Israel Runs Away from Good News on Iran (Again)

Everything labeled "Iran" must be sneered at. The automatic effort by Israelis to portray Iran always in a negative light is more serious than just the bias it obviously reflects. It sends a clear message to Iran that Israel "only understands the language of force."

Coming on the heels of a negative interpretation of Iran's opening of Arak to inspections, the latest is rumors from IAEA (why don't they just report these things?) that Iran has, for unexplained reasons, given another gift to the West: ending, for the moment, the production of refined uranium. Once again, the immediate Israeli response is to twist it into something negative.

We do not know the reason. Given the tension and the recent Iranian concession on Arak inspections and Natanz inspections, there is every reason to consider the possibility that this represents one more Iranian signal.

If the West is stubborn enough to slap Iran every time it does something positive, there will be plenty of Iranian officials more than happy to say, "You see! The West only understands the language of force."

Wisely, given the historical track record of Western duplicity, Iran is continuing to expand the number of available centrifuges; momentarily, it is just not using the new ones.

Given the political conflict within Iran, you could almost imagine that a cautious national security faction might be saying to the hardliners: "If you are so certain that compromise with the West is hopeless, then prove it! Make a concession and we will see if the West responds in a positive, professional manner." In the last week, Iran has made three concessions. Exactly what has Iran received in return?

Shared Iranian-Israeli National Security

Just imagine an Iranian-Israeli diplomatic meeting in which each side says, “Tell me how I can help you feel more secure. Let’s just see how far we can go.” This earthshaking little idea was broached here and slightly expanded here. Note also the perspective of former Israeli foreign minister Shlomo Ben-Ami on “Owning Up to Israel’s Bomb” and my comment to that article. Further thoughts follow.

In a simple-minded zero-sum competition, anything good for you is bad for me. In a nuclear world, we need decision-makers smart enough to realize the madness of such a competition. When we pile up weapons even as we raise the probability of nuclear war, our "security" is declining. Simply put, we can each eat our own little "security pie" (filled with nice, crunchy tanks and missiles but lacking protection against nuclear chaos) or we can share a single much larger security pie that includes nuclear security.

In a positive-sum competition, we can both win. Can Israel and Iran both win?

If the goal is military hegemony over the Mideast, then the answer is obviously “No.” Is there some less ambitious goal that might satisfy the leaders of those two states? That is a tough question to answer, not the least because the ruling coalition is constantly evolving and the opinions of the individuals in it may be as well. Even if some leaders adamantly demand hegemony (or some fundamentalist “end of days” carnage), their power depends greatly on the degree to which normal desires for national security can be addressed by some less extreme approach.

So, can Iran and Israel both truly enhance their long-term national security simultaneously?

If one side wants to dominate, then it will oppose anything that strengthens the opponent. For example, to the degree that Israel wants to dominate the Mideast, it will oppose Russian short-range, ground-to-air missiles being placed around Iranian nuclear sites to protect those sites from attack. By the same logic, to the degree that Israel wants to dominate the Mideast, it will oppose Iran’s call for an international agreement to avoid attacking nuclear installations. But protecting Iranian nuclear sites from attack does not affect Israeli national security. Indeed, a world in which all nuclear sites are safe from attack would be a world safer from nuclear fallout and would address the Israeli need to protect its own nuclear infrastructure. Moreover, it would diminish international tensions by reassuring insecure Iranians. Any Iranians intent on war would see their political support undermined.

This argument seems pretty elemental, but there are several possible explanations for the willingness of politicians to pursue confrontational paths of incredible danger. Some politicians clearly cannot resist the personal career benefits of waving the bloody flag of fear. In Iran, some may feel they are so surrounded by implacably hostile and vastly stronger enemies that they have no choice. In Israel, some may calculate that they have no need to compromise when they enjoy Washington’s blank check (with the ironic result that American friends of Israel, by virtue of the unrestrained nature of their support, end up undermining Israel’s long-term national security).

So the mutual commitment to a suicidal zero-sum vision continues.Yet there clearly is another way, and I can't help but wonder what some current or future Iranian leadership team might offer in return for international acceptance of some measure of Iranian national security.

Two Emerging Powers Spoiling for a Showdown

The following is not a prediction. I would be the last to make linear extrapolations about the Mideast. It's just a totally unscientific scenario of the near future that may be developing in the Mideast, making the huge assumption that no surprises occur. A ridiculous assumption for sure, but it is still worth thinking about current trends...

At the moment, Netanyahu appears to be tying Obama in knots, Iran appears to be taking over Iraq, and a crusading military dictatorship appears to be winning total control in Iran. One can easily make arguments about how Obama is really very patient and will not allow Israeli extremists to manipulate him; how Iraqi Shi'ites are patriotic opponents of Iranian control; how a broad moderate coalition is gaining power inside Iran (indeed, I just made the latter argument myself).

That said, appearances at the moment suggest that in five years, Israeli hardliners will have crushed the Palestinian people completely and solidified control of what will be a messianic, racist, apartheid, fundamentalist, and aggressively militant Greater Israel. Similarly, an alliance of superpatriotic military and fundamentalist clerics will have solidified control of Iran.

Israel will have intimidated all its neighbors except possibly a very cautious Hezbollah. Iran will have organized Iraq into a combination cordon sanitaire plus roadway for Iran into the Mideast. There will be no more Iranian arms ships to Palestine. If any Palestinians still exist to accept aid, Iran will be able to drive truck convoys through Iraq and Syria right up to the border of Jordan, assuming it still exists as an independent state.

The U.S. will be thoroughly cowed by the Israeli lobby and the unrestrained violence of crusading Israeli settlers completing ethnic cleansing with no apologies. Vis-a-vis Iran, the U.S. will not know which way to turn because it will be so mired down in Central Asia that it will be too dependent on Iran to fight it. And Iran will not be alone. Iran will have a nice little gas cartel sinecure running with Russia and expanding influence in Pakistan, which will be dependent on its new gas pipeline from Iran.

Bottom line: current trends suggest the ominous possibility that in five years both Iran and Israel may be emerging regional powers controlled by highly confident, militant religious movements run by extremist politicians believing that they talk to God and that God is telling them that war is the road to victory.

Iranian-Israeli Nuclear Accord: Focus on Mutual Benefit

This post follows yesterday's introduction of the concept of simultaneously strengthening the national security of both Iran and Israel. The fundamental question, broached yesterday, concerns the possibility of this being conceivable.

Here I wish to point out an advantage to proceeding with small steps, several of which were suggested in yesterday's post, that are nevertheless sufficiently large so that each side considers them to be beneficial. Each side would say, "Sure; if my adversary were to accept international controls over Weapons System X or Technology Y, that would make me more secure."

One advantage of such an incremental approach is that it avoids the highly contentious Israeli issue of telling the truth about its nuclear capabilities and avoids the unanswerable Iranian issue of what their ultimate intentions are. Whether or not Israel has its reputed 200+ nuclear bombs, if its AWACS are grounded under international observation, it will have more difficulty committing aggression, so Iran should be willing to pay something to achieve that. Whether or not Iranian leaders' ultimate intentions are aggressive, if its research into nuclear warheads is constrained and under international inspections, a future Iranian regime will have more difficulty committing aggression, so Israel should be willing to pay something to achieve that as well.

Democracy Under Siege

Peaceful demonstrators opposing dictatorial tendencies on the part of their government are being beaten in a government-supported policy of police brutality: Iran? Well, sure…but also Honduras, where a vicious rightwing dictatorship appears to have returned from the last century. In Israel the approach is different – instead of using the police, the government is encouraging a campaign of anti-Palestinian terrorism by extremist illegal settlers who, intent on retaining the land they have stolen, hardly need much encouragement. Rather than stopping the terrorists, the Israeli government seems more concerned about the recent call by one courageous Israeli professor to support the global anti-Israeli boycott in protest of an apartheid system he fears will destroy his country. In war-torn and occupied Afghanistan, one of the most vicious war criminals of the post-communist civil war is openly supporting Karzai. As for the Afghan election, whether the Afghan or Iranian election was more corrupt seems to be an open question. Meanwhile, in Washington, everyone is pretending that the previous administration, none of whose leading members has yet been brought to trial, never did anything that was less than pure and holy.

If democracy was reputed to have spread during the 1990s, today it is everywhere under siege. Burning olive groves is OK. Promoting coups is OK. Torturing prisoners is OK. Making war on civilian populations is OK. Promoting the idea of preventive war in the absence of a clear and present threat, even of nuclear war, even of nuclear war against a non-nuclear power is OK. Undermining constitutional guarantees of civil liberties is OK.

But don’t think all is chaos. Oh, no. There are rules for sure. Thou shalt not say anything embarrassing about the powers that be. Thou shalt not defend the poor, the weak, the underprivileged. Thou shalt not criticize the house religion. And of course thou shalt never ask Israel to play by the same rules as the rest of the world.

Conceiving of Iranian AND Israeli National Security

Both sides in the Iranian-Israeli nuclear dispute have gotten themselves into the mental trap of visualizing the dispute as zero-sum. That might of course be true; the trap is assuming it to be true and thus no longer thinking about it. Were decision-makers to start thinking, they would quickly realize it also might not be true.

If we open our minds to alternate possibilities, questions start popping up.

Can we define a situation in which Iran and Israel both simultaneously increase their national security?

Beginning of an answer:

The global community of relevant players agree that Iran shall have Russian defensive ground-to-air missiles in return for accepting verifiable constraints on its technical capabilities in long-range missiles, plutonium production, and warhead design. Israel, for its part, accepts verifiable controls over its nuclear-capable submarines, AWACS, and aerial refueling capabilities, while returning its bunker-buster bombs to the U.S.

The issue of how Israel and Iran will share regional power remains, but each country has become more secure because the other has less ability to commit aggression.

__________
Note: All are encouraged to use this idea with citation, with one exception. Obama can use it in his next Mideast address for free.

Washington Wades Through Central Asian Swamp

If the road to Afghanistan goes through Uzbekistan, then the road to Uzbekistan goes through Iran. Sorry, Zionists!

Uzbek-American military ties are once again warming up, which will inevitably strengthen the Uzbek dictatorship’s hand against its own people. Does anyone recall the term “blow-back?”

Uzbekistan’s Ferghana Valley is in social ferment for plenty of good domestic reasons not to mention the possibility of some international ones, raising the possibility that Uzbekistan will go the way of Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the U.S. has its hands full, and time can always be presumed to favor indigenous forces rather than foreign ones. One could postulate that Washington might want a deal with neighbors that would solve its Afghan problem by cutting the country into regions of strategic interest, with Pakistan running the south, Uzbekistan running the north, and India playing some sort of undercover role balancing the others off against each other. But first, this would work much better with Iran part of the deal, and second, this whole line of thinking risks pulling the U.S. so deep into Uzbekistan that it becomes the next front in the global war on Islam. Put simply, to the degree that we work with the Uzbek dictatorship, Washington becomes the enemy of reformist Islam Uzbek society and reformist Islam becomes that much more radicalized (radical = marginalized reformer).

A further consideration is the impact of American entrenchment in Uzbekistan on Moscow. Revenge may be way too emotional a word; shall we say that Moscow will want to “rebalance the strategic global relationship?” In a world of revenge politics, one could write a wild novel about Moscow funding Mexican drug lords, but in the actual world of today, there appears to be one obvious way in which Moscow can smoothly, logically, safely “rebalance” things after a rude U.S. push into the former Uzbek SSR and that is of course Iran.

Moscow could simply carry out its promises re civilian nuclear technological support; continue moving forward the lucrative, emerging Russian-Iranian gas cartel (which will be far more effective than the hydra-headed OPEC); and take the eminently reasonable step of providing those promised land-to-air defensive missiles to protect Iran’s nuclear establishment, perhaps supported by missile mechanics who would need support from Russian troops who would of course need Russian air cover and voila! it would be 1948 all over again. It could even announce the defensive move in the U.N., bragging about how providing Iran with a defensive shield will make nuclear war in the Mideast far less likely (A. Israel won’t be able to start one; B. Iran will no longer be tempted or scared into building nuclear bombs). True or not, such arguments would be hard to dismiss, and Moscow would look to any dispassionate observer like a peace-maker even as it cemented an alliance with Iran.

_____________

Chess-Playing Iranians

For one example of skilled chess playing by Tehran, take a look at international affairs not from the perspective of "big diplomacy" discussed in this post but from the perspective of what might be called "real-world diplomacy:" pipeline construction. Contemplate the meaning of Pakistan and India relying on Iranian gas for the next quarter century. Dare I enunciate a new theory of international affairs, namely, that countries linked by major hydrocarbon pipelines don't go to war with each other?

______________

And if…IF…Tehran were ruled by skilled chess-players, it might then announce that since it was now protected from the Israeli threat, that it was ready for total nuclear transparency and throw open its doors to the IAEA. Moscow would have neutralized Israel’s threat, leaving Iran striding the regional stage with a big grin on its face. Washington would have a hard time complaining since it would have gotten exactly what it has been demanding for a decade (albeit not in exactly the way it had dreamed). Tehran could go one better by then saying it hoped the way had now been cleared for full resumption of friendly U.S.-Iranian relations, cautioning its (small potatoes) Hezbollah & Hamas allies that the time for military action had passed, and offering "all possible support" to pacifying Afghanistan. That would just make the Moscow-Tehran victory all the harder for Washington to criticize without altering the fact that Moscow and Tehran would remain in the driver’s seat.

Lots of points might follow from this little scenario, but the one that is relevant here is simply this: throwing Iran into the hands of Moscow in return for embroiling the U.S. in a civil war in Uzbekistan (in which the U.S., with its usual foresight, gets to defend a vicious dictator against a popular protest movement) is not a good deal.

So if Washington wants to cut a deal on Afghanistan that risks stimulating Russian pride, it better cut one with Tehran first.

Iranian Moderates Gaining Moral Vision

A broad coalition is emerging in Iran favoring moderation and the strengthening of democracy within the system of the Islamic Republic that goes from senior revolutionary clerics and the opposition through Rafsanjani to, perhaps, the Larijani brothers. It may lack guns, but it possesses moral clarity and is spreading.

The combination of unrestrained inhumanity and moral leadership, with the press reporting both sides, in Iran today is simply astounding. What is one to think of a society that has never experienced true democracy (except for a few moments in 1979) where leaders murder and torture without restraint or penalty while people put their lives on the line and old revolutionaries provide a level of moral guidance that Americans can only dream of in an age when our officials think nothing of discussing nuclear aggression as though it were a rational policy option for sane and decent human conversation?

Grand Ayatollah Sanei said a few days ago:

No one is allowed to torture prisoners. Even if by law, a criminal is condemned to a certain punishment, we are not allowed to punish him if he is sick. Read the words of Imam Ali. Imam Ali said that any prisoner who is being held captive, is tortured or hurt, and who has no access to the outside world, can not be forced into confession. Torture is not allowed.

Qom Friday Prayers Leader Ayatollah Ebrahim Amini said on August 21:

You, as the elite, must sit down and talk. If injustice has really been done to people, deal with it. If an innocent has been incarcerated, release him. And if someone has been shamed [publicly], apologize to him, and properly deal with those who are really guilty.

The 84-year-old Amini, prayer leader in Qom, has been deputy head of the Assembly of Experts and a member of the Expediency Council. In 2002, he asserted that "The regime cannot maintain itself in power by force. Society is on the verge of an explosion."

I see no contradiction between Amini’s remarks and those of Rafsanjani the day after:

To deal with the current situation in the country, everyone must follow the Supreme Leader’s guidelines, abide by the Constitution, and obey the law, lawbreakers must be dealt with properly, the current emotional atmosphere must be replaced with a rational atmosphere, freedom of speech must be allowed, and suitable responses must be made to constructive criticism.

Rafsanjani is trying very hard to steer a middle course, but then, everyone in Iran aside from the extremists behind Ahmadinejad is doing the same, judging from media reports. () No one is calling for revolution (unless you consider advocating a regime that follows the laws of the country, upholds the constitution, and forces its officials to take responsibility for their actions to be revolutionary).

An excellent review of his full speech sees him as standing firm in support of free media, if not actually trying to box Khamenei into such support as well. Press TV concurs, summarizing Rafsanjani as having:

said the current situation needs everyone to observe the Leader's decrees and guidelines and the Constitution and to create a free atmosphere for giving legal responses to fair criticism.

Mehr News reported Rafsanjani saying that “officials and citizens must maintain unity,” and “also” saying that people should heed Khamenei’s guidelines. While the phrase about maintaining unity could conceivably be read two different ways (either “don’t be divisive by protesting” or “don’t be divisive by arresting protestors), it is hard to see how it leaves room for the “gouging out of eyes” favored by some IRGC spokesmen or the rape of jailed protestors or the accusations that opposition leaders are traitors. Moreover, in the context of veliyat e-faqih, placing the heeding of Khamenei’s guidelines second to maintaining unity sounds to me like a slap in his face.

So, Khomenei can continue to represent the will of Allah…as long as he does not violate the constitution or inhibit a free atmosphere. What a beautiful merging of legitimacy from God and from the people. Cheney would have had a fit if he had ever been held to such a high standard of democracy; just imagine how the poor representative of Allah must feel!

Israeli Support for "Boycott Israel" Campaign

Israeli professor, peace activist, historian, and IDF veteran Neve Gordon has announced his support for the campaign to boycott apartheid Israel:

Israel has reached a historic crossroads, and times of crisis call for dramatic measures. I say this as a Jew who has chosen to raise his children in Israel, who has been a member of the Israeli peace camp for almost 30 years and who is deeply anxious about the country's future.

The most accurate way to describe Israel today is as an apartheid state. For more than 42 years, Israel has controlled the land between the Jordan Valley and the Mediterranean Sea. Within this region about 6 million Jews and close to 5 million Palestinians reside. Out of this population, 3.5 million Palestinians and almost half a million Jews live in the areas Israel occupied in 1967, and yet while these two groups live in the same area, they are subjected to totally different legal systems. The Palestinians are stateless and lack many of the most basic human rights. By sharp contrast, all Jews -- whether they live in the occupied territories or in Israel -- are citizens of the state of Israel.

…the only way to counter the apartheid trend in Israel is through massive international pressure. The words and condemnations from the Obama administration and the European Union have yielded no results, not even a settlement freeze, let alone a decision to withdraw from the occupied territories.

I consequently have decided to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement that was launched by Palestinian activists in July 2005…

Responding to Iran's Nuclear Concession

In the midst of vicious domestic political infighting and regime attacks on alleged Western interference, Iran has quietly granted a huge concession to the IAEA--allowing them to inspect the controversial Arak facility that is designed to produce plutonium. Iran does not owe the West such a concession. Certainly Israel is not allowing IAEA inspection of its Dimona plutonium facilities, and, to my knowledge, neither is Pakistan.

One can only hope that Washington has responded with an appropriate concession of its own. Since Iran evidently wants to keep this low-keyed, one would expect Washington professionals to behave accordingly, so we may not see any headlines. But what would constitute an appropriate response?

Not that I expect it, but to my mind, an invitation by Israel for the IAEA to inspect Dimona would have symbolic value (and anyone following the ridiculous issue of whether or not the Jewish Holicaust ever occurred is aware of the importance of symbols). An Israeli statement that they appreciate Iran's formal renunciation of nuclear arms and that the elimination of regional nuclear arms is also Israel's long-term goal would also be a nice move. A quiet berthing of Israeli nuclear-capable subs would be more appropriate, because Iran has made a concession of military significance and Israel needs to respond in kind. From the U.S., release of impounded Iranian funds would be an easy but noticeable gesture.

____________
Update: This was a misguided U.S. response; one hopes there was more behind the scenes. Iran made a concession, but by itself, it does not seem to go far. The right to inspect Arak at will, without notice would be far more meaningful, but Iran took the first step and should be enticed to take another, not slapped in the face publicly. When will Obama learn to stop acting like Bush?

____________
Technical Note: An IAEA slideshow states that an inspection agreement with a country:

Confers upon the Agency the right and obligation to ensure that safeguards will be applied on all nuclear material in all peaceful nuclear activities of the State.

How convenient! It is the military application of nuclear controls that matters and therefore the military nuclear activities that need to be inspected. While the world gets itself all upset over the possibility of one Iranian bomb sometime, the steady buildup of Israel, Pakistani, and Indian bomb stockpiles gets a pass?!?