Nations have doctrines. The Soviet Union had the Brezh­nev Doctrine and the United States had the Monroe Doctrine, among others. Even little Israel has one. I call it the Maybe the Dog Will Talk Doctrine, and it is based on a folk tale of the rabbi who makes a preposterous deal with a tyrant: If the tyrant spares the lives of local Jews, the rabbi will teach the tyrant's dog to talk. When the rabbi tells his wife what he has done, she calls him a fool. But, he says, "A year is a long time. In a year, the tyrant could die or I could die" - and here he gives her a sly, wise-rabbi smile - "or maybe the dog will talk."

All sorts of people - defense intellectuals, military officers and even the president of the United States - either have not heard of the Maybe the Dog Will Talk Doctrine or do not recognize its importance. (It was cited to me by an Israeli official.) Both Barack Obama and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have characterized any Israeli attempt to disrupt Iran's nuclear program as a short-term affair. An Israeli raid "wouldn't achieve their long-term objectives," Dempsey said on CNN - and he is surely right.

But Israel also has a short-term objective - and that is to play for time. Israel notes that its 1981 bombing of a nuclear reactor in Iraq set back Saddam Hussein's program - and did not result in some sort of massive retaliation. Something similar happened with the 2007 bombing of a Syrian installation. Neither operation was conceived as a long-term solution, but both accomplished short-term goals. In a year or two, much could change in the Middle East. The region's in turmoil. Dogs are talking all over the place.

A note of exasperation can be detected in much of what is written about Israel: Why can't it just hang on? What's wrong with containment? It worked with the Soviet Union. It has worked with North Korea. Pakistan has bombs galore, but no one is taking shelter in the basement. How is Iran different?

Read more... 

The Bogus Iran Intelligence Debate

Ignore the media leaks.Tehran's nuke program is hiding in plain sight.

Iran's Makes Censorship Tighten Grip

BEIRUT-Iran hasn't been shy about its bids to monitor, filter and block content on the Internet. Now it has taken the next leap, turning online censorship into an institution.

In the past week, the government has announced it has formed a high council dedicated to cleansing the country's Internet of sites that threaten morality and national security, launching what amounts to a centralized command structure for online censorship.

The Supreme Council of Cyberspace, created by decree last week by Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, includes heads of intelligence, militia, security and the powerful Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, as well as media chiefs. Charged with supervising all cyberactivity, it will have the power to enact laws, according to state media.

The body will have its own budget and offices, a member of the council said in an interview with state media on Wednesday.

In announcing the council, Iran unites Internet-control initiatives that have previously been floated in state media. Along with other moves in the past week, it shows that the Islamic Republic, after long viewing the Internet as a minor nuisance, has fully embraced the view that Iran's vibrant online activity is a destabilizing threat.

The Revolutionary Guards, or IRGC, said last week it has rolled out a secure internal network for high-level commanders, underscoring Tehran's concerns about outside threats to its government's online activities. Iran also announced in the past week that its "Cyber Army," as it styles its legion of government hackers and bloggers, has reached 120,000, a number impossible to corroborate but well above previous tallies.

In an annual report released Monday, the group Reporters Without Borders ranked Iran the No. 1 enemy of the Internet in 2012. It was ahead of 11 other countries-including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria, China and Belarus-that the group says restrict Internet access, filter content and imprison bloggers.

The Iranian council's mandate became clearer Wednesday when one of its members, conservative cleric Hamid Shahriari, said the council was the result of a year and a half of weekly meetings between security chiefs and Khamenei representatives. "We are worried about a portion of cyberspace that is used for exchanging information and conducting espionage," he said in an interview with the semiofficial Mehr news agency.

"We have identified and confronted 650 websites that have been set up to battle our regime-39 of them are by opposition groups and our enemies, and the rest promote Western culture and worshiping Satan, and stoke sectarian divides," he said. He didn't name the sites or clarify whether they had already been filtered. Mr. Shahriari said the council would also "focus and facilitate positive aspects of the Internet, like business and trade."

The Internet dominated a well-known Friday prayer sermon on March 9, which is televised from the campus of Tehran University. Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, an 85-year-old cleric, called cyberspace a "very serious danger" and praised the new council, urging Iranians to comply with the government's laws and restrictions.

The IRGC's new network-named Basir, or "Perceptive"-is a domestically built, secure telecommunication channel that will allow its highest-level officers to communicate and command brigades in the case of an attack, the guard's newspaper, Sobhe Sadegh, reported last week.

"We are not in an imaginary state of threats and sanctions," Hossein Salami, the deputy commander in chief of the IRGC, said during the network's inauguration ceremony last week, according to Iranian media reports. "We must prepare."

Israel has in recent weeks drummed up support for a possible attack on what it alleges are sites linked to nuclear-weapon production, a pursuit Iran denies. Iran is also worried about cyberattacks on its nuclear facilities, such as the 2010 Stuxnet virus that appeared aimed at disabling Iranian centrifuge arrays.

The IRGC's closed network appears to be separate from a national Internet that Iran's telecommunications company has said it expects to complete within a year, which leaders have billed as void of Western culture and un-Islamic content.

The IRGC's public-relations department also announced last week that it had recruited and trained 120,000 cultural soldiers in the past three years to combat "a soft cyberwar" against Iran. Iranian officials had previously discussed the presence of these forces, but placed their number closer to 20,000.

These "cybersoldiers" monitor online activity of opposition sites and dissidents, bombarding websites with comments and producing blog content in support of the regime and hacking emails and computers, according to a computer programmer in Iran employed by the telecommunication ministry. They report to various state bodies, including intelligence, judiciary and the IRGC, which in turn have top officials sitting on the new council.

"These strong measures to confront the Internet recently prove two things: the Internet has been an extremely effective way of distributing information and the regime is frightened by it," said Ali Jamshidi, a Malaysia-based telecommunication expert with the opposition Green Movement, who monitors the so-called Cyber Army's attacks on opposition websites and dissident blogs.

The IRGC began expanding its multi-billion dollar empire-which stretches from construction to energy and agriculture-to telecommunications in 2009, when it purchased 50% shares of Iran's national telecommunication company, effectively allowing it direct supervision on surveillance and censorship.

The Internet, particularly social networking sites, and mobile phones helped Iranian activists to mobilize for anti-government protests after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's 2009 re-election prompted allegations of voting fraud.

While the Islamic Republic has successfully crushed protests in the streets with heavy crackdowns, activism and anti-government sentiment is thriving online on Iranian blogs, opposition websites and chat rooms.

Iranian cyber activists worry that the new tightening of rules will make their work even more difficult and expose their identities.

"We will fight back and continue posting our opinions but our resources are very limited compared to what the Revolutionary Guards can do," said a female student activist in Iran.

BEIRUT-Iran's parliament summoned President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for questioning on Wednesday, a first for that country and the latest step in an escalating political feud.

In a session broadcast live on state radio, lawmaker Ali Mottahari raised 10 questions about Mr. Ahmadinejad's rule, including charges that he disobeyed Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, mismanaged the economy and abused state funds.

In Iranian law, summoning a president to parliament is a serious step that could lead to impeachment, but Mr. Ahmadinejad defiantly ridiculed lawmakers, evading directly answering questions and instead directing questions back at lawmakers, as he often does in interviews with foreign journalists. He also questioned lawmakers' credibility and alleged that many of them purchased their university degrees.

The president on Wednesday even took jabs at Iran's powerful institutions, including supervisory clerical councils, suggesting they should be held accountable for some of the accusations against his administration.

In a one-hour speech, he dismissed the day's significance as "having some laughs and jokes with you."

In his final remarks before lawmakers, Mr. Ahmadinejad said, "It wasn't a very difficult quiz," adding, "If you had consulted us, better questions could have been drawn up. If you give me anything less than an A+ it will be unfair."

Parliament now faces two choices: to accept Mr. Ahmadinejad's answers as sufficient and move on or announce a vote of no confidence in the president and set in motion the impeachment process.

"There is absolutely no chance of impeachment. Khamenei wants his remaining time in office to end quietly because if they mess with Ahmadinejad, he will take down the entire regime," said Mohammad Tahavori, a Boston-based political analyst and Iran expert.

The president said he waited for the March 2 parliamentary elections before appearing before lawmakers in order to not sway votes.

His allies lost in the election, with conservatives loyal to Mr. Khamenei and independents gaining the majority of the votes. Independent candidates could potentially form a coalition with Mr. Ahmadinejad and tip the next parliament balance in his favor.

Mr. Ahmadinejad's battle with parliament comes ahead of resuming negotiations between Iran and the Five plus One group-countries that are permanent members of the United Nations Security Council plus Germany-over Iran's nuclear program. The talks are expected to take place within the next few months.

The West and Israel contend that Iran is pursuing a nuclear-weapons program, while Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful energy purposes.

The standoff has sparked tough sanctions on Iran-including U.S. and European Union steps against its oil sector and central bank-and crippled its economy.

Mr. Ahmadinejad and his team are eager to reach a deal with the West and have said they favor negotiations, but so far, Mr. Khamenei, who has ultimate authority, has shot down a compromise so as not make the regime appear weak.

Analysts said Mr. Ahmadinejad views normalizing relations with the West as a way to salvage his legacy and strengthen his domestic and international standing.

He also has political aspirations beyond his term, which ends in 2013, and easing Iran out of international isolation would bolster his position.

"Ahmadinejad wants to make his own empire and create his own legacy, he might miscalculate along the way, but he sees negotiating with the West as a means to that end," said Mehdi Khalaji, a senior fellow and Iran expert at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Iran's parliament has been debating whether to question Mr. Ahmadinejad for more than a year.

No other president had been summoned in the Islamic Republic's 33-year history. The country's first president, Abulhassan Bani Sadr, was impeached in absentia in 1981.

Lawmakers collected 100 signatures in July to question Mr. Ahmadinejad, but after intense lobbying by his allies, a group of them retracted their signatures and the petition died.

In December, Mr. Ahmadinejad sent a delegation to parliament to discuss the problems with lawmakers, to no avail. In February, the petition was formally submitted to the speaker of the house.

After Wednesday's session ended, lawmakers spent an hour angrily complaining to the speaker about Mr. Ahmadinejad's tone and manner, and said his choice of words had been inappropriate and condescending. They also denounced his refusal to answer their questions.

The only question I have when it comes to President Obama and Israel is whether he is the most pro-Israel president in history or just one of the most.

Why? Because the question of whether Israel has the need and the right to pre-emptively attack Iran as it develops a nuclear potential is one of the most hotly contested issues on the world stage today. It is also an issue fraught with danger for Israel and American Jews, neither of whom want to be accused of dragging America into a war, especially one that could weaken an already frail world economy.

In that context, President Obama, in his interview with The Atlantic's Jeffrey Goldberg and in his address to Aipac, the pro-Israel lobby, offered the greatest support for Israel that any president could at this time: He redefined the Iran issue. He said - rightly - that it was not simply about Israel's security, but about U.S. national security and global security.

Obama did this by making clear that allowing Iran to develop nuclear weapons and then "containing" it - the way the U.S. contained the Soviet Union - was not a viable option, because if Iran acquires a nuclear bomb, all the states around it would seek to acquire one as well. This would not only lead to a nuclear Middle East, but it would likely prompt other countries to hedge their commitments to the global Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The global nuclear black market would then come alive and we would see the dawning of a more dangerous world.

 Read more...