Call For Settlement Freeze Reflects Growing American Attitudes - New York Times

Well, it seems that pigs do indeed, fly. The usually myopic Thomas Friedman seems to have shaken off some of his tunnel vision when it comes to at least one issue pertaining to Israel. In his recent New York Times editorial on settlements, Friedman blasts the Israeli stance on this thorny subject: "For years, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations and the pro-Israel lobby, rather than urging Israel to halt this corrosive process, used their influence to mindlessly protect Israel from U.S. pressure on this issue and to dissuade American officials and diplomats from speaking out against settlements. Everyone in Washington knows this, and a lot of people — people who care about Israel — are sick of it."

Strong words indeed from this once knee-jerk supporter of all things Israel. Looks like the tide is turning in DC. Wonder if the dam will break and Obama and Co will do a "James Baker" eventually on the settlement issue. Former US Secretary of State Baker once said that there was “no greater obstacle to peace” than Israel’s settlements. During testimony at a Congressional hearing in 1990, he recited the number of the White House switchboard, saying that the Israelis could call it if they were interested in making peace.

The whole world sits across the aisle from Israel on this one - but they are all waiting for the US to say the magic words: "Stop or we will cut off your aid." Hey, if pigs are flying, even hell could freeze over...

Then Friedman ruins it by veering off the issue. He urges a moratorium on settlements as a trade for Arab-Israeli normalization. Try the land for peace formula, bozo. And the right of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes or receive just compensation. And throw in Jerusalem too. Sheesh. You give Friedman an inch and he tries to sell you a bridge.

Saudis Give Nod to Israeli Raid on Iran - The Sunday Times

Here we go... That coven of Iran-nuclear-drumbeaters that consist of Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt are off again. Israel's Mossad and other senior politicians have apparently been in secret talks with Saudi officials about gaining access to their airspace in the event that Israel decides to launch attacks on Iran's alleged nuclear sites.

I often wonder if there is ever any attempt at injecting some plain old common sense into this debate. If - and this is a big "if" - Iran actually ever gains nuclear weapons capability and decides against all logic to launch a warhead into Israeli territory...does it occur to the coven that amongst the many victims of nuclear fallout will be scores of Muslims? Palestinians, including Iranian ally Hamas; Lebanese, including Iran's dearest regional pal Hezbollah; Syrians, close partners of the Islamic Republic? Israel ain't that big, and any nuclear attack will affect friends and foes alike.

But the wardrums will continue because - nay - there is no common sense here. Just political posturing and distraction tactics to avert global attention away from the mind-numbing inability of these three US allies to strike a Palestinian peace deal, tackle real democracy and lead the region to a better future.

Their days are numbered as Mideast powerbrokers, and they are scrambling to make themselves relevant by creating bogeymen where they don't exist.

Don't you just love that the same guy who is taking these secret meetings with the Saudis just announced a few weeks ago that Iran's ability to create nuclear weapons has just been moved to 2014? Meir Dagan, Mossad's chief for the past seven years, took away all sense of urgency by his latest proclamation, which incidentally now matches the CIA's estimate for an Iranian weapons program. So, then what's with all the talk of air raids through Saudi airspace? Perhaps they just need something to take the heat off that pesky issue of illegal settlements and peace with Palestinians. Or maybe they're more worried these days about Americans and Europeans getting all warm and fuzzy about Iranians - now that post-election events in the Islamic Republic have blown a hole through the Iranian stereotype and revealed a country that is politically and culturally diverse, and seems to take its democracy more seriously than most in the region. That must surely scare the pants off some Saudis.

Did anyone notice Mossad's new outlook on an Iran bomb? - The Daily Star

Mossad chief Meir Dagan just contradicted Israel's intelligence community by claiming that Iran will not have a nuclear weapon in hand until 2014. Israelis have been extending this mystical date since the late 1990s, with the most recent scenario of Iran's readiness to launch a warhead being...2009/10. We are all either idiots who will readily believe whatever drivel Israel throws our way - or their intelligence is fundamentally and consistently flawed. Either way, we should no longer be inclined to pay any attention to Israel's beating of war drums over Iran's nuclear program. Hell, I could probably take an educated guess about the Islamic Republic's nuclear agenda and beat the Israeli intelligence community by a mile.

Dagan's announcement has placed Israeli PM Benjamin Netahyahu in a bind, however. The peace-averse Israeli leader was counting on the Iran nuclear threat to divert attention from any real progress toward a two-state solution and his continued support of illegal settlement activity in occupied Palestinian lands. Now that the head of Mossad has thrown a spanner in the works, what will Netanhayu's next step be? There is clearly no impending threat from an Islamic Republic that not only has no nukes in hand, but is also mired in post-election unrest that will necessitate a heavy domestic focus for the forseeable future. Netanyahu is as cunning as they come, and his next manufactured distraction will undoubtedly be as entertaining as it is false.

The Trick When Talking to Iran - LA Times

The Obama adminsitration is going to try to open negotiations with Iran come what may - "talking" to foes is part of their core values. And Iran's nuclear program is item number one on their agenda. Whether their negotiating partner is Khamenei-Ahmadinejad or a new reformist government doesn't fundamentally matter.

"We do not believe that talking is a reward for good behavior, or that not talking is a good punishment for bad behavior. We've seen what comes from not talking. In 2001, Iran had zero [nuclear enrichment] centrifuges; now they have more than 5,000, and maybe more than 7,000. Not talking wasn't a particularly useful thing."

Israel's Settlements are on Shaky Ground - LA Times

Sarah Leah Whitson in the LA Times: "The debate over Israeli settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories is often framed in terms of whether they should be "frozen" or allowed to grow "naturally." But that is akin to asking whether a thief should be allowed merely to keep his ill-gotten gains or steal some more."

Want to Stop Israeli Settlements? Follow the Dollars - Washington Post

Israeli settlements in occupied Palestinian territory have long been considered illegal by the international community. US President Obama's recent demands that Israel cease all settlement activity reflect diverging interests amongst the two allies. After all, peace plans will go nowhere until Israel shows serious intent, and the settlement issue has emerged as the first major test of wills.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is playing games to see what he can get away with, and it's time to do a "James Baker" on this slick dick. An old 1979 State Department legal ruling determined that Israeli settlement-building in occupied Palestinian territory "is inconsistent with international law." Like the Bush-style offensive of clamping down on US-Muslim groups that send funds to supposedly dodgy end-users in the Mideast, the Obama administration can invoke the 1979 ruling as gospel, and chase down any and all US groups that send funds to aid Israel's settlements.

Hey - if we are serious about pushing through an Israel-Palestine peace deal with a final settlement, we have to wean Israel off decades of mollycoddling so that they sit up straight and understand we mean business. Make it illegal to aid West Bank and Jerusalem settlement activities, and watch things grind to a halt. It doesn't even have to be too confrontational - get the UN Security Council to do it...and this time sit on our veto.

US Misunderstanding on Iran Lingers - Asia Times

For thirty years, the US has had very little contact with Iran. American policymakers have consistently opted for slogans versus substance, so that today there are few impartial Iran specialists in government, few Farsi speakers in the intelligence community, and therefore a crippling inability to assess what is happening on the street and behind closed doors in Iran. Yet American politicians are still braying for blood and demanding Obama follow their lead. They know less than nothing and are being driven by partisan politics and the same old cabal of interest groups that has driven US policy toward the Middle East into the ground.

"Color" Revolution Fizzles in Iran - Asia Times

M K Bhadrakumar gets right to the heart of the matter, in the most insightful article we have yet to see on post-election developments in Iran. The protesting masses are primarily the city-dwelling middle classes, and their foes - Khomeini's base - rural traditionalists and the urban downtrodden looking to President Ahmadinejad for salvation from poverty and corruption.

In one fell swoop, Supreme Leader Khamenei and Ahmadinejad have drawn out and marginalized the "Western-leaning" reformists - Khatami, Mousavi, Rafsanjani and Co - and will allow their protesting supporters to run out of steam with sporadic and relatively effortless intervention. The Reformists have, in essence, handed over their heads on a golden platter, and now the hardliners can oust them outright from the corridors of government and recast themselves as the original pious Khomeini revolutionaries, which should please their base tremendously.

Obama seems to have sussed the way of things early, and refrained from being drawn into the fray even while capitals around the world erupted in dismay at the unfolding events on the streets of Tehran and other major cities. Elections are apparently meant to be taken with a pinch of salt, and then life goes on. Question is, when will the protesting masses realize there is no rainbow at the end of this tunnel, and reign in their energies before they suffer further losses for leaders who have already this week seen the writing on the wall?

An Iranian Revolution: Curiosity Killed The Cat

My Facebook profile today reads: “Sandboxer is reflecting, perhaps harshly. The sheer amount of venom, prejudice and self-interest that has been unleashed on both sides by the stupendously imperfect Iranian political conscience, makes me think we deserve everything we get. Much like many Americans suspected after Bush was re-elected in 2004. All parties must be prepared to accept compromises - or risk everything.”

If ever there was any question that the internet and social networking would impact the world in a big way, we can firmly tuck those doubts away. Twitter, Facebook, texting, streaming video, live blogging and emails are directing crowds on the streets of Iran minute by minute and alerting a hungry global audience of Iranians everywhere to their every move.

I declared my support of Iranian presidential Reform candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi a month before the national elections, first on Facebook, and then via emails sent to my entire mailing list of Iranian pals in the UK and the US informing them of their nearest voting location on June 12, 2009. Incidentally, there were 11 locations in the UK and 40 in the US at last count – in places like Baton Rouge, Louisiana, Tulsa, Oklahoma and Nashville, Tennessee. Drove into London on election day morning and was gratified to see a long line outside the Iranian consulate by 9:30am, a line that had curled around the corner and spilled onto Kensington High Street when I passed by later that day at 5pm.

Like many others, I was stunned by the election results pouring in later that evening. The numbers didn’t add up. The conventional wisdom was that a high turnout of voters would favor the reform candidates, who were excluded from the previous presidential election. But when the final tally was announced, President Ahmadinejad had received twice the number of votes than the three other candidates combined.

So, “the people” – so jubiliant in their certainty that the mass rallies for change in the weeks before the election would sweep away the conservatives – took to the streets. Warily, on the first day. And then with more bravado on day two. Tires were burned, fists were raised in unison. Protestors brandished the green color associated with the Mousavi campaign, and bold chants of “Death to the Dictator” were heard on the Iranian street for the first time since 1978.

And Iranians outside and within waited – waited to see when the first shot would be fired, first blood spilled. And when that inevitably happened, the internet revolution turned nasty. Inboxes were filled with photos, Tweets and videos, highlighting from every angle the same few incidents, feeding the frenzy, and whipping up emotions in every Iranian with a grievance. The onslaught of information and disinformation was relentless. “It’s a Revolution,” they cried. “This is far more than about Mousavi!” they insisted. “The Islamic Regime will be overthrown now,” they chanted.

For a people who have largely remained politically apathetic, it was amazing to see the overnight punditry that emerged. Long diatribes about what the Iranian people want, this from people who haven’t cracked a book on the subject in – well, forever.

Firstly, let me gently point out that the protesters are holding up photos of Mousavi, former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, and at the urging of the Reform candidates, pictures of the late leader of the Islamic Revolution, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Perhaps it is true that many who have joined the throngs have an axe to grind and would like to see the back of an Islamic Republic, but that is most definitely not what is being touted by the demonstrators today, who are taking their every cue from their respective candidates.

Let me also point out with all due respect to my fellow compatriots that there is no opposition to this broad government waiting in the wings. The deposed Shah’s son? No way. Nice guy, but no real legitimate, organized following. The Mujaheddin-e-Khalgh? They are on the State Department’s list of terrorist organizations and have been despised by Iranians living in Iran and outside since they fought alongside Saddam’s invading soldiers and spilled Iranian blood in the Iran-Iraq war. The socialists? The communists? No mandate from the masses whatsoever.

So WHO exactly are Iranian expats braying for? What opposition party, system of government or single leader do they propose will replace this Islamic Republic? This government – and I say this as a secular feminist – right this moment in time represents the only stability Iranians can rely on.

For better or for worse, this government has defended the sovereignty of the nation, the security of its boundaries and Iran’s most vital regional and international considerations as a unified entity – in these issues, the clerics saw Iran first, not their religion. Iranian rabble-rousers with their trigger-happy fingers hammering out the world’s first revolution-by-technology should focus for a second on some truths:

1) There is no credible, organized, widely supported opposition movement that can replace the Islamic Republic at this time.

2) On three of Iran’s borders, at this very moment – Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq - there are cosmic wars being fought between “good and evil,” heaven and hell. Sunni Muslim fundamentalist militants who go by the name al-Qaeda, Taliban, Jundallah, or pick-another-out-of-a-hat, most of which have managed to place a bomb or two in Iranian towns and cities in the past few years, are fighting their local governments and - well - US soldiers. And if these guys hate anybody more than they hate the Americans, it is the Shia. Iran is not only the most highly-populated Shia country in the world, but has been a source of financial, military and humanitarian support for the downtrodden and much-maligned Shia populations in many other nations. Americans and Iranians are fighting this battle side by side, slow inch by slow inch – a fight neither can afford to lose.

You want a revolution today? What – to expose Iran’s very core to the most nefarious kind of intolerance polluting our region in modern times? Destroy the nation’s economy, drive women under chadors again for their own safety?

Like many Iranians who despair at how often the supremely undiplomatic President Ahmadinejad opens his mouth and sticks a big ol’ foot in, I would be disappointed to lose this opportunity to replace him with the marginally more sophisticated Mousavi, particularly now that a new US administration offers hope for a mutually desirable normalization of relations. But I also applaud Ahmadinejad. If a million angry protestors hit the streets of any European or North American capital without a permit, burning tires and vehicles, and flinging stones at authorities, I have no doubt that the riot police would hit the streets in a nanosecond, truncheons raised, dispersing the crowds in such a manner that they would not return the next day, perhaps never again. By refusing to send in the troops with full force, the president has displayed an unexpected vulnerability – one that I cannot imagine will last much longer.

The conservative and reform elements of the Iranian government need to address the issue of election fraud swiftly and definitively. It will be one of those things where nobody will be perfectly happy at the outcome, but this is also one of those instances where compromise must be made…or we all risk losing everything.