Analyzing Tuesday’s surprise announcement of a national unity government in Israel, Charles Krauthammer suggests a parallel to 1967, in which Israel formed a unity government shortly before launching a pre-emptive strike on the massed forces of Egypt.

“Everyone understood why,” Krauthammer writes. “You do not undertake a supremely risky preemptive war without the full participation of a broad coalition representing a national consensus“:

Because for Israelis today, it is May ’67. The dread is not quite as acute: The mood is not despair, just foreboding. Time is running out, but not quite as fast. War is not four days away, but it looms. Israelis today face the greatest threat to their existence — nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation — since May ’67. The world is again telling Israelis to do nothing as it looks for a way out. But if such a way is not found — as in ’67 — Israelis know that they will once again have to defend themselves, by themselves.

“Nuclear weapons in the hands of apocalyptic mullahs publicly pledged to Israel’s annihilation” would obviously represent a serious threat to Israel, but it’s worth unpacking this statement and examining each of its three claims.

First, with regard to an Iranian nuclear weapon, while Iran still has yet to answer key questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about the nature of its nuclear work, the current position of both U.S. and Israeli intelligence is that the Iranian government has not yet made a decision to obtain a nuclear weapon. In an interview last month, Israeli Defense Forces Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz said Iran “is going step by step to the place where it will be able to decide whether to manufacture a nuclear bomb. It hasn’t yet decided whether to go the extra mile.” Surveying the enormous pressure being brought to bear on Iran, Gantz continued, “I believe he [Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei] would be making an enormous mistake” by manufacturing a nuclear bomb, “and I don’t think he will want to go the extra mile.”

Second, while Twelver Shia theology does speak of an End Times scenario (as do other faiths), there’s no evidence that a desire to trigger the apocalypse is driving Iranian policy. In the same interview, echoing former Mossad chief Meir Dagan, Lt. Gen. Gantz said, “I think the Iranian leadership is composed of very rational people.” This isn’t to diminish Iran’s various aggressive actions, such as its continuing support for terrorism, only to point out that the evidence strongly suggests that Iran’s leaders are very much focused on the here and now, and not the afterlife.

Read more

Last month during the GOP presidential candidate foreign policy debate, Newt Gingrich suggested that he would order a military attack on Iran over its nuclear program. “You have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have a nuclear weapon,” he said. Keeping with this militaristic tone — and perpetuating the GOP race for which presidential candidate loves Israel the most — the former speaker told Wolf Blitzer yesterday on CNN that as president, he would help the Jewish state should it decide to attack Iran.

“I think if I were president, the Israelis would have told us,” Gingrich said when asked what he would do if his national security adviser informed him of an Israeli attack. “I would rather plan a joint operation conventionally than push the Israelis to a point where they [the Iranians] go nuclear,” he added.

Mitt Romney and Rick Perry have recently stepped up their pro-Israel game, saying they would move the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. (Romney said he would pretty much do whatever Israel tells him to do.) And in his interview with Blitzer, Gingrich followed suit but upped the ante, saying he’d order the move “on the first day” he becomes president:

BLITZER: Would you move the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem?

GINGRICH: The first day. It will be an executive order the day I’m inaugurated.

BLITZER: And what would happen if the Arab countries sever relations with the United States, Muslim countries, as a result of that?

GINGRICH: The Saudis aren’t going to sever relations with the United States. The Emirates are not going to sever relations. They’re too afraid –

BLITZER: They have threatened over the years if the U.S. were to do that, that’s what they would do.

GINGRICH: They are too afraid of Iran right now. And I would also say to them, fine, you want to prove to us how much you hate Israel? Prove it. This is nonsense.

Watch the clips:

No American administration since 1967 has recognized Israeli rule over Jerusalem. Since 1995, Presidents Clinton, Bush and now Obama have all invoked national security waivers preventing moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, probably because, as Jerusalem expert Daniel Seidemann told ThinkProgress recently, the move would mean “following Israel into abject isolation, and the United States into an weakened and marginal regional and global role.”

As for joining an Israeli attack on Iran, what Gingrich, his fellow GOP candidates (except for Ron Paul) and the right-wing war hawks always ignore is the “what next.”

By Ken Gude and Faiz Shakir

An article published today by Politico’s Ben Smith charges that Center for American Progress bloggers are at the heart of an “Israel rift” in the “Democratic ranks.” While we welcome the discussion, the article misrepresents our views by cherrypicking a few posts from over 300 we’ve written this year on Iran and the Middle East. In the process, Smith makes a number of mistakes. We take this as an opportunity to clarify our positions on Iran and call attention to the article’s errors.

Our view in favor of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the consensus view of administrations of both parties dating back to President Clinton. Our position is based on our strong belief that it is in the national security interests of the United States to achieve a resolution to this conflict. Politico relies on sources who claim our work is “anti-Israel” and “borderline anti-Semitic.” We categorically reject and are offended by the idea that any of our work is anti-Semitic, unless one believes the Middle East peace plan itself and ensuring Israel’s long term security by securing its neighborhood is anti-Semitic.

Iran’s nuclear program is a strong point of concern for us, the U.S., and its allies. CAP’s view is that the multilateral sanctions framework engineered by the Obama administration is an important tool in pressuring Iran to comply with U.N. Security Council resolutions and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) requirements. While we take nothing off the table, we do not believe there is any evidence that a military strike would achieve those goals, a view shared by America’s top military officials. Furthermore, we will continue to push back against the overheated rhetoric that regularly throws around calls for full scale war with Iran because such activity has an impact in the real world. Indeed, it is our belief that conservative sabre rattling not only undermines American diplomacy but also emboldens hardliners in Iran and strengthens their push for nuclear weapons.

Therefore, the best policy to weaken Iran’s push for nuclear weapons rests on diplomacy — not a military strategy. So we believe it is critically important for assertions made on policy towards Iran and elsewhere in the region be subject to careful scrutiny with the goal of ensuring that U.S. policy will be as effective as possible in limiting threats posed by Iran.

Politico also misrepresents a number of our writings on Iran. The article states:

ThinkProgress National Security reporter Eli Clifton took issue with a Quinnipiac University poll that made reference to Iran’s “nuclear program.” The belief that such a program exists undergirds the Obama administration’s drive for sanctions, and was recently bolstered by a report from the International Atomic Energy Agency, which wrote of “increasing” concerns, though not definitive evidence.

It is a widely accepted fact that Iran has a nuclear program but Eli’s post on the Quinnipiac poll took issue with the pollsters’ reference to the existence of “Iran’s nuclear weapons program” in polling questions. The pollsters’ assumption that a nuclear weapons program exists, a determination that neither the IAEA nor the White House has made, may have impacted the poll’s outcome. Politico, by conflating the Iranian “nuclear program” and alleged “nuclear weapons program,” is making the same mistake we were trying to highlight.

The article also asserts:

ThinkProgress also scrambled to call into question an alleged Iranian plot to assassinate Saudi diplomats in the United States.

This we find very odd. Practically the entire U.S. foreign policy establishment reacted with skepticism to the bizarre and amateurish details of this plot. Eli’s post pointed to the leap to judgment made by a number of hawkish think tanks using the allegations to justify military action against Iran. Urging policymakers to wait for the conclusion of the investigation is not “call[ing] into question” the details of the plot. It is an observation that the rule of law should be respected and that all suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

And in the very next paragraph after quoting Eli’s post on the plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador, Politico gave the false impression that we were blaming the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) for the rush to judgment:

The villain: AIPAC. “It would appear that AIPAC is now using the same escalating measures against Iran that were used before the invasion of Iraq,” Clifton wrote in August.

AIPAC is not mentioned in Eli’s post about the assassination plot nor have we suggested that AIPAC bears any responsibility for rush to judgment on the plot, nor the right-wing calls to attack Iran because of it.

Politico’s article inaccurately portrays our positions as: anti-Israel; denying the seriousness of the charges in the alleged assassination plot against the Saudi ambassador; and denying the existence of an Iranian nuclear program. None of these positions are reflected in any posts by CAP bloggers.

Our guest bloggers are Sarah Margon, associate director for Sustainable Security at the Center for American Progress, and Martin Wolberg-Stok, sustainable security intern at CAP.

Earlier this week, a bipartisan group of Middle East experts and leading human rights organizations sent a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing their concerns about the ongoing political tensions in Bahrain. The letter urged the U.S. to hold the Bahraini government to its commitments for reform and to encourage constructive participation from the opposition

The impetus for this letter was the much-anticipated report of the Bahrain Independent Commission of Inquiry (BICI) report, released earlier today. The report sought to address the violent events that occurred last February, when hundreds of thousands Bahrainis demonstrated peacefully in support of greater political freedom. Appointed by the King of Bahrain, the Commission was headed by an Egyptian-American professor and made up of independent, internationally recognized scholars and jurists. Despite this diverse group, the Commission still had an uphill battle given the surrounding environment of paranoia and mistrust to conduct its investigations.

In a move welcomed by many Bahrain watchers, the commission, found that the government’s security forces used “unnecessary and excessive force” and that many detainees were subjected to torture. The report effectively confirms the accusations from national and international human rights groups that the government of Bahrain was guilty of systematic human rights violations.

The response from the Bahraini government is notable, with a spokesman commenting that, “The government welcomes the findings of the Independent Commission, and acknowledges its criticisms.” However, many of the BICI recommendations center around the need for institutional change in Bahrain’s legal framework — a complex and potentially lengthy process. Indeed, as the report notes, the “systematic pattern of behavior…indicates that this [use of excessive force] is how these security forces were trained and were expected to behave.” Specific, concrete recommendations for changing these structural problems — and a willingness to implement them — are vital for any real progress to occur.

Given the unrest throughout the broader Middle East, the Commission’s report has gained international significance, including for many law and policymakers in Washington, who have walked a careful line in dealing with the Bahraini government over the last few months. As ThinkProgress reported last September, the administration came under pressure from rights groups for approving a $53 million arms package to Bahrain, seemingly ignoring the crackdown on protesters. Bahrain has been a critical ally of the United States in the Middle East and the island serves as the headquarters for the U.S. Naval Forces Central Command and the Fifth Fleet.
Read more

Our guest blogger is Jennifer Addison, national security team intern at the Center for American Progress.

Dozens of Israeli women bared it all this week in homage to Egyptian activist Aliaa Elmahdy and her controversial naked photos, the latest in a string of efforts from women in the Middle East to reclaim their sexuality. Last week, Elmahdy posted nude photos of herself on the internet in an attempt to send a message about sexual equality and expression in Egypt. In an interview with CNN, Elmahdy further explained her reasons for posting the photos:

ELMADHY: I am not shy of being a woman in a society where women are nothing but sex objects harassed on a daily basis by men who know nothing about sex or the importance of a woman. The photo is an expression of my being and I see the human body as the best artistic representation of that.

“Many women wear the veil just to escape the harassment and be able to walk the streets,” she later added. Elmahdy is to be commended for fighting against oppression; and while her actions are well-intended, she should also be sensitive to the fact that what she feels is oppressive may actually liberating for other women.

Sexual harassment is a serious problem in Egypt. According to a 2008 survey conducted by the Egyptian Center for Women’s Rights, 83 percent of Egyptian women have been sexually harassed. However, it cannot be assumed that all women in Egypt are wearing the veil for this one reason. By connecting sexual harassment and the veil, Elmahdy gives the impression that the veil is strongly associated with oppression. Although there is truth to her statement, it should not be assumed that women only wear the veil because they are oppressed. Even in countries with strong gender-equality laws women are disgruntled with the limits on their expression. Just a few weeks ago in Tunisia, women were protesting for the right to wear the veil. In Libya, under former ruler Muammar Qaddafi, the Niqab was banned. According to a report from the Economist, women across the country are now celebrating over the restoration of their right to wear it.

Of course, it is a mistake to assume that all women want their sexuality to be expressed in the same way. Ideas, opinions and personalities effect one’s desire to be covered or uncovered. Women’s bodies have been the subject of discussion for Islamic scholars and authorities, political figures, even Western feminists, but have Muslim women themselves been adequately consulted on this issue?

This issue of sexuality, like many other issues facing women across the globe, can be boiled down to one thing – choice. Owning your sexuality is a good thing but making assumptions about how all women feel about their bodies is not. Each woman should have the right to choose how to carry herself, how she dresses, and what her body represents. A consensus may never be reached on female sexual expression and the most important thing is for women to acknowledge and respect differences in opinions amongst other women in how they choose to own and express their sexuality.