make a donation

Why Donate to FLAME?

By supporting FLAME, you help fund our ads in national media, like U.S. News and World Report, The New York Times, The Nation, The National Review, The American Spectator, The Washington Times National Weekly, and others. You help publish our messages in Jewish publications, both in the U.S. and in Israel, among them The International Edition of the Jerusalem Post. Finally, your donation helps us publish our messages monthly in over fifty small-town newspapers, all across the United States and Canada.

Facts and Logic About
the Middle East
P.O. Box 590359
San Francisco, CA 94159
(415) 356-7801


September 28, 2010  

After Ahmadinejad's bizarre remarks in NYC, how can President Obama possibly want to negotiate with him?

Dear Friend of FLAME:

Iran's President Ahmadinejad was in New York City last week to speak at the United Nations and to make PR stops around town. It gave him just enough time to remind us why it's absolute folly for President Obama to want to negotiate with him about Iran's nuclear ambitions . . . or anything else.

Of course, Ahmadinejad has already famously expressed his country's intention to wipe Israel off the map, which makes Israel nervous in the extreme, but doesn't seem to bother most Western powers, including the current U.S. administration. Ahmadinejad has also denied that the Holocaust took place, and in his U.N. speech he accused Israel of "inhuman policies" against Palestinians and of dominating world political and economic affairs. None of these assertions seem to bother most U.N. members too much.

However, when the Iranian president cited in his U.N. speech conspiracy theories accusing the United States of engineering the 9/11 attacks in order to revive its economy and assert its influence over the Middle East, representatives of the U.S. and dozens of other nations walked out, led by France.

President Obama called Ahmadinejad's remarks "hateful" and "offensive." British deputy prime minister Nick Clegg said they were "bizarre, offensive and attention-getting" statements designed to shift focus away from Iran's nuclear program.

But 2008 polls show that large portions of Arab society believe the U.S. was behind the 9/11 attacks, rather than al Qaeda, and 43% of Egyptians actually believe Israel perpetrated them.

How can this be? How can Arab and Iranian society be so disengaged from the truth, so unwilling to accept the facts? As long as we're on the subject, how can Arabs, like the Palestinians and most Muslim nations, refuse for so many decades to make peace with Israel, after Israel has shown total willingness to trade land (and many other concessions) for peace with Egypt and Jordan?

The answer is, they don't think like you and me. They don't have the same values, the same cultural attachments to facts and truth. They have other values that seem, well, foreign (and often bizarre) to us. This week's FLAME Hotline, by commentator Barry Rubin, provides a concise, penetrating analysis of this phenomenon.

Rubin explains why, if you don't understand the Arab mind---and specifically the Iranian mind---you're never going to make progress in dealing with them, and/or you're going to make many costly mistakes. The Obama administration seems to be doing just that in the Arab world in general and with Iran in particular.

After you've reviewed Barry Rubin's piercing article, please pass it along to your friends and correspondents using the "Forward to a Friend" button at the bottom of the article.

Thanks for your continued support of FLAME and Israel!

Best Regards,

Jim Sinkinson
Director, FLAME


As Israel is in the midst of peace talks with the Palestinians, it's important the U.S. Administration understand Americans' passionate support of the Jewish state. We have to remind President Obama that Israel---not the Palestinian Authority---is our strongest Middle East ally. Please take a minute to let the President know that the absolute first step to peace is Palestinian recognition of Israel's right to exist. It's again time to stand up . . . and speak up forcefully for Israel. Please use this link to write the President immediately.


How many times have you heard someone complain that "Israel just doesn't have good public relations"? Maybe you've even said the same yourself. But have you seen FLAME's latest hasbarah---our ad on "The Unrelenting and Virulent Hatred of the Arabs: Will peace ever be possible under those conditions?"---which has appeared in publications nationwide, including college newspapers, with circulation in excess of 5 million? Please take a look at it, and if you agree that FLAME's brand of outspoken public relations on Israel's behalf is critical, I urge you to support us. Remember: FLAME's powerful ability to influence public opinion comes from individuals like you, one by one. I hope you'll consider giving a donation now, as you're able---with $500, $250, $100, or even $18. (Remember, your donation to FLAME is tax deductible.) To donate online, just go to Now more than ever we need your support to ensure that Israel gets the support it needs---from the U.S. Congress, from President Obama, and from the American people.

Inside the Arab (and Iranian) Mind: A New Text Reveals the Dangerous Disconnect for Western Diplomats
By Barry Rubin, Rubin Reports, September 14, 2010

There are basically two ways to approach the Middle East:

• Option 1: Understand what makes Farsi- and Arabic-speaking, Muslim-majority societies different from the West given their history, experiences, culture, politics, and other features.

• Option 2: Pretend that these countries and leaders think precisely the same way as do Westerners.

The second approach is often taken by government officials and journalists nowadays and produces instant miscomprehension and disastrous policies. This lesson has been provided over and over again. Yet actually things are worse today than has usually been true in the past.

Why? Because, paradoxically, Politically Correct Multiculturalism decrees that diversity is the highest value of all yet, strangely, amidst this diversity equally argue that everybody is basically the same!

Another reason is that if you are completely ignorant about other countries and societies or know the barest minimum, option 2 is much easier to take. After all, you already know something about politics and manners in the United States so simply transliterate them into situation thousands of miles away!

Now that Harold Rhode has retired from his long career at the U.S. Defense Department, however, we can expect a really good teacher explaining Option 1. In his new paper, "The Sources of Iranian Negotiating Behavior," Rhode lays it all out in clear language and less than 20 pages. Even if you don't usually read studies like this, make an exception here. You won't be sorry. [FLAME Hotline Editor: You can read this paper at

The title, I assume, is taken from George F. Kennan's classic post-World War Two article explaining Soviet behavior that came to be the basis of U.S. policy during the Cold War. Would that Rhode's writing would have the same effect. This is going to be a critical text for the Nuclear Iran era we are about to enter, one way or another.

As you read it (or just the summary) make mental notes on all the mistakes it shows being made by U.S. leaders and how much reality varies from the model Western academics, leaders, and mass media use and try to teach you to use about the Middle East. One good theme to keep in mind is that power is more important than politeness. All of the speeches about respect for Islam, feeling Arab pain, and proving you're nice by making concessions not only amount to nothing but actually are often counterproductive by making you look weak and hence someone to be walked over.

And some—the part dealing most directly with perceptions of Western behavior—of this analysis can be transferred to an understanding of Arab politics and policies also.

I want to stress that I don't think merely putting on pressure will make the Iranian regime give in, change direction, or be overthrown but such a policy would be more likely to do so than a strategy focusing on concession and flattery. At a minimum, too, it will reduce the regime's ability and eagerness to act in an aggressive manner.

Another issue that could be raised would be that things like dissimulation are also seen in Western democratic diplomacy. Of course, that's true. But there are other features - willingness to compromise, eagerness to avoid conflict, high priority on understanding the other side, etc. - that are different, too. Remember also that even the Obama Administration's containment policy for a post-nuclear Iran is also based on a fair amount of parallel thinking about the use of power deterring Tehran, though of course there are major differences as well.

Here's the executive summary:

• This analysis identifies patterns exhibited by the Iranian government and the Iranian people since ancient times. Most importantly, it identifies critical elements of Iranian culture that have been systematically ignored by policymakers for decades. It is a precise understanding of these cultural cues that should guide policy objectives toward the Iranian government.

Iranians expect a ruler to demonstrate resolve and strength, and do whatever it takes to remain in power. The Western concept of demanding that a leader subscribe to a moral and ethical code does not resonate with Iranians. Telling Iranians that their ruler is cruel will not convince the public that they need a new leader. To the contrary, this will reinforce the idea that their ruler is strong. It is only when Iranians become convinced that either their rulers lack the resolve to do what is necessary to remain in power or that a stronger power will protect them against their current tyrannical rulers, that they will speak out and try to overthrow leaders.

Compromise (as we in the West understand this concept) is seen as a sign of submission and weakness. For Iranians, it actually brings shame on those (and on the families of those) who concede. By contrast, one who forces others to compromise increases his honor and stature, and is likely to continue forcing others to submit in the future. Iranians do not consider weakness a reason to engage an adversary in compromise, but rather as an opportunity to destroy them. It is for this reason that good-will and confidence-building measures should be avoided at all costs.

What Iranians really believe, they usually keep to themselves. Instead, they tell those with power what they think their leaders want to hear. This is the concept of ketman, or dissimulation. Iranians do not consider ketman (taqiyah in Arabic) to be lying. And they have developed it into a fine art, which they view as a positive form of self-protection.

Western cultural biases regarding, and demanding, honesty make it easy to misunderstand Iranians. Iranians have learned to cope with adverse situations by being warm, gracious, polite, and obsequious. Westerners, especially Americans who place a high value on candor, straightforwardness, and honesty, are often bamboozled by Iranians who know that those in the West are easily taken in by their effusively friendly, kind, generous, and engaging behavior.

Negotiations are opportunities to best others, to demonstrate power, and to make sure opponents know who is the boss. In politics, Iranians negotiate only after defeating their enemies. During these negotiations, the victor magnanimously dictates to the vanquished how things will be conducted thereafter. Signaling a desire to talk before being victorious is, in Iranian eyes, a sign of weakness or lack of will to win.

When the West establishes itself as the most powerful force and shows strength and resolve, Iranians will most likely come on board. They do not want to be on the losing side. If military action is eventually required, the targeting of national symbols and leadership strongholds may be enough to demonstrate that the balance of power in Iran is quickly shifting. By applying this principle, the West may not need to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities or launch a large-scale invasion to bring down Iran's rulers and stop the nuclear program.

Iranians look around them and see that others in their neighborhood such as Russia, Israel, Pakistan, India, and China all have the bomb. To say that Iran shouldn't have the bomb is considered an affront to Iranian patriotism. Using a little ingenuity, we could drive a wedge between the Iranian government and the Iranian people. We should make clear that we are not opposed to Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. We are only opposed to the current government having a nuclear arsenal because it is the largest state-sponsor of terrorism in the world and does its utmost to undermine its neighbors and remove U.S. influence in the region. If the current government acquires nuclear weapons, it might very well use them.

If the West is to succeed, Iranians must be convinced, in terms they understand, that America is prepared to establish itself as a powerful force and help the Iranian population liberate themselves from the tyranny under which they live.

If you'd like a printer-friendly, text version of this newsletter click the button below.

How many times have you heard someone lament that Israel doesn't have good public relations? By supporting FLAME, you help one of the world's most powerful information efforts to spread the truth about Israel and the Middle East conflict. Please note that because FLAME is a non-profit 501(c)(3) corporation, your donation is tax-deductible.

If you know of a friend or colleague who would appreciate learning more Facts and Logic About the Middle East, please forward this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE to them using the link below.

If you have received this issue of the FLAME HOTLINE from a friend or colleague and you'd like to subscribe, please use the link below.

Our Ads and Positions | Donate | Our Letters to Editors | Our Acquisition Letters
FLAME's Purpose | Subscribe to Hotline Alerts | Home

©2010 FLAME. All rights reserved. | Site Credits | Contact Us

You are receiving this email because you have requested news, facts and analysis about Israel and the Mideast conflict.