Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Reliance on Military Force to Prevent Proliferation Is Risky Business

On April 29, President George W. Bush gave a full explanation for why the administration chose to reveal previously classified intelligence on the Syrian nuclear facility the U.S. claims was built by North Korea and destroyed by Israeli airstrikes on September 6, 2007. According to President Bush, the timing for the release of the information was meant to send a warning to Syria, North Korea and Iran to advance “certain policy objectives.”

President Bush said, “One would be to the North Koreans, to make it abundantly clear that we know more about them than they think. Then we have an interest in sending a message to Iran, and the world, for that matter, about just how destabilizing nuclear proliferation would be in the Middle East.” He said another objective was to send a message to Syria about “their intransigence in dealing with, you know, helping us in Iraq or destabilizing Lebanon or dealing with Hamas.”

President Bush said the information wasn’t released sooner for fear Syria would retaliate against Israel, but was released instead “at a time when, you know, we felt the risk of retaliation or, you know, confrontation in the Middle East was reduced.” Threatening Syria for not helping in Iraq, Lebanon or Gaza, in particular, is a counterproductive strategy for obtaining cooperation.

CIA Director Michael Hayden claimed on April 28 that the Syrian facility could have been used to make nuclear weapons. According to Hayden, “In the course of a year after they got full up they would have produced enough plutonium for one or two weapons.”

Even if the facility could have been used to make nuclear weapons, which Syria denies, Israel’s military strikes on the facility, in violation of international law, was extremely risky and have furthered a very dangerous precedent for the preventive military option set by the U.S. invasion of Iraq under spurious claims Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction.

A far better approach to dealing with the Syrian facility would have been for Israel and the U.S. to reveal any intelligence on the facility to the International Atomic Energy Agency. The military strikes eliminated the possibility for the International Atomic Energy Agency to verify intelligence and collect any additional intelligence. Through their military demonstration and acting on their own, Israel and the U.S. have undermined established mechanisms for dealing with nuclear proliferation and the international nonproliferation regime in general.

Furthermore, military threats are unlikely to influence the countries whose behavior the U.S. and Israel seek to change. In the case of Iran, repeated threats of military attacks have failed to produce any change in the Iranian government’s behavior. Instead, threats have contributed to strengthening the hand of the hardliners in Iran and made life more difficult for those inside of Iran working for democracy and reform.

Indeed, reliance on military force to prevent proliferation will likely backfire and result in strengthening the resolve of countries seeking to develop nuclear weapons as a means of defense against military strikes. Threats of military attacks against nuclear facilities will only incentivize developing nuclear programs in secret rather than developing them under international safeguards and the watchful eye of the International Atomic Energy Agency.

Rather than using military force or evening threatening the use of military force as a first resort, the U.S. and Israel should abide by international laws and work within international institutions. Both the U.S. and Israel should recommit to diplomacy as a weapon of first choice, rather than the last choice, for preventing proliferation. Finally, both countries should bolster the nonproliferation regime by establishing a Middle East Nuclear Weapons Free Zone as a one practical step on the road to verified global nuclear disarmament.

Public Support for Diplomacy with Iran Has Increased Dramatically

A new poll released today by The Public Agenda and in cooperation with Foreign Affairs entitled “Confidence in U.S. Foreign Policy Index” states that “the public’s preference for diplomacy, always strong, has increased dramatically, particularly regarding Iran.”

According to the survey’s findings, “There’s been a 12-point jump in the last six months in those who favor using diplomacy to establish better relations with Iran, with 47% now saying that’s the best strategy. As in previous editions of the survey, very few want to use force or even threaten to do so with Iran (only 12 percent total.” Compared to the fall of 2007 survey, this demonstrates a 34% increase in the proportion of people saying that diplomacy is the best way for the U.S. to deal with Iran. In contrast, the support for taking military action as the best option dropped from 10 percent to seven percent. Support for threatening military action dropped from nine percent to five percent.

International economic sanctions comes in as the second preferred best option at 28%, a small decline from 30% in fall 2007.

New Bill Introduced to Limit Travel of Diplomats from State Sponsors of Terror

On April 24, Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) introduced H.R. 5886, a bill designed “to restrict the diplomatic travel of officials and representatives of state sponsors of terrorism.” The bill has 15 co-sponsors and a cutesy title, “Limiting the Intrusive Miles of International Terrorist Sponsors Act of 2008” or the “LIMITS Act of 2008.”

Essentially, H.R. 5886 seeks to limit the ability of diplomatic and official representatives of “state sponsors of terror” from receiving visas to travel to the U.S., with the exception of travel to and from John F. Kennedy and La Guardia airports to the United Nations in New York “in connection with official business at the United Nations headquarters complex” without any stops along the way. Delegates and representatives would not be allowed to move outside of the half-mile radius of the United Nations. Currently, they are permitted to travel up to 25 miles for UN activities.

The bill specifically highlights Iran, North Korea, Cuba and Syria. H.R. 5886 cites that “between 2002 and 2007, the Department of State issued, with full diplomatic immunity, 1823 visas to delegates and representatives from Cuba, 2782 visas to delegates and representatives from Iran, 132 visas to delegates and representatives from North Korea, 1242 visas to delegates and representatives from Sudan, and 706 visas to delegates and representatives from Syria.” Sponsors of the bills argue that mobility should be restricted because these visas create a security vulnerability within the U.S.

Shirin Ebadi: 'Don't Attack Iran'

Robert Dreyfuss has a new article in The Nation concerning an interview he conducted with Shirin Ebadi on April 28.

In regards to ongoing death threats to her person, Dreyfuss writes, "Ebadi is not intimidated, and she continues to represent dissidents and others caught up in the labyrinthine Iranian court system. But she warns that threats and bellicose rhetoric from American leaders and politicians is not helping matters." According to Ebadi, "The most important thing is not to militarily attack Iran, or to threaten to attack Iran militarily. Even the language of some of the candidates in the United States threatens Iran."

Ebadi also addressed the regime change slush fund. "When the United States says that it has allocated $70 million for democracy in Iran, whoever speaks about democracy in Iran will be accused of having accepted part of that money, and of being on the US side," she says. "It gives Iran an excuse for what it does." According to Dreyfuss, she said that all credible Iranian activists have refused to accept American funding, and most of the money has been funneled into radio broadcasts and other US propaganda.

In regards to sanctions, Ebadi told Dreyfuss, "Sanctions damage the interests of the people, and they're not going to topple the government of Iran, because the government has a lot of income from the price of oil because the price is so high." According to Dreyfuss, "the only sort of sanctions she is willing to support are direct, political sanctions that target Iran's leaders, from those involved in the Iranian nuclear program to the country's highest officials. Such sanctions, she suggests, could restrict these officials' travel abroad and could order the seizure of privately held assets. In addition, Ebadi believes, the world's countries could collectively shun the Iranian state."

Ebadi says, "What I mean is that all the countries of the world should reduce or lower the level of their political relations with Iran, so that they convince Iran to improve the situation of human rights. This was you can isolate the government of Iran without really damaging the people."

Of course, she also believes political sanctions should only be used as a last resort. She believes the best course is dialogue. Ebadi says, "Dialogue has to take place at three levels: at the level of people and civil society, among members of parliament of both countries, and by heads of government of both countries. And negotiations have to be direct and public."

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

The Divestment Trap

John Tirman, executive director and principal research scientist at the MIT Center for International Studies and head of the Persian Gulf Initiative, has a new Op-Ed in the Boston Globe on "The Divestment Trap." Tirman writes of a pending bill in the Massachusetts Legislature on divestment: "Because of the broad, longstanding, and punitive sanctions on Iran, the divestment bill will have virtually no practical effect. The likelihood that any possible investment in Iran's energy industry would not already be prohibited by US law is low. In the globalized economy nowadays, such strategies are less effective anyway, because tracking the flow of money and goods is increasingly difficult." Read the full editorial here.

Time for a Diplomatic Surge

The Bush administration seems to have placed the symbolic mantle of Enemy No. 1 on Iran’s shoulders, displacing al Qaeda from that position. But although the administration and various pundits paint a good guys-bad guys narrative to sell conflict to the American people, reality is far more muddled. Rather than demonizing Iran, the United States should focus on a diplomatic surge that includes direct, comprehensive, and unconditional talks not only on Iraq, but also on the range of outstanding issues between the two countries. What the Bush administration refuses to acknowledge is that when it comes to Iraq, U.S. and Iranian interests converge.

Click here to read the full article, "Time for a Diplomatic Surge," by Carah Ong, Right Web Analysis (Somerville, MA: Political Research Associates, April 29, 2008).

Iranian Physicians Tour Public Events

The public events of the Iranian Physicians tour sponsored by Physicians for Social Responsibility and the Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran, taking place from April 27-May 9, are now listed on Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran Calendar of Events.

Friday, April 25, 2008

Tensions Escalate…Again

Today’s encounter between a U.S. contracted Naval vessel, the Westward Venture carrying U.S. military hardware through the Persian Gulf, and two speedboats once again raises the specter of how easily such an incident could ignite a military conflict between the U.S. and Iran.

According to the Washington Post article, “the U.S. ship initiated bridge-to-bridge communications, and, after receiving no response, it fired a flare. The speed boats continued to approach, so the ship fired warning shots with a .50-caliber machine gun and M16 rifle. The boats then left the area.”

Initial news headlines all pointed the blame towards Iran. However, according to Lydia Robertson, spokeswoman for the Navy's Fifth Fleet based in Bahrain, soon afterwards, an Iranian coast guard boat queried the Western Venture. Robertson said it was unclear whether that was one of the small boats. Robertson added, “There have been some Iranian boats that have operated this way, and some unidentified boats.” She also said that the crew had no voice communication with the small boats.

This most recent incident once again proves how desperately the U.S. and Iran need a “hotline,” or similar official line of communication to ensure that such incidents do not escalate into armed conflict.

Meanwhile, Admiral Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said in a news conference that the Pentagon is planning for "potential military courses of action" against Iran, criticizing what he called the Tehran government's "increasingly lethal and malign influence" in Iraq. Admiral Mullen began the press conference by stating: “First, on Iran, I've been clear lately that I'm extremely concerned about what I believe to be an increasingly lethal and malign influence by that government and the Qods Force in particular in Iraq and throughout the Middle East. I believe recent events, especially the Basra operation, have revealed just how much and just how far Iran is reaching into Iraq to foment instability. Their support to criminal groups in the form of munitions and training, as well as other assistance they are providing and the attacks they are encouraging, continues to kill coalition and Iraqi personnel. The Iranian government pledged to halt such activities some months ago. It's plainly obvious they have not. Indeed, they seem to have gone the other way.” He also said evidence in regards to Iran’s role in Iraq would be forthcoming.

Admiral Mullen also said, “It would be a mistake to think that we are out of combat capability.” He made clear that he prefers a diplomatic solution to the tensions with Iran and reiterated, “I have no expectations that we're going to get into a conflict with Iran in the immediate future.” He added that the “solution right now still lies in using other levers of national power, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”

Thursday, April 24, 2008

PSR Brings Iranian Docs and Chem Weapons Survivors to U.S.

When I said I heart Physicians for Social Responsibility on Valentines Day, I meant it. And they are proving again why everyone should heart them. From April 27-May 9, Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR) will host Iranian physicians Dr. Shahriar Khateri and Dr. Mohammadreza Soroush to discuss the impacts of war on the Iranian people and encourage diplomacy as a means toward better relations between the two countries.

Drs. Khateri and Soroush have worked for more than two decades with survivors of chemical weapons attacks in Iran. Joining them will be two of those survivors to discuss the aftermath of ongoing conflicts that have left entire families injured and killed thousands of other Iranians.

The group will participate in medical grand rounds and public forums in Cambridge, Boston, New York, Los Angeles and Washington, DC. An exhibit depicting the impacts of chemical weapons will accompany the tour and will be on public display in each of the tour cities. The Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII, an American NGO) will join PSR in hosting the Iranian visitors.

A full schedule of events will be posted on the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran Calendar of Events by tomorrow.

Senator Specter Calls for Dialogue Without Preconditions Twice in the Same Month

Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has twice called for the U.S. to drop preconditions and negotiate with Iran this month.

Sen. Specter blasted U.S. policy on Iran and called for more dialogue in the hearing today before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security.

During the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that was held on April 9, Senator Specter told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Bush administration should drop its demand that Iran suspend uranium enrichment as a condition for talks with the United States. Senator Specter said, “Frankly, I think it's insulting to go to another person, or another country, and say ‘we’re not going to talk to you unless you agree to something in advance.’ What we want them to do is to stop enriching uranium. That’s the object of the talks. How can we insist on their agreeing to the object that we want as a precondition for having the talks?”

Secretary Rice responded that halting enrichment is not just a U.S. condition but also a demand of other major powers trying to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran. Secretary Rice also said that Iran cannot be allowed to use negotiations as a “cover” while it continues perfecting techniques that might be used for nuclear weapons.

However, Secretary Rice failed to mention that it has been the Bush administration that has insisted the international community place the Iranian nuclear issue on the front burner. Yet the U.S. itself has not directly engaged Iran in negotiations, preferring to farm out direct contacts to European allies. It is unlikely that Iran would evoke so much international concern minus U.S. pressure.

Iran's Female Activists Shudder at Talk of War

Iranian activists are bravely pushing for women's rights. But Soheila Vahdati warns that an outbreak of an Iran-Israeli war that involves the Bush White House would fan the flames of fundamentalism and destroy the cause. The possibility of U.S. military action against Iran has been rising this month along with the saber rattling between Israel and Iran. Some analysts have speculated that Israel might attack Iran to stop its nuclear activities, which the West fears are a front for weapons development. Iran has responded by saying it will obliterate Israel if it comes under attack. Amid this, female activists in Iran hope that war can be avoided, fearing the Iranian women's movement would be among the first casualties. This would be a major loss because the women's movement is making progressive gains. Read the full article here.

Wednesday, April 23, 2008

India Interdicts Graphite Shipment to Iran

In the last two days, The Times of India had two pieces on Iran worth pointing out.

The first appeared on April 22 exposes a Mumbai firm caught trying to export 1,150 kg of nuclear graphite to Iran, which is illegal under UN Security Council Resolutions because it can be used for dual purposes. Graphite is an important material for the construction of nuclear reactors as it is one of the purest material manufactured at industrial scale and it retains its properties at high temperatures.

The director of Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt Lt, the company caught trying to export the nuclear graphite, Nickunj Shah, claims that he was unaware of the Indian Commerce Ministry’s notification of September 7, 2007 listing goods banned from being exported to Iran. Nickunj Shah also supplies electric discharge machine wires and graphite parts to Bhabha Atomic Research Centre and sells explosive and narcotic detectors to police agencies and army outfits in India.

Indian customs officials followed the trail and the graphite bound for Iran was procured from local dealers. But, It was imported at 50 Rupees per kg (about US$1.25) from China and was being exported to Iran at 2,000 Rupees per kg (about US$50). So, 1,150 kgs at $50 per kg = $57,500 roughly. That’s a pretty big mark-up.

In an editorial on April 23, The Times of India says the seizure is a clear message to the world of where India stands in respect of Iran's efforts to acquire nuclear weapon capability. The editorial then went on to highlight the hypocrisy of nonproliferation policy in the West. According to the editorial:

“However, India is unable to go along with the US, UK, France and Germany in applying coercion on Iran, without demonstrating that they have done all that is possible to stop proliferation of materials and technologies from their own countries to Iran. After all most of the Iranian enrichment programme was developed with the initial support of Pakistani nuclear scientist A Q Khan and subsequent help from Western European contractors who have been the resource base for Khan's network and earlier for Iraq and South Africa in the apartheid era. Nor has the US been forthcoming in revealing its stakes in Khan during 1975-2003 when it had intervened twice with the Dutch authorities, according to former Dutch prime minister Ruud Lubbers, to let the arrested Khan go free. ”Surely Iran cannot sustain its uranium enrichment programme without continuing support from the European industry.

“There has so far been no transparency on the past and present proliferation of Western European firms and action undertaken by states concerned to stop that proliferation. Such transparency will be a major step in slowing down and halting Iranian and other proliferation. Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the International Atomic Energy Agency, has testified to increasing cooperation by Iran with the IAEA but not yet given Iran a clean chit. At the same time he has expressed his disagreement with coercive measures directed against Iran. The western approach of holding only the recipient of the nuclear weapon technology responsible while being permissive of suppliers' activities is not only unfair but has so far proved counterproductive. ”India should support the IAEA and advise Iran to abide by international obligations it voluntarily accepted. It should, at the same time, oppose military coercion to stop proliferation. It would be a mistake on the part of the West to present a binary choice of military action against Iran or a nuclear Iran. India is already living with two nuclear neighbours, one of which constantly asserts that its weapons are India-specific. The most effective way of halting Iranian nuclear weapon proliferation is tightening up the controls over European nuclear industries and doing it transparently, while enlisting the cooperation of Russia and China in this effort.”

I admire that The Times of India somewhat taunts Iran “to abide by international obligations it voluntarily accepted.” At least it isn’t hypocritical since India has nuclear weapons but refuses to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty. I couldn’t agree with the editorial more on the issue of a false binary choice between military action or a nuclear Iran. I would only add what IAEA Director Mohammed ElBaradei has said many times, nonproliferation and disarmament are two sides of the same coin. If the nuclear weapons states, and the world for that matter, are serious about preventing proliferation, then they better get serious about disarmament as well.

Between Feckless and Reckless

On Thursday, April 17, the House Foreign Affairs Committee held a joint hearing with the subcommittees for Middle East and South Asia and Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade entitled, "Between Feckless and Reckless: U.S. Policy Options to Prevent a Nuclear Iran." The hearing included testimony from the Honorable Gary L. Ackerman, the Honorable Brad Sherman, The Honorable Jeffrey Feltman, and Mr. Daniel Glaser, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes.

Here is a more memorable exchange between Ackerman and Feltman during the question and answer period:

Ackerman: "How does looking at sanctions change Iranian behavior?”

Feltman: “Our hope is that Iran will change its calculus."

Ackerman: “I would respectfully suggest that we should give up on hope — not give up on it in the abstract, but give up on it as a policy. Having a policy of hope is horse dung. You know, ‘praise the Lord, but pass the ammunition.’ Hope and prayer and having a faith-based administration and a faith-based foreign policy, and a hopeful attitude – but after seven and half years of this president, after eight years of the previous president, after four years of the prior president, after four years of the president before that, going back to the Eisenhower administration that introduced nuclear to the Shah of Iran, hope is not a plan, and prayer is not a blueprint,” Ackerman continued. “I don’t dislike either hope or prayer, but I want to know what we do while we’re praying because praying doesn’t always give you the answer that you want, because there’s a billion other people who have prayers as well, but in addition to their prayers, they have a plan, and their plan is to have a nuclear bomb, and with that nuclear bomb have an influence and an effect that we don’t necessarily ascribe to.”

Matthew Korade has a great article summing up the rest of the hearing at CQPolitics.com.

At least they got the "between feckless and reckless" right. It perfectly describes the entire U.S. approach to Iran. I wonder how long it will take for someone in the decision-making apparatus to have an "aha" moment and realize that unilateral sanctions aren't going to persuade Iran to give up its nuclear program. My hopes aren't high that it will be someone in Congress...most of them are payed too well to introduce and co-sponsor sanctions legislation.

Tuesday, April 22, 2008

Berman on Iran

Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee Howard L. Berman (D-CA) delivered remarks at the start of debate on H. Con. Res. 322, recognizing the 60th anniversary of the founding of the modern State of Israel. He made the following statement in regards to Iran:

"On the other end of the military spectrum, a theologically-based state – the Islamic Republic of Iran, whose President says Israel should be 'wiped off the map' – is developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles."

Clinton on Iran

Senator Hillary Clinton has started talking tougher about Iran. In an interview that aired on "Good Morning America" today, ABC News' Chris Cuomo asked Senator Clinton what she would do if Iran attacked Israel with nuclear weapons. Clinton responded: "I want the Iranians to know that if I'm the president, we will attack Iran. In the next 10 years, during which they might foolishly consider launching an attack on Israel, we would be able to totally obliterate them."

Clinton also differentiated her position from Senator Barack Obama in last Wednesday's debate. Clinton responded to a question on the subject: "I think that we should be looking to create an umbrella of deterrence that goes much further than just Israel. Of course I would make it clear to the Iranians that an attack on Israel would incur massive retaliation from the United States."

Senator Obama responded to the same question: "I think it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region...I would consider an attack unacceptable, and the United States would take appropriate action."

The Road to Democracy in Iran

Akbar Ganji, a famous Iranian dissident who was released from prison in March 2006, has a new book entitled "The Road to Democracy in Iran" published by The MIT Press. Here is the description for the book:

"Akbar Ganji, called by some "Iran's most famous dissident," was a commander of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. But, troubled by the regime's repressive nature, he became an investigative journalist in the 1990s, writing for Iran's pro-democracy newspapers. Most notably, he traced the murders of dissident intellectuals to Iran's secret service. In 2000 Ganji was arrested, sentenced to six years in prison, and banned from working as a journalist. His eighty-day hunger strike during his last year in prison mobilized the international human rights community.

"The Road to Democracy in Iran, Ganji's first book in English, demonstrates his lifelong commitment to human rights and democracy. A passionate call for universal human rights and the right to democracy from a Muslim perspective, it lays out the goals and means of Iran's democracy movement, why women's rights trump some interpretations of Islamic law, and how the West can help promote democracy in Iran (he strongly opposes U.S. intervention) and other Islamic countries.

"Throughout the book Ganji argues consistently for universal rights based on our common humanity (and he believes the world's religions support that idea). But his arguments never veer into abstraction; they are rooted deeply in the realities of life in Islamic countries, and offer a clear picture of the possibilities for and obstacles to improving human rights and promoting democracy in the Muslim world."

To order the book, click here.

Monday, April 21, 2008

Updated "Democracy Promotion" Fact Sheet

Background

The State Department says the purpose of is so-called “democracy promotion” fund in Iran is to support programs that "assist those inside Iran who desire basic civil liberties such as freedom of expression, greater rights for women, more open political process, and broader freedom of the press." On the surface this seems like a noble goal, however, the program is universally rejected by its intended recipients in Iran because it has undermined their work for democracy and reform.

Iranian authorities have used the Bush administration's regime change slush fund as a pretext to clamp down on Iran's civil society with thousands of arrests. The State Department has said that information regarding who receives the money and what it is used for should remain classified in order to protect those who receive it. However, the secrecy surrounding the distribution of these funds has created immense problems for Iranian reformers and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hardliners in Iran are terrified by the prospect of a “velvet revolution” and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts. They are being accused by the Iranian government of taking money from the U.S. government and acting as spies.

Referring to the so-called “democracy promotion” program, activists and dissidents in Iran believe that “democracy in Iran doesn’t need money” and that the fund has only undermined their work for reform. In an Op-Ed for the International Herald Tribune on May 30, 2007, Nobel Peace Laureate Shirin Ebadi and Muhammed Sahimi aptly explain the situation:

"The recent arrests, including the detention of Hossein Mousavian, a former nuclear negotiator and a close aid to Rafsanjani, should be viewed as Ahmadinejad's retaliation against the more moderate faction. But the most important reason has to do with President George W. Bush's policy toward Iran. Last year, the administration requested and received $75 million from Congress to ‘bring’ democracy to Iran.

“Some of the $75 million has been devoted to the U.S.-funded Radio Farda, Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, as well as to VOA satellite TV, which are beaming Persian programs into Iran. Other portions have been given secretly to exiled Iranian groups, political figures and nongovernmental organizations to establish contacts with Iranian opposition groups.”

In an October 2007 Chronicle of Higher Education article, Woodrow Wilson Center’s Middle East Program Director Haleh Esfandiari, who was incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin prison and detained for several months on allegations of endangering Iranian national security, and International Security Studies Director Robert Litwak write about the unintended consequences of U.S. "democracy promotion" policies. According the authors:

“U.S. law places formidable restrictions on the ability of American NGO's to operate in Iran. Meanwhile, while eschewing official contact, the United States attempts to financially support Iran's own nascent NGO's so that they can become agents of change within the society. Yet this program of democracy promotion has had the unintended consequence of further reducing the political space for open debate in Iran. In this new climate of intimidation, NGO's and journalists are subject to censorship and are defensively engaging in self-censorship. Prominent Iranian activists, such as the Nobel laureate Shirin Ebadi, declared their opposition to the U.S. program because of continued sensitivity about foreign, particularly American, intrusion in Iran's domestic politics. The fact that the identity of Iranian recipients of U.S. aid is regarded as classified information by the U.S. government feeds the regime's paranoia and casts suspicion on all Iranian NGO's.”

Suzanne Maloney, who was on the policy-planning staff at the State Department for two years, says the following regarding the democracy assistance funds:

“I was worried about the safety of those on the receiving end of the funds. But I also just wondered if this was feasible. I don’t see how a U.S. government that has been absent from Tehran for 30 years is capable of formulating a program that will have a positive effect.” She continued: “You had to wonder where this money was going to go and what’s going to happen when you don’t have the time to sit down and sift through the more questionable proposals. There’s just not enough oversight. Of the 100 or more preliminary proposals I saw under the first call, it was an enormous challenge to find anything viable. This may have been a very high profile, sexy project, but the likelihood of real impact was minimal.”

Reasons Why Democracy Promotion Funds Should be Eliminated

Iranian reformists believe that democracy can't be imported. It must be indigenous. They believe that the best the US can do for democracy in Iran is to leave them alone. The fact is, no truly nationalist and democratic group will accept such funds.

Noninterference in Iran's domestic affairs is a legal obligations of the United States. This was stipulated in the Algiers Accord that the United States signed with Iran in 1981 to end the hostage crisis.

The US policy of “helping” the cause of democracy in Iran has backfired and made it more difficult for the more moderate factions within Iran’s power hierarchy to argue for rapprochement with the West. The secret dimension of the distribution of the $75 million has created immense problems for Iranian reformists, democratic groups and human rights activists. Aware of their own deep unpopularity, the hard-liners in Iran are terrified by the prospects of a "velvet revolution" and have become obsessed with preventing contacts between Iranian scholars, artists, journalists and political activists and their American counterparts.

Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Request

The U.S. Department of State Summary and Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2009 International Affairs budget request (also known as Function 150) reveals details regarding Iran-related funding in the Economic Support Fund line item. For Fiscal Year 2009, the Statement Department is requesting $65 million in Economic Support Funds for Iran (page 79), this is more than triple the spending amount for Fiscal Year 2008, which is estimated at $21.623 million. This tripling in Economic Support Funds is due to a couple of factors including the restructure in the State Department and it's Iran desk. A second factor is the Fiscal Year 2008 Foreign Operations bill in which Congress appropriated $60 million under Section 693, a general provision for so-called "Programs to Promote Democracy, Rule of Law and Governance in Iran." It has been unclear since Section 693 was originally added as an amendment introduced by Rep. Crenshaw to the House Foreign Operations Appropriations bill for exactly which programs this funding was meant, i.e. whether this section was meant to increase funding for the Economic Support Fund or the Human Rights and Democracy Fund, or if it was meant to serve as an overall guideline for total spending on so-called "democracy promotion" programs. It is still a question that needs to be answered. Thus, the tripling in the request for the Economic Support Funds could indicate that either the State Department recognizes that Congress supports this program and they can get additional funds for it or that State Department is trying to streamline the so-called democracy assistance funds through the Economic Support Fund line item.

While the FY'09 Summary and Highlights does not state exactly how much of the International Broadcasting Operations funds ($654 million requested) will be devoted to Iran, it does note that funds will be used to launch Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty Azerbaijani broadcasts to Iran. It is also unclear how much of $522 million in requested funding under the Educational and Cultural Exchange Programs will be allocated to Iran-related programs, but the funding will "provide new opportunities for American students to learn critical need languages." In addition to four other languages, the initiative focuses on Farsi.

FY’08 Budget

On December 19, 2007, Congress passed an omnibus appropriations bill which included the consolidated State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2008. The bill provides for $60 million to be made available for “programs to promote democracy, the rule of law and governance in Iran.” The explanatory statement accompanying the bill specifies only two numbers with respect to Iran: $21.8 million for Economic Support Funds (ESF); and $8 million for the Democracy Fund. The remainder of the $60 million is embedded in other accounts and amounts are not specified. The final appropriation was nearly halved from President Bush’s February 2007 budget request of $108.71 million, including $75 million for Economic Support Funds (ESF), $28.21 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) Voice of America - Persian and Radio Farda programs and $5.5 million in Diplomatic and Consular Program (D&CP) funds.

FY’06 Funding

In the regular FY 2006 Foreign Operations spending bill, Congress appropriated no less than $6.55 million (Public Law 109-102) for Iran from Democracy Funds and requested that at least $10 million be spent by the State Department on democracy and human rights programs in Iran overall.Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice also requested $75 million in the FY 2006 Emergency Supplemental for Iran. Congress only appropriated $66.1 million, allocated as follows (Public Law 109-234):

  • $36.1 million for the Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG);
  • $10.274 million in International Broadcasting Operations;
  • $25.826 million in Broadcasting Capital Improvements.
  • $20 million for democracy programs in Iran through the Middle East Partnership Initiative in the Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs;
  • $5 million for Internet and other interactive programming through the Bureau of International Information Programs;
  • $5 million for education and cultural exchanges through the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

According to a State Department June 2007 report, at the time it had only obligated approximately $16.05 million for Iran democracy programs from its FY06 regular and supplemental budgets, which includes $11.9 million through MEPI and $4.15 million through the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor. Additionally, $1.77 million has been obligated through the Bureau of International Information Programs, and $2.22 million through the Bureau of Education and Cultural Affairs from the FY 2006 regular and supplemental budgets.

Policy Recommendations

  • Congress should request a Government Accountability Office report evaluating the usefulness of Iran democracy promotion funding.
  • Congress should require the President to submit quarterly reports accounting for all government funding relating to Iran, including all funding in support of pro-democracy groups and of “regime change” in Iran.
  • Congress should reduce or eliminate all “democracy promotion” funding for Iran.
  • Congress should reverse the US policy of regime change towards Iran.
  • Congress should require study to determine the content and effectiveness of U.S. broadcasting into Iran.

Iran is the new AlQaeda

While the November 2007 U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iran seemed to lessen the probability of a U.S. attack on Iran, the Bush administration has continued to threaten Iran and repeated claims that it is trying to develop nuclear weapons.

Vice President Dick Cheney charged in an interview with ABC's Martha Raddatz released on March 25, “Obviously, they're also heavily involved in trying to develop nuclear weapons enrichment, the enrichment of uranium to weapons-grade levels.”

The previous week, President Bush said at the end of an interview with Radio Farda on the occasion of Nowruz, the Persian New Year, “...[The Iranians have] declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people – some – in the Middle East. And that's unacceptable in the United States and it's unacceptable to the world.” A White House spokesman later backpedaled, calling the president's remarks “shorthand.”

Iran has also become the “new Al Qaeda.” Representing the administration line on Iran, both General David H. Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker focused much of the blame for failures in Iraq on Iran during hearings before Congress held April 8-9, 2008 . They claim Iran has funded, trained and armed militias in Iraq and fueled violence in the country.

In his report to the committees, General David H. Petraeus made the following specific claims against Iran:

“Though a Sadr standdown order resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming, and directing the so-called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.” (page 1)

“Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way, through its lethal support to the Special Groups.” (page 2)

“Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused on the Special Groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Qods Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and Coalition actions in response. (page 4)“External actors, like Iran, could stoke violence within Iraq, and actions by other neighbors could undermine the security situation as well.” (page 5)

“The strategic considerations include recognition that…a failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against Al Qaeda, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the effort to counter malign Iranian influence.” (page 6)

“It clearly is in our national interest to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of Al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq’s borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse, and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies.” (page 6)

Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker also pointed the proverbial finger at Iran. Here are some of his statements:

“A wildcard remains the Sadrist Trend – and whether the Iraqis can continue to drive a wedge between other elements of the Trend and Iranian-supported Special Groups.” (page 6)

“Iran continues to undermine the efforts of the Iraqi government to establish a stable, secure state through the authority and training of criminal militia elements engaged in violence against Iraqi security forces, coalition forces and Iraqi civilians. The extent of Iran’s malign influence was dramatically demonstrated when militia elements armed and trained by Iran clashed with Iraqi government forces in Basrah and Baghdad. (page 12-13)

“And it is not only Al-Qa’ida that would benefit [from a major U.S. departure] -- Iran has said publicly it will fill any vacuum in Iraq, and extremist Shi’a militias would reassert themselves. We saw them try in Basrah and Baghdad two weeks ago. (page 14)

During the question and answer session in SASC, Senators Martinez, Lieberman and Graham also focused their line of questioning on blaming Iran for the events in Basra. Senator Jack Reed pointed out that Iranians are actually supporting all of the various Shi’a groups in Iraq, including the government.

Senator John McCain accused Iran of funding and training AlQaeda during a recent trip to the Middle East. And, during the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing with Petraeus and Crocker, Senator John McCain confused Al Qaeda as Shi'ite rather than Sunni.

In his speech on April 10, President Bush reaffirmed the Petraeus-Crocker claims and lumped Iran with AlQaeda. He stated: “Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran, to hard compromises needed for further political progress.” President Bush also gave Iran an ultimatum, saying “the regime in Tehran has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.”

President Bush concluded his speech by saying “Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran [emphasis added]. If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness. And violent extremists around the world would draw the same dangerous lesson that they did from our retreats in Somalia and Vietnam. This would diminish our nation's standing in the world, and lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.”

However, Middle East experts Juan Cole (University of Michigan) and Gregory Gause (University of Vermont) refuted the Petraeus-Crocker/Bush Administration claims on Iran’s role in Iraq in an article for Salon.com by Gary Kamiya. According to the article:

“In short, the truth about Iraq, which the Bush administration has withheld from the American people, is that Iran and the United States have an alliance of convenience in Iraq. Both support ISCI and Maliki. Iran does give limited support to the nationalist firebrand Sadr, but the significance of that pales in comparison to the two countries' shared interests. The Bush administration has concealed that inconvenient truth and pushed its good guys-bad guys narrative on the American people because that narrative is needed to sell the war.“In a larger sense, both Cole and Gause said it would make no sense for the Iranians to try to destabilize the Maliki regime…In short, Iran wants the status quo -- which is pretty much what the United States wants, too.”

Council on Foreign Relations Senior Fellow Ray Takeyh also discredited claims about Iran’s role in Iraq. According to Takeyh, “Contrary to Washington's presumptions, Iran's achievement of its objectives is not predicated on violence or the insurgency, but on the unfolding democratic process. The overarching Iranian aim is to prevent Iraq from once more emerging as a military or ideological threat…Should the United States transcend its recriminations, it would appreciate that it has many interests in common with Iran in Iraq. Both sides want a stable and cohesive Iraq, and a continuation of its democratic experiment.”

On April 11, WashingtonPost.com Columnist Dan Froomkin outlined other recent statements from the Bush administration on Iran, including Vice President Cheney’s portrayal of Iranian regime in a series of media interviews as apocalyptic zealots who yearn for a nuclear conflagration. Froomkin concludes: “What seems to be a new drumbeat for military action has thus far remained under the radar of the mainstream media. When my colleagues do take notice, I hope they point out that the advocates of a strike against Iran are the same people who enthusiastically advocated the invasion of Iraq, making similarly authoritative-sounding declarations about the uselessness of diplomacy and the easy triumph of military might.”

The Wall Street Journal clearly is not taking Froomkin’s advice. In an April 15 opinion editorial, the WSJ taunts the administration, “So: Iran is contributing to the death of GIs, is arming our enemies in Iraq, and is proceeding to ignore the world by enriching uranium for a nuclear weapon. Is the Bush Administration merely going to slink out of office with that legacy?”

The 12th Imam
Citing controversial and often questioned Middle East scholar Bernard Lewis, Vice President Dick Cheney has also revived claims against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad linking him to apocalyptic beliefs regarding the 12th Imam, also called the hidden imam or the mahdi. In Shi’a Islam, the 12th Imam is believed to be a direct descendant of the Prophet Mohammed who disappeared in the ninth century and will reappear before judgment day to end tyranny and promote justice.

Vice President Cheney contends, “Ahmadinejad is I think a very dangerous man. On the one hand, he has repeatedly stated that he wants to destroy Israel. He also has – is a man who believes in the return of the 12th Imam; and that the highest honor that can befall a man is that he should die a martyr in facilitating the return of the 12th Imam. It's a radical, radical point of view. Bernard Lewis once said, mutual assured destruction in the Soviet-U.S. relationship in the Cold War meant deterrence, but mutual assured destruction with Ahmadinejad is an incentive. You have to be concerned about that.”

Noah Feldman, a Harvard University Law Professor and Adjunct Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, wrote in the New York Times Magazine on Oct. 29, 2006:
“Shiite tradition fills in the picture of the mahdi’s return with an elaborate account of signs that will herald the event, including advance messengers, earthquakes and bloodshed. But belief in redemption — even accompanied by wars and death and the defeat of the infidels — need not translate into a present impulse to create a violent crisis that would precipitate the messianic situation. Like their Jewish counterparts, Shiite religious authorities have traditionally sought to resist speculation about the imminence of a messianic return. Shiite messianic thought is less focused than its messianic Christian counterpart on generating global crisis and letting God sort things out. [Imam Ruhollah] Khomeini himself believed that the mahdi’s advent could be hastened — but by social justice, not by provoking war.

“Rumors, possibly spread by Ahmadinejad’s enemies, have tied him to the outlawed Hojjatiya — a link mistakenly interpreted outside Iran as evidence that he might want to bring back the imam by violence, rather than that he might prefer to wait piously and prepare for the imam’s eventual return on his own schedule. It is of course impossible to gauge the man’s religious sensibilities perfectly. Yet the relative absence of a contemporary Shiite trend to messianic brinkmanship suggests that Ahmadinejad’s recent emphasis on the mahdi may be interpreted more in terms of an attempt to summon Khomeini’s legacy and Iran’s revolutionary moment than as a desperate willingness to bring the nation to the edge of war… So although a renewed Shiite messianism does create some cause for concern about the potential uses of an Iranian bomb — in particular because it suggests that Ahmadinejad may be more a utopian than a realist — it is almost certainly a mistake to anticipate that Iran would use its nuclear power in a way that would provoke large-scale retaliation and assured self-destruction…Ahmadinejad surely understands the consequences of using a nuclear bomb, and Shiite Islam, even in its messianic incarnation, still falls short of inviting nuclear retaliation and engendering collective suicide.”

Furthermore, former Israeli Foreign Minister Shlomo Ben-Ami categorically contends: “Iran is not driven by an obsession to destroy Israel, but by its determination to preserve its regime ... The answer to the Iranian threat is a policy of detente, which would change the Iranian elite’s pattern of conduct.”

Thursday, April 17, 2008

Iran Stuck in the Middle of Partisan Debt Relief Politics

On April 16, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 2634, legislation "to provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United States and the international financial institutions by low-income countries."

During the debate on H.R. 2634, there was a procedural motion to recommit the bill offered by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) that would allow it to include Amendment 994 which states: “Countries that have a business relationship with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program.” However, the Republican motion backfired because the wording in the instructions to motion to recommit also cleared existing conditions that would apply to debt relief, along with previously adopted amendments.

According to Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank (D-MA), whose committee has jurisdiction over the bill, the only way to fix the problem would be through a vote on new bill. In an article on April 17 for CQ Today by Adam Graham-Silverman, Rep. Frank said, “I’m going to invoke the old motto: to the victor goes what he spoiled. This is what happens when you do these things in a hurry because you want to ambush and not do legislating.”

Rep. Frank also called the motion to recommit, which passed 291-130, “mischief.” Proving once again the short-sightedness of U.S. policy towards Iran, Rep. Frank said the motion passed because “people get afraid in an election year of being accused of having helped Iran.”

In addition, there was little debate over which countries the amendment might affect, except for a minute amount spent on Iraq. Rep. Frank noted, “…the Government of Iraq [has] business interests with Iran. I know there are close ties between the Governments of Iraq and Iran. There’s interchangeability.” Rep. Diaz-Barlart reassured Rep. Frank: “It does not affect Iraq.”

Amendments erased by the motion were a tough pill to swallow for Republicans and included one introduced by Rep. Frank on behalf of Republicans to require that countries commit to free elections and fight human trafficking and illegal immigration in the United States (passed 424-0) . Another amendment erased was introduced by Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) would have excluded governments from debt relief not chosen by free elections (passed 382-41). Also, the motion to recommit erased Bush administration supported language that would have required savings from debt relief be applied to poverty reduction and a ban on conditions that could have limited countries’ ability to boost spending on health care or education.

Although the Office of Management and Budget opposed the passage of the bill, it did not include a veto threat in a statement of Bush Administration policy on the legislation. House Financial Services ranking member Spencer Bachus (R-AL) said “I would be stunned if [President Bush] did anything but sign it.” The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is planning a hearing on the companion bill, S. 2166 on April 24.

Update on Iran Provision in House Debt Relief Legislation

The motion to recommit H.R. 2364 was offered by Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) to include Amendment 994 which states: “Countries that have a business relationship with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program.”

In his floor speech, Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart (R-FL) argued: “This motion to recommit is frankly very, very simple. It just states the following, that countries that have a business relationship with Iran are not eligible to be considered under this debt relief program. Now, the underlying bill in front of us today has a very noble goal, Madam Speaker. It is to work comprehensively to ensure that poor countries that have heavy international debt are able to relieve these debts through certain responsible actions. But the question is, should we separate these goals, these noble goals, from our broader foreign policy interests?

Rep. Diaz-Barlart claimed: “The Iranian regime, we all know, has a very active program to acquire weapons of mass destruction, and therefore, it makes it one of the most dangerous regimes in the entire world. In addition, Madam Speaker, as we heard just recently, just last week from General Petraeus, we are increasingly concerned by the Iranian terrorist regime’s efforts on behalf of terrorist elements in Iraq and elsewhere. The lives of our troops are at stake, and any country that assists Iran economically should not benefit from the bill in front of us today.”

“Our country, obviously the United States, does not have diplomatic or financial ties to Iran, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to expect that countries that choose to participate in our debt relief program should shatter whatever economic ties they currently have with that terrorist regime. And if they don’t have them now, if they don’t have those ties now, they clearly should not develop them as long as they want or expect debt relief from us through this program.”

Financial Service Committee Chair Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) engaged in a debate with Rep. Diaz-Barlart and expressed concern that the amendment might affect Iraq. According to Rep. Frank, “You limit eligibility under this program. Iraq might very well owe us money. The question isn’t nuclear weapons. It is, would this prevent Iraq from being eligible, these criteria. And I would hope someone would answer that.”

Rep. Diaz-Barlart responded: “Your bill does not deal with Iraq. It does not affect Iraq.”

Rep. Frank responded back, “…the Government of Iraq have business interests with Iran. I know there are close ties between the Governments of Iraq and Iran. There’s interchangeability.”

The vote to recommit the bill and add the amendment then passed by a vote of 291-130.

Our Dumb World: Things You Probably Don't Know About Iran

If you have some free time and like me, you thrive on satire as escapism or to show off your wonkiness, check out The Onion’s recently launched “Our Dumb World: Atlas of the Planet Earth.”

Here is the country profile for Iran: “With evidence pointing conclusively to Iran either possessing or not possessing nuclear weapons, this Middle Eastern nation could potentially be poised to possibly launch a full-scale attack on the Western world. Perhaps.”

It also has some other great “facts” about Iran I never knew, like that there is a flag burning plant that provides electricity for all of Tabriz and the U.S. state it hates most is Iowa, though no one knows why.

Don’t worry, the Onion is an equally opportunity offender. It says the “U.S. was founded in 1776 on the principles of life, liberty and the reckless pursuit of happiness at any cost – even life and liberty.”

Wednesday, April 16, 2008

Iran Provision Added to Debt Cancellation Legislation

Special thanks to Mark Harrison for sending information. I had no idea Iran would be so central to the debt cancellation debates.

Today, the U.S. House of Representatives voted on H.R. 2634, legislation "to provide for greater responsibility in lending and expanded cancellation of debts owed to the United States and the international financial institutions by low-income countries." There was a motion to recommit the bill back to the Financial Services Committee with instructions to include a provision that no country that has a business relationship with Iran can receive debt cancellation. The motion carried.

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), chair of the Financial Services Committee, later returned to the House floor, to state that the Committee accepted the language. The debt cancellation bill then passed with the Iran language.

I will check Congressional record tomorrow for specific language and post.

Senate hearing: Addressing Iran’s Nuclear Ambitions

On Thursday, April 24, the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security will hold a hearing on "Addressing Iran's Nuclear Ambitions." Witnesses incude:

Panel I

• Mr. Jeffrey Feltman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for NearEastern Affairs, U.S. Department of State
• Ms. Patricia McNerney, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary forInternational Security and Nonproliferation , U.S. Department of State

Panel II

• Graham Allison, Director of the Belfer Center for Science andInternational Affairs and Douglas Dillon Professor of Government,Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government; Former Special Advisor to Secretary of Defense and Former Assistant Secretaryof Defense for Policy and Plans, U.S. Department of Defense
• Ambassador Dennis Ross, Counselor and Ziegler Distinguished Fellow,Washington Institute for Near East Policy; Former Director of U.S. State Department's Office of Policy Planning, U.S. Department of State
• Dr. Jim Walsh, Research Associate, Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology; Former Executive Director of the Managing the Atom Projectat the Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs at HarvardUniversity's John F. Kennedy School of Government
• Mr. Stephen Rademaker, Senior Counsel, Barbour Griffith and Rogers,LLC; Former Assistant Secretary, Bureau of International Security andNonproliferation, U.S. Department of State

Note: I am also posting Iran-related hearings and events on the Campaign for a New American Policy on Iran calendar. More details on this hearing and other events can be found there.

Admiral Mullen Calls for Dialogue with Iran

Special thanks to Bob Dreyfuss for the tip on this.

During an April 15 appearance at the Heritage Foundation, Admiral Michael Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the U.S. should figure out a way to open dialogue with Iran.

Admiral Mullen said Iran "is at the heart of a great deal of discontent and disruption and instability in that part of the world. So I have expectations that Iran will remain front and center certainly for at least the next three to five years.” While he said all options need to be kept on the table, he added, “I am not arguing that that is where the next conflict occurs. And I would hope that in the future we could figure out a way to dialogue with them to figure out a way ahead. We've done that in the past with our enemies. We should be able to do that as well.”

Georgia Passes Divestment Legislation

This passed under the radar as far as any mainstream media is concerned, but on April 2, 2008, the Georgia House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed the “Protecting Georgia’s Investment Act” introduced by state senator Don Balfour (R-Snellville). The bill must now be signed by Georgia governor Sonny Perdue before it becomes law.

The legislation, SB 451, requires boards administering public retirement funds in Georgia to identify all companies making investments in Iran. The bill also defines “scrutinized companies” that have, with actual knowledge, invested $20 million or more in Iran's petroleum sector since 1996.

Senator Balfour touted the bill, “U.S. soldiers are being killed and maimed in Iraq and Afghanistan with IEDs and weapons provided by Iran to terrorists. In my mind, the state of Georgia shouldn't be doing business with companies that are doing business in Iran. It is an unstable, pro-terrorist nation, and we shouldn't be risking our retirement funds there.”

Currently, Georgia has $565,261,350 invested in companies, such as Royal Dutch Shell and Enersis SA, that are actively doing business in Iran. Senator Balfour argues that neighboring state Florida has “successfully enacted similar divestment legislation” and hasn’t “suffered any negative financial consequences.” He added, “I am confident that we won't see any drop in our investments, while at the same time we are sending a clear message, ‘We will not willfully invest in anti-American countries that support terrorist activities.'"

I wonder if Senator Balfour knows that one of the two most consistently present companies in Iran that has manufactured and sold its product there, even during and following the Islamic Revolution, is Coca Cola (the other is Pepsi). While SB 451 won’t really affect Coca Cola’s business in Iran, it’s still worth pointing out that despite this new legislation, Georgia will still continue to have profitable investments in Iran through one of its most reknown companies.

Tuesday, April 15, 2008

President Carter Calls for Direct U.S. Talks with Iran

Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter called on the Bush administration to engage in direct talks with the Iranian regime in order to resolve the issue of Tehran's nuclear program. President Carter said he thought the best option was dialogue with Iran during an interview with Haaretz. He said if he had the opportunity to meet with the U.S. president and the Secretary of State, he would tell them to begin direct talks with the Iranians in order to dispel legitimate concerns. If these talks failed, then it would be necessary to use military force, but this point had still not been reached, Carter said.

Monday, April 14, 2008

Senate Hearing on Foreign Operations Appropriations

Caught up in the Petraeus-Crocker hearing, among other things last week, I missed the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations hearing on the Fiscal Year 2009 budget that was held on April 9.

The U.S. Department of State Summary and Highlights of the Fiscal Year 2009 International Affairs budget request (also known as Function 150) reveals details regarding Iran-related funding in the Economic Support Fund line item. For Fiscal Year 2009, the Statement Department is requesting $65 million in Economic Support Funds for Iran (page 79) to “support the aspirations of the Iranian people for a democratic and open society by promoting civil society, civic participation, media freedom and freedom of information.”

However, Iran did not come up at all in regards to the Economic Support Fund and the only place where Iran appears in Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s prepared testimony is in regards to Lebanon. According to Condi’s prepared testimony:

“For FY 2009, the Department of State has requested $142 million in foreign assistance for Lebanon to support two parallel objectives: countering threats to Lebanon’s sovereignty and security from armed groups backed by Syria and Iran, and helping foster good governance and a vibrant economy… Lebanon remains under siege by a Syrian and Iranian-backed opposition working to undermine the nation’s stability, sovereignty, and state institutions.”

So, if promoting democracy in Iran is such a central approach to the Bush adminitration’s policy towards Iran, why isn’t it in Condi’s testimony? Did any INW readers see anything in the Q&A session?

Resolution on Effectiveness of Sanctions Against Iran

On April 8, 2008, H.R. 5084, originally introduced on January 18, 2008 by Rep. Christopher Shays (R-CT) to require the Secretary of State in conjunction with the Secretary of Treasury, Secretary of Commerce, Secretary of Defense, and the intelligence community to conduct ongoing assessments of the effectiveness of sanctions against Iran, was referred to the House Financial Services Subcommittee on Domestic and International Monetary Policy, Trade, and Technology. The bill will need to pass the other House committees, including: Foreign Affairs; Oversight and Government Reform; Ways and Means; and Agricultural.

Friday, April 11, 2008

MA Divestment Bill Passes Committee

On April 10, 2008, the Committee on State Administration and Regulatory Oversight in the Massachusetts State Legislature held a hearing for H. 4270, which would require the Pension Reserves Investment Management (PRIM) Board to divest from roughly 20 companies that are involved in Iran’s oil and gas initiatives. Supporters of the bill accuse Iran of being a sponsor of terrorism and a threat to the U.S. because of its pursuit of a nuclear program.

According to PRIM officials, the total value of Iran-related investments is $452 million in securities. In written testimony, Stanley Mavromates, CIO of the pension fund, said it would cost $10,000 to $40,000 a year to hire a consultant to maintain an Iran divestment list and $5 million in Iran-related securities sale transaction costs. According to Mavromates, those costs could pay the annual pension benefit for nearly 200 state employees and teachers.

Rep. Denise Provost (D-Somerville) said: “We need constructive engagement. We need to talk to them.”

Jim Walsh said the Legislature was better off passing a non-binding resolution. He said in his testimony, “My own conclusion is that this legislation, while well intended, is unlikely to be effective and will instead create unintended consequences that actually make it more difficult to achieve a successful resolution of the nuclear issue and other issues in the US-Iranian relationship.”

The Committe, which is co-chaired by the bill’s main sponsor, Rep. Antonio Cabral (D-New Bedford) endorsed the bill, with ten members voting for the bill and no one registering opposition. Six U.S. representatives from the Massachusetts delegation have written a letter of support for the bill to House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi.

ISIS Publishes IAEA Nuclear Briefing Notes

The Institute for Science and International Security published notes today from a briefing given in Vienna by Olli Heinonen, the IAEA's Deputy Director General of Safeguards in February 2008 to member states, including Iran.

According to ISIS, the notes were prepared by one of the diplomats attending the briefing and checked among a other delegations. The IAEA has not reviewed these notes and has not supported their dissemination. As a result, they represent an unofficial record of the meeting and may contain inaccuracies. ISIS describes the contents of the notes as follows:

"The notes describe the technical basis for the IAEA's outstanding questions about the scope and direction of Iran's alleged nuclear weaponization studies. Specifically, it describes some of the information contained on a laptop obtained in Iran by an intelligence operation in 2004, as well as additional information provided by IAEA member states to the IAEA more recently. The information presented, which included multimedia files, describes several aspects of what could be nuclear weapons development-instructions on how to communicate internally using first names only, missile re-entry vehicle research including the chronology of events-separation of the missile, loss-of-tracking, switching on of altitude detectors, timing of firing devices-leading to an explosion at an altitude of about 600 meters. The IAEA notes that the altitude described in the documents excludes the possibility that the warhead was designed to accommodate conventional explosives or chemical and biological charges.

The briefing notes also summarize the reactions of Iranian diplomats at the meeting. They insist repeatedly that the allegations are groundless and the documents fabricated."

Click here to read the notes.

President Bush: Iran and AlQaeda Are Two Greatest Threats to America

I recently posted about how Bush administration is once again claiming that Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. Now the administration is also conflating Iran and AlQaeda. I posted key quotes from the Patraeus-Crocker reports to Congress this week in which they blamed Iran for failures in Iraq. In his speech on April 10, President Bush reaffirmed these claims and lumped Iran with AlQaeda. He stated: “Serious and complex challenges remain in Iraq, from the presence of al Qaeda to the destructive influence of Iran, to hard compromises needed for further political progress.” President Bush also gave Iran an ultimatum, saying “the regime in Tehran has a choice to make. It can live in peace with its neighbor, enjoy strong economic and cultural and religious ties. Or it can continue to arm and train and fund illegal militant groups, which are terrorizing the Iraqi people and turning them against Iran. If Iran makes the right choice, America will encourage a peaceful relationship between Iran and Iraq. Iran makes the wrong choice, America will act to protect our interests, and our troops, and our Iraqi partners.”

President Bush concluded his speech by saying “Iraq is the convergence point for two of the greatest threats to America in this new century -- al Qaeda and Iran. If we fail there, al Qaeda would claim a propaganda victory of colossal proportions, and they could gain safe havens in Iraq from which to attack the United States, our friends and our allies. Iran would work to fill the vacuum in Iraq, and our failure would embolden its radical leaders and fuel their ambitions to dominate the region. The Taliban in Afghanistan and al Qaeda in Pakistan would grow in confidence and boldness. And violent extremists around the world would draw the same dangerous lesson that they did from our retreats in Somalia and Vietnam. This would diminish our nation's standing in the world, and lead to massive humanitarian casualties, and increase the threat of another terrorist attack on our homeland.”

“On the other hand, if we succeed in Iraq after all that al Qaeda and Iran have invested there, it would be a historic blow to the global terrorist movement and a severe setback for Iran. It would demonstrate to a watching world that mainstream Arabs reject the ideology of al Qaeda, and mainstream Shia reject the ideology of Iran's radical regime.”

In a special to the WashingtonPost.com, Dan Froomkin outlines recent other statements from the Bush administration on Iran, including Vice President Cheney’s portrayal of Iranian regime this week as apocalyptic zealots who yearn for a nuclear conflagration. He also reviews the record of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s statement regarding Israel, as well as President Bush’s statements about Iran’s nuclear intentions. Froomkin concludes: “What seems to be a new drumbeat for military action has thus far remained under the radar of the mainstream media. When my colleagues do take notice, I hope they point out that the advocates of a strike against Iran are the same people who enthusiastically advocated the invasion of Iraq, making similarly authoritative-sounding declarations about the uselessness of diplomacy and the easy triumph of military might.”

Thursday, April 10, 2008

State Department Highlights Iranian American Scientist

In its weekly email, the State Department is highlighting the work of Babak Amir Parviz, an extremely talented Iranian American researcher on the frontiers of technology. If you're interested in technology and how he is straddling two cultures, this human interest article is certainly worth reading.

Wednesday, April 09, 2008

The Inconvenient Truth About U.S.-Iran Shared Interests in Iraq

In a new opinion article for Salon.com, Gary Kamiya interviews Juan Cole and Gregory Gause (who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on April 3) for their response to the Petraeus-Crocker/Bush Administration claims on Iran’s role in Iraq.

“In short, the truth about Iraq, which the Bush administration has withheld from the American people, is that Iran and the United States have an alliance of convenience in Iraq. Both support ISCI and Maliki. Iran does give limited support to the nationalist firebrand Sadr, but the significance of that pales in comparison to the two countries' shared interests. The Bush administration has concealed that inconvenient truth and pushed its good guys-bad guys narrative on the American people because that narrative is needed to sell the war.

“In a larger sense, both Cole and Gause said it would make no sense for the Iranians to try to destabilize the Maliki regime…In short, Iran wants the status quo -- which is pretty much what the United States wants, too. So why shouldn't the U.S. just work out the most harmonious way of achieving that goal by talking to the Iranians? That, in fact, is just what Gause argued the United States should do in his testimony before Congress. But the Bush administration, in thrall to its neoconservative ideology, will never conduct serious negotiations with Iran. Indeed, it seems to be too ideologically blinkered, or incompetent, even to realize that Iran and the United States have a significant shared interest in Iraq.”

Read the full article for more about claims and recent events in Iraq.

Iran in the Petraeus-Crocker hearings

As expected, Iran received a significant amount of attention at the Petraeus-Crocker hearings in the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and Senate Foreign Relations Committee (SFRC) yesterday.

In his report to the committees, General David H. Petraeus focused much of the blame for failure in Iraq on Iran. Here are specific claims against Iran from Petraeus’ report:

“Though a Sadr standdown order resolved the situation to a degree, the flare-up also highlighted the destructive role Iran has played in funding, training, arming, and directing the so-called Special Groups and generated renewed concern about Iran in the minds of many Iraqi leaders. Unchecked, the Special Groups pose the greatest long-term threat to the viability of a democratic Iraq.” (page 1)

“Iran has fueled the violence in a particularly damaging way, through its lethal support to the Special Groups.” (page 2)

“Together with the Iraqi Security Forces, we have also focused on the Special Groups. These elements are funded, trained, armed, and directed by Iran’s Qods Force, with help from Lebanese Hezbollah. It was these groups that launched Iranian rockets and mortar rounds at Iraq’s seat of government two weeks ago, causing loss of innocent life and fear in the capital, and requiring Iraqi and Coalition actions in response. Iraqi and Coalition leaders have repeatedly noted their desire that Iran live up to promises made by President Ahmedinajad and other senior Iranian leaders to stop their support for the Special Groups. However, nefarious activities by the Qods Force have continued, and Iraqi leaders now clearly recognize the threat they pose to Iraq. We should all watch Iranian actions closely in the weeks and months ahead, as they will show the kind of relationship Iran wishes to have with its neighbor and the character of future Iranian involvement in Iraq.” (page 4)

“External actors, like Iran, could stoke violence within Iraq, and actions by other neighbors could undermine the security situation as well.” (page 5)

“The strategic considerations include recognition that…a failed state in Iraq would pose serious consequences for the greater fight against Al Qaeda, for regional stability, for the already existing humanitarian crisis in Iraq, and for the effort to counter malign Iranian influence.” (page 6)

“It clearly is in our national interest to help Iraq prevent the resurgence of Al Qaeda in the heart of the Arab world, to help Iraq resist Iranian encroachment on its sovereignty, to avoid renewed ethno-sectarian violence that could spill over Iraq’s borders and make the existing refugee crisis even worse, and to enable Iraq to expand its role in the regional and global economies.” (page 6)

Ambassador Ryan C. Crocker also pointed the proverbial finger at Iran. Here are some of his statements:

“A wildcard remains the Sadrist Trend – and whether the Iraqis can continue to drive a wedge between other elements of the Trend and Iranian-supported Special Groups.” (page 6)

“Iran continues to undermine the efforts of the Iraqi government to establish a stable, secure state through the authority and training of criminal militia elements engaged in violence against Iraqi security forces, coalition forces and Iraqi civilians. The extent of Iran’s malign influence was dramatically demonstrated when militia elements armed and trained by Iran clashed with Iraqi government forces in Basrah and Baghdad. When the President announced the Surge, he pledged to seek out and destroy Iranian-supported lethal networks inside Iraq. We know more about these networks and their Quds Force sponsors than ever before – and we will continue to aggressively uproot and destroy them. At the same time, we support constructive relations between Iran and Iraq and are participating in a tripartite process to discuss the security situation in Iraq. Iran has a choice to make.” (page 12-13)

“And it is not only Al-Qa’ida that would benefit [from a major U.S. departure] -- Iran has said publicly it will fill any vacuum in Iraq, and extremist Shi’a militias would reassert themselves. We saw them try in Basrah and Baghdad two weeks ago. And in all of this, the Iraqi people would suffer on a scale far beyond what we have already seen. Spiraling conflict could draw in neighbors with devastating consequences for the region and the world.” (page 14)

During the question and answer session in SASC, Senators Martinez, Lieberman, Graham also focused their line of questioning on blaming Iran for the events in Basra. Senator Jack Reed pointed out that Iranians are actually supporting all of the various Shi’a groups in Iraq, including the government.

In the SFRC hearing, Ambassador Crocker claimed U.S. has conducted a “diplomatic surge.” Senator Chuck Hagel retorted that such claims are thin and a real diplomatic surge would involve Secretary Rice, Secretary Gates or a special envoy reaching out to Iraq’s neighbors to talk not just about Iraq, but also a range of regional issues.

And, of course, one of the other highlights was Senator John McCain once again confusing Sunni and Shi’a.

Tuesday, April 08, 2008

Iran Celebrates National Nuclear Day; Experts Address Iran’s Nuclear Program

Although there was no yellow cake for dessert, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad marked Iran’s National Nuclear Technology Day by announcing that his country has made major progress on their nuclear program. President Ahmadinejad announced that Iran has started installation of some 6,000 new centrifuges and testing a new type of centrifuge that works five times faster. However, claims of progress on the nuclear program have been exaggerated in the past and Iran has had trouble operating the 3,000 centrifuges already in place. President Ahmadinejad's claims of a more advanced centrifuge appear to allude to the IR-2 centrifuge, which Iran announced to the IAEA in January.

Meanwhile, back in the U.S., the National Iranian American Council held a conference on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC that included a panel on the Iranian nuclear issue featuring Dr. Hans Blix, Ambassador Thomas Pickering and David Albright. Yellow cake wasn’t served there either.

Hans Blix said Iran’s nuclear program has led to increased tension in the region. He agrees that the U.S. should hold direct talks with Iran and said it was “curious” to ask Iran to suspend enrichment before entering into talks. Dr. Blix commented that it seems humiliating to make such a precondition and he can see why Iran has not done so. He also pointed out that no deal proposed to Iran has included security guarantees.

Dr. Blix put forward the idea of a Fuel Cycle Free Zone in the Middle East as a first step towards a Nuclear Weapons Free Zone. He also noted the challenges posed by guaranteeing fuel assurances. He underscored the need for Iran to adopt the Additional Protocol.

Ambassador Thomas Pickering explained the ideas behind the recent proposal he put forward along with Ambassador Bill Leurs and Jim Walsh for a multilateral enrichment facility in Iran. Behind their proposal is an underlying belief that the perfect can become the enemy of the good and we are quickly running out of time to resolve the political standoff over the nuclear issue.

In terms of moving forward, Ambassador Pickering said the U.S. should open talks with Iran without preconditions and any or every subject should be put on the table. He noted that the multilateral enrichment facility should be for civilian uses only, that it should based on Iranian technology, but there should be no stockpiling of fuel and no research conducted outside of the confines of the facility. Finally, he noted that Iran can build centrifuges faster than the West can exert pressure. He said that a multilateral enrichment facility could allow for engagement with Iran and allow for wide-range inspection to restore confidence in Iran’s intentions.

David Albright’s began his talk by saying, “unfortunately Iran is never interested in proposals,” followed by “they are moving forward with a nuclear weapons program.”

There have certainly been a number of proposals and counter-proposals between the Europeans and Iranians with many areas of commonality. In past proposals both in European negotiations and the 2003 offer to the United States, Iran has offered: “a ceiling on enrichment” to keep it at low levels;” “approval of the Additional Protocol;” “additional confidence-building measures including on-site, continuous presence of IAEA inspectors;” “commencement of the work at the Isfahan plant at low-capacity and full-scope monitoring;” “presentation of legislation on Peaceful Use of Nuclear Techonology, including Permanent Ban on Production, Stockpiling and Use of Nuclear Weapons to Majlis;” reaffirmation of commitment “to all relevant international instruments on the elimination and nonproliferation of weapons of mass destruction;” and a reaffirmation of commitment “not to pursue nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction under any circumstance.” And these are just the offers on the nuclear program. Iran has also put forward offers to cooperate on nonproliferation; to cooperate on anti-terrorism; to support regional security arrangements; to adopt export controls; to cooperate on drug trafficking; recognition of the state of Israel and stopping support for anti-Israel terrorists. I would also consider Iran’s August 2007 Modality Agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency a proposal that Iran accepted and fulfilled.

Ambassador Pickering put it most aptly when he said there is a saying in diplomacy, “when you’re in a deep hole, you should stop digging.” The U.S. is in a deep hole in regards to Iran. Despite many opportunities since September 11, 2001 to get out of the hole, it has only gotten deeper over the past seven years because of the failure of the U.S. to drop preconditions for negotiations, failure to approach Iran on the nuclear and other issues with respect, failure to offer Iran security guarantees, and failure to take regime change off the table.

The U.S. will never get out of the hole with Iran unless it takes a more comprehensive approach. A major deficit for U.S. policy is lack of expertise on Iran, its psychology and history in policy circles. Rhetorically, Iran certainly does not help itself. But the question posed today is how do we break the political stalemate. There simply can not be forward progress on the nuclear program, in Iraq or on other issues without courageous U.S. diplomatic leadership to engage Iran in sustained, direct negotiations.