There is a fundamental absurdity hanging over negotiations with Iran, and I fear it could doom the whole enterprise.
It is the position of AIPAC as adopted by the Congress of the United States. This president is likely to only go as far as AIPAC (or the Israel lobby at large) will permit him to go. Given that the Iranian government is aware of that fact and given that it knows that the lobby has been agitating for war for a decade, it can hardly be a surprise that Iran is not particularly responsive to our demands. It understands that the U.S. demands are AIPAC's (ultimately Prime Minister Netanyahu's) demands and it knows that there will be no satisfying them.
There are so many ironies here, the first being that AIPAC (and the Congress that is under its sway) is far more hawkish than the Israeli military and intelligence communities, not to mention the Israeli public.
As for the U.S. military, it is well-known that it opposes war much like President George W. Bush, who refused to give Israel permission to attack because he feared the consequences.
The only other foreign policy issue that is decided not on the basis of the merits but because of the influence of a single-interest lobby is Cuba. Under ten presidents, the Miami Cuban lobby has been preventing any form of normalization with Castro's Cuba out of the most parochial of interests. Although the policies it supports, and which the U.S. adopts, have failed (Castro is still in power while only the Cuban people suffer from the embargo) there is little indication that the policies will change until the lobby does or withers away.
The only difference between the two is that the last time the demands of the Cuba lobby helped lead to a situation where nuclear war loomed was 50 years ago. The Israel lobby's influence poses a threat to world peace now. Other than that, they are the same item, both equally uninterested in the interests of the United States as compared to their parochial interests.
The Israel lobby is the cloud hanging over the Iran talks. Even today, as the Iran talks reconvene, three Senate lobby stalwarts -- Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), Lindsey Graham (R-SC), John McCain (R-AZ) -- have an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal demanding that the Obama administration accept nothing less than zero uranium enrichment by the Iranians, even though that train left the station a long time ago. That is, of course, Prime Minister Netanyahu's position, one designed to sabotage talks, not to advance them.
Of course, there are other signs (which the Iranians no doubt see) indicating that the U.S. will not be negotiating in good faith. Just yesterday Vice President Joseph Biden met with the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations to assure the assembled leaders that the U.S. has no intention of doing anything on Iran that Netanyahu would not approve. Today Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid also met with the hawkish group to reassure them of U.S. fealty. On Monday, the Senate piled on new Iran sanctions on top of the ones we already have in place which are already inflicting heavy punishment on the Iranian people (although not on their leaders). And then there is the "no containment" resolution which passed the House overwhelmingly and which says that if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, the president must attack Iran.
The bottom line is that U.S. Iran policy appears to be made by and for Netanyahu and the lobby. No matter what progress comes out of the Baghdad negotiations, Congress -- at the lobby's bidding -- will immediately move to thwart it.
So what should Iran do?
The answer is simple. It should pretend there is no lobby and be as forthcoming as possible. If Iran actually lays on the table a proposal that seems genuinely designed to avoid war, while preserving legitimate Iranian interests, not even the lobby can prevent the president from taking it very seriously.
After all, there is no public clamor against Iran in the United States. It is all ginned up by a lobby which a president can defeat if he has a tool to defeat it with. As much as the lobby and its Congressional acolytes oppose any deal with Iran, they will surrender if Iran makes a fair offer. Despite all its bluff, the lobby lives in terror of a president who stands up to it. He can't do that with nothing in his hand.
So, Iran, be smart. Call the lobby's bluff. For your own good. And, although the lobby will never admit it, for America's and Israel's too. The peace of the world is at stake.
Follow MJ Rosenberg on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mjayrosenberg
Willard Foxton: Is it Time for Britain's Nuclear Circumcision?
that will NEVER happen ... lay the blame where it clearly needs to be laid ....
United Nations nuclear inspectors in Iran have found uranium enriched beyond the highest previously reported levels of 20 percent in samplings taken from its new underground fuel enrichment plant, according to a quarterly report on Iran’s nuclear program.
The report, delivered Friday to the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, based in Vienna, said the samplings, taken Feb. 15 from the Fordo enrichment facility built inside a mountain near Iran’s holy city of Qom, “showed the presence of particles with enrichment levels of up to 27 percent.”
The finding is a potentially alarming development since it moves the purity of Iran’s uranium enrichment closer toward bomb-grade material even as a group of six world powers is negotiating with Tehran to shift its nuclear program in the opposite direction.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/26/world/middleeast/un-finds-uranium-in-iran-enriched-to-higher-level.html
MJ Rosenberg won't write bad things about Iran, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, anti-semites, neo-nazis or people who want to destroy Israel.
Rosenberg only writes bad things about Israel-supporters.
Why, exactly?
If you are using a centrifugal cascade and you are aiming for 20% then sometimes you will undershoot, sometimes you will overshoot, and sometimes you'll be right on the money.
Someone aimed for 20% and they overshot by 7%. That ain't exactly a big deal, which is why neither the IAEA nor the P5+1 are making a big deal about it.
Unlike you, of course.
What are you rambling on about man?
I think AIPAC invested MJ's 401k in Kodak or Berny Maddof's funds
I know the Iranians are very impressed with Mr. Rosenberg. That could be a great future!
There is only on thing. Mr. Rosenberg must first get AIPAC out of his system. This old love, turned into hagtred, because of rejection, will turn any new relationship to ashes.Ashes, ashes, all fall down!
You know, if you want to get a new lover, you should not speak all the time about the old rejection, and the former lover you hate. Any real man gets bored with that real quickly. And those Iranians are all real men, with long real beards and mustaches, and deep, deep voices.
Yeah, if you want to court the Iranians, you have to be real smart about it, and do it right!
http://www.muzzlewatch.com/2012/03/15/muzzling-roundup-attacking-iran-dershowitz-v-mj-rosenberg-harvard-one-state-conference/
Bonne nuit!
If the US and Israel want Iranian nuclear transparency, then Israel better be just as tranparent
Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has nuclear weapons and has refused to sign the NNPT and consistently lies about their nuclear arsenal
Israel can claim 'ambiguitiy' over nukes but Iran who publicly states 'we're not interested in nukes' can not? Pre-emptive' war started by Israel -sorry, been their and done that with Iraq.
So as long as Israel defends nuclear ambiguity as 'strategic advantage', Iran can also defend it's nuclear ambiguity as 'strategic advantage'.
Iran has not broken a single article of the NPT. There is no evidence behind anything essential they are being accused of.
Finally, Israel's refusal to sign the NPT and be open about it's nuclear weaponry makes the US an open hypocrite when it, again at the behest of the neocons and Israel rail against Irans nuclear development.
Is the US trying to dictate to Israel, India or any other country that has nuclear capabilities how to run their program? No.
Iran is sovereign state and is allowed under the NNPT to enrich uranium. Would the US or Israel tolerate another country dictating to them the terms of their program? No? Why should Iran?
just remember the un defanged iraqs wmds, but only the threat of attack forced him to comply. iran knows that the us doesn't want to attack but will if need be. lastly, iran also knows that this is an election year for the us and that the position of obama and romney will be different after the election so best to wait to see what happens, policy-wise. they are good chess players, don't forget.
What WMDs? You must be the last American who still thinks there were any.
House of Representatives, Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) and Ron Paul (R-Texas), alleged. It was demonstrated that Ahmadinejad indeed called for the destruction of Israel and his words were not
misrepresented.
The previous study concluded with the observation by Michael Axworthy, who served as head of the Iran Section of Britain’s Foreign and Commonwealth Office from 1998 to 2000: “The formula had been used before by Khomeini and others, and had been translated by representatives of the Iranian regime as ‘wiped off the map.’ Some of the dispute that has arisen over what exactly Ahmadinejad meant by it has been rather bogus.
When the slogan appeared draped over missiles in military parades, that meaning was pretty clear.”
In fact, when the Iranians go to the trouble of translating by themselves into English the Persian slogans draped on their missile transports as "Israel Must Be Wiped off the Map," there
is no further basis for this debate.
"In his October 2005 speech, Mr. Ahmadinejad never used the word 'map' or the term 'wiped off.' According to Farsi-language experts like Juan Cole and even right-wing services like MEMRI, what he actually said was 'this regime that is occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time.'
The full quote translated directly to English:
”The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time”.
To quote his EXACT words in farsi:
”Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad.”
So this raises the question, what exactly did he want “wiped from the map”? The answer is: nothing. That’s because the word “map” was never used. The Persian word for map, “nagsheh”, is not contained anywhere in his original farsi quote, or, for that matter, anywhere in his entire speech. Nor was the western phrase “wipe out” ever said. Yet we are led to believe that Iran’s President threatened to “wipe Israel off the map”, despite never having uttered the words “map”, “wipe out” or even “Israel”.
Iran has never threatened to "wipe israel off the map". A lie repeated 1,000 times will never make it true. The only ones ever wiped off the map were the Palestinians in 1948. The world has not forgotten.
The word map was never used. The word regime was used, Jerusalem was used, and wiping off the page of time was used. Now, and what could THAT possibly MEAN? Your knowledge of Farsi is too superficial. Your comprehension is lacking as well. Which *regime* is *occupying* Jerusalem? Was the reference to the mufti, perhaps, or Jordan?
Please, explain, darling, and do not be wishy, wahsy and longwinded about it. Come right to the point!
Oh, by the way, that Italian wine has turned to vinegar. I suggest some sweet Spumanti.
At least ten top members of the Iran’s Guardians of the Islamic Revolution (Pasdaran) group have died under suspicious circumstances in recent months. Those killed include generals and other top-ranked officials, and many of them have died in “apparently violent circumstances,” the report said.
The Guardians act as a combination border patrol, modesty police, and internal security apparatus in Iran. Their mission is to ensure that the Islamic Revolution does not fall by the wayside, and that Iranians continue to submit to the wills of the mullahs running the country. The Guardians are considered one of the most powerful organizations in Iran today, controls its own paramilitary group, employs 90,000 people, and is said to have tens of billions of holdings in businesses.
It is tension over those holdings that have gotten the officers killed, the report says.
With sanctions making it harder and more expensive to import anything and even acquire items locally, the black market has flourished, and the speculation is that other groups that feel the Guardians are trying to “squeeze them out” of some areas of business. Sunni-Shiite tension is also thought to be playing a factor, as at least two of the dead served in areas with large Sunni populations.
Mr Rosenberg never expresses any objection to Iran having nuclear weapons!
Are you content for Iran to HAVE thermonuclear devices, Mr Rosenberg? Do say.
MJ Rosenberg never criticizes Iran, not even for repeatedly reneging on its promises to allow the IAEA to inspect Parchin - where Iran has carried out experiments with the nuclear trigger, used *solely* to detonate a nuclear bomb.
See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9097533/Iran-UN-inspectors-denied-access-to-key-military-site-IAEA-say.html February 22 2012
Iran has repeatedly failed to comply with IAEA and UNSC resolutions. See for example:
www.iaea.org/Publications/Documents/Board/2011/gov2011-69.pdf Nov. 18, 2011:
"[The IAEA] urges Iran once again to comply fully and without delay with its obligations under relevant resolutions of the UN Security Council, and to meet the requirements of the IAEA Board of Governors"
But not one word of criticism about any of this from Iran’s best friend in the US media.
No, Mr Rozenberg insists that the problem is not Iran, even though the IAEA found "unexplained" PLUTONIUM in Iran’s nuclear facilities.
See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15712210/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/iaea-finds-plutonium-iran-waste-facility
The problem is *Iran* and its barely disguised quest for nuclear weapons, not the US Congress, the White House, the EU, etc. who don’t want a nuclear-armed Iran.
Read that sentence again, and show me where Iran are actually doing anything that they are not entitled to do under the NPT.
The Security Council has certainly "resolved" that Iran stop enrichment, and they reply - quite correctly - that the UNSC does not have the authority under the UN Charter to override the NPT (nor, indeed, any treaty).
The IAEA Board of Governors has placed "requirements" on Iran that the board has no authority under the NPT to "require".
This bears repeating, because it never gets old:
1) Iran signed the NPT, therefore n.o.b.o.d.y. is entitled to "resolve" that it cease the enrichment of uranium.
2) Iran signed a safeguards agreement with the IAEA, and that defines what the board can (and can't) "require" of Iran.
The UNSC is not god; it can not simply reshape the world because it wants to.
The IAEA is not the king; it can not simply treat Iran as its serf.
The "west" sometimes seem to forget that, which is odd indeed because Iran never stops reminding them.
the UN website, citing and relying upon the *IAEA* ruling on Iran’s failure to
comply with IAEA requests: http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2006/sc8792.doc.htm
“SECURITY COUNCIL DEMANDS IRAN SUSPEND URANIUM ENRICHMENT BY 31 AUGUST [2006]”
“The Security Council, seriously concerned that the International Atomic Energy
Agency (IAEA) was still unable to provide assurances about Iran’s undeclared
nuclear material and activities after more than three years, today demanded
that Iran suspend all enrichment-related and reprocessing activities, including
research and development, and gave it one month to do so or face the
possibility of economic and diplomatic sanctions to give effect to its
decision.”
Proof:
"Under the NPT, governments around the world have committed to three common objectives: preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons; pursuing nuclear
disarmament; and promoting the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. The NPT has made it OBLIGATORY for all its non-nuclear weapon State parties to submit all nuclear material in nuclear activities to IAEA safeguards, and to conclude a
comprehensive safeguards agreement with the Agency [the IAEA]."
www.iaea.org/Publications/Factsheets/English/S1_Safeguards.pdf
Move on.
What is the distinction you are making between "just for supporting Israel" and "ACTIONS SUPPORTING ISRAEL"?
Why doesn't Teheran do the SMART thing--cease from over 30 years of hostile and bellicose rhetoric and recognise Israel? Even a "cold peace," with diplomatic recognition and open negotiations, would be better than the precarious status quo, threats, counterthreats, and potential for loss of life. Isn't peace worth it?
That's odd... The Arab Peace Initiative, meanwhile also endorsed by Meir Dagan and others, offers exactly that.... FULL recognition of Israel:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israel-is-missing-another-opportunity-for-peace-1.405001
"The Israeli government doesn't want peace; there's nothing new in that:
In 2002 the Saudi peace initiative is being presented for the first time: All the Arab states are offering Israel full normalization of relations "in the context of peace," in return for an independent Palestinian state in keeping with the 1967 borders and a just solution to the refugee issue.
In 2007, the Saudi initiative was again approved by the Arab League, and still - not a single voice (from Israel) in response. The initiative was even ratified by the Organization of the Islamic Conference; but from Israel - nothing. It doesn't even consider the option of entering into negotiations over it."
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden040102.asp
Watch tensions lower dramatically.
Isn't peace, real peace, peace that prevents unnecessary and futile bloodshed and destruction, worth waging peace?