Iran — VOICES for REASON

With a new year approaching, we looked back at some of the topics we discussed on VFR since the blog was launched. Here, we highlight a few of our favorite VFR posts that you may enjoy revisiting (or reading for the first time, if you’re a new reader).

Posts by Elan Journo.

• Disconnected Dots
• McChrystal’s other — deadly — scandal
• Draw Mohammad, risk your life?
• Iraq’s Awakening re-awakens pro-jihadist. Shocking.

image: cc/yoshiffles

Over at FoxNews.com, my colleague Alex Epstein has published an important new essay, “The 6 Myths About Oil.” It begins:

Every American consumes an average of three gallons of oil a day. Republicans and Democrats call this reliance on oil an “addiction”—an irrational, self-destructive habit that must be broken as soon as possible. This year’s BP oil spill disaster is only making the chorus to “end our addiction to oil” louder. But if we examine the most common arguments for this idea, we see that they are myths. Oil is a vital, viable, and desirable part of our energy future.

And here are the myths he challenges in the essay:

• Myth #1: America’s reliance on oil is an “addiction”—an irrational, self-destructive habit.
• Myth #2: There are “green” technologies that are just as good, or better, than oil.
• Myth #3: Because oil is finite, it will inevitably run out.
• Myth #4: Because oil is mostly in other countries, they can cut us off at will and create an economic catastrophe.
• Myth #5: Because oil money funds hostile dictatorships (Iran, Saudi Arabia) by using less oil we can make them poorer and make ourselves more secure.
• Myth #6: Because the burning of oil produces CO2, oil is a deadly pollutant that must be severely capped.

The whole thing.

Back in October, I was interviewed on PJTV about the Stuxnet “worm,” which had reportedly sabotaged two of Iran’s (sinister) nuclear facilities. At the time, it seemed that worm — a self-replicating computer malware program — had been crafted specifically to cripple the computer systems at the Iranian facilities. Now, more signs have emerged that the “worm” is continuing to subvert Iran’s facilities.

Though Stuxnet remains enigmatic, this article caught my eye because it sketches in a few more facts about Stuxnet. In particular, the article lays out what investigators have learned so far about the worm’s sophisticated self-concealment and pinpoint targeting. For instance:

Masking itself from the [nuclear] plant’s security and other systems, the worm then ordered the centrifuges to rotate extremely fast, and then to slow down precipitously. This damaged the converter, the centrifuges and the bearings, and it corrupted the uranium in the tubes. It also left Iranian nuclear engineers wondering what was wrong, as computer checks showed no malfunctions in the operating system.

Estimates are that this went on for more than a year, leaving the Iranian program in chaos. And as it did, the worm grew and adapted throughout the system. As new worms entered the system, they would meet and adapt and become increasingly sophisticated.

… the worm was designed to allow the Iranian program to continue but never succeed, and never to know why. [The whole thing is worth reading.]

Two quick comments: 1. There are some scarily brilliant minds behind the design and implementation of the Stuxnet worm. If indeed it is a U.S.-backed, calculated cyber attack on Iran’s facilities, I would applaud the folks who created it. 2. Is sabotaging Iran’s nuclear program enough to safeguard us? It buys us time — and that’s a good thing — but we must remember that the threat from Iran is broader than just its nuclear ambitions.
image: sxc.hu/stevenafc

Drawing on some of the information in the Wikileaks cache, this funny video from Mere Rhetoric captures the absurd, Ostrich-like evasiveness of America’s longstanding policy in the Middle East. It’s parody, but mostly accurate — and therefore, unnerving.

In some quarters of the foreign policy establishment, it’s an article of faith that the central problem in the Middle East is Israel’s (alleged) injustices against the Palestinians. That premise has shaped American policy for decades. But it’s wrong, in many ways. Iran is the key problem. It has been for years. Some of the documents in the Wikileak cache are confirming that fact. File this under obscene, but not surprising: one cable reports how Iran smuggled arms to Hezbollah in ambulances. Another cable reports that even the Saudi regime—which backs Islamist groups and undercuts U.S. interests—even the Saudis recognize that Iran is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room.

When will we?

Iran’s attempts to turn post-war Iraq into an Islamist vassal is a way under-reported story. For a long time, that narrative was downplayed, minimized, denied. No more, perhaps.

What comes into sharp focus in this New York Times report is a horrifying picture of Iran’s considerable efforts to dominate in Iraq. The NYT summary is long, but well worth reading. Despite our supposed “success” in Iraq, Iran’s power-grab persists. Just how many Americans have died in Iraq because of Iran’s backing of insurgent groups (both Sunni and Shiite) is hard to calculate; but Iran’s culpability and militant ambitions should no longer be in question.

Now Afghanistan’s president, Hamid Karzai, has conceded that his administration has received payouts from the militant theocracy in Iran. To what end is Iran backing him? My assessment: To solidify Iranian influence and power over Afghanistan. (There was already evidence that Iran was backing certain Islamist forces in the country.)

Add these two data points to the Iranian regime’s decades-long rap sheet. This is a regime with which our current (and our former) president has sought a rapprochement? A more healthy relationship based on “mutual respect and mutual interests”? This is a regime ambitious to expand its Islamist dominion far and wide, by force. It has continually shown itself to be an aggressive enemy of America and our interests.

There’s so much wrong with this picture, it’s hard to know where to begin: Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmedinijad is in New York City to gloat and pontificate, and, incidentally, attend the U.N. assembly. Outraged yet?  Recall that this is the head of the regime that — by the acknowledgement of our own government — is responsible for at least one-quarter of the deaths of American soldiers in Iraq (and probably much more, as I explain in my book). The same regime that has been financing, encouraging, training, equipping Islamist fighters to carry out attacks against U.S. and Western targets across the world. The same regime that is responsible for the murder of Americans across three-plus decades. The same regime that gunned down in the streets peaceful protestors objecting to its theocratic rule. And (yet again) we play host to the leader of a corrupt and violently anti-American regime? Seriously — our leadership lacks the moral confidence to take a stand even against that?

No, I don’t buy the notion that because he’s attending the U.N. meeting, we must let him onto U.S. soil. More than anything, that’s a reason to question our involvement in (and enormous funding of) an organization that has Iran as a member and obliges us to unroll a red carpet for Ahmedinijad.

Dispelling misconceptions about the Arab/Israeli conflict is a focus of Efraim Karsh’s writings, and in his oped in today’s NYT, he brings to a wider audience key facts about the character of self-professed Arab champions of the Palestinian cause. He lays out a historical case that Arab states — who routinely jockey to be seen as advancing Palestinian goals — have in reality exploited that cause for their own power-seeking ends.

Agreeing with the thrust of Karsh’s article, I’d add this point: even if these backers had been genuine in their motivations and truly sought to serve the cause, that too would be deplorable. From my reading of the issue, the Palestinian movement has at its root an antipathy to Western political values, such individual freedom, and it has pioneered in the vile tactic of terrorism. Regimes that back that movement, for whatever reason, are complicit in its aggression.

(I explore the Palestinian movement and its goals in a course on the Arab-Israeli conflict. In chapter seven of Winning the Unwinnable War, I touch on a prevailing dynamic in Mideast politics that sheds light on what motivates contemporary backers of the Palestinians (e.g., Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia).)

The U.N. is about to pass another round of sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program. Is it despite the three earlier rounds of U.N. sanctions that Iran has geared up to produce even more nuclear material — or because of them?

Past sanctions were puny to begin with, then eviscerated by friends of Tehran at the U.N. (Predictably, the regime has sidestepped existing sanctions.) But even if credibly effective sanctions could be imposed — which at the U.N. is fantastical — Iran’s decades of pro-jihadist aggression demand a far more assertive response. Tehran is a belligerent theocracy stained with American blood. Ending the mounting threat from Iran requires a resolute, confident policy on our part, but by pursuing mousy “sanctions” and extending Tehran countless second chances, we’ve appeased the regime.

No wonder Iran’s leaders (credibly) brag of realizing their nuclear goals. Our weakness in the face of this malignant regime empowers it.

Agência BrasilWikiCommons

The U.S. is not only a founding member of the U.N. but for a long time has been its largest financial backer. What are we getting for our money? An institution that makes a mockery of protecting rights around the world. Consider this report from veteran U.N. observer Anne Bayefsky, cataloguing just some of the recent perversities of the U.N.’s (notorious) Human Rights Council.

The Council, which meets in Geneva, is the personal playground of the Organization of the Islamic Conference. They hold the balance of power by controlling the Asian and African regional groups, which together form a majority at the Council. The Council’s agenda is accordingly fixated on issues of priority to the Islamic bloc— number one, delegitimizing Israel; number two, trumping free speech in the name of Islam; and number three, avoiding any criticism of human-rights violations in their own backyards. None of which has anything to do with protecting human rights.

Later, Bayefsky observes, “The Obama administration lost every time it called for the vote on a resolution at the Council session.” But don’t be misled into thinking that Obama’s diplomats were all that energetic. Read the rest of this entry »

Thursday marks the 31st anniversary of the coalescing of Iran’s Islamist revolution. But on this deeply symbolic day, which Tehran usually spends glorifying its militant, tyrannical rule, millions of Iranian citizens will likely attempt another show of mass defiance and repudiation of the regime.

That’s precisely what Tehran fears. It fears having its veneer of popular endorsement torn away altogether. Witness its preemptive crack down. Critics and student activists have been rounded up and tossed in prison. Earlier this month, to build up the intimidation factor, the regime began executing dissidents. The IranTracker project is compiling a record of Tehran’s intimidation tactics in the run-up to the day. The list is horrifyingly long.

Read the rest of this entry »