Taboo Inhibits Frank Iran/Israel Talk
Posted on 12. Mar, 2010 by Radical Daily in War & Peace
Participants at an otherwise informative discussion on “Iran at a Crossroads” at the Senate on Wednesday seemed at pains to barricade the doors against the proverbial elephant being admitted into the room — in this case, Israel.
This, despite the fact that the agenda virtually dictated that the elephant be allowed in. The cavernous hearing room also could have accommodated it — however awkward and untidy the atmosphere might have become.
Otherwise, as was entirely predictable, the discussion would be lacking a crucial element. Which it turned out to be.
The tongue-tied impediment displayed by some of the presenters can be chalked up mostly to the all-too-familiar timidity on Capitol Hill to countenance candid discussion of any issue on which Israel can be revealed to be a fly in the ointment.
Sen. Carl Levin, D-Michigan, obtained use of the hearing room for the organizers of the discussion, the thoroughly professional National Iranian American Council headed by Professor Trita Parsi. This is to Levin’s credit, in my view.
At the same time, Sen. Levin holds the all-time-high record for PAC contributions from groups affiliated with the self-described “America’s Pro-Israel Lobby” — the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
In any case, a truly distinguished panel launched the discussion on “The U.S. and Iran: Back to Confrontation?” which Professor Parsi moderated. The panelists began by setting a fact- and reality-based context, which in turn raised hopes of a no-holds-barred discussion. Their observations included, or implied, the following:
-The status of the U.S. as the “world’s sole remaining superpower” may have “turned a corner.” In many key respects, China, India, Russia and Brazil now represent a rival “superpower” strong enough to thwart American policy objectives.
-The consequences of nuclear weapons proliferation in the general area of the Persian Gulf are so truly ominous that “everything imaginable” should be done to head it off.
-The main “positive” of robust sanctions against a country like Iran is simply that those who impose them can feel good. It would be difficult, if not impossible, to target sanctions on the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps without hurting the Iranian people at large.
-The experience of the past several years demonstrates that the U.S. and Iran share — and can act on — common interests (in Afghanistan, for example). Neither country would profit from hostilities involving Iran.
-Iran is nowhere near a nuclear weapon, so there is time to reconsider what guarantees could be offered to Tehran to dissuade it from pursuing a nuclear weapons option.
-No member of Congress has set foot in Iran since 1979.
With these observations on the table, it was as if the doors to the hearing room were clanked shut and bolted, lest the Israeli elephant be allowed to intrude. And this, despite a palpable yearning in the audience for the panelists to address uncomfortable questions like:
-If there are no intrinsic factors dictating implacable hostility between Iran and the U.S., how does one account for its persistence? What promotes, what feeds it?
There was, of course, the sad history of 1953 when the CIA engineered the overthrow of Iran’s democratic government and the unpleasant memory of Iran holding 52 American hostages for 444 days at the end of Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
But aside from those incidents, could the mutual hostility have anything to do with Israel and what it perceives as its security interests?
-Do the Iranian leaders see as contrived the oft-expressed concern that Iran might eventually obtain a nuclear weapon, when American officials do nothing about Israel’s actual nuclear weapons, or for that matter, those of Pakistan and India?
-Is the real objective of Israel and, by extension, the U.S. the same as it was with respect to Iraq seven years ago — that is, “regime change”? (How I dislike using the euphemism in vogue for what we used to call overthrowing governments!)
Even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton let drop last month that, even if Iran is pursuing a nuclear weapon, this does not “directly” threaten the United States.
-Is it true, as one of the panelists asserted, that “No one believes that the Green (opposition) movement in Iran is supported by outside forces; rather it is clearly an entirely indigenous, spontaneous movement.”
Into the memory hole went the past news reports about the Bush administration earmarking $400 million to support covert operations designed to frustrate Iran’s nuclear program and to destabilize its political system. There also have been troubling reports that the United States has helped “good” terrorist organizations, like Jundullah, in striking violent blows against Iran’s regime.
-Is it a given, as one very distinguished panelist suggested, that “Everyone knows that the Israelis would only use their considerable nuclear arsenal to defend itself”? It seems that when Israel is mentioned in these affairs the comments must only be in the most positive light and there can be no suggestion that Israel might use, say, bunker-busting tactical nukes to destroy hardened Iranian targets.
-Does the Israeli government honestly perceive an “existential threat” in Iran’s possible acquisition of a few nuclear weapons against the 200-300 devices already in Israel’s arsenal? If so, is Israel prepared to “defend itself” by attacking Iran’s nuclear facilities, using the preventive-war justification which has long been a staple of Israeli policy, and was adopted kit and caboodle by Bush and Cheney?
-Are the Israelis counting on U.S. logistical support for such a preventive attack —intelligence and operational planning support of the kind that enabled its surgical strike on the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981? Are they expecting the kind of political support the United States provided in the wake of Israel’s September 2007 attack on a suspect nuclear-related facility being built in Syria?
-Why is it that Robert Hunter, a former American ambassador, and now adviser to RAND, a passionate opponent of nuclear proliferation, can state his support for a “nuclear-free Middle East,” and then with a wan smile simply throw up his hands lamenting that that’s never going to happen (presumably because Israel would never go along).
Why is this thought automatically exempt from the category of doing “everything imaginable” to stave off a worsening crisis from nuclear proliferation?
-If Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu feels he can thumb his nose at the U.S. President (and Vice President) on the signal issue of Israeli settlements, is there reason to believe that Netanyahu is inclined to take into account repeated “please pleas” from the likes of Joint Chiefs Chairman Mike Mullen, who has warned the Israelis publicly that an attack on Iran would be a “big, big, big problem for all of us?”
Was this week’s chutzpah-laden Israeli move announcing new settlement construction in East Jerusalem – in the midst of a visit by Vice President Joe Biden – a case of practice mouse trapping, a test of whether the Obama administration really has the toughness to push back in a meaningful fashion?
Ambassador Hunter was accompanied on the afternoon panel by prolific writer, Professor Juan Cole of the University of Michigan, and Robert Malley, who served in senior positions at President Bill Clinton’s National Security Council and is now Program Director for Middle East and North Africa at the International Crisis Group in Washington, D.C.
All three have a wealth of experience on the Middle East and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, giving rise to eventually dashed expectations of a more candid discussion.
There are, of course, limits to what can be covered in an hour and a quarter. And yet, there did seem a distinct aversion to including Israel in any discussion of the political obstacles preventing sensible accommodation between Tehran and Washington.
No doubt the main obstacle can be traced to the time-worn “passionate attachment” of U.S. leaders to Israel’s short-term interests as if they were identical to those of the United States. This politically super-sensitive issue needs to be addressed openly and without fear.
Granted, volunteering to sponsor such a discussion would be seen as the kiss of death for the vast majority of lawmakers. Is there no group, no think tank with courage enough to arrange such a forum? For it truly needs to be done, and quickly, somewhere — whether permitted in a Senate office building, or not.
Otherwise, there is virtually no prospect of lessened tensions, and a near-term prospect that things can get dramatically worse — an Israeli provocation and/or a preventive strike on Iran, for example.
Otherwise, like Mrs. Lincoln at Ford Theatre on April 14, 1865, we are all likely to find it difficult to enjoy the rest of the show.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. A 27-year veteran of CIA’s analysis division, he now serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Did Chomsky Say? :: Iran Pursuing Nuclear Weapons Out of Fear
Posted on 11. Mar, 2010 by Radical Daily in War & Peace
Scholar assails U.S. for hypocritical application of Non-Proliferation Treaty
By Matthew W. Hutchins
Even the most radical conservative can agree with Noam Chomsky on at least one thing. “No one in their right mind wants Iran to develop nuclear weapons.” But to Chomsky, nonproliferation requires reciprocal action, rather than international condemnation. Chomsky’s reputation as a prolific author of books on subjects including linguistics, philosophy, cognitive science, political science, and media might lead one to believe that his views stem from esoteric theoretical arguments, but Chomsky takes a pragmatic view of international relations. His conclusion is that Iran is developing nuclear weapons out of a rational fear for its national safety because of the systematically threatening posture of the United States and Israel.
Speaking at Harvard’s Memorial Church on Saturday, March 6th, Chomsky critiqued the foreign policy of President Obama ’91 and explained the historical reasons that Iran would perceive a need to develop nuclear weapons. “If they’re not developing a nuclear deterrent, they are crazy.” The problem, said Chomsky, is the defiant and hypocritical insistence of the United States on holding the constant threat of military action over Iran as a punishment for its noncompliance with United Nations mandates. “Hostile actions of the United States and its Israeli client are a major factor in Iran’s decisions of whether or not to develop a nuclear deterrent.”
In Chomsky’s eyes, Security Council Resolution 1887, which was strongly endorsed by President Obama, calls upon all nations to peacefully participate in the international regimes for nonproliferation. The resolution encourages nations to develop civilian nuclear technology, while stressing the need for conformity to the IAEA’s inspection system, and Chomsky said that the inclusion of language about peaceful action was primarily directed at the United States and its veiled threats that, “We must keep all options open.” Indeed, with its nuclear missile submarines positioned within striking distance of Iran, Chomsky estimates that there is effectively no chance that Iran would ever use a future nuclear weapon for offensive purposes. But he warned, “The threats do have the effect of inducing Iran to develop a deterrent.”
The escalation of tensions between Iran and the United States is entirely absurd to Chomsky in light of the widespread acceptance of the rights of Iranians to develop civilian nuclear technology. He sees the cult of American Empire in the government’s condemnations of Iran for refusing to follow the demands of the international community, because the definition of “international community” used in such rhetoric amounts to little more than the opinion in Washington, D.C. and among its allies. He cited to the hypocrisy of the U.S. position in its historical relationships with the three nations that did not ratify the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty: Israel, India, and Pakistan. These three nations, said Chomsky, have all received nuclear technology from the United States in violation of security council resolutions, but most Americans would not realize this, given the pro-government bias of the media.
Essentially, Chomsky believes that President Obama’s foreign policy has embodied a continuation of the policies of George W. Bush’s second term in office. But he believes we are fortunate to be living in a time when the anti-war movement is much stronger than it was during the 1960′s. He recalled a demonstration he was involved in during 1965, when state police violently dispersed a crowd from Boston Common. The next day, the Boston Globe, one of the most liberal newspapers in the country, denounced the protesters. Just three years later, following the Tet Offensive, public sentiment had moved enough that protests became common, but he ascribed this to a growing sentiment on Wall Street that the country had paid too high a price in Vietnam. Looking back at the lessons of that war, Chomsky said that the United States had essentially achieved its goal of “innoculating” the region from the domino-theory chain reaction by 1970 by installing dictators in neighboring countries and helping Suharto come to power in Indonesia.
Prize-winning journalist Amy Goodman noted in her introduction of Chomsky that he had played a crucial role in bringing the attention of the world to the oppression of the people of East Timor by Indonesia. She recounted the beatings and massacres she witnessed while traveling there as a journalist, as well as the elation when the nation achieved independence. “This nation of survivors had prevailed. They had resisted, and they had won.” Chomsky, when speaking about activism and civil disobedience, stressed the need for determined persistence. “You’re not going to win tomorrow. You are going to have a lot of defeats, but you have to keep at it.”
(Harvard Law Record)