Two factors in the timing of Iran’s new offer of negotiations have been largely ignored in the U.S. media. These factors have substantial explanatory value. One is an Iranian-sponsored initiative of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) nations to obtain a new UN ban on military strikes against nuclear facilities. The other is the ongoing internal dissent in Iran, which is expected to crescendo on Friday, September 19, with a mass demonstration by reform supporters.
Iran has been working the NAM proposal for some time now, and with official support from more than 100 NAM members, it intends to submit it to the IAEA, as the UN’s cognizant body, when the IAEA’s membership convenes for a general conference on September 14. (The NAM letter of support submitted to the IAEA is here.) Tehran’s official protestations aside, the proposal is an obvious bid to trigger a UN showdown—pitting NAM nations against the U.S., UK, and France on the Security Council—over any strike on Iranian nuclear facilities by Israel or the United States. The offer of negotiations from Iran is timed to present the appearance of a cooperative attitude as IAEA takes up the strike-ban initiative.
Meanwhile, Iran’s reformers continue to protest the June election and the regime’s handling of its aftermath, from Basiji brutality to the show trials and torture decried by dissenters and Western pundits. Michael Ledeen reports that all references to opposition leaders Mousavi and Karoubi were banned in the Iranian press as of September 12, a Soviet-style measure that seems thus far to be performing contrary to the spirit of its intention, if not the letter. Scheduled on September 19, “Qods (Jerusalem) Day” is a “monster demonstration” against the regime by reform supporters, which observers expect to represent a decisive, showdown-level event.
September is thus a big month for Tehran’s mullahs. The regime would like to retrieve the political initiative, internally as well as abroad, with a string of diplomatic successes: blunting the West’s strategic focus on Iran’s nuclear program with a new round of negotiations; getting IAEA to endorse the strike-ban proposal; and showcasing Ahmadinejad’s visit to the UN General Assembly this month with, as Emanuele points out, an impression of Iranian initiative and global leadership. The timing of Tehran’s offer of negotiations is neither random nor, as Jennifer drily observes, a response to toughness from the Obama administration. It is part of a comprehensive strategy.
The objective of the strategy remains the same: developing nuclear weapons with which to wield deterrent power and hold Israel and other American allies at risk in the Middle East. Iran wants to negotiate today because that is the best means of forestalling action (including tougher sanctions) against its nuclear program, an interim goal that all Iran’s policies are oriented to. We can assume Netanyahu and Russia’s leadership had their discussion last Monday with full understanding of that reality. We may wonder, however, if that understanding extends to Obama, his advisers, and the U.S. State Department.
Israel is more of a rogue state than Iran. She proliferates nukes, invades her neighbors, imprisons and tortures thousands, steals land beyond her borders, threatens to bomb a distant country, imposes the strictures of a state religion on a majority of unbelievers. Iran has a state religion and imprisons many, but the rest are Israeli specialties.
I’m all for hands off what distant countries do–but what in our national interest leads us to subsidize this wickedness?
“What common threat does Cohen imagine would bind the U.S. and Iran together? A Martian invasion?”
Obviously Cohen sees Israel as our common threat. In his view Israel has a malign influence on the United States that actually harms our interests. And of course the Iranians feel threatened by the existence of even one Jew anywhere in the world. So in his view Lend Lease for the Iranians makes sense…
Was Cohen’s article satire? If so, then it was well done.
If not, then the two things I learned are that the situation in Iraq is due to Bush and Israel. With Bush gone, Cohen will only have Israel to blame.
#4,
What is anyone actually going to do to stop Iran? Israel-NOTHING,the US-NOTHING,anyone else-NOTHING. If this changes,these posts on Iran might get more interesting.
“What common threat does Cohen imagine would bind the U.S. and Iran together?”
The Taliban. You’d think someone who fancies themselves an expert on Afghanistan would know that.
But then, I suspect you probably did.
Grumpy old putz states that Israel “invades her neighbors” – even granting this ridiculously flawed premise, is this better than the covert Iranian meddling in Lebanon and Iraq which has a far more significant degree of permanence and malice involved?
The he claims that Israel “imprisons and tortures thousands”- as if Evin Prison was a summer camp and torture wasn’t standard protocol for the thousands arbitrarily arrested by a state which holds no concept of rule of law.
Just as well in his condemnation of Israel he states that it “steals land beyond her borders”- disregarding the fact that Iranian lands were acquired through centuries-long periods of acquisitions in the name of the Iranians, most recently the Safavids- does he even know of the Balochis, the Azeri Turk and most notably, the Kurds?
The he makes the ridiculous premise that it “threatens to bomb a distant country” as if that distant country was not instigating war against it for decades, funding, arming and training proxy armies at its borders and threatening to attack it with nuclear weapons.
Most ridiculously, he states that Israel “imposes the strictures of a state religion on a majority of unbelievers” – the same Israel where one is free to practice any religion he chooses, including the Bahai faith which had to relocate from Shia oppression ever since the Safavid empire forcibly converted the inhabitants of the state to Twelver Shiism in the name of state cohesion.
I find it ironic that in his complete ignorance of Iranian history and culture, this moron has explained exactly why Iran is a rogue state of much lower moral and strategic importance than Israel.
Is Cohen campaigning for Useful Idiot of the Decade? And how does the Times think Cohen is advancing the discourse on the question of how to deal with Iran?
#6,—- Iran is a rogue state of much lower moral and strategic importance than Israel.
It’s a big mistake to try to mix moral and strategic in one sentence.
weak
What world does Roger Cohen live in?
It’s heartening to see the spirit of Walter Durante still haunts the Times cubicles.
As they near the end of their tenable lifetimes, ideological dogmas typically go through a “gas giant” phase, where they get hotter and hotter, requiring more and more intensely fanatical belief just to ward off the regular refutations provided by reality. Then the “white dwarf” phase follows: the cloud of adherents dissipates, leaving only a hard core of the faithful.
Hostility to Israel seems to have begun this process. As they find themselves forced to embrace truly odious allies like Hamas, Hezbollah and the Iranian regime, Israel-bashers respond first by turning up the shrillness of their condemnation of Israel, and their enthusiasm for whitewashing Israel’s enemies, in order to resolve the cognitive dissonance.
Let’s hope that the next phase begins soon…
I’m trying to figure out who is more full of $hit, Cohen or Grumpy old man
James, they are the same person.
Morons like Grumpy make this an interesting thread. If you didn’t read it you wouldn’t believe. The ignorance of some are just plain stunning.
#6
Obviously, you did read my post. The point was not to defend the mullahcracy, and I specifically acknowledged Iran’s prisons, which are indeed notorious.
The rest of the post was largely a tu quoque (“You’re another”)/”everybody does it” argument.
Of course Iran was once an empire, and has its own minority issues. Almost every country grew by conquest, and most include minorities of one kind or another. But Iran hasn’t sought to expand for centuries, nor is it doing so now (as opposed to seeking influence, which it does do). Israel’s misfortune is to have arrived on the scene just when settler states and expansion by conquest became somewhat unfashionable, not to say illegal.
The question is whether the US (a) should seek a modus vivendi with Iran; and (b) soft-pedal the “special relationship” with Israel. My answer is “Yes.” I personally find Israel distasteful, but more important, the “special relationship” no longer makes strategic sense. Nor does unremitting hostility to Iran. We have some common interests. Why not pursue them?
“What common threat does Cohen imagine would bind the U.S. and Iran together?”
Well, if Israel were our enemy too…
Grumpy,
“seeking influence” – it depends on what kind of influence we’re talking about. So far, Iran’s influence, such as meddling in Lebanese politics and encouraging irredentism in Lebanon and Iraq, is certainly not in “US interests”.
“We have some common interests” – but mostly the US and Iran clash. America is interested in a stable region dominated by stable Arab Gulf states, Egypt, etc. Iran’s encroachment on that territory is not congenial to US interests. The few cases where there MIGHT be common interests (when, and if, declared as such by the Iranians, NOT by wishful thinkers like Cohen) are, to my mind, negligible in comparison. Furthermore, backing Iran against the Arab and Sunni powers would simply be to “entangle” it in local feuds, which I assume you do not desire.
“proliferates nukes” – for her own defense, not for bullying other countries, much like Britain, France, India and Pakistan, “American interests” all.
“State religion imposed on a majority of unbelievers” – The religious structure is an inheritance from the Ottoman and Bristish mandate periods which grants “religious communities” (including Christians and Muslims) autonomy in religious affairs. Besides, aside from marriage/divorce (which can be bypassed by going to Cyprus), the religion is not “imposed on anyone” secularist and Haredi rhetoric aside. Whatever religious legislation was enacted has long since been rendered a dead letter. Any secular Jew who wants to eat pork, drive on Shabbas etc will find no resistance from the State itself.
“Steals land” – we seem to be forgetting the context here (threats to annihilate the country, armed invasions or threats thereof in the 1948 War, the Six-Day War). Seizing territory used as staging grounds for attack is hardly unprovoked theft. The territories in question are bargaining chips, all the other side (Syria, Palestinians) has to do is “pull a Sadat” and the terrritory will be theirs again. Thus far, it hasn’t happened.
“Imprisons and tortures thousands” – of terrorists and members of terror organizations. We’re not talking peaceful activists here. Also, I don’t think Israel tortures ALL, or even the majority, of the thousands of terrorists it apprehends, just cases of emergency.
“I personally find Israel distateful” – and this is clearly clouding your “realist” judgment, as you see everything through the prism of Israel and not the whole messy Middle East.
BTW, the tu quoque was necesarry in this case since you erroneously claim your laundry list of sins in your first post to “Israeli specialties”.
“…imposes the strictures of a state religion on a majority of unbelievers.” Oh brother… it is amazing how people, blinded by their bigotry, will parrot any misinformed hate speech they read if it fits their preconceived notion, without bothering to do any research into the facts. Israel is a secular parliamentary democracy with a legal system that is primarily based on British and Ottoman law. Freedom of religion in Israel, along with its occupied territories is well known and documented, including the protection granted to Christians to worship in Bethlehem so well covered by the press this Easter. Meanwhile Iraqis, Iranians and even Hamas bully and suppress Christians and other non-Muslims to the point of their leaving. Ask any of the thousands of Chaldeans (Christian Iraqis) now living here in San Diego, or any of the thousands of Bah’ai that have escaped Iranian oppression to go to Israel (which has one of the handful of Bah’ai temples in existence). How ignorant can one person be?
Grumpy is a lunatic…really.
Roger Cohen lives in the UK, where a guy with a name like Cohen needs to favor Israel’s enemies to be accepted as a Jew the Brits accept.
The only solution for such pathology is for Jews to say goodbye to the UK, for whom only court-jester Jews are accepted.
Roger Cohen should move to Israel and get in touch with his Jewish side–he’s spent long enough living as a Jewish uncle Tom.
Iran is gonna be the next big thing. Rick Steves travel show just went there.
Go Iran!!
grumpy old moron is a walking excuse for ultra late abortion on demand.
Unbelievable that any sand–nazi and his camel-loving friend has access to the internet.
Maybe we should take it back.
Cohen’s article supposedly centers on Israel’s “crying wolf,” which is a phrase that usually denotes periodic, premeditated lying. Cohen could have discussed Israel’s being a “chicken little,” which means getting periodically hysterical with fear and blindly wrong with one’s conclusions.
As Wikipedia puts it about one version, the story of Chicken Little “could well be a cautionary political tale: The Chicken jumps to a conclusion and whips the populace into mass hysteria, which the unscrupulous fox uses to manipulate them for his own benefit, sometimes as supper.”
But what’s really weird and out-of-line in Cohen’s column is the last sentence:
“Israeli hegemony is proving a kind of slavery. Passage to the Promised Land involves rethinking the Middle East, starting in Iran.”
What hegemony is he talking about? It’s hard to tell based on the context of the article, but it seems he either means,
(1) “Israeli hegemony” over American foreign policy, from which America needs its Passover-like escape to freedom, or
(2) “Israeli hegemony” over the entire Middle East (Cohen does not even mention the Palestinian territories)…from which the entire Middle East needs to get to “the Promised Land.”
Either meaning is a deranged assignment of power to Israel. And the last place this kind of animus is fitting is a New York Times column, since this statement about “Israeli hegemony” has been cut loose from the barest hint of to facts presented in argument. Cohen should apologize or correct the statement with context, or be fired.
Letter to editor of NYT: Dear Mr. Bill Keller, The New York Times. I am a reader of the NYT for 30 years. I am aware that the quality of my paper is deteriorating. Specifically, I read today’s Op-ed of Mr. Roger Cohen “Israel, Iran and Fear” published on April 19, 2009. I never read such a superficial article, a rehash of Cohen’s known opinions, a “filler” of newspaper space. To gain legitimacy he enlists people like Jimmy Carter and comes with stupid statements such as “the biggest risk to Israel is Israel.” Similarly we can state that “the biggest risk to USA is USA”. Various issues such as Holocaust impact have been dealt in an insulting way. Holocaust is not an “industry” and not a paranoia. It is the feelings of the children of Holocaust survivors who experienced the immense trauma inflicted on their parents, people who did not have a childhood, did not play baseball or soccer. Had no dolls and worse, did not know what love is all about. AMCHA organization is busy to r ehabilitate these children of Holocaust survivors. As a physician and teacher I always demanded accurate, fair, balanced and responsible approach from my students. Mr. Cohen did not offer a solution, a pathway to peace, in the Holy Land. I am protesting the superficial, biased, empty article of Mr. Rogers that does not meet the standard expected from the New York Times. It is time that as an editor you exclude material that is not fit for publication. Respectfully,
To the Editor:
At the end of his article “Realpolitik for Iran” (NYT OP-ED April 13, 2009) Roger Cohen stated: “Obama will have to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years. It’s time.” Cohen lavishly quotes Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, to propagate his own anti-Israel position. One wonders from where Cohen, who is apparently Jewish, judging by his last name, derived such anti-Israel attitude. He quoted ElBaradei described the Bush administration’s policy as “a combination of ignorance and arrogance” and cited his two references to Dick Cheney as “Darth Vader” who said that “U.S. policy consisted of two mantras – Iran should not have the knowledge and should not spin one single centrifuge.” Cohen further wrote that ElBaradei had said, “We got Darth Vader and company saying Iran was in the axis of evil and we have to change this regime.” Cohen further quoted ElBaradei as stating, “I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go or a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and insurance policy.”
Cohen quoted ElBaradei selectively. For instance, instead of exposing the danger to Israel of Iran acquiring atomic weapon, ElBaradei declared:
Disarming Israel of its nuclear weapons is the key to achieving peace in the Middle East. It is a very emotional issue in the Middle East. (The Jerusalem Post, November 9, 2004)
ElBaradei failed to mention that the very existence of Israel has been a very emotional issue in the Middle East, suggesting that “stripping” Israel of its very existence might be the key to achieving peace in the Middle East. On December 10, 2005 ElBaradei was awarded the 2005 Nobel Prize, thus joining Yasser Arafat on the top of the list of Nobel Prize gaffes. At the Nobel Prize ceremony ElBaradei stated: “No smoking gun had emerged to prove Iran’s intent was horrible.” Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten, reported that referring to the increasingly open discussion about the possibility of Israel attacking Iranian nuclear installations, ElBaradei warned Israel:
You cannot use force to prevent a country from obtaining nuclear weapons. By bombing them half to death, you only delay their plans. But they will come back and they will demand revenge. (The New York Times, December 10, 2005. The Jerusalem Post, December 11, 2005)
Where ElBaradei does not see a smoking gun, Israelis sees a mushroom cloud. Cohen apparently does not see a smoking gun pointed at Israel. He also ignores a mushroom cloud hanging over it. He failed to quote Mahmoud Ahmadineijad who in October 2005 called for Israel to be “wiped of the map.” Ahmadineijad also declared on number of occasions that the Holocaust was the myth invented by the western “infidels.” He stated:
This is our proposal: If they committed this crime, then give a part of your land in Europe, the United States, Canada or Alaska to the Jews so they can establish their country. (The New York Times, December 15, 2005)
Cohen ignores Mahmoud Ahmadineijad memorable prediction:
After just a short period the process of the elimination of the Zionist regime will be smooth and simple. (The New York Sun, Daniel Pipes, “Iran’s Final Solution, “November 1, 2005 p. 6)
Cohen also ignores the fact that Ahmadineijad is not a lonely voice in the Iranian constellation of blood thirsty fanatics. Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, Iranian president, declared his rationale for nuclear war with Israel:
If a day comes when the world of Islam is duly equipped with the arms Israel has in possession, application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce minor damage in the Muslim world. (The Jerusalem Post, November 2, 2005 Daniel Pipes “Genocidal Design”)
Cohen not only revealed his selective memory but also his appalling moral blindness by equating “virtual nuclear status for Iran with Israel’s own nonvirtual warheads.” For him the free and democratic Israel is no different from the Iranian brutal dictatorial theocracy. Cohen again quotes ElBaradei: “Israel would be utterly crazy to attack Iran. I worry about it. If you bomb, you will turn the region into a ball of fire and put Iran on a crush course for nuclear weapons with the support of the whole Muslim world.” Cohen offers his own way out of such nightmare, stating: “To avoid that nightmare Obama will have to get tougher with Israel than any U.S. president in recent years. It’s time.” Mohamed ElBaradei should worry. And so should Roger Cohen. Indeed, it’s time for Israeli leaders to do what is necessary to protect their people from another holocaust and not to pay any attention to the Roger Cohens and Mohamed ElBaradeis of this world.
Roman Brackman Ph.D.
New York City
Tel. (212) 740-8744
E-mail: nadrom@nyc.rr.com
Website: romanbrackman.com