Outside The Beltway | OTB » Israel

Destruction of a What?

Dave Schuler — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 15:16:53 +0000

There’s a fascinating article in Spiegel Online (in English) on “Operation Orchard”, the operation in September 2007 in Syria in which the Israeli air force destroyed what many have termed a “nuclear plant”, what the article calls “Syria’s Al Kibar nuclear reactor”, and the Syrians have characterized as a conventional military facility. Spiegel has interviewed Syrian, Israeli, and American leaders as well as confidential Syrian and Israeli sources to compile a mosaic of espionage, intrigue, assassination, and general international shenanigans.

Was it a nuclear plant, in which scientists were on the verge of completing the bomb? Were North Korean, perhaps even Iranian experts, also working in this secret Syrian facility? When and how did the Israelis learn about the project, and why did they take such a great risk to conduct their clandestine operation? Was the destruction of the Al Kibar complex meant as a final warning to the Iranians, a trial run of sorts intended to show them what the Israelis plan to do if Tehran continues with its suspected nuclear weapons program?

In recent months, SPIEGEL has spoken with key politicians and experts about the mysterious incident in the Syrian desert, including Syrian President Bashar Assad, leading Israeli intelligence expert Ronen Bergman, International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammed ElBaradei and influential American nuclear expert David Albright. SPIEGEL has also talked with individuals involved in the operation, who have only now agreed to reveal, under conditions of anonymity, what they know.

These efforts have led to an account that, while not solving the mystery in its entirety, at least delivers many pieces of the puzzle. It also offers an assessment of an operation that changed the Middle East and generated shock waves that are still being felt today.

The article has enough suggestions, claims, and innuendos to give nearly anyone food for thought at the very least.

The picture above is a satellite image of the facility that was destroyed.

Clearing the Path

Dave Schuler — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 20:54:33 +0000

If true this:

INTELLIGENCE chief Sir John Scarlett has been told that Saudi Arabia is ready to allow Israel to bomb Iran’s new nuclear site.

The head of MI6 discussed the issue in London with Mossad chief Meir Dagan and Saudi officials after British intelligence officers helped to uncover the plant, in the side of a mountain near the ancient city of Qom.

would deal with a major problem in the logistics of an attack by Israel on Iran, something I’ve been pointing out for the last four or five years. It still wouldn’t necessarily get the U. S. off the hook since the Israelis would still need to fly through airspace controlled by the U. S. but it would certainly make things easier.

An attack by Israel against Iran would be terribly risk and possibly even counter-productive. However, the combination of Israel’s terrible vulnerability to weapons of mass destruction, Iran’s continuing lies and misdirections, Ahmadinejad’s foolhardy rhetoric, and the international community’s manifest inability to deal with the situation brings us nearer to the brink seemingly with each passing day.

Today’s MUST Foreign Policy Reading

Dave Schuler — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 14:39:58 +0000

If you only read one thing today, read the for-the-record answers from the Director of National Intelligence to questions from the Senate Intelligence Committee in April 2009. At the very least read the tickler summary from the blog of the Federation of American Scientists, which has done a genuine service in obtaining this document under the Freedom of Information Act and is hosting it on its site (hat tip: Washington Post).

There is something to rain on practically every parade in these answers. The number of “security personnel” required for COIN in Afghanistan? 818,000. When will Iran produce highly-enriched (weapons-grade) uranium? 2013. Russia doesn’t have the ability to project a lot of military force beyond its borders.

This last comes as no surprise to me. Something we should always keep in mind: without nuclear weapons Russia is a regional power.

There’s tons more. Al Qaeda’s resilience and capabilities. The KSA’s terrorist rehab program. The KSA’s relationship with Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda in Africa. Iran’s role in supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan. How effective is the Pakistani army in dealing with the insurgency in the FATA? Pakistan’s stability. The relationship among the Iranian regime, HAMAS, and Hizbollah.

Here’s the statement on the status of Iraq’s ISF:

The capabilities of the ISF have continued to improve. The ISF’s increasing professionalism and improvements in war-fighting skills have allowed it to assume more responsibility for Iraq’s internal security, as demonstrated by the successful operations against Shia militants in Al Basrah, Sadr City, and Al Amarah, and against Sunni extremists in Diyala and Mosul. Despite these improvements, the ISF remains dependent on the U. S. for enabling capabilities such as logistics, fire support, and intelligence and will continue to require Coalition assistance during the next three years.

Short version: our military still has its work cut out for it in Iraq.

The provincial elections in Iraq. HAMAS capabilities. Hizbollah capabilities. Cyber-warfare by the Chinese government. Russia’s energy war. GITMO. The global economic crisis.

It’s truly a remarkable document. If nothing else it provides a keyhole view into the thinking of our intelligence community on a wide range of security issues. I’m still digesting it.

Iran’s Ham and Cheese Sandwich (Updated)

Dave Schuler — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 13:57:33 +0000

The Times of London is reporting that Iranian scientists are only waiting for the order to go before building a nuclear weapon:

Iran has perfected the technology to create and detonate a nuclear warhead and is merely awaiting the word from its Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to produce its first bomb, Western intelligence sources have told The Times.

The sources said that Iran completed a research programme to create weaponised uranium in the summer of 2003 and that it could feasibly make a bomb within a year of an order from its Supreme Leader.

A US National Intelligence Estimate two years ago concluded that Iran had ended its nuclear arms research programme in 2003 because of the threat from the American invasion of Iraq. But intelligence sources have told The Times that Tehran had halted the research because it had achieved its aim — to find a way of detonating a warhead that could be launched on its long-range Shehab-3 missiles.

They said that, should Ayatollah Khamenei approve the building of a nuclear device, it would take six months to enrich enough uranium and another six months to assemble the warhead. The Iranian Defence Ministry has been running a covert nuclear research department for years, employing hundreds of scientists, researchers and metallurgists in a multibillion-dollar programme to develop nuclear technology alongside the civilian nuclear programme.

I honestly don’t know what to make of this story. It reminds me of nothing so much as the old wisecrack “If I had some cheese, I could make a ham and cheese sandwich. If I had some ham.”

Of course Iran could build a nuclear weapon if it had the material and the will to do it. So could Andorra if it comes to that. The theoretical knowledge to build a nuclear weapon has been widely available for decades. There are two obstacles: the availability of fissile material and the engineering. To prove the engineering you’ve got to build a bomb.

I’m not going to bother to dredge up the fatwas against nuclear weapons that have been issued by Iranian clerics (Khamenei wrote such a fatwa in 2005). I’m sure Steve Hynd over at Newshoggers will be all over this story and will do it for me. I also don’t put a lot of truck in them. Where there’s a will, there’s a way.

I have little doubt that Iran at the very least wants to be able to build a nuclear weapon and I’d be flabbergasted if the Iranians didn’t have a covert program to exactly that effect. However, it also appears that they’ve run into a lot more difficulties in their enrichment program than they expected. I have no idea when they could produce enough HEU to produce a weapon and I doubt that anybody else does, either.

I think it may well be that what this particular article is actually about, rather than gauging the capabilities or frame of mind of the Iranians is an attempt to gauge the capabilities and frame of mind of the Israelis

Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defence Minister, last week reiterated that a military strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities was still an option, should the talks fail. Israeli officials estimate that a raid on Natanz and a nuclear facility at Arak, in central Iran, would set Iran’s nuclear programme back by two to three years.

I think that any limited attack on the Iranians, either by the Israelis or by us, would be a great error, advancing what it presumably sought to retard and an unlimited attack, either by the Israelis or us, in the absence of significantly more information than anybody seems to have in hand would be both immoral and politically foolhardy.

As Joseph Fouché put it more than 200 years ago, it would be worse than a crime, it would be a mistake.

UPDATE

As I expected Steve has posted on this report, too. His reaction is much the same as mine: this is old news.

Intelligence Agencies Claim Iranian Nuclear Weapons Program

Dave Schuler — Mon, 20 Jul 2009 18:58:16 +0000

Der Spiegel is reporting that the Bundesnachrichtendienst, Germany’s intelligence agency (BND), believes that Iran is about a year from testing a nuclear weapon:

As far as Iran is concerned, it is closer to being able to carry out a nuclear explosion than was previously thought. That is the opinion of Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, the BND. It’s a view shared by the relevant Israeli intelligence agencies — the Mossad and Israel’s military intelligence agency. According to their estimates, Iran could be in a position to carry out a nuclear bomb test — similar to those that North Korea recently carried out — within a period of approximately one year.

“According to the current assessment of the Mossad and Israeli military intelligence, Iran has solved all the technical problems associated with the assembly and operation of the centrifuges,” Israeli intelligence expert Ronen Bergman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. “It can produce low-enriched uranium and is theoretically capable of producing highly enriched uranium.” Highly enriched uranium is required to build a nuclear bomb.

If Iran continues at the current pace, “it could have enough highly enriched uranium for a test bomb by mid-2010,” says Bergman, the author of the 2008 book “The Secret War with Iran.”

The BND, whose information is likely to have come in part from the Israelis, takes a similar view of the situation. “The BND estimates that Iran, under ideal conditions, would be in the position to produce a nuclear test bomb under laboratory conditions within a period of less than five years,” a BND spokesman told SPIEGEL ONLINE. But the BND makes an important caveat: “That would still be a long way from a nuclear bomb or a weapons system.”

It’s somewhat difficult to determine whether this is one intelligence estimate or two. The Wall Street Journal is reporting on the same story:

The Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND), Germany’s foreign intelligence agency, has amassed evidence of a sophisticated Iranian nuclear weapons program that continued beyond 2003. This usually classified information comes courtesy of Germany’s highest state-security court. In a 30-page legal opinion on March 26 and a May 27 press release in a case about possible illegal trading with Iran, a special national security panel of the Federal Supreme Court in Karlsruhe cites from a May 2008 BND report, saying the agency “showed comprehensively” that “development work on nuclear weapons can be observed in Iran even after 2003.”

According to the judges, the BND supplemented its findings on August 28, 2008, showing “the development of a new missile launcher and the similarities between Iran’s acquisition efforts and those of countries with already known nuclear weapons programs, such as Pakistan and North Korea.”

The article goes on to condemn the 2007 U. S. NIE that found that Iran had suspended its program in 2003 in no uncertain terms:

The court’s decision and the BND’s reports raise the question of how, or why, U.S. intelligence officials could have come to the conclusion that Iran suspended its program in 2003. German intelligence officials wonder themselves. BND sources have told me that they have shared their findings and documentation with their U.S. colleagues ahead of the 2007 NIE report — as is customary between these two allies. It appears the Americans have simply ignored this evidence despite repeated warnings from the BND. This suggests not so much a failure of U.S. intelligence but its sabotage.

The politicized 2007 NIE report undermined the Bush Administration’s efforts to rally international support for tough action against Iran. The world’s best hope is that the Obama Administration is not being fed the same false sense of security.

In the light of this report it’s becoming increasingly difficult to hold that Iran isn’t developing nuclear weapons.

I find this story very interesting in the light of several other stories that have come out in recent months including North Korea’s recent missile test, Russia’s repeated statements of its lack of ability to influence Iran to abandon its nuclear development program, even yesterday’s report of a cure for radiation sickness. For one thing, apparently the BND is thinking along lines similar to those I’ve suggested. It may be more appropriate to consider the North Korean and Iranian development programs together rather than in isolation.

A dangerous world is becoming even more dangerous quickly.

Above Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad tours Natanz nuclear enrichment facility.

The Annotated Obama Cairo Speech

Dave Schuler — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 20:21:41 +0000

As promised after the break is the complete text of the speech President Obama gave in Cairo today with annotations.

I am honored to be in the timeless city of Cairo¹, and to be hosted by two remarkable institutions. For over a thousand years, Al-Azhar has stood as a beacon of Islamic learning, and for over a century, Cairo University² has been a source of Egypt’s advancement. Together, you represent the harmony between tradition and progress. I am grateful for your hospitality, and the hospitality of the people of Egypt. I am also proud to carry with me the goodwill of the American people, and a greeting of peace from Muslim communities in my country: assalaamu alaykum³.

We meet at a time of tension between the United States and Muslims around the world – tension rooted in historical forces that go beyond any current policy debate. The relationship between Islam and the West includes centuries of co-existence and cooperation, but also conflict and religious wars. More recently, tension has been fed by colonialism⁴ that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims, and a Cold War in which Muslim-majority countries were too often treated as proxies without regard to their own aspirations. Moreover, the sweeping change brought by modernity and globalization led many Muslims to view the West as hostile to the traditions of Islam.

Violent extremists have exploited these tensions in a small but potent minority of Muslims. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 and the continued efforts of these extremists to engage in violence against civilians has led some in my country to view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries, but also to human rights⁵. This has bred more fear and mistrust.

So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity. This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.

I have come here to seek a new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world; one based upon mutual interest and mutual respect⁶; and one based upon the truth that America and Islam are not exclusive, and need not be in competition. Instead, they overlap, and share common principles – principles of justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.

I do so recognizing that change cannot happen overnight. No single speech can eradicate years of mistrust, nor can I answer in the time that I have all the complex questions that brought us to this point. But I am convinced that in order to move forward, we must say openly the things we hold in our hearts, and that too often are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one another; and to seek common ground. As the Holy Koran⁷ tells us, “Be conscious of God and speak always the truth.” That is what I will try to do – to speak the truth as best I can, humbled by the task before us, and firm in my belief that the interests we share as human beings are far more powerful than the forces that drive us apart.

Part of this conviction is rooted in my own experience. I am a Christian, but my father came from a Kenyan family⁸ that includes generations of Muslims. As a boy, I spent several years in Indonesia and heard the call of the azaan at the break of dawn and the fall of dusk. As a young man, I worked in Chicago communities where many found dignity and peace in their Muslim faith.

As a student of history, I also know civilization’s debt to Islam⁹. It was Islam – at places like Al-Azhar University – that carried the light of learning through so many centuries, paving the way for Europe’s Renaissance and Enlightenment. It was innovation in Muslim communities that developed the order of algebra; our magnetic compass and tools of navigation; our mastery of pens and printing; our understanding of how disease spreads and how it can be healed. Islamic culture has given us majestic arches and soaring spires; timeless poetry and cherished music; elegant calligraphy and places of peaceful contemplation. And throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality.

I know, too, that Islam has always been a part of America’s story. The first nation to recognize my country was Morocco¹⁰. In signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, our second President John Adams wrote, “The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Muslims.” And since our founding, American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars, served in government, stood for civil rights, started businesses, taught at our Universities, excelled in our sports arenas, won Nobel Prizes, built our tallest building, and lit the Olympic Torch. And when the first Muslim-American was recently elected to Congress, he took the oath to defend our Constitution using the same Holy Koran that one of our Founding Fathers – Thomas Jefferson – kept in his personal library.

So I have known Islam on three continents before coming to the region where it was first revealed. That experience guides my conviction that partnership between America and Islam must be based on what Islam is, not what it isn’t. And I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear.

But that same principle must apply to Muslim perceptions of America. Just as Muslims do not fit a crude stereotype, America is not the crude stereotype of a self-interested empire. The United States has been one of the greatest sources of progress that the world has ever known. We were born out of revolution against an empire. We were founded upon the ideal that all are created equal, and we have shed blood and struggled for centuries to give meaning to those words – within our borders, and around the world. We are shaped by every culture, drawn from every end of the Earth, and dedicated to a simple concept: E pluribus unum: “Out of many, one.”¹¹

Much has been made of the fact that an African-American with the name Barack Hussein Obama could be elected President. But my personal story is not so unique. The dream of opportunity for all people has not come true for everyone in America, but its promise exists for all who come to our shores – that includes nearly seven million American Muslims¹² in our country today who enjoy incomes and education that are higher than average.

Moreover, freedom in America is indivisible from the freedom to practice one’s religion. That is why there is a mosque in every state of our union, and over 1,200 mosques within our borders. That is why the U.S. government has gone to court to protect the right of women and girls to wear the hijab, and to punish those who would deny it.

So let there be no doubt: Islam is a part of America. And I believe that America holds within her the truth that regardless of race, religion, or station in life, all of us share common aspirations – to live in peace and security; to get an education and to work with dignity; to love our families, our communities, and our God. These things we share. This is the hope of all humanity.

Of course, recognizing our common humanity is only the beginning of our task. Words alone cannot meet the needs of our people. These needs will be met only if we act boldly in the years ahead; and if we understand that the challenges we face are shared, and our failure to meet them will hurt us all.

For we have learned from recent experience that when a financial system weakens in one country, prosperity is hurt everywhere. When a new flu infects one human being, all are at risk. When one nation pursues a nuclear weapon, the risk of nuclear attack rises for all nations. When violent extremists operate in one stretch of mountains, people are endangered across an ocean. And when innocents in Bosnia¹³ and Darfur are slaughtered, that is a stain on our collective conscience. That is what it means to share this world in the 21st century. That is the responsibility we have to one another as human beings.

This is a difficult responsibility to embrace. For human history has often been a record of nations and tribes subjugating one another to serve their own interests. Yet in this new age, such attitudes are self-defeating. Given our interdependence, any world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will inevitably fail. So whatever we think of the past, we must not be prisoners of it. Our problems must be dealt with through partnership; progress must be shared.

That does not mean we should ignore sources of tension. Indeed, it suggests the opposite: we must face these tensions squarely. And so in that spirit, let me speak as clearly and plainly as I can about some specific issues that I believe we must finally confront together.

The first issue that we have to confront is violent extremism in all of its forms.

In Ankara, I made clear that America is not – and never will be – at war with Islam¹⁴. We will, however, relentlessly confront violent extremists who pose a grave threat to our security. Because we reject the same thing that people of all faiths reject: the killing of innocent men, women, and children. And it is my first duty as President to protect the American people.

The situation in Afghanistan¹⁵ demonstrates America’s goals, and our need to work together. Over seven years ago, the United States pursued al Qaeda and the Taliban with broad international support. We did not go by choice, we went because of necessity. I am aware that some question or justify the events of 9/11. But let us be clear: al Qaeda killed nearly 3,000 people on that day¹⁶. The victims were innocent men, women and children from America and many other nations who had done nothing to harm anybody. And yet Al Qaeda chose to ruthlessly murder these people, claimed credit for the attack, and even now states their determination to kill on a massive scale. They have affiliates in many countries and are trying to expand their reach. These are not opinions to be debated; these are facts to be dealt with.

Make no mistake: we do not want to keep our troops in Afghanistan. We seek no military bases there¹⁷. It is agonizing for America to lose our young men and women. It is costly and politically difficult to continue this conflict. We would gladly bring every single one of our troops home if we could be confident that there were not violent extremists in Afghanistan and Pakistan determined to kill as many Americans as they possibly can. But that is not yet the case.

That’s why we’re partnering with a coalition of forty-six countries. And despite the costs involved, America’s commitment will not weaken. Indeed, none of us should tolerate these extremists. They have killed in many countries. They have killed people of different faiths – more than any other, they have killed Muslims. Their actions are irreconcilable with the rights of human beings, the progress of nations, and with Islam. The Holy Koran teaches that whoever kills an innocent, it is as if he has killed all mankind; and whoever saves a person, it is as if he has saved all mankind. The enduring faith of over a billion people is so much bigger than the narrow hatred of a few. Islam is not part of the problem in combating violent extremism – it is an important part of promoting peace.

We also know that military power alone is not going to solve the problems in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That is why we plan to invest $1.5 billion each year over the next five years to partner with Pakistanis to build schools and hospitals, roads and businesses, and hundreds of millions to help those who have been displaced. And that is why we are providing more than $2.8 billion to help Afghans develop their economy and deliver services that people depend upon.

Let me also address the issue of Iraq¹⁸. Unlike Afghanistan, Iraq was a war of choice that provoked strong differences in my country and around the world. Although I believe that the Iraqi people are ultimately better off without the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, I also believe that events in Iraq have reminded America of the need to use diplomacy and build international consensus to resolve our problems whenever possible. Indeed, we can recall the words of Thomas Jefferson, who said: “I hope that our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us that the less we use our power the greater it will be.”

Today, America has a dual responsibility: to help Iraq forge a better future – and to leave Iraq to Iraqis. I have made it clear to the Iraqi people that we pursue no bases, and no claim on their territory or resources¹⁹. Iraq’s sovereignty is its own. That is why I ordered the removal of our combat brigades by next August. That is why we will honor our agreement with Iraq’s democratically-elected government to remove combat troops from Iraqi cities by July, and to remove all our troops from Iraq by 2012. We will help Iraq train its Security Forces and develop its economy. But we will support a secure and united Iraq as a partner, and never as a patron.

And finally, just as America can never tolerate violence by extremists, we must never alter our principles. 9/11 was an enormous trauma to our country. The fear and anger that it provoked was understandable, but in some cases, it led us to act contrary to our ideals. We are taking concrete actions to change course. I have unequivocally prohibited the use of torture by the United States²⁰, and I have ordered the prison at Guantanamo Bay closed by early next year.

So America will defend itself respectful of the sovereignty of nations and the rule of law. And we will do so in partnership with Muslim communities which are also threatened. The sooner the extremists are isolated and unwelcome in Muslim communities, the sooner we will all be safer.

The second major source of tension that we need to discuss is the situation between Israelis, Palestinians and the Arab world.

America’s strong bonds with Israel are well known. This bond is unbreakable. It is based upon cultural and historical ties, and the recognition that the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied.

Around the world, the Jewish people were persecuted for centuries, and anti-Semitism in Europe culminated in an unprecedented Holocaust²¹. Tomorrow, I will visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot and gassed to death by the Third Reich. Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction – or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews – is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland²². For more than sixty years they have endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small – that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: the situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.

For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. It is easy to point fingers – for Palestinians to point to the displacement brought by Israel’s founding, and for Israelis to point to the constant hostility and attacks throughout its history from within its borders as well as beyond. But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.

That is in Israel’s interest, Palestine’s interest, America’s interest, and the world’s interest. That is why I intend to personally pursue this outcome with all the patience that the task requires. The obligations that the parties have agreed to under the Road Map are clear. For peace to come, it is time for them – and all of us – to live up to our responsibilities.

Palestinians must abandon violence²³. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

Now is the time for Palestinians to focus on what they can build²⁴. The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people. Hamas does have support among some Palestinians, but they also have responsibilities. To play a role in fulfilling Palestinian aspirations, and to unify the Palestinian people, Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

At the same time, Israelis must acknowledge that just as Israel’s right to exist cannot be denied, neither can Palestine’s. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.

Israel must also live up to its obligations to ensure that Palestinians can live, and work, and develop their society. And just as it devastates Palestinian families, the continuing humanitarian crisis in Gaza does not serve Israel’s security; neither does the continuing lack of opportunity in the West Bank. Progress in the daily lives of the Palestinian people must be part of a road to peace, and Israel must take concrete steps to enable such progress.

Finally, the Arab States must recognize that the Arab Peace Initiative was an important beginning, but not the end of their responsibilities. The Arab-Israeli conflict should no longer be used to distract the people of Arab nations from other problems²⁵. Instead, it must be a cause for action to help the Palestinian people develop the institutions that will sustain their state; to recognize Israel’s legitimacy; and to choose progress over a self-defeating focus on the past.

America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs. We cannot impose peace. But privately, many Muslims recognize that Israel will not go away. Likewise, many Israelis recognize the need for a Palestinian state. It is time for us to act on what everyone knows to be true.

Too many tears have flowed. Too much blood has been shed²⁶. All of us have a responsibility to work for the day when the mothers of Israelis and Palestinians can see their children grow up without fear; when the Holy Land of three great faiths is the place of peace that God intended it to be; when Jerusalem is a secure and lasting home for Jews and Christians and Muslims, and a place for all of the children of Abraham to mingle peacefully together as in the story of Isra, when Moses, Jesus, and Mohammed (peace be upon them) joined in prayer.

The third source of tension is our shared interest in the rights and responsibilities of nations on nuclear weapons²⁷.

This issue has been a source of tension between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran. For many years, Iran has defined itself in part by its opposition to my country, and there is indeed a tumultuous history between us. In the middle of the Cold War, the United States played a role in the overthrow of a democratically-elected Iranian government²⁸. Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran has played a role in acts of hostage-taking and violence against U.S. troops and civilians. This history is well known. Rather than remain trapped in the past, I have made it clear to Iran’s leaders and people that my country is prepared to move forward. The question, now, is not what Iran is against, but rather what future it wants to build.

It will be hard to overcome decades of mistrust, but we will proceed with courage, rectitude and resolve. There will be many issues to discuss between our two countries, and we are willing to move forward without preconditions on the basis of mutual respect. But it is clear to all concerned that when it comes to nuclear weapons, we have reached a decisive point. This is not simply about America’s interests. It is about preventing a nuclear arms race in the Middle East that could lead this region and the world down a hugely dangerous path.

I understand those who protest that some countries have weapons that others do not²⁹. No single nation should pick and choose which nations hold nuclear weapons. That is why I strongly reaffirmed America’s commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. And any nation – including Iran – should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That commitment is at the core of the Treaty, and it must be kept for all who fully abide by it. And I am hopeful that all countries in the region can share in this goal.

The fourth issue that I will address is democracy³⁰.

I know there has been controversy about the promotion of democracy in recent years, and much of this controversy is connected to the war in Iraq. So let me be clear: no system of government can or should be imposed upon one nation by any other.

That does not lessen my commitment, however, to governments that reflect the will of the people. Each nation gives life to this principle in its own way, grounded in the traditions of its own people. America does not presume to know what is best for everyone, just as we would not presume to pick the outcome of a peaceful election. But I do have an unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people³¹; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.

There is no straight line to realize this promise. But this much is clear: governments that protect these rights are ultimately more stable, successful and secure. Suppressing ideas never succeeds in making them go away. America respects the right of all peaceful and law-abiding voices to be heard around the world, even if we disagree with them. And we will welcome all elected, peaceful governments – provided they govern with respect for all their people.

This last point is important because there are some who advocate for democracy only when they are out of power; once in power, they are ruthless in suppressing the rights of others. No matter where it takes hold, government of the people and by the people sets a single standard for all who hold power: you must maintain your power through consent, not coercion; you must respect the rights of minorities, and participate with a spirit of tolerance and compromise; you must place the interests of your people and the legitimate workings of the political process above your party. Without these ingredients, elections alone do not make true democracy³².

The fifth issue that we must address together is religious freedom.

Islam has a proud tradition of tolerance. We see it in the history of Andalusia and Cordoba during the Inquisition. I saw it firsthand as a child in Indonesia³³, where devout Christians worshiped freely in an overwhelmingly Muslim country. That is the spirit we need today. People in every country should be free to choose and live their faith based upon the persuasion of the mind, heart, and soul. This tolerance is essential for religion to thrive, but it is being challenged in many different ways.

Among some Muslims, there is a disturbing tendency to measure one’s own faith by the rejection of another’s. The richness of religious diversity must be upheld – whether it is for Maronites in Lebanon or the Copts in Egypt. And fault lines must be closed among Muslims as well, as the divisions between Sunni and Shia have led to tragic violence, particularly in Iraq.

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it. For instance, in the United States, rules on charitable giving have made it harder for Muslims to fulfill their religious obligation³⁴. That is why I am committed to working with American Muslims to ensure that they can fulfill zakat.

Likewise, it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together. That is why we are forging service projects in America that bring together Christians, Muslims, and Jews. That is why we welcome efforts like Saudi Arabian King Abdullah’s Interfaith dialogue and Turkey’s leadership in the Alliance of Civilizations. Around the world, we can turn dialogue into Interfaith service, so bridges between peoples lead to action – whether it is combating malaria in Africa, or providing relief after a natural disaster.

The sixth issue that I want to address is women’s rights.

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality³⁵. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.

Now let me be clear: issues of women’s equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam. In Turkey, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Indonesia, we have seen Muslim-majority countries elect a woman to lead. Meanwhile, the struggle for women’s equality continues in many aspects of American life, and in countries around the world.

Our daughters can contribute just as much to society as our sons, and our common prosperity will be advanced by allowing all humanity – men and women – to reach their full potential. I do not believe that women must make the same choices as men in order to be equal, and I respect those women who choose to live their lives in traditional roles. But it should be their choice. That is why the United States will partner with any Muslim-majority country to support expanded literacy for girls, and to help young women pursue employment through micro-financing that helps people live their dreams.

Finally, I want to discuss economic development and opportunity.

I know that for many, the face of globalization is contradictory. The Internet and television can bring knowledge and information, but also offensive sexuality and mindless violence. Trade can bring new wealth and opportunities, but also huge disruptions and changing communities. In all nations – including my own – this change can bring fear. Fear that because of modernity we will lose of control over our economic choices, our politics, and most importantly our identities – those things we most cherish about our communities, our families, our traditions, and our faith.

But I also know that human progress cannot be denied. There need not be contradiction between development and tradition. Countries like Japan and South Korea grew their economies while maintaining distinct cultures. The same is true for the astonishing progress within Muslim-majority countries from Kuala Lumpur to Dubai. In ancient times and in our times, Muslim communities have been at the forefront of innovation and education³⁶.

This is important because no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work. Many Gulf States have enjoyed great wealth as a consequence of oil, and some are beginning to focus it on broader development. But all of us must recognize that education and innovation will be the currency of the 21st century, and in too many Muslim communities there remains underinvestment in these areas. I am emphasizing such investments within my country. And while America in the past has focused on oil and gas in this part of the world, we now seek a broader engagement.

On education, we will expand exchange programs, and increase scholarships, like the one that brought my father to America, while encouraging more Americans to study in Muslim communities. And we will match promising Muslim students with internships in America; invest in on-line learning for teachers and children around the world; and create a new online network, so a teenager in Kansas can communicate instantly with a teenager in Cairo.

On economic development, we will create a new corps of business volunteers to partner with counterparts in Muslim-majority countries. And I will host a Summit on Entrepreneurship this year to identify how we can deepen ties between business leaders, foundations and social entrepreneurs in the United States and Muslim communities around the world.

On science and technology, we will launch a new fund to support technological development in Muslim-majority countries, and to help transfer ideas to the marketplace so they can create jobs. We will open centers of scientific excellence in Africa, the Middle East and Southeast Asia, and appoint new Science Envoys to collaborate on programs that develop new sources of energy, create green jobs, digitize records, clean water, and grow new crops. And today I am announcing a new global effort with the Organization of the Islamic Conference to eradicate polio. And we will also expand partnerships with Muslim communities to promote child and maternal health³⁷.

All these things must be done in partnership. Americans are ready to join with citizens and governments; community organizations, religious leaders, and businesses in Muslim communities around the world to help our people pursue a better life.

The issues that I have described will not be easy to address. But we have a responsibility to join together on behalf of the world we seek – a world where extremists no longer threaten our people, and American troops have come home; a world where Israelis and Palestinians are each secure in a state of their own, and nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes; a world where governments serve their citizens, and the rights of all God’s children are respected. Those are mutual interests. That is the world we seek. But we can only achieve it together³⁸.

I know there are many – Muslim and non-Muslim – who question whether we can forge this new beginning. Some are eager to stoke the flames of division, and to stand in the way of progress. Some suggest that it isn’t worth the effort – that we are fated to disagree, and civilizations are doomed to clash. Many more are simply skeptical that real change can occur. There is so much fear, so much mistrust. But if we choose to be bound by the past, we will never move forward. And I want to particularly say this to young people of every faith, in every country – you, more than anyone, have the ability to remake this world.

All of us share this world for but a brief moment in time. The question is whether we spend that time focused on what pushes us apart, or whether we commit ourselves to an effort – a sustained effort – to find common ground, to focus on the future we seek for our children, and to respect the dignity of all human beings.

It is easier to start wars than to end them. It is easier to blame others than to look inward; to see what is different about someone than to find the things we share. But we should choose the right path, not just the easy path. There is also one rule that lies at the heart of every religion – that we do unto others as we would have them do unto us. This truth transcends nations and peoples – a belief that isn’t new; that isn’t black or white or brown; that isn’t Christian, or Muslim or Jew. It’s a belief that pulsed in the cradle of civilization, and that still beats in the heart of billions. It’s a faith in other people, and it’s what brought me here today.

We have the power to make the world we seek, but only if we have the courage to make a new beginning, keeping in mind what has been written.

The Holy Koran tells us, “O mankind! We have created you male and a female; and we have made you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another.”

The Talmud tells us: “The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace.”

The Holy Bible tells us, “Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.”

The people of the world can live together in peace. We know that is God’s vision. Now, that must be our work here on Earth. Thank you. And may God’s peace be upon you.

¹Cairo is a Fatimid city, founded in the 10th century and as such is younger than London, Paris, or Frankfurt, none of which are typically referred to as “timeless”. President Obama is flattering his hosts here. It’s flummery but it’s benign.
²I think this is one of the finest constructions in the speech although I suspect it will be overlooked by many. The University of Cairo is a modern secular university, founded in the 20th century. Al-Azhar is a religious university and one of the oldest degree-granting institutions of higher learning in the world. The current imam of Al-Azhar has declared the perpetrators of 9/11 as heretics, deviating from the true path of Islam. That’s an important message for what we hope to accomplish. Although I’m sure it will be ignored over here, I hope that there are some in the Muslim world who recognize this part of the message. Juxtaposing the two institutions conveys a sense of universality, of expansiveness to address all Muslims of good faith.
³“Peace be with you”, in Arabic a conventional greeting although in this context possibly noteworthy. I think that many Muslims will interpret this as simple courtesy.
⁴The United States has never had a colony in the Middle East or Africa and, as should be clear from the rest of President Obama’s speech, doesn’t aspire to any now. While this may be a realistic assessment of attitudes of many I think this implicity bundling of the United States with European colonizers is unfortunate. We are not Europe.
⁵The rhetorical device most commonly employed by President Obama in his speeches is simple parallelism. Without negation, irony, or other qualifications parallelism tends to connote a similarity or equivalence between the items being put alongside one another. I think that this instance in which what President Obama may be construed as creating an equivalence between “violent extremists” in Muslim countries and those in the United States who “view Islam as inevitably hostile not only to America and Western countries” is particularly unfelicitous. There simply is no such equivalence and simply suggesting there might be is misleading and counterproductive.
⁶While I agree with this I remain concerned that most of the respect being expressed by the United States has been rhetorical and there’s been precious little of either rhetorical or practical respect from the countries of the Middle East towards the United States. There needs to be equal emphasis on “respect” and “mutual” and, honestly, I don’t see that right now.
⁷I have no idea how President Obama’s audience will react to his quoting the Qur’an nor whether the passage quoted actually is from the Qur’an or is a good translation.
⁸Harkening back to his boyhood or family experience is a common feature of President Obama’s speeches by which he is attempting to establish a connection with his audience. I wonder how many Egyptians are aware that in Chicago most of the “Muslims” are members of the Nation of Islam and arguably not Muslims at all.
⁹More flattering his audience.
¹⁰I’m glad that President Obama mentioned this. The document is here. While it does indicate that our interaction with Muslim countries goes back to the founding of the Republic, it’s problematic, too. The negotiations of this treaty made clear that the United States was not a Christian country, it was a secular one. Many Muslim countries are explicitly so, that is something of a bone of contention between us, and I suspect that many people in Muslim countries, based on their own experience, cannot believe that the United States is not a Christian country. That many Americans can’t believe it, either, confounds the situation.
¹¹I think that this is the strongest paragraph in the speech and I hope that its message came through. That is has been quoted in many of the accounts gives me some hope.
¹²I have no idea where President Obama gets this statistic. According to the CIA World Fact Book the number is closer to 2 million and many of those are members of the Nation of Islam.
¹³I sincerely wish that President Obama had mentioned the many times that the United States has intervened on behalf of Muslims more strenuously than in an oblique reference like this.
¹⁴As did President George W. Bush before him. Maybe the messenger makes a difference.
¹⁵Note that in President Obama’s explication of our military presence in Afghanistan he presents a justification: we were attacked. Contrast this with his description of Iraq below.
¹⁶This is far from non-controversial, at least to the audience to whom President Obama is seeking. According to a recent poll, more than 50% of all people don’t believe that Al Qaeda was responsible for 9/11. In Muslim countries that number is substantially higher.
¹⁷This is one of several repetitions of the theme that we are not colonizers. I can’t help but wonder if our many Middle Eastern military bases won’t blunt this message somewhat.
¹⁸Contrast President Obama’s treatment of our invasion with Iraq with his treatment of Afghanistan, above. Afghanistan is a “war of necessity”; Iraq a “war of choice”. He does some minor justification of the outcome in Iraq but, essentially, he is portraying the invasion of Iraq as a mistake. Most Americans agree with him.
¹⁹Again, we are not colonizers.
²⁰So did President Bush. The difference between the two seems to be a difference of opinion as to what constitutes torture. I doubt this will convince the audience.
²¹This, too, is not uncontroversial. Many Muslims don’t believe that the Holocaust took place. This is not surprising. Those who aren’t bombarded with anti-Jewish propaganda haven’t even heard of it.
²²Another example of parallelism leading to an equivalance and, once again, an unfelicitous one. Six million dead is the same as “daily humiliations”?
²³This paragraph does not seem to be getting a great deal of attention in the Arabic press.
²⁴President Obama returns to a theme he has touched on before: it is not what Palestinians can destroy but what they can build.
²⁵This doesn’t seem to be getting a lot of attention, either.
²⁶Diacope
²⁷This struck me as the weakest of the sections.
²⁸I am very glad that President Obama phrased it in this, correct way (“the United States played a role…”) rather than in the typical formulation “the U. S. overthrew”. He’s still over-stating the democratic character of the Mossadegh government but it’s better than nothing.
²⁹This is really the sticking point of a nuclear policy. I see no way we will disarm ourselves unilaterally and unless we do it will be difficult to articulate a coherent non-proliferation policy.
³⁰Hopefully, the audience will have fallen asleep by this point.
³¹We could use some of that here in Chicago.
³²This is a very significant point and I’m chagrined that it was tucked here and not expressed earlier. It’s one of the disagreements I had with the Bush Administration which I felt was too satisfied with the appearance of democracy and not enough with its essence.
³³If President Obama believes this is typical of the Muslim world, it is synecdoche; otherwise it is irony. I suggest the latter.
³⁴Could someone please explain the issue that’s being referred to here? I genuinely don’t know what the problem is (I know what zakat is). Also this issue is complicated because some alleged Muslim charities in the United States have been found to be engaging in distinctly non-charitable activities.
³⁵Another important issue unfortunately stuck in the footnotes. I honestly don’t know how Muslim countries can prosper in the modern world if their cultures demand that they can only make full use of the gifts and energies of half of their people.
³⁶Mostly before Islamic scholars rejected reason as an informing source back in the 13th century.
³⁷This is the first I have heard of most of these programs. Have they been funded?
³⁸I’ve run out of gas. Maybe I’ll get back to this later. I doubt it.

Obama’s Cairo Speech

Dave Schuler — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 14:06:34 +0000

As he promised during his election campaign today President Obama addressed the Muslim world on behalf of the United States in Cairo:

CAIRO, June 4 –President Obama asked Thursday for a “new beginning between the United States and Muslims around the world” in a speech that urged Islamic nations to embrace democracy, women’s rights, religious tolerance and the right of Israel to co-exist with an independent Palestinian state.

In an address designed to change perceptions of the United States in the Arab Middle East and beyond, Obama reviewed the troubled historical legacy between Islam and the rest of the world, from colonialism through the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and the uncertainty surrounding cultural and economic globalization.

“So long as our relationship is defined by our differences, we will empower those who sow hatred rather than peace, and who promote conflict rather than the cooperation that can help all of our people achieve justice and prosperity,” Obama told an audience of hundreds gathered in a domed hall at Cairo University. “This cycle of suspicion and discord must end.”

The prepared text of the speech is here.

I think the speech was a good one; it is classic Obama in the sense that it is an aspirational, lofty speech that draws on his family history and early experiences. It is, as you might expect, being met with mixed reactions. Emphasizing President Obama’s exhortation to the Israelis to end the expansion of settlements while glossing over his matching exhortation to the Palestinians to end violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist, Al Jazeera reports:

Immediately after the wide-ranging speech, Marwan Bishara, Al Jazeera’s senior political analyst, said it helped undo “the harm done by the Bush administration.”

“[The speech] was about willingness to engage in soft power while keeping the military option alive,” Marwan said.

“It was a soft imperial speech that wanted to engage … restore justice to the world and restore America’s reputation.

“It reminded America of its new duties, of democracy, freedom… without, at the same time, discounting the use of military power.”

A spokesman for Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president, described Obama’s speech as a “good start”.

“His call for stopping settlement and for the establishment of a Palestinian state, and his reference to the suffering of Palestinians … is a clear message to Israel that a just peace is built on the foundations of a Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital,” Nabil Abu Rdainah said.

Some Israelis are responding harshly:

Settler leaders reacted with frustration in the wake of U.S. President Obama’s speech in Cairo on Thursday, Israel Radio reported.

“Today, the State of Israel is paying the price of its leaders’ defeatism,” Yesha Council said in a statement. “Hussein Obama gave priority to Arab lies, which have always been told with determination and daring, at the expense of the Jewish truth, which has been said in a weak and unconfident voice.”

The Iranians are reacting to the speech in their customary conciliatory manner:

Highlighting the hostility the U.S. leader faces from some quarters, the supreme leader of Washington’s regional arch foe, Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said in an address America was “deeply hated” and only action, not “slogans,” could change that.

Right now I’m rather pressed for time. There is a lot to unpack in the speech and I’m working on an annotated version of it which I hope to post later in the day.

UPDATE (James Joyner): I’ve done my initial take on Obama’s Cairo speech over at New Atlanticist. The bottom line: “nice speeches can be helpful but they are no substitute for policy.”

Updates on Iran

Dave Schuler — Tue, 19 May 2009 19:53:17 +0000

As the national elections there near a number of articles on Iran have been published which I’ll try to weave into something resembling a narrative. Today Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama and Congressional leaders and, clearly, Iran was much on the mind of all. PM Netanyahu expressed his concerns to CNN after his meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Minority Leader John Boehner:

An Iranian regime armed with nuclear weapons “is a great danger to all of us, to Israel specifically and to the moderate Arab regimes, [and] to America,” Netanyahu said after his meeting with Pelosi and Boehner.

“Especially if this regime were to arm itself or arm terrorists with nuclear weapons, the consequences could be unimaginable.”

Netanyahu also reiterated his call for normalizing relations between Israel and the “broader Arab world” while moving forward on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

Speaker Pelosi underscored the concern:

“The question of Iran is one that is of concern to us in Congress,” she said. “… It is an issue for the world. It is important for all of us to work together to be sure that Iran does not develop a weapon of mass destruction.”

Certainly some level of concern is warranted. The Wall Street Journal observed:

In testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that was largely ignored by the media, the legendary Manhattan District Attorney opened a window on how Iran is secretly obtaining the ingredients for an arsenal of mass destruction. Mr. Morgenthau, whose recent cases have exposed illicit Iranian finance and procurement networks, has discovered what he calls “Iran’s shopping list for materials related to weapons of mass destruction.” They add up to “literally thousands of records.”

Missile accuracy appears to be a key Iranian goal. In one of Mr. Morgenthau’s cases — the prosecution of Chinese citizen Li Fang Wei and his LIMMT company for allegedly scamming Manhattan banks to slip past sanctions on Iran — the DA uncovered a list that included 400 sophisticated gyroscopes and 600 accelerometers. These are critical for developing accurate long-range missiles. He also found that Iran was acquiring a rare metal called tantalum, “used in those roadside bombs that are being used against our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.” So much for the media notion that Iran has played no part in killing American GIs.

Mr. Morgenthau also noted that the material shipped by LIMMT “included 15,000 kilograms of a specialized aluminum alloy used almost exclusively in long-range missile production; 1,700 kilograms of graphite cylinders used for banned electrical discharge machines which are used in converting uranium; more than 30,000 kilograms of tungsten-copper plates; 200 pieces of tungsten-copper alloy hollow cylinders, all used for missiles; 19,000 kilograms of tungsten metal powder, and 24,500 kilograms of maraging steel rods . . . especially hardened steel suitable for long-range missiles.”

Lest anyone think that these materials may have innocent uses, Mr. Morgenthau added that “we have consulted with top experts in the field from MIT and from private industry and from the CIA. . . . Frankly, some of the people we’ve consulted are shocked by the sophistication of the equipment they’re buying.”

President Obama reiterated his call for a diplomatic solution to the impasse over Iran’s nuclear development program while noting that the offer had a “sell-by date”:

WASHINGTON — President Obama said Monday that he expected to know by the end of the year whether Iran was making “a good-faith effort to resolve differences” in talks aimed at ending its nuclear program, signaling to Israel as well as Iran that his willingness to engage in diplomacy over the issue has its limits.

“We’re not going to have talks forever,” Mr. Obama told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel after a two-hour session in the Oval Office.

The president added that he did not intend to foreclose “a range of steps” if Iran did not cooperate.

while former Vice President Dick Cheney’s national security advisor warned of the futility of searching for a diplomatic solution:

Can the president’s strategy of diplomatic engagement persuade Iran to cease its efforts to develop nuclear weapons? Unfortunately, history offers little cause for hope — especially if the United States remains focused on trying to reassure Iran of America’s benign intentions. Successful denuclearization of hostile states is most likely to occur as a result of regime change, coercive diplomacy or military action, not U.S. pledges of mutual respect.

To recap my own views I believe that the preponderance of the evidence suggests that either Iran is developing nuclear weapons or wants us (and, perhaps, the Iranian people) to believe that they are. I don’t believe that our human intelligence within Iran is good enough to know whether that’s the case with any confidence or where the development is located clearly enough for air attacks to disrupt that development in any meaningful way, at least not with the level of force that the American people would find acceptable in the absence of more information than we have. The danger of such an attack would be very grave. Consequently, I believe that negotiations, sanctions, or some other actions short of invasion or bombardment are the best course at hand for preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I think a nuclear-armed Iran would be very troubling to say the least so long as the current Iranian government is in power.

For a long time I’ve been skeptical that the Israelis would attack Iran in the absence of better information than I believe they have for the reasons stated above and because, simply put, Iran is not Iraq. Attacking Iran risks precipitating the very outcome they would be trying to avoid with the attack while providing a justification for it. Frankly, however, with the current Israeli government I’m not so sure.

Israel vs. Iran: Staying On the Sidelines?

Dave Schuler — Sun, 03 May 2009 20:11:14 +0000

Over at The New Atlanticist Donald Snow has a post in which he reflects on prospective reactions of the Israelis to the threat posed to them by Iran’s nuclear development program. The article begins with a discussion of the comments of two participants in a symposium, dean emeritus of the Center for Naval Warfare Studies (Dr. Robert S. Wood) and a retired U.S. Navy admiral, William Pendley:

First, they agreed that Iran was likely to acquire nuclear weapons, and that there was very little the United States could do about it if the Iranians are resolute enough in their intentions. Second, they agreed that the major reason the Iranians want nukes is as a deterrent–mostly against the United States–and a matter of prestige (Bob Wood drew the analogy between Iranian weapons and the French nuclear force de frappe). Third, both asserted that Iran’s possession of a few weapons in and of itself did not matter much in the world; if there is a problem, it will be if Iran gains the capability to produce weapons grade materials–avoiding that has been a major part of North Korean negotiations. Fourth, the “major” concern that Iranian possession could produce is the possibility that Iran might share nuclear weapons/materials/technology with terrorists, who might use those weapons.

I think that’s a succinct outline of the concerns. He continues by considering Israel’s position:

What happens if Israel decides that the Iranian possession of nuclear weapons is intolerable, that such weapons represent a deadly threat to Israeli existence, and thus that it has no choice but to take out that threat? All three conclusions by the Israelis are certainly not impossible; whether they are even likely given the nature of the current Israeli ruling coalition is arguable.

The short answer to the question is that we don’t know.

I’ve held for some time that regardless of the saber-rattling Israel was unlikely to follow through with threats against Iran for the simple reason that Iran is neither Iraq nor Syria. However, with the current government in Israel I’m not as confident of that as I was during the previous one.

What concerns me about all of the brinksmanship from both sides on this subject is that I don’t believe it would be politically and possibly not strategically possible for the United States to stay on the sidelines in the event of war between Israel and Iran.

Rogue Agents Tipped Pelosi To Harman Wiretap

James Joyner — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 15:16:18 +0000

“Intelligence officials, angry that former Attorney General Alberto Gonzales had blocked an FBI investigation into Democratic Rep. Jane Harman’s interactions with a suspected Israeli agent, tipped off Nancy Pelosi, the House Democratic leader, that Harman had been picked up on a court-ordered National Security Agency wiretap targeting the agent,” CQ’s Jeff Stein reports. “In doing so, the officials flouted an order by Gonzales not to inform Pelosi, three former national security officials said.”

Surely, whether to pursue an investigation is the prerogative of the AG, not bureaucrats in the intelligence community. The details of the wiretap were classified and Pelosi had no need to know, meaning the leakers committed felonies. [Or maybe not. See update]

UPDATE: Mike Soraghan, Susan Crabtree, Jared Allen, reporting for The Hill, connect some important dots.

This means the Speaker knew about the wiretap when she decided to stop Harman from becoming chairwoman of the House Intelligence Committee.

It also blunts Harman’s (D-Calif.) allegation that her eavesdroppers acted improperly.

Pelosi said it was a “few years ago, maybe three years ago” when she was informed of the recording and noted that leadership is informed when a member is caught on a wiretap. The Speaker added she did not tell Harman of her knowledge because the information was classified. “When you have a member of Congress who is overheard in a wiretap … the leadership is informed, and that happened at that time,” Pelosi said on Wednesday at a breakfast sponsored by The Christian Science Monitor. “It was not my position to raise it with Jane Harman … All they said is that she was wiretapped.”

It’s unclear whether “leadership is informed when a member is caught on a wiretap” is a custom, a legal requirement, or inartful phrasing on Pelosi’s part.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum observes, “CIA is engaged in some pretty serious message sending against people they don’t like. My guess: I don’t know how Harman is going to weather all this, but I don’t think it’s going to turn out well for the CIA. They may have gone a couple of steps too far this time.”

In OTB’s comments below, Bernard Finel counters, “If I were an FBI agent and I saw that kind of borderline criminal behavior from my boss, I’d be tempted to play whistleblower as well. Frankly, we could have used more whistleblowers during the past 8 years, not fewer.” I’m not unsympathetic to that view. But I lean more toward’s Drum’s instinct that it’s horribly bad to have our bureaucratic functionaries deciding to use national security secrets to settle political scores.

We haven’t heard to last of this one.

Will Israel Attack Iran?

Dave Schuler — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 16:35:32 +0000

There’s an article in the Times of London today claiming that Israel’s air force is on standby, just waiting for the order from Israel’s government before mounting an air assault against Iran’s nuclear development sites:

The Israeli military is preparing itself to launch a massive aerial assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities within days of being given the go-ahead by its new government

[…]

Among the steps taken to ready Israeli forces for what would be a risky raid requiring pinpoint aerial strikes are the acquisition of three Airborne Warning and Control (AWAC) aircraft and regional missions to simulate the attack.

Two nationwide civil defence drills will help to prepare the public for the retaliation that Israel could face.

“Israel wants to know that if its forces were given the green light they could strike at Iran in a matter of days, even hours. They are making preparations on every level for this eventuality. The message to Iran is that the threat is not just words,” one senior defence official told The Times.

Is Israel’s new government daft enough to give such an order? The comparison of such an attack with Israel’s attack on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor more than 25 years ago is specious. Iran is significantly farther away from Israel, Iran’s nuclear development program is believed to be dispersed and hardened, and, well, Iran is not Iraq.

An attack by Israel against Iran’s nuclear development facilities would give Iran every right to retaliate as they chose and I have no doubt that Iran would retaliate both by conventional and unconventional means. Could Israel survive a massive retaliation? And it would justify in the eyes of many any future development of nuclear weapons on Iran’s part.

The United States could not remain uninvolved in such a conflict. The attack would necessarily take place by flying through air space controlled by the United States. Whether we’d given an explicit or implicit “go ahead” to the attack or not, it would be assumed that we had. That’s mentioned in the article:

He added that it was unlikely that Israel would carry out the attack without receiving at least tacit approval from America, which has struck a more reconciliatory tone in dealing with Iran under its new administration.

An Israeli attack on Iran would entail flying over Jordanian and Iraqi airspace, where US forces have a strong presence.

Ephraim Kam, the deputy director of the Institute for National Security Studies, said it was unlikely that the Americans would approve an attack.

“The American defence establishment is unsure that the operation will be successful. And the results of the operation would only delay Iran’s programme by two to four years,” he said.

Michael van der Galien correctly points out the likely reactions of other countries in the region:

If Israel attacks, the entire Middle East could turn against it. I would not rule out that even Ankara, Turkey, would side with Tehran. Erdogan would not order his country’s military to carry out strikes against Israel, but he could very well declare a war of words. And let’s not even mention Arab peoples. Most Arab rulers have no sympathy for Iran. They’ll quietly thank God Israel destroyed the country’s nuclear facilities. Publicly, however, they will have to rail against the Jewish nation-state, calling it anti-Muslim, and dictatorial. If they do not, their people will turn against them.

I’ve long held the position that, however loud its saber-rattling, Israel would not attack Iran, at least not without direct provocation, but since the recent election I’m not so sure. Nonetheless let’s consider the possible signalling functions that Israel’s new government may be taking by keeping the ball of an attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities up in the air.

First and foremost are the domestic political considerations. The Netanyahu government is signalling to the Israeli people its resolve to prevent an Iranian attack against Israel. And it would be signalling both to the United States and to the Iranians the prospective consequences of a failure by the various parties to end Iran’s nuclear development program by other means.

Stand and Deliver!

Dave Schuler — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 13:51:22 +0000

In his column this morning Tom Friedman bemoans the plight of diplomacy in the modern age of piracy:

A secretary of state can broker deals only when other states or parties are ready or able to make them. In the cold war, an age of great powers, grand bargains and reasonably solid client states, there were ample opportunities for that — whether in arms control with the Soviet Union or peacemaking between our respective client states around the globe. But this is increasingly an age of pirates, failed states, nonstate actors and nation-building — the stuff of snipers, drones and generals, not diplomats.

Hence the déjà vu all over again quality of U.S. foreign policy right now — the sense that when it comes to our major problems (Afghanistan and Pakistan and North Korea and Iran), we just go around and around, buying the same carpets from the same people, over and over, but nothing changes.

“We are dealing with states and leaders who either cannot deliver or will not deliver,” notes the Johns Hopkins University foreign policy professor Michael Mandelbaum. “The issues we have with them look less like problems that can be solved and more like conditions that we have to manage.”

He expands on this noting that regardless of the promises of their diplomats some countries, e.g. Afghanistan and Pakistan, aren’t able to deliver what you want and some, e.g. Iran and North Korea, won’t deliver what you want.

I think there are a couple of problems wiith Mr. Friedman’s formulation. First, diplomacy requires that one state have another state as a correspondent. Representatives of states don’t negotiate with Bob or Ralph who represent only themselves. That way lies madness.

Treating the great swath of territory around the world not comprised of states in any meaningful sense as though the areas on the map were states doesn’t make them into states. We need a litmus test for identifying what is and what is not a country and we need a consensus among actual countries on how to handle problems when dealing with non-states. And that brings us to the second problem.

As I’ve said many times over at my place, government requires consensus, world government requires world consensus and the sad reality is that there isn’t enough consensus right now for world government.

Consider, for example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. At least half of the present members of the United Nations reject significant portions of it. It’s even possible that all of the world’s countries reject some or all of the Declaration although it received overwhelming support from the original United Nations delegates.

I don’t believe there’s world consensus on either means or ends and under those circumstances you can’t expect even a rump world government, necessary for the sort of measures that could bring an errant country that won’t deliver to toe. That doesn’t mean that international institutions are useless. I believe they’re useful as a means of reducing the cost of negotiation. But we’ve got to recognize their limitations.

A couple of additional notes on Mr. Friedman’s column. He’s concerned about looking for the “middle ground”:

Instead, I fear that we are adopting a middle-ground strategy — doing just enough to avoid collapse but not enough to solve the problems. If our goal in Afghanistan and Pakistan is nation-building, so they will have self-sustaining moderate governments, we surely don’t have enough troops or resources inside devoted to either. If our goal is changing regime behavior in Iran and North Korea, we surely have not generated enough leverage from outside. North Korea’s defiant missile launch and Iran’s continued development of its nuclear capability testify to that.

Sometimes it’s hard to identify the middle ground. For example, if West Erewhon wants to develop 50 nuclear weapons and Greater Superpower doesn’t want them to develop any, the middle ground isn’t for West Erewhon to develop 25 nuclear weapons. Finding the middle ground requires a more perceptive approach than that.

Finally, are Iran, North Korea, Afghanistan, and Pakistan the countries that present our greatest foreign policy challenges? That leaves me dumbfounded. I don’t believe that any of those are even in the top five. Nor do I believe that China, Russia, or Israel are our greatest challenges.

How would you prioritize our greatest foreign policy challenges? I think piracy, the jumping off point for Mr. Friedman’s column, is pretty far down on the list.

The Pope Picks Our Ambassadors Now?

James Joyner — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:08:48 +0000

I glossed over yesterday’s news that the Vatican blocked Caroline Kennedy’s appointment as U.S. ambassador for a variety of reasons. Regular commenter Tlaloc emailed me, though, making a good point:

[T]he Vatican refuses to accept any ambassador who is not explicitly pro-life including anti-ESC research (such as Doug Kmiec). Various voices on the right have praised them for this principled stand. But if we accept this criteria doesn’t it set a bad precedent? What happens when China demands our next ambassador be an avowed Maoist? Or Saudi Arabia demand someone who openly accepts sharia law (up to an including the whole acid in the face for uppity girls)?

Us Ambassadors are supposed to represent us, not their host country. Obviously we should make sure that our ambassadors do not inflame their hosts by their mere presence but that’s a world away from them being required to openly affirm allegiance to the host’s ideals. Or to put it another way, if the Vatican has the right to demand a vocal pro-lifer be our ambassador to them can’t we demand their ambassador to us be a vocal pro-choicer? And where does such petty brinksmanship get us except a total break down of diplomacy?

The right-leaning blogs memeorandum links on this one are universally praiseworthy.

RedState’s Moe Lane is “curious about how many times this administration plans to insult the Roman Catholic Church.” His colleague mbecker908 dubs this “an Easter gift from the Vatican” and adds, ” Good for the Vatican. This pentecostal Baptist boy (OK, old boy) is standing with the Pope on this one.” He agrees with Lane that “being so tone deaf as to openly and forthrightly make an effort to offend the Vatican is off the charts.”

Dan Riehl observes, “Obama just got done going out of his way to inform Islam he had no intention of insulting or threatening it as a religion. So why the continued insults to Catholicism? It’s as if he doesn’t care about it as a religion at all.” Even Michael van der Galien, a staunch moderate, agrees that, “Instead of giving the Church the impression its opinions do not matter, the Obama administration is wise to treat it as it treats enemies of the United States: with respect and understanding.”

Dan and Michael have the right take on this. If we’re going to have an ambassador to the Vatican (and I’m sympathetic to Michael Stickings‘ view that we probably shouldn’t) then it behooves us to respect their sensibilities when selecting our representatives to them. It’s just good diplomacy.

Now, Tlaloc is right that our ambassador is supposed to represent us, not the country to which he’s sent. Ron Chusid makes that point as well.

The Vatican might not like it, but support for both abortion and embryonic stem cell research is the position of the Obama administration and both are legal in this country. What if the Vatican were to also demand an ambassador who believes in creationism instead of evolution?

What of other areas where countries disagree with the views of appointed ambassadors? Do Muslim nations object to non-Muslim ambassadors from the west? Should we go along if one were to insist that we only appoint an ambassador who opposes the existence of Israel?

During the cold war it would have been ludicrous for Communist nations to reject western ambassadors who did not support Communism. Imagine if the Chinese had refused overtures from Richard Nixon to begin diplomatic relations because Nixon and his potential ambassadors were not Maoists.

The difference, of course, is that, despite the legal fiction to the contrary, the Vatican isn’t really a country; it’s a church with a big yard. States, even those that are theocracies (Iran) or close to it (Saudi Arabia), have traditionally operated on the principle of sovereign equality. They either have diplomatic relations with a given state or not, on a take it or leave it basis. Not so much with churches.

Now, again, that may be a reason to not send an ambassador. For most of our history, we didn’t. Ronald Reagan was the first to have a formal ambassador. But if we’re going to have diplomatic relations with a church, it only makes sense not to go out of our way to offend it.

The problem with Kmiec and Kennedy, as I understand it, is not so much that they’re pro-abortion but rather that they’re pro-abortion Roman Catholics. Sending them as our ambassador to the Holy See is the equivalent of sending a Soviet defector as ambassador to Moscow during the Cold War or sending an Orthodox Jew as ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

The Chas Freeman Affair

James Joyner — Wed, 11 Mar 2009 19:13:29 +0000

Pat Lang has Chas Freeman’s scathing letter announcing his withdrawal as a candidate for NIC chair, including this brilliant assessment of the state of affairs of the political appointment process:

As those who know me are well aware, I have greatly enjoyed life since retiring from government. Nothing was further from my mind than a return to public service. When Admiral Blair asked me to chair the NIC I responded that I understood he was “asking me to give my freedom of speech, my leisure, the greater part of my income, subject myself to the mental colonoscopy of a polygraph, and resume a daily commute to a job with long working hours and a daily ration of political abuse.” I added that I wondered “whether there wasn’t some sort of downside to this offer.”

Indeed. I’ve only met Freeman in passing a few times but believe him when he says that he was enjoying his retirement and that he was only willing to endure the indignities, stress, and cut in pay that came from a return to government life out of a true calling for public service. It’s amazing what people are willing to put up with to take senior positions in government and “make a difference.” There are, however, limits.

As an aside, while I fully share Andrew Sullivan’s general sentiments about the issues that caused Freeman to have to withdraw his nomination, I disagree with his assessment that the mainstream press’ “near silence” on the matter had anything to do with the Israeli lobby, their coziness with Obama, and the other factors he mentions. Rather, it’s because NIC chair, while an incredibly important position, is also incredibly obscure.

As I confessed last night on The Rick Moran Show, despite having a PhD in the field and following such things with some degree of closeness, I was totally unaware of the National Intelligence Council’s existence until perhaps a year ago and only then because we do some work with them at the Atlantic Council. (I was, of course, aware of the National Intelligence Estimate but just presumed it was cobbled together by CIA or some such.) Indeed, I challenge readers to name the previous NIC chairs without Googling or reading the next paragraph.

How obscure is the position? Despite the Freeman controversy having been in the news for weeks, the Wikipedia page on the NIC still lists Thomas Fingar as chairman. [UPDATE: I've done my duty and updated the Wikipedia entry.] He retired last December 1st and was replaced by Pete Lavoy, my old boss at the Naval Postgraduate School. (Who, incidentally, I’d be just fine with keeping right where he is. He’s a South Asia expert fluent in Urdu and Hindi; that might come in handy right about now.)

Chas Freeman Withdraws (Updated)

Dave Schuler — Tue, 10 Mar 2009 22:31:56 +0000

President Barack Obama’s nominee for the position of chairman of the National Intelligence Council, Charles (Chas) Freeman, who has been praised by some for his foreign policy realism and criticized by others for his ties to the KSA and China, has withdraw his name from nomination:

Another top Obama administration appointee pulled the plug today on their nomination, and this time it has nothing to do with unpaid taxes.

Charles Freeman, picked as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, withdrew after criticism over policy, specifically his opprobrium for Israel and his ties to Saudia Arabia.

“Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair announced today that Ambassador Charles W. Freeman Jr. has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed. Director Blair accepted Ambassador Freeman’s decision with regret,” Blair’s office said in a statement.

That’s the complete statement from the DNI’s office. There’s no further explanation.

One of his sharpest critics says it’s Mr. Freeman’s business dealings that got his nomination into trouble:

But Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), one of Freeman’s leading critics, said the appointee could have “withstood” the attacks on policy grounds, but ultimately was torpedoed by the fact that he headed an institute funded by Saudi royalty and sat on the board of a Chinese state oil company.

“The administration made yet another mistake not doing its homework before nominating someone to a senior position of unique sensitivity, and then learned from the press further and further embarrassing details,” Kirk said. “He was heavily encumbered by multiple conflicts of interest involving Chinese, Saudi and other business dealings that all should have been disclosed long before.”

“No drama” is apparently a pretty hard plan to stick to.

UPDATE

Andrew Sullivan has offered two comments on Freeman’s withdrawing of his name from nomination or, more accurately, three comments (one a comment within a comment). First, most if not all of the discussion of the Freeman nomination took place within the blogosphere. Second, Israel is becoming the third rail of U. S. foreign policy:

The second is that Obama may bring change in many areas, but there is no possibility of change on the Israel-Palestine question. Having the kind of debate in America that they have in Israel, let alone Europe, on the way ahead in the Middle East is simply forbidden. Even if a president wants to have differing sources of advice on many questions, the Congress will prevent any actual, genuinely open debate on Israel.

and here’s the comment within a comment:

…the Obama peeps never defended Freeman. They were too scared.

I’m not sure that’s the case. For one thing he wasn’t Obama’s nominee—he was Blair’s. However, I’ve been predicting since before the election that President Obama wasn’t likely to go to bat for his people when they got into trouble and here’s a little confirmation of that. If it causes the “chilling effect” that Andrew points to, well, I predicted that, too.

UPDATE (James Joyner): For a variety of reasons, I’ve avoided commenting on the Freeman matter. I have, however, written many times on the broader matter of US-Israeli relations, most recently in “The Lieberman Question” at New Atlanticist. Money quote:

The Obama administration is, by American standards, quite to the left on Israel, with Jim Jones, Hillary Clinton, and others having been quite candid in the past about Israel’s need to make concessions on such controversial issues as Jerusalem and the settlements if a peace deal is to get done. But that’s a leftist position only insofar as American politicians seem to consider anything short the Likudist positionto be anti-Israel, if not anti-Semitic.