A silver lining to the recession may be that oil prices are going down, though still at far higher levels than they were just a couple years ago. The bravado of Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and Putin may be at least slightly tamed. Authorized Authoritarianism has gone hand in hand with oil wealth in Iran, Venezuela and Russia. Its license may now start to expire.
Further proof about how people themselves are not the problem, but the solution…
Iranian boy gets cancer treatment in Israel
Friday, October 10, 2008
TEL HASHOMER, Israel: (Reuters) A 13-year-old cancer victim from Iran came to Israel for treatment on Friday, the hospital which received him said, attracting media interest in a country used to decades of hostility with Tehran.
The boy, who has an advanced brain tumour, had travelled from Turkey with his parents after undergoing surgery as well as chemotherapy and radiotherapy in Iran that failed to cure him, Chaim Sheba Medical Centre director Zeev Rotstein said.
What is the problem with the Iranian regime?
Here is a fascinating story about an Iraqi parliamentarian that broke all taboos to travel to an anti-terrorism conference – in Israel – and warned about Iran’s nuclear threats. What is particularly remarkable is that he had already challenged the taboo in the past, paid for it with the lives of his two sons, and yet continued to preach a message of peace and managed to get enough Iraqis to elect him to Parliament.
Worthy of real concern is the relationship between Venezuela’s dictator-in-development Hugo Chavez, Iran’s Ahmadinejad and the Hezbollah terrorist network, which has been reported to be basing itself in Venezuela to target anti-US operations.
To the many well-intentioned Iran scholars who wistfully point out that Ahmedinajad’s rants can be discounted because true power lies in Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the ‘Supreme Religious Leader,’ his recent defense of Ahmadinejad, including of his nuclear policy and confrontational style, should cause pause.
Jerusalem Post Editor David Horovitz’s interview with Barack Obama is one of the most to-the-point expositions of Senator Barack Obama’s stances on Mideast issues. Horovitz asked strong and straightforward questions, and Obama replied with earnest answers. Anyone who truly cares about understanding the "real" Obama on these issues should read this interview.
One example:
Horovitz: You’ve said on this trip that you want to work for an Israeli-Palestinian accommodation from the minute you’re sworn in, so let me ask you about the thesis that there is no prospect of Palestinian moderation prevailing and enabling a peace process to really move forward until Iran’s nuclear drive has been thwarted – that so long as the Teheran-backed extremists of Hamas and so on feel that they are in the ascendant, the moderates can’t prevail and that the whole region is now in this kind of holding mode.
Obama: I think there is no doubt that there is a connection between Iran’s strengthening over the last couple of years, partly because some strategic errors have been made on the part of the West. And [the same goes for] the increasing boldness of Hizbullah and Hamas. But I don’t think that’s the only factor and criterion in the lack of progress.
Hamas’s victory in the [Palestinian Authority] election can partly be traced to a sense of frustration among the Palestinian people over how Fatah, over a relatively lengthy period of time, had failed to deliver basic services. I get a strong impression that [PA President Mahmoud] Abbas and [Prime Minister Salaam] Fayad are doing everything they can to address some of those systemic failures by the Palestinian Authority. The failures of Hamas in Gaza to deliver an improved quality of life for their people give pause to the Palestinians to think that pursuing that approach automatically assures greater benefits.
You know, look, I arrive at this with no illusions as to the difficulty in terms of what is required. But I think it’s important for us to keep working at it, frankly, because Israel’s security and peace in the region depend on it.
If you are struggling to understand why Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, both Shiite, are so popular among Arab masses from Egypt to Palestine and Saudi Arabia, where the predominant religion is Sunni, think of it through a different prism: the culture of Resistance.
The culture of Resistance trumps the schisms of religion, as well as other divisions like nationality, ethnicity, and political persuasion.
The Arab world has been so impregnated with an anti-West, anti-colonialist, anti-occupation, anti-invasion, anti-globalization, anti-Israel ethos, that anything or anyone who stands at the vanguard against these modern suppressors will be greeted with enthusiasm.
The challenge for the good of the Arab Middle East and the world at large is how to channel all of these very real frustrations, that have only been deepened by lack of political accountability and continued authoritarian rule seen as imposed by the West on the Arab population, into a constructive path for progress within the Arab Middle East and outside.
It is not an easy challenge to overcome. If anyone figures it out, they will hold the key to progress and popularity.
At present, you either drive for revolution and cry against oppression in the name of "resistance", or you are part of the establishment and hence seen with suspicion by ordinary Arabs that are not part of the elite.
Great leaders like Palestinian Prime Minister Fayyad or Jordanian King Abdullah, who are bringing economic progress to the poor in their country, will have difficulty getting credit, because they are seen as agents of the West.
Democracy and other concepts that should ordinarily appeal to the human quest for freedom similarly have difficulty because they are seen as Western impositions, and part of a cultural colonization.
Can policy makers and strategists be really so naive?
The Ahmedinejad regime has turned Iran’s right to nuclear development into a national mantra. Only its Islamic fundamentalism and its ideology of spreading their revolution stand above their nuclear ambition.
And yet diplomats seem to think they can sway Iran into a set of incentives to cease its nuclearization path?
The Iranians have made it all too apparent that they use the negotiations as a way to stall and buy time, to the point of embarrassing the negotiators, as an excellent article from Elaine Sciolino of the New York Times painfully pointed out.
Studies from Iran "appear to show as yet undisclosed uranium-related work, high-explosive testing of triggers for nuclear bombs, a plan for an underground nuclear-test shaft and efforts to redesign the nose-cone of Iran’s far-flying Shahab-3 rocket to accommodate a nuclear warhead."
And yet Fareed Zakaria, who is otherwise a pretty smart guy, seems to assume on his TV show that these negotiations have a chance to work. How?
Nobody points out the foolishness of trying to get Iran to stop its nuclear race. Condoleezza Rice says Iran is vulnerable on its nuclear ambitions. Otherwise smart Senator Biden, chair of the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee, writes an op-ed encouraging pressure to change Iran’s behavior and give up weapons. What are these people thinking?!
No amount of sticks or carrots will make Iran drop its nuclear plans. At best, like with North Korea, the West can play a game that will slightly slow down the regime’s path, and it can certainly extract a high cost for Iran’s efforts, isolating and weakening it.
But the only true path to end Iran’s drive to acquire nuclear weapons is for the government to change. If policymakers can’t stomach that undertaking, they should just accept and brace themselves for a nuclear Iran.
What are the options?
What is not in the cards is to expect this regime to drop its quest for nuclear weapons, overtly or covertly!
I got the following email from Ziad Abdelnour, President of the US Committee for a Free Lebanon. Ziad was born in Lebanon, and he does not parse any words. While sometimes he is rough and undiplomatic, his clarity is necessary at times of politically correct ambiguity, as we’ve witnessed when addressing Iran and its quest to acquire nuclear weapons.
Anyone who truly thinks the West can actually "negotiate" to get the Iranian regime to relinquish its quest is deluding themselves and has not been listening to what the Iranian Ayatollahs have been telling their people. They play the West like a violin with embarassing protracted games designed to buy time, which is in their favor.
The observation that you can pursue regime change or nuclear containment, but not both, is probably true. But what is uncomfortable to face is the reality that the later is unlikely to yield any results. Below is Ziad’s letter:
With or Without Nukes, Iran and its proxies Syria and Hizballah are a Mortal Threat
As President Bush’s term is coming to a close, Lebanon’s survival as a multi-ethnic, multi-denominational state is more than ever at stake.
Iran and Syria are quickly changing the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean, while the West and moderate Arab states appear almost paralyzed and the Lebanese State is nowhere to behave like a sovereign country but a province of Syria and Iran. All what the Lebanese are concerned about nowadays is how much fun and how many tourists they will host this summer rather than ruthlessly dealing with the total political and economic chaos the country is facing; threatening its very existence.
BUT…. this is not about Lebanon, but about the U.S. presence in the Middle East, its diplomacy, and its allies.
Ever since taking the U.S. embassy staff hostage in 1979, the Islamist regime in Teheran has led an international spree of bombings, hijackings, and other terrorist attacks on Americans and Westerners. Now politicians and diplomats, who put up with Iranian aggression for years, are loudly promising to block Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
On the campaign trail, for instance, our Presidential candidates debate how (i.e., with or without preconditions) they’d negotiate to dissuade Iran from pursuing a nuke–on the idea that without such a weapon in Iranian hands, everything will be hunky-dory.
A rational assessment of Iran would have to recognize that the mullahs in Teheran have been conducting a proxy war against America for at least a few decades. The inspiration for this war is Iran’s jihadist goal of imposing Islamic totalitarianism globally. Iran is a leading sponsor of jihadists and the self-identified role model for exporting its Islamic revolution to other countries. It is the sworn enemy of the West. We should take seriously its call to bring "Death to America!"–because it has already done so.
BUT….also in here, too many American diplomats and commentators refuse to judge Iran. Instead, they regard its past hostility as a string of disconnected crises, unrelated to Iran’s ideological agenda. They avoid naming the nature of the regime and behave as if its acquisition of a nuclear weapon would be the decisive event. But that particular weapon–despite its power–cannot be the whole story, since we don’t worry about other countries, such as France and Britain, having nukes. The rarely admitted difference is that the regime in Iran would eagerly press the launch button.
This fear-the-weapon-not-the-killer mentality refuses to understand the threat posed by Iran right now. This view holds that only the concrete facts about Iran’s arsenal have any practical significance, while its abstract, ideological goals and character can be disregarded with impunity. But whether Iran uses one nuke, or attacks with more conventional weapons, its victims are still dead.
Our leaders’ narrow concern with Iran’s nuclear capability cannot make the regime’s longstanding hostility to America go away. Americans should face the real character and conduct of the Iranian regime, before it is too late.
The United States must recognize that America does still have allies in the Middle East, especially when it comes to containing Iran. Saudi Arabia, the Sunni Arab Gulf states, as well as our European allies all understand what is at stake. Yet, to pursue a policy of Iran containment, the United States must make it clear that it will stand by its allies.
Washington therefore should immediately:
· Design and implement a comprehensive policy that includes military, covert, economic, diplomatic, and public diplomacy components to decisively and quickly weaken and roll back Iran and Syria. They have assets and interests that can be frozen or confiscated. They also have officials and businessmen who travel throughout the world and should not be welcome anywhere as long as their policies remain disruptive in Lebanon, Iraq, Gaza, and elsewhere. Any Lebanese, Syrian and Iranian officials or entity involved in financing, training, supplying, and facilitating terrorism, and specifically Hezbollah, should be placed on the visa boycott list starting with Bashar Assad and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
· Work with the European allies so that they declare Hezbollah a terrorist organization, put it on the EU terrorism list, and freeze their economic activities, fundraising, and financial assets throughout Europe, the Middle East, and around the world. Adding Hezbollah to the EU terrorism list would also be an important step toward disarming its militia and restoring the rule of law in Lebanon. Hezbollah enjoys Iranian subsidies and Syrian arms supply. However, Hezbollah is allowed to operate openly, including fundraising and profitable businesses in Europe. This must stop immediately. The State Department and anti-terror arms of the United States and Arab states need to work with the Europeans to ban Hezbollah’s activities on the continent.
· Halt whatever it takes arms shipments and spare part supplies to Hezbollah’s TV and radio channels, telecommunications, businesses, and vehicles. These supplies originate in Europe, the U.S., Japan, and other Far Eastern locations, and are shipped through Beirut and the Gulf. The U.S. should initiate a drastic and concerted effort to stop military re-supply of Hezbollah. The United Nations should be urged to do a better job implementing Resolution 1701, which envisages disarmament of all Lebanese militias, including Hezbollah, and halts the arms supply to it, especially by Iran and Syria. The U.S. should also work with allies in the Middle East and Europe to halt non-military supplies to Hezbollah’s businesses and telecommunications operations.
Time to act is of the essence. Time to dismantle Iran and its proxies is a must…no matter what. This circus has got to stop right now….Enough is enough.
Your support towards this critical cause is always greatly appreciated
Respectfully,
Ziad K. Abdelnour
President
US Committee for a Free Lebanon