Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Shahriar Scheherzade (1,001) Stories, Once Again?

My Sister Eileen

Everything you always wanted to know about my sister Eileen and more

Shahriar Scheherzade (1,001) Stories, Once Again?


WRITE for ATol ADVERTISE MEDIA KIT GET ATol BY EMAIL ABOUT ATol CONTACT US
Asia Time Online - Daily News
             
Asia Times Chinese
AT Chinese




    Middle East
     Feb 11, 2012

BOOK REVIEW
Decoding Obama’s Iran policy
A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran by Trita Parsi Reviewed by Brian M Downing
Trita Parsi’s first book, Treacherous Alliance (2008), displayed a masterful understanding of the open and hidden dealings between Iran, the United States and Israel over the past 35 years. This impressive follow-up, a study of events since President Barack Obama came to office in 2009, is welcome and exceptionally well-timed.
The new administration began with hopes of reaching out to Iran, but despite a promising beginning, no diplomatic breakthrough came. Parsi attributes this to inflexibility in Tehran, Washington, Jerusalem and Riyadh. Politicians and bureau consistently
misinterpret signals from the other side, are loathe to show flexibility for fear of appearing weak, and ignore earnest efforts by intermediary countries. The conflict has become embedded in the thinking and institutions of all concerned countries.
Tehran was skeptical from the start of the Obama administration. Iran had helped the US to oust the Taliban from Afghanistan in 2001 and set up a new government the following year, but the George W Bush administration remained hostile. Following the US defeat in Iraq of Saddam Hussein in 2003, Iran made a bold overture to open a wide-ranging dialogue with the US. But it was rejected; the US did not speak to evil.
Iran, then, saw little likelihood that Obama would be able to break free of political restraints. His selection of Dennis Ross and Rahm Emanuel as key advisers did nothing to shake Tehran from its skepticism, as Tehran deemed them both pro-Israel partisans.
Enmity with the US had been embedded in Iran’s state machinery and in its national identity. It was part of who they were. It was also a powerful legitimizing and exculpatory narrative for the government, which otherwise faced growing discontent over a stagnant economy.
Further, a settlement with the US would likely reduce Iran’s ability to rally support in Arab populaces, which was part of a longstanding policy to weaken Arab rulers and reduce American influence in the region.
Early in the Obama administration, discussions took place on how to reach out to Iran – something the president had promised in his campaign and inaugural address as well. The State Department and Pentagon wanted to negotiate matters in Afghanistan, with the creation of a stable, non-Taliban country in the interests of both the US and Iran.
It was decided, however, that Iranian help in Afghanistan would put the US in debt at the outset of more critical negotiations on nuclear research. The administration opted for Dennis Ross’ hybrid policy of opening negotiations and simultaneously ratcheting up sanctions – a carrot and a stick.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pro-Israel forces in the US were not pleased with this approach. They pressed hard for shorter deadlines and tougher sanctions – a less attractive carrot and a bigger stick.
Saudi Arabia and other Sunni states were also pressing the Obama administration for a tougher stance after so much folly and inaction from the previous administration. The Bush administration’s actions in Afghanistan and Iraq had enhanced Iranian influence so significantly that the Saudis et al actually thought Iran was shaping US policy – a lesson that national security deliberations and paranoid thinking go hand in hand in many capitals.
The Sunni states also worried that Obama’s zeal for an agreement might lead him to cede too much to Iran. This could make Iran a hegemonic power directing a potent Shi’ite movement in the region and spreading political Islam at the expense of Arab rulers.
Despite forceful diplomatic and domestic pressures, the new president held firm. A less muscular and more flexible approach to Tehran would be continued.
The approach changed, but not owing to the predictable reasons. The fraud of the 2009 elections and ensuing brutal repression stunned the US administration and energized its critics. Members of congress denounced Iran and called for more aggressive sanctions. The political equation had shifted decisively.
Divided as to how to respond, the administration acquiesced to congressional pressure for a tougher stance. Negotiations went nowhere and the two countries stumbled into the present crisis. What Israel and Saudi Arabia could not do to change Obama’s policy, Iran itself did – and exceedingly well.
The most intriguing parts of Parsi’s book are the accounts from Israeli figures as drawn from personal interviews and public statements. Parsi uncovers greater complexity in Israeli figures than found in the spokesmen and politicians on either side of the Atlantic.
Foremost is the view that Iran is unlikely to use a nuclear weapon on Israel. The ayatollahs, according to defense minister and highly decorated soldier Ehud Barak, are pragmatic actors on the world stage and not mad mullahs.
This of course is at variance with the heated discourse and insistent pleas for action that depict the Iranian clerics as unreasoning zealots bent on bringing about the end of the world and the Imam’s return. The ayatollahs, Barak feels, know well that a nuclear strike on Israel would not benefit Iran and that the inevitable Israeli counterstrike would be swift and devastating.
Israeli strategists are more concerned that a nuclear Iran would damage Israel’s aura of invincibility and inevitability, embolden Palestinian politicians and militants, and ultimately force a settlement requiring Israel to cede territory. Parsi, perhaps regrettably, withholds comment on the soundness of this reasoning.
Parsi quotes former Mossad chief Meir Dagan’s famous comment from last year branding the idea of an Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear facilities “the stupidest thing I have ever heard”. Dagan thinks it would bring about a regional conflagration whose “security challenge would become unbearable”. Dagan, the likely director of the campaign of assassinations and bombings taking place inside Iran, can hardly be dismissed as a peace activist airing tendentious musings.
Israeli threats to attack Iran on its own seek to prod the US into ratcheting up sanctions, though some figures would like to press the US into attacking Iran. Sanctions can only slow down the progress of Iran’s program; air strikes can set the program back markedly.
Israeli strategists, however, accept the possibility of failure. In the event that sanctions and attacks do not work, Iran must be made into a sobering example for other countries that may seek their own nuclear weapons. Acquiring them, or trying to, will come at the cost of onerous sanctions that will cripple the nation indefinitely.
Making an example out of Iran, Israeli sources cautiously observe, could come at the price of a badly weakened democratic reform movement, a failed state astride the Persian Gulf and AfPak, and ultimately an angry nuclear-armed country seeking vengeance.
What to do? Parsi sees a protracted period of containment – one alternative to war – as fraught with risks of worsened tensions and accidental hostilities. He closes by advocating a new round of diplomacy with less onerous sanctions, a long-term outlook, better defined negotiating points, and the use of influential intermediaries such as Turkey.
But to many readers, it will not be clear what agreement could be reached on the nuclear issue, then or now, that would not entail acquiescence to Iran’s nuclear goals. Many will suspect that Iran’s research and Israel’s impatience will not grant us another roll of the dice.
A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran by Trita Parsi. (New York: Yale University Press, 2012). ISBN-10: 0300169361. Price US$27.50, 304 pages.
Brian M Downing is a political/military analyst and author of The Military Revolution and Political Change and The Paths of Glory: War and Social Change in America from the Great War to Vietnam. He can be reached at brianmdowning@gmail.com.
(Copyright 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)
 

Obama switches play on war with Iran (Feb 7, ’12) Call for ‘more credible’ US military threat (Feb 2, ’12)
Obama edges toward regime change (Jan 12, ’12)

1.
The master plan for Myanmar

2. Syria: another US stepping stone

3. How America made its children crazy

4. Exposed: The Arab agenda in Syria

5. Turmoil deepens bleak Tehran winter

6. Hiatus in European debate on Iran

7. Syria through a glass, darkly

8. The Russian winter of discontent

9. Muslim ‘terror threat’ belied by numbers

10.
China’s liberals keep the flame alive

(24 hours to 11:59pm ET, Feb 9, 2012)


<SCRIPT LANGUAGE=’JavaScript’ TYPE=’text/javascript’ > document.write(‘<a href=”http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/a5mOBZcVWjhYrMiYbUl0EqrRb3ZdUbU3TtQ0nrFmRU7sYTUs3TFk5qQ0mqFK1rBbWtJSmAfImGjtotvJ2TMe2dAn4mbZdprjL0GU0YsMXXG7nnTB32FFRVUZbZcWPfTPEY3QVBMPHZbN0HnrVP3p2cU40UvITAim2PF6PAfB2Wnt0tQZbpd2Jef80DP/http://clk.atdmt.com/CNT/go/370355300/direct;wi.120;hi.600/01/572574402/” target=”_blank”><img src=”http://view.atdmt.com/CNT/view/370355300/direct;wi.120;hi.600/01/572574402/” /></a>’);</SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF=’http://a.tribalfusion.com/h.click/a5mOBZcVWjhYrMiYbUl0EqrRb3ZdUbU3TtQ0nrFmRU7sYTUs3TFk5qQ0mqFK1rBbWtJSmAfImGjtotvJ2TMe2dAn4mbZdprjL0GU0YsMXXG7nnTB32FFRVUZbZcWPfTPEY3QVBMPHZbN0HnrVP3p2cU40UvITAim2PF6PAfB2Wnt0tQZbpd2Jef80DP/http://clk.atdmt.com/CNT/go/370355300/direct;wi.120;hi.600/01/572574402/’ TARGET=’_blank’ > <IMG SRC=’http://view.atdmt.com/CNT/view/370355300/direct;wi.120;hi.600/01/572574402/’ BORDER=’0′ > </A> </NOSCRIPT>



All material on this website is copyright and may not be republished in any form without written permission.
© Copyright 1999 – 2012 Asia Times Online (Holdings), Ltd.
Head Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East, Central, Hong Kong
Thailand Bureau: 11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
January 11, 2012|By Josh Levs, CNN
Nuclear scientist Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan was killed by a blast in Tehran on Wednesday, the state-run IRNA news agency said.
It’s a question many people inside Iran — and those who watch the country closely around the world — were asking Wednesday: Who is killing nuclear scientists in Iran?
An explosion on Wednesday killed Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, a top official at the Natanz uranium enrichment plant, Iranian officials said.
He is the third man identified as a nuclear scientist to be killed in Iran in a mysterious explosion in the past two years. A fourth survived an assassination attempt.
In each case, someone placed a bomb under the scientist’s car.
Iranian officials, on state-run media, blame Israel and the United States.
“I want to categorically deny any United States involvement in any kind of act of violence inside Iran,” U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Wednesday.
“We believe there has to be an understanding between Iran, its neighbors and the international community that finds a way forward for it to end its provocative behavior, end its search for nuclear weapons and rejoin the international community and be a productive member of it,” she said.
While Israel generally refuses to comment on accusations and speculation , Brig. Gen. Yoav Mordechai, a spokesman for the Israel Defense Forces, said on his Facebook page Wednesday, “I have no idea who targeted the Iranian scientist but I certainly don’t shed a tear.”
Mickey Segal, a former director of the Iranian department in the Israel Defense Forces’ Intelligence Branch, told Israel Army Radio that Wednesday’s attack was part of broader pressure being brought to bear on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s regime. “Many bad things have been happening to Iran in the recent period. Iran is in a situation where pressure on it is mounting, and the latest assassination joins the pressure that the Iranian regime is facing,” Segal said.
With no one claiming responsibility, the killings remain shrouded in mystery. Iran experts contacted by CNN could only speculate.
“The most likely contender among people who are following this is that the Israelis are doing it, possibly in cooperation with the Iranian mujahedin,” said Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian-American Council and author of the book “A Single Roll of the Dice: Obama’s Diplomacy with Iran.”
“There’s almost no downside for Israel,” he said. The killings “take out nuclear assets and embarrass Iran” by showing that the regime can’t prevent such attacks, Parsi said. And “if Iran retaliates with a violent act, then Israel can point to it as a reason to take military action against the regime.”
Michael Rubin, resident scholar with the American Enterprise Institute, agrees that Israeli involvement is the most “plausible” scenario. And Mark Hibbs, senior associate with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, also said the way the attacks took place “would be consistent” with the possibility of Israel acting with cooperation inside Iran.
Parsi told CNN he does not believe the killings are the work of the United States, and said they do not match the kind of activity U.S. intelligence would carry out in a country with which there is no declared state of war.
Rubin agreed, and gave a different reason. “Frankly, I don’t think the United States has the human intelligence knowledge,” he said.
The United States and Israel have been the most vocal opponents of Iran’s nuclear program, although numerous countries have expressed serious concern as well. Iran insists its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian energy purposes.
If Israel is cooperating with the Mujahedin-e-Khalq (MEK) to carry out attacks on Iranian nuclear officials, it faces a significant risk, Parsi argues. The United States lists the MEK as a terrorist group. “Israel is a victim of terrorism and pressing other states to take measures against terrorism,” Parsi noted. If it turns out to be collaborating with a group on the U.S. list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations, Israel’s efforts to get other countries to crack down on terrorist groups could be damaged.
MEK, an Iranian opposition group, has support from some members of Congress who say it should be removed from the terrorist list.
Several analysts said they are certain that, whoever is organizing the killings, Iranians are involved.
If Iranian leaders had a “clue” who is behind the killings, “they’d have stopped this by now,” said Daniel Serwer, Middle East Scholar with Johns Hopkins University. “The incredible thing is that it continues. That suggests it is Iranians doing the deeds, no matter who is the sponsor. Foreigners are under pretty tight scrutiny in Iran these days.”
But Hibbs, of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said he believes Israeli agents could be inside Iran.
Whoever’s behind the attacks knows who the nuclear officials are, and the specifics of their travel plans. That could be foreign governments with intelligence assets in Iran, Hibbs said.
But it’s also “conceivable this could be carried out by Iranians who oppose the government even without the support of outside governments,” Hibbs said.
The nuclear program “is a centerpiece for Iran, a very, very important aspect for this regime,” he said. Groups inside Iran dedicated to overthrowing the regime would have reason to target the program, he said. “This is a program which is right at the heart of the legitimacy of this government.”
Rubin, of the American Enterprise Institute, said there is another “plausible” explanation: that “Arab intelligence services” are involved.
“The assumption that many Americans have that the Mossad,” Israel’s foreign intelligence unit, “is the most skilled intelligence service” in the Middle East is “a couple of decades out of date,” he said.
Some intelligence services in the Arab world “could have recruited Shiites” in the region, potentially in Iraq, to take action against the nuclear program, he said.
There is also some speculation that the Iranian regime itself could have been involved in at least one of the killings.
The first, in January 2010, left university professor and nuclear scientist Massoud Ali Mohammadi dead in a car bomb. That attack came shortly after major riots against the regime, and many people thought the regime was behind that killing, Parsi said.
Mohammadi “did not seem to be a particularly valuable nuclear target,” he said. Some reports suggested Mohammadi was an outspoken supporter of the “green movement,” and had helped organize protests, Parsi said.
But the man killed in November 2010, Majid Shahriari, and the one who survived an assassination attempt at the time, Fereydoon Abbasi Davani, were a different story. It “would make no sense for the Iranians to assassinate them,” Parsi said. “They were critical nuclear assets.”
No matter who is behind them, the attacks do not seem to be reversing Iran’s efforts, said Parsi. “Arguably, the incentive for the Iranians to go forward with what they have has grown, because now they’re under such critical threat,” he said.
But there are suggestions that the overall pressure being applied against Iran, including international sanctions, for its failure to cooperate on nuclear issues is making some scientists wary of adding their efforts. Iran’s semi-official Fars news agency earlier this week quoted Davani, now the head of Iran’s nuclear program, describing as “deserters” in a “scientific war” the “scientists who, for the sake of preserving their international connections, refuse to cooperate in (our) nuclear projects.”
The killings of Iranian scientists have come up on the campaign trail in the United States among contenders for the Republican presidential nomination. Newt Gingrich, at a debate in November, expressed support for the idea of “taking out their scientists.” Rick Santorum, at an event in October, referred to the scientists turning up dead as “a wonderful thing.”
Roshan’s killing comes amid growing tensions between Iran and the West. U.S. officials say the international sanctions on Iran have taken a toll. Iran earlier this week sentenced a U.S. ex-Marine to death on charges of espionage, despite statements by him, his family, and the U.S. government that he is not a spy.
…and I am Sid Harth@arabuhuru.com

0 comments:

Post a Comment