Blog

Posts Tagged ‘iran’

Lower tuition… yay! Israel and Iran… meh… [State of the Students]

Wednesday, January 25th, 2012

Everybody and their mother is trying to predict what’s going to happen in the 2012 race to the White House. At New Voices, we’re wondering what college students will vote for. Well, tonight may have given us a hint.

Most college students use their Tuesday night to catch up on homework or party before class-free Wednesday.

At American University in Washington, D.C., its student newspaper (which, by the way, I also work for) The Eagle proclaims, “It’s time for the most anticipated televised event of the year at AU. Nope, not the Super Bowl. It’s the State of the Union!”

AU College Democrats gathered the campus political junkies in The Tavern, AU’s bar-turned-hamburger-and-burrito-joint. As early as half and hour before showtime, students milled about, bought themselves a turkey cheese steak and settled in for President Barack Obama’s sixth statement to a joint session of Congress.

AU’s known to be a pretty liberal campus, so it was not surprising that Obama got a raucous round of applause when he began to give his State of the Union.

But what’s even more interesting is what students didn’t seem to care about. Obama’s celebration of global teamwork to stop Iranian nuclear weaponry, and the subsequent growth of Iranian sanctions, received barely any response from the gathered students. Obama’s mention of support for Israel received only a polite golf clap.

But students were apathetic about more than just the United States’s relationship with Israel. Approval for a clean energy economy and reaction to Obama’s gratitude to American soldiers was tepid at best.

But there were certainly highlights for students watching the president’s address happening only six miles away. Students naturally chuckled (by chuckled, I mean literally laughed out loud) at House Majority Leader Eric Cantor’s (Republican of Virginia and surprise Jew) visible conniption at Obama’s call for a payroll taxes and First Lady Michelle Obama’s embarrassed reaction to Barack’s joke gone sour.

But when it came to education costs, students came just short of jumping out of their seats in exultation. When Obama said the cost of college was too high, one student, with sarcasm dripping, loudly asked, “Really?”

Everybody else in the room laughed in agreement.

Obama continued to please AU Eagles when he called for more work-study financial aid, demanded lower student loan interest rates and, most importantly, scolded universities for raising tuition too much.

“Let me put colleges and universities on notice: If you can’t stop tuition from going up, the funding you get from taxpayers will go down,” Obama said.

Students responded in kind with surprised enthusiasm for the Commander in Chief’s hardline against rising tuition, an issue students at AU are all too familiar with.

But students’ passion shone through where they cared. Applause and cheers abounded for:

  • The end of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,
  • Decreasing our debt and “nation building at home,”
  • Continuing American exceptionalism,
  • The creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau,
  • Prevention of another BP oil spill,
  • More bipartisanship in Congress,
  • Equal pay for women,
  • The DREAM ACT and immigration reform
  • And most of all, the death of Osama Bin Laden.

Why we should sanction Iran, even though it won’t work [Parsing]

Thursday, January 19th, 2012

Gary Hufbauer says sanctions don't work. Except for when they do | iie.com

I listen to NPR’s Planet Money podcast to understand basic news about the economy because it puts things simply. And because I don’t know my head from my ass when it comes to economics.

But sometimes they take hard economics and deploy it as a way of looking at something in the news in a different light, deploying some economist or the other in an offbeat way. Their “Do Sanctions Work?” podcast from earlier this week is one of those. In it, sanctions expert Gary Hufbauer tells the Planet Money’s Adam Davidson that sanctions only work about 30 percent of the time, usually only on very small economies — and that we should continue using them on Iran anyway.

Generally, we (the Jewish press, the press, the Jews, people in general — take your pick) take it for granted that the way stop Iran from developing a nuclear weapon without actually going to war is to use economic sanctions. But noting Israeli skepticism on that front, The Forward wrote today:

As the United States moves toward the final stage of imposing sanctions against Iran’s central bank and oil industry, American officials are trying to erase Israeli suspicion about the effectiveness of economic pressure and to ensure that Jerusalem and Washington are fully coordinated in dealing with Iran’s nuclear threat.

Meanwhile, Tablet‘s Marc Tracy, always such a ray of sunshine on these issues, has nothing but optimism in a blog post today titled, “On Iran, Most Roads Lead to Bad Places: A look at what could happen in the coming months.”

Hufbauer basically agrees, at least when it comes to the efficacy of sanctions. After saying that economic sanctions only work about 30 percent of the time, he says that they’re actually quite effective. Upon hearing that, Davidson basically does a double-take, saying that every example of economic sanctions he can think of was a total failure. Hufbauer says, yeah, those are the ones you’ve heard of, and then rattles of a couple of examples of how sanctions can be tremendously effective on small, poor economies. Then he says that as far as tools for applying international pressure without starting a war go, a proven success rate of 30 percent is pretty damn good.

But in the end, Hufbauer doesn’t think economic sanctions will work on Iran; their economy is just too big. Yet, he thinks we should keep using them anyway. In fact, he says, we should use sanctions to squeeze Iran as hard as we possible can. Why? Because then it will be easier to make the case that we tried every possible thing if we have to convince the world it’s time to go to war with Iran.

But what do I know? Listen to the podcast for the full story.

Iran’s nuclear fallout [Long-Range Israel]

Wednesday, November 9th, 2011

An Israeli Air Force F-16 refuels | via Wikimedia Commons

Though defeating Iran is a given, the costs of a war with Iran would be dramatically high. This much has to be made clear.

Israel will never go it alone. The country does not have the assets currently to make any sort of unilateral assault sustainable against multiple foes at once. It would involve the United States, United Kingdom and probably most of NATO. That being said, it will never come to that level of shooting. The optimal idea would be to see the Arab Spring pay forward the revolutionary zeal and topple the Iranian domino.

That scenario has been in the dream box of international strategy for well over ten years. Sporadic riots at Tehran University in 1999 and 2003 fueled speculation something could happen. In 2009, a month of marches and riots protested an apparently fraudulent re-election for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Six months later, a revolutionary leader’s death kindled the spark again. 2011 has put the country’s leaders on edge. With its former ally Muammar Qaddafi gone and Syria’s brickwork becoming as shotty as the bullet-holed façade of its cities’ buildings, there is plenty to fear from losing another ally and then seeing the people’s reaction.

The speculation making waves here is coming from a sporadic amount of reports there would be some approval for a strike. Iran’s nuclear infrastructure is supposedly still vulnerable to a military assault, if only the meddling media did not constantly ruin the element of surprise. Note my sarcasm, but the string of coincidences slipping into Western and Israel news reports the last two weeks seem well-timed and point to something interesting. What that is happens to also be a matter of speculation, but that is why I write these things.

To recap, three reports having to do with the Israeli military have been featured recently. The Israeli Air Force was recently in Italy conducting [incoming self-promotion] “long-range” training, including mid-air refueling of fighter jets. The second piece has to do with a surface-to-surface missile test conducted in full view of the most-populated urban area in Israel. Couple that with the civil defense drill last week in case of an attack. Thirdly, news reports have slipped that there have been recent meetings where Prime Minister Netanyahu and Defense Minister Barak have been trying to win over enough of the cabinet to approve a military strike against Iran.

All these things have gained denials and fits of frustration from spokespeople and ministers here. But all these events coincide with today’s release of a report on Iran’s nuclear program. The International Atomic Energy Agency is going to report incriminating evidence there is a military angle to Iran’s research, and that is big. Knowing this report has been in the offing, there has been speculation the Israeli government is making the idea of war with Iran sound more rational and preparing to use a window of opportunity to gain global sympathy and attack. The Israeli military has denied the missile test had anything to do with the report and that it was scheduled months ago.

But so was the report. In other news, the United Kingdom is also talking up the military option. There seems to be some sort of consensus about preparing the military to go to war with Iran. The last time the element of surprise was sacrificed for an operation this big was Iraq. The US started moving troops into Kuwait in 2002 – six months ahead of the invasion.

I cannot say I am convinced though. Governments let things “slip” all the time in order to put something into the media’s purview – a desirable topic, a favorable opinion or a point of distraction. The fact that Israel conducted a missile test of all things in both broad daylight and right over the country’s center instead of its desert indicates they are trying to push the issue publicly. But it is not the Israeli public that needs convincing. All of Israel’s governments have been hawks about Iran – there is hardly a difference between Netanyahu and Olmert. It’s the rest of the world Israel is posturing toward. Iran is going to lose points and Israel’s military is going to gain some benefit of the doubt from this, even from European publics. “They are not warmongering,” so the thinking might go. “That’s the Iranians. I understand wanting to be ready just in case.”

Public relations and public perception are all important. That subject has driven Jews mad since the Obama-Netanyahu implosion started two years ago. If Israel does eventually decide to press the red button, global sympathy is going to play a role even if it will not be the major deciding factor.

One more thing to consider: Israel is trying to get advanced submarines from Germany. The last few weeks have seen that deal threatened by the apparent Israeli policy on settlements and the Palestinians. If it is more than that, it could be Germany suspects Israel IS moving toward a strike. Coordinating jets and offshore submarines might make the whole war thing a lot easier. Okay, my conspiracy theories are exhausted for today.

Gedalyah Reback graduated from Rutgers University with a Bachelor’s Dgeree in Middle Eastern Studies. He has made Aliyah and was married in 2011. He is pursuing a Master’s Degree. His column, Long-Range Israel, usually appears here on alternating Tuesdays.

Ahmadinejad vs. Columbia: Round Two

Sunday, September 25th, 2011
Ahmadinejad at Columbia University in 2007.

Ahmadinejad at Columbia University in 2007. | Photo by Flickr user midnightquill (CC BY 2.0)

Turns out there was no need for such a fuss.  On September 19th, two days before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was scheduled to have dinner with 15 members of the Columbia International Relations Council and Association (CIRCA), the Iranian mission to the United Nations revoked the invitation due to the “media firestorm” surrounding the event, according to the Columbia Daily Spectator.

Various students had scheduled a protest, “Just Say No to Ahma(dinner)jad,” for September 21. After the dinner was cancelled, they decided to hold it anyway, renaming it “Just Say No to Ahmadinejad.”  A number of Columbia students attended, as did Shirin Nariman, a former Iranian political prisoner. Topics of discussion included the oppressive nature of Ahmadinejad’s government and why students would even attend the dinner.

Despite protests and revoked invitations, some 100 undergraduate and graduate students did get a chance to meet Ahmadinejad, reported CNN. Although he didn’t actually eat dinner with them, he did participate in a Q&A session moderated by an Iranian official from the United Nations. Attendees even received party favors of “hand-painted plates from Iran and books about theology.”

Ahmadinejad at Columbia: All News Outlets on Earth Weigh in | Parsing

Monday, September 19th, 2011

After a controversial speech at Columbia University in 2007, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad may have linked up with the New York school again to discuss his policies. And every news outlet from the Upper West Side to Israel has put their two cents in.

(Photo by flickr user Daniella Zalcman (CC BY 2.0))

Ahmadinejad at Columbia in 2007 (Photo by flickr user Daniella Zalcman (CC BY 2.0))

According to a Sept. 10 article in the Columbia Daily Spectator, an email went out to the listserv of the Columbia International Relations Council and Association (CIRCA), inviting its members to a potential private dinner with Ahmadinejad two days from now, on Wednesday the 21st.

Campus website Bwog later posted the text of the email, which offered students the opportunity to “learn about Iran from her president!” The Spec reported that only 15 students would get the opportunity to dine with Ahmadinejad and they were excited to have the chance to do so.

Since then, a firestorm of media coverage has sprung up, with major news sources like The New York Post reporting on it.

Many sources blasted Columbia for interacting with Iran’s president again. An op-ed in the Spec advocated that Columbia should “say no to the Ahmadinedinner” because of the “moral sacrifice” inherent in doing so.

Ynet News reported that the president of United Against Nuclear Iran has opposed the dinner. Members of the organization called upon Columbia president Lee Bollinger to cancel the meal, calling the proposed meeting “inappropriate.”

Comedian Dennis Miller even advocated that CU students “blow off” Ahmadinejad’s head.

On PajamasMedia, Roger Simon scathingly rebuked Columbia, stating that “the progressive intellectuals of Morningside Heights evidently have a special place in their hearts for state sponsors of terrorism who murder and torture their own citizens with impunity.”

Columbia has also come under fire abroad for its potential meeting with Ahmadinejad. According to The Jerusalem Post, the Israel Law Center, Shurat HaDin, has targeted the university for its “illegal” invitation to Ahmadinejad. In a letter to Bollinger and other authorities, including the U.S. Attorney General, the NGO noted that “Ahmadinejad is Iran’s chief executive and personally directs Iran’s terrorist and nuclear proliferation activities and human rights abuse.”

In recent days, the Jewish Telegraph Agency reported that Columbia has denied that Bollinger was involved in bringing Ahmadinejad to campus and would be attending the meal.

The Spec reported that CU has since corrected the rumor, going so far as to claim that “…at no time has there ever been any university event planned or considered involving the president of Iran, nor has there ever been any plan for a dinner involving the Iranian president and President Bollinger.” According to the Spec, the dinner, indeed, remains tentative. Conservative websites, like American Thinker, expressed skepticism over the university’s denial, while the National Review dubbed the school “Jihad University.”

Will Columbia and CIRCA’s plans to host Ahmadinejad come to fruition? Stay tuned for more.

Iran responds to UK censure of their TV station by quoting “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”

Friday, May 27th, 2011

No, really.

Earlier this week, OfCom, the official United Kingdom broadcast regulating authority, censured Iran’s state-run Press TV for conducting and airing an interview with Newsweek journalist Maziar Bahari while he was being held captive and was under coercion from the Iranian government, as doing so was (unsurprisingly) against UK broadcasting rules. The Guardian reports that Bahari himself lodged the complaint, explaining that

the “interview” had been made “under duress”, after he was told by an interrogator that he was suspected of espionage and could face the death penalty unless he made a “televised statement about the role of the western media in the post-presidential election demonstrations”.

He was interviewed by three Iranian broadcasters, including Press TV, reading answers pre-prepared by his captors from a script. The footage from the “press conference” was aired in the UK by Press TV.

Press TV quickly responded to the censure – after a fashion. Their published reply opens with a quote from the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, the infamous anti-semitic conspiracy tract, and then offers three paragraphs of deranged ramblings about global Jewish domination before addressing the actual OfCom charge, which – as detailed above – has absolutely nothing to do with Jews, Israel or the US at all. (Well, that’s not entirely fair, as Press TV does conclusively demonstrate that Newsweek is partly owned by Jews, which doubtless explains everything.)

Here’s a sample of the delicate, reality-inflected phrasing in Iran’s reply:

“What seems abundantly clear is that the Israeli intelligence community’s allies in the British and American governments are increasingly worried about the English-language division of Press TV/Iran, especially its US Desk.”

“It may not be a coincidence that the British Ofcom case against Press TV Iran pops up against the backdrop of Netanyahu’s state visit to the United States to press his own case for ongoing Talmudic Death and Destruction in the Middle East…”

You know, “Talmudic Death and Destruction” sounds like it could be the name of a really edgy Orthodox heavy metal band.

Indeed, this would all be quite funny if it wasn’t coming from the state-run television of a country that is now confirmed to be building nuclear weapons, denies the Holocaust and has expressed the repeated desire to eliminate Israel (metaphorically, no doubt – after all, do these sound like the sort of people who would try to blow up the Jewish state?).

I think we’re starting to get an inkling of why diplomatic engagement with these folks failed.

(h/t Eli Lake)

It isn’t that Iranians cannot have Nuclear Energy, it’s their Government

Tuesday, May 10th, 2011

I have gotten my bachelor’s and started my master’s degrees in the era where Iranian nuclear proliferation has supposedly shaped the strategic map of the Middle East. It, coupled with Iranian influence, has apparently pushed Israel and its authoritarian Arab neighbors to be less than veiled about their relationship (and willingness to work together) to contain and even topple Iran.

But the alliance, if it could ever have been called that, has been brittle. Operations against Hizbullah and Hamas in 2006 and 2009 have pushed back those Arab allies, and now that Turkey has become hostile and the Palestinians have trapped Israel in a diplomatic corner, the alliance has exposed itself to be a farce. Peace has only been beneficial for Arab countries as so long as Israel would have the upper hand diplomatically and militarily. The fall of Mubarak makes working with Israel seem even less necessary.

Enter Iran. The Iranian government is hostile and its government has fomented anti-Semitism in the region when it seemed to be out of fashion to talk about it publicly. Despite economic problems at home, it transfers tens of millions of dollars worth of weaponry and support to Hizbullah every year. No matter how unbelievable an idea it would be for a government to arbitrarily or aggressively use a nuclear weapon, Jews and Israelis do not put it past the Iranian regime. We do not buy for a second rhetoric about “peaceful” nuclear energy. Few Jews, and none I know, have entertained the statement “Well, that would be okay.” No one takes that seriously.

But they might if a different government were in control of Tehran. Egypt and Jordan have openly pursued nuclear programs. And despite scholars’ knowledge that a revolution like Egypt’s was possible, and the array of political challenges to Jordan’s king, Israel has made no statement. Perhaps she should, but she has reserved her political capital for Iran.

That capital would better be invested in other places, especially considering how little the US and Europe has returned for it regarding Iran.

I think it is worth eyeing a future with a different Iranian government, not as radical or impossible a suggestion as it used to be. The regime there is showing cracks, and is well aware young Iranians’ parents are telling them about how they overthrew Iran’s dictatorial king in 1979.

In the long run, I do not worry about an Iran with nuclear power. Nuclear proliferation is inevitable because of how efficient the energy production is. What matters is delaying Iranian access to it until a democratic government comes to power.

Turkey Gets Theirs: Hypocrisy and Backfire

Wednesday, May 4th, 2011

Turkey is now paying the price for its coziness with Iran and Syria. What was probably an inevitable pitfall of its decision to orient itself toward regimes in direct opposition to Israel, Turkey may soon feel the anger of a revolutionary Syrian population eager to cut off ties with Turkey.

It would be a satisfying scenario for Israelis, who have been a political punching bag for Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey the last several years. He has ridden Israel’s political situation to the pinnacle of popularity in the Arab World, particularly Palestinians (you can see Turkish flags next to Palestinian ones hanging in the windshields of the Jerusalem Palestinian buses). But I cannot say it any better than the recent op-ed for the Los Angeles Times:

Turkey’s popularity with its neighbors is a function of the stridency with which Ankara has criticized Israel. Ankara’s silence in light of massacres in the Libyan city of Misurata and Homs in Syria has disillusioned many and made it look opportunistic.

Turkey’s position as the new superpower in the Middle East might soon hinge on what it does with a new Syria. Backing Qaddafi and Assad for so long has sunk the Prime Minister’s credibility. Don’t forget, his government has also denied Darfur’s genocide (directly contrasting it with Israel’s Gaza War, as 300,000 dead in Darfur are meaningless compared to 700 Hamas combatants and civilians killed by collateral damage). He also continues to pressure Western countries not to recognize the Armenian genocide.

When this tide of protest and upheaval hits Iran, and especially if and when that country goes democratic, those ties will unravel and Iran will no longer be blocked off by the Western World or Israel. Erdogan picked a risky and flawed policy that is showing its drawbacks right now.

Syria’s Protests – Civil War? Peace with Israel?

Sunday, March 27th, 2011

Syria
Captial: Damascus
Population: ~22,000,000; 70% Sunni Arab, large minorities of Kurds, Christians, Druze and Alawite Muslims
President: Bashar al-Assad
Former President: Hafez al-Assad

__________

The revolutions that started in North Africa are creeping into Israel’s domain. The Levant – the eastern coastline of the Mediterranean Ocean that is home to Israel, the Palestinian territories, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan – is reacting differently to the wave of uprisings than have countries like Egypt and Tunisia.

What separates this area from those two countries is something subtle – diversity. Jordan’s politics are plagued by the division between ethnic bedouin tribes and descendants of Palestinian refugees and immigrants. Lebanon’s divisions are accentuated by the domination of Shiite Hezbollah, plus Christian and Druze communities. Israel wonders what directions things could go with its own Druze, Bedouin and Palestinian sectors. Palestinians are divided politically and have struggled to find a reason to protest – the involvement of the Israeli army, the Palestinian Authority and Hamas has complicated Palestinians’ thinking regarding against they should direct their protests.

But the protests in the West Bank, Gaza and Jordan are mildly jarring. The uprising in Syria is most serious. This will have serious implications for Israel – even more than the revolution in Egypt.

1982

The last time anything approaching these type of protests was in 1982, in Hama. The current Syrian president’s father massacred 10,000 people by shelling the town. Since then, the country has not had any significant opposition.

But 1982 was very different. The struggle between the state and the Islamists was sectarian. This year’s protests are about social freedoms and opposition to authoritarian government – the general theme of the Arab uprisings. Authoritarianism was the central theme then as well, but it carried with it sectarian implications.

The Syrian regime is dominated by one ethno-religious group in particular, the Alawites. This offshoot of Shiite Islam has classically been considered beyond the pale by most Sunni and Shiite Muslims, and outright heresy among today’s many fundamentalist groups.

Alawites had long been oppressed by the Sunni majority in Syria. When in 1970, a young air force officer named Hafez al-Assad toppled the Syrian government, he saturated his regime with Alawite officials, essentially guaranteeing a loyal support system of fellow Alawites eager to avoid letting militant Sunnis oppress their community. In 1973 Assad tried to impose a new constitution on the country with one essential change – the president would no longer have to be Muslim. This and other aspects of the constitution caused major protests.

The Muslim Brotherhood launched a campaign of terrorism against the government in 1976. Its tactics against the regime included assassinating major Alawite politicians and Alawite recruits to the Syrian army. This added to the urgency for the Syrian government.

The Alawites and Shiites

The constitution protests motivated Assad to reach out to the most popular figure in Shiite Islam at the time: Musa al-Sadr. Originally Iranian, he is related to Muqtada al-Sadr of Iraq (the anti-American cleric behind much of the sectarian violence since the American invasion). Musa al-Sadr had moved to Lebanon and founded the Shiite party Amal, whose militia preceded the rise of Hezbollah. He recognized the group as members of his sect. The regime in Iran, including Ayatollah Khomeini, have continued to support that understanding. Despite the clash between Sunnis and Shiites in today’s antagonistic Muslim world, this status is enough to keep political opponents at bay. When Syria reached out to the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini in 1979, it both broke its isolation in the Arab world and reinforced its attachment to Shiite Islam.

American Strategy: Break the Alliance

Over the past several years, American strategists have talked openly of pulling the Syrian government away from its alliance with Iran. The idea has been to make a peace deal with Israel conditional on Syria severing diplomatic relations with the Iranians, whereby they would receive the Golan Heights and the United States would end sanctions against Damascus.

This approach is incredibly naive. The Syrian government is too well-entrenched with the Iranian government to ever sever that alliance. Just as much as Iran has seen Syria as a gateway to the Arab world whenever it is isolated, Syria has used its relationship with Iran as leverage to keep that bridge open – ending its own isolation in the Arab world.

The religion issue makes that alliance all the more important. Breaking ties with Tehran would endanger the regime. Iran would openly denounce any attempt to associate Alawites with Shiite Islam, ending the protection provided by al-Sadr in 1974. Just as severe, Damascus would lose its alliance with Hezbollah in Lebanon, reducing Syrian influence there. Breaking the Syrian-Iranian alliance means breaking the Alawite-Shiite alliance, and that’s a major endeavor for the Assads who fear what would happen to their community.

Latakia and the regime Splitting

Alawites historically have centered along the Syrian coast near the city and within the province of Latakia. I have heard the idea in the past from professors that if the regime lost its grip on power, it could relocate to this city and consolidate its power there. That could effectively split Syria, into at least two pieces, and instigate a civil war between the much better armed, Alawite-led Syrian army and whatever rebels were fighting it.

This scenario seems more feasible considering it is what just happened in Libya, but there is of yet no indication there would be mass splits in the Syrian army and mass defections of units or government ministers.

All of this is background to however events in Syria develop.

In Relation to Israel

It seems this will undermine the confidence of any American advisor or politician who wants Israel and Syria to sign a treaty. If the regime is not popular and especially if it is weaker, there will be less pressure on Israel to trade back the Golan Heights. That is, at least for now.

But I would suggest another point: If the regime in Syria falls, a peace treaty could become more likely if there is a strategic calculation on the part of Israel it could make peace with a new government in Syria that is enjoying popularity and would otherwise be more aggressive toward Israel. That is not guaranteed, but a possibility.

That contrasts with the impossibility that Israel would sign a treaty with a weakened Syrian government under Bashar al-Assad. If he remains in power, he will either have crushed a rebellion in a way similar to his father and become more isolated (allowing Israel to avoid American pressure to reenter negotiations), or he will have a weaker grip on power and Israel’s entire political establishment will feel uncomfortable making an agreement with a weak government.

What Is He On About??

Tuesday, September 28th, 2010

Obama and AhmadinejadWhen my younger sister was a lot younger than she is today, she used to kvetch a lot, especially when she wouldn’t get her way. At first, since she was the youngest, we would try to appease her. That worked for a little bit, but then she’d get cranky after a while. So then we would tell her to be quiet. That definately didn’t work. Finally, we learned the hard way that in order to deal with her when she was annoying was just to ignore her.
This situation is reminiscent of a sitatution of global proportions- Ahmadinejad and his evil regime. Following his speech to the General Assembly of the UN, I have to ask myself- why does the world continually give this mad man a forum?? I get the whole idea of democracy and freedom of speech, but he clearly doesn’t, so why do we humor him. Are we going to have to learn the hard way not to give this man an audience?
President Obama has already tried to appease him at the beginning of his term. Ahmadinejad was unimpressed with the effort. When that didn’t work- we imposed sanctions in Iran- yet again. That was a failure; Iran is getting closer and closer to being nuclear. So why do we insist on allowing him to speak? What ‘words of wisdom’ will we miss by not allowing him to speak- the invitation to join Iranian experts for conference on how to deal with terrorism, or the ludicrous suggestion that the United States government is behind the 9/11 attacks?
Talk is cheap, it’s time for action.