Execution of Dutch-Iranian Woman Demonstrates Need for Greater International Pressure on Rights

February 1, 2011

Zahra BahramiOn Saturday, Iranian-born Dutch citizen Sahra Bahrami was executed purportedly on charges of drug smuggling.  Bahrami was first detained in December 2009 for “security crimes,” but her family believes that she was executed for her involvement in the 2009 Ashura protests while visiting family members in Iran.  In violation of Iranian law, Bahrami’s own Iranian attorney, Jinoos Sharif Razi, and family members were not even informed of when her execution took place.

Despite her possession of Dutch citizenship and passport, Bahrami was denied access to the Dutch consulate because Iran does not recognize dual citizenship.  Gharib Abadi, the Iranian ambassador to the Netherlands, even went so far as to say that “the hanging was ‘an internal issue’ that should have no impact on diplomatic relations.”  Of course, it did, and the Netherlands immediately froze all diplomatic relations with Iran in response to Bahrami’s execution.  On Monday, the European Union Foreign Policy Chief Catherine Ashton and the U.S. State Department called for an immediate halt on all pending executions.  The EU Foreign Affairs Committee also passed a resolution today calling for a focus on Iran’s human rights violations targeted sanctions against “Iranian officials responsible for serious human rights abuses,” mirroring the policy advocated by NIAC and implemented by the United States last September.

Sahra Bahrami’s case is yet another indication that Iran is on an “execution binge.”  From December 19 to January 19, Iran executed 97 prisoners, including four prisoners of conscience. That’s one execution every eight hours.  Such an extensive problem requires a global, systematic response, not one-off statements or reactions.

In March, the international community will have the opportunity to confront Iran’s human rights abuses at the United Nations Human Rights Council.  In particular, the Council can establish a mandate for an international human rights monitor to focus much-needed international scrutiny on Iran’s human rights crisis.  Strong U.S. leadership on the council is required in order for any substantive action to take place since other concerned countries almost always look to the United States for leadership.  Iran will moderate its human rights abuses when it comes under severe international scrutiny, as the  suspension of Sakineh Ashtiani’s sentence to death by stoning demonstrates.

A human rights monitor can create space for Iran’s human rights and democracy movement by keeping the attention of the international community focused on the abuses transpiring in Iran.  When a U.N. human rights monitor was in place for Iran from 1984 to 2002, measurable progress on Iran’s human rights was achieved.  But since the mandate for the human rights monitor was discontinued in 2002, human rights conditions in Iran have significantly worsened, especially after the fraudulent June 2009 elections.

It is an outrage that the Human Rights Council has not already established a human rights monitor for Iran, but to miss yet another opportunity to do so while so many Iranians continue to suffer would be unconscionable.

3 Comments | Human Rights in Iran, UN | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by David Elliott

Leading Diplomats, Experts and Organizations Call on Obama to Reinvigorate Diplomacy with Iran

January 20, 2011

For Immediate Release
Contact: Phil Elwood
Phone: 202-423-7957
Email: phile@brownlloydjames.com

Washington, DC – On the eve of talks between the P5+1 and Iran in Istanbul, a diverse group of diplomats, arms control experts, Iran experts, democracy and human rights defenders, and leading Iranian-American, Jewish-American, and pro-peace organizations issued a statement urging the Obama Administration to reinvigorate diplomacy with Iran.

The experts include Ambassador John Limbert, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iran; Sir Richard Dalton, the former British Ambassador to Iran; Bruno Pellaud, the former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency; Gary Sick, who served at the NSC as the principal White House adviser on Iran; and Chas Freeman, the former American Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

Full text of the statement:

January 20, 2011

As the United States prepares for the upcoming round of multilateral talks with Iran, it is imperative that the Obama Administration reinvigorate its diplomacy by pursuing engagement with Tehran more persistently, setting realistic objectives, and broadening the US-Iranian dialogue.  Diplomacy is the only sustainable means of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, avoiding the dangerous folly of military confrontation in the Middle East, and enabling progress in other critical areas of US interest, such as Afghanistan and the human rights situation within Iran.

Reinvigorating diplomacy means seeking to engage Iran more persistently.  The upcoming Istanbul meeting is only the fourth meeting on the nuclear issue involving both the United States and Iran, and no breakthrough can be expected without additional talks. Fortunately, time exists to pursue a diplomatic solution.  Both US and Israeli officials have made public statements recently acknowledging that Iran remains years away from having the capability to construct a nuclear weapon.

Reinvigorating diplomacy also means pursuing realistic objectives. Unrealistic outcomes, such as insisting that Iran cease uranium enrichment entirely, however desirable, must be set aside.  Focus should instead be placed on establishing monitoring and verification mechanisms that can ensure that Iran’s nuclear program is, indeed, used solely for peaceful purposes.  Secretary Clinton stated in December that the United States would be prepared to recognize a peaceful enrichment program on Iranian soil.  This is a productive step to achieve a satisfactory compromise for which the Administration should be commended.

Finally, reinvigorating diplomacy means addressing issues with Iran beyond the nuclear file. Tehran presents challenges and opportunities in many other areas of importance to US national security, including the stability of Afghanistan and Iraq, drug trafficking, and the human rights situation in Iran itself.  The US should seek common ground in all areas of interest and not hold progress in one area hostage to resolution of others.  Indeed, progress on human rights or Afghanistan may create a better climate for progress on the nuclear issue. The US engagement agenda must be expanded to reflect this.

Diplomacy with Iran will not be easy and no quick fixes should be expected. Iran must also negotiate in earnest and make the serious compromises necessary for resolution of the nuclear issue.  The concerns of the IAEA, the P5+1, and the international community more broadly must be addressed by Iran on the basis of transparency and cooperation.  Resolving decades of enmity between the US and Iran will require that both sides work to create openings for successful engagement.

Only reinvigorated diplomacy holds the promise of bridging the many divides between the US and Iran and achieving a sustainable solution that prevents a disastrous military confrontation, prevents an Iranian bomb and the additional proliferation that would follow, and protects the human rights of the Iranian people.

Signed,

Barry Blechman, co-founder, the Stimson Center
Professor Juan Cole, University of Michigan
Sir Richard Dalton, Associate Fellow, Middle East and North Africa Programme, Royal Institute of International Affairs, London; Former British Ambassador to Iran
Debra DeLee, President and CEO, Americans for Peace Now
Jonathan W. Evans, Legislative Representative for Foreign Policy, Friends Committee on National Legislation
Professor Farideh Farhi, University of Hawaii
Chas W. Freeman, Jr., former Assistant Secretary of Defense, Ambassador to Saudi Arabia, and President, Middle East Policy Council
Lt. Gen. Robert G. Gard, Jr., (USA, Ret.) Chairman, Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation
Col. Sam Gardiner, United States Air Force, Retired
Daryl Kimball, Executive Director, Arms Control Association
Amb. John Limbert, Former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Firuzeh Mahmoudi, Executive Director, United4Iran
Paul Kawika Martin, Policy Director, Peace Action
Stephen McInerney, Executive Director, Project on Middle East Democracy
Robert Naiman, Executive Director, Just Foreign Policy
Trita Parsi, President, National Iranian American Council
Bruno Pellaud, Former Deputy Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency
Professor Paul Pillar, Georgetown University
John Rainwater, Executive Director, Peace Action West
Rachelle Lyndaker Schlabach, Director, Mennonite Central Committee U.S. Washington Office
Professor Gary Sick, Columbia University
Professor John Tirman, Executive Director and Principal Research Scientist, MIT Center for International Studies

Leave a Comment » | Diplomacy, Human Rights in Iran, US-Iran War | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by NIAC

Humanitarian Tragedy in Iran Yet Another Wakeup Call

January 11, 2011

This past weekend an Iranian Boeing 727 crashed in northwestern Iran while attempting an emergency landing, taking at least 77 lives.

Headlines regarding fatal plane crashes in Iran have become all too common in recent years, and the increasing number of innocent people killed in these incidents draws attention to the worst effects of US sanctions against Iran.

Thanks in large part to the US embargo on Iran, Iran is unable to maintain their aging commercial airliners, most of which have been operating since before the Islamic Revolution in 1979.  Since then, Iran has relied on spare parts garnered from international smuggling, the cannibalization of their own aircraft, and risky reverse engineering to piece together functional planes.

The White House has the authority to waive the embargo on civilian aircraft parts on humanitarian grounds on a case-by-case basis, though it almost never does so. (The last such instance was a Sept. 2006 decision to allow the export of several Airbus engine spare parts by the Bush administration.) This contradicts the principles of the Chicago Convention, to which both the United States and Iran are signatories, which requires that states “meet the needs of the peoples of the world for safe, regular, efficient and economical air transport”.

However, even the possibility of complying with the Chicago Convention and allowing the export of civilian aircraft parts to ensure safety of flight is too much for some Iran hawks in Congress to countenance.  As NIAC first reported, legislation introduced by Rep. Sherman (D-CA) last Congress would eliminate the President’s authority to license civilian aircraft parts. Sherman has previously expressed his desire to make US sanctions “hurt the Iranian people,” so his disregard for the consequences of this measure is clear, but he apparently does not realize that cutting off all accessibility to aircraft parts also endangers the lives the thousands of his Iranian-American constituents that visit Iran every year.

Rep. Sherman is now looking to reintroduce his legislation, though he’s looking for a Republican to act as the lead sponsor to improve the bill’s chances of being passed in the hyper-partisan House of Representatives.  Senator Bob Casey (D-PA) introduced a companion to Sherman’s bill in the Senate but, perhaps in response to the opposition by NIAC and Iranian-American community, he had the good sense to strip the provisions that would put all passengers of Iranian civilian aircraft at even greater risk.

Before he reintroduces his bill, let’s hope that Congressman Sherman takes the opportunity to reconsider whether putting civilian aircraft passengers in Iran in even further danger is a good idea.

3 Comments | Congress, Events in Iran, Sanctions | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Todd Ruffner

Engineering Economic Suffering

December 22, 2010

After hearing Ahmadinejad’s announcement on Sunday of the first phase of subsidy cuts, the world is watching and waiting to see what will come out of eliminating 30 year-old oil subsidies for Iranian citizens. With economic sanctions already taking a toll and the beginning of cuts on subsidies coming into effect, ordinary Iranians continue to bear the brunt of US pressure and Iran’s economic mismanagement.

Ahmadinejad claims that cutting oil subsidies will help the ailing Iranian economy. Given Iran’s already high rate of inflation – estimated to be around 20 percent – the Iranian government’s latest move could spark even more inflation and carries significant economic risk.

According to Tehran Bureau, the subsidy cuts are already causing a ripple effect on prices of goods and services:

“The price of electricity has tripled from 0.75 cents/KWh to 2.2 cents/KWh. The price of water has similarly increased by a factor of three. The price of natural gas for home heating and cooking has increased by a factor of four, and for vehicle fuel by a factor of ten. The price of flour has increased by a factor of 40.”

But before proponents of “crippling” Iran’s economy begin dancing in the streets, they should consider two factors.

First, while Ahmadinejad emphasizes that subsidy cuts are about distributing Iran’s economic wealth in a more equitable way, there is clearly another issue at hand: the subsidies have been a cancer in Iran’s budget for years.

As the USIP’s Iran Primer on “The Subsidies Conundrum” explains:

“Subsidies have been costly. They were estimated to eat up around 25 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product (GDP) of $335 billion in 2009. Subsidies for energy products alone accounted for 10 percent of Iran’s GDP in 2010, according to the World Bank.”

The Iranian government has attempted to cut the subsidies multiple times, but always been rebuffed by popular pressure.  But as GWU Professor Hossein Askari and NIAC President Trita Parsi warned in a New York Times op-ed from last year, the sanctions appear to be “throwing Ahmadinejad a lifeline” by providing him with the political cover to cut the subsidies and remove this cancer.  It is no accident that Ahmadinejad finally succeeded in cutting subsidies after the sanctions on refined petroleum were imposed.

Secondly, the response to the price shocks that have resulted from the subsidy cuts has been calm so far.  Jason Rezaian at the Global Post writes, “Despite steep price increases for everything from bread to gasoline, the Iranian public here has so far remained relatively calm,” though he cautions that “the impact of some of the price hikes, such as electricity and water, won’t be felt for weeks.”

William Yong at the New York Times echoes this point:

“Seemingly unaffected by a sharp increase in gasoline prices that went into effect at midnight on Sunday, drivers jammed the streets here on Monday after the government lifted traffic restrictions aimed at reducing severe air pollution.”

Compare this to one year ago when thousands of protesters turned out during Ashura to demonstrate against the injustices in the aftermath of the June elections – despite the massive presence of the riot police and basij.  US policymakers like freshman Senator Mark Kirk (R-IL) who want Washington to engineer economic suffering so that ordinary Iranians revolt against their government should take notice. Iranians were on the streets protesting last year not because of economic hardship but to fight for their right to basic civil liberties.  Perhaps it is difficult for ordinary Iranian citizens to think about the prospects of improving civil liberties when they are being squeezed from all sides and can’t even provide a simple noon-o-panir (bread and cheese) for their families.

As Askari and Parsi pointed out last year, sanctions proponents who “believe that increased economic pressure would cause Iranians to revolt against their unpopular rulers,” were engaging in “a fundamental misreading of the psychology of an embargoed people.”

1 Comment | Events in Iran, Sanctions | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Lily Samimi

Media Overlooks Iran Student’s Day Protest, 16 Azar

December 8, 2010

Yesterday was the 57th anniversary of Iran’s Student Day and the 2nd student’s day protest since the birth of the Green Movement in June 2009. Unfortunately this didn’t hit mainstream media. This could either be because of Iran’s constant censorship or the media being consumed with other Iran topics, i.e. Wikileaks and P5+1 talks.

Students from all kinds of universities poured out onto the streets of Iran mourning the loss of their colleagues during the June 2009 aftermath, demanding the release of political prisoners, and demanding their civil rights. Mir Hossien Mousavi’s Facebook page shows quite a few videos and pictures from yesterday of different universities protesting. Additionally, on Mousavi’s page, supporters of the Green movement, Khatami and Karroubi have released statements of their support.

It is unsure as to how many protestors were out on the streets and how many people were arrested. However, there are several reports and videos talking about yesterday’s events, including this video from BBC Persian.

Enduring America blogged about the media and government completely overlooking the protests in Iran.

Even those who are often accused by the Iranian Government of carrying out a US Government  of “regime change” have no words on the regime and the students. The Voice of America declined to cover the story. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty is silent, apart from a pointer in its Press Review to a Los Angeles Times story.

Tehran Bureau reports on specific student protests around the country and first hand accounts.

The largest protests were reported at Tehran University’s Faculty of Medicine, where students and professors held a demonstration about a thousand people strong — they demanded political rights and the release of political detainees. A gathering of around a thousand students at Amir Kabir Polytechnic University sang patriotic songs and called for political prisoners to be freed.

Wall Street Journal reports on the Basiji forces surrounding student protests.

Riot police and security forces surrounded Tehran University, the epicenter of student activism, according to witnesses and online videos. Iranian law prohibits security forces from entering the campus, but students said as many as 400 plainclothes militia members had entered to intimidate students. Security forces built scaffolding around the entire campus and covered it with tents, in an apparent attempt to cut off communication between student protestors inside and passersby outside, according to videos and witness accounts.

Its hard to say what exactly happened yesterday, but it is evident that the Green Movement remains alive in  Iranian hearts and minds.

4 Comments | Iranian Youth | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Lily Samimi

The (literally) suffocating sanctions against ordinary Iranians

December 7, 2010

The Washington Post today has a pretty shocking report about the effect of the US petroleum sanctions against Iran.  Because the US has been so successful in imposing “draconian” measures against Iran (the Obama Administration’s words, not mine), average Iranians have faced the prospect of not being able to get petroleum for such nefarious purposes as driving to work or keeping their homes heated.

So, in response, Iran has begun selling its own form of “locally produced gasoline”:

The product is the result of an emergency plan to prevent fuel shortages following a vote by the U.S. Congress in July that banned oil companies from selling gasoline to Iran.

The Islamic Republic’s leaders have lauded their oil industry for swiftly supplying the market with its own mixes of high-octane fuel, which is manufactured in petrochemical plants rather than refineries.

But the brew is now seen by many as the main reason for the unprecedented air pollution levels in Tehran, Isfahan, a city in central Iran, and other large population centers.

“This fuel is our political ace [against the sanctions],” the Ayandeh Web site, which is critical of the government, said Monday. “But it is of low quality and polluting.”

The article goes on to quote Mohammad-Reza Shababi, the father of a three-year old girl who is suffering from extreme windpipe infection due to the increasing pollution:

“The arrow of these sanctions is hitting my daughter’s windpipe,” said Shababi. “What has she done? Both our leaders and the U.S. should think of the consequences of their acts.”

In fact, just last week before Congress, Under Secretary of State Bill Burns highlighted the success of US sanctions in decreasing Iran’s gasoline imports by 85%.   He didn’t mention any concerns about what this might  mean for regular Iranians, but perhaps this was because he was testifying before a panel that included Representatives Brad Sherman (D-CA) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), each of whom have said that sanctions must punish ordinary Iranians in order to work.

Not surprisingly, we hear little these days from the Administration about sanctions being designed to “not hurt the Iranian people.” This includes  when Obama appeared on BBC Persia several months ago and  tried to convince Iranians that they should not blame the US for their suffering under sanctions (reports from Iran suggested that Iranians were left “seething” by the President’s logic). The Administration has calculated that if they can show how just how tough they are, perhaps they will buy some time to actually pursue engagement.

With Congress focused on ways to punish Iran by any means necessary, with the Administration committed to buying itself space by demonstrating how “draconian” its sanctions can be, and with an Iranian government far more committed to its own preservation rather than the wellbeing of it citizens, we once again find the Iranian people caught in the middle.  But I suppose that means the sanctions are working.

1 Comment | Sanctions | Tagged: , , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jamal Abdi

Ominous signs for new Congress’ Iran agenda: sanctions, blockade, war

December 3, 2010

This past Wednesday, the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee convened for a hearing on “Implementing Tougher Sanctions on Iran” and offered a frightening preview of what will be on the House’s agenda next year.

At the hearing, Representative Don Manzullo (R-IL) laid out what may be the game plan by the new Republican Congress to drag the US into yet a third war in the Middle East:

“If these sanctions don’t work, then the next step would be a blockade,” Manzullo said looking over his shoulder to incoming chairwoman Ros Lehtinen.  “And the next step would be some type of—you hate to use the word—but military action.”

Even though it is evident that sanctions have weakened Iran’s economy, it should come as no surprise that Ileana Ros-Lehtinen now wants to pressure the Administration to impose even tougher sanctions on Iran.

“Since the 1990’s, the US and international efforts to stop growing Iranian threat have been half-hearted at best. The problem is not that a tough approach has failed, but that it has yet to be fully tried.”

When it came to the opposition Green Movement in Iran – a movement based on the civil and human rights on Iranians -Representative Ted Poe (R-TX) was incensed that his question about support  for that movement was answered instead with a response about supporting human rights. “My question is what are we doing to promote the opposition, not human rights.”

It appears that the representatives have blindfolded themselves to what is actually going on in Iran and are taking sides on issues that they don’t seem to fully comprehend.

Read NIAC’s report from the hearing

2 Comments | Congress, Election 2010, Human Rights in Iran, Iran War related legislation, Legislative Agenda, MEK, Neo-Con Agenda, Sanctions, US-Iran War | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Lily Samimi

UN Resolution on Human Rights in Iran is Same Old Story

November 19, 2010

Don’t be fooled by the media’s coverage of the new draft resolution on Iran’s human rights situation that advanced yesterday.  While headlines suggested that the US and the international community were doing something serious on Iran, this resolution is not much different than the Iran resolution adopted by the UN last year.

In fact, the UN has been passing similar resolutions on Iran for the past 26 years.  The difference is that from 1985 to 2002, the resolutions established a UN mandate for a human rights monitor on Iran, which actually helped improve the situation there.  But in 2002 the mandate failed by one vote, and there has been no mechanism in place ever since.  With yesterday’s action—which sets up a vote for final passage in December, the UN continues to catalog human rights violations in Iran, but fails to take any concrete steps to actually address the problem.

The resolution did advance with a wide margin of 80 in favor to 44 against and 57 abstentions. This is an even greater margin than last year’s resolution, which came out only months after the June 12th Iranian elections and passed with a margin of 74 in favor to 48 against and 59 abstentions. The issue of Iranian human rights in Iran is just as prominent now as it was a year ago when millions of people across the globe watched the devastating human rights violations unroll during election aftermath. The increase in the vote margin should be seen as window of opportunity to take concrete steps that can offer protection to Iranian victims instead of merely condemning the abuses.

Regardless of the resolution’s weaknesses, we should also not be fooled by the Iranian government’s arguments against the measure. Iranian officials have once again avoided addressing the outrageous human rights abuses in its own country by accusing the United States of abuses and accusing the international community of using human rights to maneuver Iran in a direction towards “westernization”.

Mohammad Javad Larijani, Iran’s human rights representative at the UN and one of Khamenei’s right hand men, argued at the UN General Assembly that the resolution does nothing to contribute to the promotion of human rights and should therefore be discarded. But he wasn’t arguing for a stronger resolution that could do a better job of promoting human rights, he was arguing that the United States is “the mastermind and main provocateur behind a text that had nothing to do with human rights” and that they are using as a “politicization of human rights”.  But human rights do not belong to the United States or Iran, they are a universal value that must be respected.  As a signatory to numerous international treaties on human rights, Iran is bound to uphold these basic rights, and arguments of politicization fall short when human rights defenders like Nasrin Sotoudeh continue to languish in prison.

That being said, addressing Iranian human rights must stand on its own apart from other issues of concern, i.e. nuclear weapons, sanctions, Afghanistan, etc. The US Administration must know the implications of using human rights as front for addressing other important issues – namely Iran’s nuclear capability—and have generally been careful to avoid falling into such a trap.

In order to help stem Iran’s human rights violations, it is crucial for the US to engage the international community to address human rights as a strategic goal unto itself.  The Obama Administration must get serious and step up its efforts at the UN to seek an independent mechanism to monitor Iran’s human rights situation.  Mike Hammer, US National Security Council spokesperson, said that, “by adopting the resolution, the international community has sent an unequivocal message to the Iranian government that universal rights must be respected.” But this message has been conveyed repeatedly to no avail.   It’s time to get serious and pursue a concrete approach by establishing a human rights monitor.

2 Comments | Human Rights in Iran, UN | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Lily Samimi

Washington Post Blasts Defense Secretary Gates, Endorses Netanyahu’s War Rhetoric

November 19, 2010

The Washington Post Editorial board has called out US Defense Secretary Robert Gates for “undercutting the message” that the US may attack Iran.  The Post criticizes the Defense Secretary for defending the Administration’s Iran policy against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s pressure for the US to publicly threaten Iran with military force.

Netanyahu advised that “If the international community, led by the U.S., wants to stop Iran without resorting to military action, it will have to convince Iran that it is prepared to take such action.”  This Orwellian “war is peace” calculation would only endanger US national security and drive the US closer to war with Iran.  The Defense Secretary who is responsible for the lives of American troops was right to stand firm in the face of Netanyahu’s callous, pernicious war rhetoric.

The Washington Post calls Secretary Gate’s assessment that military strikes would bring together a divided Iranian nation “speculative”.  But the Post asserts that “what we do know for sure” is that Iran curbed its nuclear program in 2003 as a result of the US invasion of Iraq.  We absolutely do not know this for sure.  The Washington Post Editorial board that helped champion the Iraq war on the basis of false intelligence should be more careful when passing off its own speculation as certainty, particularly when it comes to advancing another case for war.

The Post pits its own speculation against the assessments of not just the Defense Secretary, but also those of military leaders like General David Petraeus – who warned that an attack on Iran could be used by hardliners to galvanize support – and Iranian human rights and democracy advocates, such as Nobel Peace Prize Laureate Shirin Ebadi, who said an attack “would give the government an excuse to kill all of its political opponents,” and that the Iranian people would resist any military action.

But if the judgment of US civilian and military leadership and Iranian activists is not enough for the Washington Post, there are plenty more reasons why saber rattling is disastrous idea.  Threats of war only help validate arguments that Iran requires a nuclear weapon as a suitable deterrent against US force.  As the US Institute of Peace and the Stimson Center recently stated in its report on engagement with Iran, “Even veiled allusions to the ‘military option’ reinforce those Iranian hardliners who argue that Iran requires nuclear weapons to deter the US, and protect Tehran’s security and freedom of action.”  The report also finds that “Official references to ‘military options’ only undermine those in Tehran who might otherwise argue for negotiated solutions to the nuclear issue.”

Furthermore, threats of military force will help unravel all of the work President Obama has invested in successfully undoing the damage of the Bush Administration and uniting the world in its Iran approach.  Our close allies have expressed serious concern about potential US saber rattling, and pursuing such a track will also alienate Russia and China, who are integral in multilateral efforts regarding Iran.

The call for saber rattling against Iran harkens back to the failed George W. Bush era in which the US looked on defiantly as Iran mastered the nuclear fuel cycle, while the US talked tough, spewed war rhetoric, and emboldened those in Iran who thrive on confrontation.  These threats undercut opportunities for peaceful, diplomatic resolutions to the US-Iran dispute by injecting significant uncertainty about US intentions on the Iranian side.  Preventing successful engagement may very well be the intended goal of those who advise that the US threaten war, as this is likewise the probable motivation of hardliners in Iran who offer similar rhetoric.  The Washington Post should not be in the business of empowering those on either side who seek to undermine engagement and eliminate options for the US to resolve its concerns with Iran through peaceful means.  With the prospect of yet third disastrous US war in the Middle East, the stakes could not be higher.

10 Comments | Diplomacy, Neo-Con Agenda, Nuclear file, US-Iran War | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jamal Abdi

Lieberman to Push for Iran War Resolution?

November 17, 2010

Senator Joe Lieberman on Tuesday signaled that the incoming Congress may consider endorsing war with Iran.

Speaking before the Foreign Policy Initiative, a neoconservative think tank formed by many of the chief architects of the Iraq war, Lieberman was questioned by accomplished war advocate Bill Kristol about how the new Congress will factor into Iran policy.

Lieberman said that Congress would focus on pressing the Administration on sanctions, but also suggested Congress may decide to formally endorse military options against Iran.  According to Lieberman, Congress’ role should include “that we express what I believe is actually there in the Congress and I think it’s there in the American people.  Nobody wants to use military force against Iran, but there is a base, a broad bipartisan base of support if the Commander in Chief comes to a point where he thinks that’s necessary.”

MR. KRISTOL: And so Congress could –

SENATOR LIEBERMAN: Could express that in some way, but I think that’s not tomorrow, but it may be down the road depending on — I mean, when you think about it, by January it will have been six months since the sanctions began to be applied to Iran, and it’s fair to say that there’s been no voluntary limitation of their nuclear weapons program.

While Lieberman was careful to say that such a Congressional action endorsing war would be in “support” of the President if he decides force is necessary, the pro-war crowd is clearly trying to turn up the pressure on Obama and is unlikely to be satisfied with compromise.  Republicans have already demonstrated a willingness to undermine the President on foreign policy, with incoming Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s suggestion to Benjamin Netanyahu that Republicans would be a “check” on Obama as just the latest example.  Earlier this year, House Republicans introduced a resolution endorsing Israeli strikes against Iran, undercutting the authority of the President and his civilian and military leadership to prevent such an attack by sending a signal that Congress would stand with Israel instead of the President.

Lieberman, who recently joined his Senate colleague Lindsey Graham to “up the rhetorical ante” on Iran by endorsing the military option against Iran, buys into the argument offered by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu last week  that escalating war rhetoric against Iran should be part of US policy.  This is the next step in paving the path to war—whether under Obama or, as was the case with Iraq in the 90’s, to tee up war for the next President.  Once the war threat is out there, it doesn’t go away.

Such advice defies pushback from Defense Secretary Robert Gates and dire warnings about the consequences of strikes from US military leaders.  It ignores a recent USIP-Stimson report that states, “Even veiled allusions to the ‘military option’ reinforce those Iranian hardliners who argue that Iran requires nuclear weapons to deter the US, and protect Tehran’s security and freedom of action.”  And it flies in the face of Iranian democracy activists and human rights defenders who say that war can only undercut their cause.

Lieberman argued yesterday in the Wall Street Journal that Obama can seize an opportunity to forge a “bipartisan foreign policy” by teaming up with new Republican leadership in Congress to thwart “anti-war Democrats and isolationist Republicans.”  But it is unclear how long Lieberman and the pro-war crowd will be willing to wait before pushing to further undercut the President by signaling that Congress is ready for war with Iran.

1 Comment | Uncategorized | Permalink
Posted by Jamal Abdi

Will the Obama Administration Listen to Gates or Neo-Cons?

November 17, 2010

As a Bush Administration holdover, Defense Secretary Robert Gates has largely avoided Republican attacks.  A Republican working in a Democratic administration, Secretary Gates seems to enjoy broad support on both sides of the aisle, and his policy recommendations are generally approved of enthusiastically by both political parties.

His recent comments on Iran, however, have the potential to raise some neo-conservative hackles.  Last week, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu tried to convince Vice President Joe Biden, among others, to make the US military threat against Iran “credible.” Gates immediately responded, saying that “We are prepared to do what is necessary, but at this point we continue to believe that the political-economic approach that we are taking is in fact having an impact in Iran.”

Yesterday, Gates pushed back even further against callously wielding the military option:

A military solution, as far as I’m concerned … it will bring together a divided nation. It will make them absolutely committed to obtaining nuclear weapons. And they will just go deeper and more covert

The only long-term solution in avoiding an Iranian nuclear weapons capability is for the Iranians to decide it’s not in their interest. Everything else is a short-term solution.

Read the rest of this entry »

3 Comments | Congress, Diplomacy, Election 2010, Israel, Neo-Con Agenda, Sanctions, US-Iran War | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Patrick Heffner

Graham and Netanyahu pressure Obama to ratchet up war rhetoric

November 8, 2010

On Saturday, Senator Lindsey Graham reportedly “stunned” attendees at a Halifax International Security Conference when he called for a military strike that would “neuter” the Iranian regime “not to just neutralize their nuclear program, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard.”

NIAC addressed the bellicose remarks with a statement warning that, “Graham’s confrontational war rhetoric sets back America’s opportunities to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue peacefully and prevent a third costly and destabilizing US war in the Middle East.”

Meanwhile, that same day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was in New Orleans advocating to Vice President Joe Biden that, in spite of all of the sanctions the US had put in place over the past year, the Obama Administration needed to start doing more saber rattling:

Israel’s media says the country’s prime minister has told U.S. Vice President Joe Biden that Iran must be made to fear a military strike against its nuclear program.

They say in their Monday editions that Benjamin Netanyahu told Biden that although sanctions have hurt Iran, Tehran will be determined to produce nuclear weapons unless it thinks a military strike is a real option.

This all comes just a week before proposed nuclear negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 approach, and is just the type of toxic rhetoric, coming from both the US and Iranian sides, that poisons the environment for successful diplomacy.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is apparently less willing to callously issue war threats and pledge American troops to a third Middle East war, took exception to the saber rattling on Monday:

“I disagree that only a credible military threat can get Iran to take the actions that it needs to, to end its nuclear weapons program. We are prepared to do what is necessary, but, at this point, we continue to believe that the political-economic approach that we are taking is, in fact, having an impact on Iran,” he said.

But the debate is symptomatic of a discussion going on in Washington, in both the White House and on Capitol Hill, as to whether the US should start raising the war rhetoric against Iran.  Returning to the Bush era of name calling and saber rattling would effectively guarantee that the Obama administration continues solely down the pressure track, rejects opportunities for a successful peaceful resolution to our issues with Iran, undermines Iranians fighting for the rule of law, and locks the US into a trajectory for war.

The Obama administration is reportedly mulling whether to ratchet up belligerent rhetoric towards Iran, according to the New York Times:

Two years into office, Mr. Obama has organized an impressive sanctions regime and managed to combine diplomacy and pressure better than many experts had predicted. But so far he has little to show for it, which has prompted a discussion inside the White House about whether it would be helpful, or counterproductive, to have him talk more openly about military options.

Further complicating this discussion is the November 2 midterm election “shellacking” that Obama and the Democrats received.  Some pundits believe the Democrat’s electoral defeat should cause Obama to tack right on Iran policy, either for purely politically reasons or, crazily enough, even to help jumpstart the economy.

Problem is, Obama has already tried this approach and received little credit from his opponents.  NIAC’s policy director writes in Foreign Policy’s Middle East Channel:

Unfortunately, instead of fighting the Bush paradigm that rewards policymakers on the basis of bellicosity towards Iran, Obama has by and large perpetuated a political metric that defines success on Iran only in terms of pressure. Only if Obama raises the consequences of the dire alternative to a successful engagement strategy — war with Iran — and stakes out a new path to create his own political space for diplomacy, can the president effectively navigate the new reality in Congress and pursue a successful Iran agenda.

After coming into office promising to extend an open hand towards Iran, Obama gradually backed away from this position in favor of a tough sanctions regime.  Still, that wasn’t enough for many Republicans like Graham, because, simply put, Obama will never be able to out-hawk the hawks.  Repeating the mistakes of his first two years in office by further increasing bellicose rhetoric will only result in failure at the negotiating table and a crushing political defeat as Obama continually fails to live up to a standard of “toughness” that he himself set.

So far, it appears the administration is correctly distancing itself from Graham and Netanyahu’s comments.  But now the administration needs to go one step further and push back against provocative and counter-productive statements and generate the political space it needs for a major diplomatic effort.

1 Comment | Congress, Diplomacy, Election 2010, Israel, Legislative Agenda, Neo-Con Agenda, US-Iran War | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Patrick Heffner

« Previous Entries