Iran

He made the comments before heading to the Middle East this week for visits to Israel, Jordan and the Palestinian-governed West Bank.

Silva said Brazil is uniquely qualified to be an intermediary in negotiations with Iran because Brazil has a peaceful nuclear program and is using its growing economic heft to assume a larger role on the international stage.

Silva also predicted that a global deal on reducing greenhouse gas emissions will be clinched at a planned December U.N. climate summit in Cancun, Mexico.

And he defended the woman he hand-picked to succeed him as president from criticism she could steer Latin America's largest nation to the left and exert greater state control over the economy.

Presidential Chief of Staff Dilma Rousseff will maintain Brazil's free market economic policies and is well-prepared to become the country's first female president despite never having run for office, he said.

"I wouldn't offer the Brazilian people a person who I don't have confidence in," Silva said in the interview at his presidential offices.

Ackerman's short speech is really worth watching, just to get a sense for what is driving a substantial part of the increasingly strident calls that the U.S. confront the Iranians.  Just watch it and decide for yourself what his motivating views and concerns are, but as you formulate your assessment, you'd best keep in mind the stern warnings issued last week by Jonathan Chait and Jeffrey Goldberg:  namely, the mere suggestion that some Americans favor U.S. aggression in the Muslim world due to concerns about Israel, rather than the U.S., has a "revolting provenance" that "should disgust all thinking people."  Thus, while quasi-clearing Andrew Sullivan of anti-semitism charges, they warned all of us that one had better be extremely careful in how one discusses such matters (as Sullivan failed to do) lest one be justifiably (even if wrongly) accused of anti-Semitism -- or, as Eric Alterman deftly summarized Chait's warnings: "Andrew may not be an anti-Semite but anyone who is concerned with the Israel's lobby's ability to thwart the peace process or interfere with the conduct of a sensible policy toward the region is guilty of holding an idea of 'revolting provenance' and hence, is only asking to be described this way, true or not . . . if you, yourself find any cause for concern in the actions of the Israel lobby, prepare to find yourself similarly smeared":

There are several noteworthy aspects to his remarks:  his view that Israel's military superiority is due both to God's will and the generosity of "Uncle Sam"; his argument that the U.S. should view the Goldstone Report as dangerous to its interests because "on any given month during the war in Iraq and the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, in one month probably more innocent civilians are killed by American troops -- unintended consequences -- than in the whole Gaza incursion" and that accepting the Goldstone Report would therefore mean that American troops and political leaders will end up before the Hague on war crimes charges (which is almost certainly one of the reasons that the Obama administration has continued Bush's unyielding refusal to join the International Criminal Court -- once a source of controversy among Democrats (when Bush did it)); the standard self-absorbed tribalism pervading most political disputes (my group is blameless but so unfairly persecuted); the endless Orwellian semantics (no matter who the aggressor is, anyone who fights against my side is a Terrorist); the attempts to blame Obama's "unrealistic" anti-settlement position for the lack of peace negotiations; and his seemingly unintentional copying of Donald Rumsfeld's notorious phrase to dismiss the horrific human devastation caused by the Israelis in Gaza:  "stuff happens when you're fighting Terrorists; blame the Terrorists, don't blame the Israelis."

But whatever else is true, once one listens to this, it's simply impossible to deny that this highly influential American Congressman, devoted to pushing the U.S. to war with Iran, is driven, at least in substantial part, by his fervent devotion to Israel.  There's nothing wrong with that per se, but there is much wrong with trying to force people to pretend it's not true.

UPDATE:  In this five-minute clip from yesterday, Brown University Professor Glenn Loury and Matt Yglesias discuss the means used to restrict debate on such issues (h/t Sullivan):

Juan Cole, however, makes a point I've made many times:  namely, these restrictions -- mostly due to overuse -- have clearly diminished in potency, and as a result, these debates are far more open than ever before.

Last week the U.S. Treasury Department announced that it was freezing the assets in U.S. jurisdictions of a Revolutionary Guard general and four subsidiaries of a previously penalized construction company he runs because of their alleged involvement in producing and spreading weapons of mass destruction.

The Revolutionary Guard has long been a pillar of Iran's regime as a force separate from the ordinary armed forces. The Guard now has a hand in every critical area, including missile development, oil resources, dam building, road construction, telecommunications and nuclear technology.

It also has absorbed the paramilitary Basij as a full-fledged part of its command structure -- giving the militia greater funding and a stronger presence in Iran's internal politics.

Asked if the U.S. is planning a military attack on Iran, Clinton said "no."

The U.S. is focused on gaining international support for sanctions "that will be particularly aimed at those enterprises controlled by the Revolutionary Guard, which we believe is in effect supplanting the government of Iran," she said.

Meanwhile, a semi-official news agency quoted the head of Iran's nuclear program as saying the country received a new proposal last week from the United States, Russia and France, three of the countries trying to rein in Tehran's uranium enrichment program.

Iran said that it was studying the joint proposal purportedly made after the country announced last week it had begun enriching uranium to a higher level than previously acknowledged. The ILNA news agency quoted Ali Akbar Salehi as saying various countries have also offered Iran proposals on a nuclear fuel swap, adding that Iran is reviewing all the proposals. He did not provide any more details.

The Obama administration is trying to "send a message to Iran -- a very clear message" that the U.S. is still open to engagement "but that we will not stand idly by while you pursue a nuclear program that can be used to threaten your neighbors and even beyond," Clinton said.

Later, as she boarded her plane for the next stop on her Middle East trip, Clinton said, "The civilian leadership is either preoccupied with its internal political situation or is ceding ground to the Revolutionary Guard."

She told reporters traveling with her that it appears the Revolutionary Guard is in charge of Iran's controversial nuclear program and the country changing course "depends on whether the clerical and political leadership begin to reassert themselves."

She added: "I'm not predicting what will happen but I think the trend with this greater and greater military lock on leadership decisions should be disturbing to Iranians as well as those of us on the outside."

Clinton said the Iran that could emerge is "a far cry from the Islamic Republic that had elections and different points of view within the leadership circle. That is part of the reason that we are so concerned with what we are seeing going on there."

In her Doha appearance, Clinton also said she foresees a possible breakthrough soon in stalled peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians.

"I'm hopeful that this year will see the commencement of serious negotiations that will cover every issue that is outstanding," she said, adding that "everyone is anticipating" progress after more than a year of impasse between the negotiating parties.

The peace talks broke down in late 2008 with Israel's incursion into Gaza, which had launched rocket attacks on Israeli targets.

Clinton spoke in an interview with the Al-Jazeera TV network before a live audience of mostly Arab students at the Carnegie Mellon campus.

In remarks in the Qatari capital on Sunday, Clinton said she and the president are disappointed that the administration's efforts to restart Israeli-Palestinian peace talks had failed thus far.

Reflecting the extent of concern in the Persian Gulf region about a U.S. confrontation with Iran, another member of the audience asked Clinton about the outlook for improving relations with Tehran. Clinton reiterated the Obama's administration view that Iran has violated its international obligation to use nuclear technology only for peaceful purposes. And she regretted that Iran has not accepted U.S. offers of nuclear negotiations.

Clinton makes a point of raising the topic of women and girls' rights whenever she travels abroad. In a speech Sunday to a forum on U.S.-Muslim relations, she stressed it in the context of U.S. support for nations seeking to build democratic institutions.

"As nations strive to build and strengthen governments that reflect the will of their people, grounded in their own traditions, they can count on the United States to be their partner," she said. "But the will of the people means the will of all the people, men and women. Women's rights are an issue of singular importance to me personally and as secretary of state."

She also cited the issue of violence against women, without mentioning any specific country.

"Even today, in 2010, women are still targets of violence," she said Sunday. "And all too often, religion might be used to justify it. But there is never a justification for violence against women. It is not cultural. It is criminal. And it is up to religious leaders to take a stand for women, to call for an end to honor killings, child marriages, domestic and gender-based violence."

Later Monday, Clinton flew to Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, for a meeting with King Abdullah and a session with Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Saud al-Faisal.

Meanwhile, a semi-official news agency quoted the head of Iran's nuclear program as saying the country received a new proposal last week from the United States, Russia and France, three of the countries trying to rein in Tehran's uranium enrichment program.

Iran said that it was studying the joint proposal purportedly made after the country announced last week it had begun enriching uranium to a higher level than previously acknowledged. The ILNA news agency quoted Ali Akbar Salehi as saying various countries have also offered Iran proposals on a nuclear fuel swap, adding that Iran is reviewing all the proposals. He did not provide any more details.

Mousavi has said he refuses to form a political party. There are such parties or at least vague groupings in Iranian politics -- former president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani leads one -- and they have members of Parliament. By refusing to develop a grassroots political organization, Mousavi may be making the same mistake as former president Abo'l-Hasan Bani-Sadr, who was toppled from the presidency in summer, 1981, because he declined to seek a mass organization, whereas his enemies had the "Hezbollah" popular militia and the Islamic Republican Party that grouped key hard line clerics. Ahmadinejad has his Alliance of Builders in Tehran, and is backed by the Revolutionary Guards, the Basij paramilitary, and other security forces. Mousavi has the little flashmobs who couldn't, at least on Thursday.

During the early years of the Islamic Revolution, the majority of the people, including me, were convinced that the revolution had removed all structures that could lead to despotism and dictatorship. I do not believe in the same anymore. We may once again identify the elements that may lead to dictatorship. Popular resistance against the return of dictatorship is a valuable legacy of the Islamic Revolution.

He went on to denounce press censorship, arbitrary arrests, and the shooting of peaceful protesters in the street.

As bizarre as this point of view may seem to citizens of democratic countries, given the severe political repression in Khomeini's Iran of the 1980s, it shows the utopian mindset of the revolutionary period and the way even regime insiders were shocked by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei's behavior, and that of his Revolutionary Guards Corps and Basij paramilitaries, since June 12. Some protesters have been chanting "dictator!" at Khamenei.

The other major opposition leader, cleric and former presidential candidate Mehdi Karroubi, also expressed his disappointment in the current order. Both are regime insiders, and neither Karroubi nor Mousavi have been willing to push for a revolution. Rather, they call for peaceful protest and maintain that the fraudulent presidential election and the repression that followed in its wake must be reversed.

The opposition press is reporting that Basij militiamen were already on Thursday morning lining the main thoroughfares in Tehran, and other reports speak of the same tactic in other major cities, to prevent anti-regime protests. The difficulty for Khamenei is that the Green Movement opposing his actions also wraps itself in the mantle of Khomeini's Islamic Revolution and will be marching to celebrate that revolution. They just insist that the Islamic Republic's constitution guarantees the right of public protest (correct) and that it exalts the rule of law over the personal whim of a monarch (also correct).

Al-Jazeera Arabic broadcast President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's address to a huge, peaceful crowd in Tehran's Liberty Square. There were some signs of green (the opposition color) in the assembled crowd, but no disturbances). Ahmadinejad praised the achievements of the revolution and denounced a grasping United States for attempting to dictate to all the countries in the Middle East.

The regime appears to be attempting to block ease of electronic communications, with Google reporting problems of email access for customers in Iran. The opposition has been savvy about using the internet to coordinate Iran's first nationwide popular movement since 1978-79. (Iran is notoriously hard to organize, being a set of mostly medium-sized cities separated by vast distances and arid, often craggy terrain; Khomeini used the radio, sending signals through BBC interviews, and audio cassette tapes, which followers played in private or in taxis beyond the hearing of the secret police of Mohammad Reza Pahlevi, the shah.)

The BBC is reporting some demonstrations in Tehran and Tabriz on Thursday morning. It also says Iranian authorities may permanently ban Google's email service, Gmail (presumably because it is too hard to spy on).

Meanwhile, further evidence is surfacing that Iran's civilian nuclear enrichment program is facing a lot of technical difficulties and isn't in fact very far advanced. (Unfortunately the authors of this WaPo article editorialize in the middle about a supposed Iranian nuclear weapons program, which no one has been able to find any credible proof, including the CIA and the Defense Intelligance Agency.) Likewise, the International Atomic Energy Agency agrees with my Monday posting, saying that Iran's attempt to enrich uranium to the 19.75 percent necessary to run its medical reactor and produce isotopes for treating cancer look to be modest.

In part at the urging of the Israel lobbies, the Obama administration ramped up US unilateral sanctions on Iran's Revolutionary Guards Corps, which, however, are unlikely to have much practical effect. Except to pave the way for China to do a lot of business with Iran, to their mutual benefit and to the detriment of the U.S.