist government, not a Nazi or fascist one, though there are points in common. But also as I've written elsewhere, Iran's government is the closest thing we've seen to an irrational, ideologically motivated ruler since the fall of Germany in 1945. There have been other such rulers--Idi Amin in Uganda, the Cambodian Communists, the Afghan Taliban come to mind. But we have seen how these regimes have behaved and how many people they've murdered.

And none of those others, including Nazi Germany itself, had nuclear weapons.

Update: This story, first reported here, has now become a controversial issue within Iran.

Barry Rubin is director of the Global Research in International Affairs (GLORIA) Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs (MERIA) Journal. His latest books are The Israel-Arab Reader (seventh edition), The Long War for Freedom: The Arab Struggle for Democracy in the Middle East (Wiley), and The Truth About Syria (Palgrave-Macmillan). The website of the GLORIA Center is at http://www.gloria-center.org and of his blog, Rubin Reports, http://www.rubinreports.blogspot.com/.