Not Shaken, Not Stirred

Mr. Rouhani, who had mounted an aggressive charm offensive in the weeks before arriving in New York, also declined a chance to shake hands with Mr. Obama — avoiding a much-anticipated encounter that would have bridged more than three decades of estrangement between the leaders of Iran and the United States.
--"Obama Defends U.S. Engagement in the Middle East"

Despite what that quote might lead you to believe, President Obama himself was ambivalent at best about the opportunity to "grip and grin" with the Iranian president.  Indeed, senior White House advisers were so concerned about the political repercussions of such a handshake that they drew up extensive contingency plans to avoid just such an eventuality.

The following memo was drawn up at the highest echelons of the Obama administration, outlining plans to avoid a handshake between Presidents Obama and Rouhani.  (By the way, I fully expect to be extremely renditioned for sharing this information.  I can only hope my legion of fan will rally to my support--and prove more effective than the supporters of Chelsea "Don't Call Me Bradley" Manning.)

FROM:  REDACTED
TO: REDACTED
RE: DACTED

Working with a select team of kinesiologists, etiquette experts, and modern-dance choreographers, we have devised a set of options for allowing President Obama to avoid shaking hands with President Rouhani of Iran.  We have taken pains to ensure that the President maintains dignity and an air of statesmanship at all times.

OPTION ONE: THE MULTI-TASKER
The simplest option for avoiding President Rouhani's presumably outstretched hand calls for President Obama to be surrounded at all times by a "moving shield" of people.  For the sake of diplomacy, the President must appear extremely busy at all times, so these people should appear to be mid-level members of the presidential staff.  We recommend they frequently thrust pens and papers at President Obama, requesting his signature, demanding decisions, etc.  The drawback, of course, is that this level of frenzied supplication is generally associated with true national security emergencies, and the Iranians may well become suspicious when they find out that no such emergency has arisen.  Perhaps a small fire can be lit at the Air and Space Museum Gift Shop?

OPTION TWO: THE FRESHMAN
Should the moving shield be impractical, we could simply load President Obama's arms with briefing papers, portfolios, binders, etc., thus leaving his arms too full to extend a hand in Rouhani's direction.  Should a handshake be offered, the President can simply smile, shrug, and point his chin at the unwieldy load with which he is, unfortunately, weighted down.  (Concern: Too implausible that Leader of Free World would not have someone to carry his books for him?  Or at least a luggage cart?)

OPTION THREE: THE SENIOR
In this scenario, President Obama confidently walks up to Rouhani, extending his hand, smiling broadly.  Then, at the last second, just before Rouhani clasps the outstretched hand, President Obama whips his hand up and "smooths" his hair--perhaps throwing in a "Psych!" for good measure.  (NOTE: The Israelis are particularly fond of this option.)

OPTION FOUR: NO HARAM, NO FOUL
As we all know, pigs are considered "Unclean" in the Islamic faith.  We therefore suggest that President Obama be issued a presidential pot-bellied big to carry around the United Nations.  President Rouhani will obviously be dissuaded from shaking a hand that has touched a pig.  Added bonus: Malia's birthday is just around the corner, and the pig can be repurposed as an early b-day gift.)

OPTION FIVE: THE NUCLEAR OPTION
Seal Team Six breaks all of President Rouhani's fingers.  (NOTE: This option, too, is an Israeli favorite.)

No Bullying Pulpit

This seventh-grader, Benny, is a really nice kid who lives in a rough neighborhood--has lived there all his life.  The other neighborhood kids have never liked Benny--most of them kind of hate him.  They always call him names, pick fights with him, what have you.  And over the years, Benny's gotten pretty tough: He's had to!  When the other kids start hassling him, he gives as good as he gets.  And Benny has one big advantage over the other neighborhood kids: His best friend, Barry, is the star linebacker on the local high school football team.  Barry has always looked out for Benny (he's an old friend of Benny's family), and he always will.

Lately, though, Benny has started to annoy Barry.  See, Benny's been going around threatening the local bullies, warning them that if he even thinks they're going to start trouble, he's fully prepared to make life extremely miserable for them.  It's not a completely unreasonable position to take--this is a very rough neighborhood.  But now Benny's also demanding that Barry make some serious threats towards these kids as well.

Barry doesn't think this is such a great idea.  Sure, Barry could make the threats--and even back them up: He's a senior linebacker, and these are essentially just little kids.  But Barry has other things on his mind: his classes, an after-school job, college applications, to say nothing of the big game coming up against Mitford Prep. . .  OK, you get the point.

I am Jewish, and a strong supporter of Israel--or at any rate of the ideal of Israel: a secular democracy in an otherwise benighted land, a haven for a historically persecuted people--my people.  But when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu starts issuing demands that President Obama declare "red lines" to Iran--lines which the Islamic Republic dare not cross in its pursuit of nuclear weapons lest it find itself on the receiving end of an American attack--I just feel like telling him: Shut. Up.

I don't want to see Iran get the bomb (though I still have a philosophical problem with the idea that a nuclear-armed country has some sort of right to forbid another country from acquiring same).  I understand Netanyahu's concern.  However, he has no right to demand that another country--a country that has done more for his land than any other nation in the world--essentially commit itself to go to war on his behalf if some arbitrary "red line" is crossed.  Netanyahu, of course, says such lines would make war less likely, as Iran wouldn't want to provoke a US onslaught.  But I can't help thinking that Bibi--who seems all too eager to unleash hell on Iran--would see American red lines as green lights: How much time do you suppose would pass between an American ultimatum and Israel presenting Washington with evidence of Iranian violations?  I put the over-under at a week.  And then what?

Mitt Romney--Surprise!--thinks President Obama is showing contempt to our staunchest ally.  But it's easy to play backseat president before the election.  And even Romney hasn't said what his red lines would be. 

If Netanyahu is so gung-ho to attack Iran, let him do so.  The United States will, as President Obama affirmed at a recent gathering of Jewish leaders, "have Israel's back."  But Bibi must understand that the American people are quite weary of Middle East wars and have little appetite for another one.  We remember George W. Bush, who was all too willing to issue threats and ultimatums, and we are none too thrilled with how all that turned out.  I, at least, appreciate a President who is not willing to make bombastic threats for no reason other than that a friend asked him to.  President Obama has certainly failed to live up to his Nobel Peace Prize in many ways, but in this instance, at least, he is showing the right spirit.

The Solipsist Reads the Times (So You Don't Have To)

First, some good news: American negotiators see hopeful signs that the Iranian government may be feeling pressure to reach a deal on its nuclear program that may prove acceptable to the international community--said "international community" presumably not including Iran.  It's always struck me as somewhat ironic, not to say hyprocritical, not to say "wrong" that countries like the US, with its own huge nuclear arsenal, dictates to other nations whether they can or cannot possess such weapons themselves.  Not that I'm in favor of Iranian nukes: I'd prefer that President Mahmanamana not have such weapons; I'd prefer even more that NOBODY had such weapons; and I'd prefer most of all that ONLY the United States had such weapons--well, and maybe England, 'cause they're adorable.  But, y'know, what's good for the nuclear goose is good for the atomic gander and all.

Anyway, the good news: International sanctions seem to be having some effect on Iranian leaders.  How do we know that Iran is feeling pressure?  Among other things, "Americans believe that recent blustery statements from Iranian officials are laying the groundwork for concessions by Tehran."  Hey, if "blustery statements" are good, then "outright threats" must be even better!  If we're lucky, maybe Iran will launch an "all-out military attack" on a neighboring country!  Then, we'll really be in business.

Unless you live under a rock or are still using MySpace, you know that Facebook went public yesterday.  Apparently even Zuckerberg couldn't figure out the privacy settings!  (Yes, I stole that line; it was worth it.)  People are disappointed (or maybe gloating) because the stock posted only a minor gain on its first day of trading.  Some suspect that investors were turned off when Mark Zuckerberg showed up to ring the stock market's opening bell wearing his trademark  hoodie.  Where's George Zimmerman when you need him?!?

Sorry.

Representative Harold Rogers (R-KY) has some 'splainin' to do.  He steered a government contract to supply "drip pans" for army helicopters to a company in his district, at the presumably outrageous cost of $17,000 per pan.  In Rogers' defense, these are leakproof pans.  He could have gotten leaky pans for only $16,500 per, but I for one think our troops are worth the extra expenses.

Eminent psychiatrist Dr. Robert L. Spitzer has come out (so to speak) against an earlier study he authored.  In that 2003 study, he claimed that so-called "gay conversion therapy," which seeks to "cure" homosexuals of their gaiety, might offer benefits to those who truly wanted to change their sexual orientation.  Now, Dr. Spitzer is no gay-basher: In the 1970s, he played a prominent role in convincing the psychiatric community to STOP classifying homosexuality as a mental illness.  So his later study, which bucked the consensus view that "gay cures" were at best ineffective and at worst extremely harmful, was hailed by many conservatives as a vindication of their view that homosexuality was a reversible choice.  In fairness to Dr. Spitzer, he most emphatically denied that there was anything wrong with homosexuality, and emphasized that his study only suggested that "gay cures" merited further investigation, but this didn't prevent the demagoguery of small minds.  At any rate, Dr. Spitzer now acknowledges that his study suffered from methodological flaws and he has apologized to the gay community for the harm that he unwittingly caused.  Good for him.

Now, if only someone would find a cure for narrow-minded bigotry and homophobia.

Alexis Tsipras may become the Prime Minister of Greece in the next few weeks.  His left-wing party is likely to claim a majority in upcoming elections, a result of widespread anger at austerity measures demanded by the power-brokers in the European union.  Tsipras seems to enjoy his newfound power and has unaplogetically tweaked the euro-zone leaders (read: Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany).

Annoying the Germans, huh?  Surely, nothing bad could come of that.

Finally, I was deeply saddened to read of the passing of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.  Then I remembered that I don't know who that is.  Turns out, he was the pre-eminent twentieth-century interpreter of  "art songs," a traditional genre that extends from classical works, such as Schubert's "Der Erlkonig," to modern-day masterpieces like Nicki Minaj's "Stupid Hoe."  Truly, Fischer-Dieskau was a genius; only someone with a heart of stone could be unmoved by his rendition of "My Humps."

You're welcome, Nation.

Strategic Error

A few year's back, a survey revealed that cabbies held the most potentially fatal job.  It should tell you something, then, that a number of Iranian nuclear scientists have recently applied for jobs driving cabs.

Well, maybe not, but I wouldn't be surprised.

On Wednesday, an Iranian scientist was killed when a bomb was attached magnetically to his car during rush hour.  The killers, who were riding a motorcycle, got away.  This was just the latest such assassination of people involved in Iran's nuclear program.  Most international observers suspect that the United States and Israel have played a role in the attacks, and the slick, high-tech nature of the assaults certainly sounds like the kind of thing the CIA or, more likely, the Mossad would pull off.  The Mossad don't play.

While the thought of a nuclear-armed Iran is slightly less appealing to an Israeli (or to most Americans) than the thought of eating a Madagascar cockroach, I find myself troubled by this particular strategy--if, indeed, Israel is behind it (more on that later).  To disrupt Iran's progress toward nuclear weapons, certain tactics are legal and acceptable--economic sanctions, for example.  Other strategies of questionable legality still fall under the heading of morally acceptable.  Whoever launched the Stuxnet computer virus against Iranian systems (again, most people suspect Israel and/or the United States), violated international law; however, by avoiding violence and "collateral damage," this action meets certain ethical standards.  Once you start assasinating people, however--especially when these people are ostensibly involved in peaceful activities (Iran claims to want nuclear power only for civilian purposes)--you have crossed a line.

I understand that Israel considers a nuclear-armed Iran to be an existential threat, and that the Israeli government will take any steps they can to prevent such an eventuality.  I could even see a case being made for assassinations--even though these obviously violate norms of international law.  But there are "more or less" acceptable targets for such actions.  Military targets, of course: Soldiers and officers have chosen to pursue a career that, by definition, entails a risk of death.  Even politicians may be considered fair game, especially when they engage in apocalyptic rhetoric about wiping other countries off the map, for example; I certainly wouldn't shed any tears if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had an "unfortunate accident."  Scientists, however, are not legitimate targets.  They are civilians.

Beyond being unethical, targeting scientists would seem to be counterproductive.  After all, if Iran feels that its nuclear scientists are being targeted by foreign agents, the government will simply take steps to make sure that these people are under protective custody at all times.  Whereas political figures must make public appearances--and therefore put themselves at risk--scientists are under no such obligations.  Indeed, the fact that scientists continue to die has caused some to speculate that the Iranian government itself is behind the recent assassinations, killing relatively minor figures in the nuclear industry in order to cast blame on its foreign enemies.  That sounds a little far-fetched--Israel has certainly never been shy about violently eradicating perceived threats--but who knows?

Israel has a rough enough time in the court of international opinion.  In many respects, this is a result of fanatical anti-Zionism or, indeed, anti-Semitism.  But Israel does itself no favors by targeting civilians in other countries for assassination.  If the Israelis are doing this, they need to stop.