WhirledView

Netanyahu: "You Don't Want a Messianic Apocalyptic Cult Controlling Atomic Bombs" - Updated

by Cheryl Rofer

Binyamin Netanyahu, Israel's new prime minister, gave Jeffrey Goldberg a fiery interview.

Most of the interview isn't that new; Netanyahu has said this sort of thing before. It's the fact that he is now Israel's prime minister that is disturbing.

Netanyahu wants the United States to end Iran's nuclear ambitions - now! He is willing to allow Barack Obama to engage Iran rather than bomb it initially, but the time is short. Netanyahu didn't actually say that he'd bomb Iran; Goldberg quotes members of the Israeli military anonymously on their capability to do that.

Netanyahu's brief on Iran sounds like the worst of Dick Cheney's one percent doctrine.

People say that they’ll behave like any other nuclear power. Can you take the risk? Can you assume that?

And he's fixated on the irrationality of the mullahs, but when Goldberg corners him on whether they would risk their own annihilation, Netanyahu responds, "I’m not going to get into that."

There are no specifics: America must stop Iran in "months, not years," and the famous red line remains undefined, although there are murmurings of the business about Iran's having enough uranium for a bomb without actually resorting to those inaccuracies.

And Goldberg seems to share the assumption that the Iranian nuclear program is all about making a bomb, something that remains to be shown. Although there are suspicions, the Iranians have been doing things by the book for the past few years.

So the flaming rhetoric about the Iranian leadership and the demands on the Obama administration are the core of what Netanyahu said. It's not nice to demand that one's patron take a particular action, but Israel has been doing that now for some time. This is the highest level at which that demand has been made this specifically.

Throughout the rest of the interview, Netanyahu ducks and weaves about Israel's responsibilities for peace with the Palestinians, turning the spotlight back to Iran whenever he can. This suggests part of the motivation for the noise about Iran, that Netanyahu would prefer that Israel not have any responsibilities at all in this area.

Kevin Drum makes a good point: that Israel most likely doesn't have the capability to take out the Iranian nuclear facilities. But that wouldn't keep them from creating quite a mess.

Updated (04/02/09): Defense Secretary Gates tries to calm things down. He's effectively saying he doesn't believe Netanyahu's bluster.

Let’s Not Read the Obama Foreign Policy Tea Leaves Yet

By Patricia H. Kushlis

I’m not good at reading either tea leaves or crystal balls so have hesitated to speculate on the future directions of the Obama administration’s foreign policies. First, it’s still very early in his tenure and Obama has a major economic crisis at the top of his list to contend with and second, I certainly don’t know enough about what's happening behind the scenes to jump to conclusions.

From what I’ve seen thus far, however, certain US policies have fundamentally shifted for the better – like last week’s change in US policies towards Mexico. Others - like adding more combat troops to Afghanistan - are more problematical and only time will tell.

Engaging the neighbors

I think that this administration’s approach to Iraq is far closer to the policies recommended by the Baker-Hamilton Commission than W’s in part because a key Commission recommendation was that of engaging the neighbors – all of which have more of a vested interest in the region that the US does – a policy something W could not bring himself to sanction. Yet, I think this is the only way Iraq will ever stabilize enough for us to get our troops out without the breakout of civil war round two – or round whatever.

The question of numbers or types of residual US troops left in the country, I suspect, will depend upon how stable is stable, where those troops are located and whether their presence is a help or a hindrance to stability which should be the primary US foreign policy goal.

These are the dilemmas. Dilemmas which, of course, the Bush administration should have considered before March 2003, but didn’t – leaving this still huge mess for his successor to clean up. And it’s not going to be easy.

Foreign policies do not usually change instantly

Meanwhile, it’s rare when a country’s foreign policy makes an about face especially in the early days of a new administration. There’s testing, assessing, reassessing, watching for and reacting to developments. Sometimes it’s like seeing water drops fall off a glacier; other times it’s like watching a championship ping pong game nearing its frenzied conclusion. Furthermore, never, or rarely are a country’s foreign policies made or implemented in a vacuum.

I’m old enough to remember when Richard Nixon campaigned on a “get us out of Vietnam” platform but refused to say how. It took several more years and far too many more casualties before the US military was withdrawn: turns out Nixon had no secret plan despite his campaign rhetoric and once in office discovered that getting out was harder to do than he and Kissinger had ever realized.

Reagan and Gorbachev were not instant buddies

Russia's Big Plans

by Cheryl Rofer

As the Arctic ice melts, there will be a competition for resources and shipping lanes. Attempts are in progress to work out these issues through international conferences. Some of this is complicated by the fact that all the nations bordering the Arctic Sea, except the United States, are members of the Convention on the Law of the Sea.

Last week Russia announced that it plans to create a military force to patrol the Arctic. This comes after encroachment by Russian military planes on Canada's airspace.

The planning document was released on the heels of President Obama's release of his Afghanistan strategy; this may indicate an attempt to "win the news cycle." Russia has been concerned with the activity in Afghanistan and would like to play a bigger role there. Lacking that, maybe yet another claim on the Arctic would get attention. Moscow is reacting to NATO as well, one of its current sensitivities.

Russia has been announcing many plans lately. Patrolling the Arctic. Missiles in Kaliningrad. Modernization of its nuclear forces.

Announcing plans is a cheap and easy way to get attention on the world stage, particularly if you can bring extension of military might and nuclear weapons into the mix. But we have to wonder how likely it is that the plans will be carried out.

Russia has been hit hard by a one-two punch of lowered oil prices and the world financial convulsions. Eric Martin observes that military plans are particularly expensive and cites a report that Russia may be pulling out of Chechnya.

Paul Goble points out that the plans will affect the people living closest to the Arctic Ocean in Russia. Most of these people are not ethnic Russians, and they will not be pleased with the additional controls that will go with the militarization of the Arctic Ocean. We don't hear much about ethnic unrest in Russia, but it is a continuing theme that keeps the Kremlin worrying about further breakups of their extremely multiethnic state. If you want to follow this issue, Paul's blog is a good way to do it.

Perhaps the funding for Chechnya can be redirected toward the Arctic or Kaliningrad, although it seems unlikely to be adequate for all Russia's plans. It seems likely that the plans are negotiating positions.

Should be an interesting conversation when President Obama meets with President Medvedev this week.

Afghanistan Strategy

By: Bill Stewart

This week President Barack Obama revealed his new strategy for the war in Afghanistan. It's a combination of the old and the new, including sending an additional 4,000 US troops to that war torn country. This is on top of the 17,000 troops already on their way. Significantly, he said the US would not needlessly "stay the course" in Afghanistan, a sharp shift, in words at least, from the policy laid out by former President George Bush. A little background here is useful.

Friday Diplomacy Blogging

by Cheryl Rofer

I'm having connection problems today, so let's get this up quickly before the dsl goes down again!

Let’s try making this a regular feature, as Phila requested.

First a disclaimer: I won’t always be right. Reading diplomacy is a bit more reliable than reading tea leaves, but a number of things can go wrong. I might just be dumb on that day. Events may require a different path than the one begun. And some diplomatic moves are feints – actions to test a response. These moves may be nice or nasty.

Global Post

by Cheryl Rofer

We haven't had advertising at WhirledView because we didn't want to feel "bought," and we don't like most blog advertising. But we've changed that today. We have a link to headlines at GlobalPost.com in the right-hand sidebar.

GlobalPost is a new concept in internet news. It's becoming clear that the Web has radically changed the business model for news organizations, but the shape of a successful model is not yet clear.

We've complained about the MSM and their enmirement in the dead-tree past. So in linking to GlobalPost, we're trying out a new way to do news, hoping to be part of the solution.

This is a trial for both WhirledView and GlobalPost for a month, to see how the interaction works. Clicks are the currency of the internet, and this experiment is no different. So click away and check out the news at GlobalPost. You'll help us make a bit of money, and we think you'll find it worthwhile.

There's more about the GlobalPost in these articles:

Editor and Publisher (January 9)

New York Times (March 22)

Felix Salmon comments on the business model in response to the Times article.

US Passport Application Problems - Ouch, Not Again? April 1 Update

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Update April 1

It’s past March 28 (National Passport Day) and we’ve been getting an increasing number of hits on our passport information posts over the past month. More than we’ve seen in the past 18 months at any one time.

Can’t Get through to the NPIC? Here are parts of the problem.

We understand that the Consular Affairs Bureau at the State Department changed contractors earlier this year and that AT&T lost the contract for the National Passport Information Center (NPIC) which has caused this efficient facility in New Hampshire to close. The new contractor, Peckham, has apparently subcontracted much of the work to an outfit called Vangent which is opening a new facility in Arizona.

This is one reason the call-in information lines at the NPIC are responding with the “we can’t take your call right now” – or are just ringing off the hook. The Consular Affairs Section webpage is advising callers to call the NPIC before or after normal business hours but no explanation is given.

There are other reasons too: most significantly a problem with the webpage's application locator number function which as of today is still not operating. When this problem will be resolved is anyone’s guess but we are assured it is a high priority and should be back in service soon. Once it is this should relieve at least some of the increased call-in volume and make it easier for callers to talk to a live person.

Meanwhile, if you can wait 72 hours for your application locator information we suggest you use the e-mail address listed on the webpage as opposed to the NPIC call-in line. That's the turn-around time, the Consular Affairs Bureau has pledged for an e-mail response. Chances are good there is not a problem with the processing itself - a vast majority of all applications are processed within four weeks but there is a small backlog that should be resolved within the next couple of weeks.

If, however, you are within seven days of departure you do need to call in - so stay on the line and/or call in after hours (and stay on the line until it is answered). If that doesn't work, call (don't e-mail) your member of Congress or one of your Senators during regular business hours. Their constituency representatives can be life-savers in emergencies.

We would like to know how well the phone line and e-mail turn around time are working for those of you who have tried calling or e-mailing the NPIC recently. Do the NPIC lines work satisfactorily outside business hours? When are the best times to call? Have you received the information you needed once you got through? How is the e-mail function operating?

Application waiting times have increased so give yourself plenty of time

The time from application to passport in hand of applicant is currently four - six weeks for a non-expedited application. About 85% of applicants are receiving their passports within four weeks. But be aware: This is the busiest application season (February 1 - mid-July) so allow yourself plenty of time from start to finish: and plan for the unexpected delay.

We have been advised that the processing time should be back to normal by April 11 and that the Western Hemisphere Initiative is expected to go ahead on June 1 as scheduled.

Comments section now open

We have opened the comments section on this post and would like to hear from you regarding your recent experiences.

The Musical Genius of Manos Hadjidakis

By Patricia H. Kushlis

I recently finished reading Alex Ross’ The Rest Is Noise, a nearly 600 page prize-winning history of 20th century music of Europe and the United States. It’s amazingly comprehensive and well written – but even comprehensive and well written books don’t capture everything.

What I found missing were not only Spanish and Latin American composers but also almost all of the Greeks. True, Ross mentioned Nikos Skalkottas once in passing and Yiannis Xenakis several times whereas he ignored the Iberian tradition entirely. But when I think of the most influential twentieth century Greek composers, Manos Hadjidakis (photo on right) (1925-1994) and Mikis Theodorakis (1925-) first come to mind.

The missing iconoclastic Greeks: Hadjidakis and Theodorakis

Both are best known for their award winning film scores - from Theodorakis’ Zorba the Greek to Hadjidakis’ Never on Sunday. Yet composing for film was or is just part of their professional lives - although presumably among the most lucrative.

I suppose one can argue that for Ross these composers don’t count because they wrote for the cinema or because they wrote outside the symphonic tradition or because their works were heavily influenced by the traditional music of the Eastern Mediterranean – foreign and cacophonous to many western ears. I don’t know. But I do know that they - through their compositions - brought the strains, rhythms and soul of Greek music to the West in ways others did not.

What I also know is that the largely self-trained Hadjidakis was - along with Theodorakis - the first to make the music of the Greek underclass respectable at home and abroad.

Bringing respectability to the music of the Greek underclass

They took the sometimes grating, mournful, wails and growls of the Greek rebetika singers and instrumentalists out of the hashish dens, the jail cells and the cafes and made their plaintive and anguished cries a part of the mainstream Greek musical vocabulary thereby forming the basis for much of contemporary Greek music.

That Hadjidakis first did this in the late 1940s was remarkable. The country was just recovering from the devastation of World War II and in the midst of a vicious civil war between left and right. The underclass from which the rebetika tradition sprang was far more aligned politically with the losing left than the winning right. To have made its music respectable was a major feat and perhaps incurred personal risk in itself.

A Presidential Commission on Torture

by Cheryl Rofer

I've been of several minds on the question of how to approach the dreadful things that President George W. Bush and his administration did in the name of protecting the nation. Quite honestly, I don't like to think about the detentions and torture for two reasons. First, I feel very sad that a country I've thought of as mine and as something to be proud of would do such things; I struggle with denying that these things happened. Second, it's hard for me to read the descriptions without seeing and hearing the events, even at times feeling the water running into my nose or the chill of airconditioning on wet clothes; too vivid an imagination, I guess.

But when I read this, I said, yes, we must have a presidential commission. Over the weekend, I read Mark Danner's article in the New York Review of Books. The article contains extracts from the Red Cross report on the treatment of fourteen "high-value" detainees. As I read it, I realized that we must face this horror.

The rationales presented by the Bush administration have been transparent and odious; they have slopped over into accusations against all Muslims. A few memos from John Yoo and his associates have become public. There is much more to come, and it may be coming quickly. We need a commission to put these documents into context and to call witnesses to provide information missing from the documents.

I would go further than Pickering and Sessions: we need a commission to sort through these actions so that we can accept that we, the public, allowed terrible things to happen. Refusing to face such actions will damage the country.

Waiting for Bibi

By Bill Stewart

It seems clear that Binyamin Netanyahu, a former prime minister and currently the leader of the rightwing Likud party, will be Israel's next prime minister. "Bibi," as he is popularly known, has signed his first coalition deal, one that includes his chief coalition partner, Yisrael Beiteinu, a hard-right group led by Avigdon Lieberman, a Russian immigrant. Lieberman, who once was a bouncer in a night club in Moldova, is likely to be Israel's next foreign minister. Both Netanyahu and Lieberman are opposed to an independent Palestinian state, a stance that puts them on a collision course with the US and the European Union.

These are difficult days for Israel. Since the end of the Gaza war, the Jewish state has found itself increasingly isolated internationally. To be sure, diplomatic isolation is nothing new for Israel; it has been rejected by most of its Arabs neighbors for more than 60 years. Many Israelis find diplomatic isolation to be par for the course. They sigh, shrug their shoulders, and get on with their lives. What else is new?

The problem, however, is that Israel's problems with its neighbors are growing more acute, and the US is committed to a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian struggle. Jerusalem cannot ignore Washington. Too much depends on the relationship with America, including more than $3 billion in aid annually and access to the latest in military equipment. Israel can survive economically without US assistance, but it cannot remain a great military power in the region without access to the US arsenal. That access ensures Israeli military superiority in the Middle East and thus Israel's security. The US has clout, both diplomatic and military. That is why the US is essential to forging a deal with the Palestinians.

Opinion polls indicate that most Israelis are in favor of a two-state solution, though there is not much enthusiasm for negotiations. For many, perhaps most Israelis, the bloom is off the rose regarding talks with the Palestinians. Nevertheless, there is a general perception among secular Israelis that without a secure, independent Palestine, Israel will cease to be a Jewish state within the next few decades. This is so because the birth rate among Palestinian Arabs, to include the one million or more who live in Israel proper as well as those in the occupied territories, is considerably higher than among Israeli Jews. An eventual free vote among Arabs and Jews would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state; Arabs would simply outvote the Jews. There is a relentless logic to demography. The alternative to a Palestinian state is an Israel presiding over a captive and colonial population as it does today in its contemptuous and often brutal occupation of the occupied West Bank, which includes the 500,000 settlers living in illegal settlements. In a few years, Israel would cease to exist as a democratic state. The choice is stark, and it is real.