Newsweek: Isfahan Diary–the terrorist victim

If you haven’t seen it yet, the current edition of Newsweek is full of great material on Iran, including Fareed Zakaria’s piece: “What You Know About Iran is Wrong,” which you should go read right now.

Also, ther website has a couple of very powerful videos on Iran, including this one about Zeinolabedin Hassanzadeh, an innocent victim of the MEK’s terrorist attacks in the early 80’s who now sees a double standard in how the West deals with terrorist groups.

click on the video to begin:

Candidates seeing green over Mousavi’s campaign

The color green can be seen almost all over Iran these days. From campaign posters, wrist bands, ribbons, scarves, and magazines, green is bringing a change to Iran’s election — or so is the hope of presidential candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi. The color has become a symbol for the Mousavi Campaign; supporters covered from head to toe in green unite in hopes that the promises made today will result in positive growth and regeneration of a young population. Going green for Iranians is no longer the same as going green for the rest of the world, thanks to Mousavi. 

To compliment his green campaign, Mousavi has created a magazine called Kalameh Sabz or “Green Word.” As the first editorial, written by the paper’s chief editor Ali Reza Hosseini Beheshti, states: “Kalameh Sabz is aimed at creating a mirror-like newspaper, to show who we are and what we stand for and to guide us in finding our path.” Kalameh Sabz is trying to “have a paper that offers a different perspective and urges the people to actively decide their fate,” Beheshti told AFP about the purpose of the publication.

Iranian presidential hopeful, Mir-Hossain Mousavi seems to be following in the footsteps of US President Barack Obama. Addressing the youth directly, using technology to publicize his campaign, and incorporating print media to promote his positions seem to be the campaign of choice for the presidential challenger, as they were for President Obama in the 2008 campaign.

Mousavi has garnered much support parading a vibrant green as his campaign color.  According to current polls taken by Iran’s Press TV, “presidential hopeful Mir-Hossein Mousavi takes the lead in 10 major Iranian cities.” In Tehran he has a 4 percent lead over current President Ahmadinejad, who is starting to look a bit green these days as well.

Cutting off communication one messenger at a time

Microsoft has opted to participate in sanctioning Iran, but more so the Iranian people by cutting off Windows Live Messenger. As reported by ITP,

Cuba, Syria, Iran, Sudan and North Korea are all affected by the surprising move, with a company spokesperson clarifying to the media that: “Microsoft has discontinued providing Instant Messenger services in certain countries subject to United States sanctions. Details of these sanctions are available from the United States Office of Foreign Assets Control.”

According to the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) website, the US Department of Treasury enforces economic and trade sanctions based on US foreign policy and national security goals against “targeted foreign countries and regimes, terrorists, international narcotics traffickers, those engaged in activities related to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and other threats to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States.”

Iranian youth have been ingenious in learning how to maneuver around Iranian governmental censorship on blogs and Facebook. Syrians have already found a way around the blocked site-  Itp.net found that Syrians are presently using the blocked service by changing the ‘country/region’ under the Home Location tab on their Live.com account.

With the plethora of instant messaging services such as Yahoo! Messenger and Google’s Gchat,  I don’t suspect Windows Live Messenger will be missed much.

The US prides itself on promoting free speech around the world. The State Department has gone so far as to fund media sites such as VOA and Radio Farda to open lines of communication with Iran. So why impose such broad sanctions which would limit the communication of Iranian youth who are most likely using the messaging technology? Perhaps the State and Treasury Department should start messaging each other so that they can stop undermining each other’s policies.

Soccer diplomacy with Iran

cross-posted from democracyarsenal.org

We had ping pong diplomacy with China, and now we may soon engage in soccer diplomacy with Iran.

Reports out of Tehran indicate that the US Soccer Federation has inquired about the possibility of holding a friendly with Iran sometime in October and November. The AP reported:

A soccer game between the United States and Iran this fall could be in the works. The possibility exists after the head of Iran’s soccer federation said Monday he received a proposal from his U.S. counterpart about an exhibtion game in October or November… Iran Football Federation chief Ali Kafashian told the Fars news agency the Iranians are considering the offer. But USSF spokesman Neil Buethe would neither confirm nor deny the offer… a soccer match would be an extremely high-profile event in Iran, where the sport is a national passion.

In 1971 – a year before Nixon went to China – US table tennis players visited China in what marked a thaw in tensions between U.S. and China. Soccer is the biggest sport in Iran and the public has tremendous pride in the Iranian national team. Having the U.S. team travel to Tehran would to send a signal that both sides are ready for a significant thaw in relations. Perhaps a high-level American dignitary would go as well.   

Clinton Against Imposing New Sanctions For Now

Cross posted from www.niacouncil.org

“How we proceed with sanctions depends upon on how the engagement works,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told Congress Wednesday.

“Until we have tested, within the time period set forth by the president, where we think this engagement is going, I am not sure that adding new unilateral sanctions is really that helpful,” Clinton told lawmakers.  She added, “At some point it might very well be.”

Congress is currently considering legislation that would expand unilateral sanctions and target companies exporting refined petroleum to Iran.  The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act has 122 cosponsors in the House and 51 in the Senate.

Clinton called sanctions a “powerful tool” but cautioned that if new sanctions are deemed necessary by the administration, a multilateral approach would likely be more effective.

“We already have a lot of sanctions on the books but the most effective ones are the ones that we have been able to persuade a lot of our partners to pursue as well,” she said.

Clinton told lawmakers that engaging Iran will make other countries like China and Russia more willing to agree to sanctions if those talks fail.

President Obama has ruled out deadlines for diplomacy but said he would like U.S.-Iran talks to show progress by the end of the year.

Fewer trust Netanyahu and increased support for Obama among Israeli’s

Our friends over at Avaaz just released a poll following Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. this week showing that a majority of Israeli’s trust Barack Obama more than Netanyahu.  59% of the Israeli population said they view Obama as “honest and trustworthy” whereas only 31% said the same for their own Prime Minister.

Netanyahu who was elected in February of this year is a hardliner who does not support a two state solution. During the Bush years the peace process was never whole-heartedly pursued by the American government. Now, however, with Obama being elected, a new era seems to have begun in terms of American engagement in the Middle East.

Looking back in history, the more aggressive Israeli policies have been (such as expanding settlements, wars in Gaza and Lebanon, etc), the further away we have gotten from achieving our goals in the region.  And more recently, more aggressive Israeli policies have actually been counterproductive to Israeli security objectives.

To me, this new Avaaz poll makes it seem like, especially after Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S., the Israeli people are convinced Obama is more serious about bringing an end to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a view that is reflected among the Palestinians.

Obama talks Iran before Netanyahu’s visit

There’s a small tempest brewing in Washington. A few people are getting impatient and frustrated, wondering why Iran hasn’t responded more clearly to Obama’s overtures. Others, like Senators Jon Kyl (R-AZ) and Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), never put much stock in Obama’s engagement anyway, and are again pushing for stronger sanctions against Iran.

Obama’s inner circle, meanwhile, is patiently waiting for Iran to come to the table. That is the change – the United States is coming to the table. They expect Iran to do so as well, and that’s when the real diplomacy will take place. Everything up to this point has been signaling intentions and changing atmospherics.

Obama and his inner circle on Iran policy understand that Tehran is caught up in the Presidential election and don’t expect earth-shattering declarations or moves right now. It is telling enough that all the most prominent candidates for President have come out in favor of talks with the United States. That in itself is a huge change.

Atmospherics do matter.

So as others fret and talk about deadlines for diplomacy, it is significant to see that President Obama isn’t changing his tune. In talking to Newsweek, he reiterates what he said during his Norooz speech: the United States is willing to accept an Islamic Republic of Iran and end its policy of containment if Iran aligns itself “with international norms and international rules.”

Transcript below the fold:

State Dept: “No deadline on talks”

After reports from Haaretz earlier in the week that the Obama administration is considering an October deadline on talks with Iran, and following the Wall Street Journal’s reportage of the same deadlines story, State Department spokesman Ian Kelly was confronted at yesterday’s press briefing on the administration’s timeline for engagement.

Personally, I think the poorly-sourced and largely speculative Haaretz report is much ado about nothing.  And I am no more convinced now that the Wall Street Journal has decided to pick it up and run with it–of course there are “senior US officials” more than willing to confirm reports of some talk of a deadline, but that in no way makes it the policy regardless of whatever wishful thinking these folks might be engaging in.

Fortunately, State’s Ian Kelly was pretty definitive yesterday:

QUESTION: Back to Iran , there’s a press report this morning that the Administration is basically going to give Iran until like, the UN General Assembly in September to respond to the U.S. dialogue – an effort hasn’t started yet.

MR. KELLY: Yeah.

QUESTION: Does that coincide with your view on it?

MR. KELLY: Well, let me just say that we’re not setting any deadline.

We’re not interested in setting any kind of specific or even notional timeline. We are, of course, monitoring very closely what the Iranians are doing, assessing progress. But it – we don’t have any timeline forward.

What – you know, we’re not going to let this string out forever, of course, but we don’t have any timetable on it.

Time Magazine Photo Essay: Faces of Iran

Time Magazine has just put out this amazing photo essay called “Faces of Iran.” Check it out here.

VOA video: Iran engagement in the US Senate

If you’ve followed the coverage of yesterday’s Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on Iran, you might have seen reports like this:

Time running out to stop Iran nuclear pursuit, investigator says

WASHINGTON (CNN) — A man who spearheaded financial investigations of Iran said Wednesday the Islamic republic is “deadly serious” about developing nuclear weapons and long-range missiles — and there’s not much time to stop it before it does.

How exactly does a financial investigator know that Iran is “deadly serious” about developing missile technology and nuclear weapons?  Shouldn’t we be listening more to people who are actually in the field of missile proliferation and nuclear technology?

I mean, I’m sure he’s very knowledgeable about Iran sanctions, and the activities of groups like the Alavi Foundation which had its offices seized last year by the Feds…but is it really prudent to disregard the recently upheld consensus opinion of all 16 federal intelligence agencies because the man in charge of financial investigations against Iran says they’re developing nukes?

Sorry.  My rant for the day.  (Artin started it.)

Vice President defends engagement with Iran at AIPAC conference

Vice President Joe Biden defended diplomacy with Iran at the AIPAC conference today, saying that American foreign policy would change.

“All the good intentions of the last decade have not resulted in a more secure, stable Middle East,” Biden said.

“If our efforts at engagement are not successful, we have greater international support to pursue other options,” he said. “We must sometimes act alone but it’s always stronger when we act in unison.”

Lieberman: “We are now approaching a Defining Moment in US-Iran History” (Updated)

“[It] is clear that we are now approaching a defining moment in [US-Iran] history and in the relationship between the international community, including especially the United States, and the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran—a defining moment in which both sides must make big decisions, whose consequences will carry far into the future,” Senator Joseph Lieberman said at the American Enterprise Institute’s conference on Iran last week.

“In this regard, Secretary Clinton said last week that the Obama administration will approach its new engagement with Iran with eyes wide open and under no illusions. That’s exactly the right way to do it.”

Lieberman spoke about a Senate bill he introduced Tuesday giving the President expanded authority to crack down on companies that export gasoline and other refined petroleum products to Iran. “I have spoken to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid and he is supportive, he added.”
Following Lieberman’s speech, a panel with AEI scholars Michael Rubin and Fred Kagan and Brookings scholar Kenneth Pollack discussed US options on Iran.

In contrast to Lieberman’s emphasis on sanctions, the panelists emphasized many of the costs associated with additional sanctions and other punitive measures. “Look, we need to be honest about this: Iranians are going to die if we impose additional sanctions,” Kagan said in a realistic tone.