Washington Post Editor Goes Gaga over Rouhani

...Didn't all these Netanyahu points merit some recognition by Baron and the Washington Post? Evidently not. Readers are left with an article that is neither fair, nor balanced, nor objective. And it comes to Post readers from the paper's new editor.

Leo Rennert..
American Thinker..
25 January '14..

The World Economic Forum in the Swiss resort of Davos has become an annual event that brings together elites from the worlds of politics, economics, finance, and the media. This year, the top attractions were Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Rouhani was in Davos to advance Iran's charm offensive and lull world leaders into overlooking Tehran's progress toward obtaining nuclear weapons; Netanyahu was there to prod and awake these same leaders to recognize Iran's real designs to eliminate the Jewish state and to achieve strategic primacy in the Middle East.

With Rouhani and Netanyahu poised to cross swords, Davos was ready for sparks to fly, given these clashing agendas. As far as the media were concerned, the stage was set for reports about real, eye-opening exchanges.

But, alas, that's not what the Washington Post served up to its readers, even though its Davos dispatch was credited to none other than Executive Editor Martin Baron, who made his own pilgrimage to the Swiss report. This also was the first time that the Post featured a Baron by-line since he was named to the top editorial post a year ago. (Secondary by-line credit was given to diplomatic correspondent Anne Gearan.)

But with Baron himself in the spotlight as lead writer, readers were given an opportunity to find out whether he could file an evenhanded, fair, and objective article, which might set a proper example to often biased Post correspondents who tend to whitewash Arab/Muslim sins while showing no reticence in bashing Israel.

Unfortunately, it was not to be. Baron's piece is replete with glorifying puff about Rouhani, while Netanyahu gets short shrift and back-of-the-bus treatment. Baron's 22-paragraph article is devoted almost entirely to Rouhani's supposedly big splash, while Netanyahu is relegated to the final three paragraphs ("Rouhani: Tehran is ready for a nuclear deal -- Iran's leader continues charm offensive at World Economic Forum" by Martin Baron and Anne Gearan, Jan. 24, page A11).

While the U.S. and Israel still believe that Iran is aiming to develop nuclear weapons, Baron writes that Rouhani's speech and a round of media interviews here continue a remarkable revamp of Iran's image abroad, led by the smiling multilingual cleric who on Thursday called his political philosophy 'prudent moderation.'"

Continuing Iran’s Long History of Nuclear Threats

...Perhaps negotiator Wendy Sherman and Secretary of State John Kerry should not be so grateful that Mohammad Javad Zarif, a man who as foreign minister has absolutely no power to affect Iranian behavior, has promised them that they can take Iran at its word.

Michael Rubin..
Commentary Magazine..
06 January '13..

Over at the Washington Free Beacon, Adam Kredo notes that yet another Iranian official has suggested that the Islamic Republic should utilize nuclear weapons in order to eradicate Israel:

A top Iranian lawmaker and cleric said that the country’s uranium enrichment program could allow it to build a nuclear weapon “in two weeks” in order to “put down Israel,” according to multiple reports in the Farsi language press. Iranian lawmaker and cleric Muhammad Nabavian said on Friday that Iran would be able to build a nuclear bomb in “two weeks” if it gets “access to 270 kilograms of 20 percent [enriched uranium], 10 tons of 5 percent, and 20 thousand centrifuges,” according to reports on Iran’s Radio Farda and in Fararu.

Nabavian’s statements may be shocking—seldom since President Hassan Rouhani took office and launched his diplomatic offensive have the views of those in Supreme Leader (and ultimate power) Ali Khamenei’s circle shown so clearly through—but they are not the first nor even the second nor third time that Iranian officials have let it be known that dropping an atomic bomb on Israel is not only possible but preferable:

Unable to negotiate constructively, instead points vast military forces towards Israel's capital

...While they sharpen their "Towards Jerusalem" military capabilities, Supreme Leader Khamenei and his 'negotiating' team are letting it be known in Geneva that no one should be expecting a happy ending until the 5+1 people first deal appropriately with what Abbas Araqchi, called by the BBC "a senior Iranian negotiator", with a "lack of trust".

Frimet/Arnold Roth..
This Ongoing War..
21 November '13..

Not that far from Geneva as the missile flies, where Iran and the P5+1 countries are conducting "nuclear talks" today, the ayatollah-rich regime that rules Iran is busy presiding over a military spectacle with a name that begs to be interpreted by people much closer to where we live.

The background details are here via an Adam Kredo article published in the past hour in the Washington Free Beacon:

Iran Launches ‘Massive’ War Drills | Drills Code-named “Towards Jerusalem” | Adam Kredo | Washington Free Beacon | November 21, 2013 10:19 am |

Iranian military forces launched a series of “massive military drills” across nine provinces on Wednesday following an order by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, according to state media reports. The drills, code-named “Towards Jerusalem,” will continue over the coming days and throughout the rest of the year.

At least three battalions of Iran’s “fast reaction” Basij Force participated in the drills, which come as Western nations and Iran try to finalize a deal aimed at halting the country’s contested nuclear program. A lieutenant commander of one of the volunteer fighting battalions said that the drills are meant to show off Iran’s ability to confront enemies at key points across the country, according to Iran’s state-run Fars News Agency. “The main purpose for these war games is to retain preparedness and increase the combat capability of the forces to confront any possible move by domestic and foreign enemies,” Hossein Karimi, lieutenant commander of the Golestan’s Neynava Corps, was quoted as saying.

Additional fighting brigades will enter the war games over the next few days and at other points throughout the year, according to Karimi.

State-run media published multiple pictures of the armed Iranian forces battling through explosions and taking enemy forces hostage.

The “Towards Jerusalem” military drills began on the same day that Iran dispatched a destroyer, helicopter carrier warship, and heavy submarine to East Asian waters. These military maneuvers also come just a day after back-to-back blasts at the Iranian Embassy in Beirut, Lebanon, killed 23 and wounded more than 100 others. Iranian officials immediately blamed Israel for the attack, despite an al Qaeda-affiliated group having publicly claimed responsibility [more]

(Continue)

Updates throughout the day at http://calevbenyefuneh.blogspot.com. If you enjoy "Love of the Land", please be a subscriber. Just put your email address in the "Subscribe" box on the upper right-hand corner of the page.Twitter updates at LoveoftheLand as well as our Love of the Land page at Facebook which has additional pieces of interest besides that which is posted on the blog. Check-it out! 
.

It isn’t “piffle” - CNN’s Holocaust-revisionism denial

...So why in this case, even after NPR and NBC and The Wall Street Journal and Al Monitor and the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies and CNN’s own translator and others uncovered the error, won’t CNN do the right thing by broadcasting a correction, as journalistic ethics demand? Why are those who rely on CNN the last to know the truth? Is it because Amanpour’s star power trumps accuracy? Is it because the wishful idea of Iranian moderation supersedes professional norms?

Gilead Ini..
Times of Israel..
17 October '13..

NPR knows it. NBC knows it. Even Iran’s Fars News Agency knows it.

CNN seriously mistranslated its interview with new Iranian president Hassan Rouhani, and it’s turning into a scandal that won’t go away.

Nor should it go away. The network’s refusal to fix the error is an inexplicable and serious violation of journalistic ethics.

At issue is whether Rouhani used the word Holocaust in his interview with CNN’s Christiane Amanpour and, in doing so, acknowledged the Nazi genocide. CNN says he did, and its translation allowed it to make the dramatic announcement in a headline late last month, “Iran’s new president: Yes, the Holocaust happened.”

Except Rouhani never did use the “H” word, or its Farsi equivalent. And he certainly did not acknowledge Hitler’s systematic murder of six million Jews. He referred only to generic Nazi “crimes” of questionable severity — and did so with such ambivalence that analyses in The New Republic and the Daily Beast convincingly argued that Rouhani was in fact engaged in old-fashioned Holocaust denial, albeit a more subtle version than that practiced by his outspoken predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

CNN’s false claim that “Iran’s new president has acknowledged the Holocaust,” though, set the tone for media coverage of the interview. Exculpatory headlines in major media outlets around the world announced the end of Iranian Holocaust denial. So when the radical and sometimes ridiculous Fars News Agency made noise about the translation error shortly after CNN broadcast the interview, it was easy to ignore. Fars, after all, is the same news source that republished an Onion article as truth, and the same organization that claimed an Iranian citizen invented a functioning time machine.

But then Sohrab Ahmari, a Farsi-speaking editor at The Wall Street Journal, went on record agreeing with the Fars translation. And The Journal itself published two separate editorials calling out CNN. Arash Karami, an Iranian journalist at Al Monitor, did his own translation, and also found that Rouhani never said “Holocaust” (or, for that matter, “reprehensible,” a word that also appeared in CNN’s translation). The editor of The New York Times’s Lede blog also consulted with two Iranian-American journalists, who checked off on the Fars translation.

I asked the Foundation for the Defense of Democracy’s Ali Alfoneh, an Iran expert and native Farsi speaker, who was right. He concurred with the independent translations — the word “Holocaust” was not said in the interview.

When confronted with their mistake, though, CNN seemed unmoved. Officials told The Wrap and The Washington Free Beacon that the translator was hired by the Iranian government. (Why exactly CNN would think that gets them off the hook is another question.) When contacted by CAMERA, senior CNN executives stonewalled.

Meanwhile, Christiane Amanpour, who conducted the interview, went on a counter-offensive. On Twitter, she accused The Wall Street Journal, and anyone else who would challenge CNN’s translation, of being willing to “jump into bed” with Iranian extremists. And when CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked his colleague about the issue, she tersely responded that the charges were “piffle.” Saying she didn’t want to dignify the issue with a comment, Amanpour told Cooper only that “We put the entire transcript up on line…. We have his translator. I speak Persian, I know what he said. It’s ridiculous.”

(+Video) Remember when appeasement made the world less safe?

...The British appeasement policy may have been popular in Britain and France, countries whose populations were not eager to go to war, but the end result was war in increasingly unfavorable circumstances and with greater casualties.

Michael Curtis..
American Thinker..
03 October '13..

The democratic countries of the world today may be heading towards a possible recurrence of a policy of appeasement, concessions made to an enemy or potential enemy in order to avoid a conflict or a resort to hostilities. The image of the supine pessimistic British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain needs to be remembered. It was he who submitted to and acquiesced in a policy that turned out to be disastrous, bringing war not peace.

The historic date was September 29, 1938 in Munich when Chamberlain accepted Adolf Hitler's demand that Nazi Germany would occupy the Sudetenland, part of the independent state of Czechoslovakia. The insatiable Hitler followed this in March 1939 by taking over all of the country, which then ceased to exist. The British appeasement policy may have been popular in Britain and France, countries whose populations were not eager to go to war, but the end result was war in increasingly unfavorable circumstances and with greater casualties. Appeasement had made the world less safe.

(A small reminder of the cost seems in order. The approximated death-toll of WW2 is placed at 60,000,000 to 85,000,000, 3.17 to 4.00% of the world population of 1939. Wikipedia  Yosef)

wolfmanwill Uploaded on Nov 15, 2010

Post-revisionist writers have suggested that a justification for Chamberlain's capitulation towards the Nazis between 1937 and 1939 was that he, a sincere if misguided individual, had no alternative. Today, a similar argument for non-action is being made regarding the attitude of Western countries, including the United States, towards the menace of Iran. It takes the form not so much of lack of alternative, but on the need for extended negotiations with a regime unwilling to fulfill its international obligations. The international community as a whole is refusing to acknowledge and meet the threat of a radical Islamic state, Iran.

Since the Islamic Republic was established in 1979, the Iranian leaders have made no secret of their attitude to the State of Israel. Before then, relations, during the Pahlavi dynasty between Israel and Iran had been cordial, even close at times. Iran had been the second Muslim country, after Turkey, to recognize Israel as a sovereign state, and had supplied Israel with oil and entered into a number of joint projects. For its part, Israel viewed Iran as a friendly Muslim non-Arab power.

When Ayatollah Khomeini took power in February 1979 he cut off all official relations with Israel which he called an enemy of Islam and a little Satan, a friend of the Great Satan, the United States. The present supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei has restated this opinion with even stronger language. He sees Israel as a cancerous tumor in the heart of the Islamic world. He believes that the "fake Zionist regime will disappear from the landscape of geography."

NYT's Inane Anti-Bibi Editorial Not Aging Well

...They are not Netanyahu’s supporters in Congress but rather supporters of preventing a nuclear Iran. But acknowledging that would disrupt, of course, the leftist media’s obsession with the idea that Netanyahu is ever meddling where the New York Times thinks he doesn’t belong, namely American politics.

Seth Mandel..
Commentary Magazine..
03 October '13..

Yesterday’s edition of the New York Times featured the paper’s very silly editorial attacking Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for advocating on behalf of his country’s fundamental rights–a basic responsibility of political leadership and one that should not be considered controversial. But the editorial was unwise not only for its inanity but also because it was the kind of editorial that would most likely rot rather than ripen with age.

And it only took a day for that process to emerge, as several stories today make clear. But first, it’s instructive to review the point of the editorial, which can be understood in one of the paragraphs helpfully placed early on in the editorial:

Mr. Netanyahu has legitimate reasons to be wary of any Iranian overtures, as do the United States and the four other major powers involved in negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program. But it could be disastrous if Mr. Netanyahu and his supporters in Congress were so blinded by distrust of Iran that they exaggerate the threat, block President Obama from taking advantage of new diplomatic openings and sabotage the best chance to establish a new relationship since the 1979 Iranian revolution sent American-Iranian relations into the deep freeze.

They are not Netanyahu’s supporters in Congress but rather supporters of preventing a nuclear Iran. But acknowledging that would disrupt, of course, the leftist media’s obsession with the idea that Netanyahu is ever meddling where the New York Times thinks he doesn’t belong, namely American politics. The editors also stop just shy of calling the Israeli prime minister a liar, but indicate that they expect him to manipulate Congress into spreading false information. They also seem to think the American political system is powerless to stop Netanyahu from controlling American foreign policy even when the president of the United States disagrees with him.

And that’s only the third paragraph. “Wait till I get going,” a Times editorialist might say, echoing Vizzini. A day later, however, it’s appearing that the Times’s faith in Iranian President Hassan Rouhani’s willingness to negotiate in good faith is baffling to … Hassan Rouhani:

(+Video) Arlene Kushner from Israel - The Shock and the Pride

"In our time the Biblical prophecies are being realized. As the prophet Amos said, 'They shall rebuild ruined cities and inhabit them. They shall plant vineyards and drink their wine. They shall till gardens and eat their fruit. And I will plant them upon their soil never to be uprooted again.' "Ladies and gentlemen, the people of Israel have come home never to be uprooted again."

Arlene Kushner..
01 October '13..

What had me close to speechless earlier today was a quote by the venerable (sic) US Secretary of State, John Kerry. (With thanks to IMRA for putting it up.)

The source here is Al-Arabiya, but there are other sources as well (e.g., AFP), because the quotes are taken from a "60 Minutes" broadcast. Said Mr. Kerry (emphasis added):

"...a deal with Iran could be reached within months if Tehran proves that its nuclear program was not being used to build atomic weapons...

“We need to have a good deal here. And a good deal means that it is absolutely accountable, failsafe in its measures to make certain this is a peaceful program.

“If it is a peaceful program, and we can all see that - the whole world sees that - the relationship with Iran can change dramatically for the better and it can change fast...

"[the U.S. could consider lifting sanctions] by setting up a process that shows them how they can have this peaceful program without disturbing our efforts to make sure that no country is now going to build nuclear weapons."

http://imra.org.il/story.php3?id=61998

~~~~~~~~~~

Now, we all know that Kerry cannot be counted as one of the brightest secretaries of state the US has ever had. But even Kerry cannot be this dumb -- to really, truly imagine that Iran's nuclear development is for peaceful purposes as they claim.

~~~~~~~~~~

And that's precisely what is so mind-blowing here: this is pretend. Now we can understand why Kerry keeps talking about Iran "taking some enriched material out of the country," etc. He's not trying to totally dismantle their nuclear effort. (Which fact I have repeatedly pointed out.) He's looking for a way to give them a free pass so that no confrontation is necessary. Heaven forbid there should be confrontation. Even an "unbelievable small" confrontation. (I assume the allusion is obvious.)

Iran would not voluntarily permit the total dismantlement of its nuclear program, and achieving that goal would require confrontation. (Or at the very least a military threat that the nation would have to be prepared to stand behind.)

~~~~~~~~~~

And just in case Iran might not arrange things properly, to provide cover, Kerry is offering US help in setting up a peaceful program.

Consider: IF the Iranians really had a peaceful nuclear program, would they require US help in setting up a peaceful nuclear program????

Only one response is appropriate here: AGHH!

~~~~~~~~~~

IF Iran's nuclear plan is not peaceful (you think?), and if the Iranians lie and practice subterfuge (wow!), it might be fair to say that leaving them with enough nuclear material for what they refer to as peaceful purposes might result in its being otherwise diverted and misused.

No????

~~~~~~~~~~

There is one world leader, and only one, who is telling it like it is - refusing to put up with this nonsense. And thus my great pride: For I am speaking of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.



Benjamin Netanyahu, prime minister of Israel, addresses the 68th United Nations General Assembly at the U.N. headquarters, New York, Oct. 1, 2013:

Sugarcoating Holocaust denial and nuclear weapons

...that Iranian officials who engage in this “classic gambit of Holocaust deniers” can be sure that they will find a sympathetic audience. And there is every reason to think that somebody who nods along approvingly when Iranian officials equate the Holocaust with Israel’s policies toward the Palestinians will tend to believe that there is nothing wrong with Iran’s quest for nuclear weapons.

Petra Marquadt-Bigman..
The Warped Mirror..
01 October '13..

Every now and then, Ha’aretz publishes an article that reminds me of the times when I, as well as many other Israelis, used to read the paper religiously. Whether or not you agreed with its left-wing stance, Ha’aretz offered quality reporting and interesting views without continuously insinuating that the majority of Israelis are just a bunch of despicable right-wing morons who fully deserve to be hated by their righteous neighbors and the noble world at large.

The article that reminded me now of those good old times is by Chemi Shalev and is entitled “Iran’s Holocaust-denial trickery may point to nuclear duplicity as well.” Because Shalev responds to a pretty disgusting piece by his Ha’aretz colleague Anshel Pfeffer – who had penned what he probably considers a really witty rant on the “obsession with Rohani’s view of the Holocaust” – Shalev begins his piece by listing the large number of his family members who perished in the Nazi genocide.

He then goes on to make some excellent points:

“I am, admittedly, one of those Jews that my Haaretz colleague Anshel Pfeffer describes as being ‘obsessed’ with Iranian President Hassan Rohani’s efforts to obfuscate, bypass and sugarcoat his regime’s Holocaust denial and/or distortion. Rohani’s whitewash campaign, I confess, insults me personally.

But Iran’s ongoing Holocaust denial, absolute or partial, is much more than a personal or even collective affront. It is a telltale sign, first and foremost, of the Iranian regime’s abiding anti-Semitism, as the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum makes clear: ‘Holocaust denial and distortion are generally motivated by hatred of Jews, and build on the claim that the Holocaust was invented or exaggerated by Jews as part of a plot to advance Jewish interests.’

Consequently, if the blatant Holocaust denial of Iran’s spiritual leader Ali Khamenei and former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was a clear-cut manifestation of their ‘hatred of Jews,’ than the more sterile version of Holocaust distortion offered by Rohani and his Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is but a refined version of the exact same odious sentiment.

And while it may not be a conclusive litmus test for evaluating their commitment to a nuclear arrangement with the West, it is certainly valid to note that they may be playing the same game with their nuclear weapons program as they are with their refusal to accept the Holocaust. That just as they are couching their anti-Semitism in more palatable terms, so they are repackaging Iran’s continued drive to produce nuclear weapons in words that spark less suspicion and elicit less scrutiny.

This is no less a credible claim, to say the least, than the opposite contention that sees the Iranian leadership carrying out a miraculous and instantaneous 180 degree reversal, both in its anti-Semitic ideology and its overall nuclear policy.

And by the same token, the willingness of many in the media to isolate one or two catchphrase headlines from complex statements made in New York in recent days by both Rohani and Zarif […] in order to absolve them, more or less, of Holocaust denial, is grounds enough to suspect that Rohani may be getting a similar free pass when he protests his nuclear innocence.”

Later on, Chalev highlights another important point:

How about a simple "Show me your fatwa!"?

...Iran has been making great sacrifices for more than a decade to become a nuclear power, something which it correctly believes will change the balance of power in the Middle East, replacing US influence with that of Iran. Now it is on the verge of completing its project — is it likely to give up now just to end the leaky sanctions that it has borne up to this point? Would the US have scrapped the Manhattan Project in January of 1945?

Fresnozionism.org..
30 September '13..

Most of my friends have already heard this story, but if you are one of them, don’t skip it. There’s an important parallel.

When I served in the IDF reserve, my job was guard duty at Air Force installations. This is (or was) one of the lowest tasks in the army, being reserved for people who hadn’t done regular service, or who had various ‘problems’. And we were a motley bunch. In particular there was one guy who always wore sneakers instead of boots. He explained to his commanders that he had a ptor, a medical release.

One day in 1987 when we guarding Tel Aviv’s Sde Dov airport, we were informed that a helicopter carrying the Chief of the General Staff was arriving and we were to go out and meet it. With feelings of great importance (and relief from the crushing boredom of guard duty), we surrounded the landing area. The helicopter touched down, and out stepped the highest-ranking officer in the IDF, Dan Shomron, along with other generals, bodyguards, etc.

The first thing he noticed was the sneakers. Before he stepped into his car, he nudged a major, who spoke to my associate.

Major: You. What’s on your feet?
Cpl. X: Sneakers.
M: Why?
X: I have a ptor.
M: Show it to me.

Of course he couldn’t, since it existed only in his mind. There were unpleasant consequences for him.

Which brings us to the Iranian president, Hassan Rouhani. (h/t: Elder of Ziyon). Rouhani — and his predecessor Mahmoud Ahmadinejad — have claimed several times that Iran cannot develop nuclear weapons because the Supreme Leader has issued a fatwa [judgment of Islamic law] against it.

In fact, they even succeeded in persuading President Obama, who mentioned it in his speech at the UN last week. But like my unfortunate friend’s ptor, the fatwa seems to be imaginary. Read what MEMRI says about it:

Talk about “daylight” between the US and Israel!

But everyone can see that the US will not use force, that the calculation has been made that US interests will better be served by allowing Iran to build its weapons than to take the risks inherent in trying to stop it. So the US cannot make such a threat. Iran’s charm offensive has made it possible for the administration to delay or even avoid the embarrassment of admitting this.

Fresnozionism.org..
22 September '13..





NPR this morning:

Rachel Martin: After 34 years of open hostility, the United States and Iran appear to be on the verge of a historic thaw. Iran’s new reform-minded president Hassan Rouhani wrote in a Washington Post op-ed this week that he wants to move “beyond impasses, whether in relation to Syria, my country’s nuclear program, or its relations with the United States.”

Martin then introduces Trita Parsi of the Iranian-American council, who says that the Iranian PR campaign is “sincere” and that “reform-minded” Rouhani is “capable of delivering.” Parsi argues that Rouhani has been granted “flexibility” by the real power in Iran, the Supreme Leader Khameinei, and if he can “prove” that his softer approach will be successful in advancing Iranian interests, like removing sanctions, then we have a historic opportunity for rapprochement. In 2003, Parsi says, Rouhani and others made overtures to the US, which didn’t respond. Now we have another chance.

No one else is interviewed for this story, and Parsi is asked no probing questions.

On the face of it, Parsi’s argument is simply a non-sequitur. There is no evidence that the ‘softer’ approach is anything other than a PR device. There is no evidence that Rouhani’s ‘flexibility’ extends to a willingness to give up the development of nuclear weapons. Listen to what Barry Rubin wrote about this very subject today:

Rouhani is a veteran national security official. He was backed by the regime. The voters would not be allowed a choice of a reformer so they could only vote for a phony one.

Now what then happened?

“President Rouhani says Iran will never develop nuclear weapons.” But that is what Iranian leaders have always claimed!

The Los Angeles Times applauded that ten dissidents were released. But they weren’t even though the newaspaper said, “It’s Rouhani’s strongest signal yet that he aims to keep a pledge to improve ties with the West.” But he didn’t do it!

Rouhani said, “I have full authority to make a deal with the West.” But that’s what they said too!

He then implied that he reversed Iran’s denial that the Nazis committed a Holocaust of Jews. But even that turned out to be a lie here and here.

They also had a phony New Year’s greeting to the Jews. Rouhani added a Jew to the UN delegation of Iran, no doubt to tell how well they were treated. So Rouhani loves the Jews and wants to make peace.

Obama swallowed the bait, eagerly.

But note that Rouhani does not have a moderate record and meanwhile Iran now has troops in Syria. What suckers Americans are. They’ll still [be] talking about Iranian nukes on the day they get them and probably about Syria giving up chemical weapons, too.

Rouhani may speak more pleasantly than Ahmadinejad, but the scale of the Iranian nuclear program indicates that it is a major policy goal of the regime. It is hard to imagine that it would have gotten to the point it has, while defying international pressure and suffering (although not as much as one would like) from economic sanctions, just to dismantle the program as success is around the corner.

How open-minded? Rouhani is indeed so open-minded that...

...Rouhani is indeed so open-minded that on International Quds Day, the last Friday of Ramadan and key date in Iran's revolutionary calendar — an Iranian-orchestrated anti-Israel hate-fest in support of Palestinian victory over the Zionists — he called Israel "a sore on the body of the Islamic world". So accustomed was the Western media to former president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's preposterous Holocaust denials, calls for Israel's destruction, and reference to UN resolutions as "torn papers" that Rouhani's statement seemed like interfaith dialogue by comparison.

(credit: Ellie Foreman-Peck)

Emanuele Ottolenghi..
The Commentator..
08 September '13..

Since his surprise victory in Iran's presidential elections in June, Hassan Rouhani has enjoyed undeserved popularity among Western policymakers and opinion-formers alike. Though hardly a reformist, Rouhani has immediately won the label of moderate from all corners of the transatlantic political spectrum.

The Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt — the most likely candidate to replace Catherine Ashton as the European Union's High Representative for foreign affairs next year and thus to be the lead negotiator with Iran — tweeted on June 15:

"We should be open and see what changes election of Hassan Rouhani as new President of Iran might bring. We need to engage with Iran."

When, six weeks later, the US House of Representatives passed new sanctions against Iran, Bildt opined that the decision was "counterproductive at this time".

Ashton's predecessor, Javier Solana, took an even bigger leap of faith and flew to Tehran to attend Rouhani's inauguration on August 4. When he was directing EU foreign policy, Solana repeatedly hit the brick wall of Iran's negotiating tactics, and this included the period when Rouhani, as secretary of the Supreme Council for National Security, was in charge of them.

Showing how hope can triumph over experience, Solana still went on to declare to Bloomberg News: "Based on what I know of him, he is a politician who's perceptive and open-minded."

Rouhani is indeed so open-minded that on International Quds Day, the last Friday of Ramadan and key date in Iran's revolutionary calendar — an Iranian-orchestrated anti-Israel hate-fest in support of Palestinian victory over the Zionists — he called Israel "a sore on the body of the Islamic world".

Those who wish to avoid conflict with Iran at any price

...the cries of alarm emanating from Israel and Congress about Iran are not based in mindless hatred, as the Times implies. Instead they are based on a far more realistic assessment of Iran’s behavior and the ideology that drives people like Khamenei and Rouhani. But since telling the truth about Iran doesn’t help build support for more feckless diplomacy, the newspaper brands it as irrational antagonism.

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
26 August '13..

The willingness of much of the foreign-policy establishment and the mainstream media to embrace any opportunity to avoid conflict with Iran has never been much of a secret. Throughout the last five years, the administration has been able to count on unflinching support for its efforts to keep investing precious time and energy in a diplomatic process with Tehran that was dead in the water even before President Obama took office in 2009. After years of “engagement,” and two rounds of P5+1 talks that accomplished absolutely nothing, there’s no reason to believe the Iranians view negotiations as anything other than a clever tactic to buy more time to get close to their nuclear goal. But the election of a new Iranian president in June set off a new round of calls for yet more diplomacy. Hassan Rouhani’s false reputation as a “moderate” isn’t based on much; he’s a veteran of the Khomeini revolution, the regime’s involvement with foreign terror, and someone who has boasted of his success in fooling the West in nuclear talks. But as far as the New York Times editorial page is concerned, it’s enough to put on hold any toughening of sanctions on Iran, let alone talk about the use of force.

That the Times is eager to promote Rouhani as the solution to the nuclear question is not a surprise. But what it is a surprise is just how desperate they are to justify their position. In an editorial published today under the astonishingly obtuse headline of “Reading Tweets From Iran,” the newspaper seeks to treat the Iranian regime’s social media offensive as evidence of a genuine change in Tehran. To invest that much importance in what Rouhani’s staff says on Twitter in posts that are directed solely toward the West is laughable. No journalist at the paper would ever take the tweets produced by the official accounts of American politicians as anything but spin.

But far worse is the Times’s attempt to shift blame for the standoff from an anti-Semitic regime that is directly involved in atrocities in Syria and terrorist attacks around the globe onto Israel and its supporters in Congress. In doing so, the newspaper and the chattering classes whose views it represents are attempting to lay the foundation for President Obama to break his promises about stopping Iran and to treat those who object to such appeasement as opponents of peace. The editorial is right about one thing. If the administration is to betray its principles and appease Iran, it will require it to stop focusing on that regime’s record and instead lash out at those who are pointing out the truth about the threat it constitutes to the region and the world.

And so the new presidency of Iran continues as the old one intended to go on

The root of the problem with our relations with Iran is not a problem of mishearing or mis-speaking. It is a problem of our not listening. Not listening to the words that have repeatedly come from their mouths. And not recognizing that the whirring noise in the background is not the noise of their subtle brains working overtime, but of their centrifuges performing that very task.

Douglas Murray..
Gatestone Institute..
12 August '13..

Here we go again! Many will recall the former President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, referred to by the Western media as "controversial." Recently – with the sort of Foreign Office understatement which is both admirable and infuriating – the UK's paper of record described his eight year hold on the presidency as "turbulent." One has to wonders what it would take for them to describe a regime as "murderous," "terrorist" or "crazed."

Anyhow – with the "controversial" and "turbulent" presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad behind us, we now have the "moderate" and "reforming" presidency of Hassan Rouhani to look forward to. We know that it will be "moderate" and "reforming" because that is what, again, all the Western media has told everyone.

A few weeks ago, when this new "moderate" and "reforming" leader had just been elected, the British columnist and publisher Melanie Phillips found herself on the BBC's main political discussion show, "Question Time." During the program, the question of Syria and thus Iran came up. Phillips outlined the terrible ideology of the Iranian revolutionary regime. She pointed out, among other things, the intense and genocidal hatred which is at the root of its actions as well as its rhetoric. She even attempted to explain the peculiar end-time Shiite fantasies of the Iranian leadership. But the rest of the hall in London were having none of it. For her explanation, she was rewarded with boos and cat-calls from the audience and of course an unhealthy dose of incomprehension and disdain from her fellow panelists.

One of these fellow-panelists – a man so unremarkable that he is unremarkable even in his own Liberal Democrat party – Ed Davey, poured especial scorn on her. Without answering her charges, he explained that Melanie Phillips' comments were not merely wrong but "couldn't be more poorly timed." After all, he explained, the Iranian people had just gone to the polls and voted in a new president. And everybody knows that this is the time for the obligatory outpouring of optimism and mass idiocy.

And this, unfortunately, is the way in which the Western elites behave in relation to Iran. If there is a problem, it is pinned onto an individual rather than the regime. If there is a problem with the regime it is seen as something that can correct itself through – among other things – the miraculous and healing process of "an election."

Cancer imagery and an extreme hatred of the Jewish people

...It’s important to understand — and the cancer imagery makes this clear — that despite the various guises that the Arab-Muslim-Palestinian cause affects, there is one basic element that underlies it: an extreme hatred of the Jewish people and the desire for another genocide against it.

Fresnozionism.org..
05 August '13..

Rowhani’s comment about Israel being a ‘sore’ (whether or not he added that it should be removed) expresses a popular meme in the Muslim world. The idea is expressed explicitly in the Hamas covenant, and it often appears in PLO media. Palestinian Journalist Khalid Amayreh published an article in 2010 on an Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood website in which he called Jews “an abomination, a cancer upon the world.” Hizballah leader Hassan Nasrallah on Friday called Israel a “cancerous gland” which must be “excised,” echoing Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Other Iranian officials also use this language on a regular basis.

The idea persists, despite the fact that — by any objective standard — the behavior of Israel is anything but expansionist and invasive. Although Israel ‘grew’ at the expense of the Arab nations in 1967, it has eagerly abandoned most of the territory conquered in the name of ‘peace’, even when that goal proved illusory. It would probably have given it all up if the Arabs had been more focused on strategic advantage than honor and vengeance.

Since 1948, the Arabs (and from 1979, the Iranian regime) have persisted in trying to ‘cure’ the Jewish ‘cancer’, sometimes by war, sometimes by diplomacy and often by both at once. The Arabs seem to have learned by successive humiliations (which only deepen their hatred) that direct means will not be successful. Now they have adopted a multi-pronged strategy of military pressure combined with delegitimization to reduce Western support for Israel, along with diplomatic offensives at the UN and with the US to obtain a solid territorial base. Once this is achieved, they expect to finish the job in another regional war.

The Limits of Diplomacy and Iran’s New Leader, Hassan Rouhani

Clausewitz would have been proud. Using diplomatic skill, under Rouhani’s guiding hand, Iran not only preserved its power, but expanded it, particularly in progressing towards nuclear weapons. The only costs were economic, and the leadership was immune.

Gerald M. Steinberg..
Times of Israel..
02 August '13..

Hassan Rouhani, Iran’s new president, may sometimes talk like a “moderate”, but he clearly knows how to maximize power in the international arena. Rouhani’s record as Iran’s top nuclear negotiator reflects his inner Clausewitz — behind the winks and nods, the opening and closing of “windows of opportunity”, diplomacy is simply warfare by other means.

So while the leaders of the international community and accompanying choir of pundits sing Rouhani’s praises, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu strikes a different note:

“Fifteen years ago, the election of another president, also considered a moderate by the West, led to no change in these aggressive policies. Over the last twenty years, the only thing that has led to a temporary freeze in the Iranian nuclear program was Iran’s concern over aggressive policy against it in 2003.”

As Yehuda Yaakov, an Israeli Foreign Ministry senior specialist in political-military affairs, has documented in detail, Rouhani successfully shepherded Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program through its greatest crisis in 2003-2004. Yaakov’s research was presented in his MA thesis for the Israeli National Defense College, and the English text was published in June. (Full disclosure — I served as his academic adviser.) The analysis is based on extensive interviews with key Western diplomats, as well as documents from this period and public records, including a revealing speech by Rouhani in 2004 and the 2012 memoir of his aide Houssein Mousavian.

The case made by this evidence is compelling.

A thorough analysis of Rouhani’s conduct and statements while chief negotiator reveals the cardinal goals he sought to achieve through diplomatic engagement with the “international community” to advance the nuclear program; to deflect the use of force and sanctions; to bolster Iran’s regional status in strategic terms; and to orient the country’s inter-agency dynamic to confronting an international crisis waged against it. In conceiving and implementing this strategy, Clausewitz would have given him high marks.

Goering and Rohani, the failure of democracies to learn from history

...But what’s more striking and disconcerting than this apparent resemblance, is the readiness – if not alacrity – of the seemingly well-intentioned movers and shakers in the democratic world to seize on the tyrant’s front-man as their interlocutor.

Sarah Honig..
Another Tack..
27 June '13..

It was gut-wrenching to watch the world fawn over Iran’s new president. It was even more sickening to see ignorance parading as astuteness and profound insight.

We can only be mystified by how all those who never previously heard of Hassan Rohani instantly knew he was a famous moderate, that his election was a blow to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, that Khamenei was exceedingly upset by the people’s choice, even that he greeted it with a sour expression.

The consensus among the overnight experts on an esoteric arena was that the vote was a runaway surprise, where the forces of good walloped the forces of evil.

Non-too-amazingly, the White House orchestrated the optimism. US President Barack Obama's chief of staff informed us that Rohani’s victory was a "potentially hopeful sign" and that if Mahmoud Ahmedinejad’s successor behaved well, “he will find a partner in us." Spinning the spin on CBS's Face the Nation, Denis McDonough exuded hope: "If he [Rohani] is interested in, as he has said in his campaign, mending Iran's relations with the rest of the world, there is an opportunity to do that."

There was plenty more – most of it even worse – in the same pathetically out-of-the-loop vein from every democratic corner on this planet. But the truly frightening fact is that it’s not for the first time.

Self-bamboozlement appears to be chronic. Not too many years back, the conventional wisdom worldwide was that that Syria’s new leader Bashar Assad, who had then just inherited the Damascus throne from his deceased father, was an enlightened almost-democrat.

Why? He was an ophthalmologist who trained in the UK, spoke fluent English and surfed the web. Moreover, his lanky figure, fair complexion and sheepish appearance conveyed the impression of an easygoing urbane antihero – a man the West can do business with. On the basis of nothing more, the pressure on Israel mounted to cede the Golan to the eye doctor, the very one now exposed as a ruthless butcher. Imagine if we fell for the con and ushered Assad’s forces to the shores of Lake Kinneret.

But who cares about us? It was always the same. Jewish existential woes were forever a negligible footnote – if even that – to assorted appeasers who couldn’t wait to lavish their trust upon another deserving despot. The sorts they, out there, laud as potential peace-partners, should send cold shivers down every spine – particularly Jewish spines over here.

Not too many of us are aware nowadays, but there was a school of erudite thought in the 1930s that perceived Adolf Hitler as the Third Reich’s man caught in the middle. That broadminded view held that the fuehrer wasn’t the most extreme in the cast of Nazi characters, that it was possible to tame him – that he was pulled in contradictory directions by opposing forces.

Facing Realities - Tehran and Islamic Fundamentalism

Isi Leibler..
Candidly Speaking From Jerusalem..
24 June '13..

The enthusiastic media response to the election of the “moderate” and “reformist” Hassan Rouhani is reminiscent of the unrealistic drivel which greeted the “Arab Spring”. Indeed, there was perhaps greater justification for the misplaced optimism over the downfall of despotic Arab leaders than in the election of this Mullah, one of eight candidates approved by Ayatollah Khamenei from a pool of 686.

While Rouhani is far more sophisticated than his predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (a Holocaust denier who continuously called for Israel to be wiped off the map), he is no moderate. In the past he sought to cover up Iranian nuclear development, and during the recent elections reiterated that he remains adamantly committed to Iran’s nuclear project. In 1999 he supported the brutal suppression of the Iranian student protest. As a member of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, he was also fully au fait with Iranian global terrorist attacks including the 1994 bombing at the Buenos Aires Jewish community center (AMIA) which killed 85 and injured hundreds of others. Rouhani still unhesitatingly refers to Israel as the “great Satan”.

There are, in fact grounds for believing that Rouhani was the Ayatollah’s preferred candidate, on the grounds that his appearance of moderation could ease Western sanctions and reduce the threat of military action.

Besides, there is no doubt that the Ayatollah will continue to call the shots on this and all major policy issues. In 1997 Muhammad Khatami’s election on a reformist program was greeted as a turning point by the West, but merely resulted in stylistic changes, whilst the basic policies and structure of the radical Islamic regime remained unchanged.

Western leaders are already falling for the ploy: White House chief of staff Dennis McDonough referred to Rouhani’s alleged “moderation” as “a potentially hopeful sign” and EU foreign policy spokesman, Catherine Ashton, suggested that the president- elect who would not be taking office until August, be granted time to appoint new negotiators.

President Obama and other Western leaders, reluctant to resort to military action to prevent the Iranians from becoming a nuclear power, will likely use Rouhani’s cosmetic moderation to justify indefinite “ongoing negotiations”.

Terrorist? Absolutely - Introducing Hassan Rowhani, winner of the Iranian sham election for president

Jonathan S. Tobin..
Commentary Magazine..
20 June '13..

The chattering classes have been working overtime this week to sell Americans on the idea that Hassan Rowhani—the winner of the Iranian sham election for president—is not only a moderate but also the harbinger of a chance for a diplomatic solution to the nuclear standoff between the Islamist government and the West. Even if one were to accept the idea that the moderate in a field of candidates hand picked by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei is actually a person worthy of the label, the notion that this post brings with it the power to either liberalize Iran or to end its nuclear program is simply false. But, as a report from our former COMMENTARY colleague Alana Goodman in the Washington Free Beacon points out, there’s more proof that Rowhani is up to his neck in the nefarious actions of the regime. It turns out that, as we’ve previously noted, Rowhani was not only an acolyte of Ayatollah Khomenei but deeply involved in the international terrorist wing of Iran’s Islamist movement. As Goodman writes:

Iranian President-elect Hassan Rowhani was on the special Iranian government committee that plotted the 1994 bombing of a Jewish community center in Buenos Aires, according to an indictment by the Argentine government prosecutor investigating the case.

The attack on the Argentine Israelite Mutual Association (AMIA) is one of the worst terrorist attacks in recent history with 85 killed and hundreds more wounded. After a lengthy investigation, the evidence uncovered by Argentine authorities pointed directly at the Hezbollah terrorist group and its Iranian masters who made the decision to launch the attack on the Jewish target at a meeting of a committee of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council in August 1993. Khamenei was the head of the group, but one of its members was none other than the person that we are supposed to think is about to change Iran against the supreme leader’s wishes: Hassan Rowhani.

Though Iran’s apologists are unhappy about this revelation, there is no serious effort being made to claim that Rowhani is not guilty or that his role in the crime is being exaggerated. But some of those who have been advocating for the United States to embark upon a new round of dead-end diplomacy because of Rowhani’s rise are bound to argue that the evidence of his past should be ignored or treat it as irrelevant to the question of whether we should consider his election an opportunity for another round of engagement with Iran. That would be a colossal mistake. Understanding Rowhani’s background is crucial to the question of whether he is willing to move Iran back from the nuclear brink and what it tells us should put an end to any hope that he is anything like a moderate.

We will be told that Rowhani’s participation in mass murder should not blind us to the fact that sometimes people change and that former terrorists can become responsible leaders. But such examples (which are rare and often misinterpreted) are generally the product of a genuine change of heart and an ideological shift. And there is no evidence that Rowhani has undergone either.

Iran’s ‘Moderate’ Khomeinist - The Courting Has Already Begun

Or as a former head of the Mossad station in Tehran and prime ministerial adviser put it more pithily: “We will miss the Ahmadinejad era. He spoke like Hitler and the world knew him.” Israel’s leaders will, of course, try very hard to clarify Tehran’s game of deception to top Western officials. Their work will be cut out for them.

P. David Hornik..
frontpagemag.com..
18 June '13..

“Let us not delude ourselves. The international community must not become caught up in wishful thinking and be tempted to relax the pressure on Iran to stop its nuclear program,” Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu told his cabinet in response to Hassan Rouhani’s clear-cut victory in Iran’s presidential elections.

Netanyahu’s fears are, unfortunately, well founded. There is nothing the West loves more than another round of appeasement and deluding itself that the wolf has magically turned into a sheep.

Rouhani, on Monday, already spoke what appeared to be conciliatory words. He promised “greater transparency” in Iran’s nuclear program that would “make clear for the whole world that the steps of the Islamic Republic of Iran are completely within international frameworks.” He said Iran would engage in “constructive interaction with the world through moderation.”

The Wall Street Journal had already reported that “the Obama administration and its European allies” were “surprised and encouraged” by Rouhani’s win and “intend to aggressively push to resume negotiations with Tehran on its nuclear program by August to test his new government’s positions….”

These eager plans come just as Israeli intelligence minister Yuval Steinitz has been warning that Iran is now “very close” to the nuclear finish line and that its nuclear industry is already “many times larger than that of either North Korea or Pakistan.”

But should Rouhani be given a chance? Is it just possible that, as the Wall Street Journal report describes Washington and Brussels as hoping, his “unexpected victory could pressure [Iranian Supreme Leader] Khamenei into softening his position on the nuclear issue or scaling back Tehran’s broader rift with the West”?

Not according to more sober, knowledgeable voices.