Time to bring home the Subbotnik Jews of Ukraine and Russia - by Michael Freund

...Through stubborn dedication and determination, the Subbotnik Jews have somehow managed to keep the flame of Jewish life alive despite everything they have endured. Israel should now bring home the remaining Subbotnik Jews of Russia and the Ukraine to ensure that heroic blaze is never extinguished.

Michael Freund..
Pundicity/JPost..
27 January '16..

Last week, amid subfreezing temperatures in a Ukrainian city founded by Cossacks, I saw living proof that the Jewish spark can truly burn brightly even under the most unlikely circumstances.

Indeed, while the snow in Krivoi Rog may be kneedeep, blocking roads and turning thoroughfares into slippery escapades, that doesn't seem to deter the small local community of Subbotnik Jews from faithfully trudging to their modest synagogue, where they continue to turn their hearts and their hopes toward Zion.

Rivka, a young member of the community, is a student of architecture at the local university who has taught herself to speak Hebrew. When I asked her how she envisions her future, she said, "I want to live in Israel so that with God's help I can have a Jewish wedding and educate my children in the spirit of Torah. This is very important to me."

Andrei, who is 19, told me that his dream is to serve in the IDF.

"I believe that doing so is a mitzva and that defending the Land of Israel is something sacred," he said.

The 200-year-old saga of the Subbotnik Jews is one laced with tragedy and persecution, but characterized by tenacity and resolve, and it is time for Israel to reward their fidelity and bring these precious people home.

The Subbotniks' origins trace back to southern Russia in the late 18th and early 19th centuries, when Judaizing sects arose for reasons that various scholars have struggled to explain. According to Czarist archives and Russian church documents of the time, the movement spread rapidly and grew to number in the tens of thousands.

While remaining Christians, many adherents took on some Jewish practices, such as observing the "Subbot," or Sabbath, on Saturdays, leading them to be referred to as "Subbotniks."

Among them, however, was a small group which left behind the Russian Orthodox faith and underwent conversion to Judaism.

They referred to themselves as the "Gerim," using the Hebrew word for converts, and began to practice Judaism openly, which in Czarist Russia was no small feat.

These Subbotnik Jews observed Jewish law, married Russian Ashkenazi Jews in the city of Voronezh, and some sent their children to learn in yeshivot in Lithuania and the Ukraine.

Their embrace of Judaism did not go unnoticed, and the Russian regime wasted little time in trying to destroy the movement.

U.S. Security Guarantees, the Ukraine, Iran, and the Threat of a Nuclear Middle East

...without considering America’s Ukraine policy, it’s impossible to grasp quite how disastrous the emerging Iran deal really is. To understand why, consider the curious threat issued by an unnamed White House official last week, in the run-up to Netanyahu’s speech: “The dispute with Netanyahu prevents all possibility for discussing security guarantees for Israel as part of the emerging Iran deal.” That particular threat was empty, because Israel has never wanted security guarantees from this or any other administration; its policy has always been that it must be able to defend itself by itself. But if Washington was considering security guarantees for Israel, it’s surely considering them for its Arab allies, since they, unlike Israel, always have relied on America’s protection.

Evelyn Gordon..
Commentary Magazine..
04 March '15..

One very important word was missing from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech to Congress yesterday. Not that I blame him; inserting “Ukraine” into that particular speech would have been counterproductive. Yet without considering America’s Ukraine policy, it’s impossible to grasp quite how disastrous the emerging Iran deal really is.

To understand why, consider the curious threat issued by an unnamed White House official last week, in the run-up to Netanyahu’s speech: “The dispute with Netanyahu prevents all possibility for discussing security guarantees for Israel as part of the emerging Iran deal.” That particular threat was empty, because Israel has never wanted security guarantees from this or any other administration; its policy has always been that it must be able to defend itself by itself. But if Washington was considering security guarantees for Israel, it’s surely considering them for its Arab allies, since they, unlike Israel, always have relied on America’s protection. In fact, there have been recurrent rumors that it might offer Arab states a nuclear umbrella as part of the deal, so they wouldn’t feel the need to develop nuclear capabilities themselves–something they have long threatened to do if Iran’s nuclear program isn’t stopped.

And a year ago, such a promise might have worked. After all, America’s guarantees had proven trustworthy in the past; see, for instance, 1991, when U.S. troops liberated Kuwait from Iraq’s invasion.

But last year, Russia invaded Ukraine, exactly 20 years after the latter gave up its nuclear weapons in exchange for a signed commitment by Washington, Moscow, and London to respect its “independence,” “sovereignty,” and “existing borders” and “refrain from the threat or use of force” against its “territorial integrity or political independence.” After swiftly annexing Crimea, Russia proceeded to foment rebellion in eastern Ukraine; the rebels now control sizable chunks of territory, thanks mainly to arms, money, and even “off-duty” troops from Russia.

And what have Ukraine’s other guarantors, America and Britain, done to uphold the commitment they signed in 1994? Absolute zilch. They refuse to even give Ukraine the arms it’s been begging for so it can try to fight back on its own.

And Yet More Dangerous Administration Leaks. Why?

...The leak from what must be senior officials raises serious questions that beg for answers especially at a time when the administration has been on a jihad against leakers. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this story is either the work of anti-Israel figures working in the Pentagon or has been orchestrated by the administration in order to deter Israel from continuing its efforts to prevent weapon transfers to terrorists and, as Haaretz speculated today, to, in effect, warn the Syrians and let them prepare in advance for subsequent strikes.

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

There is nothing particularly shocking or surprising about the content of the story published today by the New York Times about Israeli attacks on missile sites in Syria. The fact that Israel has launched air strikes on targets in Syria containing weapons that could be used to strike the Jewish state, such as the Russian-made cruise missiles said to be in a warehouse that was hit in Latakia earlier this month, is not a big secret. That some of those weapons might have survived Israeli attacks and that its air force is certain to keep at it until it is sure they are destroyed rather than passed into the hands of Hezbollah seems logical. But the fact that this report was based on detailed classified information that was leaked by people the Times identifies as “American intelligence analysts” and U.S. government “officials” is both shocking and surprising.

The leak from what must be senior officials raises serious questions that beg for answers especially at a time when the administration has been on a jihad against leakers. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this story is either the work of anti-Israel figures working in the Pentagon or has been orchestrated by the administration in order to deter Israel from continuing its efforts to prevent weapon transfers to terrorists and, as Haaretz speculated today, to, in effect, warn the Syrians and let them prepare in advance for subsequent strikes. Either way, this has made an already dangerous situation even more troubling.

This is not the first time official American sources were used by the Times to report on Israeli efforts to deal with the chaos in Syria. Nevertheless, the administration seemed to condone Israel’s actions. Indeed, it has appeared at times as if Washington was quite happy to let the Israel Defense Forces do its dirty work for it as the U.S. preferred to keep “leading from behind” while others dealt with the mess that American indifference helped create.

Israel has no clear vested interest in either side winning the Syrian civil war. The Assad regime kept the cease-fire with Israel but if it survives, as it looks as if it will, it will be even more indebted to its Iranian allies. From the frame of reference of the Jewish state, there’s not much to choose from between a dangerous dictator aligned with Iran and Hezbollah and an alliance of rebels that includes al-Qaeda elements. But it does have a clear interest in preventing Russian weapons from being transferred to the Hezbollah mercenaries who are winning the war for Assad.

Mandel - Why Putin Accepted Israel Invitation

Seth Mandel..
Commentary/Contentions..
26 June '12..

Earlier this month, after the announcement of Vladimir Putin’s planned trip to Israel, Jonathan wrote that the visit made a point about Israel’s legitimacy among the nations of the world. It may be surprising—or at the very least ironic—that an authoritarian leader struggling with his own crisis of legitimacy back home could confer any legitimacy on a free, democratic country like Israel. But it was true, and confirmed this week when Putin finally made that trip. The Jerusalem Post reports:

Labor MKs expressed outrage on Monday that Russian President Vladimir Putin did not make time during his short visit to Israel to meet with their party chairwoman, opposition leader Shelly Yachimovich….

“It is outrageous that he did not meet with her,” a Labor MK said. “It presents a message that there is a lack of legitimacy for her job if leaders ignore her when they come here. It harms Israeli democracy.”

I don’t think many would agree that it harms Israeli democracy—nor could Putin possibly care less about anyone’s democracy. But the legitimacy argument is one that has followed, taunted, tempted, and usually disappointed Israel throughout her modern existence as a state. There is a reason it is at the heart of the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations—whether or not the Palestinians will recognize Israel, and whether the Arab states will normalize relations with Israel. Those Arab states are generally no better than Putin when it comes to their support for rogue regimes and terrorist groups (and in some cases are actual rogue regimes themselves).

But removing Israel’s isolation on the world stage is an essential goal both for Israel and for the international community, which quite often asks Israel to do its dirty work, like taking care of budding nuclear reactors, or to accept Jewish, Arab, and African refugees that others won’t.

Mideast Strategic Perversity

At a time when Israel’s security environment is worsening, in no small part because of the Obama administration’s strategic weakness, Israel is being pushed hard by that same administration into making its security environment even worse.


P. David Hornik
pajamasmedia.com
21 September '10

Russia has decided to sell Syria P-800 Yakhont supersonic anti-ship cruise missiles despite heavy Israeli and American protests.

Last month Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally asked Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin to call off the sale. The U.S. is also described as putting up “stiff opposition” to it. Yet over the weekend, Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov announced the sale in Washington during talks with U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates.

Both the U.S. and Israel fear that the Yakhont, a difficult-to-intercept missile that cruises just above sea level at twice the speed of sound, could threaten their naval vessels in the Mediterranean. They are also concerned that Syria could transfer the missiles to Hezbollah. In the 2006 Second Lebanon War, Hezbollah hit an Israeli missile boat with a Chinese-made missile, killing four crew members. The missile had been smuggled into Lebanon through Syria.

That not even Israel’s superpower ally could dissuade Russia from taking this aggressive, dangerous step is unfortunately part of a pattern. Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz have noted in the Wall Street Journal that, even at a time when the major European states and Japan are cutting business ties with Iran, Russia (along with China) is stepping in to fill the void.

Russia’s energy conglomerate Gazprom, in particular, “continues to explore whether to expand Iran’s oil and gas pipelines, a critical development” that could offset Europe’s ban on the transfer of liquefied-gas technology to Tehran.

It was only last June that the Obama administration was hailing Russia’s (and China’s) aye vote on UN Security Council Resolution 1929, which imposed stiffer sanctions on Iran, as a triumph of unity. More generally, Russia — along with Iran itself — is one of those countries inimical to the West with which Obama has earnestly sought to make friends.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Russia Engages Hamas

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
01 July '10

Wow, I’m not used to my predictions coming true this fast! In a meeting with a diplomat, I said that one of the most important features of the Middle East soon would be a Russian alliance with the Islamist forces. Russia was already Syria’s arms’ supplier and ally, Iran’s friend (though it did support limited sanctions because there are other interests it must consider), and now is working with Hizballah. It was only a matter of time, I added, before Russia took a pro-Hamas stance as well.

I walked home quickly, sat down, and opened my computer and here it is:

“Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said...that his country was doing the right thing in its direct talks with the Hamas organization. `Yes, we are holding talks with Hamas – because it was elected by a large Palestinian majority in free elections, according to all elements….’’’

But this is okay says Lavrov, because Moscow is telling Hamas to become moderate and is even “witnessing positive movements."

(Read full post)

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.
.

Ahmadinejad Threatens Russia, Receives Response

A. Savyon
MEMRI
Report#614
27 May '10
Posted before Shabbat
H/T to Bruce

(One can only imagine that Ahmadinijad has become so accustomed to his dealings with the West, that he momentarily forgot himself. Y.)

Introduction

In the past 24 hours, there has been an exchange of harsh words between Iran and Russia. When Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad threatened Russia by saying that its policy was turning it into an enemy of Iran, the Russians responded by calling Ahmadinejad a demagogue, and by issuing an unprecedented warning to Tehran while reminding it of the historic power balance between the two countries – under which Russia took for itself lands from the 19th-century Persian empire and forced it to sign humiliating agreements accepting these terms.

The following are the details of the interchange:

Ahmadinejad: Russia's Position Against the Tehran Declaration Could "Place Russia in the Ranks of [Iran's] Historic Enemies"

In a May 26, 2010 speech in Kerman, Iran, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned Russia that its position against the Tehran Declaration could turn it into "an enemy of the Iranian people." He said:

"Russian leaders should not create a situation that makes [the] Iranian people place Russia in the ranks of their historic enemies. Today, it has become difficult for us to explain [Russian President Dmitry] Medvedev's behavior to the Iranian nation. The [Iranian] people don't know whether they [i.e. Russian officials] are our friends or are after something else."

He continued, "If I were the Russian president, when taking decisions on subjects related to the great Iranian nation, I would think things through more."[1]

(Read full report)

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.
.

Moscow’s opportunism in the Middle East

Tony Badran
NOW Lebanon
25 May '10

After a deliberately much-trumpeted visit by its president to Syria last week, Russia has been heralded, for the umpteenth time in recent years, as making a Middle Eastern comeback through Damascus. However, it would be more accurate to say that Russia sees Syria for what it is, a chip with which the Kremlin can play a game it masters with bigger players: perpetually leveraging arms sales to rogue regimes to extort never-ending concessions and to maximize its advantage at a time when the US, under the Obama administration, is entirely missing in action.

The fact that every so often we revisit this narrative of Syrian triumphalism on the back of a Russian regional resurgence ought to be enough to show that this isn’t about Syria or tilting the regional balance of power to its advantage. Rather, this is about Russian leverage against the US and Israel, and opportunism at a moment of American fecklessness. Arms sales are Russia’s instrument of influence in the region, not Syria.

Moscow sees a weak US administration in retreat from the region and is stepping into the void to see what it can claim for itself. Russian diplomacy has so far managed to balance the US, Israel and Iran, while safeguarding its commercial interests, which in turn allows it to continue extorting all three states in the future.

In return for effectively meaningless sanctions on Iran, the Obama administration lifted sanctions on four Russian companies, including state arms trader Rosoboronexport, which had been sanctioned for arms sales to Iran and Syria. Russia continues to string along the Iranians over the delivery of the S-300 air defense system, which Israel does not want to see in Tehran’s hands.

And the Israelis have something the Kremlin wants: airspace technology – specifically in developing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs). Moscow has purchased 15 Israeli drones for testing, and last month, state technology corporation Rostekhnologii expressed interest in possibly establishing a joint venture with Israel Airspace Industry to produce UAVs. According to media reports, Russia had invested $172 million in developing a drone project of its own that was a bust.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Syria, Iran, and Turkey Openly Defy Obama, as Russia Regains Mideast Influence

Barry Rubin
Pajamasmedia.com
13 May '10
Posted before Shabbat

The world is getting into the habit of making Obama look inept.

The U.S. sends a delegation to Damascus to wean Syria from Iran, and Syria promptly responds by inviting Iran’s president to the country and tightening the relationship. The U.S. praises Pakistan and sends billions in aid, and Pakistan responds by being less than cooperative in dealing with the Times Square bomber.

Now it’s Russia’s turn. Just hours after the Obama administration praised Russia for allegedly cooperating on sanctions against Iran — to justify pushing forward a bilateral nuclear weapons limitation agreement with Moscow — Russia eagerly responded by subverting U.S. Middle East policy.

Russian President Dimitry Medvedev visited Syria and Turkey, taking a very large entourage with him to work on trade and military cooperation agreements. In effect, these meetings marked another step in the creation of an anti-American alliance in the region with Russian backing.

How do we know about this alliance? Because Turkey, Syria, and Iran are openly declaring its existence. How do we know Russia is backing it? Because Medvedev is openly claiming this.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan declared Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to be a “friend,” and that Iran is using its nuclear program “for civilian purposes only.” He also said that Israel, not Iran, threatens regional stability.

Syrian government newspaper al-Baa’th declared, in so many words, that the Middle East is coming together in an alliance to reject Westernization, artificial borders, America, and Israel, while embracing various anti-Western conspiracies. What countries are in this new alliance?

Syria, Iran, and Turkey, with their great peoples and their lively peoples and their rejectionist [the Syrian term for radical, anti-Israel, and anti-American] policies are moving toward brotherhood.

The comments from Iran? President Ahmadinejad declared:

[The Americans] are forced to leave the region. … [The U.S.] government has no influence [to stop] … the expansion of Iran-Syria ties, Syria-Turkey ties, and Iran-Turkey ties. God willing, Iraq too will join the circle.

(Read full article)

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.
.

Obama Administration Embraces Russia As "Helpful"; Moscow Stabs U.S. in Back

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
13 May '10

If America's Middle East position collapses in the forest will anyone hear it? The answer is either: apparantly no, or just barely. As I've predicted Russia is coming back into the region and it is going to play a very bad role. Moscow is linking up with the emerging Islamist alliance of Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizballah.

Meanwhile, the Obama Administration praises Russia for allegedly supporting sanctions against Iran. Russian support, at best, consists of throwing a bucket of fluid over the sanctions' plan to water it down.

[Don't miss the amazing Russian statement cited at the end of this article.]

Back in the real world--the Middle East, not Washington discussions--let's begin with Syria. The Obama Administration says it is going to pull away Syria from Iran, but the two countries are coming closer together. Syria's open goal is to pull the United States away from Israel, but meanwhile Syria is finding still another ally to back its ambitions.

The recent visit of Russia's President Medvedev with a huge entourage was a major step toward reestablishing the old Soviet-Syria relationship. There were broad economic talks, including the possibility of Russia building a nuclear reactor for the Syrian dictatorship.

Acording to Mikhail Margelov, chairman of the Russian parliamentary foreign liaison committee, quoted in the Syrian newspaper Tishrin, May 12, the visit, "Is a clear indication to everyone in the Middle East region and on the regional and international level that Syria was and will remain a strategic partner to Russia...."

(Read full article)

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.
.

It’s tough to be Russian

Fresnozionism.org
30 March '10

Rob Vincent has a unique, very focused view of things. I hope you’ll enjoy this guest post.

By Rob Vincent

What follows below is not in any way meant to make light of the horrible suffering recently inflicted on Russian civilians in Moscow earlier this week.

However, given the experience of at least one country near and dear to my heart that has suffered to a far greater degree from Islamist terrorism over the past several decades, a country that has had a great deal of time to consider this matter and which has received voluminous advice and counsel from abroad on this topic, I would offer the following modest proposal to our friends in Russia:

They need to give independence to Chechnya.

Not that there’s a lot of international pressure on them to do so. Where is the ‘Chechen Authority observers seat’ in the UN? Where are all the college protests, the boycotts, the divestment campaigns over the brutal Russian occupation of Chechnya (and it really has been pretty brutal, incalculably worse than anything Israel has ever done)? Where are all the UN resolutions condemning Russia? Has the UN Secretary General made a tour of Chechnya lately? I kind of doubt it. Why isn’t the Obama administration threatening some kind of sanction or another against Russia, standing up to them, over the poor oppressed Chechnyans?

But why not? I mean, how about — dare I say it? — land for peace?

A perfectly reasonable request, I submit. If it is good enough for tiny Israel, I’m sure Russia — which has more land to spare than anyone — could set the example. After all, they are a member of the Quartet that presumes to tell the Israelis what they must do for peace, aren’t they?

(Read full post)
.

Obama Foreign Policy: One-Third of Its Term Done; Not A Hundreth of the Lesson Learned

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
25 March '10

Thinking about the Obama administration’s foreign policy makes me keep coming back to the following joke:

Three men are on a small plane, the pilot, a very important person (various names are used when people tell this joke), and a young hiker. The plane’s motor goes out and it is going to crash. The pilot tells the two passengers: Sorry but we only have one extra parachute.

The celebrity sneers, “I should get it because I’m the smartest person in the world.” He grabs a pack and jumps out of the plane.

“Sorry, son,” says the pilot. “We don’t have any more parachutes.”

“Oh, yes we do,” answers the teenager, “the smartest man in the world just jumped out of the plane with my backpack.”

If I were a cartoonist illustrating the joke in this case, I’d show a smug Obama jumping out of the plane with the backpack labeled, “U.S. national interests.”

This reflection is prompted today by a very predictable story—predicted by me repeatedly—that the administration is now further, and futilely, watering down projected sanctions on Iran in hope of getting Russian and Chinese support. Spring 2010 has arrived and after fifteen months higher sanctions, or indeed any credible U.S. deterrent, on Iran hasn’t. Even now it isn't clear if the Obama administration can get the nine votes needed in the UN Security Council to do anything.

Note that this is probably the last material effort the West will make to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons. Even if it takes Tehran a couple of years to do so, it's unlikely--given how long and hard it is to get even some symbollic sanctions adopted--that low administration will-power and international support will lead to anything else being done.

(Incidentally, the administration was supposed to be ready for this step, according to its own statements) in September and then December 2009. That it still hasn't worked out a broadly based plan is a sign of its incompetence. And remember this was a presidency which supposedly enjoyed strong international support.)

(Read full article)
.

Watch the Themes, Not the Headlines

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
24 February '10

A basic principle is to look at the underlying interests and perceptions of specific governments, not the immediate headlines. Over and over we see stories that prove false in a few days yet probably leave a lasting impression to the contrary on readers.

That thought is prompted by a recent flurry of stories that the Palestinian Authority is about to return to negotiations with Israel. In fact, for reasons I’ve outlined repeatedly in this blog (relating mainly to the radical nature of internal Palestinian politics) that isn’t going to happen for a long time.

Another story we keep hearing is about how Russia or China are about to support real sanctions on Iran. Yet every time an official from those countries makes a statement it is to the contrary.

(Read full post)
.

New Failures on Iran Sanctions: Will the Farce Never End?

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
17 January '10

It is literally incredible how ineptly the Obama Administration is handling the sanctions on Iran.

After flubbing both the September and December deadlines it set, now a meeting of the "Big Six" (Britain, China, Germany, France, Russia, and the United States) held in New York has ended without agreement on what to do next. The Russians are saying that they decided to hold more meetings with Iran, which has already clearly rejected the last offer made. A high-ranking U.S. official has spoken of the likelihood that the administration will be spending the next six months discussing sanctions. And meanwhile the administration has made clear that it has defined sanctions in a way that will be ineffective, that is focusing them narrowly on specific institutions supporting the regime and not on the Iranian economy.

This situation should be a case study on the Obama Administration's view of the world, diplomatic skills, and unwillingness to take even a moderately tough stance on handling critical issues. Remember that this is the president who said that his foreign policy would succeed because he wouldn't impose U.S. leadership but would instead seek consensus on every issue. Now we see the fruits of this mistaken strategy.
.

Falling Into Place

With all the debate going on in America about the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, and the "situation" with Iran, it is interesting that the vast majority of Americans have no idea of where these countries actually are!!* * *A look at the map shows what seems to be forming as a spreading Iranian area of influence bordered by Israel on the West all the way to India on its Eastern border. A worrying development for both of our countries.

Never Give Up

Jennifer Rubin
Contentions/Commentary
29 October 09

Bob Kagan asks a salient question: What will the Obama administration do when it’s clear (well, clearer than it has been) that we’re being played by the Iranian regime? He explains:

So now the test results are in: Iran’s intentions, it seems, are not good. Tehran apparently will not accept the deal but will propose an alternate plan, agreeing to ship smaller amounts of low-enriched uranium to Russia gradually over a year. Even if Iran carried out this plan as promised — every month would be an adventure to see how much, if anything, Iran shipped — the slow movement of small amounts of low-enriched uranium does not accomplish the original purpose, since Iran can quickly replace these amounts with new low-enriched uranium produced by its centrifuges. Iran’s nuclear clock, which the Obama administration hoped to stop or at least slow, would continue ticking at close to its regular speed.

Kagan implores the Obama team to show some spine and move ahead with sanctions to show we mean business. And really, if we didn’t get snookered by the Russians, they, in exchange for our selling out the Poles and Czechs on missile defense, “should come through by joining in sanctions.” Right? But like Kagan, I find it hard to believe that any objective evidence of “failure” will be taken to heart. We’ll simply double down, extend the deadlines, and continue the “hard work of negotiating.”

We’ve already refused repeatedly to take no for an answer on a series of deadlines, and have already absolved Iran for maintaining the secret Qom site. So why should we suddenly show some fortitude? We’ve already beckoned the mullahs back into respectable international company. We’re going to be the skunk at our own garden party?

The Obama team’s devotion to engagement has become a religious-like devotion. Contrary facts are reinterpreted to maintain the core ideology. We must simply be faithful and patient. As Kagan notes, it’s hard to escape the conclusion that ”engagement is an end in itself, not a means to an end.” If engagement ever stopped, we would have to dosomething. And if the vision of a grand multilateral international community doesn’t quite match reality we might — oh my! — have to act on our own. The imposition of American military power we’ve already been warned isn’t going to “permanently” solve anything. (Not like shipping part of Iran’s uranium to Russia to be replaced in a year, huh?)

Much damage has already been done by the faux negotiating. The Iranian regime has solidified its position and taken on an air of legitimacy. News of its suppression of dissent and brutality is out of the headlines. We’ve been enablers in the snuffing out of Iranian democratic protests. (Defunding them certainly went a long way in that direction.)

So will Obama show us he is the savvy negotiator and tough guy his ardent fans think he is? C’mon, it’s not like we’re talking about Fox News or the Chamber of Commerce.

.

Iran Outmaneuvers U.S. Government: Obama Scores Three "Own Goals"

Barry Rubin
The Rubin Report
11 September 09

President Barack Obama didn’t understand how quickly and easily his diplomatic “generosity” and readiness to make concessions becomes a trap or also how his self-professed reluctance to do anything tough turns into a terrible vulnerability. Now he faces being outmaneuvered by Iran.

The Tehran regime took three of Obama’s policies—engagement with enemies, global nuclear disarmament, and partnership over leadership—and has turned them against the U.S. government.

The score today is Iran: 3, United States; 0. And all three of Iran’s scores were actually U.S. “own goals.” For non-football—or if you wish soccer--fans, that’s when you kick the ball into your own goal scoring a point for the other team.

First, Obama has talked a great deal about engaging Iran, claiming this would show the world America’s good intentions and thus clear the way for tougher sanctions. By the time sanctions are raised, if they are, the Obama administration will have wasted all of 2009 on this process.

But guess what? The Iranians can play that game also. At the last minute, Iran came up with an offer to meet, obviously just a stalling tactic. Some in the American media fell for the trick, with the Los Angeles Times saying that it didn’t matter if the ploy was a trick the United States had to play along. Now that’s judo in action.

There’s more, however. Second, the Iranian regime said that it wouldn’t talk about its own nuclear program but proposed instead that all nuclear weapons in the world be eliminated.

Now where did they get this idea? Why, from Obama himself of course! He proposed this in his Cairo speech (and forgive me for reminding you I warned that this would happen) and he is about to chair a UN session on this very point. In fact, at Obama’s request, the session he’s running was changed from a debate focussing on immediate nuclear weapons' threats (Iran and North Korea to a general one about ridding the world of nuclear weapons. The Iranians will have a field day outmaneuvering him on this issue at the UN session.

And that’s not all! For this credibility through engagement thing works both ways. When Obama says the United States must show the world that it tried to engage Iran, he’s being not just Eurocentric but Western Eurocentric. There’s a flip side. Now Iran is offering to talk and the United States is refusing. This will make the United States look quite worse, very hypocritical in the Muslim-majority world and other places outside of Western Europe.

Third, the Russians accepted it. Jumping at the chance for an excuse not to raise sanctions, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said there won’t be any new sanctions because he thinks the Iranian proposals are just dandy and more time should be spent (wasted) in more meetings.

Incidentally, as I’ve previously reported, the Russians have been talking this way for months. Yet while the danger was clear, the Obama Administration ignored it, pretending all was well with Moscow. There was never any chance of the Russians, or China for that matter, supporting the U.S. strategy. Isn’t Obama going to look like a fool or failure when his grand strategy against Iran is shown to be hollow?

In the end, though, the Obama administration decided to step into the trap and negotiate with Iran. Why? Here's the key statement:

"..Officials said their expectations were extremely low. They also said their willingness to proceed was based in part on a recognition that some form of talks had to take place before the United States could make a case for imposing far stronger sanctions on Iran.

“`We’ll be looking to see if they are willing to engage seriously on these issues,'” said a State Department spokesman, Philip J. Crowley. “`If we have talks, we will plan to bring up the nuclear issue.''”

But why do there have be some kind of talks? Who is going to care? How long are these going to take, no doubt well into 2010. Also note that Crowley has to mention the nucler issue as only one of those being discussed. The Iranian regime will use all sorts of other issues as distractions.

Moreover we should remember this is a post-stolen election regime which is putting peaceful reformers on trial, and whose hardline defense minister is wanted for terrorism. Even if the United States would have been perfectly justified in carrying out talks with the Iranian government in the past, this is the kind of government which should be boycotted.

Remember that any government can have its policy fail but what's really a mistake is to pursue a policy which any serious and objective observer can see well ahead of time is inevitably going to fail.

So far the U.S. government is losing the game on own goals.
.

International Justice (1998)

Today's Golden Oldie is from ten years (11) ago this month. July 1998.

Saying that Israel is judged by a double standard is a waste of time. We know it. They know it. So in this cartoon I tried to wring a wry laugh out of the unfair and ugly situation.

A classic goal of much of Jewish Humor.