Yourish.com

Rouhani Roulette

On Friday, the soon to be inaugurated President Hassan Rouhani was reported to have made some very un-moderate comments about Israel. But then it turned out that the comments were not as bad as advertised.

Here are some tweets from Thomas Erdbrink, the Tehran Bureau Chief of the New York Times tracking the story:

Rouhani is actually remarkably mild, compared to others in Iran. Local media should be more careful with how they quote their leaders…

— Thomas Erdbrink (@ThomasErdbrink) August 2, 2013

Here is the link to a state TV clip of Rouhani's quote. I had it translated word-by-word by a native Persian speaker: http://t.co/lhD63GqdYC

— Thomas Erdbrink (@ThomasErdbrink) August 2, 2013

Incoming Iranian leader Hassan Rouhanicalls Israeli occupation "a sore" http://t.co/WAXOLOAllj – my story on today's erroneous translations.

— Thomas Erdbrink (@ThomasErdbrink) August 2, 2013

There are two especially notable remarks in these three tweets. The first is Erdbrink’s characterization if the just inaugurated President Hassan Rouhani of Iran as “mild.” The second is the phrase “erroneous translations.” With the first Erdbrink let’s us know his premise that Rouhani is reasonable. His reporting proceeds from that premise. To him the story wasn’t what Rouhani said but the mistaken translations. And that begs the question: if the (semi-)official news services that had reported Rouhani’s remarks as “Zionist regime is a sore which must be removed.” been accurate, would Erdbrink have taken care to get an accurate translation and report the story that contradicted his assumptions about Rouhani?

Later, Erdbrink’s story was combined with reporting from Jodi Rudoren, Iran’s President-Elect Provokes Furor Abroad With Remarks on Israel:

Attending an annual pro-Palestinian holiday in Iran known as Al Quds Day, a reference to the Arabic name for Jerusalem and an occasion in which Iranians march and shout “Death to Israel,” Mr. Rouhani told state television that “a sore has been sitting on the body of the Islamic world for many years,” a reference to Israel.

At least three Iranian news agencies appeared to misquote him as saying: the “Zionist regime is a sore which must be removed.” Later in the day they posted corrections.

Mr. Rouhani, who has sought to portray himself as a moderate, did not use the most inflammatory anti-Israeli invective sometimes heard from other Iranian leaders, most notably Mr. Rouhani’s predecessor, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called Israel a cancerous tumor, a virus and an aberration that should be expunged from history.

Then the report goes to say how Israel reacted, while emphasizing that Israel’s reaction was based on the erroneous translation.

When told later that the original translation had been wrong, and that the videotape showed Mr. Rouhani had in fact not referred directly to Israel or said anything about removing the “sore,” Mr. Netanyahu’s office was unmoved and seemingly uninterested in nuance. “We stand by what we say,” said his spokesman, Mark Regev. “The remarks attributed to him we think, we are sure, that represents his true outlook.”

As for the videotape, Mr. Regev asked: “Is it the whole recording? Is it part of the recording?”

“The Iranians have the ability to move things,” he said. “We know there’s a consistent pattern of Iranian behavior of saying things and then backtracking. The Iranians have ways inside Iran to censor their message. They have the ability to control their press.”

Erdbrink and Rudoren here established their skepticism of the Israeli claims while crediting Rouhani for differing from his predecessor. Think for a moment, who originally mis-reported the remarks? Here’s the AP:

A semiofficial Iranian news agency initially quoted Rouhani as calling Israel a “wound that should be removed.” That prompted Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to retort that “the real face of Rouhani has been exposed earlier than expected.”

But the news agency, ISNA, later said it was a misquote, confirmed by state TV footage of Rouhani’s comment reviewed by The Associated Press. Netanyahu issued no statement on the corrected version.

But the problem of Rouhani’s actual comments is really just splitting hairs. Context, in this case, is everything. He made them in reference to Qods Day. Qods Day isn’t simply a fun holiday that’s “pro-Palestinian.” The reporters even acknowledge that part of the festivities is shouting “death to Israel.” Rouhani didn’t say that these sentiments are overstated and not to be taken literally. He seemed perfectly comfortable with them.

To be sure, Qods Day was conceived by Ayatollah Khonmeini in support of the Palestinian cause, but it was also to condemn Israel as an illegitimate occupier. Erdbrink is a good liberal who, no doubt, thinks that occupation must end for their to be peace in the Middle East. But the shouts of “Death to Israel,” should have clued him in. In the case of Qods day “occupation” equals “existence.” Nothing in Rouhani’s actual comments suggests that he believes otherwise.

Robert Mackey, at the Lede wrote in conclusion:

The rapid spread of these false reports that Iran’s new president had explicitly called for Israel’s destruction echoed an incident in 2005, when the country’s current president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was incorrectly quoted as saying that Israel “must be wiped off the map.” As The Lede explained last year, Mr. Ahmadinejad had, in fact, used a metaphorical turn of phrase in Persian that has no exact English equivalent, made no mention of a map, and might have intended his comment to be more of a prediction than a threat.

That said, Mr. Ahmadinejad and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the far more powerful cleric who rules Iran, have repeatedly predicted that Israel will cease to exist and openly support militant groups that are pledged to the destruction of the Jewish state. In some cases, they have even used language similar to what was falsely attributed to Mr. Rouhani on Friday. “The Zionist regime is a true cancer tumor on this region that should be cut off,” Iran’s supreme leader said in a speech last year. “And it definitely will be cut off.”

Mackey has a long history of justifying anti-Israel sentiments. For him to write as he “explained last year” regarding Ahmadinejad’s comments reveals his bias.

Joshua Teitelbaum showed how there was no room for misinterpreting the former Iranian president’s remarks, either as spoken or in context of his history. In What Iranian Leaders Really Say about Doing Away with Israel (.pdf) Teitelbaum writes:

What emerges from a comprehensive analysis of what Ahmadinejad actually said – and how it has been interpreted in Iran – is that the Iranian president was not just calling for “regime change” in Jerusalem, but rather the actual physical destruction of the State of Israel. When Ahmadinejad punctuates his speech with“ Death to Israel” (marg bar Esraiil), this is no longer open to various interpretations.

Honest Reporting quotes Tim Marshall of Sky News, who sums things up nicely:

However, anyone who follows the linguistic circus act in the wider Middle East knows that everyone understands what is meant by “Zionist entity” or “Zionist regime” – it’s just that some people are happy to be disingenuous and pretend they don’t.

It is only Westerners who wish to ascribe a non-existent moderation to Rouhani who are splitting these hairs. Iranians know what he meant. It’s important to recall that Rouhani won because “the regime wanted him to win,” and the only thing that’s likely to change is his tone, not the substance of Iranian policy.

Last week, the Twitter feed Supreme Leader Khamenei, to whom Rouhani answers, considered all of Israel to be “occupied.” Rouhani himself has recently supported Hezbollah, the terrorist group supporting Bashar Assad’s brutal crackdown on dissent. To look for reasons to call Rouhani “moderate,” is to ignore his history and the history of the regime he loyally serves.

1) Targeting Israel in Syria

First the sequence:

a) Israeli Airstrike in Syria Targets Arms Convoy, U.S. Says by Isabel Kershner and Michael Gordon – January 30, 2013

Israeli warplanes carried out a strike deep inside Syrian territory on Wednesday, American officials reported, saying they believed the target was a convoy carrying sophisticated antiaircraft weaponry on the outskirts of Damascus that was intended for the Hezbollah Shiite militia in Lebanon.

The American officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said Israel had notified the United States about the attack, which the Syrian government condemned as an act of “arrogance and aggression.” Israel’s move demonstrated its determination to ensure that Hezbollah — its arch foe in the north — is unable to take advantage of the chaos in Syria to bolster its arsenal significantly.

b) Israel Bombs Syria as the U.S. Considers Its Own Military Options by Michael Gordon, Eric Schmitt and David Sanger – May 3, 2013

Israel aircraft bombed a target in Syria overnight Thursday, an Obama administration official said Friday night, as United States officials said they were considering military options, including carrying out their own airstrikes.

U.S. apologized for leaking details of Israel. US officials told that they review the matter.The leak forced assad to react harshly.

— chico menashe (@chicomenashe) May 19, 2013

c) Israel Airstrike Targeted Advanced Missiles That Russia Sold to Syria, U.S. Says by Michael Gordon – July 13, 2013

Israel carried out an air attack in Syria this month that targeted advanced antiship cruise missiles sold to the Syria government by Russia, American officials said Saturday.

The officials, who declined to be identified because they were discussing intelligence reports, said the attack occurred July 5 near Latakia, Syria’s principal port city. The target was a type of missile called the Yakhont, they said.

d) Some Syria Missiles Eluded Israeli Strike, Officials Say by Michael Gordon – July 31, 2013

American intelligence analysts have concluded that a recent Israeli airstrike on a warehouse in Syria did not succeed in destroying all of the Russian-made antiship cruise missiles that were its target, American officials said on Wednesday, and that further Israeli strikes are likely. …

The officials who described the new assessment declined to be identified because they were discussing classified information.

On four separate occasions this year, administration officials talking to Michael Gordon (and other reporters) of the New York Times revealed information about Israeli striking Syria. In three of the cases it’s acknowledged explicitly that official speaking to the Gordon would not identify him or her self. Yet only once did the United States apologize. Still, in three separate instances the administration deprived Israel of deniability about the strike. The most recent case, suggested that Israel would strike Syria again. The suggestion hardly something that helps Israel.

Last year in the wake of reports of the Stuxnet virus damaging Iran’s nuclear facilities, a report in the New York Times had the administration boasting of its efforts to create the virus. However there were some reported problems with the virus. Then the administration blamed Israel.

An error in the code, they said, had led it to spread to an engineer’s computer when it was hooked up to the centrifuges. When the engineer left Natanz and connected the computer to the Internet, the American- and Israeli-made bug failed to recognize that its environment had changed. It began replicating itself all around the world. Suddenly, the code was exposed, though its intent would not be clear, at least to ordinary computer users.

“We think there was a modification done by the Israelis,” one of the briefers told the president, “and we don’t know if we were part of that activity.”

Mr. Obama, according to officials in the room, asked a series of questions, fearful that the code could do damage outside the plant. The answers came back in hedged terms. Mr. Biden fumed. “It’s got to be the Israelis,” he said. “They went too far.”

It’s unclear who leaked this story to the New York Times, but recently the Justice Department has been investigating Gen. James Cartright for leaking the information about Stuxnet. There is no reporting suggesting that the leakers about the Israeli attacks on Syria are being investigate. It’s curious why Cartright and not others are being investigated. It’s also curious why administration leaks seem to make Israel look bad.

2) Targeting Israel in Egypt

A few days ago the New York Times published a news analysis U.S. Balancing Act With Egypt Grows Trickier by Mark Landler.

For the Obama administration, the problem is not simply its relationship with the Egyptian military but also with Israel, whose security interests are weighing particularly heavily on administration officials as they try to nurture a new round of peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.

Israel depends on Egyptian troops to root out Islamic extremists in the Sinai Peninsula, and Israeli officials have publicly and privately urged the United States not to cut off the aid, which underpins the 1979 peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

Israeli concerns are presented as a reason holding the administration back from doing the “right thing” in Egypt. Later on the article emphasizes this point by hypothesizing what might happen if aid to Egypt were cut off and Egypt then failed to take control of the Sinai.

Were that to happen, analysts said, Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, would face enormous domestic pressure not to make any concessions to the Palestinians, especially on security issues. He probably could not even continue talking to them.

If the theme that Israel prizes its security at the expense of Egypt’s freedom sounds familiar its because it was a common refrain in Thomas Friedman’s columns at the beginning of the “Arab Spring.” In particular, Friedman wrote in Postcard from Cairo II:

Rather than even listening to what the democracy youth in Tahrir Square were saying and then trying to digest what it meant, this Israeli government took two approaches during the last three weeks: Frantically calling the White House and telling the president he must not abandon Pharaoh – to the point where the White House was thoroughly disgusted with its Israeli interlocutors – and using the opportunity to score propaganda points: “Look at us! Look at us! We told you so! We are the only stable country in the region, because we are the only democracy.’’

I have no idea what the Israeli officials really said, only how Friedman interpreted – and, if he is to be trusted, how certain administration officials interpreted – their comments. Israeli was probably rightfully guarded in its appraisal of the protests and it bother Friedman and perhaps some in the administration, that Israel wasn’t more enthusiastic. The success of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt validated the Israeli approach. (Friedman is arguing that Israel wasn’t really secure since it was depending on undependable strongmen for peace. Of course 2003, that is precisely the advice Friedman gave Israel in advocating that Arab peace initiative.)

Landler is the White House correspondent for the New York Times and from what I’ve seen a cheerleader for the administration. It’s possible that he framed the analysis based on his own understandings and prejudices. It’s also possible that he was faithfully recording the message the administration wanted to send.

3) Targeting Israel in the Peace Talks

David Ignatius wrote one of the more disturbing op-eds I could imagine, Kerry’s big-bang Mideast diplomacy:

What Kerry has done, in effect, is get the two sides to grab hold of a stick of dynamite. If they can’t defuse it within nine months through an agreement, it’s going to blow up: The moderate Palestinian government in the West Bank would collapse; militant Palestinians would take statehood to the United Nations, probably this time with broad European support; an angry Arab League would withdraw its peace initiative. It would be a big mess for everyone.

Tzipi Livni, the chief Israeli negotiator, recalled at a State Department ceremony Tuesday that when she first talked with Kerry about a new round of peace talks five months ago, he told her that “failure is not an option.” By pushing the two sides into an actual negotiation, Kerry has put some teeth into that bromide. If they fail this time, it will cost the parties dearly, probably Israel most of all. That provides harsh leverage for Washington.

Kerry’s second advantage is that he’s ready to be an active broker in this deal rather than a passive listener or mediator. When the two sides reach impasses or get bogged down on side issues, Kerry will seek to break the logjam with U.S. proposals. By putting a nine-month fuse on his dynamite stick, Kerry limits stalling tactics of the sort adopted in the past by both sides.

What’s important to remember about Ignatius is that he’s very well connected. If someone want to look good in Washington he becomes a source for Ignatius who will write him or her up favorably. Presumably Kerry or someone in the State Department went to Ignatius for this op-ed. If Kerry (or a subordinate) was boasting of this agenda, then Secretary of State is a poor job title for Kerry. Master of disaster would be more appropriate.

In 2000, Prime Minister Barak cut made an end of conflict offer to Yasser Arafat. Arafat refused it. And then he started the so-called “Aqsa intifada.”

What makes Ignatius or Kerry certain that Abbas won’t refuse Netanyahu as Arafat refused Barak or Abbas refused Olmert in 2008? It isn’t the negotiating that will bring peace, it has to be the sense that only negotiations will help Abbas get what he says he needs. Abbas has calculated that he will do much better bringing international pressure to bear on than he will from bilateral negotiations. No one, not the Kerry, not the EU, not the UN has told him otherwise.

But think about underlying premise of this approach apparently adopted by Kerry and advocated by Ignatius. The United States is telling an ally: give the other guy everything he wants or you will regret it.

Apparently someone in the State Department wants Israel to get this message and got Ignatius to deliver it.