Jeffrey Goldberg

So I was speaking on a panel about Iran this past weekend in Boulder, Colorado, at a very dynamic synagogue, Congregation Har HaShem, with Sen. Michael Bennet, and Rep. Jared Polis, who is a member of the synagogue. Both legislators were very thoughtful -- Goldblog's favorite senator, apart from Orrin Hatch (R.-Hannukah) is Michael Bennet, who is a friend, and also the brother of the editor-in-chief of this magazine. Goldblog had not previously met Jared Polis, who seems like an impressive guy. Both men gave nuanced answers to questions about Iran, though they were both muscular in defense of the idea that a nuclear Iran is untenable.

The rabbi who led the discussion, Joshua Rose, asked very provocative questions, and at one point, late in our conversation (after Bennet and Polis had departed the panel) I mentioned that I thought that certain politicians on the Israeli right have been drifting toward fascism. I thought this was safe thing to say in Boulder, which is to the left of Havana on many issues, but after the talk, a couple of people came up to me and said I was wrong to even mention the word "fascism" in association with Israel. One of my interlocutors also told me I shouldn't use the word "occupation" to describe the occupation. I asked if I should refer to it instead as a "Renaissance Fair," or "picnic" but that didn't go over well. In any case, "fascist" is a strong word, and obviously, Israel's democracy is still vibrant -- an independent judiciary, a free press, fair elections, and so on. But there are figures on the right who strike me as intolerant of these concepts. And then there was this, which happened earlier this week:

Knesset members engaged in a stormy debate on Monday, following comments by Interior Minister Eli Yishai that Israel should not let African asylum seekers work and that the United Nations is responsible for what happens in Eritrea and Sudan.

MK Danny Danon (Likud) and the committee's chairman, Nitzan Horowitz (Meretz) confronted one another on the matter. "They are all infiltrators," said Danon. "We must drive them all out."

Yes, indeed, a Jewish member of Knesset used the following words: "They are all infiltrators. We must drive them all out." Just appalling.

I understand that the issue of illegal immigration is a serious challenge for Israel, as it is for many prosperous countries, and I readily understand that these immigrants (the lucky few who make it through the Egyptian gauntlet and the Sinai desert) are a strain on limited resources. But, really? We were strangers once, too, as Jewish tradition teaches. There has got to be a better way. Then came the disturbing news that in a poor neighborhood of Tel Aviv, Sudanese immigrants were set upon by Israeli hooligans. 'Fascism' might be a strong word, and of course Israel is judged by a double-standard (triple-standard, actually), but this is not what should be happening in a country that calls itself a Jewish state.

This paragaph from The New York Times's coverage today of the nuclear talks between Iran and the P5 + 1 countries (the permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany) in Baghdad brought me up a little short:

The six powers also want Iran to export its current stockpile of 20 percent uranium and down the road, to dismantle the once-secret Fordo enrichment plant, deep inside a mountain near the holy city of Qom, that is producing it.

It's those three words, "down the road," that stopped me. "Down the road" is not an expression that would cause the Israeli prime minister, or the defense minister, to call President Obama and tell him that they are taking the military option off the table. It would actually cause them to think -- not that they don't think this already -- that the Baghdad talks are a charade. And if they think that, and if they think that the window of opportunity is closing for action (see below to understand why the window, from their perspective, may be closing), they might take action, which is a very bad idea. (It's a bad idea in large part because I believe the U.S., if it came to it, would take military action to keep Iran from crossing the nuclear threshold, obviating the need for Israel to do it sooner).

"Down the road" isn't very appealing to President Obama, either. As much as he would like to forestall action on Iran until after November, he is fully aware of the regime's long record of deception and delay, and it's my understanding that the Administration will be reminding other members of the negotiating group that the U.S. does not want to dance with Iran for very long, especially given this news, just out:

A U.N. watchdog report is expected to show that Iran has installed more uranium enrichment centrifuges at an underground site, potentially boosting output capacity of nuclear work major powers want it to stop, Western diplomatic sources say.

Two sources said the Islamic state may have placed in position nearly 350 machines since February - in addition to the almost 700 centrifuges already operating at the Fordow facility - but that they were not yet being used to refine uranium.

Since February! I hope this gives everyone pause.

Michael Singh has some fairly depressing thoughts about potential outcomes for the talks, It's  worth reading the piece in full, but his best case scenario (and he writes in a way to suggest that he thinks this is overoptimistic)  has the parties reaching an interim agreement which, at best only begins the process of addressing the most difficult questions raised by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and only establishes general principles for further negotiations. Singh notes that, "Tehran currently has strong incentives to keep the negotiating process alive if only to stave off more severe punitive action. Under such circumstances, Iran has previously demonstrated a great reluctance -- if not inability -- to change course on core policies. In a sense, the regime has proven to be its own worst enemy, alienating potential allies by refusing to engage in even a show of compromise or conciliation."

On the other hand, the Atlantic Iran War Dial is now set at 37 percent -- a 37 percent chance that either Israel or the U.S. attacks Iran's nuclear facilities sometime in the next year, according to a panel of experts corralled by Dominic Tierney. This is down from 48 percent in March. So that's something.

Anthony Cordesman, via Reuel Marc Gerecht and Mark Dubowitz, notes the centrality of Iran's nuclear program to the regime's strategic vision:

The Americans and the Europeans have chosen not to underscore, Cordesman also points out, the fact that Tehran's entire military strategy for a quarter-century has been to develop atomic weapons to compensate for an irreversible lack of conventional power. Take away the nuclear program, and Khamenei's stewardship of his country and creed looks enfeebled. Nuclear weapons are the supreme leader's legacy.

A non-bold prediction: Iran will offer concessions at talks opening in Baghdad today that do not limit its ability to make advances toward a nuclear weapon. More later.

From the Associated Press:

Despite some remaining differences, a deal has been reached with Iran that will allow the U.N. nuclear agency to restart a long-stalled probe into suspicions that Tehran has secretly worked on developing nuclear arms, the U.N. nuclear chief said Tuesday.

What does this mean? It means that Iran has found an easy way to create the appearance of progress so that it may pursue its main goal of the moment, which is to forestall an Israeli attack on its nuclear facilities by convincing President Obama and other Western leaders that it is serious about compromise. If Obama and other leaders are convinced they are making genuine progress with Iran, the pressure on Israel to postpone military action will become overwhelming. When Iran agrees to stop enriching uranium to 20 percent, or agrees to shutter its centrifuge facility near Qom, that's when you can start paying attention.

The Obama Administration understands this, of course. Critics on the right believe that Obama will cave and agree to a deal that would allow Iran to continue down the path toward nuclearization, but these critics are misreading Obama, and his seriousness on this issue. On the other hand, Obama disagrees with the Israeli position, which is, no enrichment whatsoever, but the Israeli stance is more of a bargaining point than anything else. It's hard to believe the Israelis would attack if Iran were only enriching uranium to 3.5 percent.

I hadn't realized that Abdel-Moneim Abolfotoh, one of the leading candidates for the Egyptian presidency, was a Truther until I read this Ben Birnbaum piece:

Mr. Abolfotoh expressed his views on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in an interview last year with Egypt scholar Eric Trager.

Mr. Trager, now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, quoted Mr. Abolfotoh as saying:

"It was too big an operation .... They [the United States] didn't bring this crime before the U.S. justice system until now. Why? Because it's part of a conspiracy."

Not a good sign. It's hard to imagine a fantasist getting a grip on Egypt's disintegrating economy, and it's hard to imagine a fantasist preserving the peace treaty between Egypt and Israel.

I'll have more on this later, but I had a very interesting conversation yesterday with John Pistole, the administrator of the Transportation Security Administration, and I wanted to bring you some of it, via my Bloomberg View column. Bruce Schneier, Goldblog's security guru (and the guy I used to break into airports with), has argued that the recently discovered underwear bomb 2.0, a more sophisticated device than the Christmas 2009 device that failed to ignite, doesn't mean that we should necessarily increase airport security, in part because if the bomb plot matures to the point where it's two hours away from completion, and the TSA is the last line of defense, then it is probably too late. I'm sympathetic to the Schneier argument. Pistole, not really sympathetic at all. Anyway, here's some of what Pistole had to say about the scanners and their ability to detect complicated, well-disguised bombs:

...Would the TSA have been able to identify this most dangerous anomaly in the crotch area, had al-Qaeda managed to build one in the U.S.?

(Pistole) mentioned the TSA's new scanning devices, now in use at about 180 airports.

"The advanced imaging technology gives us the best chance to detect the underwear-type device," he said.

The best chance? "This is not 100 percent guaranteed," he said. "If it comes down to a terrorist who has a well- concealed device, and we have no intelligence about him, and he comes to an advanced-imaging technology machine, it is still our best technology. But it's really an open question about whether the machine, or the AIT operator, would detect the device."

You can read more here.

From the Guardian:

Recently I went to the theatre, as I am wont to do. The acting was impeccable, the direction insightful, the costumes fun, the music accomplished and the set damn sexy. Only the writing lacked salt.

It's not a parody, as one would be wont to think.

Hussein Ibish and Matt Duss address a question I brought up in this space last week: Just how powerful is Hamas in Gaza?

You're vs. Your: A surprising number of people don't understand the difference:

According to the Far News Agency, the chief of staff of the Iranian armed forces has called for Israel's annihilation. I'm sure this a mistranslation, of course: What he probably meant to say was, "I would love the opportunity to visit Eilat because I understand the snorkeling is wonderful."

Addressing a defense gathering here in Tehran on Sunday, General (Hassan) Firouzabadi said that nations should realize the threats and dangers posed by the Zionist regime of Israel.

He reiterated the Iranian nation and Supreme Leader's emphasis on the necessity of support for the oppressed Palestinian nation and its causes, and noted, "The Iranian nation is standing for its cause that is the full annihilation of Israel."

The article goes on to inform us that:

Earlier this year, Supreme Leader of Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei stressed in explicit remarks Iran's direct involvement in the Palestinian and Lebanese confrontation with Israel, including the Lebanese Summer 2006 33-day resistance against the Zionist regime.

"Wherever Iran interferes, it announces it in a very straightforward manner. For instance, we interfered in confrontations against Israel, which resulted in the (Lebanese) victory in the 33-day war and (Palestinians' victory in) the 22-day (Gaza) war," Ayatollah Khamenei said, addressing millions of Friday Prayers worshippers on Tehran University Campus in February.

"In future too, we will support and help everyone who opposes the Zionist regime," the Leader underscored. "The Zionist regime is a real cancerous tumor that should be cut and will be cut, God Willing," Ayatollah Khamenei underscored.

I love that "underscored" business, by the way. "I'm going to murder all of you," the psychopath underscored.