If You Want to Be Honored By German President Frank Walter Steinmeier

Not much time for anything. Meanwhile watch this, posted by Benjamin Goldstein.

Does Bibi swim? Ayatollahs want to know.

An Iranian Internet site, named Iran Front Page (later about it) published a new eruption of vitriol by yet another Iranian general:

A personal remark, which I hope will not be considered racist: I have found that I can't really tell the Iranian generals apart. They all look kinda the same to me. Although that one has a bit less hair... oh well, to the text:

Lieutenant Commander of Iran’s Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) has advised Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to practice swimming in the Mediterranean because he will soon have no choice but to flee into the sea.
Brigadier General Hossein Salami said in a Friday speech that the Zionist regime does not have any elements of a state and government, and it is not at the level of being a threat for Iran because the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah is enough to destroy it.

I am not sure what the good general means by "Zionist regime does not have any elements of a state and government" and what exactly elements seem to be missing. In my opinion the said regime has more than enough of these elements. Especially ones that stop innocent motorists on the highway and check their documents, their breath etc. Whatever.

General Salami was in a prime form during this interview, because he continued to produce additional pearls of wisdom. Apparently government-sanctioned pearls. But the point of Bibi swimming somehow caught my attention and held it. Enough to induce me to post this.

I've never learned whether Bibi can swim. Of course, this includes a more specific question: could Bibi swim good enough to get, say, from Eilat to Iran and to duke it out with general Salami. To settle the differences like real men are known to.

But I am sure Bibi has other ways and means to duke it out with general Salami. And it will be better for everyone if he doesn't use those. So let him swim instead. If it is OK with y'all.

Now about the source, the Iran Front Page. This is what they say about themselves on their "About" page:

The Iran Front Page news website or IFP News was established in 2014 after obtaining an official license from Iran’s Ministry of Culture and Islamic Guidance. It is one of the only private and independent Iranian news websites with English-speaking audiences.

So far so good - a loyal and approved publication, by all means. But then the last sentence on that same page:

By and large, IFP is trying to say that in Iran life goes on as normally as it can.

Mmm... ain't this interesting? You decide. But look at general Salami first.

Mohammad Zarif speaks - about Soros. We better listen.

To start with a disclaimer: the man (Soros) is highly distasteful to me for many reasons, not the least of those is his own confession about his years as a youth under the Nazi rule being his happiest. There are other reasons, of course, but this will suffice for now.

The recent story started (for me) with an article in Israel today:

Iran admits to having 'worked closely' with George Soros network

Iran admitted on Sunday that it had worked closely with the Open Society Foundation, a grant-making network founded by American billionaire George Soros, which has often been accused of promoting an anti-Israeli agenda through left-wing NGOs.

Israel Today, being a somewhat funky source, chiefly dedicated to promoting the current government and its glorious achievements, didn't bother to provide any substantial proof of the matter.

Another article, from David Harris JR's site, provided essentially the same information:

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif commented on Sunday that his government is working closely with George Soros’ Open Society.

The article, however, supplied a link to the recording of Zarif's speech, at least the relevant part of it:

Here, @JZarif admits that he had a close relationship with the George Soros’ @OpenSociety Foundation. Now if that is not evidence that @NIACouncil is a concoction of the regime, I don’t know what is. @georgesoros
pic.twitter.com/Faw6EgrSf0

— Andi Frouzèche 👑✡️ (@Persogladiat) September 3, 2018

My Farsi being somewhat rusty, I have asked Potkin Azarmehr to translate it, and here is the result (with Potkin's kind permission):

Basically Zarif is saying that while he was Iran’s UN envoy there was already a working relationship with Open Society and [other] Soros funded bodies but what he did was to make sure the relationship was better managed and monitored so nothing against national interest would take place. He adds he didn’t like doing this but in NY you have to build a working relationship and not just a hello/goodbye with all kinds of groups there.

In short, the story checks out, at least the part of the Zarif's speech.

Now I have to add a disclaimer (another one). The Ayatollahs are nothing if not crafty, and it would be naive to dismiss the possibility of another disinformation operation by Mr Zarif, who by himself is nothing if not crafty. Just a year ago Ayatollah Ali Khamenei mentioned "a “wealthy American Zionist merchant” trying to interfere in Iran’s 2009 election in his comments, likely referring to liberal billionaire George Soros". So there is no love lost between the two sides.

But, on the other hand, it is quite possible that a common interest helped the sides to overcome the other grudges...

So there. Watch out for Uncle George.

Update: Finally from BBC (Farsi edition):

Mr. Zarif defended the relationship with the staff of the Open Society Foundation, affiliated with George Soros, an American investor, and said that through this relationship he was able to "restrict and regulate" the activities of this foundation in Iran.

And more on this Twitter thread.

How about translating this, professor Juan Cole?

Since the days of the famous linguistic controversy about the undying words of Mahmoud Ahmadinejd aka Mahmoud the Mad and the brilliant interpretation of the "wiped off the map" by prof Cole, the issue has somewhat lost its allure. And now, Iranian military, undoubtedly seriously moderated by the latest elections (if prof Cole and his partners in disinformation are to be believed), decided to bring an end to the controversy.

Fars News posts photo of launched missile with Hebrew inscription: "Israel must be wiped off the face of the earth."

But, as they say, different strokes for different blokes. And if Ayatollahs and their warriors prefer to masturbate using missiles, one couldn't prevent a learned scientist from masturbating with words.

So translate this, prof Cole...

Iran Stops Dismantling Centrifuges in Defiance of Nuclear Commitments

As told here. Time to remind you:

Brian Meadows and his inconvenient questions

A post by Brian Meadows, a member of the Facebook "Progressive Zionism" forum drew my attention, mostly due to forcefulness of the argument - in defense of the nuclear agreement with Iran. So much so that I decided to do some parsing of the post and to squeeze in some remarks here. So, if the link at the beginning doesn't work for you, you shall see the full text of Mr Meadows post below.

OK, folks. I'm lukewarm about the deal with Iran myself, but I've a few questions to ask the irreconcilables and a few inconvenient facts for them as well.

Facts should be always welcome, to irreconcilables and otherwise, I submit.

First, the questions: could any one of you have gotten as good a deal?

I would submit that, as far as my sensitive (to beta and gamma rays and other unpleasant elements of a nuke going off in the vicinity) skin is concerned, there are no shades of "good". Either Ayatollahs get the nukes or they don't. All the shades in between are irrelevant. And, as most experts on the subject agree, Iran does get the nukes at the end of the day. So what we have is a bad agreement - one that President Obama promised to walk away from.

If not, shall I assume that you're ready to put on a Foreign Legion uniform or something and march to war against Iran?

I am not sure whom Mr Meadows is addressing in this post - because here in Israel we don't need Foreign Legion's uniforms, we have our own and been fighting Iran via its proxies - like Hezbollah and Hamas - for quite a long time already. As for the war with Iran - unfortunately, in the circumstances, it will be coming - 10 or so years down the road, maybe even sooner. I am being too old for that one, but my children are not, and I am not looking forward to that war, no sir.

If you couldn't have gotten as good a deal and you're not ready to fight, I have a label for you: BLOODTHIRSTY TRENCH-DODGER! Something which any competent soldier despises, so STFU!

I would have agreed to that sentiment, but the proposal to STFU* kinda doesn't sit right with me - let's leave it for later.

Second: many of you say, I know, that it was tough sanctions that brought Iran to the table in the first place and you're probably at least partially right. However, another part of this was the Bush administration's refusal to talk to 'evil' at all at a time when, had we done so, we could've put the kibosh on any nuclear plans Iran might have had. In 2003, Iran had only 300 centrifuges. I also suggest that Darth Cheney had an ulterior motive: he wanted to direct, from behind (he being the chief of bloodthirsty trench-dodgers) an American march into Tehran and make Iran an example of what happens to our satraps who dare to think they deserve real independence! And had the GOP won the 2006 midterms, I believe that would've been set into motion!

Ehehe... what can I say about that, not being a side in the GOP-Dems incessant bickering? Only that if I had a dollar (nah, make it a shekel) for every time a supporter (or a member) of the current administration blames Bush/Cheney for every SNAFU that happened during the last 6+ years, I would be quite a wealthy character by now. As for that statement that Bush administration should have settled the Iranian nuclear ambitions back then - what is it based upon exactly? As far as I remember, Iranian attitude to everything American back then was even worse than it is today, so what chance did Bush have? Nah... empty words.

Third, Iranian feeling against us dates back to 1953, when our beloved CIA engineered the overthrow of their democratically elected (and SECULAR!) prime minister Mossadegh, which then allowed the Shah to return as absolute monarch.
Related to this, some of you seem to think we could have brought Iran much closer to effective surrender. Let me now share with you that NO Iranian has forgotten Mossadegh nor our overthrow of him. In light of that, no Iranian government was or is likely to do that. Remember what happened when the Royal Navy claimed a right to stop our ships? Strike up the 1812 Overture.
So if you think we could get a better deal, you need to account for Iran's national pride, something which is rather (and understandably) prickly towards us right now. Obama knows this and acted accordingly.

None of the above information, enlightening as it may be for those who don't know that bit of history, justifies the holes in the agreement that make it rather a temporary patch instead of a definite solution. These facts may explain Obama's behavior and his decision making process (although they don't, not fully) - but they do not make the "best possible" agreement into a workable agreement. And believe you me, Mr Meadows, I am more sorry about it than you.

I have time, so you all can take yours as you post. If there's anything you think I've missed, feel free to call attention to it.

I think, Mr Meadows, that you missed, first of all, the facts that are related to the agreement itself, and here is the point where I would like to ask a question or two: have you indeed read the agreement? And have you read any critique of the agreement?

None of us know how rationality and messianism are mixed in the Iranian leadership and that can go either way.

Indeed, so why are we ready to assume the best, signing of on something with more holes than cheese in it?

But either you think you can get a better deal or you're ready to put on a uniform. Absent both, STFU and do some listening!

My last remark will be not about the substance of the post but about its style. As far as I understand from your FB page, Mr Meadows, you are a "Speech Writer & Campaign Aide at Progressive Messaging", meaning a person versed in all things PR. Which is (for me) a bit hard to reconcile with the rather crude styling of your post and your insistence that people who disagree with you STFU - even if they are bloodthirsty trench-dodgers. But of course I don't know anything about campaigning and its current style in US, so who knows...

Now I shall STFU.

(*) For those who don't know the term - STFU.

Nuclear deal with Iran: the smiling and the exhausted

The subject is and will be widely discussed for the duration, and yours truly has nothing to add on the subject. Just to record a few wrinkles on the reality's ugly face.

To start with, about the worth of the agreement:

Transparency: Iran will give more access to its nuclear program to the UN nuclear agency. If that agency identifies a suspicious site, an arbitration panel with a Western majority will decide whether Iran has to give the agency access within 24 days.

No matter what else is written on the rest of the 100+ pages of that document, the quote is enough to reduce it to a pile of worthless crapola.

As for the main driving force behind the agreement:

Maybe the real benefit, at least from Obama's perspective, is that the nuclear deal will pave the way for America's full exit from the Middle East. After more than a decade of war and nation-building, the region is less stable and more dangerous than it was on 9/11.
...
Perhaps we have reached the limits of what American leadership can do in that part of the world. But if that's true, Obama should have the decency to level with us about it. This deal is not an affirmation of American leadership. It's a recognition of American exhaustion.

There is a war expecting us down the road, ladies and gentlemen, a big one at that. But hey, that pre-paid Nobel Prize must be redeemed...

The new and smiling Iran: connect the dots

Several links that may need a slight effort to find a connection between them:

Why your next vacation could be in Iran

When you fly to Iran these days the planes are a little more full than before.

Business travelers are making their way to Tehran scoping out opportunities, hoping that sanctions might be lifted soon.

More tourists also appear to be on the planes coming from Frankfurt, Rome, Istanbul and the few other places that have direct flights to Iran.

The Iranian government says it expects a 6.6% rise in the number of tourists for 2015.

U.S. to Award Iran $11.9 Billion Through End of Nuke Talks

The Obama administration on Wednesday paid $490 million in cash assets to Iran and will have released a total of $11.9 billion to the Islamic Republic by the time nuclear talks are scheduled to end in June, according to figures provided by the State Department.

Syria accepts $1 billion in credit from Iran

The President of war-torn Syria has accepted a billion-dollar helping hand from his supporters in Iran.

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad signed a law ratifying a $1 billion credit line from Iran, Syrian state-run news agency SANA reported Wednesday.

Syrian refugee population rises above 4 million, U.N. says

More than 4 million Syrians have fled the violence in their homeland to seek refuge in neighboring countries, the United Nations said Thursday.

The grim numbers make Syria's lengthy civil war the worst crisis that the U.N. refugee agency has had to deal with in nearly 25 years, the organization said.

One, two, three... done?

Iran's military 'fires at and seizes US cargo ship'

British Independent, referring to Tehran semi-official Fars News, reports:

Iranian forces have reportedly fired at and seized a US cargo ship with 34 sailors on board, according to Saudi Arabian state TV.

The vessel has been directed to the Iranian port of Bandar Abbas on the southern coast, Al-Arabiya has reported.
...
Iran's semi-official Fars news agency suggested that the ship was trespassing in the Persian Gulf.

So far no similar reports surfaced in US press.

Update: Nope, apparently not a US ship, after all.

Iran seized a Marshall Island-flagged cargo ship on Tuesday in Iranian waters in the Strait of Hormuz, Defense officials said Tuesday.

There were no Americans aboard the Maersk Tigris, though the United States has security responsibilities with regard to the Marshall Islands.

Pentagon spokesman Brent Colburn sent a tweet that said the Navy "is communicating with representatives of the shipping company and continue to monitor the situation.

Captain Obama and the Great White Whale

This article by Walter Russel Mead is a relatively short concise summary of the state of US-Iran nuclear negotiations and the amazing hardheadedness displayed by the current administration in its seemingly senseless drive toward the goal. Where the goal is illusory, the partner is a proven cheat and the Senate and the Congress are growing more and more united in their resistance to the agreement.

There seem to be four leading scenarios on the horizon. One is that the President gets his deal, somehow steers it past (or around) Congress, and the deal works: Iran becomes our friend and the Middle East gets better. At that point he looks like a genius and the doubts are forgotten. The critics look bad as the United States sails into a bright new day, and President Obama goes down in history as a courageous and visionary peacemaker who stuck to his guns when the going got tough. This seems unlikely, but it can’t be ruled out.

The second is uglier, but more probable. In this scenario, Iran signs a deal, and after an ugly fight, Congress gives it a grudging and perhaps partial OK. Then pundits and policymakers argue for years about whether it was a success or not, the public mostly dislikes it, and the Iran deal, like Obamacare, becomes a pyrrhic victory. The President notches up a win but his party stumbles under the weight of the baggage.

The third possibility is uglier and, based on today’s news from Congress, more probable still. In this scenario, Iran and the President strike a deal, but Congress succeeds in crippling it. Perhaps it passes a bill and then overrides his veto; perhaps it refuses to pass enabling legislation that the Iranians say is necessary. At that point, the deal breaks down, some of the P-5 begin to circumvent the sanctions, and the President will have a big mess on his hands as Iran, perhaps, accelerates its march toward a bomb.

The final possibility is that the Iranians walk away from the deal. That is not a worst case scenario for the President; if there isn’t any deal he doesn’t have to consume the next several months of his presidency in an all-out effort to protect it from Congress. The biggest downside: He will then have to start from close to zero on Middle East policy, and presumably head back to some angry, jilted allies for help even as relations with Iran grow worse.

The President himself gives 50-50 odds for a deal at this point; if he’s right, and if we assume that the other scenarios are equally probable, he has about a 17 percent chance of emerging from this process with a clear win, a 17 percent chance of a pyrrhic victory, and a 67 percent chance of an outcome that will be considered a defeat.

Dispensing with the mathematics above, the prognosis is not good for Obama.

But the article is focused on the internal fallout (no pun intended) of the looming agreement on US internal politics, leaving mostly aside the existential nightmare that is nuclear Iran. The fallout in question might be bad for White House political standing. But the possible outcome is even worse for the world in general and the disparate group of countries in the Middle East that heretofore considered themselves to be US allies in particular.

Susan Rice quote: spoof and reality

 Every joke is only partly a joke

When I have seen this cartoon a day or two ago in a post by a friend, it was presented as a real quote. Seeing red as a result, I was already on the brink of copy/pasting the whole post, when my sense of caution (rarely experienced by this here impulsive blogger) told me to do some digging.

The digging has quite easily shown that, while the quote is used quite extensively on the intertubes, there are no major media sources anyone would refer to. Moreover, at the root of all the references I've seen hides a site called Newslo - "the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web", as they define themselves.

When you look at the article in question, you shall immediately see two things. First of all, the incendiary quote in the cartoon above is missing the word "best", the addition making it even more incendiary:

Rice: “Netanyahu Must Understand That US Needs To Support Its Best Middle Eastern Friend – Iran”

And you shall also see two big red buttons: "Show facts" and "Hide facts". Play with these buttons and see which parts of the whole are fake. You will quickly detect that the mind-boggling quote in question is a fake. A bit awkward (in my opinion) for a good satire site, but whatever makes people happy.

So, apparently we can put the story to rest somewhere where all canards go for their final rest. And yet...

I was recently reading an article by Michael Doran of the Hudson Institute, titled Obama's Secret Iran Strategy. Its main premise is disclosed (more or less) it the lede:

The president has long been criticized for his lack of strategic vision. But what if a strategy, centered on Iran, has been in place from the start and consistently followed to this day?

I am not sure about the somewhat bombastic headline and the lede, both hinting at undue secrecy: after all, President Obama never hid his penchant for rapprochement and engagement with the Middle Eastern powers that were hitherto not in the list of US friends. Not that after six years on the job POTUS can boast about any achievements in the area, rather just the opposite: the Middle East war rarely in a shape as bad as it is now. And so is the nuclear deal with Iran, no matter how brave a face Mr Kerry still does his best to put on.

The Doran's essay, by the nature of an article that tries to dig into the mostly secret details of US/Iran relationships, is full of conjectures and educated guesses. However, it is an essay one can't discard by derision or by pinning it on the political map (yes, Doran, I guess, is not one of starry-eyed lefties). This is a serious job and should be accepted as such. And you could use your time in a much worse way by not skipping over several responses to the Doran's article by quite a few respected and knowledgeable people - who mostly support his conclusions.

I wouldn't spoil your enjoyment by quoting from the article - it is much better when read in its pristine fullness. There is only one thing I have to say that connects the article at hand with this unfortunate fake quote ascribed to Ms Rice:

Every joke is only partly a joke

So there.

Why Iran's rise is a good thing? Please do tell.

 The article by Hillary Mann Leverett*, with its usual CNN disclaimer "The views expressed are her own", is quite a show. Created by CNN on-line editor and by the author both. Its catchy formatting and the embedded clip** with Josh Earnest's criticism of Netanyahu's appearance in the Congress make it look like something coming from very high up on the US political ladder.

The author, though, isn't a member of the official political elite, not anymore, at least according to the blurb:

Hillary Mann Leverett, co-author of "Going to Tehran: Why America Must Accept the Islamic Republic of Iran," served at the National Security Council under Presidents Clinton and Bush. She is CEO of Strategic Energy and Global Analysis (STRATEGA), a political risk consultancy.

The fact of the author not really representing the current administration, at least not formally, is somewhat becalming, but only somewhat. For the reasons to be presented later. Now to some recreational fisking of the piece. It starts with the following recollection:

In September 2002, then-former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a U.S. congressional committee "there is absolutely no question whatsoever" that Saddam Hussein's Iraq was developing nuclear weapons at "portable manufacturing sites of mass death."

Ms Mann Leverett, however, omits two relevant and important points: first of all it was Israeli Air Force that destroyed the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, pushing the Iraqi nuclear efforts quite a few years back. Secondly, way ahead of the US 2003 invasion of Iraq, Ariel Sharon - the then PM of Israel, was quite open about his objections to this adventure (part of the info here).

Fast forward to this week, and Netanyahu was back, this time as prime minister, to make virtually identical claims about Iran.

Virtually identical? Assuming that Bibi made some questionable claims in 2002, even Iranians would be insulted to call the state of the art nuclear industry they have developed "portable manufacturing sites". No, madam, this is a trite attempt, sorry.

Yet not only has the U.S. intelligence community disagreed with Netanyahu's assessment of Iranian nuclear intentions, so does Israel's, according to leaked documents.

Bunkum too, as you can clearly see.

Sadly, Netanyahu's presentation reinforces caricatures regularly advanced by American and Gulf Arab pundits -- caricatures of Iran as aspiring Middle Eastern hegemon, bent on overthrowing an otherwise stable regional order.

You can use this quote as a lesson in stealthy building of a strawman. First of all - a perfectly reasonable beginning that mentions presentation (but hardly a caricature) of Iran as an aspiring Middle Eastern hegemon. A person's skull must be pretty thick not to agree with this assessment. And then, on top of this, Ms Mann Leverett adroitly bolts on her own invention of "an otherwise stable regional order", putting into Bibi's mouth something he could have hardly imagined, let alone said.

It becomes quite boring actually, so easily finding falsity in almost every statement of that article, but here Ms Mann Leverett felt the ramp-up was sufficient and went into a full-out attacking mode:

It's [the quote above] a misguided perspective that is actually hurting the United States.

How so, you might ask? Because:

...rapprochement with a genuinely independent Iran -- not a nominally independent Iran whose strategic orientation is subordinated to U.S. preferences -- is vital to halting the decline of America's strategic position.

And how do you stop the decline? Very simple:

...for its own sake, the United States needs to stop trying to be the Middle East's hegemon.

Frankly, it is probably a more complicated thing than you and I can understand. You stop your decline by not trying to be a hegemon anymore - figure it out, please.

However, Ms Mann Leverett is much clearer regarding Iran's hegemony ambitions:

Iran has gained influence in Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen by backing political structures that, in Tehran's judgment, will produce governments committed to foreign policy independence.

Leaving aside the nigh impenetrable wording of the sentence after the word "Yemen", it is all crystal clear. In one of the quotes above Ms Mann Leverett called the picture of Iran hegemony drawn by Bibi "a caricature", remember?. Now she is going out of her way to draw the same picture...

So US as a hegemon - bad, Iran as a hegemon - good. Got it? If not, do not ask me for explanation. Because it is too high on the academic complexity scale, y'all know...

From this point on, Ms Mann Leverett dives into a scathing denouncement of Israel, and I am really not in the mood to fisk that crapola, frankly. But the conclusion, the conclusion of the whole piece, it is simply phenomenal! To build it up, the author gets to another quote from an Israeli VIP (taken out of context, by the way):

The reality is that Israel's concern about Iranian nuclearization is not that Tehran will use (at the moment nonexistent) nuclear weapons against a nuclear-armed Israel. Instead, as then-Defense Minister Ehud Barak explained in 2012, it is that a nuclear Iran would "restrict our range of operations."

Let aside the fact that the two sentences in the quote above somewhat contradict one another. Let aside the fact that Barak's quote looks quite different in the original text. Because here it comes, the bomb (no pun intended):

But this is precisely what a truly stable balance of power requires.

Let us see: it is not enough that Iran of the Ayatollahs, the supporter and enabler of mayhem and terror all over the globe, puts its mitts on Iraq, Lebanon, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, building up its presence on two Israeli borders. On top of it Iran has to get nukes. Because "true balance" requires it... Ain't it cool to be a professor?

So this was the goal of the whole article: to prove, in its roundabout and devoid of logic way, that Iran has to have nukes - for the "stable balance". But what worries me about it is how close most of the "logic" of the generally asinine piece dovetails the White House/State Department dysfunctional Middle East policy in general and policy on Iran in particular. Check out this article, one of many:

In its bold attempt at an Iranian opening, the Obama administration views Netanyahu, AIPAC, the Gulf States, Congress and, perhaps, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei as obstacles. Its partners are Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif. Obama and a small knot of advisers believe this deal could be the defining foreign policy moment of the second term — the Cuba opening, times 100.

This driving vision has already distorted U.S. policy in a variety of ways. Obama could not take forceful action against Iran’s proxy, the Syrian regime of Bashar al-Assad, for fear of undermining nuclear negotiations. The administration has downplayed the issue of human rights in Iran for the same reason. The United States has now blessed the operation of Iranian-dominated militias within Iraq — particularly in the liberation of Tikrit — raising the prospect of Iranian control over Iraq’s security and oil sectors. Iranian military forces and proxies now operate freely from Baghdad to Beirut, seemingly tolerated in the overarching strategic goal of defeating the Islamic State.

As Obama has avoided direct confrontation with Iran to preserve the viability of nuclear talks, Iran has been busy destabilizing the Middle East, replacing us as the major power and threatening our allies. And those allies have taken note.

I think that this quote covers the main points sufficiently. And, while no one in the Obama administration went so far as to say openly what Ms Mann Leverett blurted out, e.g. that Iran needs the nukes for the "stable balance", I am not at all sure that this thought never crossed any mind in the said administration.

Too bad. But this is what realpolitik is about, ladies and gentlemen. Too bad.

(*) Prof Hillary Mann Leverett has a long and distinguished past of rallying for Islamic Republic of Iran and the necessity of "genuine rapprochement" with it. She shares this passion with her husband, Flynt Leverett. To the tune of calling a site they keep together Going to Tehran (to be fair, in the name of a book they co-authored). The level of her obsession with Iran could be indicated by the headlines of her articles on Al Jazeera:

• Rouhani won the Iranian election. Get over it.
• Consequences of western intransigence in nuclear diplomacy with Iran
• The Iranian nuclear issue and the future of international order
• Obama's choice: Real diplomacy (or war) with Iran
• The coming collapse of Iran sanctions

(**) With a caption "WH: Obama's Iran strategy better than alternatives". I wonder, what else could Josh Earnest say?

Netanyahu's speech and some choice responses

Of course, this is not about the real aftermath of the speech. The real aftermath will show itself in coming weeks, months and even possibly, years. Such as the first hints on a coming punishment (via the radio this morning) from an "unnamed administration official", who warned that the new Pentagon budget  may not include financing for the anti-missile systems development by Israel (due to budget cuts, of course). Which is only the first sign of troubles ahead.

Nope, this post is only about the first verbal knee-jerk responses. And the least brainy of them belong to the high and mighty.

US President Barack Obama said Tuesday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu didn't offer any "viable alternatives" to the nuclear negotiations with Iran during his speech to Congress earlier in the day.

Well, knee-jerk is as knee-jerk does. Interestingly, some (probably not briefed in advance) other "unnamed administration official" had a different message to convey:

The White House believes Netanyahu not only failed to present an alternative to the emerging agreement, but also presented unrealistic demands for what he would deem a better agreement.

“In his speech, Netanyahu outlined a nuclear agreement that will never happen,” the senior official said.

If you read the quote above twice, you shall see that the "unnamed administration official" is a bit of a bumbler. So, on one hand, he echoes his Commander in Chief - Bibi "failed to present an alternative". On the other, "Netanyahu outlined a nuclear agreement". There is a big difference between not presenting a plan and presenting a plan that looks impossible. But what do I know?

Of course, Ms Pelosi, the brain center of the Democrats has an emotional angle to present:

“That is why, as one who values the US–Israel relationship, and loves Israel, I was near tears throughout the Prime Minister’s speech – saddened by the insult to the intelligence of the United States as part of the P5 +1 nations, and saddened by the condescension toward our knowledge of the threat posed by Iran and our broader commitment to preventing nuclear proliferation."

I don't know what does Ms Pelosi mean when she says "intelligence". I can only hope that it's something vastly different from her own. Otherwise we are all in deep shit...

At this point I wanted to insert something else intelligent, from NYT. Eventually I've decided that NYT spiritual twin, Haaretz, will do instead, and I wasn't much mistaken. Here is the headline:

Netanyahu presents Congress with a warped view of the Mideast

This article gave birth to one of the more idiotic passages I've witnessed lately:

It’s true Saudi Arabia has never called for the annihilation of Israel, but Iran has also never said it intends to destroy Israel — it relates to Israel as an entity that should not exist.

"In the kingdom of the blind, the one-eyed man is king," they say. Who is that one-eyed man and who represents that kingdom? I leave it to you, reader. As an assistance I shall provide only the list of headlines on the subject from the same source (click on the image to embiggen):

This time Haaretz editors decided that no dissenting opinion will be allowed to soil their pristine anti-Bibi stance. And one even more amazing detail: notice how they recruit Iran in support of that stance... what else needs to be said?

Well, enough about smearing. It is time to inject a dose of antidote in that vat of poison. And here comes an interesting editorial from no other than Washington Post:

Obama needs to provide real answers to Netanyahu’s arguments

While the article doesn't laud the speech or Bibi, it asks all the relevant and hard questions, rounding up with utterly level-headed:

Rather than continuing its political attacks on Mr. Netanyahu, the administration ought to explain why the deal it is contemplating is justified — or reconsider it.

Of course, WaPo is not free of Bibi bashing (old habits die hard, I guess), but let's leave it alone for now.

The most amazing positive responses come from the Arab world. The Saudi Arabian daily Al-Jazirah (not to be confused with the Qatar's Al Jazeera):

Al-Faraj said Netanyahu’s effort to prevent the signing of the agreement is in the interests of the Gulf states, and that the prime minister “is right to insist on addressing Congress about the nuclear deal.”

And Al Arabiya English:

The powerful editor-in-chief of Al Arabiya English, Faisal J. Abbas, published a column on Tuesday in which he asked Obama to take notes from Netanyahu on the extent of the Iranian threat. In the piece, titled “President Obama, Listen to Netanyahu on Iran,” Abbas says, “one must admit, Bibi did get it right, at least when it came to dealing with Iran.”

Abbas has it right on more than just nukes issue:

Abbas slams Obama’s “controversial take on managing global conflicts that raises serious questions.” The “real Iranian threat” says Abbas, is not just the country’s nuclear ambitions, “but its expansionist approach and state-sponsored terrorism activities which are still ongoing.”

The big question remains: will the sides in this controversy be able to overcome the mutual personal enmity and the (chiefly artificially inflated) issues of protocol to work on a sensible resolution?

Somehow I am not hopeful. But the time will show. Soon enough.

P.S. A reminder: writer of this post in not a Bibi's supporter.

Bibi does DC and some US Jews get their panties in a bunch. Is there a case for that?

The trigger for the post was a Facebook entry by Jack Lieberman, a member of a FB groop "Two States for Two People" and, as I gather, an American Jew. The post calls to sign a petition that asks the Congress to cancel Netanyahu’s scheduled talk to Congress and, if the talk is not cancelled, to refuse to attend it.

Before I go into the bits and bytes of the whole story, let me share with you my personal opinion on the planned speech by our dear PM.

1. Did Bibi time the visit as close to the elections in Israel as possible? Check.
2. Does Bibi hope that the speech will have a positive (for his party) impact on the electorate? Check.
3. Did Bibi use his personal relationships (with Boehner, among others) to organize the invitation? Check.
4. Isn't all  of the above somewhat reprehensible? Check.

But then:

1. Is Bibi a politician? Check.
2. Is he like any other politician? Check.
3. Is he, like any other politician, weighing his every move from the point of view of his personal career enhancement? Check.
4. Are the (projected) contents of his speech - about a poorly thought through deal the White House is going to sign with Iran - warning the US Congress and the world about a real burning issue? Check.
5. What is the best timing  for such warning? Yesterday would have been fine.
6. Don't this visit and speech more or less repeat his 2011 visit and speech? Check.
7. Is the political and media storm raised by the WH and some democrats around the speech somewhat artificial and reflecting agenda other then purely protocol issues? Check.
8. Was there really a breach of protocol in the whole invitation process? Not so much anyone could put his/her finger on so far.

Let's start with the petition. First of all, the vehicle of this petition: the Moveon.org. I would advise reading just this Wiki entry that, among other peculiar things about Moveon, includes this brief statement:

Since the 2000 election cycle, the MoveOn PAC has endorsed and supported the campaigns of candidates, including the 2008 candidacy of then-Senator Barack Obama, presidential candidate, nominee of the Democratic Party.

But beyond the Wiki entry, Moveon is quite well know for some activities of more inflammatory kind. Let's leave it at that for now.

Now we can proceed to the chief mover behind the petition: Rep. Keith Ellison. I am not at all sure I want to go into the man's alleged Jihadist sympathies, like some people do. But his dubious past(?) love affair with Nation of Islam and his affinity with CAIR (the Council on American-Islamic Relations) should light up a warning for a Jewish promoter of that petition, at least for one who cares about the State of Israel. And if not the personality of Rep Ellison, then the arguments brought by his initiative against Bibi's appearance in the Congress:

The invitation is controversial for three reasons:
1) contrary to precedent, Boehner did not consult the White House or the House Democratic leadership in scheduling the speech;
2) the speech will be two weeks before the Israeli election, essentially making the U.S. Congress the backdrop for a speech in Netanyahu's re-election campaign, also contrary to precedent; and
3) the express purpose of the speech is to bash President Obama's Iran policy and demand that Congress pass new sanctions on Iran, which would blow up the U.S./Europe-Iran talks and put the U.S. on a path to war with Iran, as European leaders and the Congressional Progressive Caucus have warned.

To address the above points:

1. Only the author of the above knows what "contrary to precedent" means. So far not a single objector to Bibi's appearance was able to provide a reference to an item in the Congress protocol that enforces a consultation with the White House for such an invitation. Moreover, the pitiful attempt to claim that Bohner didn't notify the WH about the invitation, fell apart quite quickly.
2. Due to a very selective memory, the author of the item could ill afford to write it. Other Israeli (and non-Israel) leaders were invited and hosted before elections in their countries.
3. The WH Iran policy will be a separate subject of that post. But re that "demand that Congress pass new sanctions on Iran" - first of all, the Congress has already prepared a (bi-partisan) package of such sanctions Then, where from comes the idea that Bibi will talk about the sanctions? And, besides, how exactly Bibi is supposed to "demand"? Oops, that all-powerful Jewish lobby, I forgot...

As for the current US policy on Iran and the Middle East in general: it strongly looks like the White House has decided to switch US loyalties from its traditional allies in the area to the Ayatollahs' - managed Iran, seeing in Iran a legitimate future partner for several endeavors, the fight against ISIS only the first of them. I would strongly advise the supporters of this course to read the editorial in WaPo on the subject.

The problems raised by authorities... can be summed up in three points:
First, a process that began with the goal of eliminating Iran’s potential to produce nuclear weapons has evolved into a plan to tolerate and restrict that capability.

And it quickly goes downhill from here. Isn't  the leader of a (friendly) country, which is traditionally first on the declared list of Iranian targets for annihilation, owed at least a chance to express his worry in view of his worst fears becoming true? Especially since the executive branch doesn't seem to give a damn about his concerns?

As for the Jewish left wing opponents of Bibi in US: of course, folks, you have the right to be supportive or critical of anything that goes on this planet, including the Israeli leaders and their shenanigans. And of course, you are USA citizens first and anything else is secondary to that. Definitely, if you feel that Bibi's behavior, which I too find somewhat questionable from time to time, was offensive to your Chief Executive, you should denounce Bibi, it is your right and your privilege.

Saying that, however, the distance between criticizing Bibi and signing and promoting a questionable initiative like that Moveon petition is quite large.

In short, people, we here do appreciate your concern about our not-so-perfect democratic institutions and about our  far-from-perfect leaders. We also appreciate your interest and your support.

But this is not the way.

P.S. And it may help some of the overly agitated people to read The Correction.

P.P.S. A telling quote:

That disapproval apparently was orchestrated, or at least strongly encouraged, by the White House through communications with lawmakers connected to the Congressional Black Caucus.

‘I’m not saying the president called anyone personally,’ a current White House staffer told Daily Mail Online.

‘But yeah, the White House sent a message to some at the CBC that they should suddenly be very upset about the speech.’

From here.

Safety notice on cell phones

Because of some news:

Israeli intelligence was reportedly able to track down the location of Iranian General Mohammed Ali Allah Dadi, who was killed in a strike attributed to Israel last week in Syria, via his cellphone, Lebanon's The Daily Star quoted Lebanese newspaper Al Joumhouria as saying on Sunday.

Now, you may laugh at me, but I'm real sensitive to the problem of safety where all these new-fangled electronic gizmos are concerned.

I have perused the FDA site re this issue. While there is a mention of possible damage: "Two areas of the body, the eyes and the testes, are particularly vulnerable...", somehow it didn't match the picture of catastrophic failure of all the organs in the body. Like it happened to the general in question and his entourage.

So my advice to you all: switch off your cellphones when going out. Remember - it is just humans that write the software that guides these damn drones and launch these damn missiles, and you never know. FDA should add this to their site too.

It is your health, after all.

Oops, says IDF: we thought he is a colonel...

Mistakes happen. In this case, when you are going for a possum and bag a bear, it is hard to complain, though.

'We did not expect the outcome in terms of the stature of those killed - certainly not the Iranian general,' security source says'.

Iranian Revolutionary Guard General Mohammed Allahdadi was killed with a Hezbollah commander and the son of the group's late military leader, Imad Moughniyeh, in Sunday's attack on a Hezbollah convoy near the Israeli Golan Heights border.

The part that remained off the record is published now for the first time here:

Our drone has counted the stars on the general's shoulder, and since it appears that the number of the stars is the same as on a colonel's insignia, the computer decided to let the missile go. The camera resolution on that drone was not up to scratch. The sergeant responsible for the lens cleaning lost his weekend leave, which will learn him.

As a result of this regrettable mistake, IDF General Staff has decided to send the Iranian army a free discount coupon that will grant immunity to three Iranian colonels. The coupon is valid until January 2016 (inclusive).

No other discounts apply.

Iranian nukes or Roger Cohen does it again... oops, Jeffrey Simpson steps into it manfully

How the time flies! It seems like only yesterday when I have reclassified Roger Cohen of NYT from a man who rarely misses an opportunity to miss a point to a much more benign status of mostly inoffensive. I mean, how can you keep carping about a man who is able apologize to you in (approximately)two thousand words? Come on, really.

Oops, sorry. All this will have to be rewritten. It is not Roger Cohen at all, my apologies and I hope this mistake will not cause him indigestion. The time to the presses is too short to replace the text above, but at least I have managed to modify the headline... it is another bird altogether. His name is, as you can see, Jeffrey Simpson, and he comes at us not from NYT at all, but from a much colder place of employment, Globe and Mail.

I shall get to repairing the post later, but for now let's digest the message of that article:

Iran bashers display a dangerous lack of worldliness

Even before delving into the text, you can see another level of sophistication here. I have even hesitated a bit before starting to read it. Who can say whether I am worldly enough to read and understand the piece, when I write the word "unsavoury" in the American manner? Er... I mean "unsavory", if you are not clear on it yet.

Frankly, after reading the article (twice), I am still not sure about the wisdom of my decision to read it. My self-esteem meter, low enough as it is, after the reading shows the current temperature in Toronto. Because the article, starting boldly enough with "The potentially most consequential negotiations in the world this year will centre on Iran’s nuclear program." left me out there in the cold, without any idea how the author intends to go about these negotiations.

To start with, Mr Simpson sticks it, in no uncertain terms, to the parties guilty in lack of success so far:

Critics of the negotiations – led by Israel, of course, and the Harper government that follows Israel’s lead on all Middle East issues – insist Iran should be stripped of centrifuges and essentially of its entire capability ever to make a weapon. For the critics, it’s all or nothing, which is not how any successful negotiation ever ends.

My (admittedly faulty, due to lack of worldliness) reading of this part probably means that Israel fails to meet the other party half way, as any successful negotiation must. Whether it means that we should agree to, say, five nukes instead of ten, is left unexplained by the author. Because he is busy sticking it and giving it a few turns for further effect:

The critics’ bottom line would mean, of course, no possible deal, which is presumably what Israel, the Israel lobby in Washington, the U.S. Republican Party and irrelevancies such as the Harper government want.

If you are not suitably impressed by now, a warning follows:

No deal with Iran, coupled with phobias about the country elsewhere, would tempt Israelis and some Americans into a military option that could, at best, merely cripple the Iranian nuclear program but not prevent it from eventually unfolding. Such an attack would destroy the moderates (by Iranian standards) who won the 2013 presidential election and embolden the hardliners. It would also enjoin Iran to further support Hezbollah, Hamas and even the Syrian regime.

Sounds very ominous, doesn't it?

OK, consider me impressed. I am holding the dogs of war at bay. So where is that magic recipe that will satisfy, if not all parties involved, at least Jeffrey Simpson (which goal, on the face of it, doesn't seem to be that easy)? Oh well, to my chagrin, I didn't find that recipe in the rest of the piece. Instead, there is a long and a bit long winded explanation of the loneliness experienced by the Shia Iran - yes. A bit of history about Iranian unfriendly relationships with its neighbors and other entities - sure. Then a curious drop of sociology:

Iran is a very complicated place. It has a governmental system with elections but where ultimate power over internal and external security lies with the Supreme Ayatollah and the Revolutionary Guards, who own large chunks of the Iranian economy.

At least I know now why I was confused re Roger Cohen. Mr Simpson doesn't repeat that "flawed but vibrant democracy" bit, but the Jolly Roger's spirit is there, you must agree.

The middle-class and more educated Iranians – the kind of people who elected Hassan Rouhani as President – want to break free from the rigidities imposed by the regime and the sanctions imposed by the West.

To see Iran as a monolithic society with a monochromatic political system reflects a dangerous lack of sophistication and a failure to imagine possibilities.

By all means, we should be impressed by this here analysis. I am, for one. And I think that my previous idea about agreeing to five nukes was small-minded. With a complicated but promising state like Iran, where people are ready and willing to break free, we should go up to at least ten. Possibly even... nah, let's stop at ten, why wouldn't we?

Cause we are not all monolithic and/or monochromatic, you know. Some of us want to be sophisticated and worldly too, and if all it takes is a few measly nukes...

Lead us, please lead us to enlightenment, Mr Co Simpson!

Hat tip: Lynne T.

Hassan Rouhani - the smiling face of Tehran. Moderation really does it...

Reyhaneh Jabbari is 967th person to be executed since Hassan Rouhani became Iran's president in August last year

Over the last decade, Iran’s regime has typically hanged between 500 and 600 people every year, giving the country the highest number of executions in the world, apart from China. Unlike in China, however, hangings in Iran often take place in public.

The pace of executions has accelerated since Mr Rouhani became president: 381 people were hanged between his accession to office and 31 Dec 2013. Another 586 are known to have been put to death so far this year, including Miss Jabbari, according to a database maintained by the Iran Human Rights Documentation Centre.

Otherwise, everything is cool. Let's do it again:

A veritable Smiley, the man is...

The blast at Parchin: whodunit and related issues

The "before and after" pictures presented in this article are quite confusing - because of overabundance of raw data and other misleading factors:

The first one is underexposed, while the second one is crisscrossed by all these arrows and texts. Difficult to figure out what is what. Then, consider the source: some mysterious outfit that calls itself ISIS - WTF?

The Washington-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS) said it had obtained commercially available satellite imagery on which six buildings at Parchin appeared damaged or destroyed.

Not to mention Airbus. Could it, possibly, be a side effect of Boeing-Airbas enmity?

Anyway, I have my calendar for the last two weeks printed and available to prove that I was otherwise occupied...

Besides, all these before/after images are meant only to confuse the customer:

See what I mean?

More cases of Zionism envy in Iran?

Not that it never happened, there were already a few outbreaks, but still it is interesting:

Two Iranians in their early 20s, a man and a woman, were arrested in the Kenyan capital Nairobi earlier this week when they were discovered using fake Israeli passports and going by the names Adi and Avshalom.

This is not the first time Iranian nationals are caught abroad with Israeli passports. These passports are very popular in the world because of the relatively extensive freedom of movement they grant their owners.

The difference this time, however, was that the two did not intend to use the passports to move freely in the western world, but in order to enter Israel

. And why not let them come, I ask you? The more the merrier.