Weekly Reads/Watch:
Weekly Reads/Watch:
Jennifer Rubin, Daily Beast: In response to a reader’s question, “Do US Interests Ever Diverge From Israel’s?”, the Washington Post’s extremely pro-Israel blogger presumptively says it’s “interesting” that the question was asked about Israel rather than the United Kingdom or Australia, implying that the questioner has an ulterior motive. That’s a curious way to respond, considering how Rubin is unabashedly one of the most pro-Israel commentators on U.S. foreign policy currently hosted at a prominent platform and spends much of her time vehemently criticizing the Obama administration for not doing enough for Israel. Besides that, there is no reason for a person to ask that question about the U.S.’s commonwealth allies because they do not receive anywhere near the aid or seemingly unbreakable loyalty that the U.S. has been giving Israel for decades. But perhaps what is most “interesting” is Rubin’s answer when it comes to the issue of Iran:
…if military action is needed, American should be the power to take the lead. Fist of all we have the best military in the world with the greatest capabilities, but also it cements our role as leader of the West. If we are seen to be subcontracting out if you will our responsibilities, I think that diminishes the influence of the United States and suggests that we’re less than enthusiastic, that our allies are on their own so to speak and that’s a very bad precedent.
On the other hand, Israel has a very different take. When the Prime Minister came to the United States a couple months ago he held up two sheets of paper, they were the letters from the World Jewish Congress 1932 begging the President of the United States then to bomb the railroad lines to the death camps, that plea was rejected and it has been essentially a fundamental principle of Zionism and the Israeli State that Jews in Israel must defend themselves, that they must take their own national security into their own hands and in essence they shouldn’t be contracting out the survival of the Jewish State to another power.
So in one case we have the instance in which America may feel like it should take action and another case in which Israel should take action. Now those critics of the President’s policy such as myself think the problem can be solved either by coordination or acting sooner rather than later but that is not a dispute that is probably going to be resolved. And I think one or the other will go and I suspect given this administration’s disinclination to act forcefully on foreign policy before the election it will probably be the Israel’s to feel compelled to act.
Some more questions for Rubin now since she apparently has all the answers. In what way does it serve U.S.’s interests to initiate a war with Iran on Israel’s behalf, when it has been acknowledged by the highest echelons of the U.S. military elite that Iran does not present an immediate threat to the U.S.? In what way does it serve U.S. interests to initiate a war with Iran that analysts across the political spectrum have been arguing for years could have catastrophic short-term and long-term effects such as global economic havoc, harm to U.S. troops posted overseas, possible harm to U.S. citizens in retaliation, high financial costs for the U.S. economy, not to mention massive harm to human life and to Israeli citizens who would also likely be targeted in retaliation? And why would it serve Israel’s interests if everyone agrees that striking Iran would at best set back its alleged nuclear ambitions by only a few years and could in fact provide Iran with an incentive to become a nuclear-armed power quickly? So tell us, please, Mrs. Rubin, why a U.S.-waged war on Iran would serve U.S. interests?
Also see a commenter’s response to Rubin’s answer about the Iraq vs. Iranian narratives here.
Danielle Pletka, American Enterprise Institute (AEI): The AEI’s vice president for foreign and defense policy studies (who declared a few months ago that “[t]he biggest problem for the United States is not Iran getting a nuclear weapon and testing it. It’s Iran getting a nuclear weapon and not using it.”) says Israel’s bitter description of recent talks between Iran and the P5+1 was “too kind”. Pletka also expresses no qualms about an Israeli strike on Iran which she eagerly reminds us is still a possibility:
Israeli PM Netanyahu labeled the outcome of the talks a “freebie” for Iran. He was too kind. The talks were a victory for Iran, and a humiliation for the Obama administration, and its hapless “please meet with me” delegation. The thin-skinned president was angry and slapped back at Netanyahu, yet another sign he’s playing Iran’s game for them. But that doesn’t mean the Israelis have to play along: Today, Defense Minister Barak told Israeli Army Radio that Israel has made no commitment not to strike Iran while talks are going on.
Tom Ridge, General Hugh Shelton, Patrick Kennedy, Fox New: By now those who follow U.S.-Iran relations closely should be familiar with the Mujahideen-e-khalq (MEK aka NCRI, MKO, PMOI) and their massive lobbying campaign to get delisted from the U.S. foreign terrorist organizations (FTO) list. If not, see here. Part of the MEK’s efforts have reportedly involved spending millions in “speaking fees” for high-level former U.S. officials to sing their praises in one way or another as Ridge, Shelton and Kennedy did this week. This is not the first time that these public figures have advocated for the MEK and it’s unlikely to be the last. In any case, here they argue that the MEK whom they inaccurately describe as the Iranian government’s “main opposition” (despite it’s efforts to appear otherwise the MEK has little support outside Iran and almost none inside it), is a “weapon” for bringing about U.S.-backed “regime change”. Oh, and don’t forget about the humanitarian reasons to support this Iranian exile U.S.-designated terrorist group, they say:
As President Obama struggles to find a solution to Iran’s increasingly threatening nuclear ambitions, he should realize that the most powerful weapon the US can deploy now is not the sanctions of diplomacy, or the missiles of war, but support for regime change in Iran.
In the meantime, one can only hope that Secretary Clinton means it when she says that the Iranian people deserve to be free of the mullahs. Unshackling the main Iranian opposition movement from an unwarranted State Department blacklist and honoring US promises to guarantee the safety of exiled Iranian dissidents would certainly be a good place to start.
Chuck Freilich, Jerusalem Post: A rather confusing argument came from the former deputy national security adviser to the Israeli government turned Harvard fellow this week. Diplomacy with Iran should be pursued and while going to war should be avoided, it should also be considered, Freilich claims, even if the best case scenario that “military action” will result in is a “few years” of favorable results. Then the same argument again (along with a half-baked argument for why Iranians would ultimately welcome foreign-waged war) along with the declaration that soon the only choices the U.S. will have are war or a nuclear-armed Iran regardless of what happens:
Military action is certainly not a panacea. Iran already has the know-how needed to reconstitute the program, if attacked, and could reach its current stage of development again within a few years. A gain of a few years, however, should also not be dismissed.
…
Some argue that an attack will merely rally the Iranian people around the regime, which is indeed a likely short-term result. There is, however, no reason to presume that this will be the case once the initial fury passes and Iranians truly consider their interests, especially if the international community continues to impose heavy costs. It should be remembered that the regional uprisings began with the demonstrations in Iran in June 2009.Diplomacy and sanctions should be pursued during the coming months, while the window of opportunity for doing so still remains open.
Ultimately, however, the choice will come down to one of two danger-fraught alternatives: living with a nuclear Iran through containment and deterrence, or military action. Whichever approach one favors, we owe it to ourselves to face up to this painful choice honestly.
In an article on Fox News’ website, former Bush administration officials Michael Mukasey and Tom Ridge and former FBI director Louis Freeh claim that in his apparent rush to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, President Obama is abandoning the Iranian exile group the Mujahedeen-e [...]]]>
In an article on Fox News’ website, former Bush administration officials Michael Mukasey and Tom Ridge and former FBI director Louis Freeh claim that in his apparent rush to pull U.S. troops out of Iraq, President Obama is abandoning the Iranian exile group the Mujahedeen-e Khalq’s (MEK):
There’s so much wrong with this brief clip of their piece that it’s difficult to know where to start.
To begin with, Obama is hardly in a “panicked haste to exit from Iraq.” As news reports have indicated over the past months, the Obama administration has been pressuring the Iraqis to strike a deal to allow U.S. troops to stay past the end of 2011, a deadline imposed by a Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) struck by George W. Bush in 2008 despite warnings that the deal could constrict the next president’s policies.
Indeed, Freeh, Mukasey and Ridge acknowledged this fact five paragraph’s later in the same article:
Attacking Obama for wanting to rush out of Iraq seems just as disingenuous as the authors’ charge that the administration “intends to leave [the MEK adherents in Ashraf] to the indelicate mercy of…the Mullahs’ good friend Nouri al-Maliki.” The notion that Iraqis — who have officially wanted the MEK off their soil since 2008 — need to be pressured by the Iranians into harsh actions against Ashraf is absurd. As CAP analyst Matt Duss recently noted, the MEK, which is designated as a terror group by the U.S., is “despised…by many Iraqis for having aided Saddam [Hussein] in his crackdowns on Iraqi Shiites and Kurds.” Earlier this year, Duss explained:
The New York Times also recently noted that the Obama administration — far from abandoning the MEK members in Iraq — has been engaged in active diplomacy to get them out of harm’s way, eventually hoping to relocate them to a third country outside Iran (where they’re also likely to face persecution) or Iraq. However, the diplomacy, reported the Times, has thus far hit a dead end because “the residents are refusing to leave, and no countries have come forward to welcome them.”
That the three conservative officials-turned-pundits would make disingenuous attacks on Obama is no surprise. Their skewed perspective absolving the MEK of its role in blocking solutions to its predicament might also be easy enough to explain, though: Freeh, Mukasey and Ridge are among a coterie of top former U.S. officials who have been paid by groups that support the MEK, advocate for removing them from the U.S. terror list, and in some cases urge U.S. support and recognition as an Iranian government in exile despite the lack of any meaningful MEK political constituency within Iran.
]]>