Iran

A picture of Barack Obama's cabinet is starting to emerge, and it is not pleasing his more left-wing supporters. Some of them were already unhappy about the appointment of Clintonites like Rahm Emmanuel. Now, the New York Times is reporting that Hillary Clinton will almost certainly become Secretary of State. That is disturbing for some Obama supporters, who were told during the primaries that her foreign policy views disqualified her from the nomination.How you feel about Clinton's appointment - assuming that it does come to pass - will depend on how legitimate you feel those criticisms were. Central among them was the charge that she showed bad judgement in supporting the Iraq war. That may well be so, but she had a lot of company in this. Many liberals, myself included, thought in 2003 that regime change was the lesser of two evils, only to change our minds when we saw the nature of the regime change we got. I would readily admit that was bad judgement on my part. Clinton refused to say that it was bad judgement on hers - this may, in fact, have been what cost her the Democratic nomination. Perhaps she was privy to special intelligence before the war which added support to Bush's arguments. But I find it hard to believe that she had any such excuse, given that she reportedly failed to thoroughly study the briefings given to her at the time.Nonetheless, that is all in the past. What matters is what sort of Secretary of State she will be over the next four years. It is clear why many on the left are concerned about this. She has been decidedly hawkish on Iran, supporting the controversial Kyl-Lieberman amendment that classified that country's Quds Force as a terrorist organisation. She also has a reputation for pandering to the more extreme elements of the soi-disant 'pro-Israel vote' in the States - and since this voting block's favoured policies would actually harm Israel and the peace process, this is concerning.However, this history may allow her to play the role of Nixon in China on these questions, providing Obama cover against those who would claim that his positions on these issues are too 'soft'. She and her husband have almost unparalleled knowledge and experience of dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian question in particular. There are already rumours that Obama has charged her with finding a solution to this, and given her substantial autonomy in doing so. If she can accomplish this, few will or should regret her selection.

In the wake of the Russian invasion of Georgia, the spectre of the Kremlin looming maliciously over world affairs once again stalks the magazines and broadsheets of Europe and North America. Is the corpse of the Cold War rising from its shallow grave? No, says Paul Rogers. oD's long-time global security columnist joins the likes of Parag Khanna and Kishore Mahbubani in not confusing Russia's bark for its actual bite. With his typical insider's erudition, Rogers shows how Russian military tactics in the recent conflict reveal Moscow's shrunken power. But while the Kremlin may not be as strong as it seems, the west (particularly Washington) remains incapable of coming to terms with the nature of international politics in the 21st century. The west misunderstands the resurgent nationalist ambitions of countries like Russia and Iran at its own peril.

An unwise remark, especially just as the candidates prepare for their big July international trips. Video from TPM.

Read more

John McCain unleashed a salvo against Barack Obama during his speech yesterday at the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC. He wasn't the first prominent Republican to use US-Israel relations as a stick to beat Obama with. Speaking from the Knesset, George W Bush attacked Obama's willingness to meet controversial leaders like Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as tantamount to "appeasement".

Yesterday at AIPAC, McCain laid into Obama, generally for urging diplomacy and specifically for voting against the decision to brand Iran's Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation. "[Obama] is mistaken," McCain said. "Holding Iran's influence in check, and holding a terrorist organization accountable, sends exactly the right message -- to Iran, to the region and to the world." McCain's full address is here.

The Obama campaign struck back quickly: "Confronted with that reality, John McCain promises four more years of the same policies that have strengthened Iran, making the United States and Israel less safe. He promises to continue a war in Iraq that has emboldened Iran and strengthened its hand. He stubbornly reefuses to engage in aggressive diplomacy, ruling it out unconditionally as a tool of American power."

Tit for tat, then. Obama was right to oppose the branding of the Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organisation. It was an unprecedented move (the Guards, after all, are a state, not sub-state, organisation) that has done little to weaken Iran or turn its people against the governing regime, and much to strengthen the resolve of Iran's leaders. Moreover, according to a recent Gallup poll, most Americans favour Obama's diplomatic approach to McCain's blunt confrontation.

Again, however, Obama's campaign felt obliged to phrase their response to McCain through the prism of Israel's interests. This works rhetorically, but in the long run, does it translate into strategic policy? It speaks to the limited range of options US leaders let themselves choose from when dealing with west Asia. The debate unleashed by Walt and Mearsheimer may rage more in New York journals than in the halls of the Beltway. But can American foreign policy in the middle east really recover without a re-evaluation of the relationship with Israel?

In the Washington Post, John Kerry defends Obama's willingness to engage with Iran. Though slated by both President Bush and his presumptive Republican successor John McCain, Obama has stuck to his guns and remained committed to exploring the diplomatic route. Kerry - an establishment Democrat - concurs.

Direct negotiations may be the only means short of war that can persuade Iran to forgo its nuclear capability. Given that a nuclear Iran would menace Israel, drive oil prices up past today's record highs and possibly spark a regional arms race, shouldn't we be doing all we can to avoid that conflagration? Opponents of dialogue often quip that talking isn't a strategy. Walking away isn't a strategy, either...

Some have asserted that meeting with Iran's leaders would legitimize Ahmadinejad, who is neither Iran's supreme leader nor someone whom Obama specifically promised to meet. Curiously, many critics then hype Ahmadinejad as a threat of historic proportions, thereby granting the stature they seek to deny. Iranian elections in mid-2009 could yield a less objectionable president; engaging Iran makes that more likely...

By engaging Iran, we reclaim the moral high ground -- no small feat. If Iran refuses to budge, we have new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away. Those who say they take no option off the table should not put America in a straitjacket by denouncing diplomacy.

Women's rights activists in Iran have been hit by a fresh crackdown that threatens a vital campaigning tool

A few days ago we hit a new low in systematic filtering of women's rights websites in Iran. Along with the website Change for Equality, 11 other sites and blogs belonging to local branches of the One Million Signatures Campaign in several cities or regions in Iran (Arak, Rasht, Mashhad, Esfahan, Shiraz, Zahedan) were blocked simultaneously. The list of blocked blogs included Men for Equality, set up by male activists in the campaign and those of a few Iranian immigrant populations in other countries (Kuwait, Cyprus, Germany, and the US). Campaign websites in Kurdestan and Azarbaijan had been blocked in April 2008.

Ebrahim Yazdi, a former Iranian foreign minister, writes an open letter to Hillary Clinton in response to her promise to "obliterate" Iran.

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

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton
US Presidential Candidate
c/o MSNBC.com

Your Excellency,

In one of your recent campaign interviews you stated that: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. . . . In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them" (Interview with ABC).

This is not different from President Bush's stated policy towards Iran. The logic of threatening a total obliteration of Iran, possible only through a nuclear holocaust, is based on the "right of power", not the "power of the right".

As you may know, chapter I, article II of the United Nations Charter states that:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations."

Regardless of any hypothetical attack on Israel, the United States is legally bound not to threaten Iran or any other country. In addition to the UN Charter, the US constitution prohibits such threatening policies. Article IV Clause II states:

"This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding."

As an Iranian, I feel compelled to ask you some questions. First, why are you threatening "the Iranians"? Second, if Israel attacks Iran and you are elected as president of the USA, what would then be your policy and position?

I do not agree with the rhetorical statements and foreign policies of Dr. Ahmadinejad, the President of Islamic Republic of Iran. However, while the military capability of Iran to attack Israel is questionable, Israel's capabilities concerning the conventional and non-conventional armaments to attack Iran is beyond any doubt.

With respect

Ebrahim Yazdi,
Secretary General, Freedom Movement of Iran and
Former Foreign Minister, Islamic Republic of Iran

It can be easy to forget that the hot air spewed in America has real consequences elsewhere. While Obama and Clinton wrestle over lapel pins, policy-makers in New Delhi and Tehran are calculating the future of their bilateral relations in large part on the outcome of the US elections. Indian and Iranian efforts to build a joint 2,775 km gas pipeline (through Pakistan), which would bring much-needed energy to India, remain in the doldrums, with the Bush administration running interference. So, too, has the White House driven a fissure between Iran and India on nuclear energy; the US-Indo nuclear deal not only soured India's domestic politics - with the government's Left allies making a fuss - but broke New Delhi's age-old solidarity with developing countries in last year's IAEA Board of Governors' vote on Iran's nuclear program.