NIAC and the Iranian nuclear threat
Dr. Trita Parsi, is President and founder of The National Iranian American Council (NIAC), a Washington, D.C.-based non-profit organization "dedicated to advancing the interests of the Iranian-American community.”
Practically all his academic writings as well as the activities of his NGO make every possible effort not only to denounce any talk or steps for a possible military solution to the Iranian nuclear threat but also argue “that additional sanctions are not a substitute for diplomacy and their inevitable failure would put the United States back on a path to war with Iran.”
On March 4, Dr. Parsi published his “Reaction to Obama's AIPAC speech” which you can read below.
Today, March 5, NIAC posted a Full Page Ad in Washington Post: No Iran War of Choice (see below);
The Ad, signed by several American high level military and intelligence officers is citing Secretaries of Defense Gates and Panetta and the last two Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dempsey and Mullen out of context, giving the impression that they actually are part of the signatories of the ad.
NIAC and Dr. Trita Parsi have been accused in the past by several journalists that they are connected to the Islamic Republic.
I will not enter the dispute what is exactly the status of NIAC and its precise objectives.
It seems however that there is no serious attempt there to analyze the threat from a nuclear Iran to the national strategic interests of the United States and its allies, not only Israel but first of all the Gulf and Arab countries.
But I ask also how the regime in Tehran is evaluating these positions and if they will not convince themselves that with such “objective” allies, to use the Marxist terminology, there is indeed no real American military threat to their nuclear military ambitions and they can continue to cheat on the proposed “diplomatic” track.
Ely Karmon
Ely Karmon, Ph.D.
Senior Research Scholar
International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) and
The Institute for Policy and Strategy (IPS) at
The Interdisciplinary Center (IDC)
Herzlyia, Israel
Tel.: 972-9-9527277
Cell.: 972-52-2653306
Fax.: 972-9-9513073, 972-9-7716653
E-mail: ekarmon@idc.ac.il
Web: http://www.ict.org.il/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reaction to Obama's AIPAC speech
Please see below my thoughts on President Obama's speech at AIPAC. Feel free to quote.
Trita Parsi
“Despite the words of friendship, the diverging perspectives of the Obama administration and the Netanyahu government on key issues in the Middle East – the Arab uprisings, the Palestinian issue and the Iranian nuclear program – are profound.
The dispute on the nuclear issue is centered on red lines. Israel, like the Bush administration, considers a nuclear capability in Iran a red line. It argues that the only acceptable guarantee that Iran does not get a nuclear weapon is for Iran to have no enrichment program.
The Obama administration puts the red line not at enrichment – which is permitted under international law – but at nuclear weapons. This is a clearer, more enforceable red line that also has the force of international law behind it.
While expressing his sympathy and friendship with Israel, Obama did not yield his red line at AIPAC. With the backing of the US Military, he has stood firm behind weaponization rather than weapons capability as the red line.
He said: “I have said that when it comes to preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon (emphasis added), I will take no options off the table, and I mean what I say.”
This is crucial because it is essentially a question of war and peace.
Critically, Obama’s rejection of containment at AIPAC was in the context of containing a nuclear-armed Iran, not a nuclear capable Iran.
He said: “Iran’s leaders should know that I do not have a policy of containment; I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.”
Nowhere in the speech is he aligning himself, or even mentioning, the Israeli red line of “nuclear capability.”
The President’s tough words regarding his readiness to use military action is all in the context of preventing a nuclear weapon in Iran, not a nuclear capability. Strikingly, the president uses the D word – diplomacy – more than the M word – military action – in his speech (even though he primarily presents it as move that enabled greater sanctions on Iran.)
The Israeli red line is a fast track to an unnecessary and counterproductive war. This is why the US military and Obama so adamantly opposes this red line – because it ensures both war and a nuclear-armed Iran down the road.
No comments:
Post a Comment