Obama Appeasing Iran?

The Iran Deal has been litigated to death; mostly on social media, but also in the media. Recently, Politico published a new article by Josh Meyer with new allegations about the Obama administration appeasing Iran via lenience towards Hezbollah. The article is long, but can be summed up as such: the DEA had a task force targeting Hezbollah's drug trafficking operation and related activities and there was an unwritten order from the top down (the author insinuates from the very top) to let Hezbollah off the hook as the possibility of a deal with Iran was of greater concern.

As expected, this has led to the usual suspects re-litigating the Iran Deal, and, per usual, the ratio of substantive commentary to ad hominem attacks is unfavorable. This is not worth spending much time on, as the quality of arguments from both sides tend to be limited, though it should be noted that the allegedly mighty "echo chamber" has chimed in vociferously against their usual opponents.

As I noted in the past, the "echo chamber", portrayed by the right as a well-oiled and effective machine, was most active during a period when support for the Iran Deal dropped by 50%. The focus, unfortunately, has been based on the usual tired tropes rather than anything substantive.

One argument worth mentioning is from Ilan Goldenberg. A former Obama official and pro-JCPOA intellectual, he asked Meyer a simple question: 'do you have any proof that any of this is explicitly because of the Iran Deal'. Goldenberg acknowledges flaws in the Obama approach to Iran, and that Meyer's background investigative work is great, but points to this failure to produce anything explicitly linking the two. Meyer has not yet responded.

There is in fact evidence that Obama's administration appeased Iran specifically because of the Iran Deal negotiations. We have it on the record that Secretary of State John Kerry and/or President Obama himself blocked the release of the updated Iran 1951-1954 Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) up until the inauguration of President Trump in January 2017 (it was then discreetly released in the summer) The belief is that the ongoing nuclear negotiations were sensitive and releasing more information on the 1953 coup in Iran which the United States, Britain, and various Iranians were involved in, would be a literal deal breaker. For whatever reason this appeasement continued years after the deal was signed.

While it is unclear how far the administration went to facilitate the deal, how much leeway they gave Iran, Hezbollah, and Iran's other proxies, there is at the moment, little substantial and attributable evidence of appeasement aside from the FRUS incident.

New CIA/State Department Docs on the 1953 Iran Coup (Part 7)

This is part 7 of my series on the new CIA and State Department docs on the 1953 Iran Coup. 

So many questions still remain about the successful and unsuccessful Iranian coups in August, 1953. Many of them may never be answered, including the curious question why John Kerry's State Department delayed the release of the updated FRUS collection.

It has been established that Kerry himself, heavily involved in the Iran nuclear talks, was vehemently opposed to the release, even up to the inauguration of President Trump. President Obama may have also been involved, but this isn't clear from the record.

In 2014 the delay was credited to the sensitivity of the ongoing nuclear talks, yet through 2017, almost two years after the nuclear agreement was finalized, they still worked to keep it from being released. What were they concerned about?

Others have theorized that this was because of the hidden British role in the 1953 coup attempts, or perhaps details over the United States role. I have argued that this doesn't make sense as (despite the reporting on this release) the role of the United States, and the UK has been well-known for decades. Two different American presidencies admitted a role (Clinton, and Obama), and the CIA formally acknowledged its role in 2013.

I asked:

What would be more infuriating for the regime, to show that the US was involved (which is what they are already furious about), or that major regime figures, or their direct influences played a role in fomenting the coup?

As the evidence shows, the role of Ayatollah Kashani, was exactly as I theorized, and perhaps even more damning than I expected. His work collaborating with key coup figures like Zahedi, encouraging quietist clerics to back the Shah, working to make his own coup as early as September 1952, hints that this is what Kerry (and Obama?) hoped to keep hidden from the Iranian public. There was backlash on Twitter especially from Iranian reformists who tweeted about the "Kashani Coup", demanding removing his name from a Tehrani street.

Others may still argue that the details of role of the United States and Britain are the reason why Kerry was so concerned about the release. However, the documents are still classified in key points, so these details are obscured. Additionally, the declassification review was completed in 2014, so there were no changes made to this latest edition. It would not have been the case that Kerry personally went in and classified British or American involvement in the coup.

Did Kerry not know what was in the documents? Was he mistaken in thinking parts that remain classified were to be released? Or was he protecting the Iranian regime, trying to keep them from being insulted by proving a direct connection to the coup which the regime and its apologists point to as the source of Iranian/American animosity?

There will be a part 8 and probably 9, but they won't happen until I thoroughly read sections 1, 2 and 4. 

Why Obama was Right to Delay Action on Syria

After President Obama spoke today in the Rose Garden announcing that his decision to take the matter of a possible Syrian intervention to the US Congress the reactions I saw on the television and on Twitter were mostly negative. The President has been criticized heavily on his foreign policy in recent years, especially on matters pertaining to the Middle East, and for many, this was further proof of his lack of leadership, and even worse, lack of a spine. Many military types rightly pointed out that by threatening force, and continually delaying, Assad and his military are able to prepare for the possible strikes. This is true, but the military aspect is only a part of the political decision-making process.

I have long been in favor of an active role in intervening in Syria. I believe that a head of state that willingly kills civilians and insurgents indiscriminately on a large scale for a continuing period of time, without any real attempts to verbally engage and resolve differences, must be punished and in extreme cases, removed from power. 'President' Assad, certainly is an extreme case. 

President Obama's decision to 'telegraph' his war plans, before suspending them seem strange at first, but looking deeper, I think that this is a very good political move. The Obama administration has been heavily criticized for many civil rights issues ranging from drone warfare and detention of non-combatant prisoners to privacy violations by way of the NSA. One of the arguments against Obama is that there is not enough transparency (therefore people do not have enough say in, and understanding of what the government does). The release of a declassified intelligence report on what the United States Intelligence Community believes happened on August 21, 2013 in East Ghouta is a step towards addressing the unhappiness of the American people in this regard. 

Obama's decision to task Congress is advantageous for the administration for many ways. Congress has been an obstinate thorn in Obama's side for the last 5 years, attempting to undercut and undermine his every move (or lack thereof). Even though Congress's approval rating is the lowest it has been in years, they are still elected representatives of the American people and in theory, a more 'democratic' apparatus than an executive decision by one man. By passing the responsibility on to Congress, Obama is able to deflect the attention from himself. The way in which both he and Secretary of State Kerry have reiterated the allegations against Assad's usage of chemical weapons makes it clear that they both believe that military action must be taken. In many cases this should be a slam dunk, an easy decision to make. However, with the difficulties and financial expenses of interventions in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya still on the mind of the American voter and taxpayer, public support for an intervention in Syria is very lower. Before the Ghouta Massacre, support from Americans was as low as 9%. 

Despite the very low support in the earlier poll, a new poll has shown a sharp increase; 42% support 'military action against the Syrian government in response to the use of chemical weapons' (50% opposed and 8% were undecided). When the military action is 'limited to air strikes using cruise missiles launched from U.S. navy ships that were meant to destroy military units and infrastructure that have been used to carry out chemical attacks' a plurality of 50% supported this action (44% oppose and 6% were undecided). Nearly 60% of respondents indicated that they believe use of chemical weapons is a 'red line' which requires a 'significant U.S. response, including the possibility of military action'. A similar number believed that the most important objective of military action in Syria would be to stop the use of chemical weapons. What is most surprising about this poll is that a full 79% thought that President Obama should be required to receive approval from Congress before taking military action in Syria. 

The poll numbers show a clear increase in support for military action against Syria, but it is not a majority, and given Obama's other domestic troubles and the looming debt crisis, it makes a lot of sense to listen to the will of the people. This way, if Congress again proves to be unwilling be more than sticks in the mud, Obama can say that he tried to listen to the American people. If Obama does take military action after Congress says no (which he said he believes he legally can do), then Obama shows his spine and his willingness to make a tough choice. If Congress says yes, then Obama is able to say that he was right in wishing to intervene militarily, and also that he was willing to listen to Congress and act in a bipartisan manner for the good of the country. 

Support for strikes against Syria are not popular in several key allied countries around the world. The UK's House of Commons voted against authorizing military force, and Germany, Canada and Poland stated that they would not participate in aggressive action against Assad's regime. The United States has unilaterally used military force to the discontent of many around the world. The rush to war in Iraq 2003 is a prime example of where the intelligence was wrong and going around the United Nations did not help the United States' standing abroad. By delaying until more intelligence is gathered, and more debate is held, this administration hedges its own bet on the non-confirmation of Assad's culpability in the chemical attack. If further evidence is produced which exonerates or convicts Assad, then this stall for time will look to have been a wise decision. 

Assad has now been able to disperse and prepare his troops for a looming strike which is not good if the intention is solely to damage his military. However, this is a slightly unrealistic point of view as the goal of an intervention is (or at least should be) not to destroy the army of Assad and create even further instability, but to punish the use of chemical weapons. No matter when the US strikes (if it chooses to do so), the military power of Assad's forces are weaker by order of magnitudes in comparison to the US. We have to be honest in accepting the fact that we are not out there to destroy Assad's army, and forcibly taking his chemical weapons would require troops to physically secure sites. This is an unrealistic goal. What is more feasible is heavily damaging Assad's air force, air defense, and if possible, chemical weapons delivery systems. This leaves him vulnerable to further air strikes (by the West or Israel) and avoids committing the US and its allies to a lasting presence.

So it is my belief that Obama has made the correct choice in this situation. I would love it if the United States and its allies were able to destroy all of Assad's forces and his properties but this is an unreasonable expectation. A series of strikes, especially on airfields, would damage the Assad regime's ability to conduct war and show the world that using chemical weapons is unacceptable. This decision must not be rushed towards, and Obama's delay allows time to think, among other things.

Obama in Israel

Recently I returned from Israel after spending nearly 2 and a half years studying for my Masters degree at Tel Aviv University. Tel Aviv is a fairly liberal city, with bars and clubs, beaches and cafes, and even a few museums and art galleries. It is also a young and lively place, where people are often friendly and willing to engage anyone. This can be a blessing and a curse as one can imagine. Politics is often something that arises in conversation, and Israelis rarely mince their words on this subject. 

Throughout my 2+ years in Israel, I rarely heard anything positive about Obama. Even in Tel Aviv there were not many kind words for him. Some told me that they didn't particularly care for him, but also didn't dislike him. People would tell me that Obama liked Palestinians and not Israelis, that his speech in 2009 in Cairo was the worst thing he could have done as a president, that he did not give enough money to Israel. A taxi driver I had emphatically told me that he did not like Obama because Obama was a Muslim. I asked him why he said that Obama was not a Christian, and his reply was a dismissive "everyone knows this". 

In the build up to the US Presidential election of 2012 I was exposed to even more anti-Obama rhetoric. "He is not good for Israel", "He is trying to appease the Iranians like Chamberlain did to Hitler", "He insulted Bibi because he hates Israel". This went on and on, usually without any real justification or facts as support. 

Today I woke up to glowing praise from all sides of the Israeli political spectrum (with the possible exception of the pro-settler crowd) for Obama and his speech. Even the right-wing Ynet (English version of Yediot Aharonot) had some nice things to say about Obama. The Jerusalem Post (center-right), the Times of Israel (center), and Haaretz (left) all had positive articles about what Obama said. 

From the guy who "threw Israel under the bus" to this, it is pretty impressive that a speech can make such a difference. I would be interested to see if some of the people who I spoke to and had such negative opinions of Obama have changed their minds at all.

Update 1:
Israel National News (Pro-settler and based in the West Bank settlement of Beit El) has released this article where Obama is called a "true friend of Israel" by multiple members of the religious-Zionist HaBayit HaYehudit (Jewish Home) so it appears as though Obama has won over every significant political group in Israel, the exception being Shas (Ultra-Orthodox Sephardic political party).

Update 2:
Times of Israel has a poll showing that 39% of Israelis changed their minds towards Obama in a positive way.