Admit It, Already!

"An Iranian-hosted ...conference ...demanded that Israel join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) to ensure a nuclear-weapons free Middle East."
Nasser Karimi of the Associated Press, April 19, 2010.

The NPT, which became effective on March 5, 1970, recognized five countries as "Nuclear Weapons States" : the United States, the Soviet Union (now Russia), Britain, France and China. Another 184 nations signed-on as "Non-Nuclear Weapons States" (NNWS). The treaty requires that the states having these weapons will not provide them to any NNWS, and the latter group agrees not to acquire them. Moreover, the NNWS signatories also agree to inspection of their nuclear facilities by International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to verify that they are not diverting nuclear materials to weapons production.

Three nations declined to sign the NPT: Israel, India and Pakistan. Although the NPT was signed under the authority of the Shah of Iran, the Islamic Republic of Iran (established in 1979) claims to adhere to the NPT, but has refused to allow IAEA inspections of some reactors. North Korea signed the NPT, but withdrew in 2003 after admitting that it had built atomic weapons and openly testing them.

India and Pakistan have also tested nuclear weapons, and show no signs of giving them up. Israel has neither admitted nor denied having "nukes", but a 1991 book entitled "The Samson Option" by Seymour Hersh (1) disclosed that Israel has been a nuclear power since late 1966, years before the NPT was even enacted. Since the book was published, former President Jimmy Carter has confirmed that Israel had nuclear weapons during his presidency (1977-1981); unlike Mr Hersh, Carter had access to CIA intelligence at the time. In 2008, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul, a Texas congressman, estimated that Israel had about 200 atomic bombs.

In light of all this evidence, it is absurd for the Israeli government to continue the pretense that it may not be a nuclear power. Instead, I contend that Israel should offer to sign the NPT as a Nuclear Weapons State, if the treaty can be amended to permit the addition of new ones. Signing on this basis would encourage India and Pakistan to also sign-on as nuclear powers, which would subject them to the obligation not to transfer atomic weapons technology or materials to any NNWS.

Of course, if new nations were added to the five recognized nuclear powers of the NPT, that would be an admission that the NPT had failed in its core mission of preventing the proliferation of nuclear weapons. But, since none of the three (India, Israel and Pakistan) had ever agreed to be bound by the NPT at all, bringing them in as nuclear powers would actually increase the jurisdiction, as so the binding force, of the treaty. It would also acknowledge reality, which is always an improvement over illusion.

Of course the Iranians will ask, "If its OK for Israel to have the Bomb, why not Iran?" (But that is equivalent to asking. "If its OK for China, why not Israel?" Israel's strategic position is a lot more perilous than China's, and so it has a greater need for the ultimate "Equalizer" weapon.) A facile answer is that Iran agreed to be bound by the NPT, but Israel did not, which is why the UN has sanctioned Iran for refusing IAEA inspections but never sanctioned Israel ( or India or Pakistan, for that matter. ) But a more realistic answer is that Israel has had the Bomb for more than forty years and never used it, despite repeated threats and missile attacks. Israel does not threaten to destroy any other country, even those that have threatened its very existence. Iran, on the other hand, is led by a man who has repeatedly threatened to destroy Israel. Such a nation cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons, but Israel can. This reasoning will not sit well in Tehran.

In today's world, power is respected more than any other attribute of a nation. Even rogue North Korea, a very small nuclear power widely reviled in the civilized world, is apparently to be spared the kind of "regime change" that was inflicted upon NNWS Afghanistan and Iraq. With Israel as an acknowledged nuclear nation, those leaders who threaten it will have to face down their own countrymen who would rather not be incinerated in return.

In his book The Prince, Niccolo Machiavelli concluded that it was better to be feared than loved. Since Israel is certainly not loved in this crazy world, I ask only that it be feared.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Published by Random House, New York.

The Ayatollah Who Killed the Revolution

Although some street skirmishes continue, the Green Revolution in Iran, highly touted by this blog and CNN, was effectively quashed by Grand Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Hoseyni Khameini on Friday, June 19, when he declared his unqualified support for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Khameini warned of dire consequences if protests over his re-election continued, and since then police and militia forces have spared no bullets in enforcing his decree. The Shah lost his throne when his soldiers refused to fire on the mobs demanding his ouster; the Besij militia now is only too happy to beat and kill the enemies of the current regime.

Iran is not alone in having a permanent leader who outranks all elected officials: Jordan, Thailand, and Saudi Arabia are ruled by hereditary monarchs; the Vatican State is ruled by a pope, who is elected, but never faces re-election. In the Soviet Union, the General Secretary of the Communist Party held effective control over all government officials. (1)

I was wrong in believing that the Supreme Leader would try to prevent bloodshed by calling for a run-off election between the top two contenders, thus maintaining a spiritual position above politics. By aligning himself and his office with Ahmadinejad, Khameini has forfeited this role, and has incurred the wrath of the millions of Iranians who believe the election has been stolen. In the fractured state of Iranian politics, Khameini is now clearly in the camp of the hardliners (along with Ahmadinejad), leaving former President Hashemi Rafsanjani as effective leader of the relatively moderate politicians. Mir H Mousavi, who still believes he was robbed of the presidency, (like Al Gore in 2000) is already fading as political force.

Khameini has been a restraining influence on the confrontational inclinations of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, but his rhetoric about Israel is every bit as vitriolic. In 2001 Khameini declared that "this cancerous tumor of a state should be removed from the region." When President Ahmadinejad said in 2008 that Iran was not against "the people of Israel" Khameini insisted that it was "nonsense to say we are a friend of the Israeli people." On the other hand, the Supreme Leader said in 2005 that " the Islamic Republic ....will never threaten any country." (2) Perhaps Khameini hates Israel even more than Ahmadinejad, but does not want a war .

Even more important is Ali Khameini's fatwa (or psak, religious decree) that nuclear weapons are forbidden by Islam. According to some reports, the military leaders of Iran are pressing for development of nukes anyway, and Khameini may have caved in to them on this. If so, Israel will attempt to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities and missile launching sites sometime soon, which will mean war between the two countries.

If Mousavi had won, there would have been a chance to prevent this nightmare scenario. Now it appears inevitable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Like Iran, the Soviet Union had elections----but all candidates had to be approved by the Communist Party "nomenklatura", the counterpart to the Guardian Council in Iran. Before Leonid Brezhnev, the President of the Soviet Union was a powerless figurehead.

(2) From Ali Khameini's biography in Wikipedia.

The Greening of Iran

"I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!"
Newscaster Howard Beale in Network.

Very few Iranians have seen Network, but millions of them have taken to the streets to express the same attitude in the wake of the June 12 election there. At first, it was just suspicion that incumbent President Ahmadinejad and his cronies had stolen the election (maybe true), but now that protesters have been killed and communications have been shut down, the real issue has become the Islamic regime itself. The opposition has cleverly chosen the color green as its emblem, since that color also represents Islam.

Have we not seen this all before? The Yellow Revolution in the Philippines, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Rose Revolution in the Georgian Republic, the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia. Who can forget Boris Yeltsin rallying the Russian people from the top of a tank in 1991, only months before the collapse of the Soviet Union? Could the people of Iran be at the brink of grasping freedom from the hands of the Grand Ayatollahs?

The leader of the opposition, Mir Hossein Mousavi, was prime minister of the Islamic Republic during the Iran-Iraq War. While Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was recruiting teenagers to clear minefields with their own bodies (1), Mousavi's government was negotiating with Israel for the purchase of US-made Improved Hawk Missiles. When Israel delivered obsolete Hawks to Tehran (as though the dumb Persians would never notice the difference), Iran returned the weapons. Then Republican President Ronald Reagan authorized the sale of the Hawks and other weapons to Iran in the hope that the Islamic Republic would facilitate the release of American hostages held in Beirut. (2) Mousavi and then-Supreme Leader Ruollah Khomeini were willing to deal with Israel for the sale of Iran's strategic interests. It is hard to even imagine Ahmadinejad making such a pragmatic bargain. For this reason alone, I believe that there is "a dime's worth of difference" between the two presidential contenders.

As this is written, current Supreme Leader Ali Khameini is trying to defuse the crisis by offering a partial recount and investigation of allegations of election fraud. But nothing short of a run-off election between Mousavi and Ahmadinejad, preferably with international observers, would satisfy the opposition. Mousavi has defied the Guardian Council by urging mass demonstrations every day.

Khameini and Ahmadinejad have the support of the Revolutionary Guards and the huge Basij Militia; they could be used to crush the opposition in a "Tiananmen Square" operation, which would infuriate the country and expose the tyrannical nature of the regime. Only the Iranian Army is strong enough to save the opposition from a massacre, but if the Army sides with the opposition, the entire theocratic regime is through.

Since all the parties to the conflict know this, I believe that face-saving compromise (such as a run-off election) will be made. But even that would undermine the monolithic nature of the regime, which will never be the same, even if Ahmadinejad is re-elected.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Iran first tried to clear the Iraqi landmines with donkeys, but the animals bolted after the first explosion. Iranian children proved much more reliable.

(2) The proceeds of the sale were used to finance the anti-Sandanista "contras" in Nicaragua, so the affair became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. The hostages were released, but Reagan denied that he "traded arms for hostages."

Invitation from Great Satan

"The Obama Administration has invited Iranian officials to Independence Day parties on July 4."
Associated Press, June 3, 2009

In the spirit of public service, the Glazerbeam has prepared an invitation text that the State Department is welcome to use for this purpose:

As the Secretary of State of the nation your leaders have nicknamed "The Great Satan", it is my honor and pleasure to invite you to our Independence Day celebration at our embassy on July 4. We will be celebrating our American values such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and equality under law, which of course the Islamic Republic shares.

We would invite you to our embassy in Tehran, but it has been closed since your fellow citizens seized it in November of 1979 and held our diplomatic staff hostage for about 444 days. Since it has been nearly thirty years since Iranians have visited an American embassy, I want to inform you about some new policies designed to make your visit more safe and enjoyable:

1. Use the front gate; it will not be necessary to climb over the wall this time.

2. Since we are not planning to play Blind Man's Bluff or Pin-the-Tail-on-the-Donkey, leave the blindfolds at home.

3. We will provide the fireworks, do not bring your own. All parcels, robes and turbans are subject to search, so don't even dream of sneaking a small qasam, katyushka or shahab into the grounds to augment our skyrockets.

4. Since the embassy is American territory, absolutely no beheadings will be permitted on embassy property. Leave your scimitars at home.

5. In accordance with diplomatic protocol, chanting of "Margh bar Carter" (1) or "Margh bar Obama" will not be permitted during the ceremonies. "Margh bar Cheney" is OK.

We all look forward to seeing you on the Fourth. Drive carefully.

Love and Kisses,
/s/ Hillary

--------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Farsi for "Death to Carter".

Amnesty for AIPAC Aides

On Friday, May 1, the US Justice Department announced that it would drop all charges against former American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) lobbyists Steven Rosen and Keith Weissman. (1) In August of 2005, Rosen and Weissman had been indicted for "communicating national defense information to people not entitled to receive it," in violation of the Espionage Act of 1917, 18 USC 793 (2). Former Defense Department analyst Lawrence Franklin was also indicted in the case; he was also charged with one count of passing classified information to an Israeli official.

Franklin, a former attache at the US Embassy in Israel, was one of the officials responsible for American defense policy regarding Iran. He provided a classified presidential directive and other documents about Iran policy to the AIPAC staffers, who then passed them on to Israel. Franklin negotiated a guilty plea in October, 2005, and was sentenced the following January to 12 years in prison and a fine of $10,000 by US Judge T S Ellis III. AIPAC fired Rosen and Weissman, but denied the organization was responsible for their alleged activities.

As a government employee with a high security clearance, Lawrence Franklin clearly betrayed the trust placed in him, and deserved his punishment. Former Navy civilian analyst Jonathan Pollard had been sentenced to life in prison in 1987 for transmitting even more damaging information to Israel. (3)

However, the two AIPAC staffers were the first people not employed by the US Government ever charged with this particular violation of the Espionage Act of 1917. (1) This unprecedented prosecution apparently opened the way for bringing similar charges against reporters who receive and use classified information they obtain from government employees . Sometimes this type of information is the only way to corroborate claims of corruption or subversion in government. Although no reporters were ever charged during the remaining three years of the Bush Administration, the prosecution of Rosen and Weissman may have had a chilling effect on the willingness of reporters to deal with classified information.

Judge Ellis made two pre-trial rulings that resulted in dropping the charges:
1. The defense could introduce the secrets themselves at the trial.
2. To obtain a conviction, the prosecutors would have to show that the defendants knew that disclosing this information would harm the United States.

Once the first of these rulings was upheld by the US Court of Appeals, the Government was placed into a "Catch 22" situation: if disclosing the secrets would harm US interests, the nation would be harmed by the Government in bringing the case to trial. ( Since the trial would receive massive publicity, the harm done by the Government would be even greater than that done by the defendants, who merely disclosed it to a friendly nation, which did not make it public. ) But if disclosing the info would not harm US interests, the second ruling meant that the defendants had done nothing wrong, and should be acquitted!

A similar conundrum occurred during the 1896 trial of French Army Captain Alfred Dreyfus, who was accused of passing military secrets to the German Army. But in that case. the judge ruled that the "borderaux" of secrets need not even be provided to the defense, let alone made public. The rest is history: Dreyfus was convicted and spent years on Devil's Island before finally being exonerated.

Fortunately for Rosen and Weissman, Judge Ellis was more fair than the one Dreyfus faced a century before. We may never know just what information Lawrence Franklin gave them, although it clearly concerned American policy toward Iran under President George W Bush. I would like to know what the Israelis found out, but I doubt that they will tell me.

AIPAC continues its highly-effective work of influencing US policy in a pro-Israel direction, although without the services of Mssrs. Rosen and Weissman.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Jerry Marion in the Washington Post, May 2, 2009.

(2) Wikipedia "Lawrence Franklin Espionage Scandal."

(3) See the Glazerbeam of Dec. 24, 2008, entitled "Parole for Pollard?"

April Fool

"They (US and Europe) resorted to military aggression to make an entire nation homeless under the pretext of Jewish suffering."
President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran, addressing the UN Conference on Racism (1)

Forty representatives of European countries (plus one Caribbean nation) walked out of the conference at this point, and it is not clear if they will return for other speeches and action on resolutions. The United States and eight other UN members had previously refused to participate in the racism confab because of the anti-Israel draft resolution that will be presented for adoption.

But were the delegates who walked out really so surprised to hear anti-Israel rhetoric? After all, what is a UN racism conference about, if not bashing Israel? This is like walking out of bar because people there are drinking liquor.

Actually, if Ahmadinejad had stuck to lambasting Israel for its actions in Gaza, as other speakers will no doubt do, I believe the 40 delegates would have sat through it. The President of Iran, unlike other critics of Israel, incurs the wrath of Europeans and Americans because he claims that the Holocaust was a Jewish hoax which spurred the UN to create a Jewish state in Palestine. Since the Holocaust has been documented as much as any other major event in recent history, Ahmadinejad exposes himself as either ignorant, dishonest, or both. His rhetoric, reeking of classical anti-Semitism, is an embarrassment to Iran, the UN and the Muslim world.

Holocaust denial plays an important role in the worldview of neo-Nazis, Muslim extremists and other adherents of the "Jewish Conspiracy Theory" because the truth that the Jews of Europe were innocent victims of an insane racism contravenes their contention that world Jewry is both powerful and evil. Open expression of this view is repugnant even to those who otherwise are sympathetic to the Palestinian cause, such as European diplomats at the UN Racism Conference.

How should the US and the rest of the civilized world respond to Ahmadinejad? When former Austrian President (and previous Secretary General of the UN) Kurt Waldheim was exposed as a former Nazi officer, most of the world shunned him. The same should be done to Ahmadinejad.

In June the people of Iran will decide whether to re-elect this man as their President. The walkout at the UN Conference tells the Iranian people that keeping him in office will isolate Iran from Europe and the United States. Even the Guardian Council, the ayatollahs who wield the real power in the Islamic Republic, may be embarrassed by the President's rantings, and may pass the word that another candidate would be preferable. If Ahmadinejad loses, the chances of war in the Middle East in the near future will also be markedly reduced.

Ironically, this debacle (together with the imprisonment of an Iranian-American journalist) took place while the Obama Administration has been trying to re-open contacts with Iran. These diplomatic contacts, begun by the Bush Administration, should continue-----but should not involve Ahmadinejad. In the unlikely event that Iran proposes a summit meeting. Obama should insist on meeting with Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, his true counterpart in the Iranian regime. (2) Ahmadinejad, even if re-elected, should be persona non grata in every civilized country in the world.

I wonder why the leaders of African countries appear to have no objection to the agenda of every UN conference that might deal with their real problems getting hijacked by the anti-Israel crowd. Racism has nothing to do with the Arab-Israel conflict (which is based on differences in religion and culture, not race), but it has everything to do with the slaughter in Darfour, in which many more people have been killed than in all the Arab-Israel wars and intifadas combined. The black racism of Robert Mugabe has hurt the people of Zimbabwe for many years, but that is not on the agenda of the UN Conference either. Tribal conflicts in Rwanda have created enormous suffering, yet African leaders ignore the problem.

I suspect that African leaders know all this to be true, but dare not confront the Sudanese Arabs, let alone the black tyrants among them. The only consensus among them is that Israel is evil, so they take every opportunity to agree on that, and forget about the contentious problems faced by their people.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, April 21, 2009.

(2) The armed forces and security services of Iran report to the Guardian Council, so its leader is the true counterpart of our commander-in-chief.

Iran and the Arabs

Numerous threats by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran to destroy Israel have aroused massive concern both in Israel and the US in recent years, but now many Arab states are just as worried about Iran.

On the surface, all Arab nations (except Morocco) maintain friendly relations with the Islamic Republic; Iran is welcome to send observers to meetings of the Arab League, Arab countries sell refined oil to Iran and allow Iranian financial institutions to operate.

At the same time, George Mitchell (President Obama's emissary to the Middle East) reported that "the Iran threat (was mentioned) during every conversation he had with Arab officials." (1) Here is a look at Iranian moves in key Arab countries:

Iraq: Iran has a close relationship with the Shia-affiliated leadership of Iraq, despite reports of arming insurgent groups. Iranian influence is bound to grow after the US pulls out its combat forces over the next two years. Moqtada Al Sadr, leader of the Shiite militia, is Tehran's man in Iraq.

Lebanon: Hizbollah, the Shiite militia that also is part of Lebanon's government, is armed and financed by Iran. The militia is also an agent of Syrian influence in Beirut.

Syria: Although allied with Iran, Syria has been participating in Turkish-mediated negotiations with Israel, in defiance of Iranian policy. Syria has also been seeking a better relationship with the US, which would mean distancing Damascus from Tehran. Meanwhile, Syria is still a conduit for arms and ammunition from Iran to Hizbollah forces in Lebanon.

Hamas and Fatah: Supreme Iranian Leader Ali Khameini has proclaimed Hamas " the legitimate government of Palestine." (1) This is not mere lip service; Iran provides arms and money to Hamas, which shares Iran's determination to destroy Israel.
Palestine President Mahmoud Abbas has urged Iran to "stop meddling in Palestinian affairs."
Iran's unwavering support for war against Israel is enormously popular in the Arab world, so there is no chance that Iran would support a peace deal between the Jewish state and the Palestinians. But without Iran's OK, Hamas would not agree to a settlement. Without Hamas, Abbas could not make peace without being denounced as a traitor to the Arab cause. That is why there will be no peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

Egypt: President Mubarak has warned that "The Persians are trying to devour the Arab states....Egypt shares a border with Iran (Gaza)." (1) As the first Arab nation to sign a peace treaty with Israel, Egypt is a prime target for Iranian propaganda. Hamas grew out of the Egyptian sect known as the Muslim Brotherhood, which is viewed as a threat to the current regime. Right now, the Egyptian military is the bulwark against the Islamist threat, which Tehran supports.

Saudi Arabia: Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal has called for the Arab world to "come up with a strategy for dealing with the Iranian challenge." The zealous Sunni monarchy governs a substantial Shiite minority, possibly forty percent of the population, in the eastern part of the kingdom. A leading Saudi politician claimed that Iran was actively recruiting citizens of Gulf states to work for its interests. (1)

Although Iran has been busy buying and developing state-of-the-art missiles and other weapons systems, and is enriching uranium out of the sight of international inspectors, the main threat to Muslim states from Iran is not war, but subversion. By arming and financing fanatical Islamist groups in Arab countries, Iran is acquiring powerful allies inside these states. The question is what, if anything, will the Arab world do in response to this effort?

So far, the answer seems to be "not much."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) AIPAC Near East Report, March 24, 2009.

Triangulation

"The missile defense (in Poland and the Czech Republic)....is directed not towards Russia, but Iran....you have potentially a missile from Iran that threatens either the United States or Europe."
President Barack Obama, March 4, 2009 (per Associated Press)

A check of the map of Europe shows that missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic could shield not only those countries from a missile launched from Iran, but also targets in Germany, Denmark, Sweden and Norway. They would offer no protection to Turkey, Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia, or the rest of Western Europe. But is there even the remotest chance that Iran would attack any of these countries?

Although Obama promised to bring change to the US Government, his rationale for deploying the missile defense system in Eastern Europe is the same lame claim that President Bush made: Iran just might shoot a warhead at Europe. The Russians don't buy it, and neither do I. If the leaders of Poland or other countries on Russia's perimeter are worried about a possible missile attack, they are more likely wary of Moscow than of Tehran.

The Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 reminded Eastern Europeans that Moscow looks on their nations as part of its "sphere of influence." Until about 20 years ago, the Red Army occupied those lands, and they are justly concerned about the robust nationalism that has replaced communism as Russia's pretext for trying to dominate nearby countries. The real purpose of the US missile shield is to reassure Eastern Europeans that the US and NATO are serious about defending them against Russia, should that country revert to its past aggressive behavior. The Russians know it, the Eastern Europeans know it, and so do we.

Then why claim that the missile defense is directed against Iran? The only country any Iranian leader has ever threatened to destroy is Israel; if Obama is worried about Iranian missiles, he should deploy the defense system in Iraq and Jordan, not Poland and the Czech Republic. (1) As crazy as you might think the Iranian leaders may be, they have nothing to gain and much to lose by attacking any country in Europe, as NATO would respond by a devastating bombing of Iran, possibly with nuclear weapons. Even Ahmadinejad is not crazy enough to risk that!

The subliminal story is that Obama, like Bush before him, knows that the Russians hate the very idea of having American missile defenses deployed near their borders. Unlike the US, Russia has real clout with Iran, since Moscow provides the nuclear and missile technology that Iran needs. Obama said that if Iran were not to produce atomic weapons, there would be no need for the missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic. The message was clear: if Moscow will help thwart Tehran's nuclear ambition, the missile defense system will not be deployed.

But, unless the Russians are seriously considering launching warheads at Poland or the Czech Republic, why do they care so much about missile defense systems in those countries? I believe that the real reason is pride: they consider western military activity so close to Russia to be an affront to the dignity of a great power, a status that Russia is anxious to regain. It has been reported that Russia has already canceled the sale of a missile defense system to Iran, so there is reason to believe that Obama's trade-off will be accepted.

Iran has been a good customer for Russian technology, but with world oil prices in the doldrums, Iran's ability to keep paying for more and more of it is questionable, Moreover, I suspect that the Russians are concerned that Iran's irresponsible regime may yet blunder into a disastrous war with Israel, which could destroy Iran's oil pipelines and shipping facilities. In that case, Iran could never pay its debts to Russia for the nuclear power plants and missiles the Islamic Republic has already bought.

The gambit of using Russia to pressure Iran is an example of triangulation, a strategy perfected by the Clinton Administration. Let's pray that it works this time!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Actually, Israel and the US have co-developed the Arrow anti-missile system, which protects Israeli airspace right now. ( The Israelis do not consider it worthwhile to use the expensive and high-tech system against short-range rockets fired by Hamas and Hezbollah, saving it for strategic missiles.)

The Great Iranian Hope

Former President of Iran Seyed Mohammad Khatami, who led the Islamic Republic from 1997 through early 2005, has declared his candidacy for a third term in that position in the June, 2009, election. He will face incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (1) in a political battle that could determine the fate of the Middle East.

During his eight years in the presidency, Khatami strove to liberalize the Iranian regime while proposing dialogue with the United States and other western democracies. He suggested abolition of nuclear and chemical weapons, negotiations over Iran's nuclear program, and supported the "two-state solution" to the Arab-Israeli conflict. Israeli President Moshe Katsav, who was born in Iran, tried to converse with Khatami in Farsi at an international conference, but Khatami denied shaking hands or responding to Katsav.

Khatami's efforts at reform were thwarted at every point by the Guardian Council, the real power in Iran. In the struggle between hardline Islamists and those seeking modernization and reform of Iran, the former seemed to hold all the cards that counted: The Guardian Council, the Revolutionary Guards, and control of the military.

Viewed from a western perspective, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has been an unmitigated disaster for Iran. His confrontational attitude toward the US, the UN and the EU over nuclear inspection has resulted in trade sanctions that have made life in Iran much worse for most people. His hyperbolic threats to destroy Israel have brought Iran to the brink of war. Even neighboring Arab states have privately expressed fear of Iran. (2)

However, for those Iranians imbued with the spirit of jihad and shahida (martyrdom), Ahmadinejad is just right. For them, he is the champion of Shia Islam and the arch-enemy of Israel and western civilization. He arms Hamas and Hezbollah, so that they can conduct a proxy war against the Jewish state. Although the President denies that his government is working on nuclear weapons, he defies the world by continuing the enrichment of uranium, which could be used for making them . (3) Under his leadership, Iran has sent a satellite into orbit. Those who admire his boldness and pride may not be a majority of Iranians, but they are a powerful sector of the electorate.

Even if Khatami wins the 2009 election, he will again be faced with the overweening power of the Guardian Council and its control of the security forces. But at least Ahmadinejad will be gone, and the government ministries will be returned to the hands of moderates and technocrats. UN inspectors will be re-admitted to all of Iran's nuclear facilities, so that the potential of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels will be eliminated. If so, international sanctions against Iran will be lifted, and diplomatic relations with the United States will be restored. If Khatami cuts off arms to Hamas and Hezbollah (which I believe he would, although he has not publicly promised to do so), the threat of war in the Middle East would be drastically reduced.

If I could vote in the Iranian presidential election, I would cast my ballot for Seyed Mohammad Khatami. The last presidential candidate endorsed by the Glazerbeam won, but this blog appears only in English, so it may have less clout in Iran .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The name, which means "of the race of Ahmed (Mohammad)" was invented by the President's father.

(2) It was reported that some Arab governments offered Israel the use of their airspace for an air-raid on Iran's nuclear facilities.

(3) Uranium must be enriched to at least 80% U-235 for making an atomic bomb, while 20% U-235 is adequate for generating electricity. ( Nearly all uranium mined is U-238, which means that each atom contains a total of 238 protons and neutrons. The lighter isotope, which has 3 fewer neutrons, is far more radioactive.)

NBC Softball in Tehran

NBC News anchor Brian Williams interviewed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad this past week on the lawn of his presidential residence in Tehran. The interview might have provided valuable information on Iran's intentions if only Williams would have asked some tough questions and the President would have answered them.

Although the well-coiffed news anchor had enough time to ask if Ahmadinejad expected to be re-elected next year (no comment) and if he was following the US presidential election (yes), he never got around to inquiring about the Iranian leader's threats to wipe-out Israel. For those who missed the broadcast (also available on msnbc.com), here is what was said and what should have been asked:

US-Iran Relations
Ahmadinejad said he welcomed better relations with the United States, and favored re-opening the US Embassy in Tehran. Williams was too polite to mention that the last time we had diplomats in Tehran they were taken hostage and abused for 444 days. (Some witnesses have identified Ahmadinejad as one of the captors.)

Enriching Uranium and Nuclear Power
The President re-iterated past claims that Iran was enriching uranium only for the purpose of generating electricity. He said Iran would negotiate with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), but would not be threatened or bullied by anyone.
He emphasized that nuclear power was the most safe and efficient source of energy available today, and urged all nations to invest in new nuclear plants. He added that if a thousand more nuclear power plants were in use right now, the price of oil would be much lower. (1)

Atomic Weapons
As he has before, Ahmadinejad denied that Iran has any intention of making atomic bombs, which he termed "20th century technology" and not useful in the 21st century. He noted that the "Zionist entity" (Israel) has hundreds of atomic bombs, but that they were useless in fighting Hezbollah forces in Lebanon; Soviet nuclear weapons did not stave-off collapse; American nuclear bombs were useless in Afghanistan and Iraq.

What Should Have Been Asked

1. Why does Iran refuse to have its nuclear facilities inspected by the UN? (2)

2 You have said that "the Iranian people will fight till the Zionist entity is entirely eliminated" and that Israel should be "wiped off the map." Do these statements mean that you intend to attack Israel? If so, how can Iran win without nuclear weapons?

3. Are you willing to meet with Israeli leaders, as Anwar Sadat did in 1977, to prevent war between your two countries?

There is no reason to believe that Ahmadinejad would have answered these questions any more cogently or truthfully than he answered the "softball" questions that Mr Williams lobbed to him. Yet, they should have been asked anyway, if only to show the American people and the rest of the world whether Ahmadinejad is really committed to peace, as he now says.

I believe that the cordial tone toward the US expressed by the President of Iran in this interview ( in contrast to his belligerent attitude in the past) can be attributed to pressure from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khameini, who fears that Ahmadinejad's reckless rhetoric may have provoked an attack by the US or Israel. The goal is not only to prevent an attack by the US itself, but also to get the Americans to restrain Israel.

I understand that this interview was a ratings-coup for NBC News, which cannot afford to offend such a valuable news source by asking tough questions. The deferential attitude toward newsmakers by reporters is well established in Washington for exactly this reason. This is lamentable: if we ever needed Edward R Murrow, we need him now!

Heck, I would even settle for Dan Rather.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) If Ahmadinejad had seen the latest McCain TVads, he would know that real cause of high oil prices is Barack Obama. These ads are not now running in Tehran.

(2) As readers of the Glazerbeam know (but Williams might not), uranium need only be enriched to 20% U-235 for generation of electricity, but at least 80% U-235 for nuclear weapons (see our post of June 16, 2008 for details)

Iran Faces Armageddon

"Iran filed a UN Security Council complaint after an Israeli official threatened to attack its nuclear facilities."

Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA)


Transportation Minister Shaul Mofaz said that Israel would have no choice but to attack Iran, given the failure of UN sanctions to curb its nuclear program, according to Yediot Aharonot on Friday, June 6, 2008. It is not clear if Mofaz was authorized by the Cabinet to make this statement.
If so, it can be taken as a message to the ruling Guardian Council of Iran that the reckless threats made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad are leading Iran into a war with Israel. (1)
If Mofaz was speaking for himself, he may be positioning himself as a more hawkish alternative to Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, if Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is forced to resign because of a corruption investigation now underway.

The Iranians have reacted like a schoolyard bully who goes around picking fights, then complains to the teacher when someone thrashes him. Jews have learned from bitter history to take threats to their existence seriously. Ahmadinejad can afford to be ignorant of this history, but the Jews cannot. His repeated threats to "wipe Israel off the map" have made Iran's enrichment of uranium a greater danger than it would be otherwise.


Q. What is "uranium enrichment" and why is Iran doing it now?
A. Over 99% of the uranium found in the world has atomic weight (2) 238, while less than one percent has weight 235. Only the lighter isotope (U-235) is useful for generating electricity or atomic bombs. To generate electric power, a mass of uranium must contain at least 20% U-235; to make a bomb, the uranium must be at least 80% U-235.
To increase the percentage of U-235 in a supply of uranium, it is combined with fluorine to form the gas uranium hexafluoride (UF-6), which is then spun in a centrifuge. The lighter gas ( containing the U-235) rises and is drawn off from the upper part of the centrifuge. The process is repeated until the percentage of U-235 reaches the desired range.

If Iran is enriching uranium only to generate electricity, there is no need to enrich the supply beyond about 20% U-235. Continuing the enrichment process to anywhere near the 80% level is a sure sign that weapons-grade uranium is being produced. Iran has refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear facilities to ascertain the level of enrichment going on. This refusal is taken a sign that Iran intends to enrich the uranium to the level required for an atomic bomb.



Q. Can airstrikes alone stop Iran from going nuclear?
A. Yes, if the location of the reactors and centrifuges are known. Although many (if not all) of Iran's nuclear facilities are deep underground, accurate bombing could block access to them from the surface, and powerful enough bombs could even destroy them underground. Both Israel and the United States have high-resolution satellite-imaging systems that can monitor these sites. However spies on the ground, especially those working on the program, would be invaluable in making the strikes successful. Of course, there is no way to know if either the US or Israel has such spies in place in Iran.



Q. If this happened, could Iran rebuild the facilities and re-start a nuclear program later?
A. Yes, but that would take years and be extremely expensive. Since the new facilities could also be destroyed, the leaders of Iran might decide that it is not worthwhile to do so. Also, political change in Iran in the months and years following an attack on the nuclear sites may quash the effort to develop nuclear weapons.

Q. How would Iran respond to destruction of its nuclear facilities by Israel?
A. Unless Israel first destroyed Iran's air force and missile sites in a "June 1967"-type attack, Iran would no doubt launch missiles at Israel in return. However, Israel's Arrow anti-missile defense system could explode the Iranian missiles in mid-air.
Iran would also demand that Hezbollah fire its thousands of missiles from Lebanon at Israel, triggering another war with the Shiite militia.

Q. If the uranium enrichment continues, might President Bush attack Iran's nuclear facilities before the end of his term?
A. There have been reports that he has decided to do so, even though the November, 2007, National Defense Estimate on Iran claimed that the Islamic Republic had cancelled its nuclear weapons development program in 2003. He would not dare to launch an attack against Iran before the US presidential election (November 4), since that could sink Republican chances for both the White House and Congress (3). If the US were to launch such an attack, the window of opportunity would be November 5, 2008-January 21, 2009. If that does not occur by Inauguration Day, look for Israel to attack Iran .

Q. How can the ruling Guardian Council save Iran from this disaster ?
A.1. Depose President Ahmadinejad. (4)
2. Allow the AIEA to inspect all Iranian nuclear facilities to verify that enrichment is not proceeding beyond the level needed for generating electricity.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini, chief of the ruling Guardian Council, has flatly contradicted all these threats, saying that "Iran is not a threat to any nation, not even the Zionist entity. " However, so far neither Khameini nor the Guardian Council have taken even one step (as far as we know) to restrain the President's rhetoric.

(2) The atomic weight of an element is the number of of all protons and neutrons in its atomic nucleus. The number of protons alone determine which element the atom represents; two forms of the same element that contain different numbers of neutrons ( and thus have different atomic weights, such as U-235 and U-238) are called isotopes.

(3) Any war involving Iran would send oil prices "through the roof." No matter how the war turned out, voters would reject the President's party if high gasoline prices could be blamed on his action.

(4) Ahmadinejad's term as President of Iran expires in 2009, and there is no indication he intends to seek re-election at that time. The Guardian Council can bar any candidate from the ballot. I believe they also have the power to remove an incumbent President, though this has not been done so far.

Misusing History

"...We were willing to talk to the Soviet Union at a time when they were saying 'we're going to wipe you off the planet.' "
Senator Barack Obama in Pendleton, Oregon, May 18, 2008 (Assoc. Press)

The President of the United States has much more power over foreign and military policy than over domestic issues. Moreover, Congress can act as a restraining influence on a President whose actions are considered too aggressive and militaristic, but can do nothing when the President is too timid and accomodating toward hostile powers. For these reasons, statements such as that quoted above by Senator Obama are troubling, especially to those who usually support the Democratic presidential nominee.

First, I do not believe that any Soviet top leader ever made a public threat to "wipe you (US) off the planet." Even Premier Nikita Khrushchev's famous prophecy that "we will bury you" pales in comparison, and was meant (according to Khrushchev) economically, not militarily.

Although we know that the Soviet nuclear arsenal was developed and deployed for potential use against the United States, it is significant that Soviet rhetoric was far more restrained than Obama would have us believe. This is important because US-Soviet diplomacy was conducted in a more civil context than the relationship between this country and Iran, with whom Obama intends to confer.

Between the time that President Franklin Roosevelt established diplomatic relations with the USSR and its collapse the American Embassy in Moscow was never taken over, nor were US diplomats ever taken hostage or otherwise harmed. (1) Even during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the most dangerous time of the Cold War, both formal and informal contacts between the great powers continued, and they led to a peaceful resolution of the crisis.

Obama uses the historical precedent of diplomatic contact with the Soviet Union to support his willingness to meet with leaders of Iran and other "rogue nations." If he believes that he can personally persuade Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to moderate his policies, the Illinois senator vastly overestimates his persuasive powers. Although frequently noting the willingness of Presidents Kennedy and Reagan to meet Soviet leaders, he never mentions that of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain to meet Adolph Hitler in Munich, where Chamberlain not only failed to influence Hitler, but seriously misread the Fuehrer's intentions. Similarly the Kennedy-Khrushchev summit in Vienna in 1961 was a disaster, as the Soviet leader perceived Kennedy as weak.

Our history with Iran since the 1978 Islamic Revolution is far more relevant to the question of how to deal with the nation than any stretched historical analogy. The fact is that the Iranian regime permitted a gang of thugs to invade the US Embassy in 1979 and hold its staff hostage for more than a year. Despite being branded as "The Great Satan, " the United States initiated contacts with Iran under the leadership of President Ronald Reagan, and even sold Hawk missiles to the Islamic Republic. (2)

The US has held low-level talks with Iran (about Afghanistan and Iraq), even in the absence of diplomatic relations, until Iran broke off these contacts in March. In this context, an offer by the President of the United States to meet with the President of Iran might not even be accepted. Worse yet, if such a meeting did take place, it would boost the standing of Ahmadinejad with his own people and make his re-election in 2009 more likely. (The best hope for peace in the Middle East is that he is replaced with a more reasonable man.)

In dealing with an adversary, such as Iran, diplomacy has its value if (and only if) it is backed-up by the credible prospect of military action. The blockade of Cuba by President Kennedy in 1962 was an example of this. Senator Lloyd Bentsen once remarked that Dan Quayle was "no John F Kennedy." Unfortunately, neither is Barack Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) The KGB did, however, bug the US Embassy in Moscow.

(2) Although a great fan of former President Reagan, Senator John McCain never mentions "The Gipper's" sale of weapons to Iran, which none of the current presidential candidates favors today.

Hillary Echoes JFK

"It shall be the policy of this nation to regard any nuclear attack upon a nation in this hemisphere launched from Cuba as an attack by the Soviet Union on the United States, requiring a full retaliatory response upon the Soviet Union."
President John F Kennedy, October, 1962

" (If Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons) we will attack Iran....we would be able to totally obliterate them."
Senator Hillary Clinton, May, 2008 (1)

"It is not the language we need right now."
Senator Barrack Obama, May, 2008 (1)

For those pundits who have said that there are no real policy differences between Democratic candidates Clinton and Obama, the real difference cited above must have come as a shock. Mrs. Clinton, who once promised retaliation as her first response to another terrorist attack on the US, is clearly positioning herself as the more hawkish contender. Perhaps she is overcompensating for the presumption that a female president would be less likely to use military force. If so, it is working.

Despite the obvious similarity to the warning made by President Kennedy, Barrack Obama characterized her threat as "language reflective of George Bush." To have compared her to fellow Democrat John F Kennedy might have solidified her standing with those Democrats who never accepted the McGovern/Carter preference for appeasement over confrontation. The Illinois senator, who favors a dialogue with Iran, Syria and other Middle East powers, has aligned himself with the dovish wing of his party.

Obama should have pondered the consequences of President Kennedy's threat to retaliate upon the Soviet Union. Like many Americans of the time, I was apprehensive during the week following the Kennedy speech. But then the missiles were withdrawn from Cuba, within a year the US concluded a treaty with the Soviets banning tests of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, then the architect of the Cuban missile initiative (Nikita Khrushchev) was deposed, and an era of detente followed. As it turned out, Kennedy's threat was precisely "the language we need(ed)" at that time.

Iran, to paraphrase the late Lloyd Bentsen, is no Soviet Union. At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Soviet Union had rough parity with the US in both nuclear weapons and missiles. (2) Today, Iran has no nuclear weapons, and its nuclear development program is about where the Soviet Union's was around 1947. Moreover, Iran's efforts are under close scrutiny by both the US and Israel; it is more likely that Iran's nuclear facilities will be destroyed than it is that Iran will actually build atomic weapons.

Even if Hillary Clinton is not nominated for President, her threat to Iran is likely to become an issue in the presidential election; the nominees are sure to be asked about it during the debates. I believe that the ultimate powers in Iran (the Guardian Council and Grand Ayatollah Ali Khameini) are now paying close attention to the American presidential campaign. If either John McCain or Hillary Clinton is elected President, look for the Iranian powers to dump President Ahmadinejad in 2009 in favor of a less bellicose leader. He is just too dangerous.

If the vitriolic Iranian President could get his hands on an Indiana Democratic primary ballot, I bet he would cast it for Barrack Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) Associated Press, May 5, 2008.

(2) Before being elected President, Kennedy claimed that the Soviet Union was actually ahead of the United States in missile technology.

Tehran: The New Cairo?

"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
French Proverb

The President of a Middle East country threatens to destroy Israel. He is supplied with weapons, diplomatic support and electricity-generating equipment by the Russians.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in 2007?
Why not Gamal Abdul Nasser in 1967?

The Moscow-Cairo Axis
Although Nasser portrayed himself as a Third World leader, in fact he had aligned Egypt with the Soviet Union in 1955. Emboldened by Soviet support, Nasser seized the Suez Canal in June, 1956. When British and French armed forces (in alliance with Israel) reclaimed the Canal Zone four months later, combined pressure from the Soviet Union and the United States (1) made the three invaders retreat.
A recent book (Foxbats Over Dimona) claims that the Soviet KGB deliberately provoked the 1967 Six Day War to provide a pretext for destroying the Israeli nuclear reactor at Dimona. When Israel quickly demolished the Arab armies, that plan was abandoned. By clearly siding with the Arabs, the Soviet Union secured substantial goodwill among the Arab masses, although most Arab governments remained closer to the United States. Without American support, however, the Soviets were powerless this time to force an Israeli withdrawal from Sinai.
The Soviets re-armed the Egyptians and Syrians over the next six years, so that the two countries resumed hostilities on October 6, 1973. After initial victories, the Egyptians were thrown back almost to Cairo by the IDF. The efforts by US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger saved an Egyptian army from starvation by brokering a separation of forces agreement. This was a turning-point in Egypt's geopolitical alignment----within a few years Soviet advisors were ousted from Cairo and the US brokered a peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Iran Changes Sides
Iran, under the leadership of Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, was aligned with the West during the Cold War. The US was even able to monitor Soviet communications from a base in northern Iran.
When massive protests against the Shah erupted in 1978, the Communist Party supported the rebellion, even though it was led by fanatic Muslims whose ideology was remote from Marxism. Presumably, the Communists were motivated by the desire of the Soviet Union to overthrow the Shah and eliminate American power and influence from a country on its southern border.
After the Islamic Revolution, the Communists were suppressed by the new regime, along with all other non-Islamic political forces. The Soviets, however, got exactly what they wanted----an anti-American Iran.
The Soviet move into Afghanistan in 1980 largely forfeited whatever goodwill the Soviet Union had obtained among Muslims by backing the Arab cause against Israel. But meanwhile, Iran had traded places with Egypt in the geopolitical power equation in the final decade of the Cold War.

The Moscow-Tehran Axis
Russian President Vladimir Putin expressed solidarity with Iran in a visit to Tehran for a Caspian Sea Conference during the second week of October. He warned other nations (like maybe the US?) not to use military force against Iran. He stopped short, however, of equating an attack on Iran with one on Russia itself .(2) A few days later, Putin met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

What kind of game is Putin playing?

By defending Iran, both in Tehran and at the UN, Russia is showing the world that it is not an American client-state, like, say Britain. Though only a shadow of the now-defunct Soviet Union, Russia is a major power to be reckoned with.

As a major oil-exporting nation, it is in Russia's interest to keep world oil-prices as high as possible; Iran shares that interest. Since tension and the prospects of war in the Middle East drive-up oil prices, Russia finds it useful to keep tensions high by emboldening rogue states like Iran. (3)

The trouble is that if this policy is pushed too far (as it was in 1967), a war could break out that would be dangerous for Russia as well as for other countries in that part of the world. Putin's Tehran remarks were clearly intended to dampen the enthusiasm of those in the US government who favor bombing Iran if other measures to prevent the development of nuclear weaons fail.

Putin's talks with Ahmadinejad and Olmert were private, so we cannot know what he told them, but I believe that his message to both leaders was essentially to "cool it."

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)President Eisenhower, like Presidents Roosevelt and Truman before him, opposed the re-assertion of colonial power in the "Third World." The Israel Lobby was not yet strong enough to restrain American pressure on Israel to withdraw from Sinai without a peace treaty.

(2) In October, 1962, President John F Kennedy declared that an attack on any nation in theWestern Hemisphere launched from Cuba would be considered an attack on the United States by the Soviet Union and would be avenged as such.

(3) The theory of chess grandmaster Garry Kasporov, a candidate for President of Russia.

If the Words Don't Fit.....

"The US House of Representatives voted 411-2 on June 20, 2007, to call on the UN Security Council to charge Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad with violating the 1948 UN Genocide Convention because of his calls for the destruction of the State of Israel."
AIPAC's Near East Report for July 14-20, 2007

The President of Iran has called for the elimination of the State of Israel several times, using somewhat different phrases. Since all his speeches are in Farsi, we (as well as members of Congress) must rely on translations to determine if he really broke the Genocide Convention. Since the Farsi speeches often included idiomatic or otherwise ambiguous expressions, genuine disagreements have sprung up between translators over the real meaning. For example, a famous call for "wiping Israel off the map" has also been translated as "the Zionist regime....will vanish from the pages of time." (He was quoting Ayatollah Ruollah Khomeini, a bitter enemy of Israel) Since I don't know Farsi, I don't know who is right on this.

A thorough Internet search of Ahmadinejad's public statements turned up plenty of calls for elimination of the State of Israel, but none at all for the elimination of the people of Israel; but only destroying the latter would constitute genocide. Over 25,000 Jews live in Iran, and there is no evidence that Ahmadinejad has done anything to threaten them. Only a handful have emigrated since he took office in 2005, despite big incentives to move to Israel.

Calls by national leaders for the elimination of another government are not especially rare, and have not historically been labeled attempted genocide. For example, in 1961 Soviet Premier Nikita Khruschev predicted that "We will bury you (the West)." He later said that he meant this economically, not militarily. Still scary.

In August, 1984, President Ronald Reagan quipped into a microphone he thought was off " My fellow Americans,...I have signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in 5 minutes." Reagan characterized this comment as a joke, though I doubt that Russians who heard about it found it the least bit funny, especially since Reagan was then placing nuclear weapons on the periphery of the Soviet Union.

So far President Bush, whose emissaries are meeting with those of Iran to discuss stabilization of Iraq, has not (yet) instructed the US Ambassador to the UN to offer a resolution charging Ahmadinejad as Congress proposed. In the unlikely event that the Security Council approves the charge, it is even more improbable that the Guardian Council of Iran would allow Ahmadinejad to be extradited to The Hague for trial, even after his term as President expires in 2009. In September of 2001, a council of Muslim legal experts advised the Taliban government of Afghanistan that it would be forbidden by Sharia (Islamic law) to hand over a Muslim (Osama bin Laden) to an infidel court; I would expect the ayatollahs of Iran to follow the same ruling with respect to Ahmadinejad.

But even if he could be put on trial before the International Tribunal at The Hague, convicting him might be harder than pinning a double-murder rap on O J Simpson in South LA. That is because in a criminal case the benefit of the doubt regarding ambiguous statements and translations must be given to the defendant, and Ahmadinejad's orations could plausibly be interpreted as calls for "regime change" in Israel, rather than genocide.

For example, if sometime in the future Arabs outnumber Jews in Israel, the Knesset may change the name of the country to Palestine, establish Islam as the state religion, and relegate Jews to the status of "dhimmi" (inferior persons), as they are in Iran. Such a course of events, as obnoxious as it would be to us, would in effect remove Israel from the the map without any violence, let alone genocide.

A genocide trial ending in acquittal, which is fairly likely, would be a tremendous victory for anti-Israel and anti-Semitic forces worldwide. Ahmadinejad, now increasingly unpopular in Iran and unlikely to win re-election, would be a global hero. He would be the toast of the college lecture circuit and talk shows.

And who are the lonely two members of the House of Representatives who would spare Ahmadinejad and the world this genocide trial? They are Dennis Kucinich (D, Ohio) and Ron Paul (R, Texas), both of whom are seeking their party's 2008 presidential nomination. Kucinich, a left-wing liberal, and Paul, a libertarian conservative, don't agree on much, but they do agree that US policy is tilted too much in support of Israel.

Ron Paul, who previously ran for President as a Libertarian, consistently opposes all foreign aid, and so has voted against aid to Israel. His district doesn't seem to mind, and he polled a respectable 9% in the Iowa straw vote on August 11. Despite his war chest of over $2 million, pundits give him no chance of winning the Republican nomination.

Dennis Kucinich, a former mayor Cleveland (who led his city into bankruptcy), is described by the Cleveland Plain Dealer (July 12, 2007) as more popular with the Arabs in his district than with the Jews. He is contesting last place among Democrats with ex-Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska. Although his visceral opposition to the War in Iraq has become a mainstream view among his fellow Democrats, his vindictive and self-righteous attitude dooms his presidential prospects in this lifetime.

Kucinich and Paul lost the House vote big-time, and are sure to lose their presidential campaigns as well. But they will probably prevail in their efforts to derail a genocide trial for Ahmadinejad, because his words simply don't fit the definition of genocide. And if the words don't fit, you must acquit.

Iran Plays Nuclear "Chicken"

When two drivers play "Chicken" they race toward each other on a narrow road, and the first one to swerve to avoid the other is the "chicken" and loses the game. Suppose we call the drivers A and B. If B convinces A that he is crazy, B wins, because A will swerve believing that B is irrational. B does not have to really be crazy to win this way, just act nutty enough to scare A .

Now, consider the recent actions by Iran, under the leadership of crackpot President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and see if perhaps the Islamic Republic is playing a high-stakes game of "Chicken" in the Middle East:

1. Nuclear Defiance
After the UN passed additional trade sanctions against Iran March 24 to coerce compliance with anti-proliferation inspection demands, Iran suspended co-operation with the International Atomic Energy Agency. I suspect that Iran wants the world to believe that it is developing nuclear weapons, even while publicly denying it. Perhaps Iran is refusing the inspections because they would reveal that the nuclear program is actually going badly.

2. Seizure of British Sailors
Iranian naval forces captured 15 British sailors March 23 in the Shatt-Al-Arab waterway, in an area claimed by both Iraq and Iran. The captives have been taken to Tehran, where they may be held as hostages; I would not be surprised if they were kept near an Iranian nuclear facility to act as human shields for the centrifuges.
Iran has again taken advantage of the Western concern for the fate of hostages, which can be used to extract concessions. If, in contrast, Iranians were taken captive, they would be written-off as "expendable" and nothing would be offered for them.

3. Hizbollah
Iran not only arms and trains the Shiite militia in Lebanon, but goaded it into provoking a war with Israel last summer. The war served Iran's interests two ways: empowering Hizbollah and exacerbating tensions between Israel and the Arab World. As a result of this war, Hizbollah is positioned to seize power in Lebanon, and make that state a satellite of Iran. The war also makes it more difficult for Arab regimes to seek help from Israel in thwarting Iranian ambitions to dominate the Middle East.

4. Intervention in Iraq
Iranian agents have been captured in Iraq, where they were assisting Shiite militias. As long as American and British forces are in Iraq, Iran's intervention will be low-key. However, once those forces are withdrawn Iraq's Shiite-controlled government may invite the Iranian army to assist with crushing the Sunni insurrection. Watch for Iran to become the dominant power in Iraq after the US pull-out, which will alarm Arab (1) countries that border Iraq: Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. All of these countries have Shiite minorities, but are ruled by Sunnis, making them prime targets for Iranian subversion and intimidation. Even Syria, which is co-operating with Iran, would be threatened by an Iranian take-over in Iraq. (2)

The threat of an aggressive, and possibly nuclear, Iran may be a factor in the effort by Saudi Arabia to settle the Israel-Palestinian dispute. According to Thomas Friedman, perhaps the Jew closest to the Saudi throne, King Abdullah will push his peace-plan at the Arab Summit in Riyadh March 28-29. (3) Saudi and Israeli officials have reportedly met privately; there is now talk of a "regional peace summit" at which Saudi representatives would meet their Israeli counterparts in public for the first time. At this is written, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice is trying to arrange conference.

The Saudi monarchy relies upon a military and diplomatic alliance with the United States coupled with the support of the fanatic Islamist Wahhabi mullahs at home. The trouble is that these two sources of support are diametrically opposed on the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Therefore, settling this conflict is urgent for the House of Saud, especially if the Kingdom needs the Arrow missile (4) for defense against Iran.

Despite their enormous oil wealth, the Saudis are playing a weak hand in the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Hamas, with the full support of Iran, has steadfastly refused to make a durable peace with Israel; despite this, Hamas now has a power-sharing agreement with PA President Mahmoud Abbas, and European governments are gradually beginning to deal with the Palestinian coalition. The Saudi plan, which calls for the right of Arabs to "return" to Israel, leaves the Jewish State cold too. Although Israel is also threatened by Iran, Israel has no incentive to make unilateral concessions to a Palestinian regime which cannot (and/or will not) deliver peace. Even though agreement seems very remote, both Israeli and Palestinian officials have tentatively agreed to participate in the proposed regional peace summit.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1)Turkey, which lies on Iraq's northern border, would be adversely affected by Iranian domination of Iraq for a somewhat different reason: If Iran moves in, Iraqi Kurds would secede from Iraq and form and independent Kurdistan. Turkish Kurds would then be impelled to try to break away from Turkey and join the new nation.

(2) Although most Syrians are Sunni, the country is ruled by members of the tiny Alawi sect, which is akin to Shia Islam. If Iranians start massacring Sunnis across the border in Iraq, Syrian Sunnis could turn against the Assad regime, which is perceived as allied with Iran.

(3)New York Times, March 24, 2007.

(4)See the March 13 Glazerbeam on this. Since Israel is co-developing and co-producing the Arrow Missile, I understand that no other nation will be able to buy it from the US without Israel's consent.