Israeli Faith in Iran's Opposition Gains Favor

Israel's oldest civil servant, 83-year-old Ministry of Defense adviser Uri Lubrani, has spent his career defying conventional wisdom on Iran. Today, Israel's political and military establishment appears to be tilting toward one of his long-ignored views: Israeli support for Iran's opposition movement—and not a miltary strike—is the best way to combat the regime in Tehran.

 A voice of reason and moderation, a much needed one.

"A military strike will at best delay Iran's nuclear program, but what's worse, it will rally the Iranian people to the defense of the regime," says Mr. Lubrani, who was ambassador to Iran from 1973 to 1978 and is now a special adviser to Israel's minister of defense. "We must do everything possible to help (the protest movement) do the job."

All the Right Places: A few Lubrani career highlights

* Pre-1948: Fought for Israel's pre-statehood militia.
* 1952-1961: Senior aide to Prime Minister Ben Gurion.
* 1963-1967: Ambassador to Uganda. Survived plane crash with Idi Amin.
* 1967-1971: Ambassador to Ethiopia. Smuggled first Ethiopian Jew to Israel.
* 1973-1978: Iran ambassador.
* 1983-2000: Managed the Israeli government's activities in Lebanon.

Rafi Eitan, an adviser to Mr. Netanyahu, says the protests "changed people's attitudes here. They started to understand that this should be done the way Lubrani has been saying it should be done."

He has quite a track record of understanding Israel's neighbors.


Heading Israeli government activities in Lebanon since 1983, he was one of the first to warn of Iran's growing influence among the country's Shiites. His recommendations were largely neglected and Hezbollah soon emerged as one of Israel's most potent foes. "Lubrani was one of the few, the very few, to identify that Israel should find a way to the Shiites before Iran did," recalls retired Brig. Gen. Shimon Shapira, who was an intelligence officer in Lebanon at the time. More recently, as Iran's nuclear program grew and Washington and Israel hardened their views, Mr. Lubrani's calls to support what appeared to be a beaten-down opposition seemed out of touch.

 Admirers point to his track record as reason to heed his advice. Mr. Lubrani was named ambassador to Iran in 1973, after a string of posts as envoy to countries neighboring Israel's Arab enemies. In 1977, Mr. Lubrani was summoned to the Shah's private resort island of Kish—giving him a first-hand look at the bubble of decadence the Shah had retreated into, he says. Kish had a landing strip serving a Concorde jet that airlifted delicacies to the island each day from Paris and kept the island's boutiques stocked with the latest French fashions, recalls Mr. Lubrani. After returning to Tehran, he ran into Iran's long-time prime minister, Amir Abbas Hoveyda, who openly called the island "a pit of corruption and decadence," a striking breach of diplomatic protocol, says Mr. Lubrani.

The US did not then, and one wonders if it does now, understand the negative meaning of the Shah, how hated and corrupt he was; what the US was an anti-communist ally, and ignored the dirty details of his corruption.


Mr. Lubrani warned Israel's foreign minister, Moshe Dayan, that the regime's days were numbered, according to Mr. Lubrani and senior government officials at the time. Harold Rhode, who retired last month after 28 years as a Pentagon analyst, much of it focused on Iran, says "Lubrani's warning got back to Washington, and the CIA laughed at it. The U.S. told Israel it's not true." Mr. Lubrani's successor was evacuated just weeks after arriving in Tehran, as the Islamic Revolution swept the country.


"Uri is by far the best authority Israel has on Iran," says Bernard Lewis, the influential Middle East historian and a decadeslong friend of Mr. Lubrani. "He's demonstrated that on more than one occasion by being right when everybody else was wrong, and he still has difficulty getting anyone to listen to him."

How Bambi Met James Bond

Israeli robots remake battlefield

Israel is developing an army of robotic fighting machines that offers a window onto the potential future of warfare.

Sixty years of near-constant war, a low tolerance for enduring casualties in conflict, and its high-tech industry have long made Israel one of the world's leading innovators of military robotics.

A tiny country is one of the world's leading high-tech hubs.


Over 40 countries have military-robotics programs today. The U.S. and much of the rest of the world is betting big on the role of aerial drones: Even Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite guerrilla force in Lebanon, flew four Iranian-made drones against Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War.




One shudders to think of Hezbollah using drones.


When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it had just a handful of drones. Today, U.S. forces have around 7,000 unmanned vehicles in the air and an additional 12,000 on the ground, used for tasks including reconnaissance, airstrikes and bomb disposal.

7,000 aerial drones produce an overwhelming volume of data.

In 10 to 15 years, one-third of Israel's military machines will be unmanned, predicts Giora Katz, vice president of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., one of Israel's leading weapons manufacturers.


"The Israelis do it differently, not because they're more clever than we are, but because they live in a tough neighborhood and need to respond fast to operational issues," says Thomas Tate, a former U.S. Army lieutenant colonel who now oversees defense cooperation between the U.S. and Israel.

 Their needs are too great to allow them to get bogged down. Every Israeli knows that the nation's security depends on getting things done.

Among the recently deployed technologies that set Israel ahead of the curve is the Guardium unmanned ground vehicle, which now drives itself along the Gaza and Lebanese borders. The Guardium was deployed to patrol for infiltrators in the wake of the abduction of soldiers doing thesame job in 2006. The Guardium, developed by G-nius Ltd., is essentially an armored off-road golf cart with a suite of optical sensors and surveillance gear. It was put into the field for the first time 10 months ago.

A fascinating website of a company with some innovative products. Rafael, too, is a fascinating website.

After bomb-laden fishing boats tried to take out an Israeli Navy frigate off the coast off Gaza in 2002, Rafael designed the Protector SV, an unmanned, heavily armed speedboat that today makes up a growing part of the Israeli naval fleet. The Singapore Navy has also purchased the boat and is using it in patrols in the Persian Gulf.


That is the Protector.


Military analysts say unmanned fighting vehicles could have a far-reaching strategic impact on the sort of asymmetrical conflicts the U.S. is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan and that Israel faces against enemies such as Hezbollah and Hamas. In such conflicts, robotic vehicles will allow modern conventional armies to minimize the advantages guerrilla opponents gain by their increased willingness to sacrifice their lives in order to inflict casualties on the enemy.





Suicide bombers could be partially neutralized with such technology.

However, there are also fears that when countries no longer fear losing soldiers' lives in combat thanks to the ability to wage war with unmanned vehicles, they may prove more willing to initiate conflict.


A legitimate concern.


In coming years, engineers say unmanned air, sea and ground vehicles will increasingly work together without any human involvement. Israel and the U.S. have already faced backlash over civilian deaths caused by drone-fired missiles in Gaza, Pakistan and Afghanistan. Those ethical dilemmas could increase as robots become more independent of their human masters.


Independence?

Obama’s Foreign Engagement Scorecard

STATESMAN President Obama brokered a climate agreement in Copenhagen Friday.




He must have the skill and personality needed for brokering compromises. Much of the world does look to the US for leadership, but it is a challenge to translate that to practical results.

If there is a one-word handle that fits the conduct of foreign relations in Barack Obama’s first year as president, it is “engagement.” The Obama administration has engaged with Iran, Russia, Burma, Sudan, North Korea. “Engagement” sounds harmless — something any sensible administration would do (though the Bush administration apparently did far less of it).

But what, in fact, does President Obama have to show for “engagement” itself? And how do you keep score? He has just emerged from Copenhagen having brokered an agreement, however modest, on climate change. Does that count?

There is difficulty in measuring progress, yet less than a year has passed since he took office. It seems very early to make judgments. Of course, that does not stop pundits from doing so.

To some conservatives, engagement thus sounds like a euphemism for “appeasement.” Max Boot, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, argues, “There is a perception around the world that Obama is proceeding on bended knee to our enemies, and they’re rebuffing us contemptuously.”

How does this pundit know what perceptions there are "around the world"?

Iran is both the most important, and the most passionately disputed, case. Engagement here would seem to have been a failure — but only if you take the policy wholly at face value. One senior administration official who was not authorized to speak on the record says that while the offer of engagement was “never just an instrument or a ploy,” and remains on the table, the very public effort to exhaust all available means of persuasion has helped move Europe, Russia and China toward a tougher stance.

Perhaps, then, the ultimate measure of the success of the engagement policy will be the extent to which the good will President Obama has generated will tip the balance in the hard bargaining before his administration — over assistance from allies in Afghanistan, over new approaches to the Middle East and the international economic structure, and, most immediately, in the struggle to reach a meaningful agreement on how to slow global warming — an issue where the global good collides with the most basic questions of national interest. The credit Mr. Obama has earned will have to stretch a very long way.

Empire Green Persia?

Iranian activists -- trying to blanket New York City with their trademark green color -- lobbied to bathe the top of the Empire State Building in green light all this week during their rallies against Iran's president, who is visiting the United Nations.

The request was rejected. But on Thursday, to the protesters' delight, it will be green anyway, for another reason: an "Emerald Gala" for the 70th anniversary of the film "The Wizard of Oz."

* Empire State Building lighting schedule

Syria Cracks Open Its Frail Economy

Syria is accelerating its economic opening – boosting U.S. hopes that its tight relationship with Iran might be weakened.

For decades, Syria has been defined by its rigid socialist economy and its military ties to Iran against Israel and the West. Trade sanctions have taken a heavy toll: More than half the 16 jets in Syria's state airline can't fly for lack of spare parts.

The Baath Socialists were connected with the Baath Party of Iraq.

But President Bashar Assad – heir to his family's political dynasty – has started unshackling the economy by permitting private banks and insurers to open shop and by letting Syrians hold foreign currency without risk of being tossed in jail. In March, he opened Syria's first stock exchange. Nearby are a Ford showroom and a KFC restaurant.

A socialist dynasty; interesting term.

President Assad's changes face pushback at home. Top members of Syria's ruling Baath Party say he is betraying the socialist agenda of his father, Hafez Assad, who served as president for three decades before his death in 2000. Liberal economists, meanwhile, say he isn't going far enough.

Sounds familiar.

Clinton's 'Defense Umbrella' Stirs Tensions

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, center, arrives in Phuket, Thailand, on Wednesday for the Asean meeting, amid human-rights concerns in Myanmar.








U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton caused waves in the Middle East during her visit to Southeast Asia, telling a Thai television program that Washington could extend a "defense umbrella" to protect its Arab allies if Iran succeeds in developing nuclear weapons.

Surround Iran with a nuclear threat to contain it. Sounds a rather familiar strategy: Soviet containment.

She also warned Southeast Asian nations about North Korea potentially exporting nuclear technology to their neighbor Myanmar, and sought the help of foreign ministers in ensuring North Korea's "irreversible denuclearization."

Myanmar with a nuclear capability?

But her comments on Iran left the impression among some Middle East diplomats Wednesday that the U.S. envisions having to find ways to defend its Persian Gulf allies from a nuclear-armed Iran -- rather than preventing Tehran from ever getting that far.

Well, it is not a new policy, goes the spin of a "senior U.S. official close to Mrs. Clinton."

But to some Middle East diplomats, the idea of a "defense umbrella" sounded like a nuclear shield reminiscent of the strategy Washington employed against the Soviet Union during the Cold War -- suggesting the Obama administration was contemplating the need to contain Iran's nuclear program, if it can't be eliminated.

Having an "if" option is prudent and responsible, but hinting at it publicly is something entirely different. For the Secretary to say so wasn't a slip, but an intended signal, a clear message.

Israel's minister of intelligence and atomic energy, Dan Meridor, told a military radio station that Mrs. Clinton's remarks indicated that the U.S. had "already come to terms with a nuclear Iran," he said, according to the Associated Press. "I think that's a mistake."

Israel will nto allow Iran to have a bomb; not if it can help it. Arab states, on the other hand, want the shield, and wwant Washington to be more aggressive.

"The danger in the statement [by Mrs. Clinton] is the implication that the defense umbrella will only be extended if or when Iran gains a nuclear capability," said the Arab official.

Don't want until it is a fact that Iran has a nuclear capacity; start now. Moscow, Beijing and Delhi may not go along with putting more pressure on Tehran. In fact, the recent instability in Iran is being cited as a reason to give Tehran more time to respond.

Meanwhile, U.S. and United Nations officials acknowledge that Tehran's nuclear activities continue unimpeded. Officials from the U.N.'s nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency, have reported that Tehran is moving close to amassing enough low-enriched uranium to produce a nuclear weapon, provided the material is processed further to weapons grade. Once Iran reaches this breakout capability, said U.S. and Middle East officials, the strategic balance in the Middle East could begin to shift and prompt other regional countries to pursue nuclear programs.

Thus, Russia, China and India are ready to accept Iran having a nuclear capability. Surely the first two want to prevent the US consolidating its hegemony in the region; perhaps India does, as well.

Clinton warns on N. Korea and Iran

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton during a meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Phuket, Thailand on Wednesday.



July 23, 2009
Clinton Issues Warnings on North Korea and Iran
By MARK LANDLER

PHUKET, Thailand — Stiffening the American line against two nuclear-minded countries, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned Wednesday that the United States would not offer North Korea any sweeteners to return to talks and would consider extending a “defense umbrella” over the Middle East if Iran does not heed calls to halt its nuclear weapons program.

Mrs. Clinton clarified later that her comments on Iran, delivered in advance of a regional meeting here, did not represent a change in the Obama administration’s policy, which is to prevent Tehran from obtaining a bomb. But her words suggested that the administration is at least contemplating how to cope with a nuclear-armed Iran, should all efforts at negotiation fail.

After meeting the foreign ministers of China, Russia, Japan and South Korea, Mrs. Clinton said they were united in demanding that North Korea undertake a “complete and irreversible denuclearization” before receiving any economic or political incentives from these countries.

She did not detail the steps that would be part of such a process, though she confirmed they could include the disabling of the Yongbyon nuclear facility, where the North Koreans are reprocessing fuel rods to recover plutonium, and the surrender of its plutonium stockpile.

“We do not intend to reward North Korea just for returning to the table, nor do we intend to reward them for actions they have already committed to taking and then reneged on,” Mrs. Clinton said at a news conference in this island resort, where Asian and other countries are meeting.

The United States has had an uncharacteristically visible presence at this gathering of the Association of South East Nations, or Asean. It signed a friendship treaty with Asean’s 10 members and called on one country, Myanmar, to release the imprisoned pro-democracy leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi.

But nuclear tensions overshadowed talk of human rights and climate change. Mrs. Clinton’s reference to a defense umbrella in the Middle East, which came during a televised town hall meeting in Bangkok, raised some eyebrows because it could be interpreted as an implicit acknowledgment that the international efforts to stop Iran from developing a bomb may fail.

Mrs. Clinton’s invocation of a defense umbrella is reminiscent of the so-called nuclear umbrella that Washington extends to its Asian allies — implicitly, the promise of an American reprisal if its allies are attacked by nuclear weapons. But she did not use the term nuclear, and a senior State Department official cautioned that her remarks should not be interpreted to mean that.

Israel’s minister of intelligence and atomic energy, Dan Meridor, told Israeli army radio, “I was not thrilled to hear the American statement from yesterday that they will protect their allies with a nuclear umbrella, as if they have already come to terms with a nuclear Iran. I think that’s a mistake.”

Mrs. Clinton, however, denied she was signaling any change in the American position. Rather, she said, she was trying to make even starker the choice that Iran faces if it does not agree to abandon its program.

Speaking to an audience at a former royal palace, Mrs. Clinton said, “We want Iran to calculate what I think is a fair assessment that if the U.S. extends a defense umbrella over the region, if we do even more to support the military capacity of those in the Gulf, it’s unlikely that Iran will be any stronger or safer, because they won’t be able to intimidate and dominate, as they apparently believe they can, once they have a nuclear weapon.”

The administration has talked about bolstering the military capacity of Iran’s neighbors in the Persian Gulf so they could better meet the threat of a heavily armed Iran. It has also defended the proposed missile defense system in Eastern Europe as a potential shield against Iran.

“It faces the prospect, if it pursues nuclear weapons, of sparking an arms race in the region,” Mrs. Clinton said. “That should affect the calculation of what Iran intends to do, and what it believes is in its national security interest.”

The administration has said little, if anything, publicly about a defense umbrella, though Dennis B. Ross, a senior White House adviser on Iran and the Gulf region, endorsed the concept of a nuclear umbrella before he joined the administration. As a presidential candidate, Mrs. Clinton called for a security umbrella to be extended over Israel and Persian Gulf nations.

On North Korea, Mrs. Clinton tried to project a united front, saying that China, Russia, Japan and South Korea had pledged to carry out the United Nations sanctions adopted against the North after its recent nuclear and missile tests. These include banning arms shipments and squeezing North Korea’s financing for nuclear and missile technology.

Mrs. Clinton also reiterated concerns that North Korea may be transferring nuclear technology to Myanmar, which American officials refer to by its former name, Burma. North Korea sent representatives to this meeting, but American officials declined to say whether they had any contact with them.

Mrs. Clinton is to deliver a statement on North Korea on Thursday. In an excerpt provided to reporters, the tone remained unyielding, but the United States pledged to give North Korea “significant economic and energy assistance” if it undertakes a verifiable denuclearization.

Mrs. Clinton was stern at the foreign ministers’ meeting, where she demanded that Myanmar release Mrs. Aung San Suu Kyi, who faces the possibility of years of prison time on charges that she violated her house arrest.

After Mrs. Clinton finished, a senior official said, she fixed the representative from Myanmar with a long gaze.

“It’s so critical that she be released from this persecution that she has been under,” she said later at the news conference. “If she were released, that would open up opportunities, at least for my country, to expand our relationship with Burma, including investments in Burma.”

Mr. Obama extended a ban on American investments in Myanmar in May, but an official said the president could rescind it.

Iran May Face ‘Disintegration’

President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in Tehran on Saturday. His disputed victory in the election stirred more criticism on Sunday.








In an implicit rebuke to Iran’s ruling elite, a conservative presidential candidate warned Sunday that the political and social rifts opened by the disputed June 12 vote and subsequent crackdown could lead to the nation’s “disintegration” if they were not resolved soon.

The candidate, Mohsen Rezai, made his warning in a long statement about the election and its bloody aftermath, in which he called for reconciliation and spoke about the danger of “imprisoning” the legacy of the Islamic Revolution in divisive and shortsighted politics. The statement was posted on his Web site.

Although his message was largely nonpartisan, Mr. Rezai hinted that the government response after the election had been unfair, and he urged protesters to continue their work in legal and nonviolent channels.

Like the three other opposition candidates, Mr. Rezai, a former chief of the elite Revolutionary Guards, initially said he believed that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s landslide victory involved ballot-rigging. Mr. Rezai later withdrew his legal challenge to the results, citing the need for unity.

Mr. Rezai’s statement is the latest sign that opposition to Mr. Ahmadinejad — despite the violent crackdown on street protests and stern warnings by government leaders — has not faltered. On Sunday, Iran’s Expediency Council delivered a victory to opposition supporters by upholding a law that would prevent government officials from simultaneously serving on the powerful Guardian Council, which is responsible for approving candidates and certifying election results.

In Iran, a Struggle Beyond the Streets

Clerics during prayers in June. Many religious leaders have not spoken out in support of Iran’s president or supreme leader.








The streets of Iran have been largely silenced, but a power struggle grinds on behind the scenes, this time over the very nature of the state itself. It is a battle that transcends the immediate conflict over the presidential election, one that began 30 years ago as the Islamic Revolution established a new form of government that sought to blend theocracy and a measure of democracy.

That is more than has been reported; the analysis offered was that the protests were over what seemed election fraud, and only that.

From the beginning, both have vied for an upper hand, and today both are tarnished. In postelection Iran, there is growing unease among many of the nation’s political and clerical elite that the very system of governance they rely on for power and privilege has been stripped of its religious and electoral legitimacy, creating a virtual dictatorship enforced by an emboldened security apparatus, analysts said.

Well, it was always a dictatorship, for candidates had to be approved by a board of clerics before gaining permission to run in elections.

Most telling, and arguably most damning, is that many influential religious leaders have not spoken out in support of the beleaguered president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Indeed, even among those who traditionally have supported the government, many have remained quiet or even offered faint but unmistakable criticisms.

Yet Ayatollah Khamenei, Mr. Ahmadinejad and their allies still have a monopoly over the most powerful levers of state. They control the police, the courts and the prosecutor’s office. They control the military and the militia forces. And they retain the loyalty of a core group of powerful clerics and their conservative followers: for example, a hard-line cleric who heads the Qum Seminary, Ayatollah Morteza Moghtadai, said on Tuesday that “the case is closed.” No one, not even restive clerics, is in a position to strip this group of its power in the short term.

But the long term is what is in play as this conflict evolves.

For now, Iran’s most hard-line forces have been emboldened. Mr. Ahmadinejad’s spiritual adviser, Ayatollah Muhammad Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, has said elected institutions are anathema to a religious government and should be no more than window dressing.

At least he's honest about it.

To understand the nature of the conflict, it is essential to look back to the founding of the republic. Ayatollah Khomeini built on two different and often contradictory principles, one of public accountability and one of religious authority. To tie it all together, Ayatollah Khomeini imported a centuries-old religious idea, called velayat-e faqih, or governance of the Islamic jurist. Shiite Muslims believe that they are awaiting the return of the 12th Imam, and under this religious concept the faqih, or supreme leader, serves in his place as a sort of divine deputy.

The competing poles of Iran’s system have produced a fight-to-the-death ethos. Compromise is not just elusive but a sign of weakness.

Obama and Israel

Dershowitz is one of the sharpest and clearest commentators around today.

Are fears of Obama "turning" on Israel justified?

Rhetorically, the Obama team has definitely taken a harsher approach toward Israel compared to its tone during the campaign. But has there been a change in substance about Israel's security? In answering this question, it is essential to distinguish between several aspects of American policy.

An important distinction between rhetoric and substance, one too often ignored by pundits, blowhards and demagogues in politics and the media.

First there are the settlements.

A contentious point, laden with emotion, a perfect point of cleavage between opponents, easily placing a wedge and making compromise difficult.

I believe there is a logical compromise on settlement growth that has been proposed by Yousef Munayyer, a leader of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination League. "Obama should make it clear to the Israelis that settlers should feel free to grow their families as long as their settlements grow vertically, and not horizontally," he wrote last month in the Boston Globe. In other words, build "up" rather than "out." This seems fair to both sides, since it would preserve the status quo for future negotiations that could lead to a demilitarized Palestinian state and Arab recognition of Israel as a Jewish one – results sought by both the Obama administration and Israel.

The "other side" might have a good idea; what a novel, refreshing concept.

the Obama position on settlement expansion, whether one agrees with it or not, is not at all inconsistent with support for Israel. It may be a different position from that of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, but it is not a difference that should matter to most Jewish voters who support both Mr. Obama and Israel.

Exactly: Bibi is not Israel, but its current PM.

The differences that would matter are those – if they exist – that directly impact Israel's security. And in terms of Israel's security, nothing presents a greater threat than Iran.

The Obama administration consistently says that Iran should not be allowed to develop nuclear weapons. But prior to the current unrest in the Islamic Republic, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel frightened many supporters of Israel in May by appearing to link American efforts to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons to Israeli actions with regard to the settlements.

This is a disturbing linkage that should be disavowed by the Obama administration. Opposition to a nuclear Iran – which would endanger the entire world – should not be dependent in any way on the issue of settlement expansion.

However: Thankfully, the Obama administration's point man on this issue, Dennis Ross, shows no signs of weakening American opposition to a nuclear-armed Iran.

There may be coming changes in the Obama administration's policies that do weaken the security of the Jewish state. Successful presidential candidates often soften their support for Israel once they are elected. So with Iran's burgeoning nuclear threat, it's important to be vigilant for any signs of weakening support for Israel's security – and to criticize forcefully any such change. But getting tough on settlement expansion should not be confused with undercutting Israel's security.

McCain Hits Obama On Iran Again, Joe Klein Tells Him "Be Quiet"

McCain Hits Obama On Iran Again, Joe Klein Tells Him "Be Quiet" (VIDEO)

Sen. John McCain continued to rap President Barack Obama for his measured reaction to the crisis in Iran, which McCain said was inadequate in its support for the protestors of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's contested re-election.Appearing on C-Span's Washington Journal on Tuesday morning, the Arizona Republican said that when it came to Iran, Obama response "has not been enough."

Easy to take potshots from the sidelines.

Saying that he expected Obama to "come out more strongly" during his press conference on Tuesday, McCain urged the man who defeated him in the 2008 campaign to "follow the example of our founding fathers that declared that all of us are endowed with certain inalienable rights."

Not sure, but I do think that the Founders were speaking of people in what is now the United States, not Persia.

"Sen. Daniel Webster, when the Greeks rose up against the Turks in 1823, I would love to give you the full quote, but he said it is our duty to stand up for people who are struggling for freedom," McCain said. "That is what America is."

He'd gine the full quote if he knew it, surely.

As for George Washington's famous farewell address, warning of the perils of foreign entanglements, McCain did not mention it.

Ignore what contradicts your argument, of course.

The line pushed by McCain has become the de-facto Republican criticism of Obama since the crisis in Iran began. The president has expressed his concern with the rising violence in the country as well as the obvious inaccuracies in the presidential vote. But he has avoided outright support for the seating of opposition candidate Mir Hossein Moussavi.

That would be interference in the internal matters of Iran, and would be counter-productive.

The measured manner of Obama's response, while criticized by some, has been described as essential by many foreign policy observers. On Monday night, Time Magazine's Joe Klein applauded the president for his approach. And when asked about earlier McCain's remarks, he urged the Arizona Republican to stop talking.

Those who need to act responsibly, that is.

"Be quiet," said Klein. "You don't need to do this. You know? You know what you're doing is a self-indulgent at this point. Sen. McCain, if he's going to talk about this, should also talk about the fact that the United States supported Saddam Hussein in the Iran/Iraq war for eight years. Every one of those protesters out in the streets, every last one of them believes the United States supplied Saddam Hussein with the poison gas that has debilitated tens of thousands of Iranian men."

Let alone 1954.

Don't bother

Iran Diplomats Uninvited to Party

Well, the Iranian diplomats probably would have been party-poopers anyway. The State Department has rescinded its invitation to Iranian envoys for its July 4 wienie roast, saying that the Iranians are no longer welcome. The invitation, approved by Hillary Clinton herself, was given a great deal of press several weeks ago, as it was a concrete sign of improving relations between the two countries. President Obama said Tuesday that it was up to the Iranians to decide if they still wanted to attend. But today, a State Department spokesman told the Associated Press that "the U.S. saw little reason for them to (attend) given the political crisis over their disputed presidential election."

Read it at The Associated Press

There were no cheatin'

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei delivers a sermon during Friday prayers at Tehran University on Friday










Iran's Ayatollah: Stop protesting or deal with 'consequences' Calls Ahmadinejad's reelection an "absolute victory" and blames west for unrest. Blah, blah, blah.

He called Britain the biggest evil. Bigger than America the Great Satan? We're making progress, of sorts. Blaming outsiders for unrest is a time-tested way to deflect criticism, but it ignores the domestic truth: there is popular dissatisfaction.

• China Orders Google to Cut Services

I guess the Politburo hasn't been watching teevee; in the age of Twitter and camera cellphones, communications can not be restricted.

Khamenei Praises Vote Iran's supreme leader said there was "definitive victory" and no rigging in disputed elections, offering no concession to protesters demanding the vote be held again.

• Google Adds Farsi to Translation Tools
• U.S., Europe Play Good-Cop, Bad-Cop
• Graphics: Iran's Power Structure | Timeline
• Video | | Photos

"The U.S. president said 'We were waiting for a day like this to see people on the street,'" Mr. Khamenei said. "They write to us and say they respect the Islamic Republic and then they make comments like this.... Which one should we believe?"

Dismissing Obama won't be that easy.

The Friday prayer was televised live on state-run Channel One. The camera showed Mr. Ahmadinejad sitting in the front row and conservative candidate Mohsen Rezaei a few rows back. It wasn't clear whether Mr. Mousavi or Mehdi Karroubi had accepted the leader's invitation to come to the prayers.

Meanwhile, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 405-1 Friday to condemn Tehran's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communications.

Do I hear the whimper of irrelevancy?

Iran today

Thousands of supporters of the opposition leader Mir Hussein Moussavi marched in Tehran on Wednesday.

• U.N. Atomic Energy Chief Says Iran Wants Bomb Technology

• Iran’s Latest Protests Seen as the Toughest to Stop

• Reporter's Notebook: Innocent Googling? No Such Thing in Tehran

With a Hint to Twitter, Washington Taps Into a Potent New Force in Diplomacy
Obama Warns Against Direct Involvement by U.S. in Iran

Later in the day, more reporting on the protests.

One story contained this:

The sense of threat against the opposition was growing. Reuters reported that Mohammadreza Habibi, the senior prosecutor in the central province of Isfahan, had warned demonstrators that they could be executed under Islamic law.

“We warn the few elements controlled by foreigners who try to disrupt domestic security by inciting individuals to destroy and to commit arson that the Islamic penal code for such individuals waging war against God is execution,” Mr. Habibi said, according to the Fars news agency. It was not clear if his warning applied only to Isfahan, where there have been violent clashes, or the country as a whole, Reuters said.

Election: lost, or stolen?

In this news analysis, curious grammar and sentence construction. To wit:

It is impossible to know for sure how much the ostensible re-election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad represents the preference of an essentially conservative Iranian public and how much, as opposition voters passionately believe, it is the imposed verdict of a fundamentally authoritarian regime.

Fundamentally authoritarian? Does authoritarian merit qualification? A sham election is also mentioned.

Domestically, Mr. Ahmadinejad appealed to the fears of the more pious and poor who found change unsettling. This included those alarmed by the days of political street carnival preceding the election and those (not just men) put off by Mr. Moussavi’s attention to the traditional, second-class role of women in this paternalistic quasi-theocracy.

Quasi-theocracy? It either is, or it isn't a theocracy, right? An a ham-handed defiance of the West is added. Ham-handed is a curious choice of metaphor regarding an Islamic country that abstains from pork.

Aside from language, the politics of the election aren't encouraging. The mullahs have spoken.

News today

In Iran Race, Ex-Leader Works to Oust President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani has helped define the race by his feud with President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

U.S. Commander in Afghanistan Is Given More Leeway Gen. Stanley McChrystal has a wide berth to pick a dream team of subordinates as he moves to carry out a new strategy for combating the Taliban

Doctors’ Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan Opposition by the American Medical Association could be a hurdle for advocates of a government-sponsored insurance plan.

A Paris Plan, Less Grand Than Gritty France’s president has scaled back his ambition to redesign Paris, but still plans to improve the city’s transportation and housing stock.

Videos Reveal Sotomayor’s Positions on Affirmative Action and Other Issues

U.S. Saw Problems on the Way at Merrill
E-mails from the Federal Reserve indicate Bank of America’s executives were pressed to stay quiet about Merrill Lynch’s financial condition, a document written by House Republicans claims.

U.S. Pushes a Troubled Citigroup to Heal Itself
As other banks prepare to exit the bailout program, the government is tightening its grip on Citigroup, calling for change at the bank.

Fiat Deal With Chrysler Seals Swift 42-Day Overhaul
The speed with which the automaker’s restructuring plan swept through the court system was seen as an important victory for the Obama administration.

A New Iran overture: Hot Dogs

SAN SALVADOR — Having sent the Iranian people a video greeting on their New Year, President Obama is now inviting them to help celebrate a quintessentially American holiday, the Fourth of July.

Last Friday, the State Department sent a cable to its embassies and consulates around the world notifying them that “they may invite representatives from the government of Iran” to their Independence Day celebrations — annual receptions that typically feature hot dogs, red-white-and-blue bunting and some perfunctory remarks about the founding fathers.

They'll have to be beef hot dogs.

“It is another way of saying we are not putting barriers in the way of communicating,” said one administration official. “It is another way of signaling that there is an opportunity that should not be wasted.”

You want ketchup on that hot dog, fine; we use mustard in the US, but that should not bar us from talking.

The authorization to issue the invitations was disclosed by a senior State Department official on the eve of a three-day visit to Latin America by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because the new policy was not public.

Wonder if that State Department official was Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Even as the United States reaches out to Tehran, it is trying to reclaim American influence in Latin America, where Iran has made inroads while the United States has been waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush could only think about Iraq and Afghanistan? Condi Rice?

On Monday, Mrs. Clinton was in El Salvador to attend the inauguration of Mauricio Funes, whose election as president represents the first time the country has swung to the left since its civil war ended in 1992. She will be in Honduras on Tuesday for a meeting of the Organization of American States. The United States is expected to face intense pressure from Cuba’s neighbors to reinstate the island’s membership in the group.

Mrs. Clinton has said Iran’s rising influence in the region is “quite disturbing.” In May, she told State Department employees that the Bush administration’s policy toward Latin America had created an opening for Iran and China, which are using commercial and other assistance to bolster anti-American leaders like Hugo Chávez of Venezuela and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua.

“They are building strong economic and political connections with a lot of these leaders,” she said. “I don’t think that’s in our interest.”

Not at all, and although we do meddle in their neighborhood, it's the Middle East.

“The specter of Iran raises red flags in a way that China doesn’t, because China tends to respect the American sphere of influence,” said Julia E. Sweig, a Latin American expert at the Council on Foreign Relations.

Oman Navigates Between Iran and Arab Nations

Oman’s other neighbors are wary of its relations with Iran.


The close ties between Iran and Oman, and the reasons behind them, help explain the West’s failure to cripple Iran with trade sanctions, as well as the inability of Iran’s Arab opponents to build a unified opposition to its growing regional influence.


Iran's total area is 1.648 million sq km (slightly larger than Alaska). Its coastline is 2,440 km, 740 on the Caspian Sea, 1,700 on the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean.

Oman's total area is 212,460 sq km (slightly smaller than Kansas). Its coastline is 2,092 km.











Iranian smugglers operating last month at a port in Khasab, Oman, across the Strait of Hormuz from Iran. The smuggling is aided and taxed by officials in Oman.









Goods are moved on the shore at Khasab. The local government in Oman coordinates deliveries to the smugglers’ boats.

Week in review: Obama’s first three months

Saw this last night on World Focus. Gelb said that in "five to ten years, Iran" might by an ally of the US.