Over the years columnist Roger Cohen has been both praised and taken to task by critics and fellow journalists. Following two visits he made to Iran in 2009 Cohen wrote a series of articles in the New York Times expressing opposition to military action against Iran and encouraging negotiations between the United States and the Islamic Republic. He also remarked that Iranian Jews were well treated, and said the Jewish community was "living, working and worshiping in relative tranquility." At that time Jonathan S. Tobin Executive editor of Commentary wrote, "Yet for all of his experience in the field, Cohen’s accounts of his journey made it seem more like a trip to a latter-day version of Omar Khayyam’s Persia than to the Iran of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." Tobin’s criticism conjured up ghosts of another era, “Cohen’s work inevitably invokes memories of Times journalists who have served in the past as apologists for other tyrants—principally Walter Duranty, the paper’s Moscow bureau chief from 1922 to 1936, who helped tamp down American outrage about the regime of Josef Stalin. Duranty’s work whitewashed the Communists and Stalin.”
In the interviews he conducted in Iran Cohen paid an Iranian agency for the services of a translator. It transpired that he was manipulated by the Farsi translator and carefully monitored and manoeuvred by the Iranian government. His depiction of Jewish life in Iran sparked criticism from columnists and activists, notably Jeffrey Goldberg of the The Atlantic Monthly. In an effort to counter the criticism Cohen accepted an invitation to meet with selected members of Los Angeles's Iranian Jewish and Bahai communities at Sinai Temple. After the meeting Rabbi David Wolpe of the Sinai Temple said, "Increasingly I came to believe that Iran was not Cohen's sole concern; he wanted it as a stick with which to beat Israel over Gaza, whose incursion he wrote left him ashamed." Cohen opposed Operation Cast Lead, labelling it "wretchedly named — and disastrous". He accused Israelis of the "slaying of hundreds of Palestinian children" in the campaign. In a column he wrote a few days before the meeting in Los Angeles, Cohen said that he had "never previously felt so shamed by Israel’s actions." I recall commenting in my weekly newsletter that Roger Cohen’s opinion on Operation Cast Lead was based mostly on Hamas propaganda. I wrote, “Cohen criticises the demonisation of the Iranian regime and the ostracising of Hezbollah and Hamas." He wrote, "The equating of Iran with terror today is simplistic. Hamas and Hezbollah have evolved into broad political movements widely seen as resisting an Israel ever-ready to use crushing force. It is essential to think again about them, just as it is essential to toss out Iran caricatures.”
Regarding the same “mellowing,” I mentioned that a year prior to Cohen’s reassurances about Iran and its subcontractors Hezbollah and Hamas Jeffrey Goldberg interviewed Hamas hardliner Nizar Rayyan. “Goldberg asked him if he could envision a 50-year hudna (truce) with Israel, Rayyan responded, ‘The only reason to have a hudna is to prepare yourself for the final battle. We don't need 50 years to prepare ourselves for the final battle with Israel. Israel is impossibility. It is an offense against God.’
Well, as of late January 2009 Nizar Rayyan joined his maker, courtesy of the IDF.”
Last week Roger Cohen wrote again about Iran. His column in the New York Times entitled "The False Debate" appears to be an attempt to regain acceptance as a legitimate observer of the Iran dilemma. Cohen's opening remarks are meant in part to settle the score with Jeffrey Goldberg. He points out that Goldberg predicted Israel would attack Iran in the spring of 2011. He went on to say,"This month, after Netanyahu met with President Barack Obama, he wrote for Bloomberg that Obama’s words — 'I have Israel’s back' — meant something but not 'enough to stop Netanyahu.' ” Goldberg amended his opinion in a follow-up article for Bloomberg arguing that 'Netanyahu could be bluffing.' All the Israel prime minister was really deploying was “huge gusts of words infused with drama and portents of catastrophe.' ”
Cohen sagaciously called the opinion shift "The Goldberg Variations." However, the Iran debate is a very fluid discourse. Predictions do not always materialise and adamant rock-firm opinions sometimes become outmoded. Nevertheless, Cohen says, Jeffrey Goldberg is a journalist who has interviewed both Netanyahu and Obama on Iran. His opinion is worthy of serious note.
Cohen proffers an interim observation, "On the other hand, it seems to me evident that if Iran ever did move out of its comfort zone (which is dilatory opacity), throw out the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors monitoring its uranium enrichment, combine the elements of its nuclear and ballistic research, and rush for a bomb, it would face assault from Israel and the United States together. Neither can permit such a decisive shift in the Middle East strategic equation. Obama means it when he says containment of a nuclear Iran is not an option. "
He rehashes the national pride motivation to explain Iran's nuclear programme. "My sense of Iran’s psychology, based on five weeks spent there on two visits in 2009 and close observation since, includes these elements. The nuclear program is the modern-day equivalent of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh’s nationalization of the oil industry — an affirmation of Persian pride against the tutelage of the West and one it is determined will not end with a humiliation like Mossadegh’s overthrow in the British-American orchestrated coup of 1953.
It is a push for regional influence, a protest against double standards (nuclear-armed Israel, Pakistan and India), a nationalist cornerstone for a tired revolutionary regime and a calculated hedge — the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is 'the guardian of the Revolution' and so must balance assertion with preservation, hence the brinkmanship that keeps Iran just short of steps that, it calculates, would trigger war."
"Is there a way out of the impasse?" Cohen asks," Perhaps not: Khamenei is a Brezhnevian figure with a locked-in world view of America as the Great Satan. But perhaps yes, if real concessions are made by both sides and the nuclear issue is not taken in isolation. "
His concluding remarks hint that the Iranian regime is looking for a face-saving way out of the present impasse. "The fundamental question the West must answer is how to satisfy Iran’s pride and usher it from historical grievance while capping its enrichment at a low, vigorously inspected level far from weapons grade (I can see no solution that does not allow some enrichment.) The fundamental question for the Islamic Republic is whether it can open itself to the West while preserving its system, a risk China took 40 years ago and won.
All the rest is no more than “huge gusts of words.”
At this juncture I think it's pertinent to quote directly from Goldberg's article in Bloomberg, "I’m talking about the belief, advanced to me by a former senior Israeli military official, and echoed by other non-insane people, that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is bluffing: He has never had any intention of launching air and missile strikes against Iran's nuclear program, and is working behind the scenes with Obama to stop Iran through sanctions.
In this interpretation, what Netanyahu has been doing -- for the past 15 years, in and out of office -- is creating conditions in which U.S., Western and Arab leaders believe that they must deny Iran its dream of nuclear weapons or else suffer the chaotic fallout of a precipitous, paranoia-driven Israeli attack……. For at least the past two years, experts have argued that an Israeli strike is highly likely, yet it hasn’t happened.
Another attraction has to do with the personality of the man himself: Netanyahu is much better at talking than doing. Despite his reputation in some circles as a trigger-happy extremist, Netanyahu has, when compared with his recent predecessors, only sparingly used force against foes such as Hezbollah and Hamas……. The former Israeli military official I spoke with in Tel Aviv suggested three possible explanations for Netanyahu’s lack of action: 1) He is paralyzed and won’t act, no matter what he believes the threat to be; 2) He fears he would risk a serious rupture in his country’s alliance with the U.S. if he attacked Iran unilaterally; and 3) It’s all part of a game, one he has tacitly engineered with Obama.
I remain fairly confident that Netanyahu means it when he says that Israel would strike Iran to prevent it from going nuclear, but this third option is an interesting one, mainly because the game -- a sustained Israeli bluff -- would seem to be working so well."
Conspiracy theories sell well in Israel, so the Netanyahu - Obama tête-à-tête is quite believable. Goldberg says,. "When I asked Obama if he and Netanyahu are friends, he said, in essence, 'Well, we’re all so busy with our jobs.' It certainly seems clear from the outside that the two men don’t have a trusting relationship.
Is that observation enough to discard the "former Israeli military official's" tacitly engineered bluff theory?
What do we think? What does the rank and file Israeli think about attacking Iran?
A poll, conducted by Professor. Camil Fuchs for the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, showed that 65 percent of respondents agreed with the claim that the price Israel would have to pay for living with the threat of an Iranian bomb would be greater than the price it would pay for attacking Iran's nuclear facilities. Only 26 percent disagreed with this claim, with nine percent saying they weren't sure.
The poll questioned 505 Jewish Israelis, representing five different populations: secular, traditional, religious, ultra-Orthodox and Russian immigrants. When breaking down the response into sectors, 72 percent of the religious Zionist respondents agreed with the statement, compared to 65-66 percent of the secular and traditional respondents. Men were also more likely to support the statement than women, with 73 percent of the men questioned preferring an attack on Iran, as opposed to 56 percent of the women.
When he was asked to comment on a report that Israel might use an airfield close to Azerbaijan’s border with Iran to attack Iranian nuclear facilities, Azerbaijan's defence minister publicly ruled out the use of Azerbaijan for a strike on Iran. "The Republic of Azerbaijan, like always in the past, will never permit any country to take advantage of its land, or air, against the Islamic Republic of Iran, which we consider our brother and friend country," he said. But even if his government makes good on that promise, it could still provide Israel with essential support. A U.S. military intelligence officer noted that Azeri defence minister did not explicitly bar Israeli bombers from landing in the country after a strike. Nor did he rule out the basing of Israeli search-and-rescue units in the country. Proffering such landing rights -- and mounting search and rescue operations closer to Iran -- would make an Israeli attack on Iran easier.
Notwithstanding the minister's assurance Foreign Policy Magazine published an article entitled "Israel's Secret Staging Ground" claiming that U.S. officials believe Israel has gained access to airbases in Azerbaijan. The articles traces a painstaking development of close relations based on common interests between Azerbaijan and Israel Since 1994 Israel has been investing money and time in cultivating good relations between the two countries .
According to the author of the article, Mark Perry, “Obama administration officials now believe that the hidden aspect of the Israeli-Azerbaijani alliance -- the security cooperation between the two countries -- is heightening the risks of an Israeli strike on Iran….Four senior diplomats and military intelligence officers say that the United States has concluded that Israel has recently been granted access to airbases on Iran's northern border. To do what, exactly, is not clear. "The Israelis have bought an airfield," a senior administration official told me in early February." Perry says, ”The Israeli embassy in Washington, the Israel Defence Forces, and the Mossad, were all contacted for comment on this story but did not respond. The Azeri embassy to the United States also did not respond to requests for information regarding Azerbaijan's security agreements with Israel.” …” The Azeri military has four abandoned, Soviet-era airfields that would potentially be available to the Israelis, as well as four airbases for their own aircraft, according to the International Institute for Strategic Studies' Military Balance 2011. "
"Access to such airfields is important for Israel, because it would mean that Israeli F-15I and F-16I fighter-bombers would not have to refuel midflight during a strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, but could simply continue north and land in Azerbaijan.
Defence analyst David Isenberg describes the ability to use Azeri airfields as ‘a significant asset’ to any Israel strike, calculating that the 2,200-mile trip from Israel to Iran and back again would stretch Israel's warplanes to their limits. ‘Even if they added extra fuel tanks, they'd be running on fumes, so being allowed access to Azeri airfields would be crucial.’ " Another nameless U.S military source told Perry, " Israel could also use Azerbaijan as a base for Israeli drones, either as part of a follow-on attack against Iran, or to mount aerial assessment missions in an attack's aftermath.” ….”Israeli firms ‘built and guard the fence around Baku's international airport, monitor and help protect Azerbaijan's energy infrastructure, and even provide security for Azerbaijan's president on foreign visits,’ according toa study published by Ilya Bourtman in the Middle East Journal.”…
I’m sure someone in Tehran reads Foreign Policy Magazine. Even if the Azerbaijan Connection is no more than a red herring it serves to escalate fears of an imminent attack. Perry says, ” Israeli officials downplay their military cooperation with Baku, pointing out that Azerbaijan is one of the few Muslim nations that makes Israelis feel welcome. Former Israel Minister of Health, Dr. Ephraim Sneh told an Azeri magazine in July 2010 ‘I think that in the Caucasian region, Azerbaijan is an icon of progress and modernity,’ .
Many would beg to differ with that description. The retired American diplomat quoted by Perry said. “Sneh's claim is laughable; Azerbaijan is a thuggish family-run ‘kleptocracy’ and one of the most corrupt regimes in the world."
Well you can’t always pick and choose your friends.
Have a good weekend.
Beni 29th of March, 2012.
No comments:
Post a Comment