Soccer Dad

At what price?

Clearly the charges against Roxana Saberi were trumped up. First she was accused of buying wine and only now are we finding out that she supposedly possessed classified documents and *gasp* that she visited Israel. She was arrested for a reason.

One of Ms. Saberi's lawyers, Saleh Nikbakht, revealed new details of the case on Tuesday. He said Ms. Saberi had copied and kept a "confidential document" about the U.S. war in Iraq that was issued by a research center connected to the Iranian president's office, and that this was used against her in her original conviction.

Ms. Saberi obtained the document while she was working as a freelance translator for the Expediency Council, a powerful body in Iran's ruling clerical hierarchy, Nikbakht said. The council's role is to mediate between the legislature, presidency and ruling clerics over constitutional disputes. The lawyer said Ms. Saberi was occasionally working as translator for council's Web site two years ago.

During her trial, prosecutors also cited a trip to Israel that Ms. Saberi made in 2006 as evidence against her, the lawyer said. The Iranian government bars its citizens from visiting Israel.

Michael Ledeen wonders what the cost of freeing Roxana Saberi was.

Why does the Mafia release hostages? Because they have collected the ransom. So to all those who are looking for subtle reasons for the Saberi release, take it from someone who has been there. Iran collected its ransom. The mullahs aren't subtle, they're mafiosi. We probably won't know for a while what they got, who delivered it, and who worked the deal. But anyone familiar with the workings of the Islamic Republic has to assume that there was a payoff.

Andrew Sullivan infers that the payoff was cash.

That's not necessarily so.

Last week Nathan Guttman reported:

The new reality became apparent during the AIPAC conference itself, when AIPAC's top lobbying issue -- new legislation that would tighten sanctions on Iran now -- was put on hold in Congress immediately after it had been introduced.

California Democrat Howard Berman, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, announced that his committee would not take up the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act, which he himself had introduced. The legislation is intended to block exports of refined petroleum to Iran, and thereby increase the pressure on Iran's faltering economy.

"I have no intentions of moving this bill through the legislative process in the near future," said Berman, normally a strong supporter of AIPAC initiatives. He made it clear that the bill would go forward only if efforts to diplomatically engage Iran fail.

Guttman, of course, portrays this as a significant political loss for AIPAC:

AIPAC officials, who sent more than 6,000 activists to lobby for the legislation, insisted that Berman's position was not a blow for the lobby and that it did not reflect any difference of opinion. But a congressional source who closely follows Middle East affairs pointed out that putting legislation on hold at the time it's introduced is highly unusual, especially when the bill is a top priority for the pro-Israel lobby."

What if delaying or countering the legislation was the price paid for Saberi's release? In other words maybe this isn't a sign that the administration is on a much different page than AIPAC regarding Iran, but that it had a price to pay.

More at memeorandum.

Considering that just three weeks ago, Secretary of State Clinton threatened that the United States would use "crippling sanctions" to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, what reason would the administration have for preventing Rep. Berman's legislation from going through?

"We actually believe that by following the diplomatic path we are on, we gain credibility and influence with a number of nations who would have to participate in order to make the sanctions regime as tight and as crippling as we would want it to be," Mrs Clinton told the House Foreign Affairs Committee.

"We know the imperative of preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons," she added. "After years during which the United States basically sat on the sidelines, we are now a full partner" in international talks with Iran.

But if being a "full partner" means giving up leverage, how is that helpful? And if the United States is refusing to implement a reasonable sanction against Iran, how "tight" will the sanctions regime be?

I can't be certain that holding off the Berman legislation was the price paid for the release of Roxana Saberi, but the timing is certainly curious.

To repeat what Instapundit asked in a different context:

So, a question: If Obama were trying to wreck America as a superpower, what would he be doing differently?