I’d like to pose a question. Do you believe that someone who writes the following letter should be forced out of his position as chaplain at an Ivy League university?
To the Editor:
Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza [...]]]>
I’d like to pose a question. Do you believe that someone who writes the following letter should be forced out of his position as chaplain at an Ivy League university?
To the Editor:
Deborah E. Lipstadt makes far too little of the relationship between Israel’s policies in the West Bank and Gaza and growing anti-Semitism in Europe and beyond.
The trend to which she alludes parallels the carnage in Gaza over the last five years, not to mention the perpetually stalled peace talks and the continuing occupation of the West Bank.
As hope for a two-state solution fades and Palestinian casualties continue to mount, the best antidote to anti-Semitism would be for Israel’s patrons abroad to press the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for final-status resolution to the Palestinian question.
(Rev.) BRUCE M. SHIPMAN
Groton, Conn., Aug. 21, 2014
One can, to be sure, disagree with the opinion Bruce Shipman, a former chaplain from Yale, expressed—I certainly do. Anti-Semitism is not the same as opposition to Israeli policies, the two are quite distinct and plenty of Jew-haters fully support even more aggressive and brutal policies either because they hate Muslims and Arabs more than Jews or because they have some apocalyptic vision of where such Jewish behavior might take the Jews.
Anti-Semitism does not increase due to Israel’s behavior. Anti-Semitic activity might, as haters see an opportunity to cloak their hate in something else. But bigotry has a life of its own. More to the point, Israelis will not behave like “good Jews” in order to stem a theoretical rising tide of anti-Semitism. That’s not why Israel should end its occupation, should end its siege of Gaza, and should recognize, with full faith, that Palestinians have the same national, civil and human rights as Israeli Jews. Politics doesn’t work this way, but civil society should be pushing for these things because they are a moral imperative. And Israel should pursue such a course because it is the only way its citizens will ever know peace and security.
So, yes, I think Shipman was wrong. But he was hardly expressing hatred towards Jews. He was speaking out of obvious concern for both Israelis and Palestinians and a hope for a peaceful resolution to the conflict. He may have been wrong about Israeli actions causing anti-Semitism, but he is not the only person who believes this and there is room for reasonable debate on that point. In any case, he was certainly not saying that Israel’s actions justified anti-Semitism. And yet, he was forced to resign.
Is this really where we’ve ended up? Yes. Ideas are fully policed on this issue. Academia, which is precisely the place that disagreements, and especially controversial ideas, are supposed to be debated with civility, has become one of the most heavily policed arenas. The recent controversy at the University of Illinois, where Professor Steven Salaita was “de-hired” because of his outspoken statements on Twitter about Israel’s massive onslaught on Gaza, has now grown to the point where it is threatening the university’s administration. Yet they have not reversed their decision to date.
It’s not like controversial views on both sides of the Israel-Palestine conflict are under such attack. Thane Rosenbaum, for example, called on Israel to kill Palestinian civilians. His op-ed in the Wall Street Journal generated a lot of controversy, but his position at New York University’s School of Law was never in danger, and I wouldn’t want it to be.
Opinions, even hateful ones, need to be out in the open. How can they otherwise be countered? Instead, when it comes to Israel, we have gone entirely in the other direction, but only on one side of the question.
Bruce Shipman, apparently, resigned “voluntarily,” not wanting to create or be in the middle of further controversy at Yale. But there never should have been any such pressure on him. There is no conceivable stretch that can turn what Shipman wrote, regardless of how much anyone disagrees with him, into hate speech. Short of that, any individual should be able to express an opinion. That is especially true about community leaders, which school chaplains obviously are, and the academic world.
So enough with the false allegations of anti-Semitism, which are insulting to those like myself who have experienced physical violence from anti-Semitism. Enough with the extremists supporting the worst Israeli policies who—apparently knowing that their case cannot withstand open debate—threaten and pressure those who raise opposing opinions (I have received death threats from such people as well).
It’s high time for everyone to agree that ideas can and should be debated. Islamophobes and others who do not acknowledge Palestinians’ basic human rights have a national platform with FOX News. More legitimate defenders of Israeli policies and those who are deeply opposed to those policies should also be able to voice their views in public. Everyone who is interested in the Israel-Palestine conflict should agree with this fair and just principle. The only ones who can’t, it would seem, are the naysayers who oppose legitimate debate. I wonder why.
]]>by Daniel Luban
Charles Krauthammer, July 1, denouncing the Obama administration for refusing to speak out against Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi:
“Obama the bystander again. Here are the Egyptians in the millions, out on the street, trying to bring down an Islamist government — increasingly dictatorial, increasingly intolerant, arresting journalists and [...]]]>
by Daniel Luban
Charles Krauthammer, July 1, denouncing the Obama administration for refusing to speak out against Egyptian President Mohammed Morsi:
“Obama the bystander again. Here are the Egyptians in the millions, out on the street, trying to bring down an Islamist government — increasingly dictatorial, increasingly intolerant, arresting journalists and judgues, trying to Islamicize the military — and the people are saying, ‘No,’ and what does the president of the United States do? He takes a position of studied neutrality; he says he’s not supporting either side.”
Krauthammer compared the Egyptian situation to that of Iran during the abortive Green Revolution of 2009, during which “the same thing happened . . . they were shouting ‘Obama, Obama, are you with us or against us? And he took a position that was essentially support of the regime . . . . That was a shameful episode.”
We might note that Krauthammer’s remarks came immediately after the Egyptian military had given Morsi a 48-hour deadline to resolve the situation — a time when any public support of the protesters by Obama would clearly (and fairly) have been interpreted as support for a potential coup.
Fast forward one week, one coup and one massacre later.
Charles Krauthammer, July 8, praising the Obama administration for refusing to take a stance on events in Egypt:
“I don’t think I’ve ever said this, but I think Carney actually got it exactly right today,” Charles Krauthammer remarked on Special Report Monday evening when asked about the Obama administration’s decision to postpone an official response to the ousting of Egyptian president Mohamed Morsi by the Egyptian army last week.
Krauthammer explained that the U.S. is “not in a position to decide” which side to take in the upheaval and agreed that the White House should “wait and see” how the situation develops.
Photo Credit: Jonathan Rashad
]]>In a recent Fox News article, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin presents an issue that will consume Middle East policy makers for decades: “Is There Really Democracy in the Middle East?” He’s apparently not interested, however, in serious analysis of that question. Instead Rubin offers a partisan polemic [...]]]>
In a recent Fox News article, the American Enterprise Institute’s Michael Rubin presents an issue that will consume Middle East policy makers for decades: “Is There Really Democracy in the Middle East?” He’s apparently not interested, however, in serious analysis of that question. Instead Rubin offers a partisan polemic criticizing the Obama administration’s responses to the Arab Spring and last week’s events in Benghazi.
Rubin dismisses as “initial optimism” Secretary of State Clinton’s September 2011 description of a “US strategy… based on America’s experience at the end of the Cold War, helping countries that are moving to democracy.” For Rubin, the Arab Spring is far different. Last week’s violence in Benghazi was “equivalent to…Robespierre unleashing the Reign of Terror in the chaos…following the 1789 storming of the Bastille that began the French Revolution.” He argues that President Obama was annoyed “with analysts who suggested that Islamists might hijack the uprisings” and “directed his aides to discount parallels to Iran and focus instead on comparisons to Eastern European transitions after 1989” instead. He goes on to add, in a dramatic tone channeling the stentorian tones of Orson Welles, that “the Islamist putsch continues…as the Muslim Brotherhood…filled the vacuum” in Tunisia and Egypt after their respective dictators abdicated.
Unfortunately, Rubin can only offer a hardly realistic alternative. He suggests that we “ask whether democracy is even possible in the region” because Islamists will inevitably hijack it, as he states they already have in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. And since he refers to the French Revolution more than once (but in misleading comparisons), it is appropriate to characterize Rubin’s policy preference in those terms. He seems to deny the Arabs who removed their autocratic regimes the legacy of the French Revolution that we in the West have enjoyed for two centuries. Historians define almost unanimously this legacy as including the basic rights of man and citizen, the right to free and fair elections, an end to feudalism and hereditary privileges, the equality of all men under the law, and free speech and thought.
Despite Rubin’s version of the Obama administration’s missteps, can anyone identify any Middle East policy makers in or out of government, in the US or abroad, who do not agree with Rubin’s Kuwaiti academic, Saad al-Din Ibrahim, when he says that “It’s understandable the Muslim Brotherhood won… after years in opposition they could promise constituents the world?”
Inconveniently for Rubin, we in the West bear some responsibility for the unique domestic popularity of Islamist parties within Middle Eastern nations. Rubin understands the strength of Islamists in Arab societies today but chooses pointedly to ignore the reasons for their presence. During the Cold War, the region’s autocrats attracted Western aid by suppressing the left. Autocrats promoted Islam as a domestic bulwark against leftist movements. Israel even adopted this tactic. As is commonly reported, Israel provided Hamas support to grow into an alternative to leftist Palestinian organizations. After the fall of communism, Arab autocrats maintained American support by ensuring that their domestic opposition could not interfere in negotiating peace agreements with Israel.
Rubin also complains that the Administration is “treating American aid as an entitlement for hostile regimes.” The last time I checked, Egypt, Tunisia, and Libya are not enemies of the United States. No doubt, elements within their societies are, but elements like these also exist in Eastern Europe and among other US allies. Rubin’s complaints about American financial aid “appeasing” the newly elected regimes discounts the possibility that they may truly enjoy majority support from their electorates. Moreover, the US has provided aid to foreign nations to enhance American interests for decades; it’s not charity.
Since Rubin expects any administration to ensure a continuance of American influence in the region, the Obama administration’s early support for the Arab Spring, its assistance to the Libyan Revolution and financial aid, are among the tools the US must continue to employ; “big sticks” are no longer an appropriate option. Rubin also ignores elements within these countries that can serve as US allies such as the Egyptian army and the thousands of Benghazi residents who ejected Islamist militias from the city the other day. His account of the Benghazi violence never mentions that dozens of Libyans tried to help the beleaguered diplomats.
Rubin’s main problem seems to be with Middle Eastern democracy itself. He seems truly unsettled by the results of free elections. But democracy can be messy; its initial baby steps messier still. Sometimes your friends don’t win. There is no evidence that Islamists stole the Egyptian elections. President Mohamed Morsi may have won the freest and fairest election in the country’s history. It would be much worse for the US, presuming a monopoly on democratic perfection, if it were to deny it to others. The US is fortunate as of yet to remain relatively untarnished by the West’s history of predatory and lethal activities throughout Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. Perhaps, unlike in Iran, the US can reap the wind without sowing the whirlwind.
]]>Lobe Log publishes Hawks on Iran every Friday. Our posts highlight militaristic commentary and confrontational policy recommendations about Iran from a variety of sources including news articles, think tanks and pundits.
Jacob Helibrunn, National Interest: The senior editor argues that President Obama could “bomb Iran in late October” to [...]]]>
Lobe Log publishes Hawks on Iran every Friday. Our posts highlight militaristic commentary and confrontational policy recommendations about Iran from a variety of sources including news articles, think tanks and pundits.
Jacob Helibrunn, National Interest: The senior editor argues that President Obama could “bomb Iran in late October” to prevent it from developing a nuclear weapon and prove that he is not a “foreign policy wimp”. (Urging Obama to wage war for political expediency isn’t exactly a new idea among neoconservatives — take Daniel Pipes’ recommendation in 2010.) Writes Helibrunn:
President Obama could bomb Iran in late October to try and ensure that it does not develop nuclear weapons. A devastating strike would create an upsurge of patriotism in America and fully neutralize Mitt Romney’s contention that Obama is a foreign-policy wimp. It could allow Obama to sweep to victory in November.
He adds that “the neocons may be closer to helping bring about an assault on Iran than even they realize”:
They’ve already captured Romney. But they may also be on the verge of capturing Obama. Their sustained campaign of pressure, in other words, may be more effective than anyone has acknowledged. For the fact is that Obama already has amply demonstrated his ruthlessness when it comes to confronting America’s adversaries. If he were able to carry out regime change in Tehran, he might even start referring to himself as the new Decider.
Bill Kristol, Fox News: Speaking on an “All-Star” Fox News panel that includes fellow neoconservative ideologue Charles Krauthammer, Bill Kristol laments what he interpets as a U.S. abdication of its role in “helping to shape events” in the Middle East, as evidenced by the Obama administration’s unwillingness to intervene directly in Syria:
I just want to call attention to what Charles said. I think he was absolutely accurate, he said what the secretary of state of the United States said really doesn’t matter. This is Iran and Russia on the one hand, and Turkey and Saudi Arabia on the other. That is terrible. If we are abdicating our role of helping to shape events in this absolutely crucial part of the world, what does that say? Are we just going to let other countries ya know, play their games and stand back as if it doesn’t affect U.S. national security? What happens in Syria, which borders Israel, which is next to Iraq, where Iran is a major player?
Michael Gerson, Washington Post: Like John Hannah does here, Michael Gerson makes a claim that I can’t find any backing for — that the U.S. has changed its “red line” on Iran from preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapon capability (Israel’s “red line”) to preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (As far as I know, preventing an Iranian nuclear weapon has been the U.S.’s consistent stance on Iran.) In any case, Gerson makes that claim within a post that criticizes the Obama administration for “paralysis” and “inaction” with respect to its foreign policy:
]]>In Iran, a strategy of tightened sanctions and nuclear talks remains fruitless. Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta recently repainted America’s red line: “We will not allow Iran to develop a nuclear weapon.” Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad recently reaffirmed his objective: “Anyone who loves freedom and justice must strive for the annihilation of the Zionist regime.” The United States seems to be headed toward some kind of confrontation with Iran, without Obama making any apparent effort to prepare Americans. Unless it is all a disastrous, discrediting bluff.
Following U.S news media coverage of the Burgas, Bulgaria bombing, one would conclude that the Hezbollah provenance of the attack can be determined from recent alleged Hezbollah terrorist plotting against Israelis in Cyprus and elsewhere. The New York Times quoted anonymous U.S. officials saying that the Burgas attack bears [...]]]>
Following U.S news media coverage of the Burgas, Bulgaria bombing, one would conclude that the Hezbollah provenance of the attack can be determined from recent alleged Hezbollah terrorist plotting against Israelis in Cyprus and elsewhere. The New York Times quoted anonymous U.S. officials saying that the Burgas attack bears “all the hallmarks” of “the Hezbollah plots, including the arrest in Cyprus earlier this month of a suspected operative on the suspicion of scheming to kill Israeli tourists.”
So an arrest of a “suspected” Hezbollah operative who is “suspected” of a plan to kill Israeli tourists is the equivalent of an actual terrorist attack that has killed Israeli tourists? Bibi Netanyahu talked about the case on Fox News Sunday as though the Lebanese man arrested in Cyprus had done everything that was done in Burgas except actually detonate the bomb. The Israeli press has echoed this theme.
But as I reported last week, the Cyprus case is far murkier than Netanyahu and those U.S. officials have been suggesting. A senior Cypriot official told Reuters, “It is not clear what, or whether, there was a target in Cyprus.” Furthermore, the Cypriot investigators believe the Lebanese man they suspected of planning to harm Israeli tourists was acting alone, which doesn’t make it sound like a Hezbollah operation at all. Perhaps most significant of all, there has been no sign of a bomb or even of materials with which to make a bomb in conjunction with the Lebanese detainee. The Cypriot government has not yet decided whether there is enough evidence to prosecute the man on any violation of Cypriot laws.
The need for skepticism surrounding the Cyprus arrest applies even more strongly to the arrest in Bangkok January 12 of another Lebanese with a Swedish passport. The arrest came after what was described by the Thai Deputy Prime Minister as “weeks of coordination with Israel.” According to the official, the Israeli government had told Thai officials that “a group of people who appear to be from the Lebanese group Hezbollah” were planning to strike tourist sites in Bangkok in mid-January, presumably to harm Israeli tourists.
The Lebanese who was arrested was charged with possession of ammonium nitrate and urea fertilizer, which are potential bomb-making materials. But none of the other necessary components for bomb-making, such as fuses and timing devices were ever found. The former police chief, who is now the Secretary General of the Thai National Security Council expressed doubt that the man was actually a terrorist.
Given the fact that the Israelis were at the time planning the assassination of Iranian scientist Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan in early to mid-January, the Israeli tale of a massive terrorist threat coming in mid-January, which was first passed on to Thai authorities on December 22, was extremely convenient in terms of distracting attention from the inevitable negative press accompanying the Israeli terrorist action.
While the Obama administration and the Israeli government have pointed to these murky allegations in Cyprus and Bangkok as relevant to Burgas, it has exhibited no apparent interest in the historical record of actual suicide bombings against Israeli tourists.
The reason, apparently, is that all of the terrorist attacks that fit that description have been claimed by Al Qaeda or an affiliate.
The first suicide bombing against Israeli tourists was an Al Qaeda attack in Mombasa, Kenya, in November 2002. That operation involved an effort to shoot down an Israeli passenger jet as it took off from Mombasa’s airport, using shoulder-launched anti-aircraft missiles, and then the triple suicide car bombing of an Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa.Fortunately, the missile missed the aircraft, but the suicide bombing killed three Israeli tourists and 10 Kenyans.
The small number of Israeli deaths did accurately reflect Al Qaeda’s intentions. In claiming responsibility for the Mombasa attacks, Al Qaeda proclaimed that it was targeting “The Christian-Jewish alliance” and promised future and more lethal attacks on Jews around the world.
In October 2004, three suicide bombers detonated a truck bomb and car bombs at the Hilton Hotel in Taba and two other Red Sea resorts that were favorites of Israeli tourists in Egypt and most of the 34 dead were indeed Israelis. The Abdullah Azzam Brigades, an affiliate of Al Qaeda, took responsibility for the attack. The organization said the attacks were intended to “purify the land of Taba from the dirt and corruption of the grandchildren of monkeys and pigs.”
In July 2005, three more terrorist attacks by suicide bombs killed at least 88 people at a shopping area and hotel packed with tourists, including Israelis, in the Egyptian Red Sea resort city of Sharm el Sheik. The Abdullah Azzam Brigades again claimed responsibility for what it called an attack “on the Crusaders, Zionists and the renegade Egyptian regime.”
The Abdullah Azzam Brigades organization was designated by the State Department as a Foreign Terrorist Organization on May 24 of this year. Strangely, the designation ignored the history of the organization in suicide attacks on Israeli tourists in Egypt and said it was established only in 2009. But it did point out that the organization has bases in Lebanon which have launched rocket attacks on population centers in northern Israel, as well as an Arabian Peninsula branch which has declared its interest in kidnapping U.S. and British tourists.
Even if the U.S. national security state does not wish to acknowledge that the Burgas bombing fits the profile of an Al Qaeda terrorist operation rather than one by Hezbollah, there is no excuse for the U.S. news media failure to report that inconvenient truth.
*A version of this article appeared on www.antiwar.com
]]>Weekly Reads/Watch:
- News: U.S. Neo-Conservatives Assail Possible Compromise on Iran Talks[...]]]>
Weekly Reads/Watch:
- - News: U.S. Neo-Conservatives Assail Possible Compromise on Iran Talks
- News: Nuclear talks with Iran set to resume next month
- News: Hopes fade for progress at Iran nuclear talks in Baghdad
- News: Iran nuclear talks a ‘complete failure,’ says Iranian diplomat
- News: U.S. Hard Line in Failed Iran Talks Driven by Israel
- Opinion: The Iranian view on how to strike a deal
- Opinion: Undercutting negotiations hurts the U.S.
- Opinion: The Baghdad Talks and the Politics of Inflexibility
- Opinion: Iran Nuclear Talks Post-Mortem: Time to Cash in Some Sanctions
- Opinion: The Politics of Dignity: Why Nuclear Negotiations With Iran Keep Failing
- Opinion: The Nixon Option for Iran?
- Opinion: Are We Focusing on the Wrong Nuclear Threat?
- Watch: Iranian Nuclear Talks: Are Expectations Seriously Mismatched?
- Watch: Iranian insider: ‘Don’t ask for diamonds in return for peanuts’
Jamie Fly and Matthew Kroenig, Washington Post: In January academic Matthew Kroenig, who served for one year as a strategic analyst in the office of the secretary of defense, claimed that the U.S. could militarily strike Iran without causing havoc and catastrophe in the region. His arguments were widely criticized and supported by the usual suspects. The executive director of the neoconservative Foreign Policy Initiative, Jamie M. Fly, was one hawk who disagreed with Kroenig, but only because Kroenig did not go far enough. This week the two penned an op-ed where they claimed that President Obama has offered Iran too many carrots. This was just days before the talks almost collapsed after the only “relief” the P5+1 offered was spare parts for Iranian aircraft that have suffered tremendously from sanctions. What do Fly and Kroenig think will help the negotiation process? More military threats:
Success in the Baghdad talks would mean starting a process that would halt Iran’s program rather than just buy more time for Tehran. To do so, the United States must not only lay out the curbs on Iran’s nuclear program that Washington would be willing to reward, but also clearly outline what advances in Iran’s nuclear program it would be compelled to punish with military force. This is the only way to prove to the Iranians that, as Obama has said, the window is indeed closing.
Foreign policy analyst and president of the National Iranian American Council Trita Parsi responds:
The op-ed represents neo-conservatism 2.0. There are no longer open calls for invasion or military action a la Iraq. Kroenig and Fly even write that “No one wants military action.” Instead, they try to eliminate all other options by complaining that diplomacy has enabled Iran to buy time (as if Iran only has managed to advance its program amid talks, but been forced to halt it under sanctions and military threats), by bemoaning the UN Security Council’s slowness in handling Iran (as if the unilateral approach of the Bush administration was more effective), and by setting the bar for diplomacy at an impossible level in order to ensure its failure.
…
Yet, it is exactly this brinkmanship that has enabled the Iranian nuclear advances that the authors lament. In this game of pressure and counter pressure, the West has amassed economic sanctions on Iran (ostensibly to change Iran’s nuclear calculus) and Tehran has pressured back by expanding its nuclear program (ostensibly to present the West with a fait accompli). Diplomacy, in its most classic sense, has been tried very infrequently, and, consequently, no exit from this self-reinforcing cycle of escalation has been found.
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: The Post’s blogger who thinks the U.S. should go to war with Iran on Israel’s behalf asks when the U.S. is going to bomb Iran already!
Isn’t it time to stop the charade, call the administration’s approach what it is — a failure — and put the question squarely to the administration: Is it prepared now to use all options to stop Iran’s nuclear program or are we imply slow-walking toward acceptance and “containment” of a nuclear-armed Iran?
Jennifer Rubin/Mark Dubowitz, Washington Post: Rubin seeks the advice of the executive director of the ultra-hawkish Foundation for Defense of Democracies Mark Dubowitz (who says the goal of the U.S. with Iran should be regime change) on Iran. Here’s why:
Between now and the next meeting, he recommends some spine stiffeners: “Now is the time to get the new Iran sanctions legislation into conference committee, strengthen it in some fundamental ways and get it passed. That’s the right message to the Iranians and those whose negotiating strategy is to cave at the first sign of Iranian brinksmanship.” Dubowitz urges the administration to support sanctions “that blacklist the entire energy industry as a zone of proliferation concern, shut down the use of energy companies like Naftiran Intertrade and all other Iranian energy entities used as Central Bank of Iran workarounds to settle oil trades, impose a comprehensive insurance embargo on the underwriting of any sanctionable activity, designate the National Iranian Oil Company, its scores of subsidiaries, and NITC (Iran’s tanker fleet), enforce a comprehensive embargo on the imports of all goods and services for Iran’s broader commercial sector except for food and medicine, and enforce the establishment of both Europe and the United States as Iranian oil-free zones.”
But given what we have seen so far, it is quite possible, even if sanctions pass, that the Iranians are unmoved. (Given how silly the U.S. negotiators sound, you’d understand if the Iranians were not quaking in their boots.) What then? Dubowitz is blunt: “Congress should then declare on a bipartisan basis that, despite the best efforts of the administration, all sanctions and diplomatic measures are exhausted. It then should require President Obama to follow through on his commitment to use other, more coercive instruments of American power to stop Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
Charles Krauthammer, Fox News: Neoconservative hawk Charles Krauthammer declares on national television that the Obama administration should have armed the Green Movement and conducted covert operations in Iran in 2009 to help bring about regime change:
]]>O’REILLY: But what else could he have done except rhetoric?
KRAUTHAMMER: Weaponry — he could have done a lot of things. Rhetoric is one thing and not to support the legitimacy of the regime. Clandestine operations. Why do we have $50 billion in secret operations in the CIA if not for an opportunity like this? He was hands off. He did nothing and we lost one of the great opportunities in history.
Graham offered his curious take on what it means to negotiate — demanding that Iran accept all U.S. demands prior to negotiation — in a conversation with Fox News host Greta Van Susteren, who indicated that his negotiating tactic was probably a non starter. Graham first emphasized his hawkish bent by noting that the “only way” for an agreement to be reached between the sides was for the U.S. to threaten “a strike by the United States.” He went on:
GRAHAM: Here’s what we should do. We should tell the Iranians, no negotiations, stop enriching, open up the site on the bottom of the mountain, a secret site. Then we will talk about lifting sanctions. You are not going to get to enrich uranium any more, period.
VAN SUSTEREN: I think they will probably stay “go fish” on that one.
Watch the video:
Leave aside that the Fordow site is not “secret” (it’s under U.N. inspections and monitored by camera) and that reports on U.S. and Israeli estimates state that these intelligence agencies don’t believe Iran has made a decision to build nuclear weapons (Graham doubts the intelligence), Graham’s position prompts one to ask: What’s the alternative to negotiations, since Graham is proposing pre-conditions that Iran would never meet? The Senator from South Carolina’s been busy on that front, too — and falsely citing the Obama administration to back himself up. The House yesterday passed a resolution that seeks to shift U.S. “red line” for an attack to an Iranian “nuclear capability” — something Graham mentioned on Fox News — from an Iranian push for nuclear weapons.
While the CIA has laid out a specific definition, the “nuclear capability” language is a complex issue. The word “capability” has a special meaning in the non-proliferation context, but it’s not always clear exactly what. Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT), one of the Sentae’s most vociferous Iran hawks, said this year, “I guess everybody will determine for themselves what that means.”
Before the House version passed, co-sponsor Rep. Howard Berman (D-CA) clarified what he meant by “capability,” defining it as Iran mastering all elements of a weapon and kicking out U.N. inspectors. (The move allayed the fears of some critics that the measure could be interpreted as taking Graham’s hard-line on “no enrichment.”) House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) forthrightly noted that the “capability” language was a shift in U.S. policy that stood in contrast to “decision to develop nuclear weapons.” But Graham was most circumspect indefending his version of the bill on the Senate floor yesterday, conflating “capability” with the Obama administration red line of “weaponization.”
But Graham is wrong that blocking an Iranian nuclear “capability” is, as he said, an “echo (of) a policy statement made by President Obama.” In March, Obama committed (again) to “preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon” and that it was “unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon” — not a “capability.” He added, “I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” Earlier this year, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta said: “The United States… does not want Iran to develop a nuclear weapon. That’s a red line for us.”
While a potential Iranian nuclear weapon is widely considered a threat to both the security of the U.S. and its allies in the region, as well as the nuclear non-proliferation regime. The intelligence estimates give the West time to pursue a dual-track approach of pressure and diplomacy to resolve the crisis. Questions about the efficacy and consequences of a strike have led U.S. officials to declare that diplomacy is the “best and most permanent way” to resolve the crisis.
]]>Weekly Reads/Watch:
News: U.S. Iran Hawks in Congress in Some DisarrayNews: [...]]]>
Weekly Reads/Watch:
- News: U.S. Iran Hawks in Congress in Some Disarray
News: Iran nuclear talks: negotiators cite progress ahead of Baghdad meeting
News: U.N. nuclear agency to push Iran on military site access
News: U.S. Ambassador to Israel Speaks of Military Option for Iran
News: Iran sanctions bill coming to Senate floor again
News: Clinton: We don’t want the Iranians to say “We’ll get back to you”
News: Iranian Dissident Group Seeks to Shed Terrorist Label
News: Top U.S. think tank warns against Israeli, American strike on Iran
News: Ex-Israeli spy chief Meir Dagan headlines motley group pressing for tougher sanctions against Iran
Opinion: For Iran ‘Breakthrough,’ Coalition Cannot Break Down
Opinion: Spinning Up For Baghdad
Opinion: Sticks now, carrots later
Report: Iran’s Threat to the Strait of Hormuz
Report: How to Defuse Iran’s Nuclear Threat
Watch: Inside Iran’s inner circle
UANI, Wall Street Journal: You can argue that sanctions aid diplomacy, certainly, that’s the broken record we’ve been hearing for years. But the reverse argument–that sanctions can lead to war or fail to prevent it while harming the sanctioned country’s population–is equally valid or more so when we consider the case of Iraq. Enter United Against a Nuclear Iran (UANI), a private sanctions-enforcement group that strives to market itself as bipartisan but includes several prominent Iran hawks and neoconservatives on its advisory board. It believes Iran is led by “radical rulers seeking nuclear weapons” and “threatening the world”, so surely they would agree that a seriously threatened Iran might fight for its life in aggressive ways when being strangled? Yet there’s no acknowledgement of that in a WSJ op-ed penned by a number of well-known hawks from UANI urging “liked-minded nations” to “immediately…deliver a potentially decisive economic blow to the regime” by “passing the most robust sanctions against Iran in history.” They are not convinced that this extremely confrontational approach will bring about positive results, but say it’s a final step that needs to be taken before war:
… it’s common sense that before undertaking military action against a country, we should first try to dissuade it from its current course by applying decisive economic pressure. Doing so will show the regime that the world is serious and committed, willing to do whatever it takes to stop Iran’s pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Dan Shapiro/Shmuel Bar, New York Times: At a time when hopes are high for any kind of diplomatic progress with Iran and the West, Dan Shapiro, the U.S.’s ambassador to Israel, reminded the world that the military option is not only on the table, “necessary planning” has also been done “to ensure that it’s ready.” That wasn’t adequate for Shmuel Bar, director of studies at the Institute for Policy and Strategy in Herzilya, also quoted in the NYT piece:
“Saying it is not enough,” Mr. Bar said. What would have more significant effect, he said, is to show actual preparations for a military option by, for example, increasing deployment in the Persian Gulf.
“What actually the U.S. administration is doing is blowing hot and cold,” said Mr. Bar, who previously worked as an intelligence officer in the Israel Defense Force and in the prime minister’s bureau. “Actions do speak louder than words. The actions say the U.S. has a very strong aversion to any kind of military action.”
Mr. Bar pointed to a recent post on the Web site of the Iranian supreme leader that he described as “an analysis of why the U.S. cannot and will not go to war.”
“That is their candid evaluation of the situation,” he said. “When the Iranians see this, they say the Americans are doing everything they can to prevent Israel from attacking.”
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: Never one to be shy about her militant support for Israel, the Washington Post blogger paints a picture of the people who are pushing for hawkish measures against Iran in Washington (be sure to read Jim Lobe’s report for context) and reinforces her hawkish views at the same time. First is a quote from a regular source on her blog, Mark Dubowitz of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, who warns against the potential easing of crippling sanctions during negotiations:
As eager, however, as President Obama is for a deal that will get Iran off the front pages — and all but eliminate the possibility of an Israeli strike ahead of the November election — he cannot take the political risk of offering too much relief for too few concessions. Once sanctions start to unravel, the fear of U.S. penalties that held them together will become difficult to reestablish, and the multilateral sanctions regime — the centerpiece of the president’s Iran strategy — will be gone. This may also persuade the Israelis that the time for diplomacy has passed, and only military action can stop Iran’s development of nuclear weapons.
She then gratefully reminds us that Congress is pushing confrontational measures against Iran in spite of the “wimpy” U.S. President. (Thanks to Israel lobby organizations like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee):
Precisely because Congress feels Iran is engaged in a rope-a-dope game and/or Obama will make a foolhardy deal that fails to halt the Iranian nuclear weapons program, efforts are underway to craft maximalist sanctions in advance of May 23. The House passed such a bill by a lopsided vote of 410-11.
But the problem is that some people want to prevent bills that bring the U.S. closer to war with Iran from being passed:
The Senate is a different matter. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) who says he is in favor of sanctions could have put the House bill on the floor and given it an up or down vote. Instead he opted for a watered down version of the bill. He entertained language from isolationist Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) that would specifically state the bill was not an authorization for use of force. He then proceeded to shut Republicans out of the process.
A senior GOP congressional aide with close knowledge of Iran sanctions legislation told me, “Neither Leader Reid nor Chairman [Sen. Tim] Johnson’s staff ever agreed to a single meeting with Sen. [Mark] Kirk’s office to address the senator’s proposed amendment. E-mails and phone calls went unreturned for weeks. The first time Democrats ever discussed the Iran bill with Republicans was last night when Reid’s office dropped off the manager’s amendment he negotiated with himself.” The Democrats characterized the Republicans as refusing to move forward; Republicans explain they are not about to pass toothless sanctions bill that would be buried in the conference committee.
Elliott Abrams, Council on Foreign Relations: The well-known neoconservative and former key mideast advisor to George W. Bush worries that France’s new President may waiver from the confrontational path on Iran set by by former President Nicolas Sarkozy:
It is difficult to exaggerate how significant a softening of France’s hard line would be. France has been tougher than Russia and China of course, but has also stiffened the position of the “EU 3″ by being tougher than Germany and the UK. More important, it has at many junctures been tougher than the United States, sharply asking the difficult questions, highlighting logical deficiencies in arguments, and slicing through wishful thinking. If France is now to abandon this stance and simply agree with the UK, Germany, and the United States, the negotiations with Iran are more likely than ever to produce an unsatisfactory result that will be labelled adequate by its proponents.
Lindsey Graham, Fox News: Among the U.S.’s top Republican Hawks, the South Carolina senator flouted the “time is running out” card to Fox News viewers and publicly contradicted U.S. intelligence assessments showing that Iran has NOT made a decision to build a nuclear weapon. He also declared that President Obama must be more confrontational with Iran:
]]>“So President Obama, if you are listening out there, please convince the Iranians that all options really are on the table,” Graham said.
…
“The only way they will stop marching toward a nuclear weapon is if they believe the regime’ life is at stake and their livelihood being at risk, and that means a strike by the United States,” the senator added.He said it’s time to tell the Iranians, “No negotiations. . . . You are not going to get to enrich uranium any more, period.”
Weekly Reads/Watch:
Weekly Reads/Watch:
- - News: Ex-national security adviser: No apologies to Israel over Iran’s nuke program
- News: U.S. lawmakers say Iran talks inadequate, urge more penalties
- New: Iran’s Parchin complex: Why are nuclear inspectors so focused on it?
- News: Israel Deputy PM: ‘An Attack On Iran Won’t Help Us’
- Opinion: Blame Saddam: Another Way of Seeing Iran’s Nuclear Program
- Opinion: Seven Steps on the Way Towards a Peaceful Resolution of the Conflict Over Iran’s Nuclear Activities
- Opinion: Congress should not sabotage Iran negotiations
- Opinion: Backed Into a Corner
- Opinion: Five Principles for a Nuclear Deal with Iran
- Opinion: Hostage Negotiator Reveals Secrets to Dealing With Iran
- Opinion: US and Iran Should Adopt Nixon’s Yellow-Pad Method
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.
*This week’s must-reads/watch:
Peter Crail & Daryl Kimball: February 2012 IAEA Report on Iran: An Initial ReviewU.S. does not [...]]]>
*This week’s must-reads/watch:
- Peter Crail & Daryl Kimball: February 2012 IAEA Report on Iran: An Initial ReviewU.S. does not believe Iran is trying to build nuclear bomb
Schieffer Series: Iran: U.S. Policy Options
Inside Story Americas – Is Israel fueling fear not facts over Iran?
David Makovsky: Friendship Under Fire
Paul Pillar: A Dangerous Declaration
The Economist Takes a Stand Against Bombing Iran
Dalia Dassa Kaye: Israel’s risky option on Iran
Justin Logan: Would Haass and Levi Accept Their Own Proposed Deal?
Jim Lobe: Despite War Drums, Experts Insist Iran Nuclear Deal Possible
Jasmin Ramsey: Ex-IAEA Chief Urges Talks to Defuse Threat of Attack on Iran
Wall Street Journal: Another week, another venomous editorial from the Journal, all of which are likely penned by former Jerusalem Post editor, Bret Stephens (now the WSJ’s editorial pages deputy editor). This time Stephens accuses the Obama administration of favoring Iran over Israel and berates Gen. Martin Dempsey for displaying “weakness” when he reiterated U.S. assessments that Iran is “rational”, that an Israeli strike would be “destabilizing” and that Iran has not made a decision to make a nuclear weapon. Stephens concludes that an Israeli attack on Iran is accordingly more likely because U.S. officials are not engaging in warmongering:
Is the Obama Administration more concerned that Iran may get a nuclear weapon, or that Israel may use military force to prevent Iran from doing so? The answer is the latter, judging from comments on Sunday by Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey.
…
If the U.S. really wanted its diplomacy to work in lieu of force, it would say and do whatever it can to increase Iran’s fear of an attack. It would say publicly that Israel must be able to protect itself and that it has the means to do so. America’s top military officer in particular should say that if Iran escalates in response to an Israeli attack, the U.S. would have no choice but to intervene on behalf of its ally. The point of coercive diplomacy is to make an adversary understand that the costs of its bad behavior will be very, very high.
…
Like most of Mr. Obama’s Iran policy, General Dempsey’s comments will have the effect of making war more likely, not less. They will increase Israel’s anxiety about U.S. support, especially if Mr. Obama is re-elected and he has a freer political hand. This may drive Israel’s leadership to strike sooner. Weakness invites war, and General Dempsey has helped the Administration send a message of weakness to Israel and Iran.
Michael Gerson, Washington Post: Around this time last year the former George W. Bush speechwriter criticized President Obama for failing to embrace the “overthrow” of the Iranian government. Now Gerson’s “Iran options” for Obama rule out containment and endorse a range of hawkish measures including assisting an Israeli war on Iran: (emphasis mine):
So the national security adviser, the defense secretary and intelligence officials need to provide their boss something better than this dismal, binary choice. They will need to identify a range of in-between options. A virtuous somebody has already been conducting cyberattacks on the Iranian nuclear program and targeting key scientists. Are there other ways — ranging from covert action to stealth bombers — to disable or destroy a few key facilities, including Iran’s two uranium enrichment sites?
An unattributable action would be best — giving groups and governments in the Middle East the excuse to respond in the minimal way. But deniability may not be possible in an operation on this scale. It is a military judgment no outsider can confidently make.
A limited strike, it is true, would only buy time. The message, however, would be clear enough: If you keep at it, we’ll do it again. In the meantime, an oppressive and increasingly desperate regime may lose its grip on power.
Close cooperation with Israel in designing a targeted strike against enrichment facilities would have an added benefit. If the Israelis are convinced that America — after a last diplomatic push — is serious about preventing Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, Israel would be less likely to take quick action of its own. American resolve is the best guarantee of Israeli patience.
Obama wants to be known for winding down long wars. But he has shown no hesitance when it comes to shorter, Israel-style operations. He is a special ops hawk, a drone militarist.
Iran should take this fact seriously as it calculates its next move.
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: The conservative blogger argues that a senate resolution described by analysts as severely limiting the President’s options on Iran and bringing the U.S. closer to war isn’t as strong as it could be. Like neoconservative Michael Ledeen who openly endorses U.S.-backed regime overthrow in Iran, Rubin says regime change should be part of the U.S.’s Iran policy and informs us how the senate resolution can shackle the president more effectively (emphasis mine):
Now therefore be it:
Resolved, that
1. The official U.S. policy toward Iran should be regime change and the full support of the Iranian people for human rights, the rule of law and democracy;
2:The U.S. in conjunction with its allies prepare military options and plans to be used in the event Iran does not cease to pursue its nuclear weapons capability; and
3. Any discussions that the U.S. and its allies conduct with the Iranian regime shall be conditioned on a) inclusion of opposition leaders; b) full access by the IAEA and verifiable cessation of Iran’s missile program and c) agreement to discuss the Iranian regime’s abrogation of human rights.
Jennifer Rubin, Washington Post: Rubin criticizes the Obama administration for not expressing explicit support for Israeli threats against Iran (while publicizing an anti-Obama advertisement) and argues that if Israel does attack Iran, it’s Obama’s fault:
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will meet withPresident Obama in March. He will probably take the time to remind Obama that the president has staked his own credibility and that of the United States on preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The only way to ensure that that pledge is fulfilled, and for the United States to remain relevant in the region, is to make clear that the United States is prepared — with the cooperation of states in the Mideast (surely the Saudis must be as nervous as Netanyahu about Obama’s fecklessness) — to take military action if needed to thwart Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
In short, if the Unites States downgrades military assistance to Israel and seeks to diplomatically undermine the Jewish state, Iran will conclude (if it hasn’t already) that we can’t bring ourselves to use force. That, in turn, will make continued progress on Iran’s nuclear program, as well as Israel’s military action, all the more likely.
Steve Forbes, Forbes: The magazine mogul declares the inevitably of war with Iran and hopes for the best:
Make no mistake, the coming conflict will have a major global impact.
…
Wars always take unexpected turns and have unexpected consequences. May events unfold in such a way that will lead to the downfall of Iran’s fanatical Islamic regime.
Tucker Carlson, Fox News: Eli Clifton reports on comments made by the Fox News pundit and Daily Caller editor about Iran this week:
CARLSON: I think we are the only country with the moral authority [...] sufficient to do that. [The U.S. is] the only country that doesn’t seek hegemony in the world. I do think, I’m sure I’m the lone voice in saying this, that Iran deserves to be annihilated. I think they’re lunatics. I think they’re evil.
Find Clifton’s report on Carlson’s attempt at damage control here.
]]>