Middle-East Analysis and Commentary: August 2016

Monday, August 22, 2016

White House Muddle-East Policy: Fools’ Paradise?

by Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker

Israpundit, Tea Party Tribune, December 31, 2013

Intellectual Conservative, January 1, 2014

Global Politician, January 7, 2014

After four and a half years of the most inept administration of foreign policy concerning the Middle-East since a Georgia peanut farmer played a term as POTUS and managed to lose the late shah’s Iran as a valuable ally in favor of a theocractic tyrant who wished to drag his country and the region back to the seventh century, it would seem hard to display any increased ineptitude. But the events of the last several months have proven that the White House has outdone itself in demonstrating ignorance and its ability to promulgate rankly absurd policy. From Syria to Egypt and Iraq and on to the Palestine-Israel question and now to Iran’s nuclear bid, amidst lingering questions about Libya worthy of impeachment, the American foreign policy establishment as represented by the current administration has shown that it has no comprehension of who is friend and who is foe in that crucial region, or worse yet, doesn’t care. A more dangerous situation is hard to imagine.

Two and a half years ago when the North African revolutions began to spawn change in much of the Arab world and still seemed to portend a potential dawn of democracy, questions were raised about key players in the movements to overthrow Mubarak, Gaddafi, Saleh, and Assad. With the passage of time it has become clear that the Ikhwan (the Muslim Brotherhood) and al-Qaeda have been and continue to be major players in these revolutions and that the hoped-for Western-oriented secular movements were either illusory or vastly out-manned and/or out-gunned by the Islamists.

Despite the fact that none of the revolts led to an improved civil society or a boost to American and/or Western interests in any of the countries affected by the so-called “Arab Spring“, the administration continues to meddle in the area but without any apparent perception of the needs and concerns of long-standing allies or the threats—both potential and actual—that foes present to us and/or our allies. It seems that our policies are being dictated by a robot that has suffered a frontal lobotomy.

Let’s begin with Egypt—the largest and most important of Arab nations—a state that has been a consistant ally for more than three decades. Yes, Hosni Mubarak was a dictator, but Egypt has no history of non-dictatorial rule. And while the Ikhwan’s presidential candidate Mohammed Morsi was elected in a democratic election, he was amassing presidential powers that clearly spelled a return to one-party rule—in this case the Muslim Brotherhood. The counter-revolution launched by the Egyptian Army and the Tamarud Movement was a popular rebellion against Morsi’s rapid Islamization of Egyptian society. The inability of the U.S. administration to understand that General Abdel Fattah al-Sisi was acting to prevent Islamic tyranny on a scale similar to that of Khomenist Iran and that a cut-off of foreign aid to Egypt under such circumstances was and is counter to American interests, is beyond comprehension. Instead of thanking al-Sisi for preventing another Iran, the administration sought to punish him. And given the ability of Russia’s Putin to jump in to replace American military aid, we are finding that a loyal ally is switching to the Russian camp. Fat chance that that will help promote democracy in Egypt!

Having aided Islamists to topple the regime of Libyan strongman Colonel Muamar Gaddafi, we were taken by surprise on September 11, 2011 when Salafists attacked our consulate in Benghazi. And all that we have gotten since then is cover-up and obfuscation[i]. Acts and deeds that other nations deem reason for banishment from government if not jail time, have simply been ignored or hidden behind outlandish excuses[ii]. And Congress has been remiss in not pressing the investigation much harder and making public their findings.

Saudi Arabia is joining Egypt in its intense displeasure with the US—an attitude it shares with Israel currently—because of Washington’s increasingly feckless policy towards Iran.

What common denominator unifies most if not all of these headlines? Unfortunately, it appears to be the disarray and naiveté being demonstrated by our current government concerning the region and the way in which politics and negotiations are conducted there. In a word: Toto, Barack, and John Kerry, you ain’t in Kansas anymore!

The problems that are occurring in the region are not new. They are—in many instances old ones that date back over a thousand years. But whether recent or old, they are not solved by throwing at them a weak, Western-oriented logic or negotiating stance. Lee Smith, long time Middle-East reporter for the Weekly Standard and author of the astute 2010 book, The Strong Horse: Power, Politics and the Clash of Arab Civilizations, points out that in Arab and Middle-East politics, Marquis of Queensberry Rules are ignored and he who plays by them is at a distinct disadvantage. This point of Smith seems to be totally lost, or at least forgotten, by the State Department and the White House. Instead of projecting strength—which is 90% of the battle in Middle-East politics—our government is projecting weakness. And contrary to what may be the thinking at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, in the Middle-East, weakness doesn’t invite friendship; it invites and encourages disdain.

What seems to be causing such consternation among America’s traditional allies in the region—Israel, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, and the Gulf Emirates (excluding Qatar), as well as Turkey—is the current American policy of pressuring allies and placating enemies. A policy of drawing red-lines in the sand—whether with Syria or Iran—and then continuously retreating—is doing nothing to inspire confidence. Other than Turkey—which, under Erdogan and the AKP has decided to go its own way in attempting to reconstruct the influence of the Ottoman Empire—all of the afore-mentioned nations feel abandoned by Washington, and AKP-run Turkey doesn’t really care anymore, although it should as its economic bubble is about to burst.[iii]

The result of Washington’s inept policies is that Saudi Arabia is considering importing Pakistani nuclear bombs which it helped finance. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan are all looking into beginning nuclear industries as is Turkey for that matter. Rather than bringing peace to the region, Washington’s retreat is causing a proliferation of nuclear programs which in such a volatile area is a recipe for disaster.

Ari Shavit, senior correspondent at Haaretz and a member of its editorial board wrote an op-ed on November 14, 2013 for Haaretz entitled “Lost cause in Geneva”[iv] in which he indicates that the US is worn out and incapable of stopping the Iranians from getting the bomb. Shavit is a liberal and Haaretz is owned by the International Herald, an affiliate of the New York Times, so this is not the ranting of someone from Gush Emunim or the Hilltop Settlers’ Movement. Shavit reports that America’s Iran policy is simply to delay Iran’s nuclear breakout until just after Obama leaves office so that he can claim that it didn’t occur on his watch. Israel’s current displeasure with Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry is only topped by the displeasure with these two as expressed by Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, Egypt, Jordan, and Turkey. As Shavit puts it in the conclusion of his article when referring to 2014:

“It’ll be fun, my friends. The Sunnis and the Jews are boiling with anger. Therefore, they are now holding hands and launching a campaign against the Christians and Shi’ites who are closing a deal in Geneva.”[v]

Israeli displeasure with the current administration hit the boiling point in the last couple of months due to four separate issues that came to light. First was the American confirmation on October 31st of Israel’s secret attack on Syria’s missile base near Latakia in which Israel destroyed Syria’s new advanced Russian-made S-125 antiaircraft missile launchers[vi]. Israel doesn’t announce its extra-territorial activities so as not to embarrass publicly its targets—thereby helping to prevent a face-saving act of retaliation that would be costly to both sides. Only a fool or someone trying to stir up trouble would break that code of silence. Mr. President: Which is it? Are you fools or are you deliberately trying to cause problems for an ally?

Israel’s second beef with Washington concerns US Secretary of State John Kerry. While in Jerusalem to meet again with Netanyahu and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, Kerry announced that any breakdown in the peace talks—which he inferred was Israel’s fault for not acceding to Palestinian demands—would cause an outbreak of a third intifada. Kerry’s statement did little to bolster his claim to neutrality. As if that was not enough, a letter endorsing two Palestinian-Americans planning to participate in the 2010 running of the Gaza blockade—which incidentally included the infamous MV Mavi Marmara incident on May 31, 2010—surfaced during the Secretary of State‘s November visit with Kerry’s signature when he still was a senator and head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.[vii] The sponsoring organization of the run of the Gaza Blockade and owner of the Mavi Marmara was the İnsan Hak ve Hürriyetleri ve İnsani Yardım Vakfı[viii], a Turkish Islamist “humanitarian” group whose principal beneficiary is the “Union of Good”, which is designated[ix] as a Specially Designated Terrorist Group by the US Office of Foreign Asset Control and banned by Executive Order 13224. John Kerry either is a fool or was deliberately trying to cause problems for an ally. Either way, he shouldn’t be the Secretary of State.

Israel’s third point concerns America’s disinterest in confronting Iran in a serious manner. At the time that sanctions are finally taking a major bite out of the Iranian economy and tightening then stands the chance of causing Iran to cry “uncle”, Obama agreed to cut a deal that would slow the Iranian program but fail to halt it, in return for major sanctions relief of at least seven billion dollars and possibly as much as twenty billion. The interim agreement between the P5+1 and Iran of November 24, 2013 fails to end its enrichment program. Israel and the world now know that America truly is a paper tiger at this time.

The forth concern of Jerusalem was the discovery that the United States had been spying on its ally, intercepting communications between then Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Defense Minister Ehud Barak[x] in 2009 and 2010 as well as between Barak and his Chief of Staff, Yoni Koren.[xi]

Disconcerting at the very least was the discovery that the US secretly has been negotiating with Iran for nearly a year and a half.[xii] As Lee Smith reports[xiii], such a revelation demonstrates that the United States has become an extremely unreliable partner. Smith indicates that the current administration has betrayed the Iranian Resistance organization, MeK[xiv], the Syrian rebels, and the Israelis and is indeed intent on cutting a deal with Iran.[xv]

As Smith puts it, the current policy is to apply “Smart Power”, a phrase coined by Joseph Nye, former Assistant Secretary of Defense who authored a text by the same name in 2004. However, as Smith points out, Nye’s theories call for coalition building and careful projection of military power in order to accomplish goals and maintain American interests as opposed to the use of brute power to accomplish the same. The current administration claims to be using Nye’s theories, but in the Middle–East theater American power—whether soft or hard—is clearly becoming an illusion. In the year and a quarter years since the Benghazi incident, the US has bluffed and played the worst game of poker in a generation. And none are being fooled anymore. The Saudis, as Richard Miniter points out[xvi], feel that they have been betrayed by the American president.

One needs to ask why the United States has decided to flee the Middle East. Smith suggests that American energy independence now permits us to leave that troubled region[xvii]. But cutting a deal with Iran only makes sense—twisted as it is—if there is something to gain from it. Seeing as how the sanctions were beginning to pinch the Iranian economy so tightly that its collapse was possible next year, we need ask why the administration was willing to ease them in return for a vague promise to restrain enrichment. The only logical explanation is that Obama and his advisors fear Chinese expansionism and hope to turn Iran into an ally against the Red Dragon, so as to encircle and contain it.

The Obama administration has indicated for quite some time that it wishes to turn more of its attention to the Pacific and Far East[xviii]. Obama in his naiveté thinks that he is going to be a second Nixon, solving problems by courting Iran to counter China just as Nixon courted China to counter the Soviet Union. Rather than seeing that his appeasement of Iran is repeating Chamberlin’s mistake of 1938, Obama seems to thinks that he is Nixon in 1972. The problem is that Iran is a theocracy; Khamenei believes that Allah commands him to battle the West and spread the Shiite message. We are not dealing with Iranian nationalist expansionism but rather with Shiite fundamentalist millennialism. Khamenei, like Hitler, believes that his belief system is destined to rule the world. Allowing the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons doesn’t mean that Iran will now become a responsible world power; it means that worldwide terrorism will be going on steroids. Smith understands this fact as do the Israelis and the Saudis.

Instead of reining in our deficit spending habit so as to stop selling our country to the Chinese, Obama is trying to keep China dependent on its economic investment in America. Our children had better start studying Chinese if Obama succeeds in continuing his policies. But before we get too adept at Mandarin, we had better be prepared for dealing with nuclear threats from Tehran along with those from North Korea’s Kim Jong-Un.

Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching the public and its elected officials of the need to promote genuine democratic institutions throughout the Middle-East region as an antidote to the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. He may be contacted at contact@ADME.ws.

Notes:

[i] Newsmax Wires, “Mike Rogers, King Blast NYT Benghazi Report: ‘Misleading’”, Newsmax, December 29, 2013, http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/king-times-benghazi-misleading/2013/12/29/id/544224.

[ii] Ibid.

[iii] David P. Goldman, “The End of Erdogan’s Cave of Wonders: An I-Told-You-So”, PJ Media,December 27, 2013, http://pjmedia.com/spengler/2013/12/27/the-end-of-erdogans-cave-of-wonders-an-i-told-you-so/?singlepage=true.

[iv] Ari Shavit, “Lost cause in Geneva”, Haaretz, Nowember 14, 2013,http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.557934.

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Joel Siegel, “Israel bombs Syria, targeting missiles shipped from Russia”, New York Daily News, October 31, 2013, http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/syria-destroys-chemical-arms-equipment-day-watchdog-deadline-article-1.1502465.

[vii] Joshua Levitt, “Report: 2009 John Kerry Letter Backed Anti-Israel Gaza Flotilla Activists”,Algemeiner, November 13, 2013, http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/13/report-2009-john-kerry-letter-backed-anti-israel-gaza-flotilla-activists/. See also: Arutz Sheva Staff, “Report: Kerry Supported Gaza Flotilla Members: Arutz Sheva, November 13, 2013,http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/173961#.Ur5McvRDuSo.

[viii] Staff, “IHH, which plays a central role in organizing the flotilla to the Gaza Strip, is a Turkish humanitarian relief fund with a radical Islamic anti-Western orientation”, The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, May 27, 2010, http://www.terrorism-info.org.il/en/article/18108.

[ix] Press Center, “Treasury Designates the Union of Good”, HP-1267, U.S. Department of the Treasury, November 12, 2008, http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/Pages/hp1267.aspx.

[x] Staff, “Netanyahu says US spying on Israel ‘unacceptable,’ calls for ‘clarifications’”, The Jerusalem Post, December 23, 2013, http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/Netanyahu-says-US-spying-on-Israel-unacceptable-calls-for-clarifications-335901.

[xi] Reuters, “U.S., UK spies targeted Israeli PM, EU official: Snowden leaks”, Reuters, December 20, 2013, http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/12/20/us-usa-security-snowden-idUSBRE9BJ14Q20131220.

[xii] Julie Pace, “Vanishing adviser reappears as Iran policy player“, AP, The Washington Post, December 24, 2013, http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/vanishing-adviser-reappears-as-iran-policy-player/2013/12/24/ad9fd050-6c72-11e3-a5d0-6f31cd74f760_story.html.

[xiii] Lee Smith, “In 2013, America Swapped Its Sledgehammer for a Scalpel. Here’s Who Won and Lost”, The Tablet, December 26, 2013, http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/156620/middle-east-winners-and-losers-2013?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=917d6586a1-12_26_2013&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-917d6586a1-206540187.

[xiv] MeK= Mojahedin-e Khalq, aka PMOI, Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran

[xv] Lee Smith, op. cit.

[xvi] Richard Miniter, “Saudis lament, ‘we have been stabbed in the back by Obama’”, Fox News,December 27, 2013, http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/12/27/saudis-lament-have-been-stabbed-in-back-by-obama/.

[xvii] Lee Smith, op. cit.

[xviii] Amitai Etzioni, “Obama’s Foreign Policy: Three Stages of Hope”, Huffington Post, January 17, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amitai-etzioni/obama-foreign-policy_b_2426868.html. Republished by the The Institute for Communitarian Policy Studies at The George Washington University, October 1, 2013, http://icps.gwu.edu/2013/10/01/obamas-foreign-policy-three-stages-of-hope-2/.

Message to Jerusalem: Don’t Rely on American Security

By Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker

American Thinker, Tea Party Tribune, September 1, 2013

Intellectual Conservative, September 2, 2013

Global Politician, September 4, 2013

The current Palestinian-Israeli peace talks have brought the question of security arrangements to the fore. Although it is quite early in the process, suggestions have already been floated that propose an American presence in the West Bank in order to assure that Palestine remain free of jihadis wanting to attack Israel, as well as to protect a nascent Palestinian government from a Hamas takeover along the lines of Gaza.

In theory, the idea looks good enough on paper. The United States remains a superpower despite the setbacks to its prestige due to the Obama administration’s short-sighted policies that continually demonstrate near-total ignorance of the region and its politics. But that potential power unfortunately has a track record of folding when the heat gets turned on by those willing to test Washington’s resolve. Even Ronald Reagan turned tail in his day and withdrew when Lebanon proved to be more dangerous than expected.

But it is not the American penchant for retreat that Jerusalem needs to remember so much as Washington’s track record on making promises to provide security and then abandoning the mission. Everyone should remember the senior Bush administration promising the Kurds and the Shiites of Iraq protection from Saddam Hussein if they would rebel against his tyrannical rule, and then abandoning both groups to their fate when push came to shove.

An even better example can be drawn from the 2003 Disarmament Agreement made with the Iranian resistance organization—the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran—in Iraq, and subsequent 2004 agreement with all of its members at Camp Ashraf to guarantee their safety. The agreement was good only so long as the US controlled Iraq. But with the Separation of Forces Agreement (SOFA) of January 2009, the Government of Iraq (GOI) regained control of Camp Ashraf, and despite pious promises to respect the human rights of the residents of Camp Ashraf, the GOI began a campaign of pressure and attack on Camp Ashraf that led to over three dozen deaths of Iranian dissidents, and their forced move to another site in the Baghdad outskirts that is both inadequate for basic habitation, and leaves the Ashrafis vulnerable to violence instigated by elements aligned with the Tehran regime, a fact borne out most tragically with an attack that left 52 Iranian dissidents dead this morning (September 2, 2013) at Ashraf. The ironically called “Camp Liberty”—more a prison than a livable transit camp—already has seen ten more lives lost to hostile Iranian rocket attacks. In short, the 2004 agreement and promises of protection have proven to be worthless in the long run.

One needs to distinguish between American security agreements made to protect American allies in which American troops reside on territory of American allies, and those agreements where US troops reside on territory belonging to those not really allied with the United States. American security arrangements with South Korea and with (West) Germany held strong and were and are dependable as both sides continue to value the agreement. However, agreements made between the United States and the current Government of Iraq, controlled by the Shia Islamist Dawa-Party strongman, Dr. Nouri Kamal al-Maliki, an ally of the mullah regime of Iran, are not durable for Iraq is not really an American ally, and in truth, never was.

Since the suggestion was made that American or other foreign (UN?) troops would patrol the Jordan Valley eastern border of Palestine with the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan to prohibit jihadi elements from entering, continued cooperation of the Palestinian government cannot be guaranteed since radical elements may succeed in taking over in Ramallah. A repeat of the May 1967 fiasco of Nasser’s removal of UN troops from the Egyptian-Israeli border would not be unlikely, creating circumstances similar to 1967 imperiling Israel’s security.

Given the American track record, it would be foolish to rely on any promises made by Secretary of State John Kerry or President Obama concerning American guarantees of a secure Palestinian eastern border. As a variety of experts have suggested, doing so is virtually a guarantee of future trouble. And in today’s world, the future arrives almost instantly.

Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker is founder and chairman of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching the public and our elected officials of the dangers presented by Islamist fundamentalism and the need to create genuine democratic institutions in the region as an antidote to such fundamentalism. He may be contacted at contact@ADME.ws.

Shai Franklin’s Distorted Discourse on Iranian Dissidents

by Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker

American Thinker, June 21, 2013

Intellectual Conservative, June 22, 2013

On Monday, June 17, 2013, Shai Franklin, currently senior fellow for United Nations Affairs at the Institute on Religion and Public Affairs, penned a critique[1] for the Jewish Telegraphic Agency entitled “Op-Ed: Stop pretending to care about Iranians’ rights” in which he roundly criticized Professor Irwin Cotler and Illinois U.S. Senator Mark Kirk for their essay[2]—“Op-Ed: Stand with the dissidents of Iran”, published in JTA on Friday, June 14, 2013. Franklin condemned the Cotler-Kirk call for support of the newly formed Iranian Political Prisoners Global Advocacy Project as counter-productive. He proclaimed that their appeal for support “actually undermines the cause of dissidents who are risking their lives and being tortured daily just for the basic dignity that most JTA readers take for granted.”

Mr. Franklin may be an expert in many areas of Middle-East affairs—his background certainly implies such—but on this issue he is woefully ignorant. No—this writer is not an eye-witness to the Iranian prison system—thank God. But he does have regular contact with scores of former prisoners who have been part of the Iranian dissident movement for over three decades. And their testimony consistently calls for greater international scrutiny of the Iranian prison system.

Mr. Franklin criticized Cotler and Kirk for publishing their essay in a Jewish newspaper. He wrote: “But when Cotler and Kirk call on Jews to demand democracy and human rights in Iran — implicitly branding it as a pro-Israel priority—it actually undermines…” I have read the Cotler-Kirk essay multiple times; nowhere does it address the Jewish community to act on behalf of Israel. In fact, nowhere in their essay do they address their words exclusively to the Jewish community! Publishing in the JTA in today’s world is no more of an intention to address an exclusive faith/ethnic community than was my 2008 publication of essays about Iraq in the AINA press an address limited to Iraqi Christians or my essay about Syria in 2009 in Ashraq al-Arabi an exclusive to the Arab world. But Mr. Franklin should understand something—and this is that leading advocates as well as lawyers for the National Council of Resistance of Iran, the leading opposition movement to the Tehran regime, with supporters both in and outside Iran—leading advocates for the NCRI are Jewish. And some of us support the NCRI because we care about human rights, and some of us do so because we believe that it is in Israel’s interests to see regime change in Iran, and some of us are involved for both reasons.

Franklin suggests that “not only do most of the brave Iranians Cotler and Kirk claim to be helping not want their help, they would probably continue much of the terrorist and nuclear enterprise the current regime is pursuing.” It appears that Franklin doesn’t remember the words of the young dissidents in the streets of Tehran during the summer and fall 2009 riots as they repeatedly chanted: “Obama ya ba oona ya ba ma”—“Obama: Are you with us or with them?” and “Na ghazeh na lobnan janam fadai iran”—“Neither Gaza nor Lebanon is our business; no to Gaza and no to Lebanon. Iran is our business, and I give my life for that!” He also seems to be uninformed about the current pro-democracy demonstrations[3] in the capital this past weekend where hundreds of Tehranis, mostly young people, staged a march in which they were chanting, “free all political prisoners,” “we don’t want a government with guidance patrols,” “Sattar Beheshti, we will continue your path,” “Neda Agha Soltan, the lady of Iran, your path is continuing,” and “don’t be afraid, we are all together” or a similar demonstration Monday in Hamedan where the crowd chanted “Political prisoners must be released” and “Cannons, Tanks, Bassijis are effective no more”.[4] Does Franklin need to be reminded that one of the first places that Neda Soltan’s fiancé Caspian Makan came to visit after his escape from Iran was Israel?[5] Ninety percent of Iranians hate the regime and everything for which it stands. Yes, ten percent support the regime and would like to see Israel destroyed, but the vast majority of Iranians reject the regime’s policies. Unfortunately the ninety percent is the group without the guns.

Franklin says that Iranian dissidents aren’t asking for “us to isolate and strangle their country economically and politically.” Maybe Franklin isn’t looking or listening to the right dissidents. My sources[6] report that many Iranians are calling for stiff sanctions and boycotts of products that bring income to the regime. Franklin further states his belief that most Iranians will want nuclear arms even if the regime is overthrown. He writes: “But even a complete change of regime — whether by internal revolution or external force — would be unlikely to produce a cooperative government that renounces Iran’s inbred aspirations to regional hegemony.” Obviously Mr. Franklin is not very familiar with the National Council of Resistance of Iran or its nominal leader, President-elect Mrs. Maryam Rajavi. The NCRI’s 2012 annual convocation in Paris drew over 100,000 attendees from around the world; the 2013 convocation next weekend promises to feature a larger attendance yet. The NCRI “Ten Point Plan for Future Iran”[7] specifically rejects nuclear weaponry for Iran and calls for regional harmonious relations. That doesn’t sound like an aspiration to regional hegemony.

Mr. Franklin’s portfolio calls for him to promote human rights; that’s an admirable goal. As he is a Jewish professional I assume that he is committed to Israel’s safety and survival. The two are not mutually exclusive despite what he seems to think. And if he would get out into the field and see the work of the NCRI and its subsidiary, the PMOI (Peoples Mojahedin Organization of Iran), he might come to realize that regime change is not only desirable, but if led by the popular NCRI, will result in amicable relations between Iran and Israel as was the case prior to the 1979 Khomeini revolution.

Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker, author of over ninety articles on the Middle-East, is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East, a grassroots organization dedicated to teaching the public and its elected officials of the need to promote genuine democratic institutions throughout the Middle-East region as an antidote to the dangers posed by Islamic fundamentalism. He may be contacted at contact@ADME.ws.

NOTES:

[1] Shai Franklin, “Op-Ed: Stop pretending to care about Iranians’ rights”, JTA, June 17, 2013, http://www.jta.org/2013/06/17/news-opinion/opinion/op-ed-stop-pretending-we-care-about-iranian-rights

[2] Irwin Cotler and Mark Kirk, “Op-Ed: Stand with the dissidents of Iran”, JTA, June 14, 2013, http://www.jta.org/2013/06/14/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/op-ed-stand-with-the-dissidents-of-iran.

[3] “Security forces attack protesters chanting anti-regime slogans”, Iran Focus, June 16, 2013,

http://www.iranfocus.com/en/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27804:security-forces-attack-protesters-chanting-anti-regime-slogans&catid=4:iran-general&Itemid=26.

[4] INTV, “Iran: gathering in Hamedan with people chanting anti-regime slogans”, PMOI, June 17, 2013, http://www.mojahedin.org/pagesen/detailsNews.aspx?newsid=26880.

[5] JPost.com Staff, “Neda's fiance: Iran will be free”, The Jerusalem Post, March 19, 2010, http://www.jpost.com/International/Nedas-fiance-Iran-will-be-free.

[6] Joseph Puder, “Iran is Ready for Change”, Front Page Magazine, September 24, 2007, archived in: Iran Watch – September 24, 2007, http://ncpdaus.org/iran-watch-september-24-2007/. Also see: NCRI, “Iran: NCRI Women's Committee calls for sanctions on Mullahs' regime”, NCRI, June 23, 2009, http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/ncri-statements/women/6575-iran-ncri-womens-committee-calls-for-sanctions-on-mullahs-regime.html.

[7] NCRI, “Maryam Rajavi's Ten Point Plan for Future Iran”, NCRI, January 8, 2013, http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/ten-point-plan.html, and Ibid, “Non-nuclear Iran”, NCRI, January 8, 2013, http://www.ncr-iran.org/en/non-nuclear-iran.html.

Understanding Hassan Rouhani’s Election as Iran’s President

by Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker

American Thinker Blog, Global Politician and Codex-Politics, June 18, 2013

Dr. Hassan Feridon Rouhani’s victory in the June 14, 2013 Iranian presidential election took many by surprise, not least of all the Iranian regime’s leadership, including the faqih, Supreme Leader Sayeed Ali Khamenei. The question that challenges political analysts is why this occurred and why Khamenei acquiesced to the will of the people. Two possible interpretations may be offered. First—although it seems unlikely—is the possibility that Khamenei actually wanted this outcome as it provides him with several advantages. Those benefits include the fact that as a fellow cleric, Rouhani is more likely to adhere to the will of the faqih, if only because of the hierarchical nature of the Shiite clergy. Coupled with this is Rouhani’s personal character which seems less combative than the other leading candidates. After having to wrestle with Rafsanjani, Khatami, and Ahmadinejad, Khamenei may be happy to have a more pliable personality with which to work. The second point that Khamenei would see as advantageous is that by accepting Rouhani as president, the faqih regains some of the prestige that he lost in 2009 when he appeared to descend from his perch as supreme guide and sully himself in the muddy waters of partisan politics by supporting Ahmadinejad. With this election, Khamenei was able to regain that lost status. And of course, because Rouhani seems the most moderate of the available candidates, there is the possibility of using that image to Iran’s advantage. In the game of “good cop, bad cop”, Ahmadinejad had aptly fulfilled his role as “bad cop”, so now a friendly face towards the West could be used to win concessions and possibly dial back the sanctions which are beginning to have true deleterious effect upon the Iranian economy.

The second possible interpretation is that Khamenei and the hard-liners indeed were taken by surprise, the hardline camp having squandered their advantage by having three candidates (Jalili, Ghalibaf, and Rezaei) as opposed to the “moderates” single candidate in Rouhani after Mohammad Reza Aref dropped out on June 12^th in favor of Rouhani. Rouhani’s promised championing of civil rights and a less combative stance on the nuclear issue clearly found resonance with the Iranian public, tired of the hardline rhetoric and mounting privation of the past eight years of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s presidency. Ali Khamenei may have had to swallow hard at the prospect of a “moderate” president, but he is no fool, and the advantages of accepting the people’s will would be readily apparent. Besides, with so much at stake in Syria, and the apparent need to send 4,000 Pasdaran (IRGC) to Syria to reinforce Assad’s troops, the prospect of bloody riots at home in repetition of 2009 clearly was distasteful to say the least. Ali Khamenei has not stayed in power for twenty-four years without learning to be flexible when needed.

There is one additional point that needs to be mentioned, and that is that Khamenei controls foreign policy; Rouhani’s influence in that arena will be negligible. The new president will have some say in domestic policy, and if he keeps the populous calm, Khamenei will reward him for doing that. In all other areas, Iranian presidents are window dressing—it’s the faqih—the supreme leader—Ali Khamenei that calls the shots. Hopefully, the West will not be fooled by the change of presidential puppet characters on the Persian stage; the puppet-master has not changed, nor has his nefarious plans for world conquest.

A Crystal Ball on Iran’s Presidential Elections

by Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker

American Thinker, Tea Party Tribune, June 12, 2013

Global Politician, June 13, 2013

On Friday, June 14^th, Iranians will go to the polls to elect a new president for a four year term. Out of a field of 686 applicants which included 30 women, the twelve-member Guardian Council that vets all candidates cut the number down to eight men that were deemed conservative and Islamic enough in order to legitimately aspire to the presidency.

Among those excluded was Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, a top advisor to outgoing President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and considered his ally and protégé. Also excluded were former President Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, one of the founders of the 1979 Islamic revolution, and former Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki.

The eight approved candidates include:

Gholam Ali Haddad Adel is an Iranian philosopher, politician and former speaker of Iran’s Parliament. He is a senior Expediency Council official. His daughter is married to Khamenei's son.

Saeed Jalili is Iran’s chief nuclear negotiator and the youngest presidential candidate in the race at 47. A career diplomat, he also represents Iran in talks with the European Union. He has the support of ultraconservatives in the theocratic leadership.

Mohsen Rezaei is a veteran of Iranian military and politics, joining the revolutionary movement in 1979 and served as chief commander of the Iranian Revolution Guard Corps from 1981 to 1997. He is currently the secretary of Iran’s Expediency Council, a government body set up to settle discrepancies between the parliament and advisers to the supreme leader. He was named by Argentina as a suspect in the 1994 bombing of the Jewish Community’s AMIA building in Buenos Aires. He is wanted by Interpol.

Hassan Rowhani currently heads the Center for Strategic Studies, serving the dual roles of cleric and the Supreme Leader’s representative to Iran’s version of the National Security Council. He was chief nuclear negotiator under then President Mohammad Khatami and has been plugged in to Iran’s proliferation efforts for years.

Mohammad Reza Aref can be characterized as an independent, being the most liberal of the final candidates. He served as a first vice president under President Mohammed Khatami in Khatami’s second term (2001-2005). Considered “reformist” by many, he has served as Chancellor of Teheran University and is American trained.

Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, currently the mayor of Tehran, is a member of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. He served as a commander of the Revolutionary Guard during the Iran-Iraq War. For the past few decades he has played a leading role in the maintenance of Iran’s internal security.

Mohammad Gharazi is running as an independent. A self-proclaimed “technocrat”, he is a former Member of Parliament who has held the posts of both oil and telecommunications minister.

Ali Akbar Velayati, a practicing physician, currently is a senior international affairs adviser to Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A former foreign minister, he served twice under President Rafsanjani. Like Mohsen Rezaei, there is a standing Interpol warrant for Velayati’s arrest for his part in the 1994 Buenos Aires bombing.

Now, who is likely to win out of this gang of unfriendly faces? Before answering that, some preliminary background information is needed. First, one needs to remember that Iranian elections are never elections; rather, they are “selections”—that is, the winner is pre-selected by the Supreme Leader and the election is rigged to reflect that choice. So, in truth, only one person votes in the Islamic Republic of Iran’s presidential elections. That person is the faqih—the Supreme Leader—Sayeed Ali Khamenei.

Next, the figures that the Iranian press or TV service gives of voter turnout are fraudulent. Voter turnout is likely to be worse than 2009 when it ran below 30%, despite regime claims that turnout was 65%. Members of the Bassij–the theological militia—and of the Pasdaran—the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC)—are required to cast their votes as instructed and are paid for such. Likewise, in rural areas, votes are bought wholesale. Never-the-less, in urban areas such as Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Ahvaz, Tabriz, or Mashad, the polls will remain nearly empty all day as the Iranian populous registers its displeasure and disgust as the lack of real freedom and democracy by boycotting the “election”. The regime claims high figures for voter turnout as a way of legitimizing its rule, but the Iranian populous is not fooled by such claims. It’s only Western diplomats and other naïve souls that are taken in by such falsified figures.

What is likely to happen is that no candidate will get a plurality in the first round. With eight candidates such a landslide is not only highly unlikely; it would be a major hint that the election was fixed from the outset. . Round two, reserved for the top two vote-getting candidates, follows the first round by one week and would take place on June 21^st.

And now the predictions—and more importantly, what they may actually mean. It’s thought that Khamenei wants Saeed Jalili, the 47 year old nuclear negotiator hard-liner and career diplomat. Jalili is a fervent supporter of Khamenei and his election would signal that Iran is willing to stand up to western pressure and pursue the nuclear program to its successful conclusion, come what may. A Jalili victory says that the hard-liners are in control and no reforms should be anticipated. Iran under Jalili would seem like Ahmadinejad on designer steroids—a greater degree of class, but a yet higher degree of belligerence. Jalili is Khamenei’s way of saying: “Full steam ahead, come what may!”

Some analysts think that Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf (Qalibaf), the current mayor of Tehran and Ahmadinejad’s successor in that post has a good chance as well because of his IRGC involvement. Others don’t think that he has been able to convince the regime hard-liners that he has become an irrevocable hard-liner himself. It’s thought that they continue to distrust him should he win the power of the presidency.

If Gholam Ali Haddad Adel wins a spot in the run-off it will mean that Khamenei is truly fearful that a revolt is at hand. Choosing a family member (if only by marriage) is indicative of the fear of all outsiders, including even the Praetorian Guard, the Pasdaran, that is the Iranian Revolution Guards Corps. Haddad-Adel is devoted to his in-law, and his elevation to the presidency would show that Khamenei doesn’t trust anyone outside of his own family; it would be a clear sign of paranoia on Khamenei’s part.

If the reformist Mohammad Reza Aref is selected, it will be proof that Khamenei blinked first in his eyeball to eyeball confrontation with Netanyahu and the West, but quite frankly, Aref stands a snowball’s chances in hell.

The other candidates are unlikely to score that well, Valayati being the only exception. If Valayati is picked, it’s another version of the Jalili candidacy but even more “in your face” given Valayati’s Interpol warrant. However, Khamenei is more likely to keep him close as his senior advisor.

One week and counting, and we dare not forget that that nuclear clock is ticking in the background. Whoever is the winner of this election will become Ali Khamenei’s new puppet. However, as Israeli commentator Amotz Asa-el points out[*], none of the candidates has any viable plan to rescue Iran’s failing economy, and it’s that factor that may tell the ultimate tale in the tragedy that is today’s Iran.

[*]Amotz Asa-el, “Foreign Affairs: Last tango in Tehran”, The Jerusalem Post, June 8, 2013, http://www.jpost.com/Features/Front-Lines/Foreign-Affairs-Last-tango-in-Tehran-315764.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s Holy-Land Peace Crusade

By Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker

Intellectual Conservative, June 1, 2013

The new U.S. Secretary of State, the Honorable John F. Kerry, has been spending a tremendous amount of his time attempting to bring the Palestinians and the Israelis back to the negotiating table. He just completed his fourth trip to the region in as many months, a number equal to the total of his predecessor’s visits in her four years at the State Department. Hillary Rodham Clinton failed at this task miserably. With that background, one wonders why John Kerry thinks that he will be more successful than Ms. Clinton? Why the “full court press” now?

Underlying Secretary Kerry’s peace crusade is the Obama administration belief—advocated by many in the U.S. Foreign Service—that solving the Israeli-Arab conflict is the key to solving the Middle-East’s many problems. Crack that nut, so to speak—and everything else will fall into place, or so the thinking goes. It’s a pipe dream that has been around for a long time, one especially popular with Democratic administrations since the time of Jimmy Carter.

When one adds the recent resurrection of the 2002 Saudi Arabian “Arab Peace Initiative” by the Arab League, and the repetitive Obama declaration that the 1967 borders with minor mutually-agreed upon border adjustments should serve as the starting point of negotiations, one begins to see why Mr. Kerry thinks his crusade can succeed.

Left out of most media interpretations is an honest accounting of U.S. foreign policy vis-a-vis the Middle-East during the last four and a half years. Any truthful analysis needs to admit that the U.S. has fumbled badly and that few political successes can be chalked up. The so-called “Arab Spring” has turned into winter everywhere it has sprung, pro-Western dictators being replaced by virulently anti-West jihadists or Islamist Arab governments that arrived via the ballot box but that are anything but democratic. Even Turkey—once a moderate, Western oriented secular state—is slipping into a dictatorship as the AKP Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan transforms that country into a neo-Ottoman Islamic nation, arresting and imprisoning opponents to his rule, while making himself the richest man in Turkey. Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, founder of the modern Turkey, must be spinning in his grave faster than an Iranian centrifuge.

Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria—all are less stable or fragmented. And meanwhile Iran gets exponentially closer to being an atomic power.

So, the administration is desperate to show a success somewhere in the region, a region that is seeing a resurgence of Russian power, at least in regards to Syria and the eastern Mediterranean, as well as the introduction of China as a player and concerned participant, particularly concerning oil.

The only achievement that the administration can claim is the apparent “rapprochement” between Jerusalem and Ankara, credited to President Obama’s direct involvement during his March visit to Israel. His success was due in part to Israel’s prior apology for the Turkish deaths in the MV Mavi Marmara incident of May 31, 2010, as well as the agreement to ship Israeli gas to Europe via the Turkish pipeline. Given those two points and Turkey having aligned itself against the government of Bashar al-Assad’s Syria following hostilities on their mutual border, Obama’s phone call succeeded with Prime Minister Erdoğan. However, few in Israel expect this renewed relationship to thrive as it did in its heyday twenty years ago. Many Israelis are waiting for the other shoe to drop in the renewed bond with the mercurial Erdoğan. And Jerusalem has not forgotten that Erdoğan continues to insist that a Palestinian Authority (i.e., Fatah)—Hamas rapprochement occur before Israeli-Palestinian negotiations begin.

Meanwhile, Washington isn’t reading the fine print. To which fine print am I referring? Start with the fine print in the Hamas Charter of 1988. That document specifically calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and categorically denies the right of existence to a Jewish state anywhere in the Middle-East. Put simply: how does one negotiate peace with an entity that refuses to recognize the right of the other to exist? We’re not talking about hudnas (temporary truces that Hamas needs for its own welfare). Hamas will not join with the P.A. in any permanent agreement with Israel short of Israel dismantling itself “lock, stock, and barrel”. And that won’t happen!

Next, let’s look at the fine print of the Arab League’s “Arab Peace Initiative”. First of all, that document calls for a return to the 1967 borders. The new “breakthrough” exciting Washington is that the League agrees for the first time to minor border adjustments. What the P.A. thinks on that point is unclear. However, that is a moot point as Israel has absolutely no intention to return to the 1967 borders or anything remotely resembling them. A five mile wide waistline is a death warrant, and Israel is not about to cede the high ground above the Ben Gurion Airport to anyone that could cut off one of Israel’s most important commercial link with the outside world. The 2005 retreat from Gaza and the subsequent rise of Hamastan taught the Israelis an unforgettable lesson: radicals love to rocket the Israeli heartland. So too, were Hamas to return in force to the West Bank—currently controlled by the P.A. (Fatah) with Israeli help, Jerusalem could expect daily rocket and mortar attacks on the capital. In American terms, that’s like a hostile Confederacy taking over Virginia right up to the D.C. borderline. How long would we tolerate that?

Let’s look at the other fine print in the “Arab Peace Initiative”. Anyone bother to notice that it continues to call for the Palestinian “Right of Return” to all areas west of the 1949 Armistice “Green Line”? The so-called “Right of Return” is a code name for the demographic destruction of Israel by swamping her with Palestinians who will vote her out of existence in the first and only election following their return. No Israeli government will ever agree to such a blanket Right of Return. Suicide is not an option, despite John Kerry’s optimism that the Arabs will honor their commitments to peace.

Given the current situation in which Egypt is daily becoming more hostile to Israel under the Moslem Brotherhood dominated government, and the chaos in Syria that is spilling over into Lebanon and Jordan, Israel cannot afford to retract into indefensible borders. When the Palestinians remove all incitement against the Jewish state from their textbooks and agree to recognize Israel as a Jewish state, then one can begin negotiations with a hope in their ultimate success. At present, given Palestinian and general Arab attitudes towards Israel—notable rare exceptions duly noted—the coming of the messiah seems more likely to occur.

Late news flash: P.A. President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday, May 23, 2013 informed Kerry that the P.A. will not come to the table until Israel places a 100% freeze on all settlement construction in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, a demand that President Obama rejected back in March during his visit to Israel. It seems now that Secretary Kerry may need to find a new destination to rack-up his frequent–flyer miles.

But when we’re talking about the Middle-East, surprises are always a part of the equation, so stay tuned.

Rabbi Dr. Daniel M. Zucker is founder and Chairman of the Board of Americans for Democracy in the Middle-East. He may be contacted at contact@ADME.ws.