Coming February 6, 2024 . . .
MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE
by Michael Wolraich
Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop
Coming February 6, 2024 . . . MURDER, POLITICS, AND THE END OF THE JAZZ AGE by Michael Wolraich Pre-order at Barnes & Noble / Amazon / Books-A-Million / Bookshop |
. . . .
Sam Kermanian, who serves as a special adviser to the Iranian American Jewish Federation, told Haaretz on Monday that community leaders were concerned that such a meeting would “send the wrong message to the administration and to American public opinion at this sensitive time.”
. . . .
He said that Rohani’s refusal to disavow his predecessor’s Holocaust denial in his NBC interview with Ann Curry were “an important factor” in their decision.
. . . .
But Sedgh’s [the Jewish representative in Iran's parliament] presence, in fact, served as an impediment as far as the Iranian Jewish leadership was concerned, because of his past support, inter alia, for Rohani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
American Jewish leaders, for their part, expressed concern that such a meeting would serve as a “tool” for Rohani’s “charm offensive” in the U.S.
Kermanian said that American Jews of Iranian descent welcome the signs of positive change emanating from Tehran and would be more than happy to meet with Rohani at some other time.
Comments
Not good, not good at all:
Israeli Diplomats Mock Iran’s President Online
By Robert Mackey, The Lede @ nytimes.com, Sept. 24, 2013
These are Bibi appointments, I take it? It's one thing if it's coming from Israeli riff raff, another from official embassy Twitter feed. I would think Israeli officials would at least be savvy enough to sock puppet this kind of stuff?
by artappraiser on Tue, 09/24/2013 - 3:34pm
Abba Eban Netanyahu is not.
by Bruce Levine on Tue, 09/24/2013 - 6:07pm
I will say, however, that I'm getting a bit of the feeling I had during the Obama campaign back in '08 as to folks' perception of President Rouhani. It is one thing to mock Netanyahu for being a diplomatic ninkampoop. On that I agree.
But anyone who thinks that Israel has no bona fide reason to have an existential fear of a nuclear Iran would have to explain that to me, and in doing so has to explain the reason that Israel has some kind of baseless reason for fearing a nuclear Iran, and attempting to stoke flames vis-a-vis Iran.
By the way, guess when the last time just about every Islamic nation in the world sat through a speech given by an Israeli at the UN? Guess how many other nations besides Israel is a permanent agenda item with the UN's Human Right's Council? Zero. The UN is not a very friendly place for the Jewish State.
It ain't just Netanyahu.
Addendum: The full picture is sometimes hard to get in one frame. While Netanyahu is being is usual obstructionist self, the international community, including President Rouhani, just keep on giving him the fodder that is the lifeblood of a "your either with us or against us" politician like Bibi. While President Rouhani is in the UN with his one Jewish member of Parliament--and yes that does creep me out and the reaction at Sunday morning minyan was universal on that score--it is not lost on Israelis that just days before the UN meeting Rouhani attended an Iranian military parade in which the stated mission of destroying, obliterating, ending the existence of the Jewish State was in full view and for all the world to see. And I understand Rouhani is playing a delicate balancing act at home, and I am not asserting that this is where Rouhani stands.
By the way, I believe the story was broken by Haaretz but it's behind the paywall.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 9:03am
The way I read that comment it seems that you are saying that Israel does in fact have a basis for stoking flames vis-a-vis Iran. Whether honestly having such a basis actually is your belief or not, it is true that the current Israeli leadership is stoking flames. That is not to say they are the only ones doing so.
We seem to somehow landed in a hopeful time when an agreement could be reached which would leave Israel with the bomb but get a verifiable deal that would prevent Iran from getting one even if that is, or was, or comes to, be their wish. Wouldn't that be considered a WIN-win even though there would still be problems in that region? A key ingredient in making that happen, or increasing the chances of that happening, would be an active, honest effort on the part of the Israeli government to be supportive rather than to fan the embers which will smolder for a long time on both sides regardless what else may happen. That may require going around Netanyahu just like going for an agreement in Congress on Syria that didn't include bombing them would require going around McCain and other jerks with power in the U.S.
So, I suggest the following as a reasonable position for us to take. http://consortiumnews.com/2013/09/25/why-netanyahu-spurns-an-iran-deal/
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 2:08pm
Thanks for your well-thought out and persuasive response. I kind of like the position that the president took yesterday, and I have no doubt that what you're suggesting is the kind of thing that Kerry and American diplomats are saying to Israel.
Bibi, on the other hand, has no other gear and it probably doesn't matter what folks say to him.
As to my comment, what I was trying to say is that Israel really does have a reason to be concerned about Iran, and notwithstanding Bibi's one-size-fits-all approach to all matters, foreign and domestic, I don't believe that Israel is blowing smoke for the simple goal of blowing smoke towards Iran. I think there is genuine concern among Israelis, which I believe Bibi exploits for domestic political purposes, but the concern is genuine nonetheless.
Thanks Lulu.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 4:40pm
I can see a valid reason for maintaining a "don't trust this guy, we've seen this before" stance in the diplomatic realm. That would be in the tradition of advocacy, where ultimately some truth is reached by balancing the two sides of the picture. But ridicule just doesn't have a place here, and the tweet struck me as: dumb, dumb, dumb.
Personally I love me some sarcasm and snark. But it doesn't belong in the words of world leaders and diplomats. I have been thinking lately about how Obama naturally leans toward sarcasm and how that is a really down side for him. It's like this: makes him one of my first invites for a party I am giving, but not necessarily a good choice for president. (Conversely, I never could imagine enjoying Bill Clinton's company--too much schmooze--but I see him as having optimal presidential skills.)
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 3:33pm
Sloppy reporting coming. [By me] Video problems so I can't go back and even get the speculation right for sure. Maybe this has been covered definitively in the press, I haven't seen it.
Robert Wright interviewing Mathew Lee said he had heard that neither Kerry nor Powers had attended Hassan Rouhani's speech. Kerry had credible deniability that it was a snub but what could be Power's excuse being she is Ambassador to the U.N? Seems there was no same room access by the press so Lee couldn't be sure who was or wasn't in attendance.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 3:50pm
I really don't think it matters in U.N. world whether they are actually physically there or not UNLESS they announce their intent not to be there or unless they purposefully walk out when the speaker comes on stage or during the speech. To be clear: if they publicize it, it's meant as a message. If they don't, it's not. So in this case, it being so hard to find out, it means: nothing.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 4:02pm
Surely there was a chair for each of them just in case they wanted to pay their respects and maybe there is good reason to move slowly and not do so yet, but I would like to see sometimes an enthusiastic embrace by some of our leaders at a chance for a peaceful resolution to approach the enthusiastic rah rah by so many of them every time they see an excuse to attack. Nuthin' means nothing, and those empty chairs meant something, even if far less than a walkout.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 4:25pm
If I had to guess (and I knows me practically nothing about world politics), I'd say you're right that it meant something, but not the same as a walkout. It meant that on one hand we didn't want to upset Israel, and on the other hand we didn't want to be seen as disrespecting Iran's recent overtures. We want to walk the middle ground, to have it both ways.
by Verified Atheist on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 4:38pm
enthusiastic embrace by some of our leaders at a chance for a peaceful resolution
To be fair, kumbaya Obama tried this early in 2009. He's much grayer now and has seen things like the briefings for some of the real behind-the-scenes stuff going on, of the kind that is detailed in Dexter Filkins article.
Also, beware of buying into the idea that the Obama administration is skilled at 8-dimensional chess in their actions as regarding U.N. speeches.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 5:06pm
also this
to approach the enthusiastic rah rah by so many of them every time they see an excuse to attack
is not Obama either.
He is cautious about any kind of action, whether going for diplomacy or war. Took an eternity to figure out what he wanted to do in Afghanistan. Participated in Libya intervention as a "no brainer" because other countries were willing to take the lead and any blame. Tried to mostly ignore Syria for two years. Keep talking about a red line there and did nothing for quite some time, despite evidence red line was lightly crossed. When he decided to do something, he then changed his mind and said let's go to Congress. Kept changing orders for the Pentagon til he has all kinds of griping about it. Has not "gone to war" with Iran to date (nor has the "client state") though the blogosphere told me many times that he was about to do so. Actually, often has seemed most interested in getting other countries to do some world policing...
When have you seen any "rah rah" from him? About anything, actually, even domestic? I wish he had a little more rah rah to some of his shtick, actually. As far as talking, one of the most biting criticisms about him is the accusation that he doesn't like talking to hardly anyone, including Congresspersons and foreign leaders.
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 9:02pm
Thanks, it seems so obvious now that you say it. And yeah, I know, I keep catching myself gushing over Obama's Master of the Universe achievements because I see so many of his moves as inspired.
by A Guy Called LULU on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 9:11pm
Turns out it wouldn't have helped at all for the U.S. to show more exuberance towards Rouhani, might have even hurt him some if they did so:
http://dagblog.com/link/rouhani-declines-opportunity-meet-obama-too-comp...
by artappraiser on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 10:46pm
Apples and bananas. A handshake at this time posed political risks for Rouhani apparently and ones he did not need to take at this time. Nothing was lost by his avoidance. For the United States Ambassador to the United Nations to show him the respect of attending his speech at the United Nations would seem to have been the diplomatic thing to do and would not have put either him or Obama on the spot and I do not see how it would have cost the U.S one thing in dignity or bargaining power. [Of course I still don't know for certain, maybe she did attend]
by Anonymous LULU (not verified) on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 11:49pm
It just sounds to me like you are bound and determined to find intentional dissing on the part of the U.S., looking for intentional P.R. messages to prove the U.S. is being hostile, in a lack of a minor action where there were no messages intended at all.
Look, if it was an intentional dis, then Lavrov of Russia was doing it too:
From Obama, Rouhani Stress Diplomacy But Do Not Meet by Barbara Slavin, Al-Monitor, September 24.
I found that by digging; again: it was not advertised.
And as Slavin points out, it's not like everyone from Iran and the U.S. is going home now and it's all over:
The U.N. general debate goes on until October 1. Today Zarif and Kerry and their assistants will be again be dissing, according to your standards of protocol, a whole bunch of world leaders's speeches by not being in the room, including Abbas of Palestine.
Look, Obama's speech was right after the opening, when everybody made an effort to be in the room; Rouhani's was in the afternoon. Believe it or not, they got TV's with live feeds at the U.N. in many of the rooms. A better case for dissing could be made against the UN scheduler. If you don't believe that they weren't interested in the content of this speech, with bated breath, even, then I think you are being hopelessly constrained by your own preconceptions.
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 8:18am
I pointed out what appeared to be a molehill, not a mountain, but you insist that even seeing a small bump means a defective, selective, vision which misses the real picture which you see clearly. OK, maybe so.
We all know the prelude. Threats of war, pushes for war, fear of war, crippling economic sanctions which are hurting Iran a lot and even if they have not yet caused the death of five-hundred thousand Iranian children they can be assumed to strengthen the position of nut-case hard liners which certainly exist in Iran as they do in every other country involved. Now Rouhani comes to the U.N. to make a speech of major importance. If Rouhanl's overture fails to ultimately bring an agreement then I don't think we can expect the situation to revert to where it has been for some years. It will bring the parties directly involved to a place where a military confrontation is even more likely than before. I consider the avoidance of that outcome to be a very big deal.
I assume that every aspect of the U.S. actions and response to this diplomatic mission was carefully thought out with some strategy in mind. I want to believe that Obama will work hard and courageously to secure a long term peace between Iran and its adversaries. In working out the U.S. strategy it was decided, and almost certainly not by Powers and of her own volition, whether or not she would attend. I would bet my ass and all its fixtures, and you can/should do so too, that if Obama or Kerry had said to Powers to go to the speech and listen respectfully, that she would have done so and that other meeting would not have stood in the way. So, I would also bet that she was instructed to stay away. Wouldn't you?
You assert that what was decided means nothing at all. I have certainly never said nor have I hinted that I believe in Obama's ability to play winning multi dimensional chess on the world's checker board, but what all sides are doing is often expressed as playing a game, and that analogy assumes an intention to win and so each overt, deliberate move is seen as somehow intending to help make a score. What I am saying, and what I said in opening this subject, is that the decision for neither the Secretary of State nor his underling, the Ambassador of the United States of America to the United Nations, to be present at this very important speech at the United Nations meant something. I specifically said that it was not an overt diss like showing up just to walk out would be, but it also was not an overtly respectful reception. If the U.S. had announced a major presentation at the U.N. by President Obama to tell the world that it was going to try hard to change our relationship with Iran for the better and to look for new and productive ways to interact with each other and then Iran did not even send a high level rep to listen to his speech it would mean something, don't you think? It might even be seen as something significant enough to be noted immediately by the media. In that hypothetical case they might have even seen a decision not to attend as an overt diss.
You may believe as you stated that even though U.S. leaders and operatives watched and listened with bated breath to every word out of Rouhani's mouth, and presumably continue analyze every word and every nuance, that despite all that, our Ambassador not being there in person meant nothing. OK, I get it, I know your position, I simply disagree.
Is your conclusion that my disagreement on this [hopefully] small thing means I am just looking blindly for any opportunity to diss the U.S.' handling of the presentation any more substantive and to the point than if I choose to support my disagreement with you by saying that you are just blindly defending anything the U.S. delegation said or did? Is that what you are doing?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 1:30pm
Turns out the State Dept. extended a strong gesture of intent to break the diplomatic freeze:
http://dagblog.com/link/zarif-diary-us-iran-breakthrough-17539#comment-1...
This is a more meaningful action than an in-the-room presence at the first (of two) speeches by Rouhani on neutral U.N. territory. It was an actual government-to-government interaction. It also suggests an openness to end the freezing of assets.
Now that Rouhani's trip is over, I see no intentional dissing by the U.S. at all. Zero, zip. And some evidence to the contrary. Including an lot of effort not to derail by pushing interaction, like a handshake at a luncheon, but being open to whatever Rouhani was comfortable with, like a phone call....And that's without mentioning that all parties concerned were working on the Syria resolution at the very same time, that Lavrov also couldn't make the speech in person.
by artappraiser on Sat, 09/28/2013 - 1:22pm
Lulu,
I think the important point is that both the U.S. and Iranian governments have committed to negotiations on a fast track. No?
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 9:07am
The important point is the importance of those negotiations being successful. No Israeli representative at the speech was taking a position or making a statement, and not a supportive one. No?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 1:36pm
I wasn't talking about Israel Lulu!!! I was talking about our country and Iran!!! LOL
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 2:33pm
Right, glad you can laugh, laughter is good for your blood pressure, but I include Israel as an interested and powerfully influential party in any negotiations about Iran's nuclear future even if those talks were to be formally between only the U.S. and Iran. You probably noticed that Obama did too. And, your comment is within a sub-thread specifically about what significance, what meaning if any, there is to whether powerful and interested parties sent a representative to Roumani's speech. IMO, the U.S. sending Powers would have not said anything of significance but keeping her away says something of at least slight significance. Using Israel as an example to make that case is relevant because of their close involvement in the whole issue but in Israel's case the opposite is true. Not sending a rep made a small, relatively unimportant at this point in time, non-supportive statement while sending one would have made a much bigger statement that I would have seen as adding to my hope for a good final outcome.
You don't expect the bigger, broader, discussion both at national leadership level and at the level of public discourse, to go on without mention and analysis of Israel's involvement do you?
by A Guy Called LULU on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 3:28pm
Lulu,
I didn't mean to offend you, please. I was laughing because I was referring to bilateral negotiations between the U.S. and Iran, and then you asked me about Israel. And it was laughing in a good faith kind of way, given our recent past. Please, I did not mean to offend you at all.
Of course, I believe that Israel is a very important player in terms of its position on Iran, yes, because ultimately if an agreement is not reached to its satisfaction it could ultimately choose to determine to take matters into its own hands. I hardly meant to suggest the contrary.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 3:56pm
F.Y.I., Lulu:
by artappraiser on Sun, 11/24/2013 - 3:30pm
I'm no fan of the Netanyahu approach. He's the antithesis of the MJs among us in this realm. Mirror images, to the detriment of us all.
Postscript: I mentioned "MJ" above, and of course former Cafe folks remember that Josh Marshall gave MJ a soapbox to pedal his shtick, which basically is
"As a Jew and former employee of AIPAC, I can tell you that all of the stereotypes that you've heard about Jewish control of the American government is true."
In fairness to MJ, and for the purposes of nostalgia, I offer some of his recent Tweets from his Twitert account (@MJAYROSENBERG), with an avatar of himself that looks remarkably similar to one Edward Murrow. I think MJ enabled quite a bit of hate at the Cafe, and I think he's still trying to do the same thing--albeit with a far less diverse but perhaps more of an international following. But if interested, one can draw their own opinions. Note, inter alia, that AIPAC is in control of Obama on Iran, and J Street has crossed MJ's line over to the establishment.
This is the stuff he posted day in and day out at the Cafe. And he's one person I'm proud to be hated by.
As an aside, turns out one of the staff representatives for a union I've been doing quite a bit of work for went to college with MJ (small world) and they remain good friends. I told her about my relationship with MJ and she had a really good belly laugh. Turns out MJ was quite the raving right wing zionist back in the day. But people change, and I respect that--I wish he would too.
AIPAC Sets Out To Block US-Iran Negotiations http://wp.me/p2gCVK-1dx
JStreet: We Have Made It, We Are Part Of The Jewish Establishment! http://wp.me/p2gCVK-1d3
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 8:38am
Post TPMCafe, from time to time I have checked on what Rosenberg is saying. From doing that, my respect has gone from nil to zero. He is a one-note-Johnny for eternity, it seems, doing exactly the same work he did for AIPAC, but now against AIPAC: a propagandist.
Throw in his ridiculous Obama-man-love when Obama was first running for president, which seemed to be based mostly on the color of Obama's skin and a bit of RFK language in his speeches, and how he never admits to any of that now while often bashing Obama, and my respect goes below zero.
by artappraiser on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 8:41am
Well, not to belabor things, but AA you and I had his number from Day One. Remember he told one of our African American contributors (Dijamo come back!) who didn't like Obama very much that he had done research on her and she was not really black. Turns out I and a bunch of others had just met her in person at the Obama fundraiser that Michael W. had sponsored. Needless to say, MJ lied. That, of course, followed MJ's assertion that any of the folks like me who had been pulling for HRC over Obama were just racist. Now I find myself--as I predicted back then--being one of Obama's more consistent supporters. And MJ is now sayin' that Obama is a tool of the Hebes.
Oh well, we move on. G-d willing, MJ will understand what he does to kids who rightfully learn to be skeptical about the givens we are all taught, and then who to turn to folks like him as their source of information.
by Bruce Levine on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 8:59am
I think the Palestinians are more intransigent than Netanyahu, but Bibi isn't helping things with the settlement activity and his determination to keep a slice of the West Bank.
by Aaron Carine on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 4:03pm
I agree with you except that Bibi et al. has made it impossible for Abbas to take a more moderate approach, or at least to give him the opportunity to take a moderate approach.
by Bruce Levine on Wed, 09/25/2013 - 4:18pm
I beg to differ. Furious Israeli opposition plays right into Rouhani's hands. The furiouser the better.
He's playing a delicate balancing act. The Iranian hardliners are waiting to pounce. If Khamenei gives they signal, they will savage him as an Israeli patsy. So the louder the Israelis bawl about wolves in sheeps' clothing, the better Rouhani looks back home and the more room he has to negotiate.
In fact, if I were the conspiracy type, I might speculate that Rouhani and Netanyahu had something going behind the scenes. I'm not actually, and I don't think it's deliberate. But I do think Israeli opposition is good for American-Iranian relations.
by Michael Wolraich on Thu, 09/26/2013 - 9:49pm
What you are talking about suggests that you would be a good partner at negotiations, which often involves more than the two parties sitting across the table from each other, and it's a good point. Of course it ultimately depends on the authority each side brings to the table, and at this point President Rouhani has represented to the world -- and President Obama and Secretary Kerry are accepting that premise, or so it seems -- that he has the authority to fully negotiate an agreement that will ensure the international community that Iran's enrichment program going forward will be for peaceful purposes.
At the same time, as you suggest and as I think we've been discussing on the various threads, there are factions behind the scenes that influence what happens at the table. You posit that Israeli hardline rhetoric out of the mouths of the Bibis of the Israeli political realm will cause the Iranian hardliners to give President Rouhani more authority to negotiate--at least I think that's what you're saying. I'm not sure I understand that dynamic but you could be correct.
Here's the way I see things in terms of where the relevant parties are, and I'll leave out every other country besides Israel, the United States, and Iran--like most of the international community and certainly the mainstream and not-so-mainstream media, the meme seems to be that Israel is the only country that fears a nuclear Iran and for whatever reason the United States is concerned about that as well--some folks will buy the MJ approach, and others will look at the oil in the Middle East, and others will look at whatever.
So let's take Iran first and at the threshold and President Rouhani, as you point out, really is walking a tight rope. To simplify things, and I think this is overly simple, let's concentrate Iranian "hardliners" into one bucket consisting of Khameni and his theocratic authoritarian base and the Revolutionary Guard. I guess you're saying that they are more likely to move closer to favoring negotiations with the U.S. because of Israeli hard-line rhetoric. Possibly, but I don't understand that. My sense is that if things aren't going well at the table, the hardliners would be ready to pounce on the meme that the U.S. is without authority given the hardline rhetoric of Bibi and his ilk.
Then there are the majority of Iranians who voted for President Rouhani. It is those folks, I think, who would be more inclined to push even harder for a negotiated settlement if there is a presumption that Israeli hardline rhetoric will influence the United States at the table. Most Iranians, I think, are anxious for sanctions to be lifted and that was the centerpiece and the essence of Presdent Rouhani's electoral victory.
Now Israel. First, I would say that 99 percent of Israelis, except perhaps the domestic fans of of the Gideon Levy set, are genuinely concerned about Iran obtaining a nuclear bomb that would literally destroy the Jewish State. Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't do much for the Jewish State. Bibi Netanyahu milks that for domestic political purposes--no doubt, and no doubt, rightly or wrongly, there is less trust between the American and Israeli Administrations than there was under both Presidents Clinton and Bush II. The relationship is far more analogous to the frosty relationship that Israeli Prime Minister Shamir had with Bush I. Most folks don't know that we have used the stick against the Israelis, and we did threaten to and did withhold aid from Israel back then. MJ won't tell you that--I just did. :)
So Netanyahu milks this existential fear and is also concerned like the rest of the country about a nuclear Iran, and of course about continued Iranian support for Hizbollah to Israel's north. But, as I've written elsewhere, he's getting pushback from inside his Cabinet for his hardline stance, and that reflects I think the feeling among most Israelis that they don't want to pick a fight with Iran. So that leaves Bibi stoking domestic flames as a problem, but really incidental. I say that because nobody, not even the pundits, except for the MJs of the world who like to perpetuate the notion that it's all about a zionist thirst for war, have ever explained to me why it is in any way in Israel's national interest to pick a fight with Iran. At some point things just have to make sense, and that position makes none IMO.
As to the U.S., I'm going to assume that the United States, even without a Jewish State with an obnoxious prime minister, has a genuine interest in making sure that Iran does not pursue the capacity to build a nuclear bomb. I will also assume that for domestic political reasons alone (just assuming this), the United States feels it necessary to ensure Israel that diplomacy needs to be given a chance, and I will repeat my assumption that Israel really does fear a nuclear Iran. Here's what's going on I think. There's a little bargaining going on right now involving another front. Some of us might have noticed that Secretary Kerry has determined that he is going to take a much more active and direct role in the negotiations between Abbas and Netanyahu in connection with that evasive two-state solution. That settlement is in the interest of every moderate in the Middle East, but particularly for every Sunni state in the region and especially for moderate Palestinians. And it is clearly in the interest of Israel--notwithstanding Netanyahu and the obstructionists to his right. I see the US promising Israel tough negotiations with Iran that includes a club on the table (leverage is part and parcel of negotiations and it is what elected Rouhani in the first place).
So the quid pro quo is, and this is simple, we will protect you Israel in our negotiations with Iran and will do whatever -- and that means whatever -- we must to prevent a nuclear Iran. But we want to see more cooperation at the bargaining table with the Palestinians too. Will that work? G-d willing. As I say to my clients on the eve of a strike vote, sometimes you just can't get a deal, until you get one.
Circling back to Netanyahu's bullshit, I don't think it hurts the American position--as you seem to be saying, but I think for a different reason, namely that it goes back to the ole' but effective good cop bad cop routine.
On the other hand, what is really going on could have nothing at all to do with what I've just spent 20 minutes writing. But fwiw, my nickel.
Hope the book is going well. Remember, sometimes things will never get done, until they're finished.
Cheers.
by Bruce Levine on Fri, 09/27/2013 - 9:26am
Oh this book too long, too long. But the full manuscript is almost done. One week more. And then the revisions, but I hope that those are less intense.
I agree with almost everything you write here with a couple of caveats. What distinguishes Israel is not that if fears Iranian nuclear ambitions--many nations fear them, particularly Sunni Arab nations--but that 1) the peril is much greater for Israel, and 2) the Israelis are much more (openly) suspicious of Rouhani.
As for Israel and the Iranian hardliners, I'm not talking about good-cop, though that is a factor. I'm talking about perceptions. Think of the old salesman's trick. If you convince a potential buyer that a property is in demand, the buyer will frequently value it higher. This is the same principle in reverse. At a simplistic level, you could call it reverse psychology. The more Israel hates the deal, the more likely the Iranians, including the hardliners, will like it.
by Michael Wolraich on Fri, 09/27/2013 - 4:57pm