IRANIAN VERSION of THEOLOGICAL DEMOCRACY THAT WILL SET UP IRAN RULERS until June 2017.

Iranian presidential election, 2013

2009 14 June 2013 I 2017

Incumbent President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Conservative

The eleventh election of the President of Iran is scheduled to be held on 14 June 2013. If no presidential candidate polls 50 percent of the vote on the first round, a runoff will be held on 21 June. It will elect the seventh President of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Registration for candidates took place from 7 May and concluded last night – on 11 May 2013.
After the registration step, registered candidates must be qualified by the Guardian Council in order to be on the ballot.
Their list will be released after five days – that is May 16, 2013 and that constitutes the Final-Start Line-up of the race.

===============================================================================================

Two Candidates Shake Up Iran’s Presidential Race as Last-Minute Entries.

By THOMAS ERDBRINK
Published, The New York Times: May 11, 2013

Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, a protégé of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, who was soundly defeated by Mr. Ahmadinejad in the 2005 election, arrived simultaneously at the Interior Ministry headquarters in the capital, Tehran, to register. The building was cordoned off by security forces restraining hundreds of people, who were shouting slogans in favor of and against Mr. Mashaei.

Both men had kept analysts wondering until the last minute whether they would participate in the elections, set for June 14. If their candidacies are approved by a council of conservative clerics and jurists — a hurdle that analysts say will not be easy — the men are virtually certain to shake up the campaign because they hold views that challenge Iran’s governing establishment, a loose alliance of conservative Shiite Muslim clerics and Revolutionary Guards commanders who hold sway over the country’s judiciary, security forces, Parliament and state news media.

The men’s criticisms of those governing behind the scenes will undoubtedly appeal to Iran’s dissatisfied urban voters. But they also strongly oppose each other, setting the stage for a highly contested election if both men win approval to run.

Appearing at a news conference with Mr. Ahmadinejad after registering, Mr. Mashaei, 52, said he was set to continue Mr. Ahmadinejad’s international policies, seen by the West as confrontational, and his economic decisions, considered controversial. Mr. Mashaei represents a new generation of politicians, defined by the president, who seem determined to to oust older leaders from power. While once supported by Iran’s political establishment, Mr. Ahmadinejad and his team have now fallen out of favor, mostly because they have accumulated too much influence, analysts say. “Mashaei means Ahmadinejad and Ahmadinejad means Mashaei,” the president said at the news conference.

But Mr. Mashaei has been far more outspoken than his mentor on issues like personal freedoms, often stressing individual rights. He also organized a controversial conference in which a group of dancing women carried around the Koran, angering conservative clerics.

Mr. Rafsanjani, on the other hand, has cast himself as a pragmatist, calling for a more open society and better business relationships with the West. Mr. Rafsanjani, 80, a veteran of the 1979 Islamic Revolution, says Iran is in a “danger zone” because of the “amateurism” of the president and his team. A cleric himself, Mr. Rafsanjani has criticized traditionalist clerics and their supporters for trying to quash all dissenting voices.

Iran faces huge economic problems and continuing strain under international sanctions, and many ordinary citizens feel suffocated by a blanket of security procedures. But on Saturday, neither candidate came up with a plan to address those issues.

Mr. Rafsanjani did not talk to reporters, but has recently said he would bring in experienced managers to solve Iran’s problems.

Technically, all Iranians are free to participate in elections, but Iran’s powerful Guardian Council, which vets candidates, will decide by May 23 who will be allowed to run. “I think it is highly doubtful that Mr. Mashaei will be allowed to run,” said Amir Mohebbian, an analyst who is close to Iran’s highest leaders. “I hope we will not witness any street riots when that happens.”

Even if they pass muster, both men are likely to face heavy political resistance from Iran’s establishment as revenge for rewriting what seems to have been a prewritten script for the campaign, meant primarily to attract yes men.

The governing establishment has called Mr. Mashaei “deviant” because he believes that Muslims can have individual relationships with God instead of only through clerical intermediaries. Its leaders have also warned Mr. Rafsanjani not to run and called him a traitor, accusing him of supporting Iran’s two main opposition leaders during the 2009 elections.

Until Saturday, many ordinary Iranians had largely ignored the coming vote, partly because of their traumatic experiences in 2009, when many protested Mr. Ahmadinejad’s re-election victory as a fraud and were forced off the streets by security forces. With Mr. Mashaei and Mr. Rafsanjani both entering the race, that could change.

“This is very surprising,” said Taha, 26, a former engineering student, who, like others interviewed for this article, asked that his surname not be published. “I will support Mr. Rafsanjani. He can reform our system.”

Others said they would vote for Mr. Mashaei, who became controversial after Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, issued a decree in 2009 banning him from becoming vice president.

“He seems to be a man who can stand up against those who rule our country,” said Abbas, a taxi driver. “We want change.”

At his news conference, Mr. Mashaei apologized for arriving to register at the last minute but did not explain why, and did not take any questions. Mr. Rafsanjani reportedly waited in his house most of the day Saturday, to get permission from Ayatollah Khamenei to run. It is unclear whether permission was given.

In a sign of the tensions that will undoubtedly surface in the campaign, two fistfights erupted in the building’s pressroom after Mr. Mashaei and Mr. Ahmadinejad left.

In the first, after an opponent of Mr. Mashaei accused him of placing “pornographic statues” in Iranian parks, a supporter shoved all the press microphones off a table and started hitting another person. In the second, a reporter for the semiofficial Fars news agency fought with an unidentified man in a baseball cap. The police intervened, but no arrests were made, local news media reported.

This website argued for years that Turkey could have enhanced its world position by allowing enough slack to its own Kurds establishing itself as a bi-National State – Turkish-Kurdish and absorb the Kurdish areas of Iraq, Iran, Syria, as well. They did not – and now Erdogan tries to go for what he thinks is within his reach.

================================================

PKK Challenges Barzani In Iraqi Kurdistan.

Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK) fighters talk to each other as they stand guard at the Kandil mountains near the Iraq-Turkish border in Sulaimaniya, 330 km (205 miles) northeast of Baghdad March 24, 2013. (photo by REUTERS/Azad Lashkari)

 Mahmoud Abbas was here in Vienna and visited some other European Heads of State – then he took the long flight to China. All of this is to explain his position and look for new interlocutors. Abbas does not need a door opener like Arafat did and The Austria of Messrs. Fisher, Fayman and Spindelegger, is not the Austria of “Old Chancellor” Kreisky. On the other hand China is something of a new a power in regard to West Asia – it has no previous involvement in the Middle East – except as customers for oil. Something that was facilitated to them by the US wars in Iraq.

Oh well – here are Abbas and Netanyahu in China!

————————————————————————————

Netanyahu in China: Economic Partnership Can be ‘Winning Combination.’

Israeli Prime Minister views tech innovations during his visit to China. Photo: Israel GPO.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu wrapped up the first day of a five-day visit to China by meeting with dozens of Israeli businesspeople who represent companies that operate in Shanghai. The Israeli company representatives expressed great appreciation for the Prime Minister’s efforts to increase trade with China and noted the great importance of government support to doing business in China.

“We must make the national effort to enter Chinese markets and to create partnerships. In addition to your private initiatives, we need to create a government track with the Chinese,” Netanyahu told the Israeli reps.

Following the meeting Netanyahu met with Israeli and Chinese businesspeople and stressed the importance of strengthening the two countries’ economic relationship.

“The future belongs to those who lead in innovation and technology,” he said, adding that Israel manufactures  “more intellectual property than any other country in the world in relation to its size. If we create a partnership between Israel’s inventive capability and China’s manufacturing capability, we will have a winning combination.”

Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is also in China on an official visit. Xinhua quoted him as saying: “It is very good that Netanyahu will visit China too because it is a good opportunity that the Chinese listen to both of us.”

Netanyahu will fly to Beijing later in the week. He is expected to sign a number of trade deals and discuss the Iranian nuclear issue before departing Friday.

=============

• Irving D, Cohen

  May 6, 2013
  10:27 pm

  China’s obvious desire to tap into Israel’s technological know-how may prove to be Israel’s greatest asset in her quest for peace.

  ———————————————

  News Analysis

  China Dips a Toe Into Middle East Peace

  

  Feng Li/Getty Images

  President Xi Jinping with Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian Authority leader, in Beijing.

  By EDWARD WONG and CHRIS BUCKLEY

  Published: May 8, 2013

  BEIJING — China took a modest step into Middle East diplomacy this week, hosting back-to-back visits from Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

  But this was not exactly Camp David by the Forbidden City.

  The fact that the visits were timed so the two leaders would not meet — Mr. Abbas left Beijing on Tuesday, and Mr. Netanyahu arrived Wednesday after a swing through Shanghai — signaled that neither they nor Xi Jinping, China’s leader, were ready for actual talks. But Mr. Xi did present a four-point peace proposal to Mr. Abbas, which, though it did not contain any breakthrough ideas, hinted that China had given some thought to playing a more energetic, if very limited, role as mediator in one of the world’s most protracted conflicts.

  “As China’s economy, national strength and international status grow, Arab countries are looking more to China,” said Guo Xiangang, a vice president of the China Institute of International Studies in Beijing who follows China’s relations with Middle Eastern nations. “The expectations they place on China are growing.”

  In their meeting on Wednesday afternoon, Prime Minister Li Keqiang of China told Mr. Netanyahu that “the Palestinian issue is a core issue affecting the peace and stability of the Middle East, and a peaceful solution reached through dialogue and negotiations is the only effective answer,” according to Xinhua, the state news agency.

  “As a friend of both Israel and the Palestinians, China has always maintained an objective and fair stance, and is willing to strive together with all sides to actively advance the Middle East peace process,” Mr. Li said.

  China has been careful to take a clear and consistent but not strong stand on the Israeli-Palestinian issue. China has growing trade ties with Israel — the value of their trade relationship has been estimated in official Chinese news reports to be nearly $10 billion a year — but it supports Palestinian statehood and relies on crude oil imports from Iran and Arab nations to meet its energy needs. About half of China’s oil imports come from the Middle East, and that dependency is expected to deepen.

  The core of the four-point plan that Mr. Xi presented to Mr. Abbas was the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel, based on the 1967 boundaries and with East Jerusalem as its capital. The plan was a formal version of China’s traditional stand on the conflict.

  At the United Nations, where China sits on the Security Council, Mr. Abbas has pushed for greater status for the Palestinians, which has drawn economic reprisals from Israel and has led to a reduction in donations from foreign supporters. On Tuesday, the Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Hua Chunying, said at a news conference that Israel had to halt the building of settlements in East Jerusalem and the West Bank, stop violence against innocent civilians and end the blockade against the Gaza Strip to clear the way for peace talks.

  But China’s measured stand on the conflict was evident in some of Mr. Xi’s comments during his meeting with Mr. Abbas. “Israel’s right to exist and its reasonable security concerns should be fully respected,” Mr. Xi said, according to a report by Xinhua.

  China’s position is also complicated by its strong support of Iran and various Arab nations. Iran, with its nuclear program, is one of the greatest security concerns for both Israel and the United States. China has sided with Russia to try to impede Western proposals for greater actions against Syria, which is a close ally of Iran and has been using bloody means to try to stamp out a rebellion.

  Syria accused Israel of carrying out airstrikes last weekend on military targets outside Damascus. Ms. Hua, the Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, was asked at the news conference Tuesday whether Chinese leaders would raise the airstrikes with Mr. Netanyahu. “China and Israel are maintaining communication,” she said.

  Despite the spotlight on the visits by Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu, China is likely to remain a muted political actor in the Middle East, analysts of the region said. Beijing sees little to gain from being entangled in distant and often seemingly intractable disputes, said Yin Gang, a professor of Middle Eastern studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing.

  “China is a long way from the Middle East, and it can’t even reach a good solution to its own regional problems: North Korea, the Diaoyu Islands, the Philippines, Vietnam,” Mr. Yin said. “Even if China becomes a superpower with an economy on par with the United States’, it still won’t play a major role in the Middle East.”

  China’s ideological flexibility on the Middle East and North Africa was evident during the recent Libyan revolution. China refused to support Western-led military support of the rebels fighting Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, then intensified its relations with the rebels when it became obvious that Colonel Qaddafi’s government would fall.

  Mr. Netanyahu’s talks with Chinese leaders are likely to be dominated by bilateral issues, including economic ties. The positions of both sides on Iran’s nuclear program and on the bloodshed in Syria are too clear and entrenched to expect any shifts from the talks, said Mr. Yin and Mr. Guo, the two scholars.

  “Israel’s biggest concern is still Iran; it worries that Iran will develop nuclear weapons technology, and it’s looking for the international community to intensify economic sanctions and other pressure,” Mr. Guo said. “But China’s position is clear: it opposes military strikes against Iran and maintains that sanctions need to be measured.”

  Mr. Netanyahu’s trip to China is the first by an Israeli leader since 2007. In Shanghai, he visited a memorial to refugees who fled to the city from the Holocaust in Europe. Xinhua reported that in his meeting Tuesday with Yang Xiong, the mayor of Shanghai, Mr. Netanyahu said: “Israel-China cooperation in the fields of science, technology and manufacturing can result in a perfect partnership. The difference between cooperating with China and other countries is that the effect can be more than tenfold, rather than just one- or twofold.”

  Edward Wong reported from Beijing, and Chris Buckley from Hong Kong. Patrick Zuo and Sue-Lin Wong contributed research from Beijing.

  ===========================================

  The ‘start-up nation’ and the Chinese dream

  By H.E. GAO YANPING

  05/04/2013 23:20

  Select Language??

  As a “start-up nation,” Israel has much to share and cooperate with China. If we work hand-in-hand, and combine our respective advantages, we will enjoy common development and win-win results.

  On May 5, 2013, Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will embark on an official visit to China, his second since 1998. It will also be the first time an Israeli prime minister has paid visit to China since 2007.

  Netanyahu is going to meet with Chinese leaders in Beijing and exchange views on bilateral relations, as well as regional and international issues. During his visit, some bilateral cooperative agreements are expected to be signed, which will further strengthen the bonds between the two countries. Netanyahu’s visit is of great significance, and will promote a new high in China-Israel relations.

  His visit provides us with a good opportunity to see how far we have come, where we are now and where we are heading in the future.

  As an ancient Chinese saying goes, “Amity between people holds the key to sound relations between states.”

  The friendship between the Chinese and Jewish nations dates back more than 1,000 years. The Jewish people in then-Chinese capital Kaifeng enjoyed equal rights to the Chinese. From the 1880s onward, thousands of Jews went to northeast China because of rising anti-Semitism in Russia and Eastern Europe, forming the largest Jewish community in the Far East. Before and during World War II, when Jewish people were struggling for survival against the Nazi Holocaust, Shanghai became the only city in the world open to Jews.

  There has never been anti-Semitism in China in the course of history. Some Jewish people in China also actively supported and participated in the Chinese struggle against Japanese invasion.

  Later on, they worked hard with the Chinese people in building the new China. The friendly interaction between the two peoples has laid a solid foundation for the establishment and development of diplomatic ties between China and Israel.

  On January 24, 1992, China and Israel established diplomatic relations.

  Since then, our relations have stood up to test of a variety of complex situations and international challenges. We experienced some ups and downs, but we dealt with our relations from an overall and long-term perspective, and kept the momentum going.

  Then-Chinese president Jiang Zeming visited Israel in 2000. Four Israeli presidents and three prime ministers have visited China since 1992, including prime minister Netanyahu’s first visit to China in 1998. The exchanges between the two countries now take place at the central governmental level, as well as at the provincial and municipal levels, and involve people from all walks of life.

  The busiest record I hold is receiving seven high-level Chinese official delegations in one week last April. The cultural and people-to-people exchanges are also in full bloom.

  Many performance groups also come to Israel, and offer Israeli audiences the finest Chinese culture. Chinese celebrities post beautiful photos in the Chinese social media after their trip to Israel, which amaze and encourage more people to visit Israel. Israelis have also experienced the Chinese people’s friendly attitude. When the famous Israeli singer Ahinoam Nini held concerts in China in 2011, she wrote in her blog that “the Chinese love Israel more than any other people I have ever met.”

  The pragmatic cooperation between the two countries has been flourishing.

  The two-way trade volume increased almost 200 times, from only a little more than $50 million in 1992 to $9.91 billion in 2012, which means that today, bilateral trade in two days equals that of the whole year of 1992. Our cooperation has been expanded from agricultural cooperation in the early days to almost all areas today, such as science and technology, education, culture, arts, tourism and academia. With the burgeoning cooperation come more tangible benefits and a lot of job opportunities for the two peoples.

  Looking to the future, our relations are blessed with marvelous opportunities for further development. China has successfully concluded the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China, the 12th National People’s Congress, and elected new leadership over the past 6 months.

  We have drawn the blueprint for China’s development in the years to come.

  The main goals we set are as follows: By 2020, China’s GDP and per capita incomes for urban and rural residents will double the 2010 figures, and the building of a moderately prosperous society in all respects will be completed.

  By the mid-21st century, China will be turned into a modern socialist country that is prosperous, strong, democratic, culturally advanced and harmonious; and the Chinese dream, namely, the great renewal of the Chinese nation, will be realized.

  The more China grows itself, the more development opportunities it will create for the world. It is projected that in the coming five years, China’s imports will reach some $10 trillion, its outbound investment $500b., and the number of its outbound tourists may well exceed 400 million, 50 times Israel’s total population.

  Looking ahead, we are full of confidence in China’s future. Meanwhile, we are aware that China remains the world’s largest developing country, and it faces many difficulties and challenges on its road to progress. We are unwaveringly committed to reform and opening up, and will concentrate on the major task of shifting the growth model. We are endeavoring to implement the strategy of innovation-driven development, and taking steps to promote innovation to catch up with global advances. Israel is a stakeholder in this regard.

  Israel is small in size but big in innovation.

  As a “start-up nation,” Israel has much to share and cooperate with China. If we work hand-in-hand, and combine our respective advantages, we will enjoy common development and win-win results. I am pleased to note reports Prime Minister Netanyahu has called on the Israeli ministers to fly to China as much as possible. I really appreciate his vision. I am ready to work with the Israeli side to promote the bilateral cooperation in various fields.

  With the interdependence between countries deepening in the globalized world, China and Israel have a shared destiny. The closer our cooperation is, the more benefits will accrue for both our peoples, and the more contributions we will be able to make to regional stability, world peace and global prosperity.

  I am fully convinced that with Prime Minister Netanyahu’s visit to China, a brighter future for our friendship and cooperation will be ushered in.

  The writer is the People’s Republic of China’s ambassador to the State of Israel.

Op-Ed Contributor of the New York Times

Bomb North Korea, Before It’s Too Late.

By JEREMI SURI,
AUSTIN, Tex.

Published: April 12, 2013

SINCE February, the North Korean government has followed one threatening move with another. The spiral began with an underground nuclear test. Then the North declared the armistice that ended the Korean War invalid. The young dictator Kim Jong-un followed with a flurry of threats to attack civilian targets in South Korea, Japan and the United States.

Earlier this week, North Korea closed the Kaesong Industrial Complex, the only facility where citizens from North and South Korea work together. And now the North is openly threatening (and visibly preparing) to fire a mobile-launcher-based Musudan missile with a range that could reach many of the places Mr. Kim has menaced in his public statements. American intelligence agencies believe that North Korea is working to prepare even longer-range delivery systems to carry the nuclear warheads already in its arsenal.

The Korean crisis has now become a strategic threat to America’s core national interests. The best option is to destroy the North Korean missile on the ground before it is launched. The United States should use a precise airstrike to render the missile and its mobile launcher inoperable.

President Obama should state clearly and forthrightly that this is an act of self-defense in response to explicit threats from North Korea and clear evidence of a prepared weapon. He should give the leaders of South Korea, Japan, China and Taiwan advance notice before acting. And he should explain that this is a limited defensive strike on a military target — an operation that poses no threat to civilians — and that America does not intend to bring about regime change. The purpose is to neutralize a clear and present danger. That is all.

If North Korea is left to continue its threatening behavior, it will jeopardize the fragile economies of the region and it will encourage South Korea and Japan to develop their own nuclear weapons — a policy already advocated by hawks in both countries. Most of all, North Korean threats will encourage isolated states across the world to follow suit. The Iranians are certainly watching. If North Korea can use its small nuclear arsenal to blackmail the region with impunity, why shouldn’t the mullahs in Tehran try to do the same?

The United States and its allies in East Asia have a legitimate right to self-defense and they have a deep interest in deterring future threats on this scale.

Thanks to precise satellite reconnaissance, striking the North Korean missile on the ground would be much easier than after it was launched. Since the United States cannot possibly know the missile’s trajectory before a launch, and Mr. Kim has said he is targeting America and its allies, we have reason to believe that civilians face serious danger.

Since a missile on the ground is an obvious and largely undefended target, we can be reasonably sure that a strike would destroy it and preserve regional stability and the safety of our allies. An American pre-emptive strike would also re-establish necessary red lines for North Korea and other countries in similar circumstances.

As President Xi Jinping of China stated earlier this month, “No one should be allowed to throw a region and even the whole world into chaos for selfish gains.” By eliminating the most recent North Korean missile threat, the United States will reduce the threat posed by the North’s arsenal. The United States would also reassure everyone in the region, and those watching from other parts of the world, that although it is not seeking regime change, America and its allies will not be blackmailed by threatened missile launches.

The North Korean government would certainly view the American strike as a provocation, but it is unlikely that Mr. Kim would retaliate by attacking South Korea, as many fear. First, the Chinese government would do everything it could to prevent such a reaction. Even if they oppose an American strike, China’s leaders understand that a full-scale war would be far worse. Second, Mr. Kim would see in the American strike a renewed commitment to the defense of South Korea. Any attack on Seoul would be an act of suicide for him, and he knows that.

A war on the Korean Peninsula is unlikely after an American strike, but it is not inconceivable. The North Koreans might continue to escalate, and Mr. Kim might feel obligated to start a war to save face. Under these unfortunate circumstances, the United States and its allies would still be better off fighting a war with North Korea today, when the conflict could still be confined largely to the Korean Peninsula. As North Korea’s actions over the last two months have shown, Mr. Kim’s government is willing to escalate its threats much more rapidly than his father’s regime did. An unending crisis would merely postpone war to a later date, when the damage caused by North Korea would be even greater.

China’s role in a potential war on the Korean Peninsula is hard to predict. Beijing will continue to worry about the United States extending its influence up to the Chinese border. If armed hostilities erupt, President Obama should be prepared for direct and close consultations with Chinese leaders to negotiate a postwar settlement, in a larger multinational framework, that respects Beijing’s legitimate security interests in North Korea. The United States has no interest in occupying North Korea. The Chinese are unlikely to pursue an occupation of their own.

Destroying the North Korean missile before it is launched is the best of bad options on the Korean Peninsula. A prolonged crisis would undermine regional security and global efforts to stop nuclear proliferation. And a future war would be much worse. The most prudent move is to eliminate the most imminent military threat in self-defense, establish clear and reasonable limits on future belligerence, and maintain allied unity for stability — not forced regime change — in the region. This is the kind of pre-emptive action that would save lives and maybe even preserve the uneasy peace on the Korean Peninsula.

from the Hooshang Amirahmadi for President of Iran campaign.

I Was in Iran During its Major Earthquake

Amirahmadi 1392 wishes to express its gratitude to all those who have donated. Without your generosity, this campaign would not be possible. To join them and invest in a better Iran, click Donate.

————————————————————————————————————————————–

For more information on the campaign, email Kayvon Afshari at info@amirahmadi.com

The Afshari family is running this campaign that at the present stage is a campaign for the attention of the Ayattolah  who is the final decision maker on who will be allowed on the actual list of candidates.

We have aid this before – the Iranian ruling heads of the religion, would do themselves and their country people a big favor by allowing on that list U S residing Professor Amirahmadi of Rutgers University – The State University of New Jersey. They could then claim that they are open to communication with the West. Not that we think he could win – but we believe he could open channels of communication with the World at large.

So far – we can state that Professor Amirahmadi was not yet accused of being an American ploy whose presence in Iran caused the earthquake in the region of the atomic reactor that was built many years ago starting with the help the Iranians got from the Exxon Oil Company -  still under the Shah.

The nuclear program of Iran was launched in the 1950s with the help of the United States as part of the Atoms for Peace program.^[1]

The participation of the United States and Western European governments in Iran’s nuclear program continued until the 1979 Iranian Revolution that toppled the Shah of Iran.^[2]

After the 1979 revolution, a clandestine nuclear weapons research program was disbanded by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who considered such weapons forbidden under Muslim ethics and jurisprudence.^[3] Small scale research into nuclear weapons may have restarted during the Iran-Iraq War, and underwent significant expansion after the Ayatollah’s death in 1989.^[4]

Iran’s nuclear program has included several research sites, two uranium mines, a research reactor, and uranium processing facilities that include three known uranium enrichment plants. ^[5]

Iran’s first nuclear power plant, Bushehr I reactor was complete with major assistance of Russian government agency Rosatom and officially opened on 12 September 2011.^[6] Iran has announced that it is working on a new 360 MW nuclear power plant to be located in Darkhovin.

The Russian engineering contractor Atomenergoprom said the Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant would reach full capacity by the end of 2012.^[7] Iran has also indicated that it will seek more medium-sized nuclear power plants and uranium mines in the future.^[8]

In November 2011, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Board of Governors criticized Iran after an IAEA report concluded that before 2003 Iran likely had undertaken research and experiments geared to developing a nuclear weapons capability.^[9] The IAEA report details allegations that Iran conducted studies related to nuclear weapons design, including detonator development, the multiple-point initiation of high explosives, and experiments involving nuclear payload integration into a missile delivery vehicle.^[10] A number of Western nuclear experts have stated there was very little new in the report, that it primarily concerned Iranian activities prior to 2003,^[11] and that media reports exaggerated its significance.^[12] Iran rejected the details of the report and accused the IAEA of pro-Western bias.^[13] and threatened to reduce its cooperation with the IAEA.^[14][15]

Former United States Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recalled in 2005, “I don’t think the issue of proliferation came up.”^[56] However, a 1974 CIA proliferation assessment stated “If [the Shah] is alive in the mid-1980s … and if other countries [particularly India] have proceeded with weapons development we have no doubt Iran will follow suit.”^[57]

The Shah also signed a nuclear cooperation agreement with South Africa under which Iranian oil money financed the development of South African fuel enrichment technology using a novel “jet nozzle” process, in return for assured supplies of South African (and Namibian) enriched uranium.^[58]

Those days also Israel was working with South Africa and we would not be surprised that there was Israeli-Iranian Cooperation as well.

Following the 1979 Revolution, most of the international nuclear cooperation with Iran was cut off. Iran has later argued that these experiences indicate foreign facilities and foreign fuel supplies are an unreliable source of nuclear fuel supply.^[59][60]

The United States cut off the supply of highly enriched uranium (HEU) fuel for the Tehran Nuclear Research Center, which forced the reactor to shut down for a number of years, until Argentina‘s National Atomic Energy Commission in 1987–88 signed an agreement with Iran to help in converting the reactor from highly enriched uranium fuel to 19.75% low-enriched uranium, and to supply the low-enriched uranium to Iran.^[64] The uranium was delivered in 1993.^[65]

Since that time Iran’s nuclear ambitions are daily in the News.

==================================================================================

TEHRAN – Iran’s political landscape has become increasingly divided during controversial President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s second and final term. But as a diverse array of candidates to replace him takes shape, nearly all the contenders seem united on one thing: attacking the president’s legacy.

The eventual winner of the June election will wield influence over the direction of negotiations on Iran’s nuclear program, a topic of immense importance to the U.S. In Iran, however, the biggest election issue is the sagging economy, and most among an emerging list of about 20 candidates argue that it has been harmed as much by Ahmadinejad’s tenure as by international sanctions.

The growing field of hopefuls is generating fresh popular interest in an election that few believed would be competitive just a short while ago. That is in large part because candidates must be approved by Iran’s Guardian Council, a powerful body of clerics and jurists, half of whom are appointed by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran’s traditional conservative factions — known as principlists for their loyalty to the founding principles of the Islamic republic — make up the largest number of expected candidates. But instead of a field limited to conservatives, who once counted Ahmadinejad among their ranks but came to see him as a threat to their dominance, a number of candidates who many analysts believed would sit out for fear of not passing the strict vetting process have stepped forward.

Reformists, who have seen the modest social gains and improved foreign relations achieved during previous President Mohammad Khatami’s eight-year reign evaporate under the current administration, are lining up against the president.

Among them is the lead nuclear negotiator under Khatami, Hassan Rowhani, who announced his candidacy Thursday. The entrance of Rowhani, a cleric and one of the few moderate voices still prominent in Iran’s ruling system, diminished the likelihood that Khatami or former President Hashemi Rafsanjani — both allies of Rowhani — will run again, as had been speculated.

Three conservative former members of Ahmadinejad’s Cabinet, including former Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki, have announced their candidacies and are also running on anti-Ahmadinejad platforms.

Ultraconservatives, led by Ayatollah Taghi Mesbah Yazdi, who was long seen as Ahmadinejad’s staunchest supporter in the clergy but is now among his most vocal critics, have not yet announced their candidacies but are expected to do so soon.

Touting slogans such as “Improvement and Justice,” “Victory of Honesty over Wealth and Power” and “Government of Ethics,” many candidates are targeting the millions of disenchanted Iranians who believe the Ahmadinejad years were a time of economic mismanagement, fraud within the banking system and a misguided foreign policy that has left Iran even further isolated from the international community than it already was.

In contrast, Ahmadinejad’s team — which is so far fielding two candidates — has adopted the slogan “Long Live the Spring,” a phrase variously interpreted as an exhortation to keep his faction in power and a reference to the movements that have toppled regimes in the Arab world.

An election season with high voter turnout has always been the preference of Iran’s ruling clerics, who consider participation as proof of popular support for their system. But a major concern of principlist and ultraconservative hardliners is that a high turnout might favor their adversaries.

According to official counts of the 2009 election, two reformist leaders won more than one-third of the vote. Their supporters and international observers assert that the total was much higher, however, and most agree that those who backed the reformists are unlikely to vote this year for any of the principlist candidates, who favor conservative social policies rooted in Quranic law.

This could create an opportunity for another reformist candidate or one backed by Ahmadinejad, whose circle has moved away from Islamic rhetoric in favor of a more nationalist tone.

With the principlists fielding the most candidates so far, there is a growing possibility that they will split each other’s votes, opening an easier path to victory for either a reformist or one of Ahmadinejad’s allies.

“A distribution of votes between our candidates will lead to defeat,” Ayatollah Nasser Makarem Shirazi, a leading conservative cleric, said in an interview with the Fars news agency last week. “The result of division between those loyal to the revolution will be defeat. It would be good if (principlists) create a coalition and zoom in on one person with the rest becoming helping hands.”

Had Turkey made its internal peace wilth their Kurds, and moved on to incorporate the Iraqi Kurds, then the Syrian Kurds, then the Iranian Kurds – that would have been a National policy of a bi-National State that would have helped them also in their relations with the EU. But that is a future lost and now we see a revival of old oil policy instead.

====================================

Turkey, Iraq, and Oil

by Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi
The American Spectator
April 5, 2013

www.meforum.org/3484/turkey-iraq-oil

Though the pace of growth of the Turkish economy has slowed significantly, one of Ankara’s priorities over the coming years is to meet the country’s growing energy demands. The clearest solution is to diversify suppliers of oil and gas, with the autonomous Iraqi Kurdistan (KRG) area being one potential source for such fuels.

Had you asked me a few months ago about the Turkish policy on acquiring energy resources from the KRG via an independent pipeline project and against the will of the Iraqi central government, I would have said that Ankara was still ambiguous on the matter, but now it seems clear that the Turkish government under Prime Minister Erdo?an intends to move forward with such plans.

The first sign of an advance in the framework of an informal commercial deal between the KRG and Ankara on this issue was a report by Ben Van Heuvelen for the Iraq Oil Report. Relying on the testimony of “multiple senior Turkish officials,” Heuvelen reports that the terms would include “stakes in at least half a dozen exploration for the direct pipeline export of oil and gas from the KRG.”

Multiple other sources can be used to confirm Heuvelen’s report. Following the visit of KRG premier Nechirvan Barzani in Ankara to meet with Erdo?an on March 26 where the two leaders apparently agreed to begin implementing the energy cooperation plan, the Turkish opposition party CHP attempted to launch a no-confidence motion in parliament against Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu on account of the energy deal with the KRG. The no-confidence motion failed.

CHP member Osman Korutürk claimed that a pipeline agreement in particular contradicted Davuto?lu’s declared principle of “zero problems” with neighboring countries, noting the objections of Baghdad and Washington to the development of energy ties between the KRG and Turkey without the Iraqi government’s consent.

The Turkish premier’s response to this initiative by the CHP, which is similarly opposed to Ankara’s firm anti-Assad stance vis-à-vis Syria, was to indicate that the issue should be taken up with Energy Minister Taner Yildiz, who proceeded in a speech to acknowledge the idea of maintaining Iraq’s unity as one of the top priorities of Turkish foreign policy, while arguing that the KRG had a constitutional right to develop energy ties with Ankara and is entitled to 17% of Iraq’s budget as per a 2006 agreement between Arbil and Baghdad.

In a subsequent interview with CNN Turk, Erdo?an invoked many of the same points as Yildiz in arguing that Turkey had the right to make energy agreements with the KRG, adding that under Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, there is no real unity in Iraq anyway.

The point about the KRG’s budget share of 17% — invoked by Erdo?an and Yildiz — is key to Turkey’s official justification for moving forward with developing energy ties with the KRG unilaterally while also claiming to uphold Iraq’s unity. Ankara’s reasoning appears to be as follows: through developing energy ties, KRG will boost its oil production and therefore in terms of Iraq’s overall revenues, the KRG will be contributing 17% and thus match its share of the budget.

At present, the budget share to which the KRG is entitled is well above the autonomous region’s oil output as a proportion of Iraq’s revenues, the overwhelming majority of which comes from the oil industry. Baghdad’s complaint — as reflected in the words of Abdullah al-Amir (the chief advisor to Iraq’s deputy minister for energy affairs) — is that allegedly, only a third of KRG oil revenues reach the central government.

This complaint is not necessarily divorced from reality. In truth, the Turkish government’s official justification for implementing an energy agreement with the KRG while claiming to uphold Iraq’s unity is specious.

Notice that in the interview with CNN Turk (as I have pointed out above, but was omitted in the English reports), Erdo?an said that there is no real unity in Iraq anyway. At the same time, it should be emphasized that Ankara still does not support actual Kurdish independence.

Rather, the goal is to make the KRG a virtual client state of Turkey while ensuring that the autonomous region at least remains nominally part of Iraq. As Ben Van Heuvelen pointed out to me, this goal is “almost explicit policy” on the part of Ankara.

In turn, Zaab Sethna draws an analogy with the Turkish-occupied territory of northern Cyprus, in relation to which Turkish officials are now pressing Israel not to develop natural gas deals with the Cypriot government without incorporating Ankara into the negotiations. Aware of Baghdad’s disapproval of dealing with the KRG unilaterally, the Turkish government appears to be trying to pursue a rapprochement with the Iraqi government anyway: perhaps to induce it to accept the Turkey-KRG agreement. The rapprochement initiative began with a meeting between Davuto?lu and Iraq’s Vice-President Khudayr al-Khozaie at the Arab League Summit in Doha at the end of last month, in which a desire to restart friendly bilateral ties was expressed — something that Khozaie acknowledged on his return to Baghdad.

Building on these hints of rapprochement, Iraq has now put forward an offer to build an oil pipeline from Basra to Ceyhan in southern Turkey, in which Yildiz has expressed an interest. Even so, if Baghdad is hoping that this counter-offer will dissuade Ankara from proceeding to forge energy ties with the KRG, then the central government is quite mistaken.

It seems most likely that Turkey, like Exxon Mobil with its oil contracts in Iraq, will try to have it both ways by continuing to express an interest in a Basra-Ceyhan pipeline project as well, but could also drop the proposal entirely in favor of continuing to develop the energy deal with the KRG. Further, it is improbable that a compromise will be reached on the issue: a whole series of temporary agreements have arisen in the past on oil disputes between the KRG and the Iraqi central government, but the foundations of the quarrel have never been truly tackled. There is no doubt that the dispute over the budget for this year pushed the KRG to move forward with Ankara in cementing the energy deal.

At present, there is little the Iraqi government can do to stop Ankara beyond saber-rattling rhetoric. A violent confrontation is out of the question, and appealing to Washington to pressure Turkey to reconsider has been unsuccessful.

This failure of persuasion demonstrates the very limited U.S. leverage in the dispute, and while Turkish officials have expressed hope that Washington will eventually take Ankara’s side, they are obviously not pleased that the Americans sided with Baghdad.

From this point follows another conclusion: namely, it is all the more likely that Turkey will continue to resist any future U.S. or wider Western pressure to drop energy and economic ties with Iran amid the sanctions.

Ankara may be diversifying its energy sources, but that does not translate to dropping oil imports from Iran or ending the trade in gold for natural gas. An independent oil and gas pipeline project with the KRG will take years to become fully operational, and there is no reason to assume it is mutually exclusive from continuing energy ties with Iran, just as it is wrong to presume that the KRG will end oil smuggling to Iran just because of an energy agreement with Turkey.

Whatever disagreements Iran and Turkey have about Syria, it is important to note the cases of Iraq-Jordan and Iran/Iraq-Egypt economic ties. Strategic regional outlook is not the same as strengthening economic relations, and so one must avoid interpreting Turkey’s cultivation of energy ties with the KRG as a move away from Iran by either party.

Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi is a Shillman-Ginsburg Fellow at the Middle East Forum, and a student at Brasenose College, Oxford University.

Related Topics:  Iraq, Oil, Turkey and Turks  |  Aymenn Jawad Al-Tamimi

Agreement for the export of Iraqi oil through Jordan within days

He and Iraqi Oil Minister Abdul Karim and coffee yesterday that the next few days will witness the signing of the Jordanian-Iraqi transport …

———–===============================================———–

Baghdad warns of Kurdistan oil pipeline to Turkey
Oil Ministry has warned the Turkish side of the Iraqi oil pipeline from the Kurdistan region through its territory without the consent of the government …

Dear Rightwing Catholic Islamophobes.

By Professor Juan Cole on his blog

31 March 13

ope Francis on Maundy Thursday declined to address enormous crowds. Instead he went to a prison to emulate Jesus’s act of humility before his crucifixion in washing the feet of his 12 disciples. The pope washed and kissed the feet of 12 inmates, two of them women and two of them Muslim (one of the women was Muslim). It is reported that some of the prisoners broke down in tears.

CNN reports,

Pope Francis’s willingness to wash the feet of a Muslim woman shows his concern for the very lowest stratum of society. Europe has millions of Muslims, and some are well off and well integrated into society. But many Muslims who immigrated into France and Italy for work got caught when the jobs dried up, and live in poor areas of the cities, being excluded from mainstream society or much hope of betterment. Women have lower status than men in such communities, so a poor Muslim woman in jail is just about the bottom of the social scale.

Pope Francis is from Argentina, which has a large, successful Arab-heritage community that includes Muslims, and he is said to have deeply disagreed with his predecessor, Pope Benedict XVI, over the latter’s Regensburg speech in which he said things that Muslims found insulting.

The thing that strikes me about all this is that there is a small strand of American Catholic conservatism that frankly despises both the poor and Muslims, and is one of the pillars of prejudice against Muslims (some call it Islamophobia) in the United States. Most Catholics in opinion polls have a more positive view of Islam and Muslims than is common among evangelical Protestants, but the rightwingers among them have a thing about Muslims (and about poor people).

An example is former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani. Rep. Peter King of New York also comes to mind. Robert Spencer has made a career of defaming Islam and Muslims. Then there is professional bully Sean Hannity of Faux News. Paul Ryan uses the insulting language of “Islamic fascism” (fascism is a Western invention; most fascists in history have been of Christian heritage; and it has nothing to do with the Muslim faith). Ryan, far from serving the poor, wants to cut social services to them by savaging the government budget, and openly boasts of following prophet of selfishness Ayn Rand.

These purveyors of hate speech against Muslims claim to be Catholics, and some of them are annoyingly Ultramontane, insisting on papal infallibility and trying to impose their values on all Americans.

Yet the person they hold to be the vicar of Christ has just given humankind a different charge, of humility and of service to the least in society, many of whom are Muslims.

So when will we see Rudy Giuliani, Sean Hannity and the others go to a prison to comfort inmates, and serve the Muslims among them? When will we see them kiss a Muslim’s feet? Or are they cafeteria Catholics, parading only the values that accord with their Ayn Rand heresy?

===================

Since 2007 we have posted quite a few of the events Prof. Juan Cole expressed an opinion about them.
Here the advertisement for an upcoming event involving him:

UPCOMING EVENT

The Palestine Center invites you to the

Hisham B. Sharabi Memorial Lecture

“Statelessness as the Core of the Palestinian Issue”

with

Dr. Juan Cole

The Palestine Center
Thursday, 2 May 2013
12:30-2pm EST

Lunch is served from 12:30-1:00 p.m.
The lecture and live webcast begin at 1:00 p.m.

Click here to RSVP now!

The Israeli-Palestinian issue makes the area one of the world’s longest-running geopolitical hotspots. It has been characterized as a territorial dispute, or a refugee problem, or even a problem of terrorism. It has been the subject of negotiations and agreements that always seem to fall apart. Dr. Juan Cole argues that the core of the issue is the statelessness of the Palestinians and that all the other problems stem from this condition. He will explore the meaning of statelessness for human and civil rights, property rights, and standing in negotiations, as well with regard to international regimes of law and diplomacy.

Dr. Juan R.I. Cole is the Richard P. Mitchell Collegiate Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He has written extensively on modern Islamic movements in Egypt, the Persian Gulf and South Asia and has given numerous media interviews on the war on terrorism and the Iraq War. His most recent book is Engaging the Muslim World (2009), and his Napoleon’s Egypt: Invading the Middle East was published in 2007.

Cole was the recipient of the Hudson Research Professorship in 2003, the National Endowment for the Humanities grant in 1991, and the Fulbright-Hays Islamic Civilization Postdoctoral Award in 1985-86. In November 2004, he was elected president of the Middle East Studies Association of North America and in 2006 was the recipient of Hunter College’s James Aronson Award for Social Justice Journalism. Since 2002, he has published the blog Informed Comment.

TEHRAN – During a recent celebration to mark the Persian new year, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad did something quietly remarkable: He stood modestly to the side and let his favored aide have the spotlight.

The gesture was far more than just a rare demure moment from the normally grandstanding leader. It was further carefully scripted stagecraft in Ahmadinejad’s long-shot efforts to promote the political fortunes of his chief of staff — and in-law — and seek a place for him on the June presidential ballot that will pick Iran’s next president.

In the waning months of Ahmadinejad’s rule — weakened by years of internal battles with the ruling clerics — there appears no bigger priority than attempting one last surprise. It is built around rehabilitating the image of Esfandiari Rahim Mashaei and somehow getting him a place among the candidates for the June 14 vote.

Mashaei has long been a close Ahmadinejad aide, and his daughter is married to the president’s son — a closeness that entails unquestionable loyalty, which is perhaps the main reason why Iran’s clerical establishment is set against him.

To get Mashaei on the list of presidential contenders, Ahmadinejad must achieve what has eluded him so far: come out on top in a showdown with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and the other guardians of the Islamic republic. Ahmadinejad has been slapped down hard after bold attempts in recent years to push the influence of his office on policies and decisions reserved for the ruling clerics.

That has left him limping into the end of his eight-year presidency with many allies either jailed or pushed to the margins.

Mashaei is part of the collateral damage. The aide has been discredited as part of a “deviant current” that critics say seeks to undermine Islamic rule in Iran and elevate the values of pre-Islamic Persia. The smear campaign has even included rumors that Mashaei conjured black magic spells to cloud Ahmadinejad’s judgment.

The prevailing wisdom is that the backlash has effectively killed Mashaei’s chances for the presidential ballot. The ruling clerics vet all candidates and, the theory follows, they seek a predictable slate of loyalists after dealing with Ahmadinejad’s ambitions and disruptive power plays.

Khamenei and others, including the powerful Revolutionary Guard, also are hoping to quell domestic spats that they fear project a sense of instability during negotiations with the West over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Yet none of this seems to have discouraged Ahmadinejad, who has been trying to groom Mashaei for years as his potential heir and now appears reluctant to toss his backing behind a less controversial figure.

To that end, the president has hit the road as a cheerleader for Mashaei under the slogan “Long Live Spring.”

Ahmadinejad appears to be banking on his populist appeal to force the Guardian Council — the gatekeepers for the candidates — to consider Mashaei too prominent to reject.

“Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to go out with a whimper. That’s not his style,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Geneva. “He wants his legacy, his man, as his successor.”

Tehran-based political analyst Sadeq Zibakalam also sees Mashaei as Ahmadinejad’s last-ditch insurance policy. Without an ally as successor, Ahmadinejad fears he will be cast to the political sidelines.

It will be more than a month before the candidate list is finalized. The presidential hopefuls will register from May 7 to 11.

Already, however, the general contours are taking shape.

There is Ahmadinejad’s quest for Mashaei as the only active campaign roadshow. Many conservatives, meanwhile, seem to be coalescing around a three-way alliance — all apparently in the good graces of the ruling system — of former Foreign Minister and current Khamenei adviser Ali Akbar Velayati, Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and prominent lawmaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, whose daughter is married to Khamenei’s son.

“Should we win, our coalition will form the backbone of the future government,” Velayati told a news conference this month, suggesting the potential winner would seek key posts for the other two.

A separate roster of establishment-friendly candidates is getting bigger by the day. It includes former Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahian, Parliament Vice Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar and former Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezaei, who ran against Ahmadinejad in his disputed 2009 re-election.

Reformists remain undecided whether to fall behind a potential candidate or boycott the vote in protest of the 2009 outcome — which they claim stole the election from Green Movement leader Mir Hossein Mousavi — and the crushing pressures on dissent that followed. Mousavi and fellow reformist candidate Mahdi Karroubi have been under house arrest for more than two years.

But the most unpredictable element is still Ahmadinejad’s push for Mashaei, whom he bills as his ideological heir and supporter of populist initiatives, such as government stipends to poor families.

and the other guardians of the Islamic republic. Ahmadinejad has been slapped down hard after bold attempts in recent years to push the influence of his office on policies and decisions reserved for the ruling clerics.

That has left him limping into the end of his eight-year presidency with many allies either jailed or pushed to the margins.

Mashaei is part of the collateral damage. The aide has been discredited as part of a “deviant current” that critics say seeks to undermine Islamic rule in Iran and elevate the values of pre-Islamic Persia. The smear campaign has even included rumors that Mashaei conjured black magic spells to cloud Ahmadinejad’s judgment.

The prevailing wisdom is that the backlash has effectively killed Mashaei’s chances for the presidential ballot. The ruling clerics vet all candidates and, the theory follows, they seek a predictable slate of loyalists after dealing with Ahmadinejad’s ambitions and disruptive power plays.

Khamenei and others, including the powerful Revolutionary Guard, also are hoping to quell domestic spats that they fear project a sense of instability during negotiations with the West over Tehran’s nuclear program.

Yet none of this seems to have discouraged Ahmadinejad, who has been trying to groom Mashaei for years as his potential heir and now appears reluctant to toss his backing behind a less controversial figure.

To that end, the president has hit the road as a cheerleader for Mashaei under the slogan “Long Live Spring.”

Ahmadinejad appears to be banking on his populist appeal to force the Guardian Council — the gatekeepers for the candidates — to consider Mashaei too prominent to reject.

“Ahmadinejad doesn’t want to go out with a whimper. That’s not his style,” said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center in Geneva. “He wants his legacy, his man, as his successor.”

Tehran-based political analyst Sadeq Zibakalam also sees Mashaei as Ahmadinejad’s last-ditch insurance policy. Without an ally as successor, Ahmadinejad fears he will be cast to the political sidelines.

It will be more than a month before the candidate list is finalized. The presidential hopefuls will register from May 7 to 11.

Already, however, the general contours are taking shape.

There is Ahmadinejad’s quest for Mashaei as the only active campaign roadshow. Many conservatives, meanwhile, seem to be coalescing around a three-way alliance — all apparently in the good graces of the ruling system — of former Foreign Minister and current Khamenei adviser Ali Akbar Velayati, Tehran Mayor Mohammad Bagher Qalibaf and prominent lawmaker Gholam Ali Haddad Adel, whose daughter is married to Khamenei’s son.

“Should we win, our coalition will form the backbone of the future government,” Velayati told a news conference this month, suggesting the potential winner would seek key posts for the other two.

A separate roster of establishment-friendly candidates is getting bigger by the day. It includes former Intelligence Minister Ali Fallahian, Parliament Vice Speaker Mohammad Reza Bahonar and former Revolutionary Guard chief Mohsen Rezaei, who ran against Ahmadinejad in his disputed 2009 re-election.

Reformists remain undecided whether to fall behind a potential candidate or boycott the vote in protest of the 2009 outcome — which they claim stole the election from Green Movement leader Mir Hossein Mousavi — and the crushing pressures on dissent that followed. Mousavi and fellow reformist candidate Mahdi Karroubi have been under house arrest for more than two years.

But the most unpredictable element is still Ahmadinejad’s push for Mashaei, whom he bills as his ideological heir and supporter of populist initiatives, such as government stipends to poor families.

UNITED NATIONS, March 28 — The Arms Trade Treaty talks were to have concluded this afternoon; chairman Peter Woolcott has scheduled a press stakeout at 6 pm.

But as delegates continued milling around in Conference Room 1, Inner City Press observed the UN Television stakeout being taken apart at 6:10 pm.

By 6:45 pm, Iran, North Korea and Syria had formally objected, blocking consensus.

Mexico and some others argued that the ATT could still be adopted — without a vote — since there is no definition of consensus.

But Syria cited a definition, from the World Health Organization in 1987. Russia echoed that. Iran went further, saying that those trying to change the rules should “leave the building.”

Iran had earlier spoken up with sample objections; sources told Inner City Press their main issue was the inclusion of a reference to UN Security Council Chapter 7 sanctions, which they are under.

North Korea, too, is under them. So is Sudan, but several sources told Inner City Press Sudan does not want to stand alone, or even, as a source put it “be seen as one of the rogues.”

But there are principles, and the proponents of the ATT if they wanted consensus might have paid more attention to them.

As delegates milled around on the first floor, Inner City Press nearly alone staked out the second floor protocol room NLB-2109. Iran’s Permanent Representative came out with his Syrian counter-part Bashar Ja’afari. Soon thereafter, the objections were made, then the attempts to re-define consensus. Only at the UN.

—————–

  Privately a speaker said, we can’t just change the rules. Another said, the US pushed for the ATT to be under the rule of consensus, to be able to block it — then “pushed Iran to block it.”

Inner City Press asked the head of the US delegation about this; he did not disagree, including saying, it’s not a criticism. Alright then.

Update of 9:30 pm – We’d be told there would be a Woolcott stakeout, to get his side. But it’s canceled. To be fair we’ll make his argument: there was a list of speakers.

Update of 10:26 pm – after a long stand off resulting in the phrase, “there was no consensus and the draft decision was not adopted.” There’s laughter, cheering – and a cloud over the UN.

===========================================

General Assembly could vote on arms treaty next week.

The United Nations was prevented today by Syria, North Korea and Iran from adopting a proposed international arms treaty.

But the U.K., on behalf of multiple countries, sent the draft treaty to Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, asking the General Assembly to vote quickly on it. “Most people in the world want regulation and those are the voices that need to be heard,” says Joanne Adamson, the chief U.K. delegate.

Even the United Nations Foundation (UNF) seems to have had enough of this UN. What will the US of President Obama say? Can the US oppose the Conventional Arms Control Treaty as previous US Administrations did?

—————————————

UK Statement on the Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty delivered by Ambassador Jo Adamson – 28 March 2013

A good strong treaty has been blocked by the DPRK, the Islamic Republic of Iran, and Syria. But most people in most of the world want regulation and those other voices that need to be heard. So we have sent a text for decision by the United Nations General Assembly.

 This treaty will be the first international, legally binding agreement on the transfer of small arms and light-weapons, and the seven UN categories of conventional arms.

 It will have an explicit requirement for a national control system, with controls to apply to the broadest range of arms.

 It will prohibit exports that will be used for genocide, crimes against humanity, or a broad range of war crimes.

 It will have a mandatory requirement for arms exports – including ammunition, munitions, and military parts and components – to be assessed on the basis of criteria including peace and security, human rights, international humanitarian law, terrorism, which many had called for, and transnational organised crime.

 It will require mandatory refusals for transfers that pose unacceptable risks.

 It will have a requirement to take into account in export licensing decisions, the risks of serious acts of gender based violence, violence against women and children and corruption.

 It will have a requirement for states to regulate arms brokering.

 It will have mandatory record keeping and regular reporting on authorization.

 It will have regulation, where feasible, on imports, transit and transhipment.

It will have strong provisions to prevent diversion of weapons to illicit trafficking or use. And those provisions on diversions will have been negotiated, and I use the word negotiated, in a process which you established for us, the states, to take our own responsibility and to produce by consensus within the United Nations, which we cherish go dearly, a consensus outcome. That new article which we saw in the course of this conference was negotiated following many requests from countries who said that the 26^th of July text was not strong enough in this area. It was negotiated. It is in the treaty.

It contains provisions to help the treaty keep up to date with perhaps future, new types of weaponry, and to take our treaty, which we will have up to date and to make sure it is future-proofed. This will be a treaty on which we today can build. This is the sense of this room. This is why we are working right now to bring this treaty, which you gave us the opportunity to create, home. You gave us that opportunity. The overwhelming majority took that opportunity and negotiated this treaty.

Mr President,

I pay tribute to you. I cannot hold back my disappointment that we have been unable to take the opportunity to build on negotiations, which from my perspective, were rigorous, organised, transparent, and which involved Member States of the United Nations taking their responsibilities working on  texts late into the night and producing, with your help, an excellent text.

Mr President,

This is success deferred. This is not failure. We will have the Arms Trade Treaty. We will go to UNGA soon. I pay huge tribute to you for your fairness, for your rigor, for demanding high standards of us. That is the kind of Arms Trade we want to have. It is the same as the way you have run this conference.

I thank you, Mr President.

—————————————–

UK Press Release: Foreign Secretary remains determined to secure Arms Trade Treaty

Foreign Secretary signals UK’s continued commitment to securing an Arms Trade Treaty following failure to reach consensus in the United Nations.   

The Foreign Secretary, William Hague, said:

“I am deeply disappointed that the negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty closed today without consensus.  After 7 years of intensive work, the international community had never had a better chance to agree a global, legally binding Treaty that would make the world a safer place.

“The UK has played a leading role and spared no effort to secure a Treaty which would be both strong and globally applied, based on consensus.

“We have come very close. It is disappointing that three countries blocked the historic agreement that lay within our reach.

“UK Ministers and officials in London, New York and in overseas capitals worked intensively to achieve the strongest possible outcome. I would like to thank everyone involved, including our close partners in civil society and industry, who have worked so hard together towards our common goal, and whose disappointment we share. 

“This Treaty is too important for us to let it end here. The overwhelming majority of the international community want this Treaty and we are determined to take it forward. 

“We will now focus our efforts on securing the adoption of the Treaty at the UN General Assembly as soon as possible. We will encourage the widest possible support for it, so that it delivers its promise of greater security, protecting human rights, challenging poverty and helping to secure sustainable development across the globe.

“When adopted, this will be the first international, legally-binding Treaty setting controls on the transfers of weapons. It will prohibit transfers that would be used for genocide or war crimes. Arms exports will be refused if they pose unacceptable risks.  Strong steps will be taken to prevent weapons being diverted into the illegal market. Authorisations of exports will be reported and arms brokering regulated.  It will also protect the legitimate trade in arms and promote international collaboration.

“The UK will not rest until we have secured an effective global Arms Trade Treaty.”

=============================

From the United States:  Statement by Secretary Kerry on the U.S. Support for the Arms Trade Treaty 0n 3-15-13

The United States looks forward to working with our international partners at the upcoming conference from March 18-28 to reach consensus on an Arms Trade Treaty that advances global security and respects national sovereignty and the legitimate arms trade. We supported and actively participated in negotiations on an Arms Trade Treaty held at the United Nations in July 2012. Those negotiations made considerable progress, but ended before a treaty could be concluded. Accordingly, the United States supported a UN General Assembly resolution December 24, 2012 to convene the conference this month to build on those efforts.

The United States is steadfast in its commitment to achieve a strong and effective Arms Trade Treaty that helps address the adverse effects of the international arms trade on global peace and stability. An effective treaty that recognizes that each nation must tailor and enforce its own national export and import control mechanisms can generate the participation of a broad majority of states, help stem the illicit flow of conventional arms across international borders, and have important humanitarian benefits.

The United States could only be party to an Arms Trade Treaty that addresses international transfers of conventional arms solely and does not impose any new requirements on the U.S. domestic trade in firearms or on U.S. exporters. We will not support any treaty that would be inconsistent with U.S. law and the rights of American citizens under our Constitution, including the Second Amendment.

While the international arms trade affects every country, over one hundred states today do not have a system for control of international conventional arms transfers. We support a treaty that will bring all countries closer to existing international best practices, which we already observe, while preserving national decisions to transfer conventional arms responsibly. The international conventional arms trade is, and will continue to be, a legitimate commercial activity. But responsible nations should have in place control systems that will help reduce the risk that a transfer of conventional arms will be used to carry out the world’s worst crimes, including those involving terrorism, and serious human rights violations.

I wish the conference well and hope that we can reach consensus on a treaty that improves global security, advances our humanitarian goals, and enhances U.S. national security by encouraging all nations to establish meaningful systems and standards for regulating international arms transfers and ensuring respect for international law.

—————————

Statement of Assistant Secretary of State Thomas Countryman

Arms Trade Treaty Conference

Morning Plenary Session

March 25, 2013

Thank you, Mr. President.  For years now, the United States has sought to achieve an Arms Trade Treaty that is strong, meaningful, and implementable — a treaty on which the United States could join consensus, a treaty the U.S. government could sign, and ultimately recommend to our Senate for ratification.  Thanks to you, Mr. President and your exceptional team, that goal is in sight and the U.S. will spare no effort to achieve it.

To give you examples of how hard we have worked with you and other delegations, let me mention Article 6, which was just mentioned by our friend from Norway.  Last week, we endorsed a suggestion by Japan, which we saw as a sound basis for negotiation, and which led to a discussion among the U.S. and many others that has made real progress towards addressing an important issue.  We will, of course, take this latest proposal by Norway into consideration.  Article 6 and 7 together are the heart of the treaty, a barrier against the misuse of conventional arms.

We have worked toward a compromise on Article 5.2 but none has been found.  In the end, we cannot accept language that is contrary to the plain meaning of the treaty.

My delegation came to this final UN conference prepared to work, as the General Assembly decided, on the basis of the July 26 text, a text that had its flaws but was the result of real, politically balanced compromise, a text that would both be meaningful and attract the widest possible consensus.  At that time, 90 countries said they could accept that text.  Since that time, your March 22 text is stronger, clearer, and more implementable.  I would hope all those who could accept the July text could accept this stronger one.

Let me remind you that this is not an arms control treaty, not a disarmament treaty — it is a trade treaty regulating a legitimate activity.  Allow me to comment on its two primary purposes.  A minimum requirement for national action is to regulate, in a fashion that will curb abuses against humanity and common sense, what is, nonetheless, a very legitimate international activity: the transfer of conventional arms to enhance, rather than undermine, peace and security — this is the heart of the regulation provisions.  This text contains strong language on these points that would bring the world closer to the standard of the United States and other major exporters.  On the second major goal, combating diversion, we are prepared to work on meaningful language either in a separate article or in clauses throughout the text.  Some diversion occurs between exporter and importer.  More diversion occurs after receipt by the importer.  To address all aspects of diversion, we are ready to work on meaningful language that expands international cooperation but recognize it must have language that respects domestic jurisdictions over domestic criminal activity.

Let’s be honest with each other; we are barely 48 hours away from a final text.  It is much too late to try to reopen some of the hard-fought compromises that were achieved last July — or to push the treaty into something new.  The U.S., like other delegations, has been constructive and leaned forward as much as we could, but trying to stretch that attitude into new topics at this point in time simply risks the rubber band snapping back and leaving us with a far less useful result than we already have seen.  So I would urge my colleagues to keep their focus on the object we share: ensuring that we produce and agree on, at the end of the week, an instrument that will optimize — not maximize, but optimize — the prospects for completing the full process of making an effective Arms Trade Treaty a working and living instrument.

In Jerusalem – March 20, 2013:

(Obama’s full speech here. Peres’ full speech here. Netanyahu’s full speech here.)

In Jerusalem – March 21, 2013 – In the Binyanei Haumah – to the People of Israel and the Arab World as well – before an audience of Israeli students and others.

(Obama’s full speech and Rabbi Michael Lerner’s reaction included in this posting.)

—————–

Obama’s charm offensive was the top story in today’s Israeli papers, which decidedly agreed: it was a success! But on the tough subjects, Maariv reports that there were no understandings between the US President and the Israeli Prime Minister on the red line for Iran.

It began working almost as soon as he stepped off the plane. When Obama gave his arrival speech on the tarmac at Ben-Gurion Airport, he broke the hostile image he had among Israelis. He began by declaring what he didn’t in his 2009 Cairo speech: that Jews have a 3000-year connection to the land of Israel. This has long been a sore point between Israelis and Obama. Indeed, even the pro-settler party chairman of Habayit Hayehudi, Naftali Bennett, said so afterward. Israel Hayom wrote that many observers consider it a reversal of his Cairo speech – in which he said that Israel was born from the Holocaust. Morevoer, he didn’t even mention a Palestinian state,  whereas both President Shimon Peres and Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu both did. Netanyahu called the visit a “historic moment” and thanked Obama profusely for his support of Israel.

The sense of warmth and lack of formality was highlighted in the Israeli media. Walking down the red carpet Obama took off his jacket and was followed by Netanyahu. The photo of the two of them jacketless was on the front page of all the papers, noting the casual friendliness between them. Even better were the jokes. Instructed to follow the red lines marked on the floor at the airport, Obama jokingly referred to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: “He’s always talking about red lines.” Netanyahu answered: “It was carefully planned.” See the video here of the best of Obama’s airport comments. Also, you can hear his fairly long exchange with Yair Lapid, the leader of Yesh Atid, who also said he believes he will soon be prime minister. At the airport the operators of the Iron Dome anti-missile battery awaited him and said afterwards they were moved by Obama’s ‘warmth.’ Ynet reported that there was criticism from the US media, which said his visit was symbolic, not substantial. They called his visit a photo-op.

But commentators say Obama’s goal is to make the Israelis like him so that later he can convince them to make peace (see commentary below.) Atlantic magazine columnist, Jeffrey Goldberg told Haaretz+ that Obama is using his visit to ‘create the space to combat Israeli policy.’ He also said that ‘The president is a faithful representative of those American liberals who love Israel but don’t quite understand the path Israel is taking.’ Later, at Peres’ official residence, Obama even charmed Israeli kids who sang to him upon his arrival.

————————–

• Obama’s plant placed in quarantine – Agriculture Ministry says seedling Obama brought with him to plant in Peres’ courtyard must be checked for possible pests; likely to be returned to President’s Residence. (Ynet)
• Ehud Barak: “Israel should launch a daring peace initiative vis-à-vis the Palestinians” - One day after leaving office and on the day that Obama arrives in Israel, the former defense minister publishes an Op-Ed in Wall Street Journal saying, “The status quo leads to a binational state.” (Haaretz Hebrew and Wall Street Journal Op-Ed.)
• The president’s entourage, armed to the teeth and ready for anything - Two massive C-17 cargo planes land at Ben-Gurion Airport, bringing two of the president’s Marine One helicopters, Black Hawk helicopters, hundreds of security guards, and a nuclear briefcase. (Israel Hayom)
• Israeli doctor ready to operate on Obama – US president has medical team with him, but Israel’s Professor Avi Rivkind is on call in case Obama requires serious care. ‘The Americans were here and examined equipment and the buildings,’ he told Ynet, sharing details of special room ready for any eventuality. (Ynet)
• How much will Obama’s visit cost? President Barack Obama’s state visit to Israel will cost more than 40 million shekels ($10.9 million). Cost includes salaries and overtime for security, hotels, transportation, gas and other expenses, such as compensation for the King David Hotel, which is closing an entire wing for the president’s entourage. (Israel Hayom)
• Feeling at home - The King David Hotel has hosted heads of state, presidents and even kings – but no one can remember a celebratory reception like the one organized in honor of President Obama. (Yedioth, p. 8)
• Facing the (Passover) music at Yad Vashem – Obama to receive musical notes to original Passover melody composed by former chief cantor of Amsterdam, who was killed in Holocaust. (Haaretz+)
• US Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel to visit Israel - Controversial new Pentagon chief to visit Israel in April. “I look forward to strengthening cooperation between the two defense establishments,” Hagel tells Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon. Meanwhile, Putin invites Netanyahu to Moscow. (Israel Hayom)
• Time to put an Alawite state on the map (Ely Karmon, Haaretz+) Obama’s visit is an important opportunity for Israel to lobby for a grand agreement between the U.S. and Russia to protect and disarm the Alawite minority in Syria after the fall of Bashar Assad’s regime.

=================================================================================================

Full text of Obama’s BRILLIANT speech in Jerusalem – March 21, 2013 – The Spring Equinox – A TIME OF RENEWAL:

“So long as there is a United States of America, ah-tem lo lah-vahd” (you are not alone). “

The full text of U.S. President Barack Obama’s speech to Israeli students in Jerusalem on March 21, 2013.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you so much. Well, it is a great honor to be with you here in Jerusalem, and I’m so grateful for the welcome that I’ve received from the people of Israel. Thank you. I bring with me the support of the American people — and the friendship that binds us together.

Over the last two days, I’ve reaffirmed the bonds between our countries with Prime Minister Netanyahu and President Peres. I’ve borne witness to the ancient history of the Jewish people at the Shrine of the Book, and I’ve seen Israel’s shining future in your scientists and your entrepreneurs. This is a nation of museums and patents, timeless holy sites and ground-breaking innovation. Only in Israel could you see the Dead Sea Scrolls and the place where the technology on board the Mars Rover originated at the same time.

But what I’ve most looked forward to is the ability to speak directly to you, the Israeli people — especially so many young people who are here today — to talk about the history that brought us here today, and the future that you will make in the years to come.

Now, I know that in Israel’s vibrant democracy, every word, every gesture is carefully scrutinized But I want to clear something up just so you know — any drama between me and my friend, Bibi, over the years was just a plot to create material for Eretz Nehederet. That’s the only thing that was going on. We just wanted to make sure the writers had good material.

I also know that I come to Israel on the eve of a sacred holiday — the celebration of Passover. And that is where I would like to begin today.

Just a few days from now, Jews here in Israel and around the world will sit with family and friends at the Seder table, and celebrate with songs, wine and symbolic foods. After enjoying Seders with family and friends in Chicago and on the campaign trail, I’m proud that I’ve now brought this tradition into the White House. I did so because I wanted my daughters to experience the Haggadah, and the story at the center of Passover that makes this time of year so powerful.

It’s a story of centuries of slavery, and years of wandering in the desert; a story of perseverance amidst persecution, and faith in God and the Torah. It’s a story about finding freedom in your own land. And for the Jewish people, this story is central to who you’ve become. But it’s also a story that holds within it the universal human experience, with all of its suffering, but also all of its salvation.

It’s a part of the three great religions — Judaism, Christianity, and Islam — that trace their origins to Abraham, and see Jerusalem as sacred. And it’s a story that’s inspired communities across the globe, including me and my fellow Americans.

In the United States — a nation made up of people who crossed oceans to start anew — we’re naturally drawn to the idea of finding freedom in our land. To African Americans, the story of the Exodus was perhaps the central story, the most powerful image about emerging from the grip of bondage to reach for liberty and human dignity — a tale that was carried from slavery through the Civil Rights Movement into today.

For generations, this promise helped people weather poverty and persecution, while holding on to the hope that a better day was on the horizon. For me, personally, growing up in far-flung parts of the world and without firm roots, the story spoke to a yearning within every human being for a home.

Of course, even as we draw strength from the story of God’s will and His gift of freedom expressed on Passover, we also know that here on Earth we must bear our responsibilities in an imperfect world. That means accepting our measure of sacrifice and struggle, just like previous generations. It means us working through generation after generation on behalf of that ideal of freedom.

As Dr. Martin Luther King said on the day before he was killed, “I may not get there with you. But I want you to know that we, as a people, will get to the promised land.” So just as Joshua carried on after Moses, the work goes on for all of you, the Joshua Generation, for justice and dignity; for opportunity and freedom.

For the Jewish people, the journey to the promise of the State of Israel wound through countless generations. It involved centuries of suffering and exile, prejudice and pogroms and even genocide. Through it all, the Jewish people sustained their unique identity and traditions, as well as a longing to return home. And while Jews achieved extraordinary success in many parts of the world, the dream of true freedom finally found its full expression in the Zionist idea — to be a free people in your homeland. That’s why I believe that Israel is rooted not just in history and tradition, but also in a simple and profound idea — the idea that people deserve to be free in a land of their own.

Over the last 65 years, when Israel has been at its best, Israelis have demonstrated that responsibility does not end when you reach the promised land, it only begins. And so Israel has been a refuge for the diaspora — welcoming Jews from Europe, from the former Soviet Union, from Ethiopia, from North Africa.

Israel has built a prosperous nation — through kibbutzeem that made the desert bloom, business that broadened the middle class, innovators who reached new frontiers, from the smallest microchip to the orbits of space. Israel has established a thriving democracy, with a spirited civil society and proud political parties, and a tireless free press, and a lively public debate -– “lively” may even be an understatement.

And Israel has achieved all this even as it’s overcome relentless threats to its security — through the courage of the Israel Defense Forces, and the citizenry that is so resilient in the face of terror.

This is the story of Israel. This is the work that has brought the dreams of so many generations to life. And every step of the way, Israel has built unbreakable bonds of friendship with my country, the United States of America.

Those ties began only 11 minutes after Israeli independence, when the United States was the first nation to recognize the State of Israel. As President Truman said in explaining his decision to recognize Israel, he said, “I believe it has a glorious future before it not just as another sovereign nation, but as an embodiment of the great ideals of our civilization.” And since then, we’ve built a friendship that advances our shared interests.

Together, we share a commitment to security for our citizens and the stability of the Middle East and North Africa. Together, we share a focus on advancing economic growth around the globe, and strengthening the middle class within our own countries. Together, we share a stake in the success of democracy.

But the source of our friendship extends beyond mere interests, just as it has transcended political parties and individual leaders. America is a nation of immigrants. America is strengthened by diversity. America is enriched by faith. We are governed not simply by men and women, but by laws. We’re fueled by entrepreneurship and innovation, and we are defined by a democratic discourse that allows each generation to reimagine and renew our union once more. So in Israel, we see values that we share, even as we recognize what makes us different. That is an essential part of our bond.

Now, I stand here today mindful that for both our nations, these are some complicated times. We have difficult issues to work through within our own countries, and we face dangers and upheaval around the world. And when I look at young people within the United States, I think about the choices that they must make in their lives to define who we’ll be as a nation in this 21st century, particularly as we emerge from two wars and the worst recession since the Great Depression.

But part of the reason I like talking to young people is because no matter how great the challenges are, their idealism, their energy, their ambition always gives me hope.

And I see the same spirit in the young people here today. I believe that you will shape our future. And given the ties between our countries, I believe your future is bound to ours. (Audience interruption.)

No, no — this is part of the lively debate that we talked about. This is good. You know, I have to say we actually arranged for that, because it made me feel at home. I wouldn’t feel comfortable if I didn’t have at least one heckler.

I’d like to focus on how we — and when I say “we,” in particular young people — can work together to make progress in three areas that will define our times — security, peace and prosperity.

Let me begin with security. I’m proud that the security relationship between the United States and Israel has never been stronger. Never. More exercises between our militaries; more exchanges among our political and military and intelligence officials than ever before; the largest program to date to help you retain your qualitative military edge. These are the facts. These aren’t my opinions, these are facts. But, to me, this is not simply measured on a balance sheet. I know that here, in Israel, security is something personal.

Here’s what I think about when I consider these issues. When I consider Israel’s security, I think about children like Osher Twito, who I met in Sderot — children the same age as my own daughters who went to bed at night fearful that a rocket would land in their bedroom simply because of who they are and where they live.

That reality is why we’ve invested in the Iron Dome system to save countless lives — because those children deserve to sleep better at night That’s why we’ve made it clear, time and again, that Israel cannot accept rocket attacks from Gaza, and we have stood up for Israel’s right to defend itself. And that’s why Israel has a right to expect Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist.

When I think about Israel’s security, I think about five Israelis who boarded a bus in Bulgaria, who were blown up because of where they came from; robbed of the ability to live, and love, and raise families. That’s why every country that values justice should call Hezbollah what it truly is — a terrorist organization. Because the world cannot tolerate an organization that murders innocent civilians, stockpiles rockets to shoot at cities, and supports the massacre of men and women and children in Syria right now.

The fact that Hezbollah’s ally — the Assad regime — has stockpiles of chemical weapons only heightens the urgency. We will continue to cooperate closely to guard against that danger. I’ve made it clear to Bashar al-Assad and all who follow his orders: We will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons against the Syrian people, or the transfer of those weapons to terrorists. The world is watching; we will hold you accountable.

The Syrian people have the right to be freed from the grip of a dictator who would rather kill his own people than relinquish power. Assad must go so that Syria’s future can begin. Because true stability in Syria depends upon establishing a government that is responsible to its people — one that protects all communities within its borders, while making peace with countries beyond them.

These are the things I think about when I think about Israel’s security. When I consider Israel’s security, I also think about a people who have a living memory of the Holocaust, faced with the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iranian government that has called for Israel’s destruction. It’s no wonder Israelis view this as an existential threat.

But this is not simply a challenge for Israel — it is a danger for the entire world, including the United States. A nuclear-armed Iran would raise the risk of nuclear terrorism. It would undermine the non-proliferation regime. It would spark an arms race in a volatile region. And it would embolden a government that has shown no respect for the rights of its own people or the responsibilities of nations.

That’s why America has built a coalition to increase the cost to Iran of failing to meet their obligations. The Iranian government is now under more pressure than ever before, and that pressure is increasing. It is isolated. Its economy is in dire straits. Its leadership is divided. And its position — in the region, and the world — has only grown weaker.

I do believe that all of us have an interest in resolving this issue peacefully. Strong and principled diplomacy is the best way to ensure that the Iranian government forsakes nuclear weapons. Peace is far more preferable to war. And the inevitable costs, the unintended consequences that would come with war means that we have to do everything we can to try to resolve this diplomatically. Because of the cooperation between our governments, we know that there remains time to pursue a diplomatic resolution. That’s what America will do, with clear eyes — working with a world that’s united, and with the sense of urgency that’s required.

But Iran must know this time is not unlimited. And I’ve made the position of the United States of America clear: Iran must not get a nuclear weapon. This is not a danger that can be contained, and as President, I’ve said all options are on the table for achieving our objectives. America will do what we must to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran.

For young Israelis, I know that these issues of security are rooted in an experience that is even more fundamental than the pressing threat of the day. You live in a neighborhood where many of your neighbors have rejected the right of your nation to exist. Your grandparents had to risk their lives and all that they had to make a place for themselves in this world. Your parents lived through war after war to ensure the survival of the Jewish state. Your children grow up knowing that people they’ve never met may hate them because of who they are, in a region that is full of turmoil and changing underneath your feet.

So that’s what I think about when Israel is faced with these challenges –- that sense of an Israel that is surrounded by many in this region who still reject it, and many in the world who refuse to accept it. And that’s why the security of the Jewish people in Israel is so important. It cannot be taken for granted.

But make no mistake — those who adhere to the ideology of rejecting Israel’s right to exist, they might as well reject the earth beneath them or the sky above, because Israel is not going anywhere. And today, I want to tell you — particularly the young people — so that there’s no mistake here, so long as there is a United States of America — Atem lo levad. You are not alone.

The question is what kind of future Israel will look forward to. Israel is not going anywhere — but especially for the young people in this audience, the question is what does its future hold? And that brings me to the subject of peace.

I know Israel has taken risks for peace. Brave leaders — Menachem Begin, Yitzhak Rabin — reached treaties with two of your neighbors. You made credible proposals to the Palestinians at Annapolis. You withdrew from Gaza and Lebanon, and then faced terror and rockets. Across the region, you’ve extended a hand of friendship and all too often you’ve been confronted with rejection and, in some cases, the ugly reality of anti-Semitism. So I believe that the Israeli people do want peace, and I also understand why too many Israelis — maybe an increasing number, maybe a lot of young people here today — are skeptical that it can be achieved.

But today, Israel is at a crossroads. It can be tempting to put aside the frustrations and sacrifices that come with the pursuit of peace, particularly when Iron Dome repels rockets, barriers keep out suicide bombers. There’s so many other pressing issues that demand your attention. And I know that only Israelis can make the fundamental decisions about your country’s future. I recognize that.

I also know, by the way, that not everyone in this hall will agree with what I have to say about peace. I recognize that there are those who are not simply skeptical about peace, but question its underlying premise, have a different vision for Israel’s future. And that’s part of a democracy. That’s part of the discourse between our two countries. I recognize that. But I also believe it’s important to be open and honest, especially with your friends. I also believe that.

Politically, given the strong bipartisan support for Israel in America, the easiest thing for me to do would be to put this issue aside — just express unconditional support for whatever Israel decides to do — that would be the easiest political path. But I want you to know that I speak to you as a friend who is deeply concerned and committed to your future, and I ask you to consider three points.

First, peace is necessary. I believe that. I believe that peace is the only path to true security. You have the opportunity to be the generation that permanently secures the Zionist dream, or you can face a growing challenge to its future. Given the demographics west of the Jordan River, the only way for Israel to endure and thrive as a Jewish and democratic state is through the realization of an independent and viable Palestine. That is true.

There are other factors involved. Given the frustration in the international community about this conflict, Israel needs to reverse an undertow of isolation. And given the march of technology, the only way to truly protect the Israeli people over the long term is through the absence of war. Because no wall is high enough and no Iron Dome is strong enough or perfect enough to stop every enemy that is intent on doing so from inflicting harm.

And this truth is more pronounced given the changes sweeping the Arab world. I understand that with the uncertainty in the region — people in the streets, changes in leadership, the rise of non-secular parties in politics — it’s tempting to turn inward, because the situation outside of Israel seems so chaotic. But this is precisely the time to respond to the wave of revolution with a resolve and commitment for peace. Because as more governments respond to popular will, the days when Israel could seek peace simply with a handful of autocratic leaders, those days are over. Peace will have to be made among peoples, not just governments.

No one — no single step can change overnight what lies in the hearts and minds of millions. No single step is going to erase years of history and propaganda. But progress with the Palestinians is a powerful way to begin, while sidelining extremists who thrive on conflict and thrive on division. It would make a difference.

So peace is necessary. But peace is also just. Peace is also just. There is no question that Israel has faced Palestinian factions who turned to terror, leaders who missed historic opportunities. That is all true. And that’s why security must be at the center of any agreement. And there is no question that the only path to peace is through negotiations — which is why, despite the criticism we’ve received, the United States will oppose unilateral efforts to bypass negotiations through the United Nations. It has to be done by the parties. But the Palestinian people’s right to self-determination, their right to justice, must also be recognized.

Put yourself in their shoes. Look at the world through their eyes. It is not fair that a Palestinian child cannot grow up in a state of their own. Living their entire lives with the presence of a foreign army that controls the movements not just of those young people but their parents, their grandparents, every single day. It’s not just when settler violence against Palestinians goes unpunished. It’s not right to prevent Palestinians from farming their lands; or restricting a student’s ability to move around the West Bank; or displace Palestinian families from their homes Neither occupation nor expulsion is the answer. Just as Israelis built a state in their homeland, Palestinians have a right to be a free people in their own land.

I’m going off script here for a second, but before I came here, I met with a group of young Palestinians from the age of 15 to 22. And talking to them, they weren’t that different from my daughters. They weren’t that different from your daughters or sons. I honestly believe that if any Israeli parent sat down with those kids, they’d say,

I want these kids to succeed; I want them to prosper. I want them to have opportunities just like my kids do. I believe that’s what Israeli parents would want for these kids if they had a chance to listen to them and talk to them. I believe that.

Now, only you can determine what kind of democracy you will have. But remember that as you make these decisions, you will define not simply the future of your relationship with the Palestinians — you will define the future of Israel as well.

As Ariel Sharon said — I’m quoting him — “It is impossible to have a Jewish democratic state, at the same time to control all of Eretz Israel. If we insist on fulfilling the dream in its entirety, we are liable to lose it all.” Or, from a different perspective, I think of what the novelist David Grossman said shortly after losing his son, as he described the necessity of peace — “A peace of no choice” he said, “must be approached with the same determination and creativity as one approaches a war of no choice.”

Now, Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with anyone who is dedicated to its destruction. But while I know you have had differences with the Palestinian Authority, I genuinely believe that you do have a true partner in President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad. I believe that. And they have a track record to prove it. Over the last few years, they have built institutions and maintained security on the West Bank in ways that few could have imagined just a few years ago. So many Palestinians — including young people — have rejected violence as a means of achieving their aspirations.

There is an opportunity there, there’s a window — which brings me to my third point: Peace is possible. It is possible. I’m not saying it’s guaranteed. I can’t even say that it is more likely than not. But it is possible. I know it doesn’t seem that way. There are always going to be reasons to avoid risk. There are costs for failure. There will always be extremists who provide an excuse not to act.

I know there must be something exhausting about endless talks about talks, and daily controversies, and just the grinding status quo. And I’m sure there’s a temptation just to say, “Ah, enough. Let me focus on my small corner of the world and my family and my job and what I can control.” But it’s possible.

Negotiations will be necessary, but there’s little secret about where they must lead — two states for two peoples. Two states for two peoples.

There will be differences about how to get there. There are going to be hard choices along the way. Arab states must adapt to a world that has changed. The days when they could condemn Israel to distract their people from a lack of opportunity, or government corruption or mismanagement — those days need to be over. Now is the time for the Arab world to take steps toward normalizing relations with Israel.

Meanwhile, Palestinians must recognize that Israel will be a Jewish state and that Israelis have the right to insist upon their security. Israelis must recognize that continued settlement activity is counterproductive to the cause of peace, and that an independent Palestine must be viable with real borders that have to be drawn.

I’ve suggested principles on territory and security that I believe can be the basis for these talks. But for the moment, put aside the plans and the process. I ask you, instead, to think about what can be done to build trust between people.

Four years ago, I stood in Cairo in front of an audience of young people — politically, religiously, they must seem a world away. But the things they want, they’re not so different from what the young people here want. They want the ability to make their own decisions and to get an education, get a good job; to worship God in their own way; to get married; to raise a family. The same is true of those young Palestinians that I met with this morning. The same is true for young Palestinians who yearn for a better life in Gaza.

That’s where peace begins — not just in the plans of leaders, but in the hearts of people. Not just in some carefully designed process, but in the daily connections — that sense of empathy that takes place among those who live together in this land and in this sacred city of Jerusalem.

And let me say this as a politician — I can promise you this, political leaders will never take risks if the people do not push them to take some risks. You must create the change that you want to see. Ordinary people can accomplish extraordinary things.

I know this is possible. Look to the bridges being built in business and civil society by some of you here today. Look at the young people who’ve not yet learned a reason to mistrust, or those young people who’ve learned to overcome a legacy of mistrust that they inherited from their parents, because they simply recognize that we hold more hopes in common than fears that drive us apart. Your voices must be louder than those who would drown out hope. Your hopes must light the way forward.

Look to a future in which Jews and Muslims and Christians can all live in peace and greater prosperity in this Holy Land. Believe in that. And most of all, look to the future that you want for your own children — a future in which a Jewish, democratic, vibrant state is protected and accepted for this time and for all time.

There will be many who say this change is not possible, but remember this — Israel is the most powerful country in this region. Israel has the unshakeable support of the most powerful country in the world. Israel is not going anywhere. Israel has the wisdom to see the world as it is, but — this is in your nature — Israel also has the courage to see the world as it should be.

Ben Gurion once said, “In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles.” Sometimes, the greatest miracle is recognizing that the world can change. That’s a lesson that the world has learned from the Jewish people.

And that brings me to the final area that I’ll focus on: prosperity, and Israel’s broader role in the world. I know that all the talk about security and peace can sometimes seem to dominate the headlines, but that’s not where people live. And every day, even amidst the threats that you face, Israelis are defining themselves by the opportunities that you’re creating.

Through talent and hard work, Israelis have put this small country at the forefront of the global economy.

Israelis understand the value of education and have produced 10 Nobel laureates. Israelis understand the power of invention, and your universities educate engineers and inventors. And that spirit has led to economic growth and human progress — solar power and electric cars, bandages and prosthetic limbs that save lives, stem cell research and new drugs that treat disease, cell phones and computer technology that changed the way people around the world live.

So if people want to see the future of the world economy, they should look at Tel Aviv, home to hundreds of start-ups and research centers. Israelis are so active on social media that every day seemed to bring a different Facebook campaign about where I should give this speech.

That innovation is just as important to the relationship between the United States and Israel as our security cooperation. Our first free trade agreement in the world was reached with Israel, nearly three decades ago. Today the trade between our two countries is at $40 billion every year. More importantly, that partnership is creating new products and medical treatments; it’s pushing new frontiers of science and exploration.

That’s the kind of relationship that Israel should have — and could have — with every country in the world. Already, we see how that innovation could reshape this region. There’s a program here in Jerusalem that brings together young Israelis and Palestinians to learn vital skills in technology and business. An Israeli and Palestinian have started a venture capital fund to finance Palestinian start-ups. Over 100 high-tech companies have found a home on the West Bank — which speaks to the talent and entrepreneurial spirit of the Palestinian people.

One of the great ironies of what’s happening in the broader region is that so much of what people are yearning for — education, entrepreneurship, the ability to start a business without paying a bribe, the ability to connect to the global economy — those are things that can be found here in Israel. This should be a hub for thriving regional trade, and an engine for opportunity.

Israel is already a center for innovation that helps power the global economy. And I believe that all of that potential for prosperity can be enhanced with greater security, enhanced with lasting peace.

Here, in this small strip of land that has been the center of so much of the world’s history, so much triumph and so much tragedy, Israelis have built something that few could have imagined 65 years ago. Tomorrow, I will pay tribute to that history — at the grave of Herzl, a man who had the foresight to see the future of the Jewish people had to be reconnected to their past; at the grave of Rabin, who understood that Israel’s victories in war had to be followed by the battles for peace; at Yad Vashem, where the world is reminded of the cloud of evil that can descend on the Jewish people and all of humanity if we ever fail to be vigilant.

We bear all that history on our shoulders. We carry all that history in our hearts. Today, as we face the twilight of Israel’s founding generation, you — the young people of Israel — must now claim its future. It falls to you to write the next chapter in the great story of this great nation.

And as the President of a country that you can count on as your greatest friend — I am confident that you can help us find the promise in the days that lie ahead. And as a man who’s been inspired in my own life by that timeless calling within the Jewish experience — tikkun olam -) — I am hopeful that we can draw upon what’s best in ourselves to meet the challenges that will come; to win the battles for peace in the wake of so much war; and to do the work of repairing this world. That’s your job.

That’s my job. That’s the task of all of us.

May God bless you. May God bless Israel. May God bless the United States of America. Toda raba. Thank you.

==============================================================================================

Related Articles as per Rabbi Michael Lerner and THE TIKKUN MAGAZINE:

from:  Rabbi Michael Lerner

Read the full text of Obama’s brilliant but flawed speech (to Israelis today March 21, 2013, in Jerusalem) on line by going to:   www.tikkun.org/nextgen/obamas-speech-to-israelis-the-text-and-my-commentary ]\ , prefaced by my commentary which both praises it and shows what is tragically missing from it.Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of Tikkun magazine, the largest circulation Jewish and interfaith (and atheist welcoming) magazine in the world.  RabbiLerner.tikkun@gmail.com  510 644 1200For information on Rabbi Lerner’s book” Embracing Israel/Palestine”: go to www.tikkun.org/eip

• Text of the UN resolution recognizing Palestine Nov. 29, 2012 by Michael Lerner
• Obama’s Speech About Palestinian Statehood at the U.N.–A Critique by Michael Lerner
• MJ Rosenberg on the Meaningless and Empty Non-Battle Between Obama and Netanyahu by MJ Rosenberg
• Tikkun Statement on Israel’s Attack on the Humanitarian Gaza Flotilla by Michael Lerner
• Why the US and Israel should Support Palestinian Upgrade of Status at the UN by Michael Lerner
•  Obama’s Speech to Israelis–the text and my commentary – Michael Lerner
• 

TEHRAN — For centuries, Nowruz has been the traditional Persian new year, a holiday for family. But, in recent years, it’s also become a political opportunity.

On Monday, President Obama released his annual Nowruz video, in which he marked the holiday by speaking directly to Iranian citizens. He discussed his hope for renewed diplomatic and trade ties between the United States and Iran if Iran addresses international concerns about the intentions of its nuclear program. Two days later, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran’s supreme leader, also made Nowruz speeches. Each used the ostensible holiday greeting to talk about the upcoming June election, among other things.

It might seem odd for both Washington and Tehran to use the holiday for political purposes, but there’s a certain logic to it.
It makes political sense, perhaps, for a U.S. president to jump on a non-Islamic aspect of Iranian culture — Nowruz predates the state’s religion — as the right moment to send a message to Iranians.

As for Iran’s own leadership, both the supreme leader and the president have been putting out political Nowruz addresses for years. The practice of naming years in the address sets a political agenda. Khamenei dubbed this — 1392 — the year of “political and economic epic,” and past years have been named “domestic production” and “economic jihad.” The Islamic Republic and its political institutions are not very old, dating back to only 1979.

Something that’s not always evident to outsiders is how much politics is part of life here in Iran. Some, especially Americans, might be under the mis-perception that Iran doesn’t really have politics, that it’s all about state mandates. But, in fact, everything here is politicized.

When the national leaders make their annual Nowruz speeches, a huge number of Iranians tune in, regardless of their political tendencies. Whether people are waiting for a sign about the nuclear negotiations or some talk about the election, they’re well aware that the positions these two men take could have major implications for their economic well-being, which is still just about every Iranian’s top concern at the moment.

—————————-

Our website keeps taking part in the Nowruz 1392 events – we got hundreds of clicks on our Lady RITA of Israel and Teheran postings and the Israel backed Nowruz or Spring awakening Concert at the UN General Assembly Hall. We also posted President Obama’s Nowruz blessings and are fishing for an Obama reaction after listening to Rita at President Peres’ home.

Chemicals Would Be ‘Game Changer’ in Syria, Obama Says.

Doug Mills/The New York Times

President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at an Iron Dome missile defense battery in Tel Aviv on Wednesday.

By MARK LANDLER and RICK GLADSTONE

Published: March 20, 2013     75 Comments

On the first day of his first trip to Israel as president, in which Israeli officials stated their own conclusion that chemical weapons had been used in an attack on Tuesday in Syria, Mr. Obama’s remarks represented both an effort to warn the Syrian government of the consequences of using its chemical arsenal and to signal his administration’s support for Israel, the central point of his visit.

American officials reiterated that they did not have independent evidence that chemical weapons had been used, and the president made clear that it would require proof gathered by investigators before he would come to any conclusions. Mr. Obama, while vocal in his opposition to the government of President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, has been reluctant to involve American forces in support of the opposition. Presidential aides made clear that he was not signaling any change in that regard.

But Mr. Obama’s remarks, in which he pointedly left open the possibility that President Assad’s government had used chemical weapons — and all but ruled out Mr. Assad’s assertions that insurgents had used them — were unusually strong in tone.

“Once we establish the facts, I have made clear that the use of chemical weapons is a game changer,” Mr. Obama said at a news conference with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel.

———————–

Again and again during his visit, Mr. Obama signaled that the United States and Israel were partners on a broad range of issues, reinforcing their historic alliance and America’s stated commitment to protect Israeli security.

Mr. Obama pointedly emphasized his administration’s pledge to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, one of Mr. Netanyahu’s greatest fears.

But concern about chemical weapons in Syria were a major focus of the day.

Two senior ministers in Israel’s new cabinet said publicly on Wednesday that chemical weapons had been used, and several government officials said in interviews that Israel had credible evidence of an attack.

The ministers, Tzipi Livni and Yuval Steinetz, were among those who met with Mr. Obama here on the first day of his trip.

A senior American official, however, said Mr. Netanyahu had not presented conclusive evidence of an attack in his closed-door discussions with Mr. Obama. The president’s words might have been intended to reassure Mr. Netanyahu, who has long feared that Mr. Assad’s stockpiles of chemical weapons could be used against Israelis.

———————-

In Washington, the American ambassador to Syria, Robert S. Ford, testified before Congress that the United States still did not have proof that the weapons had been used. But he added, “We take these reports and these possibilities very seriously.”

Mr. Obama’s remarks were his first public reaction to the reports on Tuesday that chemical weapons had been used. They seemed calculated, in part, to counter claims by both the Syrian government and its major supporter, Russia, that opposition forces had mounted a chemical attack against the government.

“We intend to investigate thoroughly exactly what happened,” Mr. Obama said. “I’ve instructed my teams to find out precisely what happened, what we can document, what we can prove.”

——————–

While Mr. Obama cautioned that he did not have all the facts, he said, “We know the Syrian government has the capacity to carry out chemical attacks” and that he was “deeply skeptical of any claim that it was the opposition that used chemical weapons.”

Israeli officials provided no proof of their assertions but appeared more confident that chemical weapons had been used.

Ms. Livni, the new Israeli justice minister, said in an interview with CNN, “It’s clear for us here in Israel that it’s being used,” adding, “This, I believe, should be on the table in the discussions.”

Mr. Steinetz, the minister for strategic affairs, said on Israel’s Army Radio, “It’s apparently clear that chemical weapons have been used against civilians by the rebels or the government.”

Two senior Israeli officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak, said that Israel was sure that chemicals were used, but did not have details about what type of weapons were used, where they came from, when they were deployed, or by whom.

A third senior official, also refusing to be identified, said, “It is possible that chemical weapons were used, or some concoction of chemical substances,” but he said he had not “seen clear confirmation.”

Mr. Obama spoke after both the Syrian opposition and the government escalated accusations of chemical weapons use, with both sides demanding an international investigation.

The National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces, the umbrella political group that wants to topple Mr. Assad, said in a statement that it “condemns these attacks and holds the Assad regime fully responsible for shedding Syrian blood.” The group said the attacks killed at least 19 civilians and left 69 others short of breath, with some in critical condition.

The coalition accused government forces of carrying out two chemical weapons attacks on Tuesday — one in the Khan al-Assal area of northern Aleppo Province, as originally asserted, and a second strike in the Ataybah area of suburban Damascus.

Ambassador Ford, in his testimony, also said that the United States was investigating reports of attacks in the north, and in the suburbs of Damascus.

Fears about Syria’s growing instability are shadowing Mr. Obama on each stop of this trip. On Thursday, he is to visit the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, who is expected to raise worries about the plight of Palestinians in Syria. On Friday, he is scheduled to meet King Abdullah in Jordan, which has been flooded with Syrian refugees.

At the United Nations, the Syrian ambassador, Bashar Jaafari, told reporters that his government had also requested an official inquiry to corroborate its claims that insurgents — not government forces — had used the weapons. Mr. Jaafari said he had delivered a letter to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon’s office seeking a “specialized, independent and neutral technical mission to investigate the use by the terrorist groups operating in Syria of chemical weapons yesterday against civilians.”

Mr. Ban’s spokesman, Martin Nesirky, said the request was under study.

Mr. Nesirky also repeated Mr. Ban’s reaction to the first allegations of chemical weapons use on Tuesday, saying, “The secretary general remains convinced that the use of chemical weapons by any party under any circumstances would constitute an outrageous crime.”

The chemical weapons issue quickly became entangled in the longstanding, sharp divisions on Syria in the United Nations Security Council, between Russia and those Western states opposed to the Damascus government.

In a Security Council debate, France said the United Nations should investigate the opposition’s accusations that chemical weapons were used by the government not just in the Aleppo area but also at the second site, in the Damascus suburbs. Russia accused the West of trying to create a diversion, an accusation echoed by the Syrian envoy.

The Russian envoy, Vitaly I. Churkin, said the United States, France and others were engaged in “delaying tactics,” for raising the allegation of a second site and for demands like humanitarian access to treat any victims.

“Instead of launching those propaganda balloons it is better to get our focus right,” Mr. Churkin said.

The Western demands, he said, echoed inspections instituted against Iraq more than a decade ago, which failed to find any chemical weapons. Mr. Churkin also said he would not put it past the opposition to fake a chemical weapons attack by the Syrian government because it knows their use might well prompt international intervention. The Syrian ambassador seconded that possibility.

The French envoy, Gerard Araud, sarcastically referring to Mr. Churkin’s summary of the council debate as “fascinating,” said France and its allies wanted the United Nations to investigate all possible incidents.

A 1759 map entitled The Holy Land, or Land of Israel, showing not only the Ancient Kingdoms of Judah and Israel in which the 12 Tribes have been distinguished, but also their placement in different periods as indicated in the Holy Scriptures by Tobias Conrad Lotter, Geographer. Augsburg, Germany

=============================================

Obama in Israel: Running to Stay Put.

President Barack Obama heads to Israel late Tuesday for the first foreign trip of his second term, a visit more about maintaining the status quo in a region filled with upheaval than about historic treaties or groundbreaking peace deals. When U.S. presidents have visited Jerusalem in years past, it was for big reasons, usually involving the ends of various conflicts or to make a push for Middle East peace. Obama’s ambitions are a lot smaller.

The President’s hopes for this trip are about getting leaders not to do things, rather than prompting action. In Jerusalem, he needs Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to bomb Iran before diplomatic talks have run their course. He also wants Netanyahu to stop, or at least slow, the building of new settlements in Palestinian areas so as to give the peace process a chance. And Obama would like Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas not to report Israel to the Internal Criminal Courts for human rights violations. “This trip is about managing Middle East problems. It’s not about solving them,” says Haim Malka, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “The president’s broad objectives are to convince the Israeli and Palestinian publics that he’s protecting their interests and preventing their leaders from taking any unilateral steps that would undermine U.S. interests and their own,” Malka says.

(MORE: The Secret of the Wonder Weapon That Israel Will Show Off To Obama)

For an American president, Obama is unusually unpopular among Israelis: he had a 33% approval rating last year. Which is why instead of speaking to the Israeli parliament, Obama chose to do a speech directly to the Israeli people. “Given this is his first trip to Israel as President, we thought that it was very important for him to speak directly to Israelis about the nature of the friendship between the United States and Israel, and the challenges that we’re faced with,” Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters ahead of the trip. Obama may not change public opinion with a single speech, but courting the Israeli public will help build trust when the President asks their leaders to have faith that America will act to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Israel worries that Iran is using talks with international powers as a way to stall while building a program that can rapidly enrich enough uranium not just for one bomb, but for many. “Think of the Iranian nuclear weapons program as a horse race: Now, when the bell goes off, a single horse might be able to gallop out of the gate and run a full track in front of spectators,” Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren says. “The Iranian regime, though, wants to unleash 20 horses out of the gate, at the same time,” he says. For Israel, Iran obtaining nuclear weapons is a much more existential threat than for Washington, lying safely 6,000 miles away. Jerusalem’s military opportunity to strike Iran is closing, while the U.S. has a longer timeline to hit Iran’s centrifuges. Obama is asking Israel to trust he’ll protect them when they no longer can protect themselves; that would give negotiators more time to come to a diplomatic resolution.

On the peace process, Obama intends to do a listening tour, visiting with both Israelis and Palestinians and seeing where common ground might be found. Little has been done on a two state solution since U.S. Special Envoy to the Mideast George Mitchell resigned in disgust in May 2011, saying the process had “hit a brick wall.” Secretary of State John Kerry, who will be traveling with Obama, is anxious to take advantage of Israel’s recent election – Netanyahu literally only just formed a government over the weekend – to see if moderate Israeli support can be drummed up for a new round of talks. But no breakthrough is expected on this trip — indeed the White House did everything it could to lower expectations publicly.

(MORE: Israel Uneasy on Iran Ahead of Obama’s Visit)

Peace talks mean getting the Palestinians to the table as well, and Abbas has not wanted to restart a whole new process, insisting the Israelis go back to the terms he negotiated with the last Israeli government under Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Netanyahu has repeatedly insisted the talks begin anew. Abbas is further debilitated by Hamas’s control of the Gaza Strip and the Islamist group’s growing popularity in the West Bank. Without the popular support of all Palestinians, Abbas’s bargaining position is weak and he has little incentive to come to the table. Until the Palestinian factions are united, it will be impossible for Abbas — or any Palestinian leader — to compromise with Israel without losing credibility at home.

Abbas’s only power – and popularity – of late has come when he defied both Israel and the U.S. to petition the United Nations to recognize Palestine as a state. Having Israel tried for human rights violations by the International Criminal Courts is wildly popular among Palestinians and one of the only threats remaining to Abbas. Obama’s job will be to convince Abbas that coming to the table with Israel and the U.S. is in his better interests than going outside the process. Obama must also reassure the Palestinian people of America’s support. To that end Kerry has said he will deliver $700 million in aid to Palestine withheld by Congress after Abbas’s push for statehood at the UN. Since Obama took office in 2009, some 60,000 more Israelis have settled on Palestinian lands, and Obama will press for a freeze or slowing of those developments. The Palestinians are also hoping Israel will release 1,000 prisoners and return some of tax money Jerusalem collected from Palestinians but have held back for months.

Perhaps Obama’s trip will also be highly symbolic. He will view the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2,000-year-old evidence of Israel’s long ties and ancient claim to the land. The President will also visit Mount Herzl, where he’ll lay wreaths at the graves of slain Israeli President Yitzhak Rabin and Zionist Theodor Herzl, who envisioned an Israeli state before the Holocaust. In the West Bank, Obama will visit the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem.

(MORE: Netanyahu Finally Forms a Government, But It’s Nearly as Painful as the Election)

The President will wrap his tour in Jordan, where he’ll try to convince King Abdullah not to close his borders to Syrians fleeing the two-year-old civil war, even as Jordan’s economy buckles under the strain of 400,000 refugees with twice that number expected by year’s end.

Jordan’s economy has also taken a hit as tourism has fallen off due to regional unrest and the perception of insecurity. To promote Jordan, Obama will play tourist for a day, visiting the ancient site of Petra with 500 international journalists in tow, demonstrating how safe – and appealing – Jordan’s tourist attractions remain.

Jordan also hopes for more pledges of support from the U.S. for the Syrian refugees and for their own economic reforms.

All of Obama’s efforts this week will be running to stay in place: from pushing Israelis and Palestinians to place international interests above domestic pressures, to bolstering Jordan’s regime against the pressures of the Arab Spring. Sometimes the second term presidents look abroad for a legacy. So far Obama’s second term foreign policy ambitions in the Middle East are hardly lofty: striving for the status quo ante lest things get worse than they already are.

MORE: State of the Union: No Obama Doctrine on Foreign Policy

bobell 13 hours ago

@deconstructiva I claim no expertise in this matter, but I think Israelis — like Americans, only many times as much — are concerned with their own security.  If keeping Israelis safe means oppressing Palestinians, that’s a price they’re willing to pay.  And that, is my one-sentence summary of what’s preventing any significant alteration in the status quo.  As long as Bibi keeps Israelis safe, he’s going to be running their government.

Notwithstanding Stein’s Law (Anything that can’t go on forever, won’t), I don’t see anything in the internal dynamics between the Israelis and the Palestinians that’s going to alter things.  But there are plenty of externalities — from Iran’s nuclear program to the Syrian Civil War to the turmoil in Egypt — and eventually one of those is going to break into the current closed cycle of Israeli-Palestinian relations.  If you or anyone else can tell me what will happen then, I’d be grateful.

bobell 14 hours ago

Thanks for an excellent summary, Jay.  In the Middle East today, as usual there seem to be all sorts of possibilities for disaster and very few opportunities for improvements on any front.  If the most Obama can hope for is not to make things worse, then it’s appropriate that he apply the first principle of healing to this bleeding sore of a geographical area: First, do no harm.

I’m smart enough to know I’m not smart enough to come up with a panacea for what ails the Middle Esat. Fortunately for the Middle East, that’s not my job.  Unfortunately for the Middle East, the people whose job it is don’t seem to be doing any better.

Why U.S. should back Keystone

Topics: GPS Show

On GPS Sunday: Debating Keystone, and what comes after Chavez?

Topics: GPS Show

Rita rocks the UN

Iranian-born Israeli singer performs in Hebrew, English, and Persian at first-of-its-kind ‘Tunes for Peace’ concert

Rita with Ambassador Ron Prosor, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his wife, March 5 (photo credit: Shahar Azran)

Iranian-born Israeli diva Rita performed before UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and other international dignitaries Tuesday at the UN General Assembly Hall in a first-of-its-kind event organized by the Israeli Mission to the UN.

Israeli singer Rita performs at the United Nations on Tuesday, March 5 (photo credit: image capture unwebtv)

Rita and her nine-piece band performed in Hebrew, English and Persian before a full house that included  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, President of the UN General Assembly Vuk Jeremic, ambassadors, diplomats, and leaders of the US Jewish and Iranian communities.

The concert featured songs based on Jewish scripture, Iranian poetry and Rita’s own compositions. Many of them appear on her latest album, “My Joys.”

“My mother taught me the love for music while she was cooking in the kitchen,” said the Tehran-born singer. “Two years ago I was urged to record the Persian songs that were the soundtrack of my life.”

“During the whole recording process, I couldn’t stop smiling because I came to realize I was celebrating my life. I was celebrating being both Iranian and Israeli that found expression in music. Tonight, I invite you to celebrate it with me,” she said.

“The music of this room isn’t always harmonious — our mission tonight is to change that,” said Israel’s envoy to the UN Ron Prosor. “Our goal is to weave a tapestry of music as rich and diverse as the UN itself.”

Prosor joked that it was a lifetime dream of his to one day be a warm-up act for Rita at a major New York venue. The ambassador disclosed his own love for music, saying he used to be part of a chorus and claiming that people sometimes mistake him for opera singer Luciano Pavarotti. “These days, however, I spend much more time composing speeches for the Security Council than music,” he joked. “Tonight I encourage you to get on your feet and sing along.”

Rita is congratulated by Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Ron Prosor at the end of her UN performance, March 5 (photo credit: Shahar Azran)

Rita Jahan-Foruz was born in Tehran, Iran, 50 years ago. In 1970, at the age of eight, she migrated with her family to Israel, where she grew up listening to her mother sing melodies in her native Farsi.

Fifteen years later, Rita burst onto the Israeli music scene as a one-named wonder — Israel’s Madonna, or Cher, if you will — and has gone on to become one of the country’s top recording artists and most recognized celebrities.

She was chosen to sing the national anthem in 1998 at the country’s main jubilee celebration, answering a personal plea from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Ten years later, as Israel marked its 60th anniversary, she was chosen as Israel’s top female singer ever.

Still, she stayed close to her Iranian roots. Some 250,000 Israelis are of Iranian descent. Rita is perhaps the most famous of all.

In Iran, fans are exposed to her music mostly through foreign-based Farsi-language satellite TV. During a recent tour of eight music dealers in Tehran, an AP correspondent found two selling a Rita single, “Gole Sangam,” a remake of a famous Iranian song about yearning for a missing loved one.

Meir Javedanfar, an Iranian-born analyst who teaches at the Interdisciplinary Center Herzliya in Israel, said Rita’s popularity is hard to gauge, but it’s possible that her Israeli identity has helped lure listeners fed up with the hard-line Iranian government. “Whatever popularity she might have could be related to artistic capabilities. It could also be related to the backlash we see in Iran against the government,” he said.

AP contributed to this report

==================================================

Rita performing in front of the United Nations in New York City Photo by AP

this story is by Chemi Shalev

Inside the hall of the General Assembly at the United Nations building in New York, it seemed at times that either the messiah had arrived or the world had turned inside-out Bizarro, like in the Superman comics: Rita, one of Israel’s most popular performers, was singing in Farsi and Hebrew; Israelis were dancing in the aisles: diplomats from around the world were clapping and begging for more; Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor was the hero of the day; Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said “shalom” and General Assembly President Vuk Jeremic, it turned out, hails from a family of Righteous Gentiles.

It was, without a doubt, a night to remember, a memory to cherish, an Israeli-made spectacle the likes of which hadn’t been seen in the General Assembly since Ambassador Herzog tore apart that Zionism is Racism resolution in 1975. Only this time, it was the other way around: “Why is this night different than all other nights?” an elated and season conscious Prosor asked me, “Because on this night, contrary to all previous nights, the United Nations is united behind Israel and resides under the wings of Rita.”

The wings that Prosor was referring to come from Haim Bialik’s song “Hachnisini Tahat Knafech” – “Under Your Wing” – a popular Israeli song which was featured in Rita’s “Tunes for Peace” concert performed at UN headquarters Tuesday night. The famous platform underneath the giant olive-colored UN symbol was turned into a rock concert stage, including a smoke machine, strobe lights, and a rocking and raucous 9-piece ensemble that played Persian-Israeli music with light touches of Klezmer to boot.

The auditorium, which for most Israelis and Diaspora Jews has come to be associated with harsh anti-Israeli rhetoric, cold diplomatic isolation, and humiliating political defeats at the hands of the “automatic majority,” suddenly had a warm ambiance and an admiring audience comprised of Iranian expatriates, Israeli diplomats, UN employees, and representatives of 140 UN delegations who begged their Israeli colleagues for invitations to the show and to the experience.

Rita performing in front of United Nations in New York CityAP

Prosor came upon the idea for the UN concert when he saw Rita perform in New York in Farsi and in Hebrew seven months ago. He lobbied Ban Ki Moon and Jeremic until he secured their agreement, but then had to ward off countless attempts by UN Secretariat workers to scuttle the concert for fear that “it would set a precedent” or that it would upset other delegations. Having removed the last remaining obstacles, Prosor fixed the date for the concert with Rita after sponsorships had been secured from the LA-based Y&S Nazarian Family Foundation, the Iranian American Jewish Federation of New York, and the UJA Federation of NY.

Ban Ki Moon opened the evening with the word “shalom” and described Rita as “a cultural ambassador”. Then came Jeremic, who announced that he would soon be the first sitting President of the General Assembly to visit Israel, during which he will participate in a Yad Vashem ceremony in which members of his grandmother’s family in Belgrade would be recognized as “Righteous Among the Gentiles” for saving Jews during the Holocaust.

Then, Introducing Rita, Prosor said “I always hoped that I would one day be the opening act for Rita at a major venue in New York City. Although, I’ll admit, I never expected that it would be in the form of the Three Tenors: “Ban, Prosor, and Jeremic.”

“It is our sincere hope that this musical evening will echo from New York to the hearts and minds of people throughout Israel and Iran,” Prosor added, and then asked Rita to “rock the house”, which she did.

The popular Israeli singer gave a ten song rendition that included five songs in Farsi, four in Hebrew and one – “Time for Peace” – in English. She delighted the audience with stories of her childhood in Tehran, about her mother’s love for music, and about her own wish to spread the love far and wide between her birthplace and her homeland. Her strong voice reverberated in the hall which had never seen such a joyous bunch of Israelis, including enthusiastic Rita fans who tried to get the UN diplomats to dance with them near the stage and down the aisles, though that proved a bridge too long for the usually stiff and formal envoys.

There was a lot of hype and gimmick in the evening, for sure, and it is bound to be used and even abused for hasbara purposes – but most of the crowd, it seemed, left the building with genuine smiles on their faces. Everyone sensed that it was a unique evening, with the UN, of all forums, providing such a warm and hospitable venue for such an iconic Israeli singer with such a positive message, no Palestinians or politics included.

Even jaded journalists like the one writing this report were moved, knowing that they had witnessed an event that had never been seen before, at least from an Israeli point of view, and is unlikely to be seen over and over again for a very long time.

===========================================

THOSE TWO ARTICLES ARE FROM ISRAEL BUT WE DID NOT FIND AN ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES AND WONDER WHY.    AFTER ALL MOST OF THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE WERE NEW YORKERS.  OH WELL – THIS MIGHT BE FOR THE WEEKEND EDITION.

WE WERE AT THAT CONCERT IN NEW YORK CITY TOWN HALL, and in the nearby Bar, NOVEMBER 2012, WHEN AMBASSADOR PROSOR SAW RITA SING AND DANCE IN FARSI, HEBREW, and ENGLISH, and DECIDED THAT THIS OUGHT TO BE SEEN AT THE UN AS WELL. SURELY, HE WAS NOT NAIVE TO THINK THAT IT WILL BE EASY, BUT HE DID IT!!!
 SustainabiliTank.info)

——————–

UN Watch Briefing Latest from the United Nations Vol. 416 |  March 6, 2013

Share this link

UN Watch congratulates Ambassador Ron Prosor and the Permanent Mission of Israel to the United Nations for organizing an exceptional event for peace at United Nations Headquarters. Click here to watch the video of the concert. Israeli singer Rita’s special surrealistic concert at the UN General Assembly UN Ambassador Prosor has pulled off one of the most unusual diplomatic achievements ever: a full-fledged UN-sponsored Farsi-Hebrew musical event full of goodwill and sympathy. taken from HAARETZ By Chemi Shalev | March 6, 2013 | 9:50 AM Inside the hall of the General Assembly at the United Nations building in New York, it seemed at times that either the messiah had arrived or the world had turned inside-out Bizarro, like in the Superman comics: Rita, one of Israel’s most popular performers, was singing in Farsi and Hebrew; Israelis were dancing in the aisles: diplomats from around the world were clapping and begging for more; Israeli Ambassador Ron Prosor was the hero of the day; Secretary General Ban Ki Moon said “shalom” and General Assembly President Vuk Jeremic, it turned out, hails from a family of Righteous Gentiles. It was, without a doubt, a night to remember, a memory to cherish, an Israeli-made spectacle the likes of which hadn’t been seen in the General Assembly since Ambassador Herzog tore apart that Zionism is Racism resolution in 1975. Only this time, it was the other way around: “Why is this night different than all other nights?” an elated and season conscious Prosor asked me, “Because on this night, contrary to all previous nights, the United Nations is united behind Israel and resides under the wings of Rita.” The wings that Prosor was referring to come from Haim Bialik’s song “Hachnisini Tahat Knafech” – “Under Your Wing” – a popular Israeli song which was featured in Rita’s “Tunes for Peace” concert performed at UN headquarters Tuesday night. The famous platform underneath the giant olive-colored UN symbol was turned into a rock concert stage, including a smoke machine, strobe lights, and a rocking and raucous 9-piece ensemble that played Persian-Israeli music with light touches of Klezmer to boot. The auditorium, which for most Israelis and Diaspora Jews has come to be associated with harsh anti-Israeli rhetoric, cold diplomatic isolation, and humiliating political defeats at the hands of the “automatic majority,” suddenly had a warm ambiance and an admiring audience comprised of Iranian expatriates, Israeli diplomats, UN employees, and representatives of 140 UN delegations who begged their Israeli colleagues for invitations to the show and to the experience. Prosor came upon the idea for the UN concert when he saw Rita perform in New York in Farsi and in Hebrew seven months ago. He lobbied Ban Ki Moon and Jeremic until he secured their agreement, but then had to ward off countless attempts by UN Secretariat workers to scuttle the concert for fear that “it would set a precedent” or that it would upset other delegations. Having removed the last remaining obstacles, Prosor fixed the date for the concert with Rita after sponsorships had been secured from the LA-based Y&S Nazarian Family Foundation, the Iranian American Jewish Federation of New York, and the UJA Federation of NY. Ban Ki Moon opened the evening with the word “shalom” and described Rita as “a cultural ambassador”. Then came Jeremic, who announced that he would soon be the first sitting President of the General Assembly to visit Israel, during which he will participate in a Yad Vashem ceremony in which members of his grandmother’s family in Belgrade would be recognized as “Righteous Among the Gentiles” for saving Jews during the Holocaust. Then, Introducing Rita, Prosor said “I always hoped that I would one day be the opening act for Rita at a major venue in New York City. Although, I’ll admit, I never expected that it would be in the form of the Three Tenors: “Ban, Prosor, and Jeremic.” “It is our sincere hope that this musical evening will echo from New York to the hearts and minds of people throughout Israel and Iran,” Prosor added, and then asked Rita to “rock the house”, which she did. The popular Israeli singer gave a ten song rendition that included five songs in Farsi, four in Hebrew and one – “Time for Peace” – in English. She delighted the audience with stories of her childhood in Tehran, about her mother’s love for music, and about her own wish to spread the love far and wide between her birthplace and her homeland. Her strong voice reverberated in the hall which had never seen such a joyous bunch of Israelis, including enthusiastic Rita fans who tried to get the UN diplomats to dance with them near the stage and down the aisles, though that proved a bridge too long for the usually stiff and formal envoys. There was a lot of hype and gimmick in the evening, for sure, and it is bound to be used and even abused for hasbara purposes – but most of the crowd, it seemed, left the building with genuine smiles on their faces. Everyone sensed that it was a unique evening, with the UN, of all forums, providing such a warm and hospitable venue for such an iconic Israeli singer with such a positive message, no Palestinians or politics included. Even jaded journalists like the one writing this report were moved, knowing that they had witnessed an event that had never been seen before, at least from an Israeli point of view, and is unlikely to be seen over and over again for a very long time.

UN Watch is an independent human rights group founded in 1993 in Geneva, Switzerland, receiving no financial support from any organization or government.