Iranian military threats provide fodder for US/Israel Iran hawks

Apologies for the lengthy absence. Work has been very busy and I hope to have a more substantial post up soon, but for now this will have to do.

There have been quite a few strange stories coming involving Iran over the last few weeks. First there was the gem of a story involving Edward Snowden, Nazis, and space aliens, and now we have another pair of ridiculous bellicose statements coming from Iran. 

Evidently Supreme Leader Khamenei decided that now is as good a time as any to try and get the attention of the West and to demonstrate the power of Iran's navy by sending several ships towards the Atlantic Ocean. Iranian State TV on Friday aired a simulated video of an Iranian counterattack on Tel Aviv, Haifa and Dimona following a hypothetical strike by Israel and/or the United States. So what is to be made of these events?

Other than the typical attempts to gain regional or global attention/recognition, the timing of this is interesting as it comes just after the failed attempt by Iran hawks in the Senate to force another sanctions bill through. Khamenei and the regime are likely emboldened by this, and see an opportunity to exploit an advantageous situation. Because serious nuclear negotiations are ongoing, this provides a perfect opportunity to appease the Supreme Leader's arch-conservative base. Iran by now has realized that the United States is in fact serious about negotiations, and that this can be utilized to the regime's advantage. While in the future Iran may become a world naval power (I would bet my life on this never happening), this looks to be another meaningless gesture, not unlike the claim that Iran was about to build nuclear powered submarines. The computer simulation should be treated the same way, although the real-life capabilities of Iranian missiles and rockets are certainly much more threatening than a few ships floating around the Atlantic Ocean.

Unfortunately, hawks in both Israel and the United States are undoubtedly going to point to these instances as 'proof' that nuclear negotiations are disingenuous. On the bright side, it looks as though this is once again nothing more than a bit of clever politics by the Iranian leader. 

UPDATE: as this EA Worldview post shows, the flotilla was and continues to be a non-story 

Fars News publishes a crazy story

Truly a mystery how the Fars editorial staff didn't catch/stop this thing before it was published

Credit to Alex Zeldin and Ali M. Haider for bringing this to my attention.

Anyway here is the link: http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.aspx?nn=13921021000393

Here are 3 screenshots I took of the article in case/when the article is pulled

Is Corruption in Iran finally being addressed?

The arrest of Babak Zanjani is a significant event in Iran. Corruption in Iran is understood to be rampant; figures as significant as former Presidents Ahmadi Nezhad and Hashemi Rafsanjani have been accused of abusing their authority for financial and/or nepotistic reasons. In-fighting and factionalization in Iran is also a problem, with the various groups at odds with each other. If someone like Zanjani who allegedly has been instrumental in helping the Islamic Republic avoid US/EU sanctions has now fallen out of favor, one must wonder why this would happen now before the nuclear agreement between the P5+1 and Iran has not yet been applied? 

The sanctions relief scheduled to implemented under the new nuclear agreement has not started yet. One would think that someone who has supposedly been so important to the Islamic Republic's efforts in limiting the bite of international sanctions would not be thrown in jail, especially not at this stage. Was the alleged corruption so significant that Iran's government and economy would be better off without such an important businessman? Is this a sign that there will be efforts aimed at reducing corruption in Iran, or is this a personal vendetta or domestic political squabbling? President Rouhani is close to former President Hashemi Rafsanjani, who also has been accused of corruption amongst other criminal acts. Will Rafsanjani also be investigated for corruption or will his ties to the President exempt him?

Babak Zanjani's arrest is interesting and it remains to be seen if this is the first step towards a genuine attempt to eliminate corruption or if this is just political witch hunt like what happened to Russian oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky. I hope that this will be a step towards stopping corruption, and that Setad, the case exposed by Reuters, as well as any other abusers of the system will also be subject to investigation.

Article for Enduring America

I wrote an article on the parallels of the 1950s Iranian Oil Crisis and the current Iranian nuclear negotiations. It can be accessed here:

 http://eaworldview.com/2013/12/op-ed-can-us-iran-2013-overcome-legacy-us-iran-1953/

Israel/Palestine and Mandela

I wrote this for my local paper following a series of negative, thoughtless op-eds by a variety of local citizens. Unfortunately they decided to not publish this, which is too bad since it is something which more people should be paying attention to. It would have been much longer but there is a 200 word limit so this is what I was left with:

"What never ceases to amaze me in the submissions of 'Let the Public Speak' regarding Israel/Palestine is the lack of sensitivity to others and the repeated usage of inaccurate propagandistic buzzwords best suited to the state-sponsored news media of a Third World dictatorship. 

It is foolish to deny that Israel has continued to build in a manner internationally recognized as illegal, while also detaining minors and treating Palestinians poorly. It is foolish to deny that violent terrorist acts have been and continue to be perpetrated by Palestinians and their sympathizers. 

The recent passing of Nelson Mandela, a man who initially used violent resistance before transitioning to more peaceful means should be a reminder of the possibility of solving seemingly intractable quandaries. The success of the South African Truth and Reconciliation Committee show that the path to reconciliation is not through forced capitulation, but dialogue. The vitriolic hate I see in the Press Democrat, the flagship paper of one of the most liberal places in the US, is discouraging. It is important to be self-critical, and to understand WHY someone else has a different point of view. Calling names and slinging mud never brought anyone closer to a peaceful resolution."

UPDATE: They actually did publish it today

Iran and the 'Right to Enrichment'

Negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 have apparently progressed well, but have left a few key points of contention. Apparently Iran wishes the West to acknowledge its 'right to enrich'. However, Iran's belief that every country has this right is not something the West appears willing to recognize. 

The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) bears NO explicit mention of enrichment. It does contain some parts such as Article IV which declare an 'inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with Articles I and II of this treaty.' What is clear from this is that nuclear energy is considered to be a universal right. However 'conformity' with other articles is also demanded (Article III is NOT listed in Article IV, although according to Mark Fitzpatrick of IISS, 'The 2000 NPT Review Conference Final Document affirmed that this conditionality also applies to Article III, which sets out the obligation to accept safeguards applied by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)'). 

The IAEA is designated as the controller of safeguards and the one ultimately responsible for regulating this treaty. Iran was found in non-compliance with its IAEA safeguards agreement (designated in Article III of the NPT) on 24 September 2005, and continues to be, although the most recent IAEA statement is optimistic and hints that the IAEA's worries may soon be addressed fully. 

So why does Iran insist on the West recognizing its 'right to enrichment'? If enrichment was something clearly designated in the text of the NPT, this demand would be unnecessary and redundant. It is also not necessary for countries with nuclear power plants to also have domestic enrichment (there are 19 countries that have nuclear power plants yet do not have domestic enrichment). It makes sense for Iran to be suspicious of the West and its motives; the prejudices and ill-will are long documented. So is a recognition of Iran's 'right to enrichment' necessary, and in what circumstances is this right valid or invalid?

In my opinion, Iran's demand is stubborn and unnecessary. They are asking for something additional, while the IAEA, (the ultimate nuclear authority) has continually ruled that Iran has still yet to prove beyond a doubt that its nuclear program is purely peaceful (the IAEA has also not found any solid evidence that the nuclear program has military dimensions, so Iran has not 'violated' the NPT). Even if Iran were to return to full compliance with the IAEA, which would confirm their 'inalienable right', what is the purpose of the West stating that Iran has a 'right to enrich'? This would create a precedent where the words of the West may carry just as much if not more weight than the IAEA. This undermines the authority of the IAEA and potentially limits its mandate. It would make sense for the United States and the West to state that any state found in compliance with their IAEA safeguards agreement has the right to enrichment, but at this point it is redundant and possibly detrimental. 

I would urge Iran to drop this unnecessary demand, and instead focus on returning to compliance with the IAEA so that they would have a legal case against the West if efforts are made to prevent Iran from accessing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. At this point Iran is not in a good position legally because of the past 8 years of non-compliance. If the worries of the IAEA are assuaged, then Iran's access to nuclear energy can continue unimpeded, following the statute of the NPT. If Iran really wishes there to be an explicitly recognized 'right to enrichment', Article VIII of the NPT allows any signatory to propose amendments. Why not just do this? This is acting completely within the legal limits of the treaty, not going around it or trying to exploit a loophole.

P.S. Some lawyers argue that the IAEA is given more power than it should have, or that its actions are excessive or inappropriate in some way. However, the fact remains, Iran has signed the NPT which designates the IAEA as the authority, so they are subject to these laws. Also the IAEA's demand to prove that Iran's nuclear program is not weapons-related is a bit of a problem because it is very difficult to prove something like this without surrendering sovereignty, but again Iran signed the NPT so they are subject to its rules.

IISS's (International Institute for Strategic Studies) Mark Fitzpatrick has a comprehensive detailing of the NPT and Iran's 'right to enrichment' here: http://www.iiss.org/en/iiss%20voices/blogsections/iiss-voices-2013-1e35/november-2013-1d99/iran-enrichment-6342

One of the worst articles on Iran ever.

I often disagree with some aspect of the articles I read about Iran. Usually it is something minor, and occasionally it is an entire argument that I disagree with. These arguments are opinion based, and use facts to back up their opinions, so while my disagreement is there, it is often a matter of opinion. So when I today encountered a truly remarkably terrible article I felt compelled to comment on and refute it in its entirety.

Micah Halpern's HuffPo piece, 'Where is the Ayatollah' is one of those terrible articles clearly written by an amateur with little understanding of the past or present. Thankfully it was a short article so my face was not permanently contorted into a horrible grimace by the experience. 

I will now take Halpern's claims and destroy them: 

1) 'Rafsanjani is believed to be a reformer and as such, he could really create change'

No. Rafsanjani is not, was not, and will not be a reformer. He has long been what we call a 'pragmatist', someone who works within the system to create solutions that are not necessarily based on an ideology. Reformists connect him to the horrific crimes of his office (while president and in previous roles as well) towards the more liberal parts of the Iranian population. In the run up to the recent presidential elections where the most moderate candidate remaining at the end won (Rouhani), there was some doubt that the wave of reformist and moderate voices would embrace Rouhani because of his close ties to Rafsanjani.

Conclusion: Implying that Rafsanjani is a reformer is stupid, and speculating based on a miserably failed understanding of reality is even stupider. -2 points for Mr Halpern.

2) 'He is extremely well qualified to be the Supreme Leader, even more qualified than Khamenei in terms of his level of learning and academic standing'

The favored replacement for Ayatollah Khomeini in the 80s was a man named Hussein-Ali Montazeri. He was the highest ranking Shi'a mujtahid to support Khomeini's idea of Velayat-e Faqih (others who would have outranked him—albeit not by a lot—such as Morteza Mottahari, were assassinated during the revolutionary period). Montazeri became more liberal during the Iran-Iraq war, especially in regards to the civil rights violations he saw being perpetrated by the regime and publicly stated his opposition. Montazeri was a principled man but had very little political acumen. Montazeri was also responsible for 'exporting the revolution', a similar role to what the Qods Force plays today, although less militant by nature. The brother of Montazeri son-in-law, Mehdi Hashemi was in charge of this office and was executed for revealing RAFSANJANI's role in Iran-Contra (hint: it was major). Montazeri took this, amongst other actions against him very personally. Long story short, Montazeri was removed from his position as deputy Supreme Leader, leaving Khomeini's ideology in trouble. It previously had been stated that the Faqih must be the most educated (see Khomeini's Islamic Government for more on this), but because the 2nd most educated (not counting other Shi'a clerics in other countries which were and continue to be nearly universally opposed to the idea), the replacement, was in opposition to the regime, they had to make changes. Khomeini eventually changed the constitution so that the Faqih no longer needed to be the most educated, highest-ranking mujtahid which allowed Khamenei, who was a relatively low ranking Hojjat-o-Eslam prior to this, to take over. At the time there was speculation in the West that because there was not a viable replacement, that Iran may decide to have a council of Supreme Leaders (I read this article in a 25 year old magazine during my MA but I cannot find it online anywhere). Khamenei was the President of Iran at the time, but he was by no means the most senior cleric. There was also a Prime Minister at this point, a position with more power than the Presidency, which had been occupied by more moderate and liberal people such as Mehdi Bazargan (since exiled) and Mir-Hossein Mousavi (who has been under house arrest for years following his Green Movement protests), but this position was removed in a joint effort of Khamenei and Rafsanjani. The two of them then swapped when Rafsanjani pushed Khamenei as the candidate for Supreme Leader, and Rafsanjani took the presidency. 

Conclusion: While religious qualifications have some connection to the office of the Supreme Leader, implying this is the sole criteria is foolish and uninformed. Halpern also does not mention the fact that Rafsanjani was removed from his position as the chairman of the Assembly of Experts in 2011, the legislative body tasked with overseeing the Supreme Leader. -2 points for Mr. Halpern.

3) 'The friendship never suffered over the fact that they have starkly contrasting visions of the way Islam should play out in the Islamic Republic.'

Probably not the case. I am unfamiliar with the details of the personal relationship between the two figures, as are most Westerners, but it is safe to say that today they are not the most friendly. The Rafsanjani family has been heavily persecuted since 2009 and Rafsanjani's decision to lend some support to the Green Movement (which has since increased). Rafsanjani's children have been arrested, beaten, jailed etc. as I wrote here on my blog . The idea that they would remain friends despite the state-sponsored abuse of the family is beyond ridiculous. Also see my conclusion for #2, where Rafsanjani was removed from his chairmanship. If this is not evidence of a break in friendship I do not know what is...Max Fisher wrote a blog on the 'tumultuous' relationship of the two. 

Conclusion: They do have 'starkly contrasting visions of the way Islam should play out in the Islamic Republic', but saying the friendship never suffered is a bit of a leap. .5 points for Mr Halpern for almost not being wrong

4) 'After the reports of Syria gassing its own citizens Rafsanjani made the following statement: "A government that uses chemical bombs against it people, will face hard consequences, just like Saddam, who earned eternal shame in the bombing of Halabja and suffered such a horrible fate."'

Not only is this completely unrelated to the surrounding paragraphs, it is completely irrelevant. Iranians are rightfully very sensitive to the use of chemical weapons because of the extensive use by Iraq on Iranian soldiers and civilians during the Iran-Iraq War. At the time of this quote from Rafsanjani the prevailing claim among non-Western powers was that Syrian rebels had used the chemical weapons so this made complete sense.

Conclusion: Terrible organization and taking something out of context. -1 points for Mr. Halpern for not doing his homework.

5) When he announced that he was running for president in the 2013 election, a position he was elected to twice already, he was disqualified for two reasons. He was over the maximum age and he had supported protestors on the street during the Green Revolution.

There is no maximum age for the office of president. Read the constitution, it clearly says nothing about this. The GIVEN reason by the Guardian Council for excluding him was his age, despite the fact that many members of the Guardian Council is significantly older than Mr. Rafsanjani and the Guardian Council's term is 6 years which is longer than the 4 year term of the presidency. Lastly, Rafsanjani's support of the Green Revolution was also not as clearcut as Mr. Halpern stated. 

Conclusion: Being almost right on Rafsanjani and the Green Movement (calling it the Green Revolution is another negative for Mr. Halpern) results in -.5 points for Mr Halpern

6) 'In a fascinating move, Khomeini's daughter sent a letter to the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei and then even published it in May 2013 asking the Supreme Leader to overrule the committee and let Rafsanjani run.'

Some of Khomeini's children and grandchildren are relatively liberal, and while this is true, it is again taken out of context by Mr. Halpern

Conclusion: A half truth reduced by context. A generous .5 points for Mr. Halpern

7) 'Why has the Supreme Leader, the Grand Ayatollah Khamenei not been seen in public of late, I am not about to speculate.'

The entirety of Mr. Halpern's article is full of untruths and things taken out of context, it would be just as useful for him to speculate as it is for him to put pen to page (or finger to keyboard)

Conclusion: Do I need a reason? -1 points for Mr. Halpern

FINAL CONCLUSION: Do not read this article. It is terrible and the author should be ashamed. HuffPo should be ashamed for publishing it, as should its entire staff for being associated with this. I am sure that there is something else I missed in the article that is terrible, but frankly it is not worth my time to identify and critique it.

P.S. Another bit which Mr. Halpern did not mention at all: Khamenei's arm has been paralyzed since a failed assassination attempt in 1981, his health has also been in question several times as the CableGate affair demonstrated. It 'fits' into the context of the article, why was this ignored? -1 points for Mr. Halpern

Running total: 1) -2, 2) -4, 3) -3.5, 4) -4.5, 5), -5, 6) -4.5, 7) -5.5 and a bonus -1 reaching a total of -6.5. Truly an embarrassing work.