Slain Hamas Leader Helped Gaza Get Arms and Israel Links Him To Iran

Hamas spokesman Talal Nasser told the UAE newspaper The National that Mahmoud Al-Mabhouh, a Hamas commander killed in Dubai on the January 20, had "played a key role in supplying the Palestinian people with weapons and money," including "special weapons" for his native Gaza, where Israel waged war a year ago.
A source close to Hamas in Gaza told Reuters: "I believe the issue of weapons he used to provide Hamas and (Palestinian) resistance factions was the reason behind his being targeted."
Israel's government declined official comment on the death of Al-Mabhouh, however Israeli security sources linked him to rockets and other arms that reach Gaza from Iran, Reuters reported.

One Israeli security source said on Sunday Mabhouh had been "key" to Hamas efforts to smuggle rockets and other arms into his native Gaza Strip, ruled by the Palestinian Islamist faction and whose borders with Israel and Egypt are under blockade.

"He was a strategic asset for Hamas when it came to its armament by Iran," the source said. Israel accuses Iran of supplying weapons to Hamas by sea and land routes such as Sudan and Egypt. Iran calls its support for Hamas diplomatic only.

Hamas officials have declined to say what Mabhouh, who had long lived in the Syrian capital Damascus, was doing in the Gulf or what his role was. They called him a senior military figure and one Hamas source said he was working right up to his death.

Politico: CIA chief visited Israel; discussed Iran

Laura Rozen, reported in politico.com that CIA director Leon Panetta traveled to Israel this past week where he met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan, one former Israeli official said. The main subject of conversation was Iran.

Israeli sources say CIA director Leon Panetta traveled to Israel this past week. He met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and Mossad chief Meir Dagan, one former Israeli official said. The main subject of conversation was Iran, as well as "relations" in general, the former official said.

A CIA spokesman said that they don't as a rule discuss the CIA director's travel. Regional news reports said that Panetta also traveled to Cairo for meetings with Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman and other officials.

Earlier this month, Obama National Security Advisor Jim Jones traveled to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon, accompanied by the NSC's Dennis Ross.

Panetta previously was reported to travel to Israel last May.

Yedioth Ehronot who cited Rozen's article offered this background:

The last known visit by Panetta in Israel took place last May. During his visit, senior political and security sources conveyed through him a message to the Obama administration stating that Israel plans to coordinate its moves on Iran with the US.
They stated that this commitment would stand in the event of a military option as well.

U.S. Speeding Up Missile Defenses in Persian Gulf

From the NY Times by DAVID E. SANGER and ERIC SCHMITT:

WASHINGTON — The Obama administration is accelerating the deployment of new defenses against possible Iranian missile attacks in the Persian Gulf, placing special ships off the Iranian coast and antimissile systems in at least four Arab countries, according to administration and military officials.

The deployments come at a critical turning point in President Obama’s dealings with Iran. He is warning that his diplomatic outreach will now be combined with the “consequences,” as he put it in the State of the Union address, of the country’s continued defiance on its nuclear program. The administration is trying to win broad international consensus for sanctions against the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps, which Western nations say controls the military side of the nuclear program.

As part of that effort, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton publicly warned China on Friday that its opposition to sanctions was shortsighted.

The news that the United States is deploying antimissile defenses — including a rare public discussion of them by Gen. David H. Petraeus — appears to be part of a coordinated administration strategy to increase pressure on Iran.

The deployments are also partly intended to counter the impression that Iran is fast becoming the most powerful military force in the Middle East and to forestall any Iranian escalation of its confrontation with the West if a new set of sanctions is imposed. In addition, the administration is trying to show Israel that there is no immediate need for military strikes against Iranian nuclear and missile facilities, according to administration officials, all of whom requested anonymity.

By highlighting the defensive nature of the buildup the administration was hoping to avoid a sharp response from Tehran.

Military officials said that the countries that accepted the antimissile weapons were Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Kuwait. They said the Kuwaitis had agreed to take additional defensive weapons to supplement older, less capable models it fielded years ago, while it awaits delivery of an upgraded system that it is seeking from the Raytheon Company. Saudi Arabia and Israel have long had similar equipment of their own.

General Petraeus has declined to say who was taking the American equipment, probably because many countries in the gulf are hesitant to be publicly identified as accepting American military aid and the troops that come with it. In fact, the names of countries where the antimissile systems are deployed are classified, but many of them are an open secret.

General Petraeus spoke about the deployments at a conference at the Institute for the Study of War here on Jan. 22, saying that “Iran is clearly seen as a very serious threat by those on the other side of the gulf front, and indeed, it has been a catalyst for the implementation of the architecture that we envision and have now been trying to implement.”

General Petraeus said that the acceleration of defensive systems — which began when President George W. Bush was in office — included “eight Patriot missile batteries, two in each of four countries.” Patriot missiles are capable of shooting down short-range offensive missiles.

General Petraeus also described a first line of defense: He said the United States was now keeping Aegis cruisers on patrol in the Persian Gulf at all times. Those cruisers are equipped with advanced radar and antimissile systems designed to intercept medium-range missiles. Those systems would not be useful against Iran’s long-range missile, the Shahab 3, but intelligence agencies believe that it will be years before Iran can solve the problems of placing a nuclear warhead atop that missile.

As described by administration officials, the moves have several motives. “Our first goal is to deter the Iranians,” said one senior administration official, insisting on anonymity because the White House declined to answer any questions about the rationale behind the buildup. “A second is to reassure the Arab states, so they don’t feel they have to go nuclear themselves. But there is certainly an element of calming the Israelis as well.”

As Iran’s nuclear program proceeds — more slowly, American intelligence officials say, than they once feared — Israel has hinted at various times that it might take military action against the country’s military facilities unless it is convinced that Mr. Obama and Western allies are succeeding in stopping the program. In the spring of 2008, the Israelis asked President Bush for weapons able to penetrate underground bunkers and refueling technology in case they decided to carry out a strike. They were turned down, and have since focused on developing their own capabilities.

Mr. Obama’s national security adviser, Gen. James L. Jones, took an unannounced trip to Israel this month, partly to take the temperature of the Israeli government and to review both economic and covert programs now under way against the Iranian program, according to officials familiar with the meeting.

American officials argue that the willingness of Arab states to take the American emplacements, which usually come with a small deployment of American soldiers to operate, maintain and protect the equipment, illustrates the region’s growing unease about Iran’s ambitions and abilities. Oman, which has always been sensitive about perceptions that it is doing Washington’s bidding, has also been approached, but so far there is no deployment of Patriots there, according to American officials.

One senior military officer said that General Petraeus had started talking openly about the Patriot deployments about a month ago, when it became increasingly clear that international efforts toward imposing sanctions against Iran faced hurdles, and the administration’s efforts to engage Iran were being rebuffed by the Tehran government. In October, the two countries reached an agreement in principle to move a significant portion of Iran’s nuclear fuel out of the country, but Iran backed away from the deal.

In discussing the Patriots and missile-shooting ships, General Petraeus’s main message has been to reassure allies in the gulf that the United States is committed to helping defend the region, said the military officer, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the topic. But the general’s remarks were also a pointed reminder to the Iranians of American resolve, the officer said.

Mousavi And Karroubi In Implicit Call For Protest On Feb 11

Opposition heads on Saturday implicitly called for demonstrations on the February 11 anniversary of Iran's Islamic revolution, as the Revolutionary Guards warned that any such protest will be crushed.

Mir Hossein Mousavi and Mehdi Karroubi, who have spearheaded protests against President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, met on Saturday and invited supporters to demonstrate on the anniversary day, Karroubi's website Sahamnews.org said.

The two leaders said Thursday's hangings of two dissidents, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmani Pour, for allegedly plotting to topple the Islamic regime after Iran's election dispute broke out in June was an attempt to keep people away from the February 11 demonstration.

"It seems that such a move is to scare people so they do not take part in the demonstration of 22nd of Bahman (February 11)," the website quoted the two as saying, an indication of possible anti-government protests which could occur during regime-sponsored annual marches.

The website said Mousavi and Karroubi agreed that the executed pair appeared to have been arrested months before the June 12 presidential election and had nothing to do with the post-poll violence.

The two dissidents belonged to the monarchist group Tondar (the Kingdom Assembly of Iran), according to Iranian media reports.

Their hangings were the first reported executions of people tried since the wave of protests that broke out following the re-election of hardliner Ahmadinejad to a second four-year term.

Sahamnews said the two leaders also invited people to turn out in "massive numbers" on February 11 for the 31st anniversary.

Hundreds of thousands of Iranians march each year to mark the revolution which toppled the pro-Western shah but next month's event is expected to turn into another stage for anti-government protests.

On Saturday, a senior commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards militia warned that any attempt by opposition groups to protest against the government on February 11 will be crushed.

"We will by no means allow anything known as the 'green movement' to make an appearance" on the anniversary, Brigadier General Hossein Hamedani was quoted as saying on ISNA news agency.

Protesters would be considered as "foreign agents."

"Any voice, colour and gesture which is different from that of the Islamic revolution and from Iranians' voice should be driven out of people's marches ... and if there a few people who want to do something, they will be severely dealt with," he said.

Opposition supporter and ex-president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, meanwhile, urged people to maintain calm on the anniversary day.

"Those who love the regime ... should try that this year's march be held calmly ... because any conflict and violence will serve the interests of enemies," Rafsanjani was quoted on state television's website.

The anti-Ahmadinejad protests which erupted after his re-election have shaken the pillars of Iran's Islamic regime and divided the clergy.

The 15 Points of “The Secular Green Movement”

Below is the a declaration by the secular supporters of the Iranian Green Movement:

1. Prologue and Invitation

We, who have put our signatures under this declaration as a section of intellectual supporters of the Iranian Green Movement, have come to the conclusion that we are living in a critical moment when our inevitable historical duty is to introduce our great nation and those who participate in the Iranian Green Movement, a political alternative that we think would be beneficial for the future of our country.

We believe that a 31-year long period of lawlessness, suppression, annihilation of all freedoms, imprisonment of political thinkers, practicing torture and having no regard for the provisions of the Human Rights Declaration and International Conventions, has rendered the present regime of Iran, with all its institutions totally illegitimate.

Without denying the probable necessity of going through a gradual and non-violent period of change towards the realization of our demands, we believe that any kind of transition should have a bundle of clear-cut goals. Our declaration is based on such targets and is based on our firm belief that the present regime should be dismantled and the ingredients of a new one, including the form of the future Iranian state, the Constitutional Assembly, other assemblies and the forming of the new government should be determined through a series of free elections, supervised by relevant international institutions.

We have listed our beliefs and goals in the second section of this declaration and, have established an administrative office and an Internet site that would merely function as a hub to create a network through which all secular forces of Iran could communicate and exchange their thoughts and ideas. We invite all those Iranians who share these goals to sign this declaration by their real names and join us in good faith.

We say to our compatriots that we are not few and disabled. Nevertheless, our scattered composure diminishes our efficiency. To enter this path, no one needs to put aside her/his opinions, religion, and schools of thought. All Muslims, whether Shiites or Sunni, all Zoroastrians, Christians, Jews, Baha'is, atheists, and non-believers who endeavor to create an atmosphere of tolerance and coexistence could consider themselves as "secular" and join us for the realization of the ideas put forward in this declaration.

We also invite all those owners of different media who consider themselves as "secular" to join this effort and participate in the creation of a powerful secular network that would endeavor to reflect the true voice of the Iranian nation all over the world.

Dear compatriots, our destination will not be far away if we walk on the road to the future by friendship and having in our hearts a deep belief in the necessity of tolerance and coexistence.

2. Our Objectives and Why We Have Chosen Them

1. We have recognized that the main historical problem of the Iranian people has been a perpetual suffering caused by different kinds of discrimination which have manifested themselves with regard to beliefs, opinions, religions, ethnicities, languages, sexuality, cultural values, and social opportunities. By declaring an official religion in the past, and due to 31-year-long governance by the clergies of the Imami Shiite sect, the number and depth of these discriminations have become threefold.

2. We find the key to resolve this historic problem in building a society that is governed by mundane laws created by the will of all Iranians, for all of them and in their service, regardless of any consideration for religious orientations, ethic and sexual identities or cultural and lingual preferences. Such laws will not divide the nation into different categories of citizenship but will bestow law, order, resources and opportunities to every member of the society without any discrimination.

3. We regard all Iranians as the true owners of their country, deserving all the provisions of the Declaration of Human Rights with no religious and ideological considerations and pre-conditions. The future government of Iran should adhere to all international conventions that guarantee sexual equality, together with annihilation of discrimination, torture, political incarceration, death penalty and deprivation of education and health services, without any condition or exception.

4. We believe that having an "Iranian Nation" entails the existence of a unified country. We also think that imposing different discriminations is the main threat against this unification by creating an urge for separation and disintegration. We believe that the cure resides in the annihilation of all sorts of ethnic and cultural discrimination.

5. Apart from its legal aspects, we believe that feeling to be an "Iranian" comes from a national and historical identity that discrimination can render it meaningless and useless. Therefore, we believe that preserving the variegated heritage of "all Iranians", coming down from all stages of our history, is the best guarantor of our relationship with this identity. At the same time, we consider having a critical awareness of this history, without denying one moment of it, is the main guaranteeing condition for the preservation of national integrity of all variances within said identity.

6. If we want Iran to belong to all Iranians, we should be aware and watchful so that no individual or group could claim priority in benefiting from opportunities over others. No special merit and advantage should be plausible without reason. All vocational and political offices should be opened to all Iranians regardless of their religion, differing opinion, language or ethnic background.

7. We believe that the key to this goal is to adhere to the principals of merit, suitability and competence. Any other "criteria" could lead to discrimination.

8. All of the national resources and opportunities should belong to all Iranians. At the same time, relying on the sanctity of human individuality and one’s right to harness the results of one’s life endeavors, we regard private ownership as a principal. But, at the same time and upon the principal of non-discrimination, no material gain should give individuals any social privileges. The same principals dictate to us that all social policies should be tuned to the prerequisites of social justice.

9. It is obvious to us that eliminating discrimination in an ethnically and culturally colorful and variegated society entails that no social group or strata should be able to impose its values upon others, or segregate the people into different classes of citizenships, or distribute national resources on a discriminatory scale. It is upon such observation that we believe in a state separated from all religious and ideological inclinations and natures. Such a state would be a translator of all national aspirations of Iranians and would act upon the decision and under supervision of a national assembly with its deputies elected through free elections.

10. We believe that a manifestation of peaceful coexistence would be the inability of any social group to impose its values and celebrations as well as mournful occasions on other group that do not share those values.

11. We know that the diverse nature of Iranian society asks for simultaneous integrity through non-discrimination and the observance of the special needs of different social groups. Accepting plurality and differences entails the recognition of the ability of smaller groups in running their own internal affairs. Thus, imposition of the values of any group on others, together with unnecessary centralization of affairs, could result in social dissatisfaction and should be banned.

12. The non-discrimination principal entails that no person of authority should be non-responsible and unanswerable to the people's delegates, considering himself/herself different from others. Attaining authority should be coupled with answerable responsibility.

13. We believe in the important role of political parties and encourage everyone to establish or become member of such institutions. At the same time, we think that the function of a political party should not include the imposition of ideological and religious inclinations. Every party should render an executable program for running the government based on their beliefs and values but within the frame work of democracy and secularism. Any party that obtains the seat of authority and political power should know that it is to render its services to all Iranians and cannot discriminate between members and non-members. And, in order to prevent the despotism of any political party, their presence in power should be temporal and periodic. No official should consider herself/himself above others and should remember that he/she is employed by the rest to serve their interests.

14. In an Iran void of any discrimination, everyone should have the right of investigation, criticizing, protesting and gathering in non-violent demonstrations based on the laws sanctioned by the elected deputies of the national assembly. Parallel to that, the freedom of all media should be guarded by the government. All complaints against the media should be investigated by an independent judiciary and government should not be a deciding party to this investigation. Apart from unity of the country and freedom of its people, creating and guarding the freedom of speech on a national scale entails that nothing should be considered sacred. Nevertheless, the mundane and secular nature of this sacredness should not prevent any criticism.

15. We believe that members of the armed forces of the country should not be allowed to participate in political and economic activities unless they act within their civilian rights and by means of their personal abilities, without using any governmental means and influences. They should attend to their legal duties under the supervision of the freely elected government of Iran.

NY Times to Obama: Strengthen Your Speech On Behalf Of The Iranians

The argument is growing in favor of furthering support for the green revolution in Iran. NY Times is latest to reflect on this issue in its editorial.

President Obama needs to speak out more strongly on behalf of Iranians who are peacefully seeking change. But the United States and its partners also must be very conscious of the fierce pride and independence of the Iranian people. Squaring that circle will be extremely hard, but it must be done. Meanwhile, the centrifuges keep spinning.

Proxy War Between Israel and Iran Looms in Lebanon

President Barack Obama's national security adviser is citing a heightened risk that Iran will respond to growing pressure over its nuclear program by stoking violence against Israel.

The adviser, retired Marine Gen. James Jones, said history shows that when regimes are feeling pressure they can lash out through surrogates.

He said that in Iran's case that would mean facilitating attacks on Israel through Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Iran helps arm Hezbollah and Hamas.

Jones also alluded to the prospect of additional international sanctions being applied to Iran as one factor in making Iran feel greater pressure. He said another factor is internal pressure - an apparent reference to street protests against the Iranian leadership over the disputed presidential election last summer.

In the same vein, French Foreign Minister expressed earlier his fear that the situation in Iran might prompt officials in Tehran to behave unpredictably, which could prove dangerous given Hizbullah’s weapons, and could lead to unfortunate events.

On a different note Jonathan Spyer wrote in Jerusalem Post that any future strike at Hizbullah that does not take into account its status as a client of Syria, is unlikely to land a decisive blow.

Karroubi Cries Over Spilled Milk

Earlier this week, a hard-line Iranian journalist attributed to Mehdi Karroubi a softened stance on Iran's leadership, saying that the white-turbaned opposition figure recognized Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as the head of Iran's government.

The controversial article, carried by The Fars News Service, affiliated with the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, credited Karroubi, though, for maintaining his belief that the elections was rigged. “In response to your question in particular, I must say that I also recognize the president of the Islamic republic officially,” Fars reported Mr. Karroubi as saying.

The statement attributed to Karroubi caught on like wildfire, further confusing the political crisis in Iran.

In the aftermath, two views have competed to decode Karoubi's message, with a dominant one rushing to conclude that political winds are shifting in Iran, while the second dismissed the story on the basis of being a total fallacy.

However, both views failed to capture the essence of Karoubi's statement, which he himself put in context two days later in an interview with the Financial Times. Through this interview Karroubi's strategy seems to have stuck to four pillars.

1. Maintaining a harsh stance against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to the extent of predicting his early exit from office.
2. Standing by his assertions that the presidential election was rigged.
3. Saving the Valey El Fakih Ali Khamenei any criticism, defending him against the sharp slogans used in the demonstrations and called for his death and even appeasing to him.
4. Underscoring the fact that the regime is in danger.

Through the above four pillars emerges a tactical move on Karroubi's side, given the fact that the demonstrations are rapidly evolving in a direction deemed, by the regime, too radical to tolerate any further.

Death to the dictator, to Khamenei, to Ahmadinajad substituted the original slogan "where is my vote", while demonstrators' wrath ratcheted up to the point of burning the posters of Khamenei and Khomeini. Karroubi's maneuver, hence, aims at reviving the initial reason that got the Iranians to the streets, which was, short after, overshadowed by a wide range of interests, some of which aim at overthrowing the whole regime.

Accordingly, Karroubi walked, in the interview a fine line. He highlighted his loyalty to the system and tried to dispel the impression that the opposition targets Ali Khamenei's mandate while at the same time he appealed to him to rescue what is at stake due to Ahmadinejad's policies.

In short he decided to throw back the ball to Khamenei, leaving it to him to find the way out of the crisis. "I accept the Islamic republic and I accept the constitution. I don’t agree with slogans that call for changing power structures; our slogans are within this system and this constitution. Our constitution has some weaknesses but has lots of [democratic] capacities" he said.

Yet, Karroubi noted that a "strong body (...) can be weakened following incidents and illnesses and that "the Islamic republic has paid enormously for these four or five years of Mr Ahmadi-Nejad".

However Karroubi acknowledges that his move is not one he can bet the farm on. "The truth is", he concludes, "there is no news yet that the other side seeks a solution. The other side still thinks the post-election event was “sedition”. They believe things are going back to normal and the so-called sedition is being put off".

It is not hard to consider Karroubi's move too little too late.

The green movement, the true leader of the opposition, has developed an irreversible stance to introduce serious changes to the way Iranians have been governed for the past 31 years. People from all over the political spectrum came together to the conclusion that the system is incapable of carrying on.

This is a fact to be emphasized in the upcoming rallies in early February, in an attempt to co-opt a massive pro-regime march to commemorate the victory of the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Karroubi's move, in this sense, is a cry over spilled milk and he knows it.

U.S. Senate Approves Stronger Penalties Against Iran

By REUTERS

The United States Senate approved legislation on Thursday that would let President Obama impose sanctions on Iran’s gasoline suppliers and penalize some of Tehran’s elites, a move aimed at pressing Tehran to give up its nuclear program. The sanctions would include the denial of loans and other assistance from American financial institutions to companies that export gasoline to Iran or help expand its oil-refining capacity. The penalties would extend to companies that build oil and gas pipelines in Iran and provide tankers to move Iran’s petroleum. The measure prohibits the United States government from buying goods from foreign companies that do business in Iran’s energy sector. The House has passed similar legislation, and the houses will work out the differences between the bills. Washington fears that Iran’s uranium enrichment program will be used to develop weapons, while Tehran says it is for peaceful purposes like generating electricity.

In addition, Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett -disapprovingly- point in their latest joint post on their blog The Race For Iran at a hearing scheduled to be held next week by the "House Committee on Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia" on what the United States can do to assist the opposition in Iran.

Snow Ball Of Regime Change In Iran Is Growing

Calls for regime change in Iran are up in the air. Not like it hasn't been there for a while since the aftermath of Iran's presidential election; but the fact that it is gaining a growing space in US main stream media and among a diverse group of intellectuals and policy makers, who vary from hardcore realists to neoconservative sympathizers, is very telling.

First it was the Newsweek piece by Ricard Haass titled Enough Is Enough. In this article, Haass, president of The Council on Foreign Relations, offers the following argument:

The nuclear talks are going nowhere. The Iranians appear intent on developing the means to produce a nuclear weapon; there is no other explanation for the secret uranium-enrichment facility discovered near the holy city of Qum. Fortunately, their nuclear program appears to have hit some technical snags, which puts off the need to decide whether to launch a preventive strike. Instead we should be focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.

Haass admits that "even a realist should recognize that it's an opportunity not to be missed".

In fact the last time Haass was involved in architecting an "Enough Is Enough" sort of approach, a regime was ousted in Iraq. That was back in 2003 when Haass was serving as State Department's Director of Policy Planning. His input was central to Secretary of State Colin Powell’s February 5, 2003 presentation to the United Nations Security Council, making the case for coercive regime change in Iraq. His Newsweek piece echoes the following line he helped formulating some 6 years ago:

“How much longer are we willing to put up with Iraq’s noncompliance before we, as a council, we, as the United Nations, say: ‘Enough. Enough’.”

Second comes Robert Kagan's monthly column in the Washington Post, in which he argues how Obama can reverse Iran's dangerous course.

Regime change is more important than any deal the Obama administration might strike with Iran's present government on its nuclear program. Even if Tehran were to accept the offer made last year to export some of its low-enriched uranium, this would be a modest step down a long, uncertain road. Such a minor concession is not worth abandoning the push for real change.
(...) Regime change in Tehran is the best nonproliferation policy...

Unlike Haass who subscribes to the realist school, Kagan was always close to the neoconservatives. He co-founded with William Kristol the Project for the New American Century, and co-signed the famous open letter to President Clinton on Iraq.

Kagan, says that Iran's post election moment is Obama's "tear down this wall" moment.

Richard Haass: Enough Is Enough

When a self acclaimed card-carrying realist of the cloth of Richard Haass argues for regime change in Iran, it implies that Tehran's regime viability is scrapping the bottom. Here is his take.

Two schools of thought have traditionally competed to determine how America should approach the world. Realists believe we should care most about what states do beyond their borders—that influencing their foreign policy ought to be Washington's priority. Neoconservatives often contend the opposite: they argue that what matters most is the nature of other countries, what happens inside their borders. The neocons believe this both for moral reasons and because democracies (at least mature ones) treat their neighbors better than do authoritarian regimes.

I am a card-carrying realist on the grounds that ousting regimes and replacing them with something better is easier said than done. I also believe that Washington, in most cases, doesn't have the luxury of trying. The United States must, for example, work with undemocratic China to rein in North Korea and with autocratic Russia to reduce each side's nuclear arsenal. This debate is anything but academic. It's at the core of what is likely to be the most compelling international story of 2010: Iran.

In the wake of 9/11, the Bush administration judged incorrectly that Iran was on the verge of revolution and decided that dealing directly with Tehran would provide a lifeline to an evil government soon to be swept away by history's tide. A valuable opportunity to limit Iran's nuclear program may have been lost as a result. The incoming Obama administration reversed this approach and expressed a willingness to talk to Iran without preconditions. This president (like George H.W. Bush, whose emissaries met with Chinese leaders soon after Tiananmen Square) is cut more from the realist cloth. Diplomacy and negotiations are seen not as favors to bestow but as tools to employ. The other options—using military force against Iranian nuclear facilities or living with an Iranian nuclear bomb—were judged to be tremendously unattractive. And if diplomacy failed, Obama reasoned, it would be easier to build domestic and international support for more robust sanctions. At the time, I agreed with him.

I've changed my mind. The nuclear talks are going nowhere. The Iranians appear intent on developing the means to produce a nuclear weapon; there is no other explanation for the secret uranium-enrichment facility discovered near the holy city of Qum. Fortunately, their nuclear program appears to have hit some technical snags, which puts off the need to decide whether to launch a preventive strike. Instead we should be focusing on another fact: Iran may be closer to profound political change than at any time since the revolution that ousted the shah 30 years ago.

The authorities overreached in their blatant manipulation of last June's presidential election, and then made matters worse by brutally repressing those who protested. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lost much of his legitimacy, as has the "elected" president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The opposition Green Movement has grown larger and stronger than many predicted.

The United States, European governments, and others should shift their Iran policy toward increasing the prospects for political change. Leaders should speak out for the Iranian people and their rights. President Obama did this on Dec. 28 after several protesters were killed on the Shia holy day of Ashura, and he should do so again. So should congressional and world leaders. Iran's Revolutionary Guards should be singled out for sanctions. Lists of their extensive financial holdings can be published on the Internet. The United States should press the European Union and others not to trade or provide financing to selected entities controlled by the Guards. Just to cite one example: the Revolutionary Guards now own a majority share of Iran's principal telecommunications firm; no company should furnish it the technology to deny or monitor Internet use.

New funding for the project housed at Yale University that documents human-rights abuses in Iran is warranted. If the U.S. government won't reverse its decision not to provide the money, then a foundation or wealthy individuals should step in. Such a registry might deter some members of the Guards or the million-strong Basij militia it controls from attacking or torturing members of the opposition. And even if not, the gesture will signal to Iranians that the world is taking note of their struggle.

It is essential to bolster what people in Iran know. Outsiders can help to provide access to the Internet, the medium that may be the most important means for getting information into Iran and facilitating communication among the opposition. The opposition also needs financial support from the Iranian diaspora so that dissidents can stay politically active once they have lost their jobs.

Just as important as what to do is what to avoid. Congressmen and senior administration figures should avoid meeting with the regime. Any and all help for Iran's opposition should be nonviolent. Iran's opposition should be supported by Western governments, not led. In this vein, outsiders should refrain from articulating specific political objectives other than support for democracy and an end to violence and unlawful detention. Sanctions on Iran's gasoline imports and refining, currently being debated in Congress, should be pursued at the United Nations so international focus does not switch from the illegality of Iran's behavior to the legality of unilateral American sanctions. Working-level negotiations on the nuclear question should continue. But if there is an unexpected breakthrough, Iran's reward should be limited. Full normalization of relations should be linked to meaningful reform of Iran's politics and an end to Tehran's support of terrorism.

Critics will say promoting regime change will encourage Iranian authorities to tar the opposition as pawns of the West. But the regime is already doing so. Outsiders should act to strengthen the opposition and to deepen rifts among the rulers. This process is underway, and while it will take time, it promises the first good chance in decades to bring about an Iran that, even if less than a model country, would nonetheless act considerably better at home and abroad. Even a realist should recognize that it's an opportunity not to be missed.

Haass, president of The Council on Foreign Relations, is author of War of Necessity, War of Choice: A Memoir of Two Iraq Wars.

Review: Iran never halted nuke work in '03 - Washington Times

Review: Iran never halted nuke work in '03 - Washington Times

Kerry's Iran Visit Called Off Before Tehran's Rebuff

Annahar went out today with a distorted story that Iranian authorities denied Senator John Kerry a visa to visit the country as part of President Obama's engagement strategy.

علمت "النهار" من مصادر ديبلوماسية في بيروت ان طهران رفضت منح رئيس لجنة العلاقات الخارجية في مجلس الشيوخ الاميركي السناتور جون كيري تأشيرة دخول الى اراضيها بعدما افادت وزارة الخارجية الايرانية في وقت سابق أنها تدرس طلباً تقدم به كيري لزيارة الجمهورية الاسلامية.

They could have definitely done so. It is a move that was anticipated in many lines of the analysis/coverage of the reported visit possibility.
Kerry's people themselves went as far as denying the news of a planned visit to Iran.
However, the fact is that the word was spinning in Washington, in the aftermath of the Ashura demonstrations, in which eight opposition supporters were killed including opposition leader Mir Hussein Mousavi's nephew, that the Obama administration acknowledges now that it can't proceed with engagement as if nothing is taking place in the streets of Iran's big cities.
Hence, the visit which its news floated for a while, was taken off the table before even the Iranians rebuff it.
This is less than a change of policy. True. Nonetheless, it marks a remarkable adaptation on Washington's side, to the facts emerging in the streets of Iran.
The point of departure of such an adaptation process could be spotted in Obama's significant speech during his acceptance of the Noble Peace Prize on Dec 10.
The President addressed the Iranian people in an unprecedented direct manner since the crisis erupted more than 7 months ago:

to the hundreds of thousands who have marched silently through the streets of Iran. It is telling that the leaders of these governments fear the aspirations of their own people more than the power of any other nation. And it is the responsibility of all free people and free nations to make clear that these movements -- these movements of hope and history -- they have us on their side.

In fact, CNN reports back then that Obama departed from his prepared speech, replacing the original line "hope and history are on their side" to the what he said in Oslo, that "these movements...have us on their side".

Report: Iran agrees to 2-month suspension of nuke plan

Did Iran agree to 2-month suspension of nuke plan? Ron Ben-Yishai follows related reports in his piece for Yedioth Ahronot.

Iran agreed to suspend its nuclear program for two months as part of an ultimatum it set before the West, according to statements made by Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Ramin Mehmanparast to quasi-official news agency ILNA last week. The report was first published in Tehran Times, which is considered the mouthpiece of the Iranian regime.

"A number of neutral countries asked Iran not to enrich uranium for two months in order to give the West time to respond to Iran's proposals. We agreed to this request in order to show our good will to the international community," said Mehmanparast.

According to him, of the two months granted to the West, one month has already passed: "If the other side responds to Iran's requests (to carry out the agreement according to its requests) in the remaining time, we will start working. Otherwise, we will make the necessary decision."

The report, which was first published Monday in Haaretz, has not been confirmed by any other sources.

Officials in the West told Ynet that they "are unaware if this kind of suspension was indeed carried out." However, it seems as though Iran is interested in sending a low-level message to the West that it is interested in talking without being perceived as surrendering in public opinion at home.

About a week ago, US President Barack Obama's advisors said in an interview with the New York Times that the American administration has identified "a window of opportunity" to pressure Iran to abandon its nuclear program through targeted sanctions after they identified unexpected technical difficulties in the nuclear program that stem in part from the regime's preoccupation with putting down the opposition. It is possible that this "gesture" on Iran's part is a manifestation of the difficulties the regime has encountered.

The ultimatum to which Mehmanparast referred is in line with statements made by Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mouttaki at the beginning of the month. Mouttaki said that if no agreement is signed with the West regarding the supply of nuclear fuel by the end January, Iran would start enriching uranium on its own.

The draft agreement over which the sides are quarreling was penned during talks in Geneva under the auspices of the IAEA in October. According to the proposal the Western powers offered Iran, 75% of the low-enriched uranium in Iran's possession (about 1,200 kg or 2,645 lbs) will be transferred to Russia for additional enriching of up to 20%. From here, the uranium would be transferred to France, who would produce the fuel rods with which Iran would run its Tehran-based research reactor to create medical isotopes.

Iran agreed to the proposal in principle, but later withdrew its agreement and expressed a number of reservations. There was a disagreement over to whom Iran would hand over its low-enriched uranium. The Islamic Republic brought up Turkey as an option. Another disagreement revolves around whether the uranium will be transferred in one portion, or in 400 kg (882 lbs) portions, as Iran would like.

Petraeus: U.S. has plan to deal with Iran's nuclear program

Tampa, Florida (CNN) -- In addition to diplomacy and sanctions, the United States has developed contingency plans in dealing with Iran's nuclear facilities, a top U.S. military commander told CNN's Christiane Amanpour.
Gen. David Petraeus, head of U.S. Central Command, did not elaborate on the plans in the interview, to be aired Sunday. But he said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there.
"It would be almost literally irresponsible if CENTCOM were not to have been thinking about the various 'what ifs' and to make plans for a whole variety of different contingencies," Petraeus told Amanpour at the command's headquarters in Tampa.
Iran's nuclear program has become a thorn for the United States and its allies, and Washington has sharpened its tone on dealings over Tehran's program. The Islamic republic maintains the program is for peaceful purposes, but the United States and other Western nations fear Iran wants to acquire nuclear weapons.
Israel has called Iran's nuclear program the major threat facing its nation.
When asked about rumors that Israel could attack Iran's facilities, Petraeus declined to comment about Israel's military capabilities. But when asked about the vulnerability of the facilities, Petraeus said Iran has strengthened the facilities and has enhanced underground tunnels.
Still, the facilities are not bomb-proof.
"Well, they certainly can be bombed," he said. "The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear."
Iran is holding out on a United Nations-backed deal on its nuclear program that includes enriching uranium. The country had until the end of 2009 to accept the deal offered by the "P5 plus one" -- permanent U.N. Security Council members Britain, China, France, Russia and the United States, plus Germany. Instead, Iran countered, giving the West until the end of January to accept its own proposal.
The general said he thinks there is still time for the nations to engage Iran in diplomacy, noting there is no deadline on the enactment of any U.S. contingency plans.
He added, however, that "there's a period of time, certainly, before all this might come to a head, if you will."

Israeli general Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam denies Iran is nuclear threat - Times Online

Israeli general Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam denies Iran is nuclear threat - Times Online

POLITICO: Would U.S. help hurt Iran's opposition? - Laura Rozen - Would U.S. help hurt Iran's opposition?

POLITICO: Would U.S. help hurt Iran's opposition? - Laura Rozen - Would U.S. help hurt Iran's opposition?