Why Russia Will Never Help With Iran

Banafsheh Zand-Bonazzi über gemeinsame russische und iranische Interessen sowie die russisch-iranischen Beziehungen:

Russia’s long-term strategic interests are more likely to be satisfied by an expansion toward the Persian Gulf, which is why Russia is not prepared to join Western powers in their attempt to force Iran to abandon its nuclear quest. Iran is more useful to Russia as an ally than as an enemy. The two countries share common interests, such as pipelines through central Asia, which would allow Russia to sell greater quantities of its oil and gas to the world markets. The shortest and cheapest way to connect the immense oil and gas reserves recently discovered in central Asia is through Iran to the Persian Gulf.

Although they share common interests, Iran and Russia do not share a common perspective on their historical relationship. Despite their outward display of friendship, even people inside the Iranian regime do not trust the Russians. In April 2006, Mohammad-Nabi Roudaki, Deputy Director of Security and Foreign Policy of the Iran’s Islamic Parliament’s Assembly reminded everyone of this in a long statement about Russia’s role in the Security Council: “Our people will never forget the cruelty and exploitation of the Russians.” Still, despite the centuries of old bad blood, the regime is willing to throw itself into Russian hands simply from fear and desperation.

Obamas Realitätsverweigerung

Oliver M. Piecha stellt auf Free Iran Now! die Frage, die vor einiger Zeit schon Bret Stephens im Wall Street Journal quälte: warum weigert sich die Welt im Allgemeinen und die US-Regierung im Speziellen, das wiederholt und unmissverständlich geäußerte „Nein!“ der Islamischen Republik Iran bezüglich eines „Kompromisses“ im Atomkonflikt zur Kenntnis zu nehmen und entsprechende Konsequenzen zu ziehen?

In die gleiche Richtung zielt Thomas von der Osten-Sackens Frage, wo angesichts der gebetsmühlenartig geäußerten „Wir-verhandeln-weiter!“-Parole der US-Regierung in Folge des erneuten Verstreichens eines Ultimatums seitens des Irans denn eigentlich die von der US-Regierung beschworenen „Grenzen der Geduld“ liegen.

Wer ernstlich daran interessiert ist, diese Fragen zu beantworten, sollte die folgenden Äußerungen des Appeaser-in-Chief Barack Obama über die Gründe des bislang ausbleibenden Kompromisses aufmerksam lesen:

An Iranian Role in Yemen’s Rebellion

Via Stratfor.

„Is Saudi Arabia ready to play hardball with Iran?“

Johna Hannah beschreibt für Foreign Policy, wie Saudi-Arabien die Islamische Republik Iran durch ein Drücken des Ölpreises unter Druck setzen könnte:

With daily exports in the range of 2.5 million barrels per day, Iran stands to lose about $900 million annually from every one dollar drop in the price of oil. With excess capacity of 4 million barrels per day, the Saudis are clearly in position to go much farther than they have to date in squeezing Iran if they so choose. An aggressive Saudi effort to depress oil prices well below the current $75 target could prove extremely harmful to Iran’s already reeling economy and tumultuous political situation. Almost certainly, such an effort could inflict as much pain on the Iranian regime as many of the sanctions currently being discussed by the United States and its international partners — and, given Russian and Chinese reluctance to get tough with Iran, would almost certainly be quicker and easier to implement.

Doch warum sollte gerade Saudi-Arabien dem Westen dabei helfen, den selbst in den Dreck gesetzten Karren aus selbigem zu ziehen? Die Antwort lautet – wie so oft – Eigeninteresse:

There’s no doubt that Saudi King Abdullah views Iran — and the near-term prospect of its acquiring nuclear weapons — as nothing short of an existential threat to the House of Saud and its preeminent position in the Islamic world. There’s at least some chance that he may be prepared to consider doing things now that in the past would have been unthinkable in order to prevent his worst nightmare from coming to pass — especially if he’s provided sufficient support, encouragement and guarantees from the United States and our major European allies.

In this regard, the current crisis in Yemen, in which Saudi forces have been drawn into combat on their southern border against Iranian-backed Shiite rebels, has only upped the ante. As with almost everything Iran does, Abdullah no doubt perceives the Islamic Republic’s involvement in Yemen as the latest maneuver in a grand strategy whose ultimate target is the Kingdom itself and control of the Islamic holy sites of Mecca and Medina.

Gleichwohl diese Option gewisse Risiken birgt, rät Hannah der US-Regierung, mit Riad über entsprechende Maßnahmen zu verhandeln:

The big question is how far the Saudis are willing to go in drawing on their oil power to really do something about it — something, that is, that actually stands a chance of either 1) compelling the Iranian regime to fundamentally re-calculate its nuclear ambitions, or 2) speeding the regime’s unraveling at the hands of its already seething population. Of course, encouraging the Saudis to use oil as a political weapon is not without its downside risks; after all, the United States was on the receiving end of just such a Saudi gambit during the oil embargo that followed the 1973 Arab-Israeli war. But given the enormity of the stakes now at play vis a vis Iran — both for the Kingdom and for the United States — it’s clearly an option that at least deserves serious consideration. One hopes that it’s already the subject of intense consultations between Washington and Riyadh, preferably at the highest levels. Should the United States conclude that the potential benefits outweigh the risks, it will need to muster every instrument at its disposal to steel the Saudi king to take unprecedented measures to face down Iran’s unprecedented challenge.

„Western Liberal Elites Have Made an Iranian Bomb a Reality“

Leon de Winter zeigt schonungslos, wie und warum die Diplomatie im Umgang mit der Islamischen Republik Iran versagt hat:

The Europeans could have confronted the mullahs, but after two devastating world wars they have lost the ability to actively defend their interests. They cannot absorb the prospect of the ultimate sacrifice of their sons. And since the Vietnam War, America’s room to operate is regulated by the liberal media, which is deeply influenced by European cultural relativism and secular pacifism. As a result, players who are aware of these characteristics of modern Western societies (i.e., Vladimir Putin, the Arab dictators, and the mullahs in Tehran) calculate their steps in sync with the limitations of Western modi operandi.

The project of the Shiite bomb has spread over so many sites that only a devastating attack by American forces could make an end of it, with terrible collateral damage. The Israelis can only execute some tactical destruction, in the hope that it will delay the project.

The Europeans were never serious in stopping the mullahs. They only have “soft power” in their arsenal, because the liberal European ideology has no chapter about European exceptionalism, European idealism, European ability to bleed, sweat, and suffer for its own sacred values and traditions. The Europeans, concerned about oil imports, commercial interests in Iran, and the loss of influence in Tehran to Moscow and Beijing, fear Israeli action more than an Iranian bomb. President Obama, who would have been an excellent editorial writer for the Guardian, is even more European than the Europeans.

Well, they got what they were looking for.

Die Schlussfolgerung ist eindeutig:

It has never made sense to talk to the mullahs. It is their core business to confuse and mislead, create chaos, kill opponents, torture students, organize terrorism, and weaken Western resolve. They do what they do because they are defined by it. If they were to stop what they are doing, they would give up their identity and the soul of the Shiite revolution. The mullahs are close to fulfilling the central dream of Imam Khomeini’s revolution: a weapon that can destroy Israel and undermine Western nations.

It’s too late. The mullahs won. Only the desperate and heroic people in the streets of Iran can turn the tide.

 

Stichwort Einmischung: Iran und der Jemen

Amir Taheri erläutert in der New York Post, wie die Islamische Republik Iran ihren Einfluss im Jemen ausbaut, um Saudi-Arabien in einen asyemmetrischen Krieg zu verwickeln:

On the Yemeni side of the border, Iran has been trying to create a branch of the pan-Shiite Hezbollah movement. The aim is to control a chunk of territory along the Saudi border and use it to destabilize the kingdom while exerting pressure on the Yemeni government.

This would echo Iran’s 1982 creation of the Lebanese Hezbollah, which controls an enclave on the Israeli border, using it as a base for periodical attacks on Israel and continued political pressure on the Lebanese government in Beirut.

The Iran-inspired rebellion in Yemen started in 2007 under a tribal leader named Abdul-Malik al-Houthi.

Al-Houthi, from a small tribe in Yemen’s northern highlands, spent eight years learning „Islamic jurisprudence“ in the Iranian „holy“ city of Qom. His critics claim that he really studied asymmetric warfare, not theology. He denies any ties with Iran but says that he admires the Iranian leadership’s „brave stance against Crusaders and Zionists.“

Over the last decade, scores of Yemenis have received military training in Iran or Hezbollah-controlled parts of Lebanon. The Houthis have also gotten weapons, either directly from Iran or via Lebanon. Last month, Yemen captured an Iranian ship near the port of Haja carrying weapons for the Houthis. [Weiterlesen...]

Obama’s Iran Diplomcay Isn’t Working

Warum, erklärt Con Coughlin im Wall Street Journal:

Five months after the first street protests against the sham re-election of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rocked the regime to its core, it’s time to assess the Obama Administration’s „outstretched hand“ policy. From the stalled nuclear talks to the Islamic Republic’s deteriorating human-rights situation, it seems the mullahs have tightened, not unclenched, their fists.

No doubt, the conservative hard-liners are under pressure. Mounting international criticism of the regime’s controversial nuclear program and the refusal of the pro-reform movement to submit to the repression have led to an increase in tension among the ruling elite. But rather than compromising, Tehran has resorted to the kind of repression and coercion that have helped turn Iran into an international pariah during the three decades since the Islamic revolution brought the ayatollahs to power. [Weiterlesen...]

What Obama Does Not Grasp

Marty Peretz über Obama und den Iran:

Can you imagine the fall of the ayatollahs? I can, and so can learned Abbas Milani, professor of Iranian studies at Stanford, whose writings you can read here, with an additional important article in both the print and on-line New Republic next week.

But can President Obama imagine an Iran freed from the iron grip of the mullahs’ madness? There is nothing in his behavior to suggest that he can or, for that matter, that he would be pleased if he could. His first visit to a Muslim country was for two days in Turkey in April. He and his aides, reported Tom Raum in the Huffington Post, were ecstatic about the results. As far as I can tell, there were none, at least none that were good. Turkey has continued its drift towards an Islamic foreign and domestic policy. The Organization of the Islamic Conference is already meeting in Istanbul, and Dr. A’jad will arrive there on Sunday. Believe me, he will be royally welcomed … and raise tremors among the declining moderate populace.

As with the meanings he conveyed to the Turks, Obama is to be judged with reference to the Iranians on what messages he has sent them. To the people in the streets, to the middle class and to the students–the only hope for Iran–he has shown them, frankly, his behind. Not a statement of solidarity. Certainly not material support. He is still apologizing for the overthrow by the C.I.A. of Iran’s prime minister, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh, in 1953. That was 56 years ago, for God’s sake. Still, his apologies have gotten him nowhere and will get him nowhere.

It is possible still that the democrats and moderate Muslims of Iran will win, not this year or even next year. One thing we know is that the American president has set them back aplenty. And that is a result of his curious empathy for Islam not simply as a religion but as a way of politics in the world.

The Starfish Revolution?

Michael Ledeen über die Bewegung im Iran:

Several thoughtful people have commented on an unusual element in the Iranian revolutionary movement, aka “The Green Path of Hope.”  Although there is a troika (Mousavi, Karroubi and Khatami) that inspires many of the movement’s participants, there seems to be a lack of top-down leadership.  Indeed, Mousavi has been at pains to say that the people are the true leaders, that he is not creating a political movement but a “social network,” and that the strength of the Green Path derives from the spontaneous and creative actions of millions of Iranians.

Ein paar Worte für Chef-Appeaser Obama hat Ledeen auch noch übrig:

Funny world, isn’t it?  The Islamic Republic teeters on the edge of history’s garbage dump, a fascinating revolutionary movement bids to change the world, and peace prizes are given to an accomplice to evil–Mohammed al Baradei–and an American president who won’t throw his moral weight behind tens of millions of Iranians who are risking their lives to be able to have a government like ours.

„Mit ihnen oder mit uns?“

Florian Markl über Obamas Stellungnahme zum Iran:

Während die Demonstranten in Teheran von den Schergen des Regimes verprügelt, verschleppt, gefoltert und ermordet werden, säuselt Obama von “gegenseitigen Interessen” und “gegenseitigem Respekt”, und bezeichnet als amerikanischen Ansprechpartner nicht etwa den Iran im allgemeinen oder die iranische Bevölkerung, nein, er wendet sich explizit an jene “Islamische Republik”, die der eigenen Bevölkerung gerade nach allen Regeln der Kunst die Knochen brechen lässt. Sollte die iranische Opposition also noch Hoffnung haben, dass die letzte verbliebene Supermacht sich doch noch auf ihre Seite stellen wird? Vielleicht hilft der nächste Satz aus Obamas Erklärung weiter: “We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.” Soviel dazu. [..]

“Obama, Obama, entweder bist Du mit ihnen oder mit uns!” rufen die Demonstranten in Teheran. Wie es scheint, hat Obama seine Entscheidung bereits getroffen. Ich fürchte, sie wird die Freiheitsbewegung im Iran nicht freuen.

Robert Kagan sieht das Ganze ähnlich und schreibt:

The regime is using the Obama administration’s overweening desire to talk — and refusal to take “no” for an answer — as a way of deflecting any international pressure regarding its domestic crackdown. And the regime’s strategy is succeeding. The longer the Obama administration plays this game, the more time the regime will have to crush its opponents while the West looks on in self-imposed impotence.

Unpleasant as it may be for the president to hear, his policy is objectively aiding the Tehran regime and harming the opposition in their ongoing struggle.

The chanters are right. The United States can either be with them or against them. Right now, President Obama is against them. But it’s not too late for him to switch sides.

Kriegsvorbereitung und Repression im Iran

Richard Herzinger für die Welt:

Atomverhandlungen, die nicht die Forderung nach dem Stopp der Urananreicherung beinhalten, spielen nur den Ambitionen Teherans in die Hände. Umfassende harte Sanktionen und eine konsequente internationale Isolierung des iranischen Regimes auf dem internationalen Parkett – inklusive Einfrieren von Konten und Einreiseverboten für iranische Offizielle – sind unerlässlich.

Die Verbrechen des Regimes gegen friedliche iranische Oppositionelle müssen vor den UN-Sicherheitsrat und die UN-Vollversammlung gebracht werden. Russland und China muss klargemacht werden, dass ihre weitere Unterstützung Irans eine empfindliche Verschlechterung der Beziehungen zum Westen zur Folge haben würde. Als Minimalbedingung für weitere wirtschaftliche und politische Beziehungen zu Teheran müssen gelten: Die Einstellung der iranischen Kriegvorbereitungen gegen Israel durch Aufrüstung von Stellvertretertruppen, der Stopp der Atomanreicherung und von iranischen Raketentests.

Leicht ist das natürlich nicht ins Werk zu setzen und durchzuhalten. Doch weit schwerer wiegt die Gefahr nicht nur für den Frieden im Nahen Osten, sondern den Weltfrieden insgesamt, der von den apokalyptischen Führern in Teheran ausgeht. Und US-Präsident Barack Obama hat (noch) die internationale moralische Reputation, um sich an die Spitze des Kampfes gegen diese eminente Bedrohung zu setzen.

Shame On You, President Obama

I have made it clear that the United States of America wants to move beyond this past, and seeks a relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran based upon mutual interests and mutual respect. We do not interfere in Iran’s internal affairs.

Diese Worte stellen einen Auszug aus der Stellungnahme von US-Präsident Obama zum Iran dar. Und ja, Sie lesen richtig: es geht Obama nicht um „eine auf gegenseitigen Interessen und Respekt basierende Beziehung“ zum Iran, sondern zur Islamischen Republik Iran. Befände sich Obama nicht schon seit längerem ganz unten, er könnte nicht mehr tiefer fallen.

Denn selbst wenn ignoriert wird, dass es sich bei Obamas Objekt der Begierde um ein islamfaschistisches und antisemitischen Regime handelt – was im Gedankenexperiment legitim sein mag, in der Wirklichkeit jedoch schändlich ist -, steht doch ohne jeden Zweifel fest: die Islamische Republik Iran hat keine bedeutsamen gemeinsamen Interessen mit den Vereinigten Staaten und der freien Welt. Ganz im Gegenteil: es handelt sich um ein Nullsummenspiel, die Interessen Washingtons und des Westens sind den mörderischen Interessen der Islamfaschisten diametral entgegengesetzt.

Wenn deutsche Journalisten diesen Umstand leugnen oder verkennen, ist dies zwar ärgerlich und zu kritisieren, jedoch – von der fortlaufenden Verdummung der Dummen durch die noch Dümmeren einmal abgesehen – ohne schwerwiegende Folgen. Wenn sich hingegen der amerikanische Präsident dieses Umstandes nicht einmal bewusst zu sein scheint, ist das, was auf dieser Welt an einem Mindestmaß an Zivilisation vorhanden ist, in allergrößter Gefahr.

Crossposted auf Zeitung für Schland.

Accomplice to Evil Redux

Michael Ledeen mit einer Sammlung von Links und Kommentare über die Geschehnisse des heutigen Tages:

Big demonstrations still going on all over the country:  Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, Kermanshah, Zahedan, Arak, Mazandaran, Tabriz, Rasht confirmed so far, and no doubt we will hear of others in the next hours and days.  Lots of videos available online, showing an unprecedented level of violence, which is saying a lot.  Have a look:

• Video: the treatment of wounded in a parking garage in Tehran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSITmqfbwLs

• Masses in Tehran:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b8zjI0yf9I&feature=channel

Live-Blogging der Proteste

The Spirit of Man:

2:05am ET: Apparently pro-democracy people have gathered in front of Tehran university campus. People are chanting „Death to Russia“ whenever the regime official asks them to chant ‘Death to USA’.

2:16am ET: Crowds are reported in front of Tehran University’s main campus. Gun fire was heard. The crowd will march from where it is (Enghelab Sq) to Haft-e-Tir Sq. Police using tear gas to disperse the crowd. 10-15 are arrested, reportedly. Bear in mind that Hafte-Tir Sq is a few hundred yards/meters away from the former US embassy compound. 2:26am ET: All shops and roads around former US embassy compound are forced to close. All streets around the ex-embassy are also blocked by regime’s security forces. There are confirmed reports of heavy clashes between people and Basijis in Tehran. Shots have been fired/heard around the embassy compound. 2:35am ET: Reports have it that Neda’s mother has been arrested when she showed up for protests in Hafte-Tir Sq. 2:45am ET: Basij is reported to be using a local mosque as an interim detention center. Women are beaten violently. People are urged not to enter narrow alleys as they are being used to capture protesters. Tehran’s subway/metro system has been shut down. 2:55am ET: Majority of protesters are peaceful and non-violent. CNN International will have the coverage of the protests any minute now. Karoubi has been seen among the protesters. People are urged not to go in any narrow streets or alleys as they are being used as baits by Basij forces. 3:09am ET: On the phone with a friend from Hafte-Tir Sq (main spot of protests): Large crowds of people are reported/seen. Police presence is frightening. Helicopters are seen flying over the crowd near the former US embassy compound. 3:27am ET: Russian embassy is heavily protected by security forces. Regime fears that people might try to attack the Russian embassy in Tehran. The official anti-US protest is now over.

Updated: Planet Iran news website is doing a great job putting the news and info together.

3:37am ET: Karroubi has been seen under attack from regime’s thugs and reported to have been detained. 3:50am ET: Video of today’s protest in Tehran. The common chant is „Death to Dictator“. The security forces are beating every one including by-standers. Tear gas is extensively used to disperse the remaining protesters.

4:09am ET: Three more videos from Tehran’s protests. Here is Al-Arabiya TV coverage of protests.

Obama Snubs Iran’s Democrats

Akbar Atri und Mariam Memarsadeghi über Obamas Umgang mit den iranischen Demokraten:

Many Iran experts have warned that displays of Western solidarity could taint Iran’s democrats. Nonsense. Iranian cyberspace is brimming with anger at what the Green Movement sees as betrayal by the West. From legendary filmmaker Mohsen Makhmalbaf, presidential candidate Mir Hossein Mousavi’s representative in Europe, to Nobel Laureate Shirin Ebadi, Iranian democrats are expressing disappointment at what they see as the trading of their democratic aspirations for dubious progress toward the goal of preventing a nuclear Iran.

„Engagement,“ it turns out, is about nuclear weapons alone—no matter how many innocent Iranians are being beaten, tortured, raped and killed for expressing their hope for change. The Islamic Republic is none too pleased with America’s new insistence on talking. President Ahmadinejad boasts on state media about his breakthrough achievement—getting respect and deference from the U.S.—while he proceeds to reject already watered-down nuclear proposals.

Can the Obama administration achieve anything with Ahmadinejad’s cabal on the nuclear front that could possibly justify its betrayal of the Iranian people and American values? We think not. And we believe the administration still has time to change course and not lose the faith of a people longing to join the Free World.

In practical terms, regaining the trust of young Iranian democrats will require: publicly pressing the Iranian regime to respect human rights; integrating discussion of the regime’s treatment of its opposition in all formal negotiations; reviving U.S. government funding to support the Internet, free media, people-to-people exchanges, and training on civic engagement; and leveraging the popular Voice of America and Radio Farda broadcasts to directly express American solidarity with the Iranian people.

Doing otherwise risks further alienating the democrats, while giving the Iranian regime time to obfuscate and further build its nuclear capacity. Surely this is not the sort of engagement that Mr. Obama would want to be his legacy.

Video: Radical Islam and Rogue Regimes – Security Challenges for America and Israel

Das Jewish Policy Center stellt einen Videomitschnitt zur Verfügung, in dem Michael Medved, Douglas Feith, Cliff May und Michael Ledeen über das im Titel genannte Thema debatieren.

Ebenfalls sehenswert ist ein Fernsehdebatte mit Michael Rubin, die bei Spirit of Man verlinkt ist.

The Iran Problem

Victor Davis Hanson und Robert Baer diskutieren für die Hoover Institution mit Peter Robinson über den Iran und die Bedrohung durch das Atomwaffenprogramm.

hat tip: The Spirit of Man

No means nothing else but No

Bret Stephens schreibt im Wall Street Journal alles, was es über die Verhandlungen mit der Islamischen Republik zu wissen gibt:

I once overhead a guy try to make a date over the phone. His end of the conversation went roughly as follows:

„How about Friday?“ (Pause.) „Not Friday? Because I’m free most of the weekend.“ (Pause.) „Not this weekend? What about next Saturday?“ (Pause.) „Are you free at all next week?“ (Long pause.) „Well, are you ever free?“

Apparently she was not, at least as far as he was concerned.

Now it’s the turn of the Obama administration to play the guy who won’t take a hint. And it falls to the Islamic Republic of Iran to be the girl who’s hard—actually, impossible—to get. [...]

Now American negotiators are dealing directly with their Iranian counterparts, which is just fine with Ahmadinejad. „As long as this government is in power, it will not retreat one iota on the undeniable rights of the Iranian nation,“ he said last week. „A few years ago, they said we had to completely stop all our nuclear activities. Now look where we are today.“

It’s hard to deny the truth of that statement. It’s also hard to deny that for all of Iran’s stalling and cheating, the regime has been crystal clear about where it means to go. It bespeaks a degree of self-respect—the kind that tends to grow stronger the more the opposite party abases itself. Here’s hoping someone in the administration can explain to her colleagues that, in matters of diplomacy no less than in matters of the heart, No means nothing else but No.

Atomic oops

Amir Taheri über das atomare Topfschlagen:

At the start of this year, Iran had 800 centrifuges enriching uranium. It now has 8,000, half of them in operation. Thus, Iran already has the capacity to enrich enough uranium for making one Hiroshima-size bomb a year.

The process could be speeded up by operating the „new advanced“ centrifuges that Iran says it already has. With 30,000 to 40,000 centrifuges, it could produce enough material for one bomb within weeks.

In a commentary published Oct. 23, the official news agency IRNA boasted: „If Iran wants to build nuclear weapons, it has no problem with fissile material.“

Emphasizing the point, it declared that Iran had reached „the threshold or breakout“ stage, meaning it has the wherewithal to become a nuclear power.

In a speech Thursday, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad described the latest negotiations as „a diplomatic victory“ for his administration. He said he welcomed „nuclear cooperation“ with the 5+1 group — but would not accept the deal in „the form presented to us.“

Even if Iran had accepted the original deal, the real question would have remained intact: Should Iran comply with Security Council resolutions or not?

The true dispute is over forcing Iran to shut down its uranium-enrichment program altogether, not about helping Iran with a higher grade of uranium. By ignoring the UN resolutions, the 5+1 are giving Iran a license to build the bomb.

Erdogan gegen Sanktionen (und ergo: für die Barbarei)

Nachdem der türkische Ministerpräsident Erdogan die Islamische Republik Iran im Allgemeinen und deren Präsidenten Mahmud Amadinedschad im Speziellen als „Freunde“ bezeichnet hat, legt er nun noch einmal nach:

Der türkische Ministerpräsident Tayyip Erdogan hat internationale Sanktionen im Atomkonflikt mit Iran in scharfen Worten verurteilt. In einer im Fernsehen übertragenen Rede bezeichnete er die Strafmaßnahmen am Samstag als arrogant und erhob im Gegenzug die Forderung an Staaten wie die USA, Großbritannien und Frankreich, ihre Atomwaffen abzugeben.

„Diejenigen, die diese arroganten Sanktionen wollen, müssen als erste diese Waffen abgeben“, sagte er. „Wir teilen diese Haltung mit unseren iranischen Freunden, unseren Brüdern.“

In Zusammenhang mit der jüngsten Abkehr der Türkei von Israel liegt der Schluss nahe, dass sich da jemand mit Nachdruck für die EU empfehlen will.

Podcast: Matthias Küntzel über den Iran und die Rolle Deutschlands

Bei der Nordhessischen Neuen Zeitung gibt es einen Audio-Mitschnitt eines von Matthias Küntzel gehaltenen Vortrags zum Thema „Friedlich in die Katastrophe? Der Iran im Nahen Osten und die Rolle Deutschlands“:

Mitschnitt eines Vortrags von Dr. Matthias Küntzel (29. Oktober 2009, Kassel): Iranische Regierungsvertreter haben in verschiedenen Zusammenhängen und zu verschiedenen Anlässen den Holocaust geleugnet. Gleichzeitig wird Israel als Fremdkörper und Hauptfeind bezeichnet und es gibt es verschiedene Äußerungen, die Israel mit der Zerstörung drohen. Die Atomrüstung des Irans ist daher weniger eine Bedrohung Europas sondern vielmehr eine Israels. Berlin ist als wichtiger Handelspartner und bevorzugter Ansprechpartner des Iran in dieser Auseinandersetzung besonders exponiert. Die besonderen Beziehungen zwischen Teheran und Berlin sind auch historisch bedingt. Gibt es eine historische Kontinuität von der »Achse der Arier« während des Dritten Reichs, der Freundschaft zwischen Westdeutschland und dem Schah bis hin zum aktuellen deutsch-iranischem Verhältnis? [Anhören]

Tough Choice

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on Thursday called on the United States to drop its support for Israel to prove its claim of wanting change.

„You have to choose between your prestige in the world or support for the Zionist regime – Israel,“ Ahmadinejad said in a speech in Mashad in north-eastern Iran that was broadcast on television. „You have to chose one of the two options.“

Leider irrt Ahmadinedschad: Obama hat keine Wahl zu treffen, Obama scheint seine Wahl längst getroffen zu haben:

The Obama administration is quietly laying the groundwork for long-range strategy that could be used to contain a nuclear-equipped Iran and deter its leaders from using atomic weapons.

U.S. officials insist they are not resigned to a nuclear Iran and are pressing negotiations to prevent it from joining the world’s nuclear club. But at the same time, the administration has set in place the building blocks of policies to contend with an Iran armed with atomic weapons.

Those elements, former officials and analysts said, include the newly revised defense shield for Europe and deeper defense ties to Gulf states that feel threatened by Iran.

Victor Davis Hanson ist dennoch verhalten optimistisch:

Will an inexperienced Barack Obama, in the fashion of Harry Truman, learn quickly that the world is chaotic and unstable—best dealt with through strength and unabashed confidence in America’s historic role galvanizing democratic allies to confront illiberal aggressors?

Or will a sermonizing Mr. Obama follow the aberrant Democratic path of the sanctimonious Jimmy Carter: finger-wagging at allies, appeasing enemies, publicly faulting his less than perfect predecessors, and hectoring the American people to evolve beyond their supposed prejudices?

America awaits the president’s choice. The world’s safety hinges upon it.

Armageddon Time

Victor Davis Hanson und Richard Baer sind sich über fünf Punkte einig:

The first: If not already capable of doing so, Iran will be able to produce nuclear weapons in mere months.[...]

The second observation: The Iranians have no interest in running a bluff. Once able to produce nuclear weapons, they will almost certainly do so. [...]

The third observation: As the Iranians scramble to produce nuclear weapons, the Obama administration appears too feckless, inexperienced or deluded to stop them. [...]

The fourth observation: Israel cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran.

„The Israelis have some bunker busters,“ Baer said. „They could take out some sites underground. They could set the Iranian nuclear program back years.“ Would the Israelis be willing to accept the risks a military strike would entail? „This is just 65 years after the Holocaust,“ Hanson said. „My God, we are talking about 6 million people who were executed while the world watched, and now we have a person [Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of Iran] who is promising to do it again.“

What is the probability that Israel will strike Iran within the next six months?

„Forty-nine percent,“ said Baer.

„I would say 50-50,“ Hanson replied.

The final observation: Iran would retaliate.

Erdogan: Iran Is Our Friend

Der Guardian berichtet:

And sitting in his grandiose headquarters beside the strait, long the symbol of Turkey’s supposed role as bridge between east and west, Recep Tayyip Erdogan had little doubt about who was a friend and who wasn’t.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s radical president whose fiery rhetoric has made him a bête noire of the west? „There is no doubt he is our friend,“ said Erdogan, Turkey’s prime minister for the last six years. „As a friend so far we have very good relations and have had no difficulty at all.“

We Have Met the Enemy

Pflichtlektüre für alle Appeaser: Michael Ledeen beschreibt im Weekly Standard zunächst – was jeder weiß, aber kaum jemand ausspricht, schon gar nicht die amtierende US-Regierung -, dass sich die Islamische Republik längst im Krieg mit den Vereinigten Staaten und der freien Welt befindet. Dies betrifft vor allem, aber gewiss nicht nur Afghanistan und den Irak, weshalb gilt:

Therefore, in Afghanistan as in Iraq, no matter how well we do, no matter how many high-level targets we eliminate, no matter how many cities, towns, and villages we secure, unless we defeat Iran we will always be designing yet another counterinsurgency strategy in yet another place. We are in a big war, and Iran is at the heart of the enemy army. Alas, no American president since the Islamic Revolution has been willing to face the consequences of Iran’s war against America. Most of the time, our leaders have refused to accept the fact that Iran will do everything possible to dominate or destroy us. Instead of trying to defeat the mullahs, every president has sought rapprochement, just as Obama is doing now.

Eine Handlungsempfehlung gibt Ledeen auch:

Most of the needed support is political: calls by top American officials for the release of political prisoners, equal rights for women (for which Mousavi’s wife has been a charismatic advocate), and freedom of speech, press, and assembly. The president could earn his Nobel Peace Prize by condemning the regime’s slaughter of its own people, by instructing the timorous broadcasters at VOA’s Farsi Service to report more vigorously on Iranian actions, by helping the independent Iranian-American and European radio and TV stations beat the regime’s jamming, and by supporting software to evade the mullahs’ „filtering“ of the Internet and cellular phone calls. Finally, Obama could suggest to his friends in the labor movement that it is long past time to build a strike fund for Iranian workers. None of this is very hard, and it’s a lot easier than trying to talk the mullahs out of their nukes or facing a nuclear Iran when we fail. It’s strategically sound and morally right. And it will change the world for the better.