Obama switches play on war with Iran

[Jefferson23]

By Kaveh L Afrasiabi

PALO ALTO, California - United States President Barack Obama has contradicted both his defense secretary and head of intelligence by laying a small though significant speed bump ahead of the express train of war on Iran fueled by pro-Israel pundits and politicians in the US.

Whereas Defense Secretary Leon Panetta tacitly conceded that Israel had finalized a plan to attack Iran within the next few months over its disputed nuclear program, Obama stated in a prime time television interview on Sunday that Israel had made no such decision, and simultaneously expressed his preference for a diplomatic solution to fractions with Iran.

Equally important in Obama's five-minute interview, meaningfully inserted in the pre-Super Bowl television coverage watched by
hundreds of millions around the world, was his admission that he did not "see any evidence" that Iran had the "intentions or capabilities" to mount a terror attack on US soil, thus contradicting last week's congressional testimony by James Clapper, head of US intelligence community, who accused Iran of engaging in such terror plots.

Throwing cold water on the war on Iran furnace, Obama has thus sent an important signal to Iran and the rest of the world that shows a more serious commitment on his part to engage in diplomacy with respect to Iran and its nuclear program.

in full: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NB08Ak01.html

[tabatha]

1. That is what I guessed and what I have been saying all along.

There was a segment on Al Jazeera yesterday - I will have to see if I can find the video - that stated that all war games by the Pentagon had shown that the US could not win.

[tabatha]

2. Five reasons why an attack on Iran will not work - Leon Panetta

Please note - these statements were made in December 2011 - which means there has been no change.

[Jefferson23]

4. Thanks for posting this reminder in I/P. n/t

[leveymg]

3. It's harder than ever to distinguish policy from psyops these days. That confusion can blow back.

There aren't many distinct lines left to smudge and obscure in this escalation. Time to take several visible steps back, if that's what this U.S. Administration really wants to do.

[oberliner]

5. Good to hear from a pro-Ahmadinejad representative

Do you support the president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

AFRASIABI: On balance, I do, and I think that he's done a tremendous job in terms of strengthening Iran. Iran today is a regional powerhouse with considerable international influence. He has defended Iran's nuclear right, and he has also made conciliatory gestures towards the United States and has offered to enter into dialogue.

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2009/afrasiabi170609.html

Kaveh L Afrasiabi is the author of the OP.

[Jefferson23]

6. Do you beat your wife?

Your characterization of what he writes about regarding Ahmadinejad
is capsulized in this one interview by CNN..seems you're
portraying him as a bogeyman propping up an evil dictator or
some such premise.

You're funny, I guess you did not appreciate his pointing out your
blogger source for information.

If Iran is all evil and the US/Israel is all good, is a world view you
possess, then good luck.

Anyone interested can check out his other work, it is available online.
He is a political scientist.

Perhaps you can reconcile what he wrote about Obama too, seems
to me he is doing a pretty good job of reading those signals..thus far.

[oberliner]

7. Nope

Look, I just wanted to share a bit about the author. One can read the entire interview at the link if one is interested in getting the full context and some insights into where this person is coming from.

He is not a "bogeyman" or anything of the kind - just someone with a very specific perspective as an Iranian-born American who speaks positively about Ahmadinejad.

If a writer was an Israeli-born American who speaks positively about Netanyahu that would also be relevant to understanding his or her perspective.

I don't believe at all any of the things that you said about countries being all good or all evil - I do think that certain leaders - Ahmadinejad, Bush, Netanyahu among them - are not especially praiseworthy.

[Jefferson23]

8. Imo, you did not write your first response in that vein, not at all.

I think we're done here, except to add, I suggest anyone interested
please read his work for themselves.

[oberliner]

10. One sees what one looks for

It's instructive to know a little bit about the authors of some of these pieces - whether they are supportive of Netanyahu or, in this case, of Ahmadinejad.

There are plenty of otherwise intelligent, well-educated people who fall into one or the other of those two categories.

[Jefferson23]

11. Again, your definition of what is considered support

and what he writes and why are two different realities imo. As I said,
if anyone is interested they can read more of his opinions online.

One sees what one looks for, according to you. I imagine that is a fair characterization
of what compelled you to post 'Iran can destroy Israel in 9 minutes.'

[oberliner]

12. The title of the article is: "Ahmadinejad Supporter Speaks"

I didn't make that up - it's at the link where the quote/interview comes from.

The "Iran can destroy Israel" post was one of the lead stories on Ynet.

It sparked a good and productive series of conversations here.

Unlike some less "provocative" stories that seem to sink unnoticed.

Posted, I might add, by each of us.

[Jefferson23]

13. Yes, via CNN..what a shock.

One of Ynet's lead stories, another shock, lol.

You mean the be afraid, be very afraid lead story of bullshit.

"Not to be outdone by the voices of peace and moderation, no sooner had Obama made his public statements on Iran, when the US media began reporting that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had made a statement that condoned "killing all the Jews" and annihilating the state of Israel.

This news, referring to an article in a non-governmental website in Iran, alef.com, is based on a major distortion of the Farsi article, written by an individual named Forghani, who admits that it reflects his own personal views and not those of the government. Not only that, contrary to reports, nowhere in Forghani's article is there any quotation from the Supreme Leader that directly or indirectly condones killing the Jews in Israel." (end)

[Jefferson23]

9. On U.S. visit, Israel's Lieberman thanks Clinton for resolute stand on Iran

WATCH: Avigdor Lieberman meets with Republican Senator John McCain, after thanking Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for U.S. support of Israel.
By Natasha Mozgovaya

Israel's Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman began a visit to the U.S. on Tuesday, meeting U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee John Kerry and Republican Senator John McCain.

In his meeting with Clinton, Lieberman and the Secretary of State spoke about the deteriorating situation in Syria, developments in Egypt and reconfirmed Israel's commitment to the two-state solution.

Clinton further confirmed the U.S. "unshakable commitment" to the U.S. relationshiop, not only to security, but also "to Israel's democracy."

Lieberman thanked Clinton for the U.S. resolute stand on the Iranian issue, and said that the U.S.'s recent steps, which included tightening sanctions on Iranian banks, send an important message to the region.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/on-u-s-visit-israel-s-lieberman-thanks-clinton-for-resolute-stand-on-iran-1.411591

[azurnoir]

14. more from the article

Another important question is: can Obama sustain the avalanche of negative reactions by the powerful Jewish lobby in the US that is desperately trying to frame the war scenario with Iran into a national issue, in light of a coming debate at the influential Council on Foreign Relations, scheduled for March 1, under the suggestive title "Time to attack Iran?" The council has clearly succumbed to extremist warmongering elements by holding such a "live" debate, instead of providing prudent venues to discuss diplomatic options with Iran, ie, a definite black apostrophe on its record.

Not to be outdone by the voices of peace and moderation, no sooner had Obama made his public statements on Iran, when the US media began reporting that Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei had made a statement that condoned "killing all the Jews" and annihilating the state of Israel.

This news, referring to an article in a non-governmental website in Iran, alef.com, is based on a major distortion of the Farsi article, written by an individual named Forghani, who admits that it reflects his own personal views and not those of the government. Not only that, contrary to reports, nowhere in Forghani's article is there any quotation from the Supreme Leader that directly or indirectly condones killing the Jews in Israel.

Fact is that Iran's Islamic constitution recognizes the Jews as a people of the book and guarantees their constitutional rights, reflected in the parliamentary seats allocated to Iran's small Jewish minority, who enjoy religious freedom.

There was a thread run on DU based on the YNet article touting Forghan's claims

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4185497,00.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/11344429

the real question boils down to if Israel unilaterally decides to attack Iran, will political pressures such as those noted force the US to act as an accomplice expending American money and quite likely lives in the bargain?

[Jefferson23]

15. Report: U.S. believes Israel sees Iran nuclear problem 'too narrowly'

A New York Times report says Obama administration see approach of Defense Minister Ehud Barak for stopping the Iranian program as 'too narrow.'

By Barak Ravid

Differences between Israel and the U.S. over Iran are currently focused on what Defense Minister Ehud Barak has coined the “zone of immunity” of Iran’s nuclear program, the New York Times reported on Thursday.

The White House and the U.S. administration in general do not agree with Barak’s use of the term, and even see it as “too narrow,” the New York Times said.

U.S. officials told the newspaper that, as opposed to Barak, Prime Minister Netanyahu does not use the term “zone of immunity,” at least not in public.

The newspaper reported that one official thought that Netanyahu's remarks recently that Israeli officials should “shut up” about Iran was a welcome move.

"I think that’s good advice,” one of the American officials told the New York Times.

According to the report, the phone conversation between President Barack Obama and Netanyahu last month was intended to help the U.S. understand Israel’s position regarding an attack on Iran. During the conversation Obama tried to give Netanyahu arguments against a strike on Iran at this time.

U.S. officials said that the feeling in the Obama administration after the conversations was Netanyahu was willing to see whether sanctions and other steps would work, the newspaper said.

What are your thoughts on this issue? Follow Haaretz.com on Facebook and share your views.

American officials said that tensions between Israel and the U.S. have also increased regarding the Palestinians, and particularly regarding the question of the West Bank settlements.

President Obama ordered U.S. government officials not to allow the topic to enter talks with Israel over Iran, and to carry out talks over Iran’s nuclear program “without politics.” Obama will continue to discuss the topic with Netanyahu during his visit to Washington at the beginning of March.

U.S. government officials added that after a period in which the U.S. had doubts over Israel’s intentions at the end of 2011, the two sides are currently communicating better over the matter. According to U.S. officials, Obama’s interview with NBC a few days ago was a recognition of this. In the interview, Obama said that he does not think that Israel has already decided whether or not to attack Iran.

According to the New York Times, the U.S. and Israel are carrying out intense talks over when Iran’s nuclear program will enter the so-called “zone of immunity,” and whether this situation can even become a reality.

American officials claim that the term is “ill-defined” and that they are frustrated that Israel sees the problem “too narrowly,” especially in light of the evidence that sanctions are having an impact on Iran. The Americans are sure that there are many more ways to damage the Iranian nuclear program than to carry out a military strike.

in full: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/report-u-s-believes-israel-sees-iran-nuclear-problem-too-narrowly-1.411887