Tag Archives: Iran

Uncategorized

Iraq crisis produces huge scramble

It’s becoming harder to keep up with all the competing interests in the burgeoning crisis in Iraq.

Consider the complexity of it:

* The Sunnis want to take the government back from the Shiites. Saddam Hussein was a Sunni Muslim. The current Iraqi prime minister is a Shiite.

* The insurgents fighting the government, led by ISIS, are deemed to be more violent than al-Qaeda, which has disavowed any association with ISIS.

* Iran is an Islamic republic governed next door to Iraq by Shiites also, but the Iranians detest the United States, which is involved up to its eyeballs in trying to broker a political solution.

* U.S. officials now are considering asking Iran for help in negotiating a deal.

* ISIS also is involved in the Syrian civil war, with rebels seeking to overthrow the dictatorship run by Bashar al-Assad.

* President Obama has ruled out “ground troops” returning to Iraq, but is sending in about 300 “advisers” to assist the Iraqi military in its fight against ISIS.

* The Kurds in northern Iraq also want a say in a “unity government,” which could include Sunnis and Shiites.

I need to keep sitting down. My head is spinning.

How in the world does a regular human being navigate his or her way through this mess?

http://time.com/2916436/kerry-back-in-iraq-meets-kurdish-leader/

Uncategorized

Working with an enemy … or a friend?

Good grief. My head is spinning over this bit of news out of the Middle East.

Iraq’s crisis — with Sunni Muslims seeking to overthrow the Shiite government in Baghdad — has prompted the possibility of the United States working (get ready for this one!) the Islamic Republic of Iran to find a possible diplomatic solution.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/209560-should-us-work-with-iran

How does that saying go, the one about “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”?

The Sunnis want their country back. They ran Iraq for decades under the ham-handed rule of Saddam Hussein. The United States invaded in March 2003, overthrew Saddam, who then was hanged.

Iraq then elected a Shiite government, friendlier to next-door neighbor Iran.

The Sunnis now have erupted, vowing to retake Iraq. Iran doesn’t want that, of course. It fought a bloody war to a stalemate against Saddam Hussein’s forces in the 1980s. The Shiites in Tehran oppose vigorously any idea that the Sunnis would take control in Baghdad.

Oh, and then there’s little issue of Iran despising the “Great Satan,” which in Tehran is also known as the United States of America. We’ve had no bilateral relations with Iran since those “students” overran our embassy in November 1979 and held those Americans captive for 444 days.

But in this instance, there might be some mutual advantage in seeking to stop the Sunni advance in Iraq. The Iranians want the Sunnis to fail, as does the United States, which has a serious stake in preserving the government it helped form in Iraq.

Should the United States reach out to its current enemy, Iran, in trying to broker a deal that ends the crisis in Iraq?

Yes, but only if the Iranians can be held to the tightest terms possible to ensure that they deal in good faith. Is that possible? Give it a try to make that call.

Uncategorized

No visa for Iranian U.N. envoy

Hamid Aboutalebi is Iran’s latest pariah in the eyes of the U.S. State Department.

He is the Iranian ambassador to the United Nations and the United States has denied him a visa to enter this country, which is headquarters for the U.N. The reason for his banishment? He was part of the gang of thugs that took over the U.S. Embassy in Tehran and began a 444-day hostage crisis 35 years ago.

Iran says it will appeal the ban.

Let the Iranians complain all they want.

The State Department is acting within its rights.

That crisis, which erupted in November 1979, still sticks in the craw of many Americans. Aboutalebi supposedly was one of the “students” who stormed the embassy and took 53 Americans captive. The crisis ended U.S.-Iranian diplomatic relations, although likely not forever.

The hostage-taking was part of the Islamic revolution that overthrew the shah of Iran earlier that year and reportedly was in response to this country’s long-standing support of the shah’s regime.

Civilized countries, though, do not allow for the takeover of another nation’s sovereign territory, which is what describes embassy compounds.

This visa denial, of course, does complicate the on-going negotiations between Iran and six industrialized nations that are seeking to persuade the Iranians to abandon its nuclear program – which many governments around the world believe is intended to develop an atomic bomb. Iran insists its nuke program is meant for “peaceful” means.

Sure thing, Tehran.

One diplomatic action need not relate to another.

The Iranians ought to propose someone else to represent their country at the United Nations. Surely they can find someone whose hands aren’t stained by that disgraceful deed at the U.S. Embassy in Iran.

Uncategorized

Kerry cannot possibly be an anti-Semite

An interesting development has emerged in Secretary of State John Kerry’s difficult struggle to find peace in the Middle East.

It turns out that the angry charges leveled at him by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s cabinet members — that Kerry’s promoting “anti-Semitic” notions — cannot possibly be true. Kerry’s family name originally was Kohn and that Kerry’s family has Jewish origins.

Grandpa Kerry/Kohn changed his name and his religion, from Jewish to Catholic, which John Kerry learned shortly before announcing his presidential candidacy in 2003.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/kerrys-brother-johns-not-anti-semitic-were-jewish-n30576

In fact, Cameron Kerry — the secretary of state’s brother — is a practicing Jew to this day, having married a Jewish woman.

Israeli foreign ministry officials, of course, are quite sensitive to any comments they construe to be against their interests. John Kerry said recently that “The risks are very high for Israel” after meeting with Iranian officials about plans to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program. Israeli officials took that to mean Israel needed to watch its step if it continued to threaten Iran with military action.

Naftali Bennett, an industry minister, said, “We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece.”

I understand fully the Israelis’ angst over negotiating with a country that has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Let us take care, though, to avoid throwing around pejorative terms like “anti-Semitic” where it regards someone whose family roots run deep in the Holy Land.

Uncategorized

How should POTUS describe SOTU?

The state of our Union is … getting stronger.

There. I’m seeking to put words into President Obama’s mouth in advance of his State of the Union speech Tuesday night.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/196416-obama-to-travel-to-four-states-after-state-of-the-union

It’s not back all the way just yet, but it’s surely getting there.

That’s how the president ought to frame his speech, in my ever-so-humble view. Yes, even out here in Flyover Country things are looking up — no matter how much gloom and doom the Republicans who run everything around here try to make it.

Joblessness is down, employment is up. The deficit is down. Americans are signing on daily with affordable health insurance. Energy production is up, as is development of alternative energy resources. The stock market is up — the recent huge selloff at the end of the week notwithstanding.

The outlook at home is getting better. I hope the president doesn’t seek to continue the blame game regarding what he inherited on Jan. 20, 2009. That’s history. He owns this economy now, but the progress we’ve seen in the past five years is unmistakable and it needs to be hailed.

No, we haven’t reached the state of perfection. It’s always a never-to-be-achieved goal.

Huge challenges remain overseas. We’re still fighting that war against terrorists. I’m guessing that conflict never will end completely. As long as terrorists plot against nations such as ours, we’ll need to remain vigilant and ready to strike. My sense is that we’re remaining on high alert.

Yes, trouble spots remain: Syria, Egypt, North Korea and Iran come to mind. When have those places not given presidents heartburn for the past three or four decades? I’d say, well, never. Is there work to be done? Certainly. We need an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord; we need progress on ending Iran’s potential nuclear weapons development program; we need to find paths to peace all over the globe. It never ends. It won’t end when Barack Obama leaves office, nor will it end when his successor leaves at the end of his — or her — time in the White House.

I was one of those who felt a sense of unease about the future of our country. I’m feeling better about it today than I was, say, a half-dozen years ago.

Does the 44th president deserve all the credit for our recovery? No. He can claim some of it, pass around some kudos to others in government who’ve worked with him, while extending an olive branch to the folks on the other side.

Our Union is regaining its health, Mr. President. Say it like you mean it.

Uncategorized

Falling gas prices a boon or a bust?

A Bloomberg News Service columnist is issuing a warning about the falling gasoline prices.

They aren’t necessarily good for the nation’s economy or its long-term energy policy.

Pump prices in Amarillo now stand at about $2.92 per gallon for regular unleaded gas. That’s “cheap,” yes? And who would have thought $2.92 would be considered a bargain for gas?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-11-11/beware-of-falling-gas-prices-ritholtz-chart.html

Barry L. Ritholtz, writing for Bloomberg.com, thinks the price reduction is going to produce a spike in driving. We’re going to forget that we have a limited supply of fossil fuels used to produce gasoline. It happens every time we see these dramatic dips in gasoline prices, as Ritholtz has noted.

Then comes the sticker shock when the next overseas crisis erups in an oil-producing region — Syria, Iran, Egypt, Libya, Yemen … they all come to mind.

I don’t want to sound like a know-it-all, but my wife and I have recently invested in a hybrid automobile. It runs on electricity and gasoline. Our Toyota Prius is our No. 1 in-town vehicle, and so far the investment is paying tremendous returns for us. We’re averaging about 47 miles per gallon and filling it up about every two weeks for a mere pittance of what we normally have paid for fuel.

Our 3/4-ton diesel-fueled Dodge Ram pickup, the one we use to haul our fifth-wheel travel vehicle? That’s another story. Won’t go there. Suffice to say it stays parked most of the time.

We’re all enjoying the relatively cheap fuel at the moment. However, I intend to take Ritholtz’s warning to heart.

Uncategorized

Israeli PM takes dimmer view of Iran

I totally understand Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s mistrust of Iran.

He is bringing that message this week to the United Nations General Assembly and warns the United States not to trust Iran’s new president, who says he wants to make peace with the rest of the world.

http://news.msn.com/world/israels-netanyahu-warns-white-house-about-iran

President Obama placed a historic phone call last week to Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, the first president-to-president contact between the nations in 34 years. Obama said a comprehensive agreement to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is possible. I hope he’s right, quite obviously.

Netanyahu isn’t so sure. And why should he trust a thing that comes out of the Iranian president’s mouth?

Rouhani succeeded a man who vowed to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. Indeed, that’s been the stated goal of the Islamic Republic of Iran since its founding in 1979.

I’ve had the pleasure of touring Israel. I spent five weeks there in the spring of 2009 and witnessed up close the proximity between Israel and nations with which it has gone to war several times since Israel’s founding in 1948. The Israelis live in a constant state of heightened vigilance.

Iran doesn’t border Israel, but it is close enough to launch missiles westward and into Israeli cities. That is the concern Israel maintains to this very moment and it is the concern that Netanyahu intends to relay to the world community when he speaks to the U.N. General Assembly.

No, he doesn’t trust Iran’s newfound conciliatory posture. The task at hand is for the world to extract from Iran’s president ironclad assurances that he means what he says.

Uncategorized

U.S.-Iran breakthrough, or breakdown?

President Obama made a historic phone call today.

He telephoned Hasan Rouhani, president of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The two men chatted for about 15 minutes, after which President Obama informed the world that he believes a deal to derail any Iranian effort to build a nuclear weapon could be struck.

http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/27/20722870-obama-and-rouhani-make-history-with-phone-call-thawing-three-decade-freeze-between-us-and-iran?lite

Some folks are hailing the phone call as a thawing of a 34-year-old freeze between the two nations. The last phone call between U.S. and Iranian heads of state occurred in 1979 when Jimmy Carter was president of the United States. It all went to hell later that year when Iranian “students” stormed our embassy in Tehran and held Americans hostage for 444 days.

Rouhani is sounding as though he wants to normalize relations with the United States and rejoin the world community. He’s launched something of a charm offensive of late, talking to a U.S. news network and speaking calmly at the United Nations. I am not totally comfortable plunging ahead with such an effort. I hope Barack Obama retains a degree of skepticism and moves very carefully.

We need to remember that for decades Iran has declared virtual war against the “Great Satan,” meaning the United States. It has declared its intention to wipe Israel off the face of the planet. It has supplied arms and other know-how to international terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida. It arms the Syrian dictator in his war against rebels. It has cozied up to Hezbollah and Hamas, two sworn enemies of Israel. The incendiary statements of Rouhani’s immediate predecessor as president also should not be dismissed and tossed aside.

A single phone call shouldn’t signal a “thaw.” It well might mean that it’s time to turn the temperature up just a bit to begin the thawing of relations.

But just as the late President Ronald Reagan said of Soviet strongman Mikhail Gorbachev, “Trust, but verify,” it is good to seek multiple verifications of any statement that comes from an Iranian president that might signal a new era in relations between two longtime enemies.

Here’s hoping today’s phone call has opened the door to that new era.

Uncategorized

Obama is winning the Syria debate

With all due respect to the Republican chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, President Obama is emerging as a victor in the struggle to rid Syria of the chemical weapons it now says it possesses.

Mike McCaul, R-Texas, said on Fox News Sunday that Russian President Vladimir Putin is the big winner here and that President Obama has been reduced to a bit player in this ongoing drama.

Well, that’s about what we’ve come to expect from a leading House Republican.

http://thehill.com/blogs/global-affairs/middle-east-north-africa/322295-rep-mccaul-obama-no-victor-in-syria-deal

Living as I do in the heart of Anti-Obama Country, I am acutely aware of the negative views of the president’s handling of the Syria crisis. I am not happy with the way he’s handled some developments in this crisis. I wished initially he hadn’t backed off his threat to strike Syria in retaliation for that government’s gassing of civilians.

But consider what’s happened.

* Barack Obama issued the threat to hit Syrian military targets to dissuade Syria from using chemical weapons in the future.

* Russia, one of Syria’s main allies, steps in with a plan to get Syria to turn its chemical weapons over to international inspectors.

* The Syrians, who at first denied having the weapons, agreed.

* Secretary of State John Kerry and his Russian counterpart agree to the deal and have given Syria a timetable to comply.

I agree the deal is fraught with danger. Syria might not comply, forcing the United States to follow through with its strike threat.

What was the catalyst for all this? The president’s initial threat to hit Syria.

Does that make Barack Obama look stronger or weaker? I believe it strengthens the president. Of course, those in the opposing party say he is weakened by all this. I would suggest that a strategy that results in Syria giving up its chemical weapons without having to bomb them into doing it takes us closer to an end to a serious crisis.

That view, of course, will be a non-starter for those who think the worst of the 44th president of the United States.

Uncategorized

Our nation is all ears, Mr. President

President Obama is going to speak to the nation on Tuesday in an effort to persuade his fellow Americans that a military strike against Syria is the right thing to do at precisely the right time.

I’m looking forward to this presidential speech.

20354377-obama-will-address-country-on-syria-calls-crisis-threat-to-global-peace

It’s not that I really need persuading that Syria needs to be punished. It used chemical weapons to kill civilians, including small children and women. That act needs a response. I do need persuading, though, that the president has signed off on a precise plan that includes an exit strategy. It needs a beginning, middle and an end.

What should the president say Tuesday night? Let’s start with these points:

* What precisely is the nature of this strike? Who and/or what will be the targets? No, the president need not be specific. He need not take a dive and surrender too much information to the Syrians.

* He’ll need to pledge, make a solemn vow, that the United States is not going to send troops into battle. Yes, we’ve done this kind of aerial campaign before, in Kosovo. It worked.

* The president will need to send a clear message as well to Syria’s allies in the region — namely Iran and the Hezbollah terrorists who run Lebanon — that they should think twice about committing reprisals against U.S. diplomatic personnel in the region.

* And the president will need to acknowledge Americans’ fear of yet another ground war. He needs to assure them in the strongest terms possible that a ground war is not in the cards. We have plenty of weapons capable of delivering much damage and misery to the Syrian military. They are the most sophisticated precision weapons on the world and we have a military force that knows how to use them.

The nation awaits your message, Mr. President.