Iranian Scientist Sought Israel's Annihilation

This is interesting news. According to Iranian press, the wife of an assassinated Iranian nuclear scientist confirms that her husband's "ultimate goal" was the annihilation of Israel. So much for Iran's nuclear ambitions being only peaceful. This is yet another indication that it is not.

Jordan Cozies Up to the Bully

Israeli Middle East analyst Barry Rubin has a good piece out today on Iran and its regional influence.

Rubin observes that, as Iran continues to advance along its road to nuclear weapons capability, its neighbors are sensing they had better make nice to Iran because no one will protect them once Iran goes nuclear. It is an ominous sign of the progress Iran is making and the fear taking hold among America's closest allies in the region.

Inconvenient Truths Are Helpful Reminders

Inconvenient truths. By now, it's an overused phrase, most attributed to former U.S. Vice President Al Gore and his book and movie about global warming and the failures of U.S. environmental policy.

But Inconvenient Truths also is very relevant to the Middle East time and again. The most glaring example is news about autocratic Arab leaders and their largely disfunctional, disappointing governments -- "inconvenient" to hear because many in the West prefer the stability of such leadership to the uncertainty that could follow their demise.

As the Middle East Contrarian, I'm all about sharing inconvenient truths -- facts that people would prefer not to hear but, indeed, need to hear for there to be any progress toward a solution to the problems that pervade the Middle East. And what better time to once again stand true to this guiding principle than on one's birthday.

Today, I'd like to share the contents of two editorials from today's newspapers in Israel. The first reminds us of the futility of diplomatic efforts to persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program. While some people cross their fingers hoping -- or worse, thinking -- that such efforts will succeed, us realists know already this is unlikely and wait patiently for the others to come around. The problem is waiting affords Iran additional time to develop nuclear weapons and further delays real, preventative action.

Israel's daily Ma'ariv considers recent US statements that have downplayed the possible need for military action against Iran in light of what the leaked cables have said regarding Arab countries' warnings and fears over Iran's nuclear project: 'The clear conclusion is that the chance that the US will attack – or support an attack on – Iran is close to nil, and this assumption must cause us all to lose sleep. Israeli decision-makers must internalize this picture of the situation, make decisions based on realistic options and rely less on hopes that America will take part in any solution vis-à-vis Iran.'

Today's Turkey is a huge disappointment. Liberals look to Turkey as a beacon of hope among the Muslim world, as a bastion of relative moderation. The "inconvenient truth," however, is that Turkey sadly no longer merits such distinction, and we ought to come to terms with that and act accordingly with policies that might convince the Turks to change course. The second editorial, from Israeli daily Yediot Achronot, addresses this issue:

The WikiLeaks documents have only confirmed US and European fears over the dangerous regime that has taken power in Turkey.... Turkey, under its current Islamist government, has been drawing ever closer to 'the global axis of evil' and the US and Europe [ought] to treat it accordingly. '[Turkish Prime Minister] Erdogan himself misses no opportunity to wildly incite against Israel. Europe has already changed its attitude toward his regime, and today, it has no chance of being accepted into the EU. The time has come for the US Congress to treat the growing Turkish threat with utmost gravity.'

USIP Event Announcement Distorts the Facts

The United States Institute of Peace, based in Washington, DC, has announced an event on October 20 to discuss developments relating to the U.S., Israel, and Iran. But the announcement itself is misleading in at least two respects.

First, the USIP says that Iranian leaders have gone "as far as" to question Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state.

In fact, Iran has gone much farther. Iranian President Ahmadinejad has said Israel "must be wiped off the map." In other words, he has not just said, well, Israel maybe shouldn't exist. Ahmadinejad has actually advocated Israel's destruction, albeit leaving it unclear who should be responsible for destroying it.

While left-wing defenders of Iran have sought to excuse Ahmadinejad's remarks, saying either he didn't really mean it or his words were improperly translated, Ahmadinejad himself has defended his statement as "just" and reflecting the sentiments of all Iranians.

Second, the USIP annoucement attempts to depict the U.S. and Israel as at odds over Iran when, in fact, the two allies are much more in sync than in disagreement. The USIP says, "Israel's leaders have signaled their displeasure with any sustained U.S. bid to engage Iran."

While some Israeli leaders may have, on occasion, questioned U.S. attempts to engage Iran diplomatically, Israel's prime minister constantly speaks in support of the U.S. Administration's ongoing and more pronounced effort to target Iran with economic sanctions.

At a press conference with U.S. Vice President Biden on September 3, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said, "I very much appreciate the efforts of President Obama and the American Government to lead the international community to place tough sanctions on Iran.... I think the leading countries of the international community have to join the American effort and Israel has been helping out with key countries and will continue to do so."

Rather than attempt to highlight differences between the U.S. and Israel over Iran, the USIP could have, and should have, highlighted that the two countries are in agreement about continuing to try to change Iranian behavior through economic sanctions. That, after all, is the primary focus of U.S. efforts at the moment -- not, rather, to "engage" Iran. As is, the USIP statement is unfair to Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship by understating the Iranian threat and mischaracterizing Israel's position on U.S. efforts to contain it.

Poor Timing for Expanded Peace Push

Iran's nuclear ambitions and sponsorship of terror should be curtailed before Israel is expected to concede territory to Syria in accordance with any future peace agreement. Otherwise, supposed peace agreements play into the Arab strategy of shrinking Israel in size while retaining the will and capability to attack.

After accompanying Secretary Clinton to the Middle East last week, U.S. special envoy to the Middle East and former Senator George Mitchell dropped in on Syrian President Bashar al-Asad in Damascus to reassure him that renewed focus on an Israel-Palestinian deal would not be to Syria's detriment.

Mitchell reportedly said, "Our effort to resolve the Palestinian-Israel conflict in no way contradicts or conflicts with our goal of comprehensive peace between Israel and Syria."

Seizing on Mitchell's remarks, Israel's left-leaning, liberal daily Ha'aretz is calling for a renewed push on Israel-Syria talks. The paper says the Israeli government should "seize the opportunity for peace currently materializing" and "achieve a peace agreement that will provide great advantages to this country."

Ha'aretz probably calculates that such an agreement, likely requiring Israel to forfeit the Golan Heights to Syria, will involve Syria 1) expelling Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, and other terrorist groups from Damascus and 2) ending material and logistical support to Hizballah in Lebanon. It's doubtful Asad would actually ever do so, regardless of what he may agree to on paper, making a peace deal with Israel extremely risky and, essentially, useless. The "great advantages" Ha'aretz envisions from a comprehensive peace between Israel and all her neighbors, then, would not materialize.

Given the extent of the Iranian threat, it is unwise to advocate further land concessions beyond what Israel might make in the context of the current peace talks with the Palestinians. Ha'aretz's big rush to shrink Israel geographically before the situation with Iran is resolved involves too much risk.

A Fair Exchange

Iranian President Ahmadinejad and some aides have applied for visas to enter the Unied States to attend meetings at the United Nations later this month.

This weekend, Iran reportedly had planned to release one of three American hikers accused of spying and held without trial for almost 14 months, but decided instead to condition her release on first receiving $500,000 bail. Undoubtedly, she wouldn't return to stand trial, so the money would be forfeited to Iran's coffers.

President Obama -- who's felt obliged to weigh in on local issues such as the New York City mosque and the Koran-burning Pastor -- should speak out on this one and tell Ahmadenijad:

"If you want visas to enter the U.S., be sure the woman hiker is on your plane when you arrive."

It's that simple. Maybe if the U.S. stood firm and on principle, we would begin to reverse perceptions abroad of U.S. weakness, a theme which Secretary of State touched on in a speech last week. Why should Ahmadinejad enter the United States and dine in New York's finest restaurants while he continues to imprison three innocent American citizens?

Reward Outcome Not Effort

Ok, call me crazy, but I think that public servants should be honored and rewarded based upon the outcome of their efforts rather than those efforts in and of themselves.

Sure, merely trying hard is important and deserves recognition, but if nothing honorable comes of those efforts -- or, worse, they are a miserable failure -- then they don't merit praise.

Wouldn't you know it, I have two examples in mind.

The first is Mohamed ElBaradei, chief of the International Atomic Energy Agency, or IAEA. The Wall Street Journal recently reminded us that Mr. ElBaradei and the IAEA were awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 "for their work to prevent nuclear proliferation for military uses."

Meanwhile, the Journal reports that American and European officials recently accused ElBaradei of "playing down evidence pointing toward Iranian attempts to advance its nuclear program." European and U.S. officials have been "hearing much more alarming assessments" from IAEA technical experts than what ElBaradei is publishing or stating publicly. For instance, ElBaradei said recently that the IAEA "has no concrete proof of an ongoing nuclear weapons program in Iran." The buzzwords here being "concrete" and "ongoing," which ElBaradei uses to detract from the significance of the evidence he does have but doesn't want to share.

The truth of the matter is that ElBaradei's downplaying, for whatever reason, Iran's progress on nuclear weapons is delaying either economic sanctions or military action necessary to prevent a nuclear Iran from becoming reality. The point being: honoring ElBaradei with one of the world's most preeminent prizes was premature.

A second example: Dennis Ross, President Clinton's Middle East negotiator. Occasionally, I attend an event where Mr. Ross is a guest speaker and, invariably, after Ross speaks, some Jewish attendee prefaces his or her question with a statement lavishly praising Ross for all he's done for Israel and the Jewish people.

In reality, what Mr. Ross has done is the following: During the run-up to the outbreak of Palestinian violence in September 2000, Mr. Ross and his team ignored dozens of intelligence reports I wrote sending up warning signs of the peace process' imminent collapse. These reports revealed the revolving door of Palestinian prisons, weapons smuggling activity, and cooperation between Palestinian security services and terrorist groups. They also revealed Palestinian incitement and malintent. However, instead of stopping the process, Ross pushed on and what resulted was a war in which over 1,000 Israelis, and many more Palestinians, lost their lives. By holding Arafat to account, the war might have been prevented.

Nevertheless, Mr. Ross is continuously praised. People will say, "Well, he tried" to end a seemingly intractable dispute, but trying is not enough. Both ElBaradei and Ross have little positive to show for their efforts and must shoulder some responsibility.

I think the people who we honor should have clear achievements to their name, and not just a record of trying.

An Historic Speech Not to be Missed

Amid recent assertions by Iran's President that the Holocaust never occurred, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu yesterday presented the UN archival material maintained by the German government proving Nazi plans to exterminate Jews. Netanyahu also unequivocally rebuked a UN panel's report accusing Israel of war crimes in Gaza and urged the UN reject it. His audience listened intently to his every word, at one point interrupting with applause.

If you haven't seen the speech -- surely to be remembered as one of the best ever delivered by a world leader at the UN or anywhere -- make it a priority to do so this weekend, and tell your family and friends. Here is a link to part 1.

Terrorists Escaping Justice Begets More Terrorism

This week, Libyans celebrated the return to Libyan soil of the only person convicted in the Pan Am 103 Lockerbie bombing after Scotland set the ailing man free on "compassionate" grounds. He reportedly spent a mere 11 days in jail for each of his 270 victims killed in the attack and had been sentenced to at least a 27-year jail term.

Also this week, Ahmadinejad in Iran announced he'd appointed as Defense Minister a man wanted in connection with bombings of Israeli and Jewish targets in Argentina in 1992 and 1994.

The most important outcome of these developments -- aside from the terrible grief that victims' families will have to endure -- is that terrorists and future recruits the world over see that there is no price to be paid for engaging in terrorist activity. In the end, they and their deeds are celebrated and rewarded.

One of the reasons the Scottish Justice Minister decided to free the Libyan is because he deemed the man no longer a public threat. Perhaps the man himself will not further engage in terrorist activity, but his celebrated release will serve to encourage terrorists and surely result in more deaths of innocent Westerners and Muslims alike.

Obama/Biden: Right Turn on Israel

After blowing way out of proportion U.S. opposition to Israeli settlements policy and redirecting world attention from Palestinian reform efforts, where it ought to be, the White House is now starting to head in the right direction on Israel.

Over the weekend, Vice President Biden said Israel has a "sovereign right" to decide for itself whether a military strike on facilities associated with Iran's nuclear weapons program is in its national security interests.

Israel “can determine for itself as a sovereign nation what is in its best interest,” Biden said. "If the Netanyahu government decides to take a course of action different than the one being pursued now, that is their sovereign right to do that. That is not our choice."

Later, asked to respond to Biden's comments, President Obama, while traveling abroad, insisted the U.S. had "absolutely not" given Israel the proverbial "green light" to attack Israel but that "We can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are."

It is important that the U.S. continue to publicly recognize Israel's prerogative to determine for itself what, if any, actions are necessary to ensure its security and to assist Israel in any way possible to help provide security.

Making Excuses for Iran

In a news article today, the Washington Post reports that Iran has cut back on some of its nuclear activities, though it continues to make progress in other areas of its nuclear program.

By highlighting areas that suggest Iran is rethinking its nuclear ambitions and de-emphasizing those areas that demonstrate otherwise, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the news media follow the example set by a U.S. Office of National Intelligence report last year which said Iran had "halted" its nuclear weapons program in 2002 0r 2003, when in fact it was only a temporary tactic.

By cherry-picking facts and using half-truths, critics of a more aggressive stance toward Iran hope to recruit others to their cause. Their efforts, however, are extremely dangerous, as they lead others to a false sense that the Iranian nuclear program is not an urgent threat. Such interference makes it more difficult to confront Iran on this issue.

Even IAEA head El-Baradei is contributing to efforts to pull the wool over our eyes, when he said: "[The Iranians] haven't really been adding centrifuges" [for uranium processing].

Well, either they have or they haven't. El-Baradei's attempts to obscure the truth are shameful.