Open Letter II to Andrew Rosenthal: Iran's Baha'is Have Names and Faces

Dear Andrew,

You didn't respond to my open letter, which I posted yesterday in this blog and also e-mailed to you.

I realize of course that as editorial page editor of The New York Times, there are many competing and compelling interests demanding attention on The Times' op-ed page. However, this paucity of space makes the determination to provide the Leveretts with three op-eds in the space of eight months, all calling for "rapprochement" with the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the decision to allow Roger Cohen to write a steady stream of op-eds, claiming that "Iran is not totalitarian", all the more peculiar.

I believe there are subjects which The Times cannot afford to ignore, given its checkered past. As acknowledged by Max Frankel, former executive editor of The Times, who wrote about The Times' coverage of the Holocaust:

"AND then there was failure: none greater than the staggering, staining failure of The New York Times to depict Hitler's methodical extermination of the Jews of Europe as a horror beyond all other horrors in World War II -- a Nazi war within the war crying out for illumination.

. . . .

No article about the Jews' plight ever qualified as The Times's leading story of the day, or as a major event of a week or year. The ordinary reader of its pages could hardly be blamed for failing to comprehend the enormity of the Nazis' crime.

. . . .

And to this day the failure of America's media to fasten upon Hitler's mad atrocities stirs the conscience of succeeding generations of reporters and editors. It has made them acutely alert to ethnic barbarities in far-off places like Uganda, Rwanda, Bosnia and Kosovo. It leaves them obviously resolved that in the face of genocide, journalism shall not have failed in vain."

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/14/news/150th-anniversary-1851-2001-turning-away-from-the-holocaust.html?pagewanted=1

Query: Why has the conscience of The Times not been stirred by Iran's barbaric oppression of its Baha'i minority? How is it possible that the Leveretts can write three op-eds for The Times calling for "rapprochement" with the Islamic Republic of Iran without ever mentioning the Baha'is? How can Roger Cohen write a yearlong series of op-eds for The Times , much of it devoted to the contention that "Iran is not totalitarian", and only mention the Baha'is once in a single passing sentence? And how can The New York Times not provide space for contrary opinion, illuminating the plight of the Baha'is, on its op-ed page?

Can Iranian discrimination against its Baha'i minority be compared with Nazi Germany's discrimination against the Jews? As observed in a February 22, 2009 Voice of America editorial "reflecting the views of the United States Government":

"More than 9 months have passed since 7 leaders of the Baha'i community in Iran were arrested and sent to prison with no access to legal counsel. Now the Iranian government has announced the 7 have been charged with espionage. The move is the latest in decades of repressive measures against the Baha'is, the largest non-Islamic religious minority in Iran. Those measures include barring Baha'is from attending public universities or working in public agencies, destroying or closing Baha'i places of worship, bulldozing Baha'i cemeteries, legally confiscating Baha'i property, and killing Baha'is with impunity."

www.voanews.com/uspolicy/2009-02-23-voa5.cfm

Remind you of Nazi Germany and the Jews? It should.

And what about those seven Baha'i community leaders, whose picture appears above? Their names: Mrs. Fariba Kamalabadi, Mr. Jamaloddin Khanjani, Mr. Afif Naeimi, Mr. Saeid Rezaie, Mrs. Mahvash Sabet, Mr. Behrouz Tavakkoli, and Mr. Vahid Tizfahm.

Do you know what is happening to the seven? Held in Iran's notorious Evin prison since the spring of 2008, they are scheduled to go on trial on Tuesday and are being charged with espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities, and propaganda against the Islamic republic.

We will soon witness a show trial with a predetermined outcome. The only issue to be resolved: Who will be sentenced to death and who will be sentenced to prison and lashings?

An anti-Baha'i campaign in the Iranian news media campaign has recently intensified, and the Baha'is are being accused of provoking the tumultuous street demonstrations which occurred on the Ashura holiday on December 27. The semiofficial Fars News Agency reported that "Bahaism under the leadership of Zionism is behind the latest crisis and unrest."

And so, Andrew, I repeat my request for the opportunity to respond to the Leveretts with my own op-ed piece. Again, if you prefer someone else, I am certain there are many others, more learned than myself, waiting in line to offer rebuttal.

The New York Times owes this much to its readership and to humanity.

Best,
Jeffrey

Open Letter to Andrew Rosenthal: Yet Another Leveretts Op-Ed in The New York Times

Dear Andrew,

Today, for the third time in less than eight months, The New York Times has again provided Flynt and Hillary Mann Leverett with a pulpit in order to call for U.S. rapprochement with the tyrannical Islamic Republic of Iran. In a nutshell, their op-ed of today's date contends:

1. The Green Movement is leaderless.

2. The Islamic Republic is not about to implode.

3. Rapprochement with the existing Iranian regime is necessary.

Their op-ed concludes:

"As a model, the president would do well to look to China. Since President Richard Nixon’s opening there (which took place amid the Cultural Revolution), successive American administrations have been wise enough not to let political conflict — whether among the ruling elite or between the state and the public, as in the Tiananmen Square protests and ethnic separatism in Xinjiang — divert Washington from sustained, strategic engagement with Beijing. President Obama needs to begin displaying similar statesmanship in his approach to Iran."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/06/opinion/06leverett.html?pagewanted=2

Perhaps the Leveretts would have also sought rapprochement 70 years ago with Hitler's Germany; this was another savage regime that was not about "to implode." No similarity between Ahmadinejad's Iran and Hitler's Germany? Perhaps if you overlook Iran's treatment of its Baha'i minority - no mention of the Baha'is in any of the Leverett's three op-eds - you can ignore the parallels.

Personally, I am horrified that The New York Times, with its abysmal history of reporting the Holocaust, would allow Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen and the Leveretts with so much op-ed space for their respective calls for "inertia" and "rapprochement", yet not allow anyone else to describe the suffering of Iran's Baha'is.

If you want to publish the opinion of the Leveretts three times in less than eight months, don't you think that for reasons of journalistic ethics The New York Times has an obligation to publish contrary opinion?

Or perhaps, by publishing their calls for rapprochement three times in less than eight months without permitting rebuttal, The New York Times wishes to signal that it has adopted the Leveretts' position. Nevertheless, it would behoove The Times to permit rebuttal.

Of late, The New York Times censored my response to its editorial entitled "Iran’s War on Its People". My response, which was "on-topic" and certainly not abusive, observed:

"It is gratifying at long last to see an editorial from The New York Times, which acknowledges the brutality of the ruling regime in Tehran.

It is disappointing, however, to observe that this editorial is incapable of observing the refusal of President Obama to offer, at a minimum, moral support to the dissidents and to bring this matter before the UN Security Council.

It is disappointing that The New York Times has been reluctant to permit contrary opinion to that of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, who most recently issued a call for "inertia" with respect to U.S. policy pertaining to Iran.

It is disappointing that The New York Times has been reluctant to permit contrary opinion to that of the Leveretts, who in 2009 wrote two op-eds in The New York Times calling for "rapprochement" with Iran.

Finally, it is disappointing that The New York Times has not provided space on its op-ed page for a discussion of Iran's horrifying oppression of its Baha'i minority (Cohen over the course of many months of Iran-related op-eds only mentioned the Baha'is once.)"

See: http://jgcaesarea.blogspot.com/2009/12/iranian-dissidents-courage-obamas.html

Your "moderators" also would not permit a subsequent comment that I submitted in response to Roger Cohen's op-ed, "Change Iran at the Top". I remain baffled by this suppression of contrary opinion by The Times.

Once again, I kindly request an opportunity to respond to the Leveretts with my own op-ed piece. However, if you prefer someone else, I am certain there are many others, more learned than myself, waiting in line.

Best,
Jeffrey

Hillary Reassures Ahmadinejad

Hillary Clinton, after a prolonged disappearance that raised many eyebrows, has suddenly returned to the international scene with a vengeance, making the following pronouncement concerning Iran:

"Now, we’ve avoided using the term 'deadline' ourselves. That’s not a term that we have used because we want to keep the door to dialogue open. But we’ve also made it clear we can’t continue to wait and we cannot continue to stand by when the Iranians themselves talk about increasing their production of high-enriched uranium and additional facilities for nuclear power that very likely can be put to dual use.

So we have already begun discussions with our partners and with likeminded nations about pressure and sanctions. I can’t appropriately comment on the details of those discussions now, except to say that our goal is to pressure the Iranian Government, particularly the Revolutionary Guard elements, without contributing to the suffering of the ordinary Iraqis who deserve better than what they currently are receiving.

Iran is going through a very turbulent period in its history. There are many troubling signs of the actions that they are taking. And we want to reiterate that we stand with those Iranians who are peacefully demonstrating. We mourn the loss of innocent life. We condemn the detention and imprisonment, the torture and abuse of people, which seems to be accelerating. And we hope that there will be an opportunity for Iran to reverse course, to begin engaging in a positive way with the international community, respecting the rights of their own citizens. But we’re going to continue on our dual-track approach."

Let's try to decipher this gibberish:

1. The talk about "crippling sanctions" was just talk.

2. The talk of deadlines was just talk.

3. The heinous actions taken by the Ahmadinejad regime fall into the "troubling" category.

4. We are unable to act on our own and must continue to consult with our "partners".

5. We still have naive hopes that the Ahmadinejad regime will "reverse course".

Not surprisingly, Iran was quick to commend Hillary. Iranian government spokesman Ramin Mehmanparast stated today:

"We share the same idea with her. Deadlines are meaningless."

Meanwhile, Iran’s Interior Minister Mostafa Mohammad Najjar today warned dissidents that they would be sentenced to death if they continued to demonstrate against the government:

“If anyone takes part in riots, they will be deemed mohareb [infidels] and acting against national security.”

The threat came one day after Iran's general-prosecutor, Gholamhossein Mohseni-Ejei, also threatened “rioters” with execution.

Thanks, Hillary, for comforting Ahmadinejad. Your credibility has descended to the level of Janet ("the system worked") Napolitano.

The Coming Three (or Four) Front War Against Israel

As reported today by Iranian Press TV:

"The Hamas political representative in Lebanon says the Palestinian resistance group will fight alongside Hezbollah should Israel launch a new offensive against Lebanon.

'We are guests in Lebanon and our policy will not change,' Ali Baraka said during a memorial service held on Sunday to mark one week since the death of two Hamas members in an explosion in Beirut's southern suburbs.

'However, we are committed to resisting against Israeli occupation forces,' he added.

'Israel should know that if it launches a new attack against Lebanon, we will not stand handcuffed. We will face the aggression side by side with our brethren in Lebanon — be they the resistance, the army, or the people, to repel the aggression,' Baraka stated.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=115289§ionid=351020203

If Hezbollah attacks Israel from the north, will Hamas also fire missiles from the south, as asserted by Baraka? Note that Hezbollah refrained from attacking Israel during Operation Cast Lead, and observe past enmity between Sunni Palestinians, who, under Arafat, once "ruled" southern Lebanon, and Shiite Lebanese, who were for many years the "downtrodden" majority in southern Lebanon. Ultimately, however, both are beholden to and take instructions from Iran, their fiscal benefactor.

Additional signs of an upcoming conflagration?

Note the attempts being made by Iran to purchase advanced weapons parts and systems in anticipation of a coming war. In particular, watch the footage released by the CIA of an Iranian arms dealer attempting to close a deal in a sting operation and listen to his declaration:

"They think the war is coming."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1139601.html

The arms dealer is discussing the possibility of war with the United States; however, any confrontation with the U.S. will inevitably entail an attack on Israel, given the need to galvanize the street throughout the Muslim world, a strategy employed by Saddam during the First Gulf War.

Obama Draws Another Line in the Sand; Tehran Counters with an Ultimatum

Obama, the prince of procrastination, is again delaying a decision concerning the Iranian nuclear weapons program. According to a lead article in The New York Times entitled "U.S. Sees an Opportunity to Press Iran on Nuclear Fuel":

"As President Obama faces pressure to back up his year-end ultimatum for diplomatic progress with Iran, the administration says that domestic unrest and signs of unexpected trouble in Tehran’s nuclear program make its leaders particularly vulnerable to strong and immediate new sanctions.

. . . .

The White House wants to focus the new sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the military force believed to run the nuclear weapons effort. That force has also played a crucial role in the repression of antigovernment demonstrators since the disputed presidential election in June."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/world/middleeast/03iran.html?hp

New sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards? Excuse me, but whom are the Obami attempting to deceive: themselves or a gullible Western public? Certainly, they are not fooling Tehran, which has responded with its own ultimatum:

"The West should decide whether it wants to sell nuclear fuel to Iran or swap 20 percent nuclear fuel for Iran’s low-enriched uranium, Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said on Saturday.

'This is an ultimatum,' he said.

'The international community has only one more month to make a decision. Otherwise, Tehran will enrich uranium to the higher purity needed for the fuel,' he added."

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=211169

Entirely ignored by the Obami is the strong likelihood that Ahmadinejad will initiate a direct missile attack on Israel or an indirect assault via its proxies, Hezbollah and Hamas, to defuse the tension on Tehran's streets. Recent precedent: recall how Saddam launched missiles against Tel Aviv and Haifa during the First Gulf War in order to enlist pan-Arabian sympathy.

And when Ahmadinejad orders an attack on Israel, and 40,000 rockets and missiles are fired at Israeli civilian centers from Lebanon, and 10,000 more rockets are fired on Israel from Gaza, will Obama take action or, as is his custom, return to his golf game and again vote "present"?

Will Iran Attack Israel in 2010?

Will Iran attack Israel in 2010? Regrettably, the chances of this happening are high. Rationale:

1. Were Iran to initiate a war with Israel, either directly or via its proxies (Hamas, Hezbollah and/or Syria), Ahmadinejad might sense that he could relieve the pressure building on the streets of Tehran against his regime.

2. Obama continues to draw lines in the sand, and now, instead of the "crippling" sanctions against Iran that had long been threatened at yearend, his administration is considering a "more calibrated approach" involving "targeted" sanctions. Meanwhile, Ahmadinejad has come to regard Obama as a paper tiger.

3. Egypt continues to build a steel wall under its border with Gaza, which could choke off, to some degree, additional military supplies. In the interim, Hamas has fully replenished its rocket supply, and after a cowardly military display during Operation Cast Lead - its forces stripped off their uniforms and avoided pitched battles with the Israel Defense Forces - Hamas may be looking to regain some of its honor. Note the recent Cast Lead anniversary commemoration which was almost entirely ignored by Gazans.

4. Hezbollah's backing and popularity among Lebanon's Shiites is premised in no small part upon its ability to distribute Iranian funding to its social welfare network of schools, clinics, etc. Eliminate their funding, deprive them of their steady flow of Iranian weaponry and training, and the house of cards collapses. As such, Hezbollah head, Nasrallah, will likely abide by any determination of his Persian mentors, notwithstanding the likelihood of sledgehammer Israeli retaliation.

War or no war? It's a coin toss. The more upbeat, flip side of the coin? Here's one possible scenario:

1. The dissidents again take to the streets in Tehran and dislodge Ahmadinejad, who is replaced by Mousavi. Mousavi is anything but a "reformist"; while prime minister of Iran in the past, he refused to tolerate dissent and was responsible for the execution of thousands of opponents of the regime. Also, while prime minister, he refused to seek the release of the U.S. embassy hostages, and he was instrumental in creating Hezbollah.

2. Mousavi, who now claims he is "ready for martyrdom", is nevertheless a pragmatist and a survivor, and as prime minister, he may decide that Iran can no longer afford to pay for its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah, given Iran's weakened economy. He might also seek some sort of lukewarm relationship with Obama.

3. Don't get your hopes up too high: Mousavi will still try to pursue Iran's program for the development of nuclear weapons. The name of the game remains Middle East hegemony.

4. Israel is granted a temporary reprieve from what stands to be a brutal war in which Israel's civilian population would be targeted. At least Mousavi, unlike Ahmadinejad, acknowledges that the Holocaust did in fact occur.

When asked by friends what I want most in life, my steadfast reply is "boredom". Let's hope for a "boring" 2010, free of military threats and war.

Iranian Dissidents' Courage, Obama's Cowardice

In an editorial entitled "Iran’s War on Its People", The New York Times condemns the brutality of the Tehran regime and once again finds a way to commend President Obama:

"President Obama is right to remain open to dialogue with Iran and to continue looking for a peaceful resolution to the dispute over Tehran’s nuclear ambitions. He is also right to condemn the violence against Iranian civilians and to place the United States on their side, as he did in his speech accepting the Nobel Peace Prize and in comments on Monday."

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29tue1.html?hp

Sorry, but Obama's behavior pertaining to the Iranian dissidents has been disgraceful. For many months Obama has all but ignored them, and it is no wonder that the dissidents on the streets of Tehran chant:

"Obama, are you with them or with us?"

My comment in response to The Times editorial, if they decide it is "not abusive" and "on-topic" and agree to post it - The Times remains extremely protective of Obama:

It is gratifying at long last to see an editorial from The New York Times, which acknowledges the brutality of the ruling regime in Tehran.

It is disappointing, however, to observe that this editorial is incapable of observing the refusal of President Obama to offer, at a minimum, moral support to the dissidents and to bring this matter before the UN Security Council.

It is disappointing that The New York Times has been reluctant to permit contrary opinion to that of Roger ("Iran is not totalitarian") Cohen, who most recently issued a call for "inertia" with respect to U.S. policy pertaining to Iran.

It is disappointing that The New York Times has been reluctant to permit contrary opinion to that of the Leveretts, who in 2009 wrote two op-eds in The New York Times calling for "rapprochement" with Iran.

Finally, it is disappointing that The New York Times has not provided space on its op-ed page for a discussion of Iran's horrifying oppression of its Baha'i minority (Cohen over the course of many months of Iran-related op-eds only mentioned the Baha'is once.)

[The above comment was censored by The New York Times. "Abusive"? Not "on-topic"? Too critical of Obama? Or too critical of The New York Times?]