More evidence that Iran is exaggerating

The photos released of the latest missile test were apparently doctored to show more missiles than were actually launched.

That would also explain why some reports claim nine missiles were originally launched, yet according to this report:

Analysts said an early assessment showed that U.S. tracking systems detected seven missile launches, including a version of Tehran's longer-range Shahab-3, which officials have said has a range of 1,250 miles. Intelligence analysts were studying data from radar, satellites and other tracking systems to determine the distance it traveled, look at its accuracy and so on, one official said.

Is Iran weaker than we think?

Tensions between Israel, Iran, and the United States have heated up even further in a renewed round of sabre-rattling and accusations: Iran test-launched several missiles allegedly capable of reaching Israel, and has dredged up some rather dubious claims that Israel is secretly holding Iranian diplomats that disappeared during the Lebanese civil war in the 1980s. Meanwhile, the American and British navies recently wrapped up a simulated operation to protect oil interests in the Persian Gulf, which Iran has threatened to target in the event it is attacked.

Yet, at the same time, Israel just sealed a prisoner exchange deal with Hezbollah, Iran's proxy in Lebanon, and Syria and Israel are friendlier and closer than ever to direct talks. What gives?

It is possible that Iran, whose strength in the region has been apparently burgeoning, may have overplayed its hand and is bluffing right now to keep its tough image up, when, in fact, it faces a relative deterioration in its regional power in the future. Here are some reasons why that might be:

First, the U.S. revised its National Intelligence Estimate to suggest the Iranian nuclear program was less advanced and aggressive than previously thought.

Second, the recent gains in security in Iraq weaken Iran's status and influence in its traditional regional rival.

Third, there are reports that U.S. covert operations in Iran are underway, perhaps as a way to counteract Iranian operations in Iraq.

Fourth, Syria, not long ago Iran's best friend, now appears to be trying to get back into the good graces of the West, and has become curiously cordial with Israel, a peculiar development considering that Israel bombed a suspected nuclear weapons site in Syria last fall. As discussed in a previous post, it appears that this airstrike triggered some kind of turning point in the shifting relationships between Israel, Syria, and Iran, and it is possible that Syria invited the attack to eliminate an Iranian-affiliated military target on its territory.

Fifth, when a new president is elected in the United States in November -- either McCain or Obama -- the U.S. will attempt to cast off the legacy of George W. Bush and rebuild its international reputation. Therefore, there will presumably be less "reward" for reflexively anti-American behavior, and greater multilateral, international consequences for rogue actions. This, in part, explains why Syria wants to distance itself from Iran, and why Iran's status as U.S. public enemy number one will bring it less cachet come November.

Iran, with its opaque government structure, is a difficult country to read, but one thing is clear -- a war between Israel and the United States and Iran should be avoided. Israeli military officials often speak as if they are compelled to act militarily to stop Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, though, stopping weapons development in Iran is not a goal the Israeli military (or the U.S. military) can reliably achieve because Iran has anticipated such attacks and has hidden and distributed its facilities accordingly. An attack on Iran would merely ignite a destructive regional war with fronts likely at least in Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, and Israel, and the global oil supply coming out of the Persian Gulf would be cut off, leading to dire ramifications. That's why the best way to deal with Iran remains through diplomacy and containment.

Did Syria secretly tell Israel to bomb its own nuclear reactor?

A new report claims that the al-Kibar weapons site that Israel bombed in Syria last year was working to aid the Iranian nuclear program, with the help of North Korean scientists.

First, there are some questionable elements to this report. It is unclear why the Iranians would want to house one of their research facilities in a shaky country like Syria, or to share nuclear knowledge with the Syrians. And it appears somewhat convenient that this story comes out now: Israel and Syria have been very friendly (relatively speaking) lately, while Israel just finished a major military drill designed to send a public message of warning to Iran -- and now suddenly this nuclear site was an Iranian site after all.

However, let's assume that the story is accurate. Here's a novel theory about what may have been going on behind the scenes, and how Israel found out about al-Kibar in the first place. Maybe the Iranians basically forced the weapons site on their weaker ally, Syria, a few years ago so that they could conduct the more weapons-related part of their nuclear research far from the watchful eyes of the IAEA, and with plausible deniability as to Iranian involvement. Having enough problems of its own, Syria was unhappy about being used as Iran's nuclear playground, but, internationally isolated and domestically shaky, the Syrian regime couldn't very well tell their biggest ally, Iran, to buzz off and do their dirty work elsewhere. So instead they secretly invited their old friends the Israelis to clean up the mess. That would explain how the Israelis found out about the site and how they were able to destroy it so easily. That would also explain not only why the Syrians have been so very quiet after having their country bombed by Israel, but also why relations between Syria and Israel have apparently improved dramatically in the wake of the incident -- with current speculation about direct talks and a possible Olmert-Assad handshake.

Israel's Mid-Life Crisis

At 60, Israel appears to be going through what the cliches of pop psychology might call a mid-life crisis. Since the exit of Ariel Sharon, the last larger-than-life leader from the days of Israel's youth, everything has seemed just a bit blah for Israel. Here are some key symptoms of the crisis:

* Self-questioning - The secular majority in Israel seems to have lost its moral bearings and sense of purpose. This is not necessarily praise for the religious population, since their own moral vision can often be insular and restrictive. Yossi Klein Halevi puts the problem succinctly:

When socialism waned, the society lost its moral certainties. No official ethos has replaced Labor Zionism. Add three more factors--the rise of consumerism, the constant threat of war and terrorism, and the ongoing occupation--and the strain on ethical norms becomes formidable.

* Conspicuous consumption and indulgence in luxuries - Hello, Ehud Olmert. While Olmert is probably somewhat unfairly vilified for his extravagances (which aren't really that extreme, he has become a symbol of corruption, hedonism, and moral bankruptcy among Israel's leadership. Similar indulgences in corruption and hedonism among Palestinian Fatah leaders, combined with the inability of those leaders to achieve political goals, led to the erosion of popular support for Fatah and the rise of Hamas. Unfortunately, there is no party in Israel that can claim freedom from corruption--certainly not the religious parties. As an individual leader, Tzipi Livni has the cleanest hands around, if only because they are the least experienced.

* Sexual affairs, especially with someone much younger - The prime exhibit is Moshe Katsav, Israel's previous President, who was accused of rape. Of course, sexual affairs are nothing new, but Katsav's hesitance to resign contributed to the sense of shamefulness and crisis.

* A deep sense of remorse for goals not accomplished - Peace process, anyone? After 60 years, it's still a crowd-pleaser in much of the Muslim world to rant about wiping Israel off the map. Israelis are asking what, if anything, have they accomplished in terms of gaining acceptance from their neighbors?

* Desire to achieve a feeling of youthfulness - The military glories of Israel's youth resound in the national consciousness, but they are increasingly remote memories in a country that feels impotent in light of today's threats, despite its large military arsenal. The inconclusive Second Lebanon War was a major national embarrassment, as are the daily rocket attacks on southern Israeli towns from Gaza--not to mention the steady stream of belligerent verbal abuse wafting over from Iran.

How to cope?

The best treatment for a mid-life crisis is to change one's mental outlook, finding new purpose in your life without giving into quick fixes and poor decisions. It will take a new, younger generation of political leaders to restore faith, credibility, optimism, hope and a sense of civic mission to in Israel. Those leaders need to stand up soon, because political, military, and social challenges loom large on the horizon.

How to Take Over Lebanon: A Step-by-Step Guide

By Hassan Nasrallah

Step 1: When all Lebanese militias agree to disband in order to end a civil war and reach national peace and reconciliation, make sure your militia does NOT disband. In fact, make sure your militia starts arming itself ever more heavily with the most advanced weaponry that your friendly co-religionists can supply. That way you'll be able to intimidate the national army in no time. Now, the other Lebanese might not like all this very much, and they might start asking questions about why you need so many weapons - so that brings us to the next step.

Step 2: Create phony excuses for using your military power "defensively." Provoking Israel into attacking you will work wonders here. Try invading Israeli territory and killing and kidnapping their soldiers. You won't even have to kidnap too many -- the Jews are very touchy. This will create a great pretext for you to flex your military muscles and intimidate the rest of Lebanon.

Step 3: Now that everyone sees how many weapons you really have and how strong you are, demand control over all government decisions. This is a tricky step because the other Lebanese are still going to be hesitant to give you so much power. But don't give up, no matter how many months it takes. And if they still won't budge, then send your troops into the streets to fight and take over territory. Sounds risky, and sure, it will be a little bloody, but you don't really have to worry too much -- no one else has a militia anymore (see Step 1). After that, you'll be able to oust the government and get a veto over national decisions for sure.

What steps come next? Well, there are a couple of different ways you can go, but here's what I prefer.

Step 4: Consolidate your control over the government until it is absolute. Use that control to dissipate the power of the national army, so that it poses virtually no challenge to your authority. Of course, you will want to make sure you continue increasing your own military strength all the while, since that is the source of your power.

Step 5: Turn all of Lebanon into a revolutionary Islamic republic. At the end of the day, this is the goal that really keeps us going, right? Some people won't like this move (Christians, liberals, whatever). It's OK -- they will either get used to it or move to France.

Juan Cole's not so "Informed Comment"

In a post dated 4/26 Juan Cole comments on Israeli UN Ambassador to the UN, Dan Gillerman's denouncing of Hizballah. Cole writes:

"Gillerman called Hizbullah, an Arab party, "animals" in summer of 2006. Would he like to expand the reference to include other races? How many of us exactly are Untermenschen in his view? For Likudniks to call Jimmy Carter a "bigot" is sort of like the Ku Klux Klan denouncing Nelson Mandela for racial insensitivity.

Now one of Cole's readers responded to him and said,

"Juan Cole misquotes Israel's UN Ambassador, Dan Gillerman.

He said "Hezbollah" not "Arabs."

Here is his exact quote: "Why do you only address the Israeli bombings in Lebanon and not the shelling of our cities? Why don't you talk about the fact that those ruthless, indiscriminate animals yesterday targeted the holiest city, one of the holiest places to Christianity? Nazareth!"

To which our "informed" Juan says:

Yeah, I think you would find Hizbullah, those "animals" in Gillerman's terms, would be Arabs.

So Juan Cole, who spends countless Blog posts telling us that criticizing Israel and Zionism is NOT anti-semitic, even going so far as to say that a holocaust denier like Mahmoud Ahmedinajad (who said of Israelis, 'Are they human beings? 'They are like cattle, nay, more misguided.' A bunch of bloodthirsty barbarians.') was not Anti-semitic now tells us that to call Hizballah animals is racist because "Hizballah are Arabs." I'm guessing logic isn't Prof. Cole's strong point.

If that wasn't hypocritical enough, Gillerman's strong denouncement of Hizballah was in response to the shelling of the city of Nazareth - which anyone who is "informed" would know, is an ARAB city inside of Israel. Looks like "Informed Comment" isn't so informed after all.

Tony Blair Becomes Middle East Envoy

Today's New York Times had an excellent editorial on Tony Blair's appointment as Envoy to the Middle East and the steps that the Bush administration must take to ensure Blair's success:

Let Blair Be Blair

It is already clear what Tony Blair's first challenge will be in his new job as international envoy to the Middle East. Unless he stands up to the White House and insists that his responsibilities include peacemaking - not just fund -raising and "institution building" for the embattled Palestinian party Fatah, as the Americans insist - he will quickly be marginalized. You don't send a Tony Blair into a raging conflagration to stand on the sidelines and distribute charity.

The Palestinians desperately need economic development and better institutions. But these goals cannot be realistically separated from the larger challenge of restoring their belief in a livable future in a viable Palestinian state. The job of peace envoy is extremely challenging, requiring a leader of Mr. Blair's prominence and skills. The job of everything-but-peace-envoy is a cynical waste.

That was the unfortunate experience of the previous envoy, James Wolfensohn, the former World Bank president. Few people know more about fund-raising and institution building than him. But he couldn't make progress in the face of an immobilized peace process, an imminent Palestinian civil war and an American president and secretary of state who wouldn't deeply engage in peacemaking and refused to let anyone else try.

Mr. Blair's greatest talent is his ability to persuade, shame and
wheedle people into doing things they would just as soon not do. He should be
allowed to use it.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, to whom the White House now expects Mr. Blair to defer, regularly travels to the region but has repeatedly declined to put American influence to any constructive use. She has yet to propose a Rice plan and challenge those leaders to accept it. Nor has she pressed Israel's politically wounded prime minister, Ehud Olmert, to take the
necessary steps he feels too weak to take on his own, like a full settlement freeze.

Mr. Blair might not have been the ideal choice for this job. But he
brings real international stature and, we would think, a large claim on support
from President Bush, with whom he stuck loyally in Iraq at a huge cost to his
domestic standing and political legacy. As British prime minister, Mr. Blair
felt a need to swallow his pride and go along in silence. If he means to be
useful in the Middle East, he now needs to push back and make clear that the
role of a peace envoy is to negotiate peace.