29 sept 2013
Zarif (L) and Rohani in New York
In interview with ABC, Zarif says US 'allowing terrorists to kill innocent Iranian scientists'; claims his country believes nuclear weapons are 'detrimental' to its security
A day before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's scheduled address before the UN General Assembly's annual meeting in New York, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif attacked Israel, saying it "cannot kill all of our scientists. They have unfortunately assassinated some of them and nobody has raised an eyebrow about it, which is a source of great concern for us that the world.
"The United States which is supposed to be against terrorism is allowing terrorists to kill innocent Iranian scientists," Zarif said in an interview with ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Iran's top diplomat said "a smile attack is much better than a lie attack. Mr. Netanyahu and his colleagues have been saying since 1991 - and you can refer to your records - that Iran is six months away from a nuclear weapon. And we are how many years, 22 years after that and they are still saying we're six months away from nuclear weapons.
"We don't want nuclear weapons. We believe nuclear weapons are detrimental to our security," he told ABC, and then continued his attack on the Jewish state, saying "Israel has 200 nuclear warheads. Israel is the source of insecurity in our region. Israel is the source of aggression and violation of human rights of the Palestinian people. It should not have the audacity to continue to lie to the American people and to the world by - and mislead everybody."
Zarif also criticized the Americans, saying that "the fact that the United States supports whatever policy is followed by Israel is another indication that the United States needs to revisit some of its policies and move forward."
The interview followed a week-long "charm offensive" by Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who promised the US President Barack Obama at the General Assembly meeting that the two countries can "settle their differences." Obama and Rohani also held a historic 15-minute phone conversation, the first between leaders of the two countries since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
In the interview with ABC, Zarif said Iran was prepared to negotiate with the US on the nuclear issue, but added that Washington must "dismantle its illegal sanctions against Iran that are targeting ordinary Iranians. "It is impossible to open a letter of credit from a bank to buy medicine for Iranian patients because there (have) been, in fact, blind sanctions against banks dealing with Iran.
There has been a lot of arm twisting by the United States, by - not by the entire government, by certain elements within the US government which have tried to put pressure on ordinary Iranian people," he said. Zarif said that while Iran is willing to negotiate with the West, it has a right to enrich uranium.
In interview with ABC, Zarif says US 'allowing terrorists to kill innocent Iranian scientists'; claims his country believes nuclear weapons are 'detrimental' to its security
A day before Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's scheduled address before the UN General Assembly's annual meeting in New York, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif attacked Israel, saying it "cannot kill all of our scientists. They have unfortunately assassinated some of them and nobody has raised an eyebrow about it, which is a source of great concern for us that the world.
"The United States which is supposed to be against terrorism is allowing terrorists to kill innocent Iranian scientists," Zarif said in an interview with ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos."
Iran's top diplomat said "a smile attack is much better than a lie attack. Mr. Netanyahu and his colleagues have been saying since 1991 - and you can refer to your records - that Iran is six months away from a nuclear weapon. And we are how many years, 22 years after that and they are still saying we're six months away from nuclear weapons.
"We don't want nuclear weapons. We believe nuclear weapons are detrimental to our security," he told ABC, and then continued his attack on the Jewish state, saying "Israel has 200 nuclear warheads. Israel is the source of insecurity in our region. Israel is the source of aggression and violation of human rights of the Palestinian people. It should not have the audacity to continue to lie to the American people and to the world by - and mislead everybody."
Zarif also criticized the Americans, saying that "the fact that the United States supports whatever policy is followed by Israel is another indication that the United States needs to revisit some of its policies and move forward."
The interview followed a week-long "charm offensive" by Iranian President Hassan Rohani, who promised the US President Barack Obama at the General Assembly meeting that the two countries can "settle their differences." Obama and Rohani also held a historic 15-minute phone conversation, the first between leaders of the two countries since the Islamic Revolution of 1979.
In the interview with ABC, Zarif said Iran was prepared to negotiate with the US on the nuclear issue, but added that Washington must "dismantle its illegal sanctions against Iran that are targeting ordinary Iranians. "It is impossible to open a letter of credit from a bank to buy medicine for Iranian patients because there (have) been, in fact, blind sanctions against banks dealing with Iran.
There has been a lot of arm twisting by the United States, by - not by the entire government, by certain elements within the US government which have tried to put pressure on ordinary Iranian people," he said. Zarif said that while Iran is willing to negotiate with the West, it has a right to enrich uranium.
Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu describes Iran's alleged nuclear weapon plans at the UN in New York on Sept. 27, 2012
Iran's Foreign Minister accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of peddling lies Sunday over Tehran's nuclear activities, and defended his country's "non-negotiable" right to enrich uranium.
Mohammad Jawad Zarif told US television that Netanyahu -- en route to the United States for talks and a speech at the United Nations -- was wrong to allege that Iran's recent moves to cooperate with the West amount to little more than an insincere charm offensive.
Netanyahu has dismissed new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's drive to mend fences with the international community. Such steps led to the latter's 15-minute telephone call with President Barack Obama last week.
Netanyahu has accused Rouhani of being a "wolf in sheep's clothing," whose talk of allaying western concerns is a confidence trick and on Sunday he called on his US ally not to be fooled.
"I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and charm offensive of Iran," Israeli public radio quoted Netanyahu as saying before he boarded a plane for Washington.
However Zarif insisted Rouhani in the past week had taken necessary first steps "towards removing the tensions and doubts and misgivings" Iran and the United States "have had about each other for the last 30-some years."
"A smile attack is much better than a lie attack," Zarif said in an interview with ABC Television's "This Week" political talk show.
"Mr Netanyahu and his colleagues have been saying since 1991, and you can check your records, that Iran is six months away from a nuclear weapon.
"We're 22 years after that and they are still saying we're six months away from a nuclear weapon," he added.
Zarif reiterated that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb and does not need the military-grade uranium required for such, but he insisted that Iran is entitled to pursue atomic energy plans "because that's our right."
He also said it was in the world's interest to allow Iran to pursue such activities as otherwise its nuclear scientists "could go on the black market, seeking employment opportunities."
But sanctions imposed by western governments in recent years are the major hurdle in the way of a deal being reached, he maintained.
"Sanctions are not a useful tool of implementing policy. And the United States needs to change that," Zarif said.
"Negotiations are on the table to discuss various aspects of Iran's enrichment program. Our right to enrich is non-negotiable," he added.
Iran's Foreign Minister accused Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of peddling lies Sunday over Tehran's nuclear activities, and defended his country's "non-negotiable" right to enrich uranium.
Mohammad Jawad Zarif told US television that Netanyahu -- en route to the United States for talks and a speech at the United Nations -- was wrong to allege that Iran's recent moves to cooperate with the West amount to little more than an insincere charm offensive.
Netanyahu has dismissed new Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's drive to mend fences with the international community. Such steps led to the latter's 15-minute telephone call with President Barack Obama last week.
Netanyahu has accused Rouhani of being a "wolf in sheep's clothing," whose talk of allaying western concerns is a confidence trick and on Sunday he called on his US ally not to be fooled.
"I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and charm offensive of Iran," Israeli public radio quoted Netanyahu as saying before he boarded a plane for Washington.
However Zarif insisted Rouhani in the past week had taken necessary first steps "towards removing the tensions and doubts and misgivings" Iran and the United States "have had about each other for the last 30-some years."
"A smile attack is much better than a lie attack," Zarif said in an interview with ABC Television's "This Week" political talk show.
"Mr Netanyahu and his colleagues have been saying since 1991, and you can check your records, that Iran is six months away from a nuclear weapon.
"We're 22 years after that and they are still saying we're six months away from a nuclear weapon," he added.
Zarif reiterated that Iran is not pursuing a nuclear bomb and does not need the military-grade uranium required for such, but he insisted that Iran is entitled to pursue atomic energy plans "because that's our right."
He also said it was in the world's interest to allow Iran to pursue such activities as otherwise its nuclear scientists "could go on the black market, seeking employment opportunities."
But sanctions imposed by western governments in recent years are the major hurdle in the way of a deal being reached, he maintained.
"Sanctions are not a useful tool of implementing policy. And the United States needs to change that," Zarif said.
"Negotiations are on the table to discuss various aspects of Iran's enrichment program. Our right to enrich is non-negotiable," he added.
Israel's Shin Bet security service on Sunday announced the arrest on September 11 of an Iranian "spy" carrying photographs of the US embassy in Tel Aviv.
The suspect, holding a Belgian passport, was sent to Israel by Iran's elite Republican Guards and arrested at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion international airport, it said in a statement.
The Shin Bet identified the suspect as Ali Mansouri, 58, and said he had enrolled in a "special operations unit of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for numerous terrorist attacks around the world."
It said he had been using the fake identity Alex Mans.
The Shin Bet said that under questioning, the suspect had said he had been promised $1 million to use his position as a businessman to set up companies in Israel on behalf of the Iranian intelligence services to "harm Israeli and Western interests."
The suspect, holding a Belgian passport, was sent to Israel by Iran's elite Republican Guards and arrested at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion international airport, it said in a statement.
The Shin Bet identified the suspect as Ali Mansouri, 58, and said he had enrolled in a "special operations unit of the Revolutionary Guards responsible for numerous terrorist attacks around the world."
It said he had been using the fake identity Alex Mans.
The Shin Bet said that under questioning, the suspect had said he had been promised $1 million to use his position as a businessman to set up companies in Israel on behalf of the Iranian intelligence services to "harm Israeli and Western interests."
Israeli premier Benjamin Netanyahu left for New York early Sunday in a bid to challenge perceptions that Iran under its new president poses less of a nuclear threat than before.
"I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and charm offensive of Iran" Israeli public radio quoted him as saying as he boarded the plane at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport.
"Telling the truth at this time is essential for world peace and security and, of course, for Israel's security."
Earlier in the week he described Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's conciliatory speech to the United Nations General Assembly as "cynical" and "full of hypocrisy."
On Monday Netanyahu will meet US President Barack Obama at the White House then return to New York to address the General Assembly on Tuesday.
Netanyahu has long put what Israel and the west say is a covert Iranian program to develop a nuclear weapon at the forefront of his security concerns.
Iran denies the charge and in his UN address Rouhani said that "nuclear weapons... have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine."
The self-styled moderate, tasked with easing concerns over Iran's nuclear program, made history on Friday by speaking by phone to US President Barack Obama, in the first contact between the countries' leaders since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Israeli media said that Netanyahu had instructed his ministers and senior officials not to comment on the call.
"I intend to tell the truth in the face of the sweet talk and charm offensive of Iran" Israeli public radio quoted him as saying as he boarded the plane at Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion airport.
"Telling the truth at this time is essential for world peace and security and, of course, for Israel's security."
Earlier in the week he described Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's conciliatory speech to the United Nations General Assembly as "cynical" and "full of hypocrisy."
On Monday Netanyahu will meet US President Barack Obama at the White House then return to New York to address the General Assembly on Tuesday.
Netanyahu has long put what Israel and the west say is a covert Iranian program to develop a nuclear weapon at the forefront of his security concerns.
Iran denies the charge and in his UN address Rouhani said that "nuclear weapons... have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine."
The self-styled moderate, tasked with easing concerns over Iran's nuclear program, made history on Friday by speaking by phone to US President Barack Obama, in the first contact between the countries' leaders since the 1979 Islamic revolution.
Israeli media said that Netanyahu had instructed his ministers and senior officials not to comment on the call.
28 sept 2013
The NBC star tells his viewers that Iranian leaders are "suddenly claiming they don't want nuclear weapons," even though they've been saying it for years
There is ample reason for skepticism that anything substantial will change in Iran-US relations, beginning with the fact that numerous US political and media figures are vested in the narrative that Iran is an evil threat whose desire for a peaceful resolution must not be trusted (and some hard-line factions in Iran are similarly vested in ongoing conflict). Whatever one's views are on the prospects for improving relations, the first direct communications in more than 30 years between the leaders of those two countries is a historically significant event.
Here is what NBC News anchor Brian Williams told his viewers about this event when leading off his broadcast last night, with a particularly mocking and cynical tone used for the bolded words:
"This is all part of a new leadership effort by Iran -- suddenly claiming they don't want nuclear weapons! ; what they want is talks and transparency and good will. And while that would be enough to define a whole new era, skepticism is high and there's a good reason for it."
Yes, Iran's claim that they don't want nuclear weapons sure is "sudden" -- if you pretend that virtually everything that they've said on that question for the past 10 years does not exist. Here, for instance, is previous Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an August 13, 2011, interview:
"Q: 'Are you saying that at some point in the future you may want to acquire a nuclear deterrent, a nuclear weapon?'
"Ahmadinejad: 'Never, never. We do not want nuclear weapons. We do not seek nuclear weapons. This is an inhumane weapon. Because of our beliefs we are against that.
"'Firstly, our religion says it is prohibited. We are a religious people. Secondly, nuclear weapons have no capability today. If any country tries to build a nuclear bomb, they in fact waste their money and resources and they create great danger for themselves. . . .
"'Nuclear weapons are the weapons of the previous century. This century is the century of knowledge and thinking, the century of human beings, the century of culture and logic. . . . Our goal in the country and the goal of our people is peace for all. Nuclear energy for all, and nuclear weapons for none. This is our goal.
"'All nuclear activities in Iran are monitored by the IAEA. There have been no documents against Iran from the agency. It's just a claim by the US that we are after nuclear weapons. But they have no evidence that Iran is diverting resources to that purpose.'"
In fact, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a 2005 religious edict banning the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and in January of this year, Iranian official Ramin Mehmanparast declared: "There is nothing higher than the exalted supreme leader's fatwa to define the framework for our activities in the nuclear field." He added: "We are the first country to call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. When the highest jurist and authority in the country's leadership issues a fatwa, this will be binding for all of us to follow. So, this fatwa will be our top agenda."
The following month, Khamenei himself said: "We believe that nuclear weapons must be eliminated. We don't want to build atomic weapons." The New York Times noted that "American officials say they believe that Ayatollah Khamenei exercises full control over Iran's nuclear program."
These are identical to the statements top Iranian officials have been making for years. In 2012, Khamenei "insisted his country was not seeking nuclear weapons, claiming that 'holding these arms is a sin as well as useless, harmful and dangerous.'" The following month, Iran's top leader gave what Professor Juan Cole described at the time as "a major foreign policy speech" and said:
"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."
Can that be any more absolute? Iran's top leadership has been making similarly unambiguous statements for almost a full decade, even taking out a full page ad in the New York Times in 2005 to counter the growing clamor in the US for a military attack by proclaiming that Iran had no desire for nuclear weapons, was not pursuing them, and wanted transparency, accountability and peace -- exactly what Brian Williams told his viewers last night was a "sudden" and newfound claim.
Obviously, the fact that Iran claims it does not want nuclear weapons is not proof that it is not seeking them or will not seek them at some point in the future; all government statements should be subjected to skepticism (and one can only dream of the day when US media stars subject the statements of their own government to the same skepticism accorded to those of leaders of non-allied countries). But what is true is that US intelligence agencies have repeatedly though secretly concluded that they do not believe that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, and even top Israeli military officials have expressed serious doubts that Iran is building, or will build, a nuclear weapon.
*To read the remainder of this article, please go to The Guardian
There is ample reason for skepticism that anything substantial will change in Iran-US relations, beginning with the fact that numerous US political and media figures are vested in the narrative that Iran is an evil threat whose desire for a peaceful resolution must not be trusted (and some hard-line factions in Iran are similarly vested in ongoing conflict). Whatever one's views are on the prospects for improving relations, the first direct communications in more than 30 years between the leaders of those two countries is a historically significant event.
Here is what NBC News anchor Brian Williams told his viewers about this event when leading off his broadcast last night, with a particularly mocking and cynical tone used for the bolded words:
"This is all part of a new leadership effort by Iran -- suddenly claiming they don't want nuclear weapons! ; what they want is talks and transparency and good will. And while that would be enough to define a whole new era, skepticism is high and there's a good reason for it."
Yes, Iran's claim that they don't want nuclear weapons sure is "sudden" -- if you pretend that virtually everything that they've said on that question for the past 10 years does not exist. Here, for instance, is previous Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in an August 13, 2011, interview:
"Q: 'Are you saying that at some point in the future you may want to acquire a nuclear deterrent, a nuclear weapon?'
"Ahmadinejad: 'Never, never. We do not want nuclear weapons. We do not seek nuclear weapons. This is an inhumane weapon. Because of our beliefs we are against that.
"'Firstly, our religion says it is prohibited. We are a religious people. Secondly, nuclear weapons have no capability today. If any country tries to build a nuclear bomb, they in fact waste their money and resources and they create great danger for themselves. . . .
"'Nuclear weapons are the weapons of the previous century. This century is the century of knowledge and thinking, the century of human beings, the century of culture and logic. . . . Our goal in the country and the goal of our people is peace for all. Nuclear energy for all, and nuclear weapons for none. This is our goal.
"'All nuclear activities in Iran are monitored by the IAEA. There have been no documents against Iran from the agency. It's just a claim by the US that we are after nuclear weapons. But they have no evidence that Iran is diverting resources to that purpose.'"
In fact, the country's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a 2005 religious edict banning the pursuit of nuclear weapons, and in January of this year, Iranian official Ramin Mehmanparast declared: "There is nothing higher than the exalted supreme leader's fatwa to define the framework for our activities in the nuclear field." He added: "We are the first country to call for a Middle East free of nuclear weapons. When the highest jurist and authority in the country's leadership issues a fatwa, this will be binding for all of us to follow. So, this fatwa will be our top agenda."
The following month, Khamenei himself said: "We believe that nuclear weapons must be eliminated. We don't want to build atomic weapons." The New York Times noted that "American officials say they believe that Ayatollah Khamenei exercises full control over Iran's nuclear program."
These are identical to the statements top Iranian officials have been making for years. In 2012, Khamenei "insisted his country was not seeking nuclear weapons, claiming that 'holding these arms is a sin as well as useless, harmful and dangerous.'" The following month, Iran's top leader gave what Professor Juan Cole described at the time as "a major foreign policy speech" and said:
"The Iranian nation has never pursued and will never pursue nuclear weapons. There is no doubt that the decision makers in the countries opposing us know well that Iran is not after nuclear weapons because the Islamic Republic, logically, religiously and theoretically, considers the possession of nuclear weapons a grave sin and believes the proliferation of such weapons is senseless, destructive and dangerous."
Can that be any more absolute? Iran's top leadership has been making similarly unambiguous statements for almost a full decade, even taking out a full page ad in the New York Times in 2005 to counter the growing clamor in the US for a military attack by proclaiming that Iran had no desire for nuclear weapons, was not pursuing them, and wanted transparency, accountability and peace -- exactly what Brian Williams told his viewers last night was a "sudden" and newfound claim.
Obviously, the fact that Iran claims it does not want nuclear weapons is not proof that it is not seeking them or will not seek them at some point in the future; all government statements should be subjected to skepticism (and one can only dream of the day when US media stars subject the statements of their own government to the same skepticism accorded to those of leaders of non-allied countries). But what is true is that US intelligence agencies have repeatedly though secretly concluded that they do not believe that Iran is building a nuclear weapon, and even top Israeli military officials have expressed serious doubts that Iran is building, or will build, a nuclear weapon.
*To read the remainder of this article, please go to The Guardian
CNN’s Christiane Amanpour (L) conducts an interview with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani on the sidelines of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York.
A senior Iranian lawmaker has called for legal action against CNN for broadcasting a falsified translation of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s remarks in a recent interview with the US news network.
“CCN must be banned following the distortion of the statements by the president of our country and it is appropriate to take required legal actions in this respect,” said Chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s Majlis Alaeddin Boroujerdi on Saturday.
On Tuesday, September 24, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour conducted an interview with President Rouhani on the sidelines of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York. The news network broadcast a mistranslation of President Rouhani’s remarks about his position on the Holocaust.
Responding to a question regarding the Holocaust, President Rouhani said, “I’ve said before that I am not a historian and the historians should elaborate on and explain the dimensions of historical events.” However, CNN wrongly inserted the word “Holocaust” in the translation it rendered.
The American news network has refused to offer an apology over the falsification.
A senior Iranian lawmaker has called for legal action against CNN for broadcasting a falsified translation of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s remarks in a recent interview with the US news network.
“CCN must be banned following the distortion of the statements by the president of our country and it is appropriate to take required legal actions in this respect,” said Chairman of the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran’s Majlis Alaeddin Boroujerdi on Saturday.
On Tuesday, September 24, CNN’s Christiane Amanpour conducted an interview with President Rouhani on the sidelines of the 68th Session of the UN General Assembly in New York. The news network broadcast a mistranslation of President Rouhani’s remarks about his position on the Holocaust.
Responding to a question regarding the Holocaust, President Rouhani said, “I’ve said before that I am not a historian and the historians should elaborate on and explain the dimensions of historical events.” However, CNN wrongly inserted the word “Holocaust” in the translation it rendered.
The American news network has refused to offer an apology over the falsification.
A shoe was thrown at Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's motorcade Saturday as he arrived home to a mixed reception after his historic call with Barack Obama, an AFP correspondent reported.
Iranian newspapers hailed the first contact with a US president in more than three decades as the ending of a long taboo.
But his 15-minute conversation with the leader of a country long derided as the "Great Satan" was too much for some hardliners.
Nearly 60 gathered outside Tehran's Mehrabad Airport, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" as his motorcade passed.
They were outnumbered by 200 to 300 supporters of the president chanting: “Thank you Rouhani,” who were separated from the protesters by a small contingent of police.
The shoe was thrown as Rouhani stood up through the sunroof of his car to acknowledge the crowd. It failed to hit its target.
There have been no diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington since students took hostages at the US embassy in the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Dubbed the "nest of spies" by the regime, the old embassy site has since been the scene of annual commemorations which have been a focal point for hardline anti-US sentiment.
The airport protest contrasted with the plaudits Rouhani received from the Iranian press for the historic telephone call.
Rouhani told reporters at the airport that it had been Obama's initiative to make the call.
"We were going to the airport, when I was informed that the White House had called the cellphone of our ambassador to the UN," his office quoted him as saying.
"I was informed President Obama wanted to speak to me for a few minutes."
Iranian newspapers crowed that Rouhani had wrong-footed the world's media by taking the US president's call after coverage of his keenly-awaited visit to the United Nations in New York had focused on the lack of a face-to-face meeting.
"The world caught unawares," crowed reformist daily Arman. "International media in shock over the telephone call."
The Etemad newspaper carried a photomontage of Rouhani and Obama side by side. "Historic contact on way home," read a banner headline taking up the whole front page.
'Both sides must be careful'
But the paper carried an opinion piece by international relations professor Mohammad Ali Bassiri warning of the challenges that lie ahead to bring about a full rapprochement, not least the opposition of US ally and Iran foe Israel.
"These contacts and meetings between Iran and the United States have extremist opponents and both sides must be very careful," Bassiri wrote.
"Many countries, notably the Zionist regime, believe their interests will be jeopardized by a normalization of relations between Iran and the United States and will seek to stop it."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described Rouhani as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," is to meet Obama on Monday before addressing the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.
Former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, widely seen as Rouhani's mentor, said the incumbent had pulled off a diplomatic coup by speaking to, but not meeting, Obama.
"The fact that Obama asked our president to meet him but the latter said it's too early and we must prepare the ground is the very triumph that God promised us," Rafsanjani said in comments widely reported in the Iranian press.
The commander of the covert operations unit of the elite Revolutionary Guards said the attention lavished on Rouhani in New York was a vindication of Iran's tough defense policy.
"The respect shown by the world to President Rouhani is the fruit of the nation's resistance," General Ghassem Soleimani was quoted as saying.
The Qods Force, which Soleimani commands, lies at the center of US allegations of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism, one of a raft of issues, over and above Iran's controversial nuclear program, that Rouhani is going to have to tackle in any rapprochement.
Many newspapers carried front-page photographs of a smiling Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry at nuclear talks in New York between Iran and the major powers.
Zarif said he hoped for a deal within a year to allay international concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But Zarif's Western counterparts made clear at the meeting that an agreement will require big concessions from Iran.
They include the suspension of all enrichment of uranium beyond the level required to fuel nuclear power plants, and the closure of Iran's underground enrichment facility near the central city of Qom.
Back home after the international fanfare, Rouhani now has to persuade skeptics within the regime that they are concessions worth making.
Iranian newspapers hailed the first contact with a US president in more than three decades as the ending of a long taboo.
But his 15-minute conversation with the leader of a country long derided as the "Great Satan" was too much for some hardliners.
Nearly 60 gathered outside Tehran's Mehrabad Airport, chanting "Death to America" and "Death to Israel" as his motorcade passed.
They were outnumbered by 200 to 300 supporters of the president chanting: “Thank you Rouhani,” who were separated from the protesters by a small contingent of police.
The shoe was thrown as Rouhani stood up through the sunroof of his car to acknowledge the crowd. It failed to hit its target.
There have been no diplomatic relations between Tehran and Washington since students took hostages at the US embassy in the aftermath of the 1979 Iranian revolution.
Dubbed the "nest of spies" by the regime, the old embassy site has since been the scene of annual commemorations which have been a focal point for hardline anti-US sentiment.
The airport protest contrasted with the plaudits Rouhani received from the Iranian press for the historic telephone call.
Rouhani told reporters at the airport that it had been Obama's initiative to make the call.
"We were going to the airport, when I was informed that the White House had called the cellphone of our ambassador to the UN," his office quoted him as saying.
"I was informed President Obama wanted to speak to me for a few minutes."
Iranian newspapers crowed that Rouhani had wrong-footed the world's media by taking the US president's call after coverage of his keenly-awaited visit to the United Nations in New York had focused on the lack of a face-to-face meeting.
"The world caught unawares," crowed reformist daily Arman. "International media in shock over the telephone call."
The Etemad newspaper carried a photomontage of Rouhani and Obama side by side. "Historic contact on way home," read a banner headline taking up the whole front page.
'Both sides must be careful'
But the paper carried an opinion piece by international relations professor Mohammad Ali Bassiri warning of the challenges that lie ahead to bring about a full rapprochement, not least the opposition of US ally and Iran foe Israel.
"These contacts and meetings between Iran and the United States have extremist opponents and both sides must be very careful," Bassiri wrote.
"Many countries, notably the Zionist regime, believe their interests will be jeopardized by a normalization of relations between Iran and the United States and will seek to stop it."
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has described Rouhani as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," is to meet Obama on Monday before addressing the UN General Assembly on Tuesday.
Former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, widely seen as Rouhani's mentor, said the incumbent had pulled off a diplomatic coup by speaking to, but not meeting, Obama.
"The fact that Obama asked our president to meet him but the latter said it's too early and we must prepare the ground is the very triumph that God promised us," Rafsanjani said in comments widely reported in the Iranian press.
The commander of the covert operations unit of the elite Revolutionary Guards said the attention lavished on Rouhani in New York was a vindication of Iran's tough defense policy.
"The respect shown by the world to President Rouhani is the fruit of the nation's resistance," General Ghassem Soleimani was quoted as saying.
The Qods Force, which Soleimani commands, lies at the center of US allegations of Iranian state sponsorship of terrorism, one of a raft of issues, over and above Iran's controversial nuclear program, that Rouhani is going to have to tackle in any rapprochement.
Many newspapers carried front-page photographs of a smiling Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry at nuclear talks in New York between Iran and the major powers.
Zarif said he hoped for a deal within a year to allay international concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions.
But Zarif's Western counterparts made clear at the meeting that an agreement will require big concessions from Iran.
They include the suspension of all enrichment of uranium beyond the level required to fuel nuclear power plants, and the closure of Iran's underground enrichment facility near the central city of Qom.
Back home after the international fanfare, Rouhani now has to persuade skeptics within the regime that they are concessions worth making.
President Rohani exchanged views with US officials on return of the seized ancient vessel, known in art circles as a rhyton, to Iran on the sideline of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
The US officials presented the ceremonial drinking vessel belonging to the 7th century BC to Iran as a token of goodwill.
The ancient vessel had been in New York since 2003, when an art dealer smuggled it into the country from Iran.
Griffin is a legendary creature with the body, tail, and back legs of a lion; the head and wings of an eagle; and an eagles talons as its front feet. As the lion was traditionally considered the king of the beasts and the eagle was the king of the birds, the griffin was thought to be an especially powerful and majestic creature.
The griffin was also thought of as king of the creatures. Griffins are known for guarding treasure and priceless possessions
The US officials presented the ceremonial drinking vessel belonging to the 7th century BC to Iran as a token of goodwill.
The ancient vessel had been in New York since 2003, when an art dealer smuggled it into the country from Iran.
Griffin is a legendary creature with the body, tail, and back legs of a lion; the head and wings of an eagle; and an eagles talons as its front feet. As the lion was traditionally considered the king of the beasts and the eagle was the king of the birds, the griffin was thought to be an especially powerful and majestic creature.
The griffin was also thought of as king of the creatures. Griffins are known for guarding treasure and priceless possessions
|
|
Rohani's tweet which was later removed
American media analyze words used by president at end of phone conversation with Iranian leader; Iranians hopeful after first direct contact between leaders in three decades
"Have a nice day" - this is how Iranian President Hassan Rohani concluded his phone conversation with US President Barack Obama, the first direct contact between leaders of the two nations in over three decades.
A message on Rohani's Twitter page, which has since been deleted, stated that Obama answered in Farsi by saying "khodahafez" to indicate goodbye, whose literal meaning is "may God be with you."
The tweet was one of several Rohani posted after the historic phone conversation. He noted that Obama had phoned him and told him he was positive that relations between Iran and the US would have great effect on the region.
Some tweets that were later removed and replaced with a more general statement, noted that Obama had wished the Iranian president a safe trip and had apologized for New York traffic.
However, a US senior official stressed that the conversation was held on Rohani's initiative.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported of Iranians' response to the conversation. “Wow, this is fantastic,” said Armin Kay, an engineer reacting to the news. “The most important thing is that Obama took the initiative. This will go down really well with our leadership.”
Amir Mohebbian, a political adviser close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: “After the positive meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and the United States on Thursday, we could see this coming,” referring to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry. “This was a polite farewell, a thank you for all the positivity from Iran.”
If talks on Iran’s nuclear program next month go well, he said, “we could witness a meeting after that.”
The paper quoted another analyst close to Rohani who praised the phone call by Obama as “the best thing he could have done.”
The analyst, Nader Karimi Joni, who works as a journalist and has been jailed for opposing the interests of hard-liners, said the call was a “verbal farewell for a V.I.P. guest, similar to seeing Mr. Rohani off personally.”
According to the report, some Iranians said the immediate practical impact of the phone call could be a surge in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial, which has weakened to historic lows against the dollar in recent months because of the accumulated economic sanctions on Iran, imposed by the United States and European Union in response to the nuclear standoff.
American media analyze words used by president at end of phone conversation with Iranian leader; Iranians hopeful after first direct contact between leaders in three decades
"Have a nice day" - this is how Iranian President Hassan Rohani concluded his phone conversation with US President Barack Obama, the first direct contact between leaders of the two nations in over three decades.
A message on Rohani's Twitter page, which has since been deleted, stated that Obama answered in Farsi by saying "khodahafez" to indicate goodbye, whose literal meaning is "may God be with you."
The tweet was one of several Rohani posted after the historic phone conversation. He noted that Obama had phoned him and told him he was positive that relations between Iran and the US would have great effect on the region.
Some tweets that were later removed and replaced with a more general statement, noted that Obama had wished the Iranian president a safe trip and had apologized for New York traffic.
However, a US senior official stressed that the conversation was held on Rohani's initiative.
Meanwhile, the New York Times reported of Iranians' response to the conversation. “Wow, this is fantastic,” said Armin Kay, an engineer reacting to the news. “The most important thing is that Obama took the initiative. This will go down really well with our leadership.”
Amir Mohebbian, a political adviser close to Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said: “After the positive meeting between the foreign ministers of Iran and the United States on Thursday, we could see this coming,” referring to Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif and Secretary of State John Kerry. “This was a polite farewell, a thank you for all the positivity from Iran.”
If talks on Iran’s nuclear program next month go well, he said, “we could witness a meeting after that.”
The paper quoted another analyst close to Rohani who praised the phone call by Obama as “the best thing he could have done.”
The analyst, Nader Karimi Joni, who works as a journalist and has been jailed for opposing the interests of hard-liners, said the call was a “verbal farewell for a V.I.P. guest, similar to seeing Mr. Rohani off personally.”
According to the report, some Iranians said the immediate practical impact of the phone call could be a surge in the value of Iran’s currency, the rial, which has weakened to historic lows against the dollar in recent months because of the accumulated economic sanctions on Iran, imposed by the United States and European Union in response to the nuclear standoff.
27 sept 2013
Peace in the Middle East? Not if Benjamin Netanyahu has anything to say about it.
On Monday, Sept. 30, U.S. President Barack Obama will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for the first time in 18 months. Much has changed in the intervening period -- both leaders have been re-elected, Obama has made his first visit as president to Israel, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been relaunched, and that rather pragmatic-sounding Hasan Rouhani chap has been elected president in Iran.
In what might be called an anti-"Asia pivot" speech, Obama announced to the U.N. General Assembly this week that the United States is engaged in the Middle East "for the long haul" and that "in the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict."
That message will be viewed as a mixed bag in Jerusalem, which is keen for a greater American footprint in the region but is less enthusiastic about the idea of peacemaking with the Palestinians and deal-making with the Iranians taking top billing. For that reason, the upcoming White House meeting will likely find the two leaders back on familiar terrain, more focused on testing each other's underlying intentions than on working together as close allies.
The U.S. president is something of an open book, but Netanyahu's approach requires a little more interpretation and context. Too much of that analysis has been consistently wrong, and thankfully so. If prominent Netanyahu watchers had gotten it right, we would be marking the second or third anniversaries of Israeli bombing campaigns against Iran.
Netanyahu is indeed back in threatening mode. His latest rhetorical flourish is to quote Hillel's ancient maxim "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" -- an upgrade of his previous refrain regarding Israel's "right to defend itself by itself." That language is being widely interpreted by Israeli commentators as a reaffirmation of Israel's willingness to strike Iran alone if Netanyahu's red lines on Iran's nuclear program are deemed to have been crossed.
This debate has taken on a new urgency given the diplomatic opening seemingly created by the election of Rouhani. It is no secret that Netanyahu has been dragged out of his comfort zone by the possibility of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aggressive and insulting behavior made him a convenient adversary for Israel; Rouhani and his diplomatic team, notably polished Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, present a challenge of a very different order of magnitude.
Under these new circumstances, the nagging question for Washington policymakers is whether Netanyahu's tough line on engaging the new Iranian reality is the wise approach of an understandably cautious and concerned Israeli leader, or whether this Israeli pushback is indicative of a more intransigent stance. The pushback has been nothing if not relentless: Netanyahu has called for an intensification of sanctions and military threats, has depicted Iran's new leader as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and has heaped scorn on the Rosh Hashanah greetings sent to the Jewish world from Iranian leaders' Twitter accounts. The Israeli Embassy in Washington even crafted a fake LinkedIn account for Rouhani, which listed his skills as "weapons of mass destruction" and "illusion."
Sadly, the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not just about Israel's leader driving a hard but realistic bargain. If Netanyahu's principal concern is really the nuclear file, he should be able to come to terms with the fact that a negotiated outcome offers the best long-term safeguard against Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The most that military strikes could achieve would be a short-term delay of Iran's ability to weaponize its nuclear program -- a decision that Iran has anyway not yet made, according to the consensus among Western intelligence agencies. A strike would also create a greater incentive for Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.
At the moment, however, Netanyahu is signaling that there is no realistic deal that would be acceptable to Israel. For instance, a consensus exists among experts and Western officials that Iran's right to enrich uranium -- in a limited manner and under international supervision -- for its civilian nuclear energy program will be a necessary part of any agreement. Netanyahu rejects this.
If Iran is willing to cut a deal that effectively provides a guarantee against a weaponization of its nuclear program, and that deal is acceptable to the president of the United States of America, why would Netanyahu not take yes for an answer?
The reason lies in Netanyahu's broader view of Israel's place in the region: The Israeli premier simply does not want an Islamic Republic of Iran that is a relatively independent and powerful actor. Israel has gotten used to a degree of regional hegemony and freedom of action -- notably military action -- that is almost unparalleled globally, especially for what is, after all, a rather small power. Israelis are understandably reluctant to give up any of that.
Israel's leadership seeks to maintain the convenient reality of a neighboring region populated by only two types of regimes. The first type is regimes with a degree of dependence on the United States, which necessitates severe limitations on challenging Israel (including diplomatically). The second type is regimes that are considered beyond the pale by the United States and as many other global actors as possible, and therefore unable to do serious damage to Israeli interests.
Israel's leadership would consider the emergence of a third type of regional actor -- one that is not overly deferential to Washington but also is not boycotted, and that even boasts a degree of economic, political, and military weight -- a deeply undesirable development. What's more, this threatens to become a not-uncommon feature of the Middle East: Just look at Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or Egypt before the July 3 coup, or an Iran that gets beyond its nuclear dispute and starts to normalize its relations with the West.
There are other reasons for Netanyahu to oppose any developments that would allow Iran to break free of its isolation and win acceptance as an important regional actor with which the West engages. The current standoff is an extremely useful way of distracting attention from the Palestinian issue, and a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran would likely shine more of a spotlight on Israel's own nuclear weapons capacity. But the key point to understand in interpreting Netanyahu's policy is this: While Obama has put aside changing the nature of the Islamic Republic's political system, Israel's leader is all about a commitment to regime change -- or failing that, regime isolation -- in Tehran. And he will pursue that goal even at the expense of a workable deal on the nuclear file.
Netanyahu's maximalism does not represent a wall-to-wall consensus within the Israeli establishment. There is another Israeli strand of thinking -- notably among retired security elites like former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin -- that holds that the challenges posed by Iran can be managed in different ways at different times. Others inside Israel's establishment acknowledge that the current period of unchallenged hegemony is unsustainable and that adjustments will have to be made. Some understand the efficacy of having an Iran more tied into the international system rather than isolated from it -- a deal on Iran's nuclear program, for instance, could also have its uses in limiting the maneuver room of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
But Netanyahu has rejected these positions. The prime minister is nothing if not consistent: He was similarly intractable when the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League put forth pragmatic proposals. While the PLO's leadership accepts Israel's existence, the 1967 lines, and an accommodation on Israeli settlements (including in East Jerusalem) by way of land swaps, Netanyahu has shifted the goal posts -- rejecting the 1967 lines and refusing to take yes for an answer. With the Arab League's "Arab Peace Initiative" offering recognition of Israel and comprehensive peace in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories, Netanyahu is again following this pattern of rejectionism.
Netanyahu is a deeply ideological leader with an unshakeable belief in a Greater Israel and regional hegemony. If this reading of him is accurate, it bodes ill for Israel's reaction to the nascent diplomacy between the United States and Iran. In the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu will likely dedicate himself to derailing any prospect for a diplomatic breakthrough.
In that mission he is, of course, not alone. He will be joined by American hawks and neoconservatives, Republicans who will oppose Obama on anything, and some Democrats with a more Israel-centric bent. Their efforts will be concentrated on escalating threats against Iran, increasing sanctions, and raising the bar to an impossibly high place on the terms of a nuclear deal. All this will serve -- intentionally, one has to assume -- to strengthen hard-liners in Tehran who are equally opposed to a deal.
Of course, the Iranian forces ranged against Rouhani's pragmatism do not need encouragement from Washington. But absent encouragement, they are not in the ascendancy -- and crucially, Rouhani appears to have the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for his diplomatic outreach. Currently, the difference among the three capitals -- Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem -- is that only in Jerusalem does a representative of the hard-line faction, rather than the pragmatic camp, hold the most senior political office.
If diplomacy survives this initial onslaught and the contours of a deal take shape, Netanyahu will face the choice that he has most wanted to avoid throughout his years in office: to acquiesce to a Western rapprochement with Iran or to stand alone in diplomatic and, presumably, military defiance. The ideologue in Netanyahu will counsel defiance, while the risk-averse politician in him will recommend a climb-down.
If Netanyahu wants a way out from bombing Iran, he could simply declare victory. It would be an easy speech to write: Bibi would declare that it was only Israeli pressure for sanctions and a credible military threat that created the conditions for a nuclear deal with Iran. Even if Netanyahu is wrong on the details regarding sanctions and threats -- they have often hindered, not advanced, progress toward a deal -- the desired result will have been achieved.
Netanyahu is not under Israeli public pressure to strike militarily or reject a deal. His security establishment is divided but wary of going solo, and even his cabinet is split on the issue. And this is why Monday's White House meeting matters so much: While Obama retreated on the Palestinian issue when Netanyahu stared him down -- first on settlements and then on the issue of using the 1967 borders as the basis for a deal -- on Iran they have so far deferred their disagreements. But that option may be reaching its expiration date. The Iran issue is now more urgent, and if progress is to be made on either of the priorities Obama highlighted at the United Nations -- Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- the president will need to become defter at outmaneuvering his Israeli guest.
Netanyahu's calculations and his actions will be affected by clear signals from Washington, Europe, and elsewhere to stop undermining diplomacy, and making the case for the unrivaled benefits of a deal with Iran. After decades spent boxing in Tehran, the interests of global and regional security -- and even of Israel itself -- may now require a short, sharp burst of boxing in Bibi.
On Monday, Sept. 30, U.S. President Barack Obama will welcome Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for the first time in 18 months. Much has changed in the intervening period -- both leaders have been re-elected, Obama has made his first visit as president to Israel, Israeli-Palestinian peace talks have been relaunched, and that rather pragmatic-sounding Hasan Rouhani chap has been elected president in Iran.
In what might be called an anti-"Asia pivot" speech, Obama announced to the U.N. General Assembly this week that the United States is engaged in the Middle East "for the long haul" and that "in the near term, America's diplomatic efforts will focus on two particular issues: Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and the Arab-Israeli conflict."
That message will be viewed as a mixed bag in Jerusalem, which is keen for a greater American footprint in the region but is less enthusiastic about the idea of peacemaking with the Palestinians and deal-making with the Iranians taking top billing. For that reason, the upcoming White House meeting will likely find the two leaders back on familiar terrain, more focused on testing each other's underlying intentions than on working together as close allies.
The U.S. president is something of an open book, but Netanyahu's approach requires a little more interpretation and context. Too much of that analysis has been consistently wrong, and thankfully so. If prominent Netanyahu watchers had gotten it right, we would be marking the second or third anniversaries of Israeli bombing campaigns against Iran.
Netanyahu is indeed back in threatening mode. His latest rhetorical flourish is to quote Hillel's ancient maxim "If I am not for myself, who will be for me?" -- an upgrade of his previous refrain regarding Israel's "right to defend itself by itself." That language is being widely interpreted by Israeli commentators as a reaffirmation of Israel's willingness to strike Iran alone if Netanyahu's red lines on Iran's nuclear program are deemed to have been crossed.
This debate has taken on a new urgency given the diplomatic opening seemingly created by the election of Rouhani. It is no secret that Netanyahu has been dragged out of his comfort zone by the possibility of a U.S.-Iran rapprochement. Former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's aggressive and insulting behavior made him a convenient adversary for Israel; Rouhani and his diplomatic team, notably polished Foreign Minister Javad Zarif, present a challenge of a very different order of magnitude.
Under these new circumstances, the nagging question for Washington policymakers is whether Netanyahu's tough line on engaging the new Iranian reality is the wise approach of an understandably cautious and concerned Israeli leader, or whether this Israeli pushback is indicative of a more intransigent stance. The pushback has been nothing if not relentless: Netanyahu has called for an intensification of sanctions and military threats, has depicted Iran's new leader as a "wolf in sheep's clothing," and has heaped scorn on the Rosh Hashanah greetings sent to the Jewish world from Iranian leaders' Twitter accounts. The Israeli Embassy in Washington even crafted a fake LinkedIn account for Rouhani, which listed his skills as "weapons of mass destruction" and "illusion."
Sadly, the preponderance of evidence suggests that this is not just about Israel's leader driving a hard but realistic bargain. If Netanyahu's principal concern is really the nuclear file, he should be able to come to terms with the fact that a negotiated outcome offers the best long-term safeguard against Iran developing a nuclear weapon. The most that military strikes could achieve would be a short-term delay of Iran's ability to weaponize its nuclear program -- a decision that Iran has anyway not yet made, according to the consensus among Western intelligence agencies. A strike would also create a greater incentive for Iran to weaponize its nuclear program.
At the moment, however, Netanyahu is signaling that there is no realistic deal that would be acceptable to Israel. For instance, a consensus exists among experts and Western officials that Iran's right to enrich uranium -- in a limited manner and under international supervision -- for its civilian nuclear energy program will be a necessary part of any agreement. Netanyahu rejects this.
If Iran is willing to cut a deal that effectively provides a guarantee against a weaponization of its nuclear program, and that deal is acceptable to the president of the United States of America, why would Netanyahu not take yes for an answer?
The reason lies in Netanyahu's broader view of Israel's place in the region: The Israeli premier simply does not want an Islamic Republic of Iran that is a relatively independent and powerful actor. Israel has gotten used to a degree of regional hegemony and freedom of action -- notably military action -- that is almost unparalleled globally, especially for what is, after all, a rather small power. Israelis are understandably reluctant to give up any of that.
Israel's leadership seeks to maintain the convenient reality of a neighboring region populated by only two types of regimes. The first type is regimes with a degree of dependence on the United States, which necessitates severe limitations on challenging Israel (including diplomatically). The second type is regimes that are considered beyond the pale by the United States and as many other global actors as possible, and therefore unable to do serious damage to Israeli interests.
Israel's leadership would consider the emergence of a third type of regional actor -- one that is not overly deferential to Washington but also is not boycotted, and that even boasts a degree of economic, political, and military weight -- a deeply undesirable development. What's more, this threatens to become a not-uncommon feature of the Middle East: Just look at Turkey under Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, or Egypt before the July 3 coup, or an Iran that gets beyond its nuclear dispute and starts to normalize its relations with the West.
There are other reasons for Netanyahu to oppose any developments that would allow Iran to break free of its isolation and win acceptance as an important regional actor with which the West engages. The current standoff is an extremely useful way of distracting attention from the Palestinian issue, and a diplomatic breakthrough with Iran would likely shine more of a spotlight on Israel's own nuclear weapons capacity. But the key point to understand in interpreting Netanyahu's policy is this: While Obama has put aside changing the nature of the Islamic Republic's political system, Israel's leader is all about a commitment to regime change -- or failing that, regime isolation -- in Tehran. And he will pursue that goal even at the expense of a workable deal on the nuclear file.
Netanyahu's maximalism does not represent a wall-to-wall consensus within the Israeli establishment. There is another Israeli strand of thinking -- notably among retired security elites like former Mossad chiefs Meir Dagan and Efraim Halevy and former Shin Bet chief Yuval Diskin -- that holds that the challenges posed by Iran can be managed in different ways at different times. Others inside Israel's establishment acknowledge that the current period of unchallenged hegemony is unsustainable and that adjustments will have to be made. Some understand the efficacy of having an Iran more tied into the international system rather than isolated from it -- a deal on Iran's nuclear program, for instance, could also have its uses in limiting the maneuver room of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas.
But Netanyahu has rejected these positions. The prime minister is nothing if not consistent: He was similarly intractable when the Palestinian leadership and the Arab League put forth pragmatic proposals. While the PLO's leadership accepts Israel's existence, the 1967 lines, and an accommodation on Israeli settlements (including in East Jerusalem) by way of land swaps, Netanyahu has shifted the goal posts -- rejecting the 1967 lines and refusing to take yes for an answer. With the Arab League's "Arab Peace Initiative" offering recognition of Israel and comprehensive peace in exchange for withdrawal from the occupied territories, Netanyahu is again following this pattern of rejectionism.
Netanyahu is a deeply ideological leader with an unshakeable belief in a Greater Israel and regional hegemony. If this reading of him is accurate, it bodes ill for Israel's reaction to the nascent diplomacy between the United States and Iran. In the coming weeks and months, Netanyahu will likely dedicate himself to derailing any prospect for a diplomatic breakthrough.
In that mission he is, of course, not alone. He will be joined by American hawks and neoconservatives, Republicans who will oppose Obama on anything, and some Democrats with a more Israel-centric bent. Their efforts will be concentrated on escalating threats against Iran, increasing sanctions, and raising the bar to an impossibly high place on the terms of a nuclear deal. All this will serve -- intentionally, one has to assume -- to strengthen hard-liners in Tehran who are equally opposed to a deal.
Of course, the Iranian forces ranged against Rouhani's pragmatism do not need encouragement from Washington. But absent encouragement, they are not in the ascendancy -- and crucially, Rouhani appears to have the backing of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei for his diplomatic outreach. Currently, the difference among the three capitals -- Washington, Tehran, and Jerusalem -- is that only in Jerusalem does a representative of the hard-line faction, rather than the pragmatic camp, hold the most senior political office.
If diplomacy survives this initial onslaught and the contours of a deal take shape, Netanyahu will face the choice that he has most wanted to avoid throughout his years in office: to acquiesce to a Western rapprochement with Iran or to stand alone in diplomatic and, presumably, military defiance. The ideologue in Netanyahu will counsel defiance, while the risk-averse politician in him will recommend a climb-down.
If Netanyahu wants a way out from bombing Iran, he could simply declare victory. It would be an easy speech to write: Bibi would declare that it was only Israeli pressure for sanctions and a credible military threat that created the conditions for a nuclear deal with Iran. Even if Netanyahu is wrong on the details regarding sanctions and threats -- they have often hindered, not advanced, progress toward a deal -- the desired result will have been achieved.
Netanyahu is not under Israeli public pressure to strike militarily or reject a deal. His security establishment is divided but wary of going solo, and even his cabinet is split on the issue. And this is why Monday's White House meeting matters so much: While Obama retreated on the Palestinian issue when Netanyahu stared him down -- first on settlements and then on the issue of using the 1967 borders as the basis for a deal -- on Iran they have so far deferred their disagreements. But that option may be reaching its expiration date. The Iran issue is now more urgent, and if progress is to be made on either of the priorities Obama highlighted at the United Nations -- Iran and Israeli-Palestinian peace -- the president will need to become defter at outmaneuvering his Israeli guest.
Netanyahu's calculations and his actions will be affected by clear signals from Washington, Europe, and elsewhere to stop undermining diplomacy, and making the case for the unrivaled benefits of a deal with Iran. After decades spent boxing in Tehran, the interests of global and regional security -- and even of Israel itself -- may now require a short, sharp burst of boxing in Bibi.
26 sept 2013
25 sept 2013
As US President Barack Obama opens the door for diplomacy with Iran, Israel stands isolated as the only “warmonger” in the world unwilling to give diplomacy a chance, according to a report by the New York Times.
In his address to the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Obama said Washington prefers a diplomatic solution to its disputes with Iran over its nuclear program.
“I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship; one based on mutual interests and mutual respect,” the president said.
Hours later, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, used his debut at the world body to tell the world that Tehran is ready for talks on its nuclear energy program with complete transparency.
Rouhani urged Obama to reject "the short-sighted interest of warmongering pressure groups” if he wants "to manage differences" with Tehran. "Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions," he said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, however, ordered Israel’s delegation to boycott the speech by the new Iranian president and once again accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons.
“We will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smoke screen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told reporters in Tel Aviv hours before Rouhani addressed the General Assembly. “And the world should not be fooled either.”
Israeli analysts have expressed concern that Netanyahu’s hard-line approach towards Iran is leaving him isolated by allies who want to give diplomacy a chance.
“It’s a very dangerous and very awkward situation for Netanyahu to be perceived as the only naysayer and warmonger,” Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, told the Times.
Dan Meridor, a veteran Israeli minister, said Israel should “speak positively” about Iran’s new president, invoking a Hebrew phrase that means “respect him and suspect him.”
The United States, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.
Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
In his address to the annual session of the UN General Assembly in New York on Tuesday, Obama said Washington prefers a diplomatic solution to its disputes with Iran over its nuclear program.
“I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road towards a different relationship; one based on mutual interests and mutual respect,” the president said.
Hours later, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, used his debut at the world body to tell the world that Tehran is ready for talks on its nuclear energy program with complete transparency.
Rouhani urged Obama to reject "the short-sighted interest of warmongering pressure groups” if he wants "to manage differences" with Tehran. "Nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions," he said.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, however, ordered Israel’s delegation to boycott the speech by the new Iranian president and once again accused Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons.
“We will not be fooled by half-measures that merely provide a smoke screen for Iran’s continual pursuit of nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu told reporters in Tel Aviv hours before Rouhani addressed the General Assembly. “And the world should not be fooled either.”
Israeli analysts have expressed concern that Netanyahu’s hard-line approach towards Iran is leaving him isolated by allies who want to give diplomacy a chance.
“It’s a very dangerous and very awkward situation for Netanyahu to be perceived as the only naysayer and warmonger,” Dan Gillerman, a former Israeli ambassador to the United Nations, told the Times.
Dan Meridor, a veteran Israeli minister, said Israel should “speak positively” about Iran’s new president, invoking a Hebrew phrase that means “respect him and suspect him.”
The United States, Israel, and some of their allies have repeatedly accused Iran of pursuing non-civilian objectives in its nuclear energy program.
Iran rejects the allegation, arguing that as a committed signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a member of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), it has the right to use nuclear technology for peaceful purposes.
Yair Lapid's Yesh Atid party entered a coalition with Binyamin Netanyahu's Likud in March. Netanyahu has called Hassan Rouhani 'a wolf in sheep's clothing'.
Yair Lapid attacks PM Binyamin Netanyahu's instruction to Israeli delegation to leave during Iranian president's address
A senior Israeli minister has criticised Binyamin Netanyahu's instruction to Israel's UN delegation to boycott the Iranian president's speech at the general assembly, saying it created the impression that Israel was not interested in encouraging a peaceful solution to Iran's suspected nuclear programme.
In a text message statement sent to reporters on Wednesday, the finance minister Yair Lapid described Netanyahu's instruction to Israeli delegates to leave during the speech as a mistake.
"Israel should not seem as if it is serially opposed to negotiations and as a country that is uninterested in peaceful solutions," said Lapid, whose centrist Yesh Atid party went into coalition with Netanyahu's Likud in March. "Leaving the UN general assembly and boycotting is irrelevant in current diplomacy, and is reminiscent of the way Arab countries have acted towards Israel."
Israel believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and Netanyahu has voiced scepticism at recent moderate gestures by the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, whom he has called "a wolf in sheep's clothing". Israeli officials fear Rouhani's outreach to the west could lead to an easing of international pressure on the country.
Netanyahu has explained why he instructed Israel's delegation to boycott Rouhani's speech.
"As the prime minister of Israel, the state of the Jewish people, I could not allow the Israeli delegation to be part of a cynical public relations ploy by a regime that denies the Holocaust and calls for our destruction," he said.
The Iranian leader said in his speech that he was ready to restart negotiations over his country's nuclear programme and called for moderation.
Netanyahu said Rouhani's address was filled with "hypocrisy" and that the world must keep up the pressure on Tehran.
An Israeli government official said Netanyahu believed optimism in the west about Iran's stated willingness to restart negotiations over its nuclear programme was similar to the euphoria expressed at the beginning of the wave of uprisings in Arab countries nearly three years ago.
"At the beginning of the Arab spring, Netanyahu said it could go in a good or a bad direction, and people accused him of being a dinosaur, accused him of ignoring the new hope. Of course those detractors now agree that his assessments are connected to reality," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak about the matter to the media.
"He is not afraid to stand up to conventional wisdom when convinced that his assessment is correct," the official said. "He sees this as a moral obligation."
Yair Lapid attacks PM Binyamin Netanyahu's instruction to Israeli delegation to leave during Iranian president's address
A senior Israeli minister has criticised Binyamin Netanyahu's instruction to Israel's UN delegation to boycott the Iranian president's speech at the general assembly, saying it created the impression that Israel was not interested in encouraging a peaceful solution to Iran's suspected nuclear programme.
In a text message statement sent to reporters on Wednesday, the finance minister Yair Lapid described Netanyahu's instruction to Israeli delegates to leave during the speech as a mistake.
"Israel should not seem as if it is serially opposed to negotiations and as a country that is uninterested in peaceful solutions," said Lapid, whose centrist Yesh Atid party went into coalition with Netanyahu's Likud in March. "Leaving the UN general assembly and boycotting is irrelevant in current diplomacy, and is reminiscent of the way Arab countries have acted towards Israel."
Israel believes Iran is trying to develop a nuclear bomb, and Netanyahu has voiced scepticism at recent moderate gestures by the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani, whom he has called "a wolf in sheep's clothing". Israeli officials fear Rouhani's outreach to the west could lead to an easing of international pressure on the country.
Netanyahu has explained why he instructed Israel's delegation to boycott Rouhani's speech.
"As the prime minister of Israel, the state of the Jewish people, I could not allow the Israeli delegation to be part of a cynical public relations ploy by a regime that denies the Holocaust and calls for our destruction," he said.
The Iranian leader said in his speech that he was ready to restart negotiations over his country's nuclear programme and called for moderation.
Netanyahu said Rouhani's address was filled with "hypocrisy" and that the world must keep up the pressure on Tehran.
An Israeli government official said Netanyahu believed optimism in the west about Iran's stated willingness to restart negotiations over its nuclear programme was similar to the euphoria expressed at the beginning of the wave of uprisings in Arab countries nearly three years ago.
"At the beginning of the Arab spring, Netanyahu said it could go in a good or a bad direction, and people accused him of being a dinosaur, accused him of ignoring the new hope. Of course those detractors now agree that his assessments are connected to reality," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorised to speak about the matter to the media.
"He is not afraid to stand up to conventional wisdom when convinced that his assessment is correct," the official said. "He sees this as a moral obligation."
Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said on Tuesday that the Holocaust, committed by the Nazis, was a "reprehensible" crime against the Jewish people.
Rouhani's statements came in a television interview when he was asked about whether he accepted that the Holocaust occurred, Reuters reported.
"I am not a historian and when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust it is the historians that should reflect," Rouhani told with CNN during a visit to New York where he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly.
"But in general I can tell you that any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime the Nazis created towards the Jews, is reprehensible and condemnable," he said, according to CNN's translation of his comments.
"Whatever criminality they committed against the Jews we condemn," Rouhani told CNN. "The taking of human life is contemptible. It makes no difference if that life is Jewish life, Christian or Muslim. For us it is the same."
On the other hand, Rouhani said that the crimes the Nazis committed against a group, cannot justify that this group must usurp the land of another group and occupy it," Stressing. "This too is an act that should be condemned. There should be an evenhanded discussion."
Rouhani said during his speech at the UN General Assembly in New York that his country do not constitute a threat to the world or to region, calling US president Barack Obama not to listen to groups that call for war.
He added that he is willing to pursue serious negotiations with the West over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, and that Iran is ready to take serious confidence-building steps toward the US, but added it is a two-way street.
Netanyahu Describes Rouhani's Speech as Cynical
Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Rouhani's speech was a public relations stunt to lull the west into believing that Tehran had softened its stance on its nuclear weapons program, The Jerusalem Post reported.
"It was a cynical speech full of hypocrisy," said Netanyahu.
Netanyahu pointed out that everyone knows that Iran has not invested capital in ballistic missiles and underground nuclear facilities just to produce electricity.
"The speech lacked both any practical proposal to stop Iran's military nuclear program and any commitment to fulfill UN Security Council decisions," Netanyahu added.
Netanyahu warned that Tehran's strategy was to use negotiations with the West on its nuclear program as a fig leaf to hide its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, according to JPost.
Rouhani's statements came in a television interview when he was asked about whether he accepted that the Holocaust occurred, Reuters reported.
"I am not a historian and when it comes to speaking of the dimensions of the Holocaust it is the historians that should reflect," Rouhani told with CNN during a visit to New York where he spoke to the United Nations General Assembly.
"But in general I can tell you that any crime that happens in history against humanity, including the crime the Nazis created towards the Jews, is reprehensible and condemnable," he said, according to CNN's translation of his comments.
"Whatever criminality they committed against the Jews we condemn," Rouhani told CNN. "The taking of human life is contemptible. It makes no difference if that life is Jewish life, Christian or Muslim. For us it is the same."
On the other hand, Rouhani said that the crimes the Nazis committed against a group, cannot justify that this group must usurp the land of another group and occupy it," Stressing. "This too is an act that should be condemned. There should be an evenhanded discussion."
Rouhani said during his speech at the UN General Assembly in New York that his country do not constitute a threat to the world or to region, calling US president Barack Obama not to listen to groups that call for war.
He added that he is willing to pursue serious negotiations with the West over the Islamic Republic's nuclear program, and that Iran is ready to take serious confidence-building steps toward the US, but added it is a two-way street.
Netanyahu Describes Rouhani's Speech as Cynical
Israel's Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, said that Rouhani's speech was a public relations stunt to lull the west into believing that Tehran had softened its stance on its nuclear weapons program, The Jerusalem Post reported.
"It was a cynical speech full of hypocrisy," said Netanyahu.
Netanyahu pointed out that everyone knows that Iran has not invested capital in ballistic missiles and underground nuclear facilities just to produce electricity.
"The speech lacked both any practical proposal to stop Iran's military nuclear program and any commitment to fulfill UN Security Council decisions," Netanyahu added.
Netanyahu warned that Tehran's strategy was to use negotiations with the West on its nuclear program as a fig leaf to hide its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons, according to JPost.
24 sept 2013
President Obama on Tuesday said he will use the remainder of his term to pursue better relations with Iran in the hope of resolving the controversy surrounding its nuclear program, pledging an activist U.S. agenda in the Middle East and beyond despite growing isolationist pressure at home. In a 50-minute address to the U.N. General Assembly, Obama said he will devote his diplomatic efforts in the region to securing an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, hopeful that talks now underway through American encouragement may end the long conflict. He said that “real breakthroughs” on those two issues would “have a profound and positive impact on the entire Middle East and North Africa.”
Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani, in his own address to the General Assembly Tuesday evening, was at times sharply critical of U.S. foreign policy in the region, echoing the complaints of his predecessor over the treatment of Palestinians, drone use, and other issues.
But he also pledged serious international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program in a speech apparently designed to appeal to competing political interests inside Iran.
“We can arrive at a framework to manage our differences,” Rouhani said, with Iran and the United States on “equal footing.”
Rouhani, making his debut at the world body, said he had “listened carefully” to President Obama’s address from the same podium earlier in the day. He said Iran hopes that U.S. leaders can summon the political will to “refrain from following the short-sighted interests of war-mongering pressure groups.”
The exploratory effort at renewed negotiations between Iran and the West will begin in earnest this week with a meeting at the United Nations between Iran’s foreign minister and Secretary of State John F. Kerry, one of the highest-level contacts between the two countries in years.
Although White House officials had signaled that a meeting — or an informal encounter — between Obama and Rouhani was a possibility, the Iranian leader did not appear at a luncheon where an exchange could have taken place. Senior White House officials said Tuesday that Iranian diplomats decided against a meeting, worried about how it would be received by hard-liners at home.
No U.S. president has met formally with an Iranian leader since the country’s 1979 revolution swept aside the U.S.-backed shah. One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said “it was clear that it was too complicated for them.”
“The Iranians have an internal dynamic that they have to manage,” a second senior administration official said. “And the relationship with United States is clearly quite different than the relationship that Iran has with other Western nations.”
Obama’s address was his fifth to the General Assembly, and it reflected the approach of a president defending a foreign policy record and looking toward securing a legacy after he leaves office. By defining relations with Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as his priorities for the region, the president made clear that he intends to be measured by his progress on the same issues that have repeatedly vexed his predecessors.
“Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional,” he said, using a term he has been criticized for not fully embracing in the past. He said his belief is justified “in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest but for the interests of all.” Although Obama did not announce a new policy toward Iran, his tone of optimism signaled the administration’s openness to finding common ground with the Islamic republic’s leadership. That tone has come largely in response to the positive signals being sent by Rouhani, who was elected on a platform promising to repair his country’s relations with Europe and the United States.
Squeezed by economic sanctions designed to end the country’s nuclear program, many Iranians are eager for a political solution to the standoff. At the same time, Israeli officials warn that time is running out to reach a diplomatic agreement to end the uranium-enrichment program, threatening military action if no deal can be reached.
Israeli officials have responded skeptically to Rouhani’s pledges of engagement and fear that Iran will clandestinely seek to pursue a nuclear weapon. On Tuesday, the Israeli delegation boycotted Rouhani’s speech.
In a statement Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized Rouhani’s remarks as “a cynical speech that was full of hypocrisy. Rouhani spoke of human rights even as Iranian forces are participating in the large-scale slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria.”
Netanyahu said Rouhani “condemned terrorism even as the Iranian regime is using terrorism in dozens of countries around the world,” and said the speech “’acked both any practical proposal to stop Iran’s military nuclear program and any commitment to fulfill UN Security Council decisions.”
“This is exactly Iran’s strategy — to talk and play for time in order to advance its ability to achieve nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said.
Obama’s address reflected a growing sense in the administration that the president’s foreign policy legacy may be defined by events in the Middle East and North Africa, where secular and Islamic popular movements continue vying for political authority. He noted that consequences of the Arab Spring continue to ripple through the region.
“The current convulsions . . . remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements between nations,” Obama warned, referring to the worsening civil war in Syria. “It must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it’s clear that all of us have a lot more work to do.”
Obama’s return to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy signaled his large ambitions — and long odds of achieving all of them. The president visited Israel and the West Bank this year, hoping to set the groundwork to revive direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
He managed to help restart direct talks during his first term, largely by pressuring Netanyahu to impose a 10-month freeze on settlement construction in the occupied territories. But negotiations lasted only weeks before breaking down in the fall of 2010 amid criticism from both sides of how Obama managed the process.
The president had largely avoided the peace process until his March trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah, where he noted in his speech Tuesday that he was encouraged by the desire for peace among many Israelis and Palestinians, particularly the young. Under U.S. guidance, Israeli and Palestinian officials began direct talks last month.
“So the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace,” Obama said. “Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks.”
Obama met Tuesday after his address with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, their first face-to-face time together since the new talks started. As the two leaders began their meeting, Abbas said, “We have no illusion that peace will be easy.”
The president is scheduled to host Netanyahu at the White House next week.
Anne Gearan and Colum Lynch at the United Nations and Ruth Eglash in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
Iran’s new president Hassan Rouhani, in his own address to the General Assembly Tuesday evening, was at times sharply critical of U.S. foreign policy in the region, echoing the complaints of his predecessor over the treatment of Palestinians, drone use, and other issues.
But he also pledged serious international negotiations over Iran's nuclear program in a speech apparently designed to appeal to competing political interests inside Iran.
“We can arrive at a framework to manage our differences,” Rouhani said, with Iran and the United States on “equal footing.”
Rouhani, making his debut at the world body, said he had “listened carefully” to President Obama’s address from the same podium earlier in the day. He said Iran hopes that U.S. leaders can summon the political will to “refrain from following the short-sighted interests of war-mongering pressure groups.”
The exploratory effort at renewed negotiations between Iran and the West will begin in earnest this week with a meeting at the United Nations between Iran’s foreign minister and Secretary of State John F. Kerry, one of the highest-level contacts between the two countries in years.
Although White House officials had signaled that a meeting — or an informal encounter — between Obama and Rouhani was a possibility, the Iranian leader did not appear at a luncheon where an exchange could have taken place. Senior White House officials said Tuesday that Iranian diplomats decided against a meeting, worried about how it would be received by hard-liners at home.
No U.S. president has met formally with an Iranian leader since the country’s 1979 revolution swept aside the U.S.-backed shah. One senior administration official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said “it was clear that it was too complicated for them.”
“The Iranians have an internal dynamic that they have to manage,” a second senior administration official said. “And the relationship with United States is clearly quite different than the relationship that Iran has with other Western nations.”
Obama’s address was his fifth to the General Assembly, and it reflected the approach of a president defending a foreign policy record and looking toward securing a legacy after he leaves office. By defining relations with Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as his priorities for the region, the president made clear that he intends to be measured by his progress on the same issues that have repeatedly vexed his predecessors.
“Some may disagree, but I believe that America is exceptional,” he said, using a term he has been criticized for not fully embracing in the past. He said his belief is justified “in part because we have shown a willingness, through the sacrifice of blood and treasure, to stand up not only for our own narrow self-interest but for the interests of all.” Although Obama did not announce a new policy toward Iran, his tone of optimism signaled the administration’s openness to finding common ground with the Islamic republic’s leadership. That tone has come largely in response to the positive signals being sent by Rouhani, who was elected on a platform promising to repair his country’s relations with Europe and the United States.
Squeezed by economic sanctions designed to end the country’s nuclear program, many Iranians are eager for a political solution to the standoff. At the same time, Israeli officials warn that time is running out to reach a diplomatic agreement to end the uranium-enrichment program, threatening military action if no deal can be reached.
Israeli officials have responded skeptically to Rouhani’s pledges of engagement and fear that Iran will clandestinely seek to pursue a nuclear weapon. On Tuesday, the Israeli delegation boycotted Rouhani’s speech.
In a statement Wednesday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu characterized Rouhani’s remarks as “a cynical speech that was full of hypocrisy. Rouhani spoke of human rights even as Iranian forces are participating in the large-scale slaughter of innocent civilians in Syria.”
Netanyahu said Rouhani “condemned terrorism even as the Iranian regime is using terrorism in dozens of countries around the world,” and said the speech “’acked both any practical proposal to stop Iran’s military nuclear program and any commitment to fulfill UN Security Council decisions.”
“This is exactly Iran’s strategy — to talk and play for time in order to advance its ability to achieve nuclear weapons,” Netanyahu said.
Obama’s address reflected a growing sense in the administration that the president’s foreign policy legacy may be defined by events in the Middle East and North Africa, where secular and Islamic popular movements continue vying for political authority. He noted that consequences of the Arab Spring continue to ripple through the region.
“The current convulsions . . . remind us that a just and lasting peace cannot be measured only by agreements between nations,” Obama warned, referring to the worsening civil war in Syria. “It must also be measured by our ability to resolve conflict and promote justice within nations. And by that measure, it’s clear that all of us have a lot more work to do.”
Obama’s return to Israeli-Palestinian diplomacy signaled his large ambitions — and long odds of achieving all of them. The president visited Israel and the West Bank this year, hoping to set the groundwork to revive direct talks between Israeli and Palestinian leaders.
He managed to help restart direct talks during his first term, largely by pressuring Netanyahu to impose a 10-month freeze on settlement construction in the occupied territories. But negotiations lasted only weeks before breaking down in the fall of 2010 amid criticism from both sides of how Obama managed the process.
The president had largely avoided the peace process until his March trip to Jerusalem and Ramallah, where he noted in his speech Tuesday that he was encouraged by the desire for peace among many Israelis and Palestinians, particularly the young. Under U.S. guidance, Israeli and Palestinian officials began direct talks last month.
“So the time is now ripe for the entire international community to get behind the pursuit of peace,” Obama said. “Already, Israeli and Palestinian leaders have demonstrated a willingness to take significant political risks.”
Obama met Tuesday after his address with Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, their first face-to-face time together since the new talks started. As the two leaders began their meeting, Abbas said, “We have no illusion that peace will be easy.”
The president is scheduled to host Netanyahu at the White House next week.
Anne Gearan and Colum Lynch at the United Nations and Ruth Eglash in Jerusalem contributed to this report.
23 sept 2013
Israeli official informs New York Times that prime minister's UNGA speech will address deal regarding Iran's nuclear program as trap, equate it with diplomatic efforts with North Korea
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to warn the United Nations that a nuclear deal with the Iranian government could be a trap similar to one set by North Korea eight years ago, the New York Times reported Monday. According to the Times, an Israeli official reported that Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly is to present the terms for what would be acceptable to Israel in any agreement concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The terms reportedly include that Iran cease all enrichment of uranium and agree to the removal of all enriched uranium from its territory; dismantle its nuclear facility hidden in a mountain near the holy city of Qum; dismantle its newest generation of centrifuges at the Natanz facility; and stop construction of a heavy-water reactor at Arak.
The Israeli official reportedly told the Times that “A bad agreement is worse than no agreement at all; Iran must not be allowed to repeat North Korea’s ploy to get nuclear weapons.”
“Just like North Korea before it,” he added, “Iran professes to seemingly peaceful intentions; it talks the talk of nonproliferation while seeking to ease sanctions and buy more time for its nuclear program.” The official further added that Netanyahu would review the history of North Korea’s negotiations, with particular emphasis on an active period of diplomacy in 2005, when the North Korean government agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for economic, security and energy benefits, but a year later, tested its first nuclear device.
The analogy reflects Israeli officials' warnings that something similar could happen if the United States were to conclude too hasty a deal with Iran. The Iranian President is scheduled to speak before the UNGA on Tuesday, several hours after US President Barack Obama, and PM Netanyahu is scheduled to speak on Tuesday of the following week.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to warn the United Nations that a nuclear deal with the Iranian government could be a trap similar to one set by North Korea eight years ago, the New York Times reported Monday. According to the Times, an Israeli official reported that Netanyahu's speech at the UN General Assembly is to present the terms for what would be acceptable to Israel in any agreement concerning Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
The terms reportedly include that Iran cease all enrichment of uranium and agree to the removal of all enriched uranium from its territory; dismantle its nuclear facility hidden in a mountain near the holy city of Qum; dismantle its newest generation of centrifuges at the Natanz facility; and stop construction of a heavy-water reactor at Arak.
The Israeli official reportedly told the Times that “A bad agreement is worse than no agreement at all; Iran must not be allowed to repeat North Korea’s ploy to get nuclear weapons.”
“Just like North Korea before it,” he added, “Iran professes to seemingly peaceful intentions; it talks the talk of nonproliferation while seeking to ease sanctions and buy more time for its nuclear program.” The official further added that Netanyahu would review the history of North Korea’s negotiations, with particular emphasis on an active period of diplomacy in 2005, when the North Korean government agreed to abandon its nuclear weapons program in return for economic, security and energy benefits, but a year later, tested its first nuclear device.
The analogy reflects Israeli officials' warnings that something similar could happen if the United States were to conclude too hasty a deal with Iran. The Iranian President is scheduled to speak before the UNGA on Tuesday, several hours after US President Barack Obama, and PM Netanyahu is scheduled to speak on Tuesday of the following week.
20 sept 2013
Here is AIPAC’s official response [PDF] to the growing possibility that Iran and the United States will negotiate to reach an agreement on the nuclear issue, It can be summed up in three words: NO, NO, NO.
Netanyahu and his lobby want war and, suddenly, they fear they won’t get it. It’s like Dickens wrote: it was the worst of times and it was the worst of times.
I think I will read AIPAC’s memo [PDF] again over Shabbat dinner. Seeing them in pain is, in itself, a blessing.
Netanyahu and his lobby want war and, suddenly, they fear they won’t get it. It’s like Dickens wrote: it was the worst of times and it was the worst of times.
I think I will read AIPAC’s memo [PDF] again over Shabbat dinner. Seeing them in pain is, in itself, a blessing.