Middle East crisis


Israeli diplomat's car damaged in an explosion in India.. (Credit: AP/Mustafa Quraishi)
The explosions in Bangkok on Tuesday that destroyed an Israeli diplomat’s car escalated the already-dangerous situation between Iran and Israel. Israel’s defense minister connected the attacks with others on Israeli embassy personnel in India and Georgia. “Israel will act methodically and take strong yet patient action against the international terrorism that originates in Iran,” warned Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. For its part, the Iranian regime strongly rejected the charges, angrily claiming the attacks were the work of Israel itself. Each week seems to bring fresh evidence that a full-blown Iranian-Israeli war is growing more likely, a conflict that could engulf the entire Middle East and draw in the United States.
Yet it would be a mistake to believe that Israel and Iran are eternal enemies. In fact, these two countries that despise each other so much—Iran’s Supreme Leader recently called Israel a “cancer”—were once allies. This is not ancient history. Both pre- and post-Revolutionary have Iran had extensive military and economic ties with the Jewish state. As recently as two decades ago, each country considered the other a vital friend in a region filled with hostile enemies. Conflict between the two may be bitter, but it is not, and never was, inevitable.
Iran informally recognized Israel in 1950, becoming the first Muslim-majority country after Turkey to do so. With few allies in the regions, Israel welcomed Iran’s modest support. That support increased when England and the United States overthrew a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953, installing in its place a more western-friendly regime. The new regime, headed by the Shah, was so aligned with the United States that a deal was stuck granting the Persian nation a huge nuclear energy program, as well as large quantities of plutonium and enriched uranium—two pathways to a nuclear bomb.
The Israeli-Iranian alliance was a part of the Shah’s pro-western orientation. “The Shah looked at Israel as a way to establish friendly relations with the U.S.,” says the Rand Corporation’s Dalia Dassa Kaye, co-author of a recent monograph on Iranian-Israeli relations. Israel saw Iran as a way to escape its regional isolation. “They were bound by common enemies—the Soviet Union, and Arab nationalism, especially Iraq,” says Kaye.
The alliance, though never formalized or publicized because of Israel’s unpopularity in the region, consisted to deep intelligence and arms cooperation, as well as oil sharing. In the late 1950s, Israel, Iran and Turkey formed a trilateral intelligence alliance and performed counterterrorism intelligence operations. In the early 1960s, they teamed up to support Iraqi Kurds fighting the central regime. According to Kaye’s research, “Tehran and Tel Aviv developed a close military and intelligence relationship that would continue to expand until the Islamic revolution.”
The extent of this alliance should not be exaggerated. The Shah kept its relationship with Israel secretive for fear of rousing his own anti-Israeli population as well as those of Iran’s neighbors. Instead, “the alliance was based on the perception of common threats,” says Trita Parsi, author of a prize-winning book on relations between Israel, Iran and the United States. But the threats emanating from the Soviet Union, Iran and the Arab bloc were perceived as so serious that they outlasted the Shah’s overthrow in 1979.
The Islamist government that took power in Iran in 1979 was deeply hostile to all things Western, Zionism not least among them. And yet, the requirements of Iranian national interest trumped ideology to force the Islamic government to cooperation with the hated Jewish state on a number of issues. Once the U.S.-supported Iraqi government invaded Iran, the Persian state turned to Israel for much-needed arms. Phantom fighter planes and weapons for the Iranian army were sent by Israel. One estimate puts Israel’s arms sales to Iran at $500 million annually.
In the mid-1980s Israel was the conduit between Iran and the Reagan administration during the illicit Iran-Contra affair in which the Reagan adminstration sold weapons to the Iranians and used the proceeds to fund the anti-communist insurgency in Nicaragaua. Even as it was relying more on Israel for arms in its war, the Iranian regime increased its poisonous rhetoric attacking the Jewish state, just as the Shah had done. According to the Iranian-born Parsi, such rhetoric was meant to maintain credibility in the wider Muslim world, but wasn’t matched by action. “Israel is Iran’s best friend and we do not intend to change our position,” Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin said in 1987.
Two events caused the gradual splitting between the erstwhile allies. First, the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, removing the greatest threat outside of the region to both nations’ security. Second, the weakening of Iraq during the Persian Gulf War diluted its menace. Simply put, Iran and Israel needed each other less, as both were more secure in the post-Cold War world. As Parsi wrote in “The Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran and the United States, “the common threats that for decades had prompted the two states to cooperate and find common geostrategic interests—in spite of Iran’s transformation into an Islamist anti-Zionist state—would no longer exist,”
The Israelis, who had long ignored Iranian rhetoric, decided it needed to be taken seriously, especially in light of the Islamic state’s support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Iran worried about Israel’s growing power and wanted to assert power in the region. “Iran once had a more pragmatic leadership and policies,” says Kaye. The marginalization of the reformers that were popular in the 1990s meant that the extremist factions in the leadership became dominant. America’s invasion of Saddam’s Hussein’s Iraq in 2003 removed that country’s threat to Israel, leaving it with Iran as the most menacing nation in the region.
Now, Iran and Israel seem headed for war. One of those countries, or possibly the United States, will take an action that its opponent sees as requiring a military response. Assassinations of scientists and diplomats are bad enough, but a full-scale war could be the greatest disaster of the young 21st century, a battle between well-armed bitter enemies who once found it possible to co-exist.
We’ve known it was coming from the moment Rick Santorum scored his surprise three-state sweep last week, and now it’s here: The first anti-Santorum attack ad from Restore Our Future, the Mitt Romney-aligned super PAC:
The spot is apparently running in Michigan (where the latest polls all show Santorum ahead of Romney), Ohio (where a poll today puts Santorum ahead by seven points), and Arizona (where Romney seems to be in better shape). Presumably, the number of attacks ads like this and the frequency with which they air in these states will increase in the days ahead.
This, of course, is the formula that Romney relied on to undermine Newt Gingrich when the former House speaker emerged as his chief rival in the run-up to last month’s Florida primary. In a way, Santorum is in basically the same position Gingrich was then, frantically playing financial and organizational catch-up after a breakthrough victory. So Gingrich’s Florida futility seems telling: Even with a major boost in fund-raising and a $5 million check from Sheldon Adelson, he was still outspent by Romney by an estimated $12 million on ads in Florida.
Now it’s Santorum’s turn to face this kind of disparity. Money has been flowing into his campaign like never before this past week and he’s found his own super PAC benefactor, but there’s just no way he and his allies will even come close to matching what the Romney forces will be able to spend in Michigan, Ohio and any other state they deem crucial to their strategy. What’s worse, the Wall Street Journal reported today that Adelson, who’s been sending signals behind the scenes that he wants to stay loyal to Gingrich but also wants to help Romney, may have found a way to reconcile his inner-conflict — funding ads that are ostensibly aimed at helping Gingrich but that actually do Romney a big favor by bashing Santorum.
If there’s a ray of hope for Santorum, it can be found in the content of Restore Our Future’s new attack ad, which blasts Santorum for votes as a senator to raise the debt ceiling and allow convicted felons to vote and for earmark requests. What’s striking is how little the Romney forces have to work with; after all, you can always find something to put in a 30-second attack ad, but the material being used here has an obscure/random feel to it. Santorum, with his generally consistent conservatism and lack of serious personal baggage, just doesn’t isn’t the same ripe target as Gingrich. When the Romney campaign needed to attack him, the ads literally wrote themselves:
So it’s fair to wonder how much punch the anti-Santorum ads will pack. Plus, Santorum — again, unlike Gingrich — is actually a generally competent candidate running a generally competent campaign. Which means his side wasted no time mounting a response to the Romney blitz:
Santorum doesn’t have the money to saturate the airwaves with ads like this. But his real aim may be to them to generate viral and free media attention and to convince influential conservatives around the country to rally to his defense and push the Mitt-as-bully narrative.
Occupy the SEC's radical message
As the Occupy the SEC march made its way past the Goldman Sachs building in New York City on Monday night I looked up from the near-constant tweeting I do at these events just in time to see a man in a top-shelf suit rush past us holding a bottle of champagne. I imagined him looking at the 100-plus crowd of activists disrupting the walk to his luxury mid-size, pouting indignantly, “You’re gonna do this to a guy in a $4,000 suit? Come on!”
Occupy the SEC held the march to celebrate the release of their 325-page comment letter to the SEC calling for them to strengthen – and then more importantly enforce – the Volcker Rule, which will go into effect on July 21, 2012. According to Aaron Bornstein, who helped organize the march, Occupy the SEC’s comment is about twice the size of the next longest letter, drafted by the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association (SIFMA), a financial interest lobbying group.
The working group’s detailed policy position gives lie to the common claim that the Occupy Wall Street movement is “well intentioned but misinformed.” It shows there’s room in the movement both for policy wonks and those chanting “anti-capitalista.”
The group was aimed to bolster one of the key reforms to emerge since the 2008 crash. The Volcker Rule (named after former Federal Reserve Board chairman Paul Volcker) is a subsection of the Dodd-Frank act, passed in 2010. Its purpose is to curb risky speculative trading by Wall Street investment firms.. The regulations are set to be finalized in mid-July. Until then well-paid lobbyists will do everything they can to create new loopholes that will enable the banks to engage in high-risk, high-reward speculation. Occupy the SEC seeks to block them.
“The main takeaway is the bank lobby is not the only player when it comes to influencing the regulators. There’s another side, and we’re trying to take that side,” said Akshat Tewary, an attorney, who helped draft the letter.
The SEC now bound to some combination of their initial draft and the comments they receive, explained Alexis Goldstein, who quit her Wall Street job last year. “They can’t add new stuff out of thin air; it has to come from comments. We’ve basically said the opposite of what the banks have said, from what I can tell so far.”
The action marks an unusual development for both the Occupy Wall Street movement and the SEC. Unlike the Environmental Protection Agency which gets comments from both industry and environmentalists,, the SEC usually only hears from industry. The movement is bolstering the regulators, not bad-mouthing them. While the Occupy movement is often characterized by its disruptive street protests, it also includes a faction willing to dedicate untold hours of detailed policy analysis urging the SEC to do its job. That’s a more full understanding of what the movement calls “diversity of tactics.”
It’s hard to argue with Occupy the SEC’s recommendations. The Volcker Rule currently has an exemption for “repos”, which, Akshat tells me, is “basically a way to get funding at a very high leverage and very quickly.” Alexis describes repos like a pawn shop transaction. You sell your watch to the pawn shop for cash, but you plan on buying it back.
“So it’s technically a sale, but it’s treated as a way to finance things. Banks do this all the time, to finance things. And that would be fine if they were using Treasuries [ie U.S. Treasury bonds, the definition of a safe bet], but they’re using these crappy assets. So they sell them, then they buy them back, and it’s all really short term trading that happens with them. When people start to think the assets are bad they demand more collateral, and then other people hear that they’re in trouble so they start to demand more collateral and it becomes this death spiral.”
Repos are one of the reasons Lehman Brothers fell as swiftly as it did in 2008 as it did, and Occupy the SEC thinks that exempting them from the Volcker rule is a “terrible” idea.
They also want illiquid, over-the-counter financial products – like mortgage-backed securities – to be forbidden. As Alexis Goldstein puts it, “There’s a clause that says any high-risk asset shouldn’t be allowed by the rule, and we think over the counter illiquid assets are high risk.” The millions of Americans still suffering the effects of the Great Recession that began with the 2008 Wall Street crash are likely to agree.
In addition to their attempt to directly influence the SEC, the group hopes to wage a broad educational campaign to teach the public about the financial industry. Occupy Wall Street has already successfully jammed early-stage class consciousness into the American zeitgeist. Occupy the SEC is hopping to build on that.
As one SEC occupier told me before the march, “One of the most exciting, surreal things about Occupy Wall Street so far is I have this sign that says ‘Bring Back the Glass-Steagall Act,’ and if I just hold that on the subway, or on Broadway, you see people walking up to me every day, every single day I do it, someone walks up to me and says, ‘Yeah man, the Glass-Steagall Act.’ That would have been unthinkable 4 or 5 months ago.”
Nancy Grace (Credit: AP/Chris Pizzello)
Cable news depends on colorful characters to draw eyeballs in between those reminders that there are “no new developments” in the real stories of the day. But even in a sea of distinctive jerkwads – your Erin Burnetts and Piers Morgans and Bill O’Reillys and Megyn Kellys – HLN host Nancy Grace never fails to distinguish herself. And just when you think she can’t find new depths to plumb, along comes the Whitney Houston story.
Grace, the woman who has made an entire cottage industry out of her indignation over Casey Anthony, who paints herself nightly as the avenging angel of poor dead Caylee, has never been one to trade in subtlety — or for that matter, facts. CNN had to settle a wrongful death suit after the mother of a missing child killed herself after being browbeaten on her show. (The parties agreed that Grace “engaged in no intentional wrongdoing.”) She fearlessly championed the prosecution’s side in the Duke lacrosse team rape case, blithely referring to “the victim,” and went ballistic over the very notion that the accused might be innocent. (She then conveniently remained quiet on the subject after the case was dismissed.) This, folks, is a woman who has guilt-tripped abduction victim Elizabeth Smart for not playing along with her interview tactics. And even after a jury found Casey Anthony not guilty last summer, she has held on to the story like a dog with a bone, insisting that “I told the truth,” luxuriating in descriptions of “the backdrop of 2-year-old Caylee’s decomposing body just a few houses down from where Tot Mom put her pillow every night,” and excoriating Anthony for – rich irony alert –“generating interest in herself.”
Yet apparently there just aren’t enough kidnapped babies and alleged gang rapes out there to keep Grace satisfied. She’s turning her attention now instead to the mysterious death of a diva. Grace, who famously said last summer that she knew more than the “kooky jury” on the Anthony case, now seems to know more than the L.A. coroner’s office. Despite word that foul play is “not suspected at this time” in Saturday’s death of Whitney Houston, Grace isn’t so sure. On Monday she appeared on CNN to ponder “Who, if anyone, gave [Houston] drugs following alcohol and drugs.” That itself isn’t a crazy question, though it is a bit of a reach – a suggestion that the story of a superstar dying alone and surrounded by prescription bottles just isn’t sexy enough. Not when surely there’s a villain on the loose for Nancy Grace to bring to justice. Cue dramatic theme music!
Medical accountability is to be considered whenever someone dies who may have had drugs administered to him or her. Just ask physician Conrad Murray, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in the death of Michael Jackson. But where Grace, in her totally Nancy Grace-like way, went totally bananas was when she asked, “Who let her slip or pushed her underneath that water? … Who let Whitney Houston go under that water?” Uhhhhhmm… Whitney Houston?
The sad desperation of news networks, and their flailing competitiveness in a glut of information overload, is rarely pretty to watch. But Grace isn’t just some blowhard, saying provocative things to get a rise out of the viewership. She’s a full-on loose cannon, a disseminator of disinformation and an ego gone rogue. That CNN and its sister network HLN continue to permit her to spew her wild speculations, to proudly flaunt her flat-out contempt for the facts as they are known, and to engage in character assassination long a not guilty verdict has been rendered in a court of law, is blatant and arrogant recklessness. Unchecked, how long before Grace decides she knows who “pushed” Houston under the water? How long before she’s on another crusade, deciding who is a victim and who is a perpetrator? How long before a real criminal investigation or trial is tainted because of her nightly yammering?
After her jaw-dropping segment Monday, CNN anchor Don Lemon had to leap into fire-dousing mode, issuing a hasty reminder that “This is not CNN’s reporting. We don’t know that to be true.” Here’s a crazy idea – you shouldn’t be talking about things you don’t know to be true on a network with the word “news” right there in the middle of it. And CNN shouldn’t continue to provide a platform to a woman whose self-interest makes a mockery of journalistic credibility.
Katherine Boo (Credit: Unnati Tripathi)
To say Katherine Boo writes humanely about poverty is an impossibly limited description. She writes about people — oft-ignored people with whom she’s spent years, accruing thousands of documents and hours of footage. And somehow all of this research turns into an exquisite, seamless narrative, a feat made all the more difficult by the fact that the subjects of her first book, “Behind the Beautiful Forevers,” the inhabitants of a Mumbai slum, speak languages she doesn’t know.
And yet even beyond the particularity of their stories, it’s clear the teenage garbage collectors and would-be power brokers and brides all live within a hopelessly broken and corrupt system that crushes their aspirations daily, an unmistakable conclusion of the book. “I don’t really believe in the representative poor person as a construct,” Boo told me this week. “But even if every individual is anomalous in every class and every country, I hope there’s another way to read the book, looking at the way in which money that’s intended for schools and child laborers and girls gets diverted, or the realities of police brutality.”
It’s not as if the deprivation and violence of the community’s daily life is entirely invisible to either the Indian government or outsiders. It’s that webs of corruption are wrapped so thickly around anti-poverty efforts as to make them a joke to the intended beneficiaries. A nun who worked with Mother Teresa turns out children on the street and sells impoverished people the expired food donated by hotels to nourish them. Foreign journalists visit the Annawadi slum to see whether government-funded women’s self-help groups are empowering women, and one of the craftier characters, Asha, gathers “random female neighbors to smile demurely while the officials went on about how their collective had lifted them from poverty.” Asha announces that her daughter, who fears the marriage that her mother will arrange, won’t be “‘dependent on any man.’ The foreign women always got emotional when she said this.” Boo doesn’t judge her: “For the poor of a country where corruption thieved a great deal of opportunity, corruption was one of the genuine opportunities that remained.”
Boo says now, “When we talk about accountability and implementation, even when I say those words, they’re just such eye-glazers. But that’s really what it’s about. It’s not that everybody in power wants to have a world in which somebody who is slowly dying on the road gets passed by. It’s that there’s so little work done to make (sure what) happens in Delhi or in Washington actually gets to the people it’s intended to. Whether it’s when I was reported on group homes for the developmentally disabled” — the work that won her a Pulitzer — “it was the same thing. The money just ended up circulating among the already privileged.”
But Boo is a reporter and a storyteller, and she doesn’t have a policy prescription, per se. She does believe that “statistics about the poor sometimes have a tenuous relationship to lived experience,” as she writes at the end of the book, adding, “I just believe that better arguments, maybe even better policies, get formulated when we know more about ordinary lives.”
Boo’s husband is Indian, and he’s the one who first suggested she turn her curiosity about poverty in booming India into a reporting project. She resisted, she writes in the book, out of fear for her ailing health and concern that she lacked the context or skills to write about India’s poor. One night at home in Washington, D.C., “tripping over an unabridged dictionary, I found myself on the floor with a punctured lung and three broken ribs … Having proved myself ill-suited to safe cohabitation with an unabridged dictionary, I had little to lose by pursuing my interests in another quarter — a place beyond my so-called expertise, where the risk of failure would be great but the interactions somewhat more meaningful.”
So she spent three years in Annawadi, interviewing and reinterviewing children and men and women with the help of a team of interpreters and a Flipcam. Of the interpreters, she says, “I had a bunch of false starts. People weren’t used to working in the style that I work, patient watching and listening. The days would feel pointless to other people, like, ‘Why are we sitting here all day watching this kid sort garbage,’ somebody might say. The conditions are bad.” (One of the main geographical features of Annawadi is a giant sewage lake.)
She considered the first few months a write-off, except for the conversations she managed to witness. “The best material I got in the beginning was listening to people and tape recording and just collecting how people were to each other because that was their natural way, because they were still awkward with me and the whole translating thing,” Boo says. “If I’d tried to do straight interviews at that point, it would have been so strange. I would have been sitting in a hut, asking someone questions with a hundred people outside the door trying to find out who I am and what I’m doing.” Eventually, they got used to the sight of the delicate blond woman and stopped paying her much attention.
It’s hard not to wonder anyway how much her presence might have put some people on notice or led the main players to see their lives differently. “There was a night when I was in the police station and they were beating the shit out a mentally disabled man,” Boo replies. “And on the phone they were calling his brother in Hyderabad so he could hear his screams so he could help to secure his release financially. My presence didn’t put them on their best behavior.” But she knows she couldn’t help but change some things, even if it was just asking questions. Questions that, for example, could lead to realization that there’s something wrong when the police don’t investigate the murder of a child and document a demonstrably false cause of death.
“I could barely get out of bed at some points in the reporting,” Boo admits. A friend who had worked as an investigative reporter and is now a novelist told her to pull up her socks and keep at it — otherwise, almost no one would ever know about these wrongs. But Boo is also careful, almost to a fault, to not make the story about her. “I didn’t want it to be like, ‘When I met Abdul …’” I want the readers to see it through his point of view, that he’s risen in an incredibly competitive group of [garbage] scavengers. I don’t want to be on every page instructing the reader what to think.”
There’s a risk to that as well, of course, the possible presumptuousness of inhabiting another person’s head when they’re not your novelistic creation. But Boo pulls it off, maybe because she’s that good, or because she realizes that even the very poor “are neither mythic nor pathetic,” nor very different from herself in ways that count. “When I’ve had hardships in my own life, it doesn’t make me a better or nobler person,” she says. “Suffering doesn’t necessarily make people good in my experience.”
When, during the years of reporting, she would tell better-off Indians what she was working on, “Many people felt like, Oh, we know. I was like, do you really know? Because sometimes saying you know is a way of not knowing.” But now that the book is out, Boo has managed to get rapturous reviews from Indian critics who might be understandably skeptical of another Westerner explaining their country’s ills to them.
“She has captured the spirit of colloquial Hindustani and Marathi without using an idiosyncratic idiom, and deftly negotiated distinctions of caste, class and religion,” wrote one reviewer, Girish Shahane. “I am used to hearing false notes in depictions of Mumbai life; when they occur repeatedly, they undermine the authorial voice. The 250 plus pages of Behind the Beautiful Forevers contain no false notes.” One Indian interviewer, Anjali Puri, wrote, “All manner of ‘India specialists’ — journalists, sociologists, poverty-theorists, middle-class anti-corruption crusaders — may find themselves feeling inadequate by the time they have reached the end of” Boo’s book.
The most interested parties in India — the people featured in the book — saw Boo herself visit a few weeks ago to hand out advance copies (in English, for now) and show the videos that will be part of the enhanced e-book. “It was emotional,” Boo says of her return. “This is a very draining experience for many of them, particularly for people asked to relive some of the worst memories of their lives and to help me get it right.” (She fact-checked the book herself, another reliving for her characters.)
And they’ll have to live with what’s revealed in the book, particularly because Boo makes a policy of using real names and emphasizing that this is not “tall tales from the under city,” as she puts it. “One of the things that always troubled me is that you get to the end of a long piece and it would say, names and details have been changed. What details? Would you do that for rich people?”
Page 1 of 15135 in All Salon
When Iran and Israel were friendly
The anti-Santorum onslaught begins
Occupy defends the Volcker Rule
Nancy Grace is more terrible than ever
How to write about poor people
Obama to unions: see you later
The threat to Mexico’s machismo culture
Rep. Issa to air bishops’ complaints
America’s apocalyptic imperial strategy
Diane Sawyer and Brian Ross belong in a fear-mongering museum