The prophecy is more than seeing into the future. For the prophecy sees without the element of time. For the prophecy sees things as they were, as they are, and as they always shall be.
I
am in favor of a negotiated agreement that will keep Iran at least a
year away from a nuclear weapon in part because, in the post-Holocaust
era, it is crucially important to keep such weapons out of the hands of
those who promise to do Jews real harm. As I’ve written, it is not
likely that Iran would launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Israel, but
it would almost certainly redouble, under the protection of a nuclear
umbrella, its work toward Israel’s eradication, with disastrous
consequences. (We’ll have the argument over whether the agreement now
taking shape is the best possible deal in another post. Suffice it to
say that the parameters of the current, still-unfinished deal are cause
for some worry.)
Netanyahu’s
deployment of the Holocaust to make his case against Iran (and against
the current deal) is controversial. There are many aspects of
Netanyahu’s approach I find disagreeable and counterproductive(most,
actually), but an Israeli prime minister who does not recognize that
extinction-level threats directed at Jews have sometimes been more than
aspirational is not fulfilling his responsibilities.
(For
a recent example of an argument about the putative dangers of casting
the Holocaust in political, cautionary terms, please see this post from
my colleague James Fallows, who quotes an unnamed history professor at
at a university in the Southwest arguing, in essence, that the Holocaust
was so terrible and enormous that we should resist the urge to learn
from it: “The constant reiteration of this particular event achieves
little more than dumbing down the discourse: it’s the historical
equivalent of hollering.” The professor goes on to write, “To paraphrase
Levi-Strauss, the Holocaust is not particularly good to think with. Its
extremity serves as a bludgeon.” This argument is unwise and unfair;
just imagine the same argument in a specifically American historical
context: Slavery was so terrible, and so extreme, that we shouldn’t talk
about it in the context of politics, because someone is bound to use it
as a bludgeon. An absurd argument, of course.)
I
think it is possible to strike an appropriate balance in this debate,
somewhere between, “The Jews should stop talking about the Holocaust so
much,” which is the subtext of this professor’s complaint, and “The
Nazis are coming” line of argument used periodically by Netanyahu and
his allies. The
Iranian regime is not populated by Nazis, but it is led by people who
do, in fact, seek the physical elimination of the Jewish state and its
replacement by a Muslim state. It works toward this end, by sponsoring
terrorist groups that regularly kill Jews, both in Israel and elsewhere.
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei: “It is the mission of the Islamic Republic of Iran to erase Israel from the map of the region.” (2001) Hassan Nasrallah,
a leader of Hezbollah: “If they [Jews] all gather in Israel, it
will save us the trouble of going after them worldwide.” (2002) Nasrallah:
“Israel is our enemy. This is an aggressive, illegal, and illegitimate
entity, which has no future in our land. Its destiny is manifested in
our motto: ‘Death to Israel.’” (2005) Yahya Rahim Safavi, the former commander of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps: “With God’s help the time has come for the Zionist regime’s death sentence.” (2008) Mohammad Hassan Rahimian,
Khamenei’s representative to the Moustazafan Foundation: “We have
manufactured missiles that allow us, when necessary to replace [sic]
Israel in its entirety with a big holocaust.” (2010) Mohammad Reza Naqdi,
the commander of the Basij paramilitary force: “We recommend them [the
Zionists] to pack their furniture and return to their countries. And if
they insist on staying, they should know that a time while arrive when
they will not even have time to pack their suitcases.” (2011) Khamenei: “The Zionist regime is a cancerous tumor and it will be removed.” (2012) Ahmad Alamolhoda,
a member of the Assembly of Experts: “The destruction of Israel is the
idea of the Islamic Revolution in Iran and is one of the pillars of the
Iranian Islamic regime. We cannot claim that we have no intention of
going to war with Israel.” (2013) Nasrallah: “The elimination
of Israel is not only a Palestinian interest. It is the interest of the
entire Muslim world and the entire Arab world.” (2013) Hojateleslam Alireza Panahian, the advisor to Office of the Supreme Leader in Universities: “The day will come when the Islamic people in the region will destroy Israel and save the world from this Zionist base.” (2013) Hojatoleslam Ali Shirazi,
Khamenei’s representative in the Revolutionary Guard: “The Zionist
regime will soon be destroyed, and this generation will be witness to
its destruction.” (2013) Khamenei: “This barbaric, wolflike & infanticidal regime of Israel which spares no crime has no cure but to be annihilated.” (2014) Hossein Salami,
the deputy head of the Revolutionary Guard: “We will chase you
[Israelis] house to house and will take revenge for every drop of blood
of our martyrs in Palestine, and this is the beginning point of Islamic
nations awakening for your defeat.” (2014) Salami: “Today we are aware of how the Zionist regime is slowly being erased from the world, and indeed, soon, there will be no such thing as the Zionist regime on Planet Earth.” (2014) Hossein Sheikholeslam,
the secretary-general of the Committee for Support for the Palestinian
Intifada: “The issue of Israel’s destruction is important, no matter the
method. We will obviously implement the strategy of the Imam Khomeini
and the Leader [Khamenei] on the issue of destroying the Zionists. The region will not be quiet so long as Israel exists in it …” (2014) Mohammad Ali Jafari, the commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard: “The Revolutionary Guards will fight to the end of the Zionist regime … We will not rest easy until this epitome of vice is totally deleted from the region’s geopolitics.” (2015)
Netanyahu in Washington, assails Iran deal, touts US-Israel ties ahead of Congress address
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gestures
while addressing the 2015 American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC) Policy Conference in Washington, Monday, March 2, 2015. (AP
Photo/Cliff Owen)
Associated Press
By JULIE PACE and ARON HELLER, Associated Press
WASHINGTON (AP) — Seeking to lower tensions, Benjamin Netanyahu and
U.S. officials cast their dispute over Iran as a family squabble on
Monday, even as the Israeli leader claimed President Barack Obama did
not — and could not — fully understand his nation’s vital security
concerns.
Netanyahu tried to paper over his personal differences with Obama,
insisting he was not in Washington to “disrespect” the president and
saying any reports of the demise of U.S.-Israel ties were “not only
premature, they’re just wrong.”
The prime minister’s remarks were bracketed by speeches from a pair
of top Obama advisers: U.N. Ambassador Samantha Power and National
Security Adviser Susan Rice, whose address served as a preemptive
rebuttal of Netanyahu’s expected critique of the Iran negotiations
Tuesday.
With Secretary of State John Kerry opening a new round of talks with
Iran in Switzerland, Rice said the U.S. was seeking a deal that would
cut off “every single pathway” Iran has to producing a nuclear weapon.
She said Obama keeps all options on the table for blocking Tehran’s
pursuit of a bomb and declared that “a bad deal is worse than no deal.”
Still, Rice warned against holding out for “unachievable” outcomes, such as getting Iran to fully end domestic enrichment.
“As desirable as that would be, it is neither realistic or
achievable,” she said. “If that is our goal, our partners will abandon
us.”
Netanyahu appeared to be reserving his most specific criticism of the
negotiations for his remarks to lawmakers. But he said he had a “moral
obligation to speak up in the face of these dangers while there is still
time to avert them.”
Negotiators are working to reach a framework agreement before an end
of March deadline. U.S. officials have reported progress toward a
prospective agreement that would freeze Iran’s nuclear program for at
least 10 years but allow the Iranians to slowly ramp up in later years
Obama spoke dismissively of Netanyahu’s warnings about the risks of
such a deal, saying the prime minister had previously contended Iran
would not abide by an interim agreement signed in 2013 and would get $50
billion in sanctions relief, a figure the U.S. says is far too high.
“None of that has come true,” Obama said in an interview with Reuters.
Obama views the prospect of a nuclear accord with Iran as a central
component of his foreign policy legacy — as much as Netanyahu views
blocking such a deal as a component of his own.
Netanyahu has been wary of Obama’s diplomatic pursuits with Iran from
the start, fearing the U.S. will leave Tehran on the cusp of being able
to build a bomb. As the outlines of a deal have emerged and the
deadline has drawn near, his criticism has become more forceful.
While Obama and Netanyahu have never gotten along personally, the
rift over Iran has sunk their relationship to a new low. The White House
has criticized the prime minister’s address to Congress as a breach of
diplomatic protocol, and officials have publicly questioned his judgment
on the merits of the Iran deal.
That letter was in response to one sent by President Barack Obama in
October 2014 that linked progress in the nuclear talks with cooperation
between Washington and Tehran against the Islamic State (also called
ISIS). According to these journalists, an unnamed Iranian diplomat
informed them that Obama had sent a letter that raised the possibility
of what I would call an American-Iranian entente cordiale to counter the
Islamic if a nuclear deal is secured. Khamenei was supposedly “respectful” but noncommittal on the Obama offer to cooperate against the Islamic State.
There also is growing support for tough measures against Iran in
general. They include: ballistic missile constraints and zero collusion
of Washington with Tehran in the fight against the Islamic State.
Anticipate the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations under the
leadership of Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) and Ranking Member Bob
Menendez (D-NJ) to hold hearings that put the heat on Team Obama for
tying the nuclear talks to an informal alignment with Iran against ISIS.
Mainstream media will continue to expose the administration’s
concessions to Iran, as in recent editorials of the Wall Street Journal
and the Washington Post. In the context of strong pressure from the
Hill, expect to find more advocacy for the idea of regime change from
within, e.g., by explicitly recognizing Iranian dissidents in a broad
coalition that rejects rule by the ayatollahs.
Iran as a Nuclear Threshold State and as a Revolutionary Rogue Regime
Nuclear threshold states include Brazil and Japan. They opt for
nuclear-arms restraint despite significant nuclear capabilities.
Although they present challenges, they are not rogue states; hence,
there is less concern if their capabilities lead to acquisition of the
bomb. They lack sufficient political toxicity.
Rogue regimes contain the lethal elements, which make the combination
with being a threshold nuclear state so dangerous. Such regimes do not
play by the rules of the international game. Three such principles are
state sponsorship of international terrorism, proliferation of weapons
of mass destruction, and use of proxies to destabilize other nations.
Iran is in violation of all three.
On Feb 11, the House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on
Terrorism, Nonproliferation, and Trade held a hearing, “State Sponsor of
Terror: The Global Threat of Iran.” During the hearing, a bipartisan
group of lawmakers expressed deep concern about Tehran’s sponsorship of
terrorism.
Because of this central role of religious-based ideology in the
authoritarian nature of Iran, traditional means of influence based on
national interest calculations have little prospect of success. Hence,
increasingly scholars and policymakers are paying more attention to
bringing about regime change from within spearheaded by dissidents to
avoid a choice between bombing Iran and living with a nuclear-armed
Iran. Ivan Sascha Sheehan, a specialist at the University of Baltimore
“unpacks” this soft revolution approach and applies it to Iran.
In view of these ideological imperatives, the evolution of the
current nuclear talks with Iran is instructive. They began in 2004 and
2005 with the EU-Three (France, Germany, and Britain) and were
reinforced by six U.N. Security Council Resolutions that denied Iran to
enrich uranium. The original goal of the multilateral approach was to
deny Iran a capability to develop a military nuclear option. Talks now
are mostly a bilateral negotiation between Tehran and Washington over
the scope of Iran’s nuclear capability. “The impact of this approach
will be to move from preventing proliferation to managing it,” according
to former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger on Jan. 29, 2015, before
the Senate Committee on Armed Services. Under the chair of Sen. McCain
(R-Ariz.), also expect pushback-type hearings against concessions by the
administration.
Pakistan’s Ongoing Existential Crisis – Analysis
January 24, 2015
By SAAG
By Dr Subhash Kapila*
Pakistan’s existential crises generated by Pakistan Army’s repetitive
onslaughts on Pakistan’s democratic fabric are widely recognised.
Constitutional abdication once again stands forced by the Pakistan Army
on PM Nawaz.
The Pakistan Army would have gone in for a regular military coup and
declaration of Martial Law except for the fear of international backlash
and withholding of billions of dollars of US and Western aid.
The Pakistan Army Generals were smarting under the perceived insult
of General Musharraf’s trials in civil courts and PM Nawaz Sharif’s
conciliatory gestures towards India and hence all these contrivations.
Further, the solid image of the Pakistan Army was being dented in public
perceptions beginning with US liquidation of Osama bin Laden deep in
the midst of Pakistan’s major military garrison and thereafter
continuing terrorism attacks.
The question that arises is as to why the Pakistan Army never made
demands for Constitutional Amendment and setting-up of Special Military
Courts earlier when right from Karachi to Lahore similar suicide
bombings had taken place?
The second question is more major and profound. Is Pakistan condemned
to alternate currents of Pakistan Army’s political interventions and
control and aborting democracy taking roots in Pakistan which recently
showed promise when governance passed from one political regime to
another through the ballot box rather than bullets?
Does this plague of Pakistan Army military interventions and
short-circuiting of democratic transformation not represent that the
Pakistan nation-state is in an existential crisis? Would then not the
question be ceaselessly asked regionally and globally that how long
Pakistan can survive as a nation state with such debilities?
Reflective of the above was an interesting scenario of “Pakistan
2018” included in an article in the British newspaper ‘The Telegraph ‘of
September2010 which spelt out that in 2018 as Pakistan returned to
civilian rule after five years of military dictatorship, the Pakistan
Army refused to hand over the codes and keys for the nuclear arsenal.
The ousted Pakistan Army also seized missiles silos with the Pakistan
Army splintering into those supporting the civilian regime and those
unwilling to take orders from the civilian Government. The latter join
the Taliban in Afghanistan and resort to cutting off of supply routes to
US Forces remaining in Afghanistan
Even ardent supporters of Pakistan within the US strategic community
now express doubts over the survival of the Pakistan nation-state. Their
logic is that if Pakistan stood partitioned by emergence of Bangladesh
within 24 years of the first partition what guarantee is there that with
the uninterrupted crumbling of Pakistani governing institutions
currently underway that Pakistan could survive as a nation-state in the
coming 36 years.
It needs to be highlighted that Pakistan’s existential crisis
underway is not the handiwork of any Indian diabolical plot but the
havoc wreaked by the Pakistan Army on the survival of democracy and
democratic institutions in Pakistan. This author has been propagating
that ‘Pakistan’s Democracy is a National Security Imperative for India”
in his SAAG Papers so entitled.
Concluding it needs to be stressed that Pakistan’s long entrenched
strategic patrons like the United States, UK and China would have to
re-write their strategic narratives on the Pakistan Army if Pakistan has
to be retrieved from its ongoing existential crisis before it
irretrievably stumbles into an abyss with dangerous implications for the
region.
*Dr Subhash Kapila is a graduate of the Royal British Army Staff
College, Camberley and combines a rich experience of Indian Army,
Cabinet Secretariat, and diplomatic assignments in Bhutan, Japan, South
Korea and USA. Currently, Consultant International Relations &
Strategic Affairs with South Asia Analysis Group. He can be reached at
drsubhashkapila.007@gmail.com
