Daniel Lubetzky

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?

• Regime Change
• accept inevitability of Iranian regime working to develop nuclear weapons but make it very painful to the point that regime will be unpopular enough to fall
• Military attacks and counterinsurgency (applied in the same manner that Iranians do in Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine) to undermine the Iranian regime

What is not in the cards is to expect this regime to drop its quest for nuclear weapons, overtly or covertly!

[Read more →]

The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

- SENATOR BARACK OBAMA, speaking in Berlin.

In OneVoice form, he also said:

This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it.  This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it.

If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks [of terror]

If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

China seems intent on using its veto at the UN to minimize any interference with national sovereignty, even at the expense of basic human rights and values, to the point of again vetoing a UN resolution against Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s atrocious dictator, and seeking to fight an ICC warrant against Sudan’s genocidal President.  Howard French just wrote an excellent article on this issue.

But what seems to also be missing from most analyses on this topic, is that China is not just trying to limit ‘foreign interference’ in national affairs but also just plainly trying to avoid having to pay any commercial price for being a global citizen.  The United States and other Western countries incur a tangible cost for taking certain moral stances.  Sometimes these principles are worth more than trade.  It is truly immoral to pursue trading interests at all costs. The policy-making community, and CONSUMERS, have not weighed in enough on this issue.

[Read more →]

Kenneth Pollack offers a compelling perspective on the effects an oil boom in the Middle East.

[Read more →]

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

Today we received some samples of interesting products from Turkey: fruits stuffed with nuts.  I thought they were great possible additions to our healthy snacks family – minimally processed, all natural, flavorful, just sun dried.  But it was funny (and sad) that in informal focus groups, most consumers were turned off by the look of the dried figs and encrusted walnuts.  Ok, dried figs and walnuts may well look like coarse mummy brains as some of my team members were saying.

  But it seems like some people are getting too used to over-processed artificially created surfaces that are smooth, brightly bleached and homogenous.  It is interesting that, while there is a huge backlash against these overly-processed products, some consumers have almost gotten hypnotized into expecting factory-bland looks, without recognizing the health implications.  It is almost as if we are being conditioned to expect the factory look, rather than the natural.

The article below points to local opposition to water bottling facilities, but does not even highlight one of the biggest reasons why bottled water is causing such backlash: it’s plastic bottles overwhelming negative environmental impact…

[Read more →]

– As we gear towards the general election, a word of caution for US Presidential candidates about an important constituency that will not vote for them –

According to conventional wisdom, Presidential candidates can take campaign stances that will curry favor with particular constituencies of voters, only to be forgiven for adjusting campaign positions once they face the realities of the highest office.

The truth is that a campaign defines how the electorate will see their President – and this all the more true when shaping the President’s image in the eyes of the largest constituency that will actually not vote for them: the international community.

While domestically the President may be able to somewhat reshape his/her image through defining moments and actions, this is far less feasible internationally.

Only Americans vote for their President, but foreigners care almost as much – and sometimes more – about who will lead the most powerful nation in the world.

International impressions about a candidate are forged quite early, and they are far harder to change. Longer distances yield local media coverage that tends to be more one-dimensional and absolute, less nuanced, and more sporadic. Foreign coverage will also tend to be defined more narrowly from the prism of a particular nation’s foreign affairs agenda, as opposed to a plethora of domestic issues.

President Bush caused particular suspicion abroad during his 2000 campaign mocking Al Gore, and then again John Kerry in 2004, for their ‘multilateralism.’ He made it a pillar of his campaign to emphasize he would only pursue narrowly-defined American interests. He rejected the Kyoto protocols not only on their substance but on what they implied – that American policy would be harmonized with – or subservient to – global agendas for climate control.

Perhaps this stance helped him win over nativist constituencies. And he had little to fear about alienating foreigners who by definition could not vote. But global karma caught up with him and has as much to do with his Administration’s ultimate ineffectiveness as any other factor.

Foreign Heads of State in rare uniform fashion viewed him apprehensively, and large swaths of people reviled him across the globe. They could not vote him out. But they could vote with their policies and their currencies. Not only did Bush struggle to build his coalition in Iraq, but the ‘America’ brand was tarnished, American goods disfavored, and the dollar weakened.

America’s perceived weakness today is directly connected to displeasure with Bush’s unilateralist policies, whose perceptions were cemented during his campaign pronouncements even more than through his Administration’s work.

Even when Bush did positive international work, his image (and that of his Administration) had been unalterably shaped. He funded the fight against AIDS and pressed against poverty through far greater foreign aid than his predecessors. But he got no credit for it. Once international personas are shaped, it is close to impossible to alter them.

The same is true with foreign leaders from other nations – Putin vs. Gorbachev, Chirac vs. Sarkozy, Sharon vs. Peres – they are a brand unto themselves and will be hard-pressed to change it abroad no matter what different policies they may enact.

Starting with this general election, future candidates for the US presidency will hopefully bear in mind that the world is watching, and their statements will not be forgotten after the dust settles.

Both Obama and McCain seem to be more in tune to the foreign-policy-shaping impact of their campaign statements than President Bush was. Their visions for foreign policy could not be in greater contrast. McCain projects unwavering strength against militant absolutism and nihilism. Obama urges soft power and diplomatic engagement in tandem with military might. Neither perspective can be dismissed as unfounded or demagogic. Not even history will help us judge such a poignant question to such complex and dire circumstances.

But both will do well to remember that their campaign pronouncements will shape their international personas and will thus have almost as much impact on their ability to advance American (and possibly global) interests as the policies they enact thereafter if elected.

Today felt like an incomplete Sunday, without Tim Russert, the giant political anchor of Meet the Press who passed away on Monday.  As a story in the New York Times observed, politicians coveted the "victorious trial by fire" that would come if they survived Russert’s tough but fair questions.  His tenacity was rare.  He will be missed.

Gerald Seib wrote a straightforward, clear, and to-the-point column in the Wall Street Journal on the "would you meet with leaders of rogue states" question haunting Barack Obama – using Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s approach towards Syria as a very good example of how to do things.

[Read more →]