The Ironic Lady: Margaret Thatcher, Supposed Champion of Freedom and Democracy, and Her Dictator Friends

Margaret Thatcher in a British tank during a visit to British forces in Fallingbostel, Germany, September 17, 1986
(AP)

Margaret Thatcher died Monday, April 8, 2013, at the age of 87. Predictably, there is no dearth of hagiographic profiles of the former British Prime Minister in the mainstream press and scathing vitriol elsewhere. But while The Economist hails Thatcher for her "willingness to stand up to tyranny" and Barack Obama calls her "one of the great champions of freedom and liberty," it should be remembered that, throughout her career, Thatcher was a staunch supporter of many of the world's most brutal regimes, propping up and arming war criminals and dictators in service to Western imperialism, anti-Communism and neoliberal hegemony.

Throughout the 1980s, Thatcher's government backed Iraq during its war against Iran, funneling weapons and equipment to Saddam Hussein in contravention of both international law and British policy, all the way up until Saddam's invasion of Kuwait. She even sent Christmas cards to both Saddam and Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi in 1981.

When she was in power, Thatcher also publicly supported Pol Pot's then-exiled Khmer Rouge, which was responsible for the deaths of nearly two million Cambodians. This, despite the fact that she decried their "open savagery" in 1975, before she was Prime Minister. During her leadership, Britain's elite Special Air Service (SAS) trained Khmer fighters in Thailand. As late as 1988, Thatcher was still convinced that "the more reasonable ones in the Khmer Rouge will have to play some part in the future government [of Cambodia]."

During her first trip to Israel in 1965, less than two decades after the Nakba and while Palestinians still lived under martial law, Thatcher spoke highly of Israelis for "their sense of purpose and complete dedication, their pioneer spirit, and their realism." She later advocated that Palestinian self-determination be realized within the context of "some kind of federation with Jordan," which she deemed "the best and most acceptable solution."

In 1986, Thatcher said of Golda Meir, who not only denied the Palestinian right of return but also the existence of Palestinians in general, "I greatly admired her. I greatly admired her as a war leader. I greatly admired her tremendous courage. I greatly admired her as a pioneer. I greatly admired her as a great human being, warm, thoughtful, kind, for all her fellow citizens and for human kind in the world as a whole."

But that's just the tip of the iceberg. Here's a review of some of her other pals...

Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, The Shah of Iran

The Shah of Iran and Margaret Thatcher, 1978

In April 1978, prior to her ascension to Prime Minister, Thatcher visited the Shah of Iran, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, in Tehran where she praised him as "one of the world's most far-sighted statesmen, whose experience is unrivaled."

Despite the popular protests against the Shah occurring across Iran with increasing frequency, Thatcher said of her host, "No other world leader has given his country more dynamic leadership. He is leading Iran through a twentieth century renaissance." Exactly one month before her visit, street protests in over 55 Iranian cities resulted in the killing of more than 100 civilians, when police opened fire on the crowds.

Iran "holds a key strategic position in the defence of the Western World," Thatcher continued, "Her strength and resolve are vital to our future." She added, "Iran has been the West's most resolute and stalwart ally in this crucial region."

Upon his overthrow the following February, the Shah expressed his desire to seek asylum in England at his lavish country estate in Surrey. While the British government at the time wound up secretly helping the Shah make his way from Morocco to the Bahamas, it rejected his request to enter the UK.

Thatcher, who became Prime Minister soon thereafter, respected the decision of her predecessor for political reasons, but was "deeply unhappy" that Britain could not offer sanctuary to Pahlavi, whom she called a "firm and helpful friend."

Hosni Mubarak

Thatcher and Hosni Mubarak, 1981

A longtime supporter of the Egyptian dictatorship of Hosni Mubarak, Thatcher once received a memo from the UK Foreign Office referring to Mubarak as "no intellectual but...always friendly and cheerful," noting that while "apt to express simplistic views, he has become an experienced and accomplished political operator." The brief continued, "His affable exterior evidently conceals a degree of ruthlessness since it seems likely that he has conducted some successful political infighting to maintain his position" having "succeeded in ousting or at least surviving all other prominent figures in the government or armed forces."

"Nevertheless his reputation is free of any taint of corruption or malpractice and he is not thought to have made many enemies," the memo said of Mubarak, adding that he was "eager to improve relations with the Royal Air Force and to buy British [military] equipment."

Thatcher was only too happy to oblige.

Over the years of her leadership, Thatcher routinely commended Mubarak for his "courage" and "strength." In 1985, at a banquet in Cairo, she said she "admire[d] particularly, Mr. President, the leadership which you personally...have shown." Five years later, while hosting Mubarak and his wife at No. 10 Downing Street, Thatcher declared, "You are among our very favourite visitors because we all know you as particularly good and close friends of this country, as we are of Egypt," and once again
expressed her admiration for the Egyptian president, this time for his "incredible energy."

"You are as full of beans as ever," she said. Unfortunately for the Egyptian people over the next 11 years, thanks largely to American and British largesse, she was right.

Augusto Pinochet

Thatcher and Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet

Thatcher was a steadfast defender of Augusto Pinochet, whose unspeakably brutal dictatorship of torture and repression terrorized Chile from 1973 to 1990. She visited Pinochet in 1999 during his house arrest in England, saying that her country "owed" him "a great debt" of gratitude for his help during the 1982 Falklands War.

Without any sense of irony, Thatcher added, "I'm also very much aware that it is you who brought democracy to Chile."

Never one to mention his appalling human rights record, Thatcher expressed her "outrage at the callous and unjust treatment" of Pinochet during a speech that October at the Conservative Party Conference, called him "this country's only political prisoner," and hailed him as Britain's "staunch, true friend in our time of need" and "who stopped the communists taking Chile."

The next year, upon his release and return to Chile, for which she fought tirelessly, Thatcher sent Pinochet a silver Armada dish as a gift, condemned his detention in England as "a great injustice" and wished the deposed dictator and his family "all good wishes for a peaceful and secure future."

When Pinochet died six years later, Thatcher said she was "deeply saddened" by his passing.

Subsequently, Robin Harris, a former official in Thatcher's administration, wrote in The Telegraph that Thatcher "took a positive view of Pinochet's 17 years in power" and "would not have spoken up for him if she had believed him a monster. She could not judge the merits of every allegation. But, clearly, the legal case against him was weak and the motivation of those involved suspect."

Harris similarly praised Pinochet for "[leaving] behind a stable democracy," concluding that "Margaret Thatcher has nothing to be ashamed of in defending Augusto Pinochet, when others refused to do so" and that Pinochet "was lucky to find such a champion."

The House of Saud

King Fahd of Saudi Arabia and Thatcher, March 25, 1987
(Corbis)

In March 1987, King Fahd of Saudi Arabia, visited Thatcher. Beforehand, Thatcher said in an interview, "Relations between Saudi Arabia and Britain are excellent. We have common interests in peace and stability in the Middle East. The Al Yamamah Project for the sale of Tornado and other aircraft to Saudi Arabia has done much to focus Saudi attention on Britain and British attention on Saudi Arabia."
The Al Yamamah arms deal, signed a year and a half earlier, was "the biggest export transaction in British history, estimated by a British Aerospace executive in 2005 to be worth £83 billion in past and future sales to Saudi Arabia of military hardware including aircraft ranging from Tornado fighters and Hawk trainer jets to Eurofighter Typhoons," in addition to a wide range of arms, naval vessels, radar, spare parts, and a pilot-training program.

Thatcher with King Khalid
of Saudi Arabia, 1981

The deal was largely the result of Thatcher's own lobbying initiative on behalf of the British defense industry and weapons manufacturers and, ever since its signing, allegations of corruption, fraud and bribery have abounded.

In 1993, in a speech to a Chatham House Conference on Saudi Arabia after leaving office, Thatcher maintained that "[o]ne of Al Yamamah's achievements has been the training and equipping of the Royal Saudi Air Force by Britain. Both training and aircraft were put to the test of wartime combat far sooner than anyone expected. As we now know, both the aircraft and their RSAF pilots performed superbly in Operation Desert Storm." She continued, "The Al Yamamah programme has continued steadily since the conflict. When this year's new order of a further 48 Tornado aircraft for the RSAF has been executed it will be safe to say that Saudi Arabia will have one of the strongest and most effective Air Forces in the world."

Beyond this, Thatcher described the kingdom as "a peace loving nation" and a "modern miracle," touting its "domestic achievements" and the "stable framework" and "solid rock of a well established and respected monarchy." Thatcher called herself "a great admirer of Saudi Arabia and the leadership of King Fahd," which she declared was "a strong force for moderation and stability."

"We are strong partners in trade and defence. We share great strategic interests," she said.

Regarding Saudi Arabia's human rights record, Thatcher was silent. "I have no intention of meddling in that country's internal affairs," she insisted. "It is one of my firmest beliefs that although there are certain basic standards and goals we should expect from every member of the international community, the precise pace and approach must reflect different societies' cultural, social, economic and historical backgrounds. And Saudi Arabia, in particular, is a complex society which Westerners do not often fully comprehend."

Again, without even the slightest hint of irony, Thatcher - in the very same speech - noted, "It is the surest signal to other dictators that the West lacks the resolve to defend justice. We have yet to see its full consequences — our lack of effective action will return to haunt us." She was talking about Bosnia.

P.W. Botha

P.W. Botha and Thatcher, 1984

While Thatcher maintained throughout her political career that she "loathe[d] apartheid and everything connected with it," she referred to Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress, as "a typical terrorist organization" and refused, alongside Ronald Reagan, to back sanctions against the Apartheid regime in South Africa. "In my view, isolation will lead only to an increasingly negative and intransigent attitude in the part of white South African," she said in December 1977.

In 1984, Thatcher invited South African Prime Minister P.W. Botha to visit London, the first such visit in 23 years, sparking understandable outrage in the anti-Apartheid movement. Botha, in his former role as South Africa's Defense Minister, presided over the country's massive militarization and, in an effort to maintain Apartheid policies, implemented the brutal repression and aggression campaign called the "Total Strategy." Between 1981 and 1983, he "poured ever-increasing numbers of troops into African townships to stop unrest" and used the army "to enforce compliance on every one of the country's neighbours," writes Apartheid expert Padraig O'Malley.

Botha waged aggressive military campaigns in Angola and Mozambique and sent "commando units across the borders into Botswana, Zimbabwe, Swaziland and Lesotho to attack and bomb South African refugees." Under his leadership, the detention and execution of political activists increased.

A year after Botha's visit, the Associated Press reported that Thatcher "rejected demands by the opposition Labor Party that she meet with Oliver Tambo, leader of the African National Congress guerrilla movement, who is visiting Britain...on grounds he espouses violence."

"I do not accept that apartheid is the root of violence... nor do most other people," Thatcher insisted and, during a speech before Parliament, stated that Botha's "South African government has taken more steps to start dismantling apartheid than any of their predecessors."

"I can see little point in sanctions creating more unemployment in this country only to create more unemployment in South Africa...It seems to me a ridiculous policy that would not work,'' she added.

Five years later, during the last gasps of Apartheid, Thatcher was still opposing sanctions. In 2006, Tory leader (and now British Prime Minister) David Cameron apologized for Thatcher's actions.

In response to her death today, Oliver Tambo's son Dali told the press, "My gut reaction now is what it was at the time when she said my father was the leader of a terrorist organisation. I don't think she ever got it that every day she opposed sanctions, more people were dying, and that the best thing for the assets she wanted to protect was democracy," adding, "It's a shame that we could never call her one of the champions of the liberation struggle. Normally we say that when one of us goes, the ANC ancestors will meet them at the pearly gates and give them a standing ovation. I think it's quite likely that when Margaret Thatcher reaches the pearly gates, the ANC will boycott the occasion."

Zia Ul-Haq

Thatcher and Zia-Ul-Haq, 1981

After deposing Pakistani Prime Minister Zulfikar Ali Bhutto in 1977 and imposing martial law, General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq retained power in Pakistan for a decade. Supported by the United Kingdom, United States and Saudi Arabia, as well as cultivating ties with both Israel and India, Zia-ul-Haq served as an anti-Communist bulwark against Soviet expansion after the occupation of Afghanistan, he presided over Pakistan's acquisition of nuclear weapons and promoted the spread of Islamist militancy.

TIME's Ishaan Tharoor writes, "Lost in a Cold War fog," Thatcher supported Zia-ul-Haq's "military government...helping prop up a South Asian generalissimo now seen as one of the chief architects of the Islamist radicalization of his country," and adds, "under his watch, the Afghan mujahedin bloomed and the seeds of a new era of terrorist militancy were planted." His rule was consistently consolidated and dissent silenced through torture and public executions.

During a visit to Pakistan in 1981, Thatcher hailed the dictator's "courage and skill" and said she and other Western states "admire and support" his commitment to affirm "the right of the Afghan people to choose their own form of government in peace." Clearly, since Pakistan wasn't occupied by Soviets, Thatcher didn't care much for the Pakistani peoples' own rights to self-determination.

She pledged that Britain and Pakistan would "maintain a close and friendly relationship," with her government "giving Pakistan practical support, and toasted the "health and happiness of His Excellency."

Six years later, soon after the general had lifted martial law and granted himself even more presidential powers, Thatcher hosted him in London. She hailed "with great pleasure" the "remarkable strides" Pakistan had made under his rule, praised his "generosity" with regard to Afghan refugees, and wished Zia "every success in your great endeavours."

"I believe that your courage, your strength and your persistence will have their reward and your example will be a lesson to the world," Thatcher said. "[W]e are your friends and you are our friends." She raised a glass to his health and "to the success of democracy in Pakistan and to the continuing and abiding friendship between our two countries."

The very next year, Zia dissolved Pakistan's National Assembly and dismissed his appointed Prime Minister Muhammad Khan Junejo for signing the Geneva Accords and not sufficiently supporting his continued Islamization projects.

Suharto

Thatcher and Suharto, 1985

In the midst of the bloody Indonesian occupation of East Timor, Thatcher visited genocidal Indonesian dictator General Suharto, praised Indonesia's "agricultural and industrial development" and, although East Timorese had been killed, starved, disappeared and herded into "resettlement camps" as part of Suharto's "encirclement and annihilation" campaign, dismissed allegations of human rights abuses, explaining that East Timor was none of Britain's business and that Suharto himself has "assured me that the International Red Cross not only had access to East Timor, but was very welcome there."

She told the press, "Trade brings us together and identifies our interests, and I am sure that trade between Indonesia and Britain will increase as a result of the very friendly and warm atmosphere created by my visit here. We are clearly the best of friends and there is no sounder basis on which to construct future collaboration."

In 2008, veteran journalist John Pilger recalled that Thatcher referred to Suharto as, "One of our very best and most valuable friends," and how, "[f]or three decades the south-east Asian department of the Foreign Office worked tirelessly to minimise the crimes of Suharto's gestapo, known as Kopassus, who gunned down people with British-supplied Heckler & Koch machine guns from British-supplied Tactica 'riot control' vehicles."

"A Foreign Office speciality was smearing witnesses to the bombing of East Timorese villages by British-supplied Hawk aircraft - until Robin Cook was forced to admit it was true. Almost a billion pounds in export credit guarantees financed the sale of the Hawks, paid for by the British taxpayer while the arms industry reaped the profit," Pilger adds.

With this kind of record, it is clear that Thatcher's constantly pledged support for "freedom and democracy" was really a violent, imperial campaign waged for free markets and domination.

*****

Cautious Optimism as Negotiations Between Iran and the P5+1 Resume in Almaty

EU foreign-policy chief Catherine Ashton (left) and Iran’s top nuclear negotiator, Said Jalili, on the sidelines of the Almaty talks on February 26, 2013. (AFP)

A second round of negotiations between Iran and the P5+1 – the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, and Germany – over Iran’s nuclear program began today, Friday April 5, 2013, in Almaty, Kazakhstan.

Iranian officials have remained hopeful that the talks will prove fruitful, building upon the relatively productive previous meetings. ”Almaty I meeting bore positive results, and we also hope that in Almaty II this forward movement continues,” Iranian Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi recently told the press. While “this issue will not be solved overnight,” Salehi added, “the process of solving this issue has begun.”

Just two days before the meeting, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast echoed these sentiments, saying, “The upcoming talks are likely to be conducted in a reasonable atmosphere which would help both sides reach a final solution.” Still, Washington Post correspondent Jason Rezaian notes that, with Iran’s June election looming, chances are “[a]ny nuclear deal would be unlikely until after Iran has chosen its next president.”

Meanwhile, Western officials have tempered their own optimism over making progress with a heavy dose of skepticism and low expectations. “There has been a very positive line out of Tehran on the talks so far,” an unnamed U.S. official told Scott Peterson of The Christian Science Monitor. “We hope that that positive talk will now be matched with some concrete responses and actions on the Iranian side. The onus is really on Iran to respond to the proposal and tell us where they stand.”

Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief and the P5+1′s top negotiator, said she was “cautiously optimistic” about what she “hope[s] will be a successful meeting in Almaty.” She added, “I really do hope that Iran will now…consider the proposal we put on the table [in February] and respond to it.” Her spokesman later called upon Iran “to give a clear and concrete answer” to the recent offer.

Though the Iranian negotiating team on Thursday released a statement declaring that “the Islamic Republic will enter the new round of talks with the P5+1 group of world powers with clear, groundbreaking proposals,” the head of the delegation, Said Jalili, made clear how progress could be made. Speaking at a university in Almaty before the talks, Jalili explained, “We think our talks tomorrow can go forward with one word. That is the acceptance of the rights of Iran, particularly the right to enrichment.”

This position was similarly articulated by Iranian leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei during his annual Nowruz speech in the Iranian city of Mashhad. ”If the Americans wanted to resolve the issue, this would be a very simple solution: they could recognize the Iranian nation’s right to enrichment and in order to address those concerns, they could enforce the regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency,” Khamenei said. “We were never opposed to the supervision and regulations of the International Atomic Energy Agency.”

For now, however, the potential for Western acknowledgement of Iran’s inalienable national rights remains slim, while threats and demands continue to control American discoure. If Iran “does not take concrete steps to address the concerns of the international community,” the anonymous U.S. official told Peterson, then sanctions “pressure only will increase.”

Despite these warnings, “the international community” does not appear to have any interest in supporting any more American-led sanctions on Iran. Last summer, the 120 nations represented in the Non-Aligned Movement unanimously backed Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy and the domestic mastery of the fuel cycle, including an enrichment program. Just last week, the world’s five fast-growing economies, known as the BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – concluded their fifth annual conference and issued a declaration expressing concern over unilateral sanctions, opposing military action and recognizing “Iran’s right to peaceful uses of nuclear energy consistent with its international obligations.”

On Wednesday, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Igor Morgulov stressed that “unconditional recognition” of Iran’s right to a civilian nuclear energy program is the only solution to the current standoff, adding that any long-term solution must be based on the recognition of Iran’s “unconditional right to develop its civilian nuclear program.”

Both Russia and China have previously opposed imposing unilateral sanctions upon Iran and its trading partners.

Furthermore, as veteran journalist Jim Lobe recently reported, even the P5+1 itself “is showing signs of growing disunity, according to the European Union’s former top foreign policy official,” Javier Solana. “I think that the level of consistency and coherence of the P5 (+1) is diminishing,” he said during remarks at Washington’s Brooking Institute this week, adding that “emerging powers” are “unhappy with Western pressure to curb imports of Iranian oil and gas, especially in light of the latest estimates of a possible spike in energy prices next year if Iranian supplies are kept off the market.”

Unsurprisingly, the Israeli Prime Minister has also chimed in. In a statement released Wednesday, Benjamin Netanyahu accused Iran of “talking, but at the same time developing nuclear weapons; threatening and at the same time developing nuclear weapons and threatening the use of nuclear weapons, we cannot allow this to happen in Iran,” despite the fact that Iran is neither developing nuclear weapons nor has it ever threatened to use the nuclear weapons that it’s not developing.

With all of these factors in play, any progress this weekend may very well prove elusive. But what happens in Almaty will surely set the stage for what comes next: either more of the same bellicose threats from Israel and the United States or the beginning of the end of three decades of hostility and propaganda. The latter possibility, however remote, is reason enough to hope for the best.

*****

UPDATE: Early feedback from Almaty indicates that, according to Western diplomats involved in the negotiations, “little progress” has been made on the first day of talks. “There has not yet been a clear and concrete response” from Iran to the most recent P5+1 proposal put forward in February, an unnamed Western official told the press Friday.

The Iranian delegation is said to have opened the talks by presenting “specific plans and proposals for starting a new round of co-operation,” but the P5+1 was reportedly “somewhat puzzled” by the suggestions. ”There were some interesting but not fully explained general comments on our ideas,” the diplomat said. “It was mainly a reworking of what they said in Moscow,” during a previous round of talks last June.

Al Monitor's Laura Rozen, who is in Almaty covering the talks, reported that “Western diplomats expressed barely contained exasperation at Iran’s apparent sharp retreat to debating modalities for negotiations, rather than specific steps discussed at two recent rounds of talks this Spring.”

Other news outlets have been similarly negative. Reuters describes the two sides as "miles apart," while The Wall Street Journal said the talks were "off to [a] shaky start."

Meanwhile, Iran's deputy nuclear negotiator Ali Baqeri told the press that "Iran believes that what is referred to as a confidence-building step or the measures both sides should agree upon and undertake is part of the comprehensive solution," but didn't elaborate on what those measures might entail.

The talks will continue Saturday.

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****

From a Candy Factory in Iran to the 'Sweet Sixteen' in Indiana:Arsalan Kazemi’s Mad March through the NCAA

Oregon’s Arsalan Kazemi (Bruce Ely / The Oregonian)

NCAA Men’s Basketball Tournament history was made last week when the Florida Gulf Coast Eagles, in their inaugural tournament appearance, became the first ever 15-seed to advance to the third round, joining other underdogs like 13-seed La Salle Explorers and 9-seed Wichita State Shockers in the Sweet Sixteen.

But there’s another team that has not only beaten the odds to advance this far into the tournament, but also boasts a league first of its own – one that demonstrates how sports and politics are so often inextricably interconnected.

The Oregon Ducks, the Pac-10 champion and current number 12-seed challenger to top-ranked (and odds-on favorite to win it all) Louisville, is home to 22-year-old senior Arsalan Kazemi, the first Iranian-born athlete to play NCAA Division I basketball.

A 6-foot-7, 226-pound forward, Kazemi is the son of candy factory owners in the beautiful Iranian city of Esfahan. Falling in love with the game at the age of 9, Kazemi excelled in junior basketball leagues in Iran and eventually came to the United States on his own at the age of 17 to pursue his hardwood dream. After playing a year of high school ball in North Carolina, he accepted a scholarship to Rice University in Houston. A year ago, Kazemi transferred to the University of Oregon for his final college season.

Kazemi’s parents have been unable to visit their son in the United States because of difficulties in obtaining a visa. Kazemi says his mother is still his biggest fan and watches his games online. He speaks with his parents regularly, at least twice a day, via Skype, and says that his decision to leave Iran was a “sacrifice” made for the love of basketball.

“Just the type of young man that he is — quiet, humble, gracious — he’s hard not to like,” Oregon Coach Dana Altman says about Kazemi. “And the unselfish part of it on the basketball floor, everybody can see. And those are qualities that every team needs.”

While he has become an integral and impressive part of the Ducks’ frontline, grabbing a combined 33 rebounds in the team’s two tournament wins so far, Kazemi’s nationality is – unsurprisingly – always a topic of conversation. He seems to have adopted an unofficial role as good will ambassador.

“Obviously a lot of people see the news on the TV,” Kazemi said during a locker room interview a week ago. “I try to be really humble…and show the world who I am, and that I’m coming from Iran. I try to represent my country as best as I can… and show them who we really are.”

Kazemi has drawn small groups of Iranians to Oregon’s road games and says he often receives letters from fellow Iranians calling him an inspiration for their country. Needless to say, he is appreciative of the support he’s received at Oregon and at away games, especially when greeted by fans waving Iranian flags.

But being an Iranian athlete in the United States is not always so easy. According to The New York Times, “When Kazemi first arrived in the United States, landing in Houston as a 17-year-old, he was held at immigration for six hours of questioning. Tired and scared, he was ready to ask to be sent back home to Iran.”

In a recent player profile of Kazemi, Sports on Earth reporter Gwen Knapp writes:

With sad predictability, some hecklers have resorted to the cheapest taunt imaginable when Kazemi turns up in their gym. They call him a terrorist, which he explains this way: “I call it the ‘T’ word, I don’t want to say it.”

He ignores them, as all athletes are taught to do. “They’re saying more about themselves,” Kazemi said. But this sort of baiting stoops to a level that embarrasses universities. The University of Washington noted that a heckling guide for its Dawg Pack student section targeted Kazemi based on his ethnicity and apparently intervened. Adam Jude, the beat writer for The Oregonian, tweeted from Seattle that a Washington spokesman said the issue had “been addressed with students.”

Such discrimination may explain Kazemi’s decision to leave Rice University last year in search of a new school. Kazemi has declined to speak about the subject with the press and Rice’s Athletic Department has strongly denied the allegation.

Still, Kazemi says that most Americans he meets are friendly and seem eager to learn about his native country. “I’m more than happy to tell them what is exactly going on and help them understand,” he told Knapp. “They all think that there is a war going in in Iran, and I tell them there is no war there…Iran is totally safe, and it’s a really nice country.”

Kazemi is completing a sports-management degree at Oregon and also has tentative plans to continue his education and obtain a sociology degree.

“My dad always wanted me to study,” Kazemi told The New York Times. “I’m not sure, but he probably wanted a doctor or engineer out of me, and he still wants me to go to grad school and continue my studying. But I think it’s a time for me to try to go and make some money from basketball.”

“When I went to Rice, I was the first Iranian to get a Division I scholarship,” he told Knapp, “and then here I was the first Iranian to win a Pac-12 championship, and now I’m the first Iranian to go to the Sweet 16. And I hope it just goes from there.”

In 2010, Iranian-American guard Ali Farokhmanesh hit a game-winning 3-pointer against top-seeded Kansas to take the University of Northern Iowa to the Sweet Sixteen. He now plays pro ball in Austria.

If Kazemi were to make it to the NBA, he’d be the second Iranian in the league. Hamed Haddadi, now a center with the Phoenix Suns, blazed that trail back in 2008. Kazemi says the two are friends.

Oregon plays number one seed Louisville Friday night in Indianapolis.

Go Fighting Ordaks!

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****



*****

Khamenei's Nowruz Speech and the "Threat" That Wasn't

On Thursday, March 21, 2013, ABC News ran an alarming headline: "Iran's Khamenei Threatens to 'Annihilate' Tel Aviv."

The article, written by reporter Molly Hunter, leads with the claim that the Iranian leader has "issued a fiery threat to the coastal [Israeli] cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa," before actually quoting Khamenei in context:

"At times the officials of the Zionist regime (Israel) threaten to launch a military invasion," said Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in a televised speech marking the Persian New Year, Nowruz.

"But they themselves know that if they make the slightest mistake the Islamic Republic will annihilate Tel Aviv and Haifa to the ground," he said.

Operative word: "if."

Other news outlets were a bit more forthcoming in their banners about the nature of Khamenei's comments, made during his annual Nowruz address in the city of Mashhad. Reuters' report on the speech proliferated quickly; its headline, "Iran will destroy Israeli cities if attacked: Khamenei," alternative renderings such as "Iran threatens to destroy Tel Aviv, Haifa if Israel attacks," can be found everywhere from NBC News to Fox News to the Jerusalem Post.

By contrast, the wire service UPI and a right-wing Israeli settler outlet followed the ABC lead by dropping the conditional clause from their headlines.

While issuing such a declaration is certainly forceful and brash, let alone exaggerated, it is clearly made as a deterrent rather than an aggressive and unprovoked threat. Indeed, Iran has long stated that it will never initiate a military conflict and maintains a national security doctrine of self-defense and retaliation, policies consistently affirmed by U.S. intelligence assessments.

But such headlines, when deliberately devoid of context, send a strong message of Iranian bellicosity and increase the erroneous perception that Iran is threatening Israel with attack, instead of the other way around. They are merely an extension of the "wipe Israel off the map" shibboleth that, even after more than seven years, remains ubiquitous in mainstream discourse despite its repeated debunking.

In fact, declarations like this are nothing new. For instance, back in June 2008, after Israel conducted a series of war games and then Israeli Deputy Prime Minister Shaul Mofaz told the press, "If Iran continues its program to develop nuclear weapons, we will attack it," Iranian officials replied much as Khamenei has to more recent threats. At the time, IRGC commander Mohammad Ali Jafari stated, "If the enemy makes a strategic mistake [by attacking Iran], the Revolutionary Guards are fully prepared to give a severe answer to the enemy."

In February 2010, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Ali Ahani said in an interview, "Iran certainly will not start a war. But if we are attacked, we will respond strongly."

In August 2011, Iranian President Ahmadinejad responded to the possibility of an American or Israeli strike by stating that "we will defend ourselves within our capabilities" and that, in the event of such an attack, Iran would "give them a decisive response."

Later that year, in an address to military cadets, Khamenei said that Iran would "respond to any aggression and even to any threats powerfully" with "strong slaps and iron fists."

Khamenei also warned last June that, were Israel to "take any wrong step, any inappropriate move, it will fall on their heads like lightning."

At the same time, Iran's Brigadier General Yahya Rahim-Safavi stated that Iran would respond in kind were Israel or the United States launch an attack. "There is no spot in Israel that does not fall within the range of the Iranian missiles," he said, adding that U.S. military bases in the region would also be potential targets. Because "U.S. military forces in the region are highly vulnerable," he said, Iran is in a position to "inflict damage on them at the same level as they do."

Echoing these statements, in September 2012, General Jafari said that "nothing will remain of Israel," should it attack Iran. "Given Israel's small land area and its vulnerability to a massive volume of Iran's missiles, I don't think any spot in Israel will remain safe," he claimed, noting also that "U.S. military bases sprawled around Iran are considered a big vulnerability."

Following more threats by Israel last autumn, notably Netanyahu's embarrassing cartoon bomb display at the United Nations, the Iranian mission to the world body issued a statement insisting, "The Islamic Republic of Iran is strong enough to defend itself and reserves its full right to retaliate with full force against any attack." Meanwhile, the Iranian press quoted General Farzad Esmaili, head of Iran’s air and ballistic missile units, saying, "If a military attack is launched against our nuclear installations, we promise that the enemies will not escape alive."

Soon thereafter, Ahmadinejad said, "Iranians have and will never start any war but they have always been good defenders and have always defended their territories in a memorable and historical form," adding that "Iran's response to any aggression will be crushing."

A week before Khamenei's own Nowruz speech this year, Iran's Deputy Chief of Staff Brigadier General Masoud Jazayeri declared, "Our commanders have received authorization to immediately respond to any hostile action by the enemy." He added, "We too have all our options on the table."

This is not news, nor is it particularly alarming. In fact, it is unsurprising that a sovereign nation, when faced with the repeated threat of attack by two of the world's most aggressive nuclear powers, would voice its intention to respond in kind were an assault on its 70 million people to occur.

Spinning statements of self-defense and retaliation to foreign military aggression as threats themselves is par for the course when it comes to Iran and the media. Just last month, when President Ahmadinejad explicitly denied any Iranian intention to launch an attack on Israel, noting Iran's potential "reaction to such a strike, as well as Iran's defensive capabilities," UPI ran a story with the headline, "Ahmadinejad - Iran ready to destroy Israel." Perhaps this is to be expected, though, from a so-called "journalistic" organization that consistently publishes MEK propaganda and bizarre anti-Iranian rants.

Most importantly, however, by distorting Khamenei's recent comments, the mainstream media wound up demonstrating their own fealty to sensational alarmism while either overlooking or burying the more illuminating content of the speech itself.

Of all places, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, the U.S. government's Cold War propaganda arm and overseas version of Voice of America, avoided much of the decontextualized hysteria found in other reports. Journalist Golnaz Esfandiari, while mentioning Khamenei's warning about Tel Aviv and Haifa in the sixteenth paragraph of her article, led instead with the news that the Iranian leader noted in his speech that "he's not opposed to direct talks with Washington."

Coming in advance of more rounds of negotiations with the P5+1 - the five nuclear-armed permanent members of the U.N. Security Council and Germany - Khamenei's comments regarding potential bilateral talks with the United States were well in line with what he has said on the subject in the past.

"High- and middle-ranking officials of America repeatedly say that alongside the P5+1 talks regarding the nuclear issue, America and the Islamic Republic should hold one-on-one negotiations over the issue," Khamenei said in Mashhad. He continued, not dismissing such overtures but voicing his skepticism:

I am not optimistic about such negotiations. Why? Because our past experiences show that in the logic of the American gentlemen, negotiation does not mean sitting down together to try to reach a rational solution. This is not what they mean by negotiation. What they mean is that we should sit down together and talk so that Iran accepts their views. The goal has been announced in advance: Iran must accept their view. For this reason, we have always announced that this is not negotiation. This is imposition and Iran will not give in to imposition. I am not optimistic about these statements, but I am not opposed either.

Khamenei's understanding of American duplicity and bullying is well-founded. Diplomacy, when it comes to American dealings with the Islamic Republic, consistently takes the form of intimidation, ultimatums, and threats, while negotiations is merely a disingenuous term for take-it-or-leave-it demands. Former IAEA Director-General Mohammad ElBaradei said as much in May 2010, when the United States reneged on a proposal to Iran it had explicitly endorsed:

We know in negotiations that you will not get everything before the start of the negotiations. In fact, that insistence to get everything before you start negotiating, the result of that was six years of wasted time on resolving the Iranian issue. We wasted six years in the past because the Western approach was that Iran should give everything before the start of the negotiation.

In his recent Nowruz address, Khamenei was clear about how to resolve the three decade impasse between the United States and Iran. "If the Americans sincerely want to reach a solution, I will give them the solution," he said. "The solution is that the Americans should stop being hostile towards the Islamic Republic and the Iranian nation. Offers of negotiation are not a rational and reasonable solution...[T]he rational solution is that they should rectify their policies. They should rectify the way they act and they should stop being hostile towards the Iranian nation."

Of course, such a change in U.S. policy - the cessation of threats and the normalization of relations - is a far greater threat to Israeli hegemony than any hypothetical counterattack.

*****

UPDATE:

April 18, 2013 - Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a military ceremony, Iran's Defense Minister Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi repeated the Iranian position that any Israeli attack would be met with a devastating military response, while also dismissing the possibility of such an attack as mere bluster.

"The constant threats by the Zionist regime against Iran are so worthless and they cannot do anything against our nation because they know that any measure will lead them to full annihilation," Vahidi said, adding, "We don't think that the Zionist regime will take such an unwise action to commit suicide."

Vahidi's comments came on the heels of recent statements by both IDF chief Benny Gantz and Israeli Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon, along with Prime Minister Netanyahu, claiming that Israel was prepared to strike Iran if the decision was made to do so.

Iran has routinely dismissed such threats as nothing more than bellicose posturing.

*****

UPDATE II:

April 24, 2013 - In yet more comments on the same subject, Iran's Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi said today that American and Israeli "threats have no value and at the same time, show their aggressive nature, and reveal their deceitful and misleading claims," adding that any Israeli strike on Iran would be the regime's "last mistake."

Vahidi's latest statement follows U.S. Secretary of State Chuck Hagel's recent visit to Israel, during which he cemented a massive arms deal that he said should send a "very clear signal" to Iran. This past weekend, Hagel claimed that the United States and Israel see "exactly the same" threat from Iran and followed up such rhetoric the next day alongside his Israeli counterpart Moshe Ya'alon by declaring, "All military options and every option must remain on the table in dealing with Iran."

Despite the admission of U.S. Director of National Intelligence that sanctions on Iran have not affected nuclear policy shifts in Iran (which include the continuing, non-militarized civilian nature of its nuclear program), Hagel insisted, "The sanctions on Iran are as potent and deep and wide a set of international sanctions that we have ever seen on any country. And those will continue to increase."

As for the potency of sanctions, Hagel is praising the negative impact such collective punishment is having on lives and livelihoods of the people of Iran, while promising more.

"Whether it leads to an outcome that we desire remains to be seen...and as I said, the military option is always an option," Hagel reiterated.

But remember, we're still supposed to believe Iranian officials are the ones issuing bellicose threats apropos of nothing.

With this in mind, take note of statements made by Israeli President Shimon Peres during a joint media event with Hagel on April 22.

In the context of alleging, as he often does, that Iran is somehow a "threat to Israel, Peres stated, "By the way, you know [we] have nothing against the Iranian people...Iran doesn't have a single enemy. Nobody threatened Iran. Why did their leaders decide to become a threat to others?"

Wait, what? "Nobody threatened Iran?"

Apparently, Peres is unaware of the decades of military threats waged against Iran. Back in November 2011, Peres himself made the bogus claim that "Iran is getting closer to having nuclear weapons" and that "[i]ntelligence services of all countries understand that time is running out and they are warning their leaders." He added at the time:

In the time that remains, we must urge the other nations of the world to act, and tell them that it is time to stand behind the promise that was made to us, to fulfill their responsibility, whether that means serious sanctions or whether it means a military operation.

In fact, no intelligence agencies claim that Iran is close to having a nuclear weapon as the international consensus (including that of Israel itself) has long been that Iran has no nuclear weapons program. Threatening an unprovoked attack on Iran is unquestionably a violation of the United Nations Charter.

Peres' absurd formulation is nothing new. Back in 2006, for example, Peres - who was instrumental in Israel's own clandestine development of nuclear weapons - said that "Israel is not threatening Iran, Iran is threatening Israel." Just last month, in a lie-filled speech before the European Parliament, Peres stated, "Nobody threatens Iran. Iran threatens others," in addition to spouting a pathetic litany of propaganda talking points with no basis in fact, including claiming Iran has an "imperial appetite," has "call[ed] for another Holocaust," and that Iranian leaders "are aiming to build a nuclear weapon and they deny it." (Incredibly, Peres - the president of Israel - also lambasted the Iranian government for "violating the charter of the United Nations which condemns the violation of human rights and aggression against other nations.")

In his recent comments with Chuck Hagel, Peres trod this same ground. "Israelis understand that Iran is not just a threat to Israel," he whined, "It's really a threat to the peace in the world, for no reason whatsoever. The world doesn't threaten Iran."

Actually, Peres is correct about one thing. "The world" - namely the 120 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement in addition to China, Russia and many others - "doesn't threaten Iran."

But the countries that both Peres himself and his guest Chuck Hagel represent certainly do.

*****

UPDATE III:

April 26, 2013 - Iranian Deputy Defense Minister Majid Bokaei has echoed the sentiments of his boss, Defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi, according to a report from PressTV.

Brigadier General Majid Bokaei called recent threats made by American and Israeli officials "psychological warfare" and "ranting," and said, "If enemies make a mistake we will answer their threats in the battlefield."

He similarly dismissed the potential of any Israeli attack on Iran, citing "major economic, political and geopolitical problems" facing Israel.

*****

UPDATE IV:

January 24, 2014 - In response to recent comments by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry regarding a potential military strike on Iran, Brigadier General Seyyed Massoud Jazayeri - Iran's deputy chief of staff - said in an interview that, in the event of an attack, American interests in the region would be "completely destroyed."

Speaking to Al Arabiya this week, Kerry defended the interim international deal over Iran's nuclear program and the alleviating of some sanctions, but declared that if Iran were to back out of its commitments, "the military option of the United States is ready and prepared to do what it would have to do."

Such rhetoric is par for the course for American officials focused on diplomacy, but still eager to appear bellicose and aggressive to certain influential communities and audiences.

Last month, in a conversation at the Brookings Institution's Saban Center, a pro-Israel think tank in Washington, DC, President Barack Obama said much of the same. "What I've consistently said is even as I don't take any options off the table," Obama told Haim Saban, the organization's Israel-obsessed billionaire benefactor, "what we do have to test is the possibility that we can resolve this issue diplomatically."

The president repeated this a number of times during the conversation. "The best way for us to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapons is for a comprehensive, verifiable, diplomatic resolution, without taking any other options off the table if we fail to achieve that," he said, adding later that "when the President of the United States says that he doesn't take any options off the table, that should be taken seriously."

Following Obama's own appearance, Secretary Kerry also addressed the Saban conference in December. He assured the attendees that "as we negotiate, we will continue to be perfectly clear that, for Iran, the price of noncompliance, of failing to satisfy international concerns about the nuclear program, will be that we immediately ratchet up new sanctions, along with whatever further steps are needed to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon, including – as President Obama just made clear – a military option, if that were necessary."

In his own recent comments, General Jazayeri emphasized that the U.S. government is well aware that "the military option against Iran is not practical."

Hossein Naqavi Hosseini, spokesman for the National Security and Foreign Policy Committee of Iran's Majlis, reacted to Kerry's new comments by saying, "These statements are indicative of the U.S. double standards and will bring about nothing but tarnishing the US image," adding, "Definitely, we also announce that if the P5+1 (five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany) commit the least breach of the Geneva agreement, we will also have all the options on our table."

"Under pressures by the Zionist lobby, the U.S. adopts dual policies; on the one hand, they talk about agreement and positive relations with Iran, but on the other hand, they use an intimidating tone," Hosseini said.

*****

UPDATE V:

March 4, 2014 - In a recent interview with Jeffrey Goldberg, President Barack Obama insisted that the Iranian leadership takes his threat that "all options are on the table" - Washington D.C.-speak for military action - seriously when it comes to bullying Iran over its nuclear program. "I know they take it seriously," he said, elaborating,

We have a high degree of confidence that when they look at 35,000 U.S. military personnel in the region that are engaged in constant training exercises under the direction of a president who already has shown himself willing to take military action in the past, that they should take my statements seriously. And the American people should as well, and the Israelis should as well, and the Saudis should as well.

Obama added that he would prefer to "resolve this issue diplomatically," considering that "[t]here are always consequences to military action that are unpredictable and can spin out of control, and even if perfectly executed carry great costs."

In response, Iranian Brigadier General Massoud Jazayeri, deputy chief of staff of the Armed Forces for Cultural Affairs and Defense Publicity, dismissed Obama's statement as "the joke of the year."

"The low-IQ U.S. president and his country's Secretary of State John Kerry speak of the effectiveness of 'the US options on the table' on Iran while this phrase is mocked at and has become a joke among the Iranian nation, specially the children," Jazayeri said, according to the government-run Fars News Agency.

"Obama's statements about the number of the U.S. troops in the region and the extent of their influence are completely inexpert remarks far from the reality," he declared, "and these statements can be used as the joke of the year." He also warned that, were Iran to be attacked by American forces, Iranian retaliation would be devastating, saying, "If they err, the region will be turned into a hell for them."

Jazayeri also suggested that the American people be more skeptical of official statements made by their politicians regarding Iran, noting that "if they contemplate a little, they will come to realize how false many of their words are."

Also responding to Obama's remarks, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham chided the American president for falling back on tired talking points and bellicose rhetoric.

"One part of the remarks made by the U.S. president is in contradiction to the principles of international law and against the spirit of diplomatic negotiations meant to prevent unconstructive slogans and resorting to threats," she said.

*****

The Last Straw:Britain’s Former Foreign Secretary Regrets One War, Tries to Avoid Another

Jack Straw, MP for Blackburn and former British Foreign Secretary, 2001-2006

(Reuters)

Nearly a decade ago, on April 2, 2003, British parliamentarian Jack Straw was steadfast in his support for the recent invasion of Iraq. “Saddam's removal is necessary to eradicate the threat from his weapons of mass destruction,” insisted Straw, who was then serving as Tony Blair’s Foreign Secretary.

Years later, in testimony before the UK’s Iraq Inquiry, Straw regretted his critical involvement in the decision to go to war. Saying he acted "on the basis of the best evidence available at the time,” Straw spoke of the “profoundly difficult moral and political dilemma" he had been faced with, especially considering his belief that the official U.S. policy of regime change in Iraq to be "improper and unlawful."

The overhyped threat of Saddam’s weapons capabilities - pushed by British intelligence in September 2002 - was, in Straw’s estimation, “an error that has haunted us ever since.”

Such errors, if the recently renewed threats of war emanating from both Washington and Tel Aviv are to be believed, are currently being repeated. This time, however, Jack Straw isn't taking the bait.

In an oped published late last month in The Daily Telegraph, Straw outlined the importance of continued negotiation and diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear program and the absurdity of threatening military action.

In clear prose that would never make it into most mainstream American publications, Straw noted the often-ignored history of Western colonial and imperial actions against Iran and clearly laid out Iran’s own position. He explains:

What Iran seeks is twofold. First, it wants its “full rights” under the NPT for civil nuclear power. It can fairly point out that three nuclear weapons states – Israel, India and Pakistan – have always refused to join the NPT, while North Korea, now boasting about its atomic capability, withdrew from the Treaty in 2003. Second, it seeks an end to its international isolation and a recognition (especially by the US) of its regional status.

Straw added, “Normalisation of relations with Iran is also an important prize for the international community,” as Iran could help stabilize regional conflicts from Syria to Afghanistan. He also urged the immediate “reopening of the embassies in Tehran and London” and rightly derided Netanyahu a “belligerent cheerleader for the war party against Iran.”

While expressing his belief that the leadership in Tehran may want the “intellectual capacity for a nuclear weapons system, but will stop short of making that system a reality,” Straw still pointed out that, even if he was wrong, “a nuclear-armed Iran would certainly not be worth a war.”

To be fair, Straw has long opposed military action against Iran. In 2006, he dismissed reports of a potential U.S. nuclear strike on Iran as “completely nuts,” and said that there was “no smoking gun” to justify any attack on Iran despite the allegations about its nuclear program.

“We can’t be certain about Iran’s intentions and that is therefore not a basis for which anybody would gain authority to go to military action,” he told the BBC.

Six years later, Straw maintains this position. “War is not an option,” he concludes.

Let’s hope that - this time around - he’s right.

*****

Originally posted at Muftah.

*****

The Not-So-Imminent Iranian Nuke: A Year Away for a Decade

According to official estimates, the Islamic Republic of Iran is now roughly a year away from acquiring a nuclear bomb.  Well, that is, if it were actually building a nuclear bomb.  Which it's not. 

"Right now, we think it would take over a year or so for Iran to actually develop a nuclear weapon, but obviously we don’t want to cut it too close," President Barack Obama told an Israeli television station on March 14, 2013.  In order to stop Iran, Obama vowed to "continue to keep all options on the table," a euphemism for engaging in an unprovoked military attack, thus initiating a war of aggression, the "supreme international crime."

Obama's statement came just two days after his own Director of National Intelligence told a Senate committee that the Iranian government had not made a decision to weaponize its legal, safeguarded civilian nuclear energy program.  "We do not know if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons," DNI James Clapper said.  Even if it did, he added, Iran wouldn't be able to secretly divert any of its stockpiled and safeguarded enrichment uranium to a weapons program.

The American president failed to make this distinction in his interview, instead saying only that a nuclear-armed Iran would be "dangerous for the world. It would be dangerous for U.S. national security interests."

Repeating his administration's main talking point, Obama told his Israeli interviewer, "What I have also said is that there is a window, not an infinite period of time, but a window of time where we can resolve this diplomatically and it is in all of our interests."

But this window has already been open for decades and Iran has supposedly been only a year away from a bomb for the past ten years.

In November 2003, then Mossad chief Meir Dagan told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that Iran's nuclear program would be at a "point of no return" within the next year and would then "have the potential to produce 10 nuclear bombs a year." Israeli Defense Minster Shaul Mofaz repeated the one year "point of no return" timeline in early 2005, a claim reinforced by other Israeli officials throughout that year. 

Similar estimates were made in 2006, 2007 and 2008. Oh, and 2009.

In April 2010, Ronald Burgess, director of the U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that the "general consensus" was that Iran could develop a single nuclear bomb within a year if the leadership decided to do so, despite maintaining that Iran didn't have an active nuclear weapons program.

As the years have passed, this assessment has held fast.

In late January 2011, Aviv Kochavi, director of Israeli Military Intelligence, admitted Iran was not actively working on a nuclear weapon, but claimed it could build one in "a year or two" once "the leader decides to begin enriching at 90 percent."

A year later, in January 2012, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta told 60 Minutes, "The consensus is that, if they decided to do it, it would probably take them about a year to be able to produce a bomb."

Just few days later, Kochavi told a panel at the Herzliya security conference that "Iran has enough nuclear material for four bombs," adding, "We have conclusive evidence that they are after nuclear weapons. When Khamenei gives the order to produce the first nuclear weapon – it will be done, we believe, within one year."

Last week, addressing the very same conference, Kochavi was back with a new prediction - actually, it was the same one as before.  He claimed that, in the coming year, the Iranian "leadership would like to find itself in the position of being able to break out to an atomic weapon stage in a short period of time, according to the IDF's intelligence assessments. However, he said that Iran has not yet decided to build the bomb."

Greg Thielmann, a former U.S. intelligence analyst now with the Arms Control Association, recently explained that "calculating such a time line involves a complicated set of likely and unlikely assumptions," telling journalist Laura Rozen, "If Iran decided today to build nuclear weapons, it would require years, not weeks or months, to deploy a credible nuclear arsenal."

Meanwhile, with Obama set to visit Israel this week, Reuters now notes that "Netanyahu has not publicly revised the spring-to-summer 2013 dating for his 'red line'," the stated point at which the Iranian nuclear program advances far enough to automatically trigger an Israeli attack, a threat laid down by the Israeli Prime Minister last September.  "But several Israeli officials privately acknowledged it had been deferred, maybe indefinitely," Reuters adds before quoting an anonymous official: "The red line was never a deadline," he said.

Clearly, when it comes to propagandistic prognostications about the imminence of an Iranian bomb, they never really are.

*****