Re: [Marxism] Ahmadinejad: Iran to Talk, U.S. Gave In

["Yoshie Furuhashi" <critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 6/8/06, Jim Farmelant <farmelantj@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 14:20:48 -0400 "Yoshie Furuhashi"
> <critical.montages@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> > It now looks possible that my Persian Prince can come out ahead on
> > this one.
>
> Why shouldn't he?  He only has to look at what
> happened to Iraq under Saddam Hussein
> versus what has been happening with
> North Korea. Even a child could figure that one
> out. And the US already has its hands full
> in Iraq anyway. Indeed, the US has little
> hope of stabilizing things in Iraq unless it
> can get Iranian cooperation.  Hanging
> tough against the US is the very best
> strategy that Ahmadinejad can follow
> both in terms of Iranian foreign policy
> as well as in terms of Iran's domestic
> politics.

Yes.  But I want my Persian Prince to come out ahead in three ways:
vis-a-vis Washington; vis-a-vis Tel Aviv; and vis-a-vis his domestic
rivals.  (It's significant that his response came a day later than
several other Iranian officials'.)  He can't let his domestic rivals
make more concessions than are good for Iran.

However things turn out for Ahmadinejad, though, it's an
extraordinarily interesting time to watch the Washington-Tel Aviv
relation.  This just in from The Forward:

<blockquote>Bush Overture To Iran Splits Israel, Neocons
Olmert Asks Groups To Keep Low Profile
By Ori Nir
June 9, 2006
WASHINGTON — The Bush administration's offer to open direct talks with
Iran and reward Tehran if it stops enriching uranium is exposing a
policy rift between neoconservatives on one hand, and the Israeli
government and Jewish organizations on the other.

Neoconservative analysts are blasting the administration, saying that
holding talks with the Islamic regime would serve only to embolden it
and undermine the anti-fundamentalist opposition in Iran. They argue
that America's ultimate goal should be to change Tehran's theocratic
regime.

"The administration can't have it both ways. They can't embrace the
regime and still talk about liberty for the Iranian people," said Iran
analyst Michael Rubin of the American Enterprise Institute, a
conservative Washington think tank widely associated with the push for
regime change in Iraq. A former Pentagon official, Rubin added that
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice "can spout whatever platitudes she
wants to spout, but at this point, when it comes to liberty and
freedom, she has no credibility."

Israeli officials and several influential Jewish groups, meanwhile,
have refrained from criticizing the new American approach — which some
experts are depicting as the most dramatic foreign policy shift of the
Bush presidency — saying that they support more pragmatic ways to
block Iran's apparent dash toward a nuclear weapon. For Israel and
Jewish groups — despite Iranian calls for Israel's destruction — the
fundamental goal is not regime change, but to block Tehran from
acquiring nuclear weapons.

The split appears to fly in the face of recent high-profile efforts to
paint the pro-Israel lobby as a seamless network dominated by Jewish
organizations and neoconservatives coordinating their activities with
the Israeli government. Most notably, such a view was advanced by two
highly respected academics — John Mearsheimer, a top international
relations theorist based at the University of Chicago, and Stephen
Walt, former academic dean of Harvard University's John F. Kennedy
School of Government — in a research paper released in March. The
Walt-Mearsheimer paper has triggered an escalating debate on the
influence of Israel and Jewish organizations that has spilled over
onto the opinion pages of major publications, including The New York
Times and The Washington Post.

Recently, with such scrutiny mounting, Israeli leaders asked American
Jewish organizations to lower their profile on the Iran issue, the
Forward has learned.

In one notable example, a delegation of leaders from the American
Jewish Congress met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert shortly
before returning to the United States. When asked how he thinks Jewish
groups should pursue the Iran issue, Olmert reportedly implied that he
would prefer a low profile, according to one source familiar with the
proceedings.

"We don't want it to be about Israel," Olmert is said to have replied,
explaining that although Iran's president focuses his belligerent
rhetoric on Israel, both Jerusalem and Washington have an interest in
convincing the international community that a nuclear armed Iran would
be a menace to the region and to the entire world.

President Bush updated Olmert shortly before Rice announced the new
American policy at a May 31 press conference, Israeli and American
sources said. Rice announced that Washington would be willing to join
its European allies in direct talks with Iran if Tehran "fully and
verifiably suspends its enrichment and reprocessing activities." Rice
made clear that America would not attempt to hinder an Iranian
civilian nuclear program.

Immediately following Rice's comments, her Israeli counterpart,
Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, issued a statement, saying, "Israel
appreciates the steps and measures by the United States in continuing
to lead the international coalition and in taking all necessary steps
to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear capability."

One Israeli official told the Forward that Jerusalem is satisfied with
the apparent international recognition that "this is the critical time
to clarify whether Iran is really pursuing a peaceful nuclear program
or a belligerent one." The official dismissed the argument made by
some opponents of Rice's move that all the overture by the United
States would do is allow Iran to buy time while pursuing nuclear
weapons and fending off international sanctions. America's move, the
Israeli official said, only would hasten and embolden the
international community as it approaches a likely showdown with Iran
in the United Nations.

Israel's support for Rice and Olmert's request for Jewish groups to
take a lower profile are being well received by many Jewish groups.
Already, some Jewish groups had been asking the White House to stop
suggesting that American efforts to block Iran's pursuit of nuclear
weapons are motivated primarily by a desire to protect Israel.

Jewish organizations have no interest in becoming "the lobby for war
with Iran," one communal official said.

In the past, when the administration chose to pursue diplomatic
options instead of an immediate push for international sanctions, it
drew public criticism from some Jewish organizations. This time
around, while some Jewish groups are uncomfortable with the
administration's shift on direct talks with Iran, only the
right-of-center Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs openly
criticized the move.

Last year, when the Bush administration agreed to give Russia a chance
to negotiate a plan that would allow Iran to enrich uranium under
international supervision, the main pro-Israel lobby, the American
Israel Public Affairs Committee, issued a rare public rebuke of the
White House. But this week, in response to the recent American
announcement, Aipac issued a measured statement to the Forward, saying
that if the administration blocks Iran's production of enriched
uranium by offering talks, that would be a "positive development." The
statement, however, cautioned against losing sight of Iran's habit of
deceiving America and its allies.

Aipac sources said this week that they don't expect the
administration's policy shift to hinder their efforts to pass the Iran
Freedom Support Act, a bill aimed at tightening U.S. sanctions on
Iran, which has overwhelmingly passed the House of Representatives but
must still be voted on in the Senate. This week Aipac sent a
fund-raising letter to thousands of its supporters saying "we need
your help to stop Iran." A spokesman for Aipac said that the letter is
part of the organization's routine fund-raising efforts and not
connected to the administration's new strategy.

Some officials with Jewish groups share the concern expressed by many
neoconservative critics of the new American approach, that any
negotiations simply would buy Iran time to advance its nuclear weapons
program.

"For the Iranians, diplomacy is a form of delay, so it is dangerous,"
said David Twersky, director of international affairs for the American
Jewish Congress. However, he added, "it will also be dangerous to act
precipitously, prematurely. The United States cannot go by itself and
say, we are imposing sanctions."

Most Jewish groups accept the administration's argument that the
overture would make it easier for Washington to put together the
international coalition necessary for effective sanctions against
Iran.

"Looking down the abyss at the choices, which, in their starkest
terms, are either accepting Iran as a nuclear power or attacking
militarily, I think people are looking to see whether or not a third
way can be found to achieve the same purpose," said Jess Hordes, the
Anti-Defamation League's Washington affairs director.

This sentiment was being echoed among some friends of Israel on
Capitol Hill. "In the abstract, who wants to talk to the Iranian
regime and who wants to give it legitimacy and to prolong the game
they are playing?" said Rep. Eliot Engel, a Democratic member of the
House International Relations Committee. "But that's the price we
might have to pay in order to get the world community to take a
tougher stand on Iran down the line."

<http://www.forward.com/articles/7937></blockquote>

I wish the Palestinians had the sort of visionary leadership who can
exploit this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.

--
Yoshie
<http://montages.blogspot.com/>
<http://mrzine.org>
<http://monthlyreview.org/>

________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism