POMED Notes: “Iran at a Crossroads: Assessing a Changing Landscape”
March 10th, 2010 by Chanan
The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) hosted a morning-long event to discuss the prospects for democracy in Iran and to evaluate the current state of U.S.-Iranian relations.
Following some brief welcoming remarks by Trita Parsi, president of NIAC, Rep. Anna Eshoo (D-CA) delivered the opening address by stating that “Iran is at a crossroads like no other.” As members of the Green Movement fight and die for more basic freedoms, “the world is watching how this popular movement plays out.” Eshoo, whose district has one of the largest Iranian-American populations, expressed appreciation for the role played by technology in combating the government’s abuse of power, specifically citing Facebook’s creation of a mobile application that could not be blocked by Iranians and the decision by Twitter to delay maintenance to help dissident Iranians communicate during last summer’s protests. She also criticized the U.S. invasion of Iraq for emboldening Iran and expressed skepticism about the value of sanctions in achieving U.S. goals: “We have to work very hard to educate our colleagues of the very failure of sanctions because they will end up hurting the people we want to help.”
For POMED’s notes in PDF, click here. Otherwise, continue reading below.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, DC Event Notes, Elections, Human Rights, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Saudi Arabia, US foreign policy, Uncategorized, Women, sanctions | Comment »
Iran: U.S. Sanctions Following Human Rights Violations, Political Instability, & Nuclear Uncertainty
January 29th, 2010 by Jessica
In a post for The Cable, Josh Rogin comments on the Iran sanctions bill that passed the Senate late last night. During debates over S.7299, Senator John McCain voiced concerns that the bill primarily focused on security issues and did not address sanctions for Iranian officials guilty of human rights violations and abuses against civilians engaging in peaceful political activity. McCain proposed an amendment that would allow visa bans, asset freezes, and financial restrictions on persons found guilty of the aforementioned offenses. Time restrictions led to a compromise: McCain agreed to withdraw his amendment if Majority Leader Harry Reid agreed to address the substance of the amendment in the conference report concerning the bill. The bill passed the senate with an overwhelming majority.
The passing of S.7299 follows the hanging of two Iranian activists, who were reported to be active participants in anti-government protests. Evan Hill reports that the two protesters, Mohammad Reza Ali Zamani and Arash Rahmanipour, were accused of attempting to overthrow the Iranian government and being enemies of God. Nasrin Sotoudeh, Rahmanipour’s lawyer, told sources that she was only allowed to meet with her client once and her participation in the court proceedings was denied. Sotoudeh also said that allegations leveled at Zamani and Rahmanipour were false and that their confessions were made in light of threats against the accused’s families. Nine more Iranians have been accused of similar crimes with identical sentencing being imposed.
White House spokesman Bill Burton commented harshly on the hanging of the two individuals, “We see this as a low point in the Islamic Republic’s unjust and ruthless crackdown on peaceful dissent. Murdering political prisoners exercising their universal rights will not bring the respect and legitimacy that Iran seeks.” Previously critical of a hard-line stance on Iran, the Obama administration has begun to favorably consider tougher sanctions. In an interview with CNN, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton commented, “Our assessment is that sanctions will be tough and clearly aimed at the Iranian economy, but that the international community does not have a choice . . . This is not meant to punish Iran; it’s meant to change their behavior, and it’s not meant as a target at any one person. It’s meant to change the calculation of the leadership.”
Posted in Congress, Human Rights, Iran, Legislation, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
SOTU: Reaction to the Foreign Policy Sections
January 28th, 2010 by Josh
Despite the relative dearth of foreign policy pronouncements in last night’s State of the Union, some are voicing displeasure with what they see as the speech’s simplistic view of the situation in Iraq and Afghanistan. IraqPundit is astonished that President Obama implied a forthcoming end to the Iraq war simply by virtue of withdrawing the remaining U.S. troops. “Surely he must know that just because he pulls some U.S. troops out of Iraq not much will change. The terrorists will continue to murder.”
Over at The Cable, Josh Rogin interprets this brief passage as Obama taking “credit for the one problem that seems to be resolving itself.”
Contrary to IraqPundit, Juan Cole views the Iraq line as Obama’s strongest foreign policy declaration within the speech, noting that it signals Obama’s recognition of Iraq as “irrelevant to the war on terrorism” and makes it “quite clear that the U.S. military is departing Iraq on the timetable worked out with the Iraqi parliament.” However, Cole is less pleased with Obama’s rhetoric on Iran, which he sees as “essentially a capitulation to Neoconservative themes on Iran, rather than retaining Obama’s central plank of keeping negotiating lines open to Tehran.” He also dismisses the efficacy of sanctions to do anything other than “keep a country weak and harm civilians.” They can not, according to Cole, produce regime change.
Commenting on the Obama’s priorities, Laura Rozen isn’t surprised with the “downgrading of foreign policy emphasis in the speech.” She relays a revealing conversation she had last week with a Democratic strategist who predicted that by early mid-summer, it will only be Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan on the president’s agenda. “The president is now a war president and an economy president,” the strategist said.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Diplomacy, Iran, Iraq, Neocons, US foreign policy, sanctions | Comment »
State of the Union: Excerpts on Foreign Policy
January 28th, 2010 by Josh
President Obama delivered his first State of the Union Address last night, focusing mostly on domestic issues such as job creation, alternative energy investment, and the budget deficit. Although foreign policy took a back seat, the speech did include a few notable passages, including one on the potential for Iranian sanctions should Iran’s leaders continue their diplomatic belligerence:
Now, these diplomatic efforts have also strengthened our hand in dealing with those nations that insist on violating international agreements in pursuit of nuclear weapons. That’s why North Korea now faces increased isolation, and stronger sanctions — sanctions that are being vigorously enforced. That’s why the international community is more united, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is more isolated. And as Iran’s leaders continue to ignore their obligations, there should be no doubt: They, too, will face growing consequences. That is a promise.
Obama’s only mention of Iraq and Afghanistan came in the context of troop deployments and deadlines. For Iraq:
We will support the Iraqi government as they hold elections, and continue to partner with the Iraqi people to promote regional peace and prosperity. But make no mistake: this war is ending, and all of our troops are coming home.”
For Afghanistan:
In Afghanistan, we are increasing our troops and training Afghan Security Forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011, and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans - men and women alike.
With regard to universal principles of justice, Obama briefly alluded to America’s history of supporting those who seek empowerment:
America takes these actions because our destiny is connected to those beyond our shores… That’s why we stand with the girl who yearns to go to school in Afghanistan; why we support the human rights of the women marching through the streets of Iran… For America must always stand on the side of freedom and human dignity. Always. Abroad, America’s greatest source of strength has always been our ideals.
We will highlight commentary on the speech and its significance throughout the day.
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Freedom, Iran, Iraq, US foreign policy | 1 Comment »
Congress: Anti-American Media Bill Criticized
December 18th, 2009 by Jason
Bikya Masr reports The Arabic Network for Human Rights Information (ANHRI) has come out criticizing a bill (see our previous post) recently passed in the House that would identify and seek to isolate international news media that broadcast “anti-American incitement to violence.”
According to ANHRI, the bill “represented a sharp additional decline on the U.S. promises to improve its poor record in civil and political freedoms locally and internationally.” Furthermore, ANHRI claims the bill violates American obligations to international treaties. In an interview with Bikya Masr, local media analyst Hassan al-Naggar argues Congress has further “tarnishe[d] Obama’s struggling image.”
However, the article suggests Congress hopes the legislation “will create more equitable television viewing that leaves violence off American air waves.”
Posted in Congress, Freedom, Journalism, Legislation, Middle Eastern Media, NGOs, Public Opinion, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: Gasoline Sanctions Counterproductive?
December 17th, 2009 by Jason
Debate still continues over the House passage of the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA). Jeff Bergner argues the U.S. must “compel” Iran to negotiate through some combination of a naval embargo, targeted military action, a free leash for Israel, or crippling sanctions.
However, Suzanne Maloney of the Brookings Institution argues against IRPSA. Instead, if the U.S. imposes enhanced sanctions, it must delineate clear and limited objectives, continue negotiations while imposing sanctions, seek international consensus, focus on direct and immediate costs, and target those responsible for human rights abuses, not the Iranian people.
Matt Duss agrees with Maloney, calling IRPSA not only “ineffective” but “counterproductive” as well. It offers “Iran’s hardliners a powerful propaganda lifeline, and would likely facilitate greater regime consolidation right at the moment that the conservative consensus around Ahmadinejad is starting to crack up.” Therefore it’s no wonder why the Green movement is against IRPSA and the administration is attempting to “put the brakes” on the Senate version.
Meanwhile, Eric Anderson urges to apply some “pragmatism to engaging with Iran” and realize that there is little the U.S. can do to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon. But Roger Cohen contends there is a lot the Iranian people can do. Therefore, when he is asked “where the ’stick’ is in Iran, [his] response is the stick is Iranian society - the bubbling reformist pressure now rising up from Iran’s highly educated youth and brave women.” Therefore, Cohen argues “the time has come to do nothing in Iran.”
Much of the push for enhanced sanctions stems from Iran’s failure to negotiate in good faith. Ray Takeyh in the Boston Globe explains how Ayatollah Khamenei created a new committee to oversee foreign affairs, comprised by members of Khamenei’s staff, the intelligence community and the head of the Revolutionary Guards. Takeyh argues it was this committee formed in October that scuttled the nuclear deal, not external dissent from opposition leaders and the Speaker of Parliament Ali Larijani.
Babylon and Beyond offers further detail on the new trend of Iranian men posing in pictures wearing the veil out of solidarity with Majid Tavakoli, a student leader arrested for his activism. niacINsight reports that the government’s head of university affairs approximates 70 percent of university students oppose Ahmadinejad and has called for a stronger response against students and professors who are purportedly “weakening the regime.”
AFP reports that Iran’s judiciary also warned opposition leaders that it has accumulated enough evidence to try them, comparing them to “the regime’s most despised enemy, the People’s Mujahedeen.” Iason Athanasiadis observes that while the abuses of Evin Prison are well known, Iranians truly fear the “string of hidden detention sites” throughout Tehran.
Finally, niacINsight expresses its disappointment with Time Magazine over its decision to not include the Iranian people on their shortlist for Person of the Year, even though balloting showed greater support for the Iranian people compared to the second and third choices combined.
Posted in Congress, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Legislation, Military, Multilateralism, Oil, Protests, US foreign policy, US politics, Women, sanctions | Comment »
Iran: House Passes Gasoline Sanctions
December 16th, 2009 by Jason
As expected, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194) passed overwhelmingly in the House, with 412 voting for, 12 against, and 4 present. Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fl) explained she hopes to “impose sanctions so painful that they should threaten the Iranian regime’s survival.” The sponsor of the bill, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Cali.), emphasized how “Iran has had ample time to respond positively to President Obama’s generous engagement offer. Regrettably, the response has been only one of contempt.”
But there was congressional opposition to the bill as well. Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) lamented how “we’re telling the Iranian people, ‘we have feelings of friendship for you. We like you so much, but we’re going to cut off your home heating oil.” Additionally, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) expressed his “strongest opposition” to this bill that represents “another significant step” towards war. Paul argued argued that history shows “it is citizens rather than governments who suffer most” under sanctions, which have been proven to only “strengthen regimes they target and marginalize any opposition.”
Laura Rozen reports the administration is “quietly working” to make modifications to the Senate version. Two issues being discussed are whether the sanctions would alienate America’s partners and whether the sanctions will be mandatory or allow the President to exercise discretion in their implementation. Under the House version, the president must seek a waiver in every case the sanctions would not be imposed.
In response to a letter sent by Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stating that the sanctions legislation “might weaken rather than strengthen international unity and support for our efforts,” Jennifer Rubin calls the administration “a crowd that’s allergic to leverage.”
Rozen also reports that the State Department has asked the Treasury Department to allow Iranians to download free mass market software that enhances their ability to communicate. In response, NIAC President Trita Parsi lauded the decision that makes sure “the policies of the U.S. government don’t unintentionally aid the Iranian government’s efforts to silence its people.”
In a likely response to the legislation, Iran has test-fired an improved Sejil 2 solid-fuel missile, which has a range capable of striking Israel and U.S. bases throughout the region. Meanwhile, Tehran Bureau reports that the Iran’s Prosecutor General has confirmed the rape of opposition members in prison but rejected the involvement of prison guards. In addition, hundreds of of pro-govenrment and pro-opposition students held rival rallies in Tehran yesterday.
Meanwhile, Mohammad Saeedi has resigned as deputy director of Iran’s atomic energy body. Meir Javedanfar suggests the resignation may indicate infighting within the regime over nuclear negotiations. The regime also seems split over what to do with Mir Hossein Moussavi and other opposition leaders. Mea Cyrus at Tehran Bureau observes “the Islamic Republic of Iran is so fed up with post-election protests that it is willing to adopt extreme measures to bring them to an end,” even if it means imprisoning or assassinating opposition leaders like Moussavi.
Masoud Golsorkhi explains how the regime’s efforts to discredit Majid Tavakoli have backfired because they have failed to understand that the green movement is “a post-modern, post-ideological civic movement” where women are at the “forefront.” Finally, Omid Memarian argues the opposition have “entered a new phase” in protesting the Islamic regime itself, and not just the contested elections.
Posted in Congress, Diplomacy, Iran, Legislation, Military, Multilateralism, Oil, Protests, Technology, US foreign policy, US politics, sanctions | Comment »
Iran: Gasoline Sanctions Debate Today
December 15th, 2009 by Jason
The House is currently debating the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194), and they will likely pass the legislation before the end of today. That news likely comfort Ephraim Kam, who writes in Haaretz that the West must impose “harsher sanctions” and threaten Tehran with potential violence.
Nonetheless, niacINsight urges the U.S. to “stand with the Iranian people” by opposing the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which many members of the green movement have said would hurt the Iranian people and not the regime. Jamal Abdi warns such sanctions “may isolate us from our closest allies and biggest trading partners, pose momentous new challenges for our efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq and the greater Middle East, undermine the Iranian people’s struggle for democracy, and once again place the United States on the gave path towards military confrontation.”
Instead, niacINsight hails the introduction of the Stand with the Iranian People Act (SWIPA H.R. 4303) introduced by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) and the Iranian Digital Empowerment Act (IDEA H.R. 4301) introduced by Rep. Jim Moran (D-VA). Both of these acts were introduced yesterday. SWIPA would enable Americans and Iranians to work together to promote human rights or for projects like building hospitals and schools, while also imposing targeted sanctions on the regime and companies that work with it. IDEA would legalize the transfer of communication and anti-censorship tools between the U.S. and Iran.
Arguing in favor of SWIPA and IDEA and against IRPSA, Patrick Disney contends, “the yardstick for an effective Iran policy is not how much pain and suffering it will cause among innocent Iranians. Rather, changing the policies and behavior of Tehran’s repressive government should be our ultimate goal. This means that when it comes to sanctions, bigger is not always better.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Congress, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Islam and Democracy, Journalism, Judiciary, Legislation, Military, Oil, Protests, Technology, US foreign policy, US politics, sanctions | Comment »
Congress: Omnibus Bill Passed
December 14th, 2009 by Jason
The Hill reports that the Senate passed a $1.1 trillion spending bill that includes $447 billion in annual appropriations Sunday afternoon by a vote of 57-35, after the House approved a package of spending measures last Thursday with a vote of 221-202. The defense appropriation bill was purposefully left out so that it could be used as a vehicle for other legislation. The House is expected to vote on the defense appropriation sometime this week, with the two houses already having resolved their differences over the bill. According to White House spokesman Robert Gibbs, the omnibus bill will likely be signed into law by President Obama soon.
Full details of the Conference Report for the omnibus bill are available on the website of the House Rules Committee, including the full text of Division F of the bill, the portion that makes appropriations for State and Foreign Operations, as well as the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanies it.
The bill includes a controversial provision that permits $50 million of the $250 million in Economic Support Funds (ESF) allocated for Egypt to be put into “an endowment to further the shared interests of the United States and Egypt.” Such an endowment has been advocated for several years by the Egyptian government, and is widely viewed as an attempt to reduce the potential leverage by Congress afforded by U.S. economic aid to Egypt.
Other levels of funding in the bill include $65 million for the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI), which is a 30% increase over funding in recent years, but $5 million less than included in the House version of the State and Foreign Operations bill passed in July.
For reference and comparison, see POMED’s report on the budget and appropriations process from July, and keep an eye out for a brief report on the final version of the bill.
Posted in Congress, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: Protests Continue
December 14th, 2009 by Zack
AP reports that Iran intends to try the three American hikers jailed in Iran after crossing the border. Tehran Bureau reports that student protests are continuing at the University of Tehran and the website gives an account of the violence and confrontation that has led to the cancellation of classes.
Ali Akbar Dareini writes that the Iranian regime has arrested protesters who they accuse of destroying a picture of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini; however the protesters denied the government’s claims and accuse the government of staging a video of the crime to discredit the opposition movement. The NY Times reports that Iranian television has been broadcasting images of the damaged pictures and that opposition leaders are denying t the possibility that protesters could have done such an “antirevolutionary” thing. Meanwhile, Al Arabiya states that “Ayatollah Ali Khamenei warned opposition leaders on Sunday to distance themselves from protesters he accused of acting against the Islamic regime’s late founder.”
Andrew Sprung at The Daily Dish writes that this new development comes, according to Scott Lucas, as the regime contemplates arresting opposition leaders Mir Hossein Mousavi, Mehdi Karroubi and Mohamad Khatami. Sprung also draws comparisons between Khamenei’s denunciations now and those of Khomenei against the Shah in 1963. Dana Goldstein illustrates the regime’s efforts to silence the women’s rights movement, including the exile of activists, banning makeup for TV newswomen, and a new documentary slamming feminism.
Analyzing these developments, Abbas Barzegar in The Guardian argues that the regime has broken the back of the opposition. The movement has been fenced in politically by former president Rafsanjani, its religious legitimacy is losing ground, and it has not been able to muster enough support to overwhelm the regime. Ultimately, the clashes have devolved into apathy and return to the status quo before the elections.
In the realm of sanctions, The NY Times reports that days ahead of a U.S. meeting to discuss possible sanctions, Iran has announced a willingness to exchange most of its uranium for foreign nuclear fuel. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-Fla.), ranking Republican on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, has an opinion piece arguing that the U.S. must be prepared to act alone against Iran with “every weapon in its political and economic arsenal. The Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act is one such tool.” Along with sanctions, she believes the U.S. must:
reject Iran’s claim to an inalienable right to produce nuclear fuel […] strengthen existing laws to prevent the transfer of prohibited materials […] impose a ban on travel by senior Iranian regime officials and their families to Europe and the U.S […] strengthen bilateral and multilateral efforts to shut down accounts of those doing business with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps […] deny Tehran access to euros and U.S. dollars; and freeze the assets of those who violate U.N. sanctions on Iran. Concurrently, we should offer our full support to the Iranian people and increase funding for Iran democracy programs.
Laura Rozen cites a Newsweek piece that insists President Obama intends to identify dozens of IRGC front companies and then pressure the suppliers and trading partners to cut off ties. Tony Karon argues that since Obama will never commit to military strikes against Iran and sanctions will only lead towards hawkish action, the U.S. needs to recommit to a diplomatic solution that, while not likely securing an agreement to forego enrichment entirely, could produce agreements on measures in the NPT framework, which “remains a highly desirable goal, even if getting there would involve a long and painstaking process.” While Robert Dreyfuss argues the regime is fundamentally flawed and that Obama needs to step back to allow discontent to rise and threaten the regime from within.
Posted in Congress, Diplomacy, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Protests, Public Opinion, Reform, US foreign policy, Women, sanctions | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Yemen Headlined: Contemporary Myths and Empirical Realities”
December 13th, 2009 by Jason
The National Council on U.S.-Arab Relations hosted a panel discussion on the current political, economic, and security situation in Yemen. The panel participants included Ambassador Barbara Bodine of Princeton University, Dr. Christopher Boucek of the Carnegie Middle East Program, Gregory Johnsen of Princeton University, Ambassador James Larocco of the National Defense University, and Dr. Mustafa Alani of the Gulf Research Center. The National Council’s president Dr. John Duke Anthony moderated the event.
For POMED’s full version of the notes in PDF, please click here. Otherwise, keep reading below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Congress, DC Event Notes, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Human Rights, Military, Oil, Saudi Arabia, US foreign policy, Yemen, al-Qaeda | Comment »
POMED Notes: “Gulliver’s Troubles: The Obama Administration and the Middle East”
December 11th, 2009 by Jason
The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars hosted a lecture by Aaron David Miller on the Obama administration and the Middle East. Miller served as a Middle East adviser to six secretaries of state and currently works as a Public Policy Fellow at the Woodrow Wilson Center. Miller defined the purpose of government as an instrument to find solutions to problems. But in order for government to be successful, it must accurately assess the world and develop sufficient understanding. Unfortunately, the United States has not only failed to accurately comprehend the world abroad, but it has also misunderstood its role within that world.
To read POMED’s full notes of the event in PDF, please click here. Otherwise, continue reading below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, DC Event Notes, Diplomacy, Elections, Iraq, Israel, Mideast Peace Plan, Palestine, US foreign policy | Comment »
Iran: Regime at a Tipping Point?
December 10th, 2009 by Jason
Tehran Bureau reports that some pro-opposition students staged protests for a third day in a row, despite government warnings. Meanwhile, President Ahmadinejad has begun to receive some flack for his accusation that the America is preventing the return of the Hidden Imam, as religious scholars questioned Ahmadinejad’s authority to make such religious proclamations. Tehran Bureau also points to an interview with Shirin Ebadi by ABC, in which she promises “this regime will not last.”
The regime-affiliated Fars News Agency has published photos of leading student activist Majid Tavakoli disguised as a woman. Opposition members and human rights activists have responded harshly, claiming that Tavakoli was “severely beat[en]” during his arrest and forced to wear women’s clothing after being taken into custody. Such treatment has led to a new Amnesty International report that concludes respect for human rights in Iran has fallen to a 20-year low. The report urges Ayatollah Khamenei to allow U.N. human rights experts to conduct an investigation on human rights abuses in the country.
The Daily Star editorial staff observe “repression seems to be the government’s only response to opposition […] the regime has betrayed the Islamic Republic’s most sacred founding principles and sought to impose a SAVAK-style police state.” The real danger for the regime, they argue, is how such repression will “compound the pre-existing strains on the government, particularly unemployment, inflation, and other economic woes” that could result in a “highly combustible mix of public discontent.” Meanwhile, per Geneive Abdo in Foreign Policy, ”the circle around Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is hardening and shrinking - and more and more, his former allies are turning against him.”
Such public discontent has led to a rhetorical shift amongst the opposition from rejecting the June elections to opposing the Islamic regime itself, according to Amir Taheri in The Wall Street Journal. As such, Taheri contends the Iran has now reached a historical tipping point. In agreement, Andy McCarthy at NRO argues that ”The regime in Tehran, our enemy, is teetering on the brink of collapse.” As such, he calls for a “little push” through American rhetorical support and refined gasoline sanctions.
In fact, Laura Rozen reports that there has been a push in Congress, initiated by Sen. Jon Kyle (R-Ariz.), to pass the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act by unanimous consent. The effort, for now, seems to have been halted with pressure from State Department and possibly a former or informal objection from at least one Senate office. Meanwhile, Robert Dreyfuss argues not only against imposing gasoline sanctions on Iran, but also against actively supporting the green movement. Such well-intentioned but misplaced support would allow Tehran “to refocus on the Great Satan’s interference in Iranian affairs” and make nuclear negotiations impossible.
Babak Siavoshy identifies one way the U.S. can help the Iranian opposition. According to Siavoshy, the U.S. should help Iranians gain “unfiltered Internet access, and take measures to curb censorship by the Iranian government.” Towards this end, the U.S. should invest in anti-filtering technologies, restrict sale of censorship technology to the Iranian government, make news more accessible, and protect the rights of bloggers.
Laura Rozen also reports that Iranian authorities have presented a list of Iranians they believe to be held by the U.S., asking for their release in exchange for the release of the three American hikers. The Iranian list is composed largely of Iranians who have been detained for illegal activities, such as purchasing military equipment for Iran, as well as purported nuclear defectors. According to one U.S. official, “we cannot afford to accept the Iranian frame that there is an equivalence between indicted arms dealers and innocent hikers who happen to wander across a hostile border.”
Finally, Sanaz Meshkinpour interviews Iranian director Mehran Tamadon, who has just completed a documentary about the Basij militia.
Posted in Congress, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Human Rights, Iran, Islam and Democracy, Journalism, Oil, Protests, Publications, US foreign policy, US politics, United Nations, sanctions | Comment »
Congress: Anti-American Incitement
December 9th, 2009 by Zack
Rep. Gus Bilirakis (R-FL) has proposed H.R.2278 that calls for the “President to transmit to Congress a report on anti-American incitement to violence in the Middle East.” The bill focuses on Middle Eastern media outlets, including al-Manar, al-Aqsa, al-Zawra, that broadcast calls of violence against Americans and the United States and calls for a report in six months that lists anti-American media outlets and satellite companies that provide these channels.. The bill also proposes that the U.S. should: designate satellite providers that knowingly contract with such entities as “Specially Designated Global Terrorists,” evaluate levels of foreign assistance with reference to state-sponsorship of anti-American incitement to violence, and “urge all governments and private investors who own shares in satellite companies or otherwise influence decisions about satellite transmissions to oppose transmissions of [such] telecasts.”
A motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill passed 395-3 , with 9 voting present.
Posted in Congress, Journalism, Legislation, Reform, US foreign policy, US politics | 1 Comment »
Afghanistan: More Hill Testimony
December 9th, 2009 by Jason
General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry testified about the new Afghan strategy before the Armed Service Committees in both the House and Senate yesterday. They will continue their testimony on the Hill both today and tomorrow.
According to Chris Good at The Atlantic, General McChrystal’s prediction of success in Afghanistan was couched in “a healthy amount of humility.” McChrystal argued that a combination of the resolve of the Afghans, the unpopularity of the Taliban, the evidence of recent ISAF success in providing better security and goverannce, and the Afghan support for the ISAF mission all portend the potential for success. But Dana Miliband notes that McChrystal managed a “careful linguistic dance” to avoid uttering the actual word victory, defining success instead as the ability for the Afghans to win for themselves.
Anatol Lieven and Maleeha Lodhi in The New York Times don’t see much of a chance for success at all. They therefore argue “it is essential that the U.S. plan incorporate a political strategy aimed at Afghan national reconciliation - and that plan should involve negotiations with the Taliban.” Azeem Ibrahim also calls for negotiations with the Taliban and allow “moderate elements of the Taliban to share power in a democratic Afghan system.”
After a recent trip to Afghanistan, Michael Shank contends “Afghans are simply asking for an Afghan-centered approach, one that puts Afghans at the fore of every peace and security effort, one that builds sustainable Afghan state and local capacity, and one that sets new precedents for justice and accountability.” Such is the plan outlined by General McChrystal. However, Fred Kaplan pounces on McChrystal’s comment that “there is much in Afghanistan that I do not understand” and argues for the necessity of understanding the local society and culture for COIN to be effective. Additionally,which Andrew McCarhty at NRO critiques, “General McChrystal would employ COIN tactics in the course of a broader nation-building scheme. It is the nation-building to which I object. It is premature: Nation-building, if we should do it at all, should follow the enemy’s defeat.” He goes on to defend the original Bush Doctrine formulation “before it was modified by the ‘forward march of freedom’ rhetoric that has nothing to do with American national security.”
Patrick Barry also questions whether the U.S. is nation-building or not, focusing on McChrystal’s warning against “thinking of local militias as a better security off-ramp than the Afghan army.” He also wonders why Pakistan is not received sufficient attentiongiven that, per McChrystal’s testimony, our goal in Afghanistan is to primarily fight Al Qaeda. Laura Rozen explores how the Obama administration has both de-emphasized the faltering leadership of President Asif Ali Zardari while also offering a mixture of sticks and carrots to the Pakistani military to ramp up efforts against Islamist militants and especially the Afghan Taliban.
In another post, Rozen reports that a recent memo from retired General Barry McCaffrey suggests “the international civilian agency surgewill essentially not happen […] Afghanistan over the next 2-3 years will be simply too dangerous for most civil agencies.” Rozen contends such analysis “bolsters chatter that the U.S. military leadership may not be ready to put aside tensions with its civilian counterparts,” as fleshed out by this recent New York Times article on the relationship between General McChrystal and Ambassador Eikenberry. Nonetheless, Jen DiMascio of Politico reports that the pair “sought to present a unified front” yesterday on the Hill.
Posted in Afghanistan, Committee Meetings, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Military, Pakistan, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: Hill Testimonies Continue
December 8th, 2009 by Jason
Ambassador Eikenberry and General McChrystal are on the Hill today testifying before the Armed Services Committees in both the House and Senate. They will continue to flesh out the new Afghan strategy in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee tomorrow and in the House Foreign Affairs Committee on Thursday.
Meanwhile, Secretary Gates has arrived in Afghanistan on an unannounced trip, reports Laura Rozen. According to Rozen, Gates has “downplayed the need for a full-scale shake up of the Afghan government, while pledging to press for Afghan president Hamid Karzai to appoint some ‘honest’ ministers.” Roger Cohen calls the announcement of a troop drawdown ”not a bad way to pressure President Hamid Karzai to get with the program.”
In The New York Times, James Danly speaks from personal experience about the importance of “full-fledged partnership” between local security forces and American soldiers to create a professional, competent Afghan military. Meanwhile, Al Arabiya reports that Karzai has admitted Afghanistan will not be able to fund its own security forces for the next 15-20 years. Also speaking from personal experience as an Army officer, Jonathan Vaccaro laments the cumbersome military and civilian bureaucracies that constrict America’s ability to act nimbly on the ground.
Katrina Vanden Heuvel at The Nation argues the U.S. should focus on economic development, as the counterinsurgency strategy prescribes, as opposed to military action. According to Spencer Ackerman, the U.S. has shifted away from nation-building in favor of “more fulsome development work.” In response, Michael Cohen questions Ackerman’s definition of nation-building, arguing the U.S. is seeking to “deeply embed itself in the country’s economic development, governance, infrastructure and security efforts.”
Reflecting on the human toll of the Afghan and Iraq wars, Richard Cohen concludes, “we all know the Taliban are misogynist thugs aligned with al-Qaeda - and all that is bad. But what we don’t know is whether any of that is worth the life we see on the nightly news or read about in the newspaper.”
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Foreign Aid, Iraq, Military, Multilateralism, Reform, Taliban, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Afghanistan: NATO Promises 7,000 Troops
December 4th, 2009 by Jason
As General McChrystal assured the Afghan cabinet the U.S. was not abandoning its mission, Secretary Clinton, in an op ed for The Telegraph, called on all nations to help with the mission in Afghanistan. Ultimately, she asserts: ”we recognise that only the Afghan people can decide what kind of national they want to build for themselves. And only the Pakistani people can ensure their country’s democratic future.”
Heeding the call, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of Denmark announced that a combination of 25 countries will provide approximately 7,000 more troops to the Afghan effort. In addition, U.S. Navy Adm. James Savridis, head of NATO and U.S. commander in Europe, told the Associated Press that he believes several thousand more non-U.S. troops may be deployed on top of the 7,000 announced by Rasmussen. Meanwhile, Italy also announced it will commit 1,000 new troops to the Afghan mission, and President Dmitry Medvedev also declared Russia’s support, explaining “we are obliged to help in Afghanistan.”
In remarks after the NATO announcement, Secretary Clinton praised the contributions of America’s allies, but also insisted that the U.S. must “provide a sense of urgency to the Afghans to do themselves what we know they’re capable of doing.” During her testimony on the Hill, in response to a question by Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) about what happens when the Afghan regime fails to improve, Secretary Clinton asserted, “we aren’t aiming at some zero-corruption standard, we just want a more responsive government.” Meanwhile, in his own op-ed for The Washington Post, General Rasmussen explains NATO’s strategy in Afghanistan, insisting “good governance is the best way to close off the oxygen supply to the Taliban.”
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Democracy Promotion, Diplomacy, Iraq, Military, Reform, Taliban, Terrorism, US foreign policy, US politics, al-Qaeda | Comment »
Iran: Gasoline Sanctions Incoming?
December 3rd, 2009 by Jason
Politico reports that House Democratic leaders are preparing to push through the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act (H.R. 2194). The bill’s author, Rep. Howard Berman (D-Calif.) announced, “I intend to pass the bill by the end of this year.” With 399 co-sponsors in the House, he may be able to keep his promise.
In response, Matt Duss comes out strongly against the proposed gasoline sanctions, observing “I don’t know of any analyst - right or left- who thinks that this legislation will be at all effective in changing Iran’s behavior.” According to Duss, Iran is much less vulnerable to gasoline shortages than Capitol Hill thinks and China is unlikely to cooperate with the sanctions regime. Furthermore, the sanctions will hurt the wrong people. While the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will be the least affected, the Green Movement has consistently rejected the sanctions because they will, in the words of Mir Hossein Mousavi, “impose agonies on a nation who suffers enough from miserable statesmen.”
Posted in Congress, Iran, Legislation, Multilateralism, Oil, US foreign policy, US politics, sanctions | 1 Comment »
Afghanistan: Administration Testifies on Hill
December 3rd, 2009 by Jason
As the first of the 30,000 new U.S. troops prepare to deploy within two to three weeks, debate at home continues over President Obama’s new Afghan strategy. Notably, Secretary Clinton, Secretary Gates, and Admiral Mullen testified before Congress yesterday on the new Afghan strategy and will continue their testimony today.
Juan Cole relays reactions to Obama’s Afghan strategy from the region. In short, Kabul is content, the Taliban are indignant, the Indians are satisfied, the Russians are concerned about heroin and religious radicalism, and Pakistan wants greater military coordination. The Christian Science Monitor provides a more detailed reaction of Afghan leaders, with mixed reviews centered around the timeline for withdrawal.
Citing Admiral Mullen’s emphasis on governance during his testimony, Patrick Barry of Democracy Arsenal questions what will the Obama administration do when governance does not improve after several months. In a second post, Barry urges the U.S. to consider how to use incentives to create leverage in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as opposed overly relying on coercion and conditions. However, former Ambassador to Afghanistan Ronald E. Neumann warns that while Afghanistan needs “more efficient, more honest government,” the United States must be “sensitive” about how hard it pushes President Karzai.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Diplomacy, Elections, Foreign Aid, Freedom, Human Rights, Iraq, Military, Pakistan, Reform, Taliban, Technology, US foreign policy, Women, al-Qaeda | Comment »
POMED Notes: USAID Administrator Confirmation
December 3rd, 2009 by Jason
The Senate Committee on Foreign Relations held a hearing on Tuesday to consider the nomination of Rajiv Shah to be Administrator of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). In his opening remarks, Chairman John Kerry (D-Mass.) declared the mission of USAID “near the top of our list of priorities” and highlighted the committee’s efforts to reform foreign assistance through the Foreign Assistance and Revitalization and Accountability Act (S. 1524). Then, Ranking Member Dick Lugar (R-Ind.) reiterated the stated goal of Secretary Clinton to revitalize USAID into the “premier development agency in the world.” He also highlighted the “modest” bill S.1524 while recognizing the administration is also reviewing foreign assistance through both the State Department and the National Security Council.
To see POMED’s PDF notes of the event, please click here. Otherwise, continue reading below the fold.
Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Afghanistan, Congress, Congressional Hearing Notes (Senate), Democracy Promotion, Foreign Aid, Lebanon, Pakistan, US politics, Women | Comment »
