From June 15, 2009
TW: Big things are happening in Iran. Regardless of the outcome, our lives will be impacted for better or worse, count on it. That we have a proper POTUS can only help but will not be the primary driver, some things are just not about us.
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.
...But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."
...This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/obama-aide-on-iran-its-not-about-us/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"This blog has long been interested in Iran, especially in its younger generation so open to the West. Part of it is that I've long believed that Iran was much more likely to become a democracy than its neighboring Arab states - and that this might be the key to unwinding the clash of civilizations that was hurtling us toward apocalyptic scenarios. Part of it is that being immersed in online media, I'm perhaps more aware of the vibrant debate, evolving culture and amazing passion of Iran's Millennials. So this day is a moment of great hope and joy for those of us who have been waiting for it and knowing that one day, it would come. But many Americans have, sadly, been left unaware of this phenomenon - and a glance at the cable news of the weekend helps explain why..."
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Showing posts with label iran. Show all posts
Monday, December 28, 2009
Classic Posts: How Big Is This Iran Thing?
From September 2009
TW: BIG. Very big.
The world is witnessing an organic push for democracy, not imposed by the West, an internal organic push by its own citizens. This would be a first in that part of the world. Mind you this is not a push for liberalized Western democracy with codified individual liberties, strong judiciary etc. so the resulting regime, should it ever assume power, would be a different animal than say a Vaclav Havel Czech republic. Yet it would be a massive improvement compared to the status quo.
Two pivotal events occurred in 1978-1979, the overthrow of the Shah with an installation of the Shiite theocracy in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both events have led to a spiraling series of negative impacts on the West.
An agitating Iran seeking to foment problems for the West at many turns (i.e. Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, indirect terrorist acts in the 1980's etc.). While the Afghani Soviet freedom fighters originally strongly supported by the West morphed directly into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (two related but very different entities).
Imagine an Iranian regime less outward focused on causing distracting mischief and more inwardly focused on addressing its own population's needs and desires. The Iranian economy has never come close to its potential under the clumsy leadership of the theocracy and the populist Ahmadinejad. The economic sanctions imposed by the West while by no means 100% effective could if reduced greatly help the economic development of a nation under more enlightened leadership.
An Iranian pluralistic revolution would also create a template which could have serious implications for the balance of the Middle East and South Asia. The Islamic Revolution of Khomeini launched the strident, radicalized Islam with which the West has wrestled for thirty years. Radicalized Islam replaced the nationalistic but secular movements of Nassar in Egypt and Assad in Syria as the leading anti-Western alternative.
A less theocratic, more pluralistic Iranian revolution could provide (especially combined with the evolving Iraqi nation) a means by the people of the region could engage with the West in a far more constructive manner.
Will this happen? who knows. Even if it does the challenges will be considerable- the Iranian nuclear program will not go away and a less theocratic and pluralistic Iran would still have no interest in being the West's lackey. That said should this revolution occur, and perhaps even it does not, this revolution unlike the last may make the world a less dangerous place.
TW: BIG. Very big.
The world is witnessing an organic push for democracy, not imposed by the West, an internal organic push by its own citizens. This would be a first in that part of the world. Mind you this is not a push for liberalized Western democracy with codified individual liberties, strong judiciary etc. so the resulting regime, should it ever assume power, would be a different animal than say a Vaclav Havel Czech republic. Yet it would be a massive improvement compared to the status quo.
Two pivotal events occurred in 1978-1979, the overthrow of the Shah with an installation of the Shiite theocracy in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both events have led to a spiraling series of negative impacts on the West.
An agitating Iran seeking to foment problems for the West at many turns (i.e. Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, indirect terrorist acts in the 1980's etc.). While the Afghani Soviet freedom fighters originally strongly supported by the West morphed directly into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (two related but very different entities).
Imagine an Iranian regime less outward focused on causing distracting mischief and more inwardly focused on addressing its own population's needs and desires. The Iranian economy has never come close to its potential under the clumsy leadership of the theocracy and the populist Ahmadinejad. The economic sanctions imposed by the West while by no means 100% effective could if reduced greatly help the economic development of a nation under more enlightened leadership.
An Iranian pluralistic revolution would also create a template which could have serious implications for the balance of the Middle East and South Asia. The Islamic Revolution of Khomeini launched the strident, radicalized Islam with which the West has wrestled for thirty years. Radicalized Islam replaced the nationalistic but secular movements of Nassar in Egypt and Assad in Syria as the leading anti-Western alternative.
A less theocratic, more pluralistic Iranian revolution could provide (especially combined with the evolving Iraqi nation) a means by the people of the region could engage with the West in a far more constructive manner.
Will this happen? who knows. Even if it does the challenges will be considerable- the Iranian nuclear program will not go away and a less theocratic and pluralistic Iran would still have no interest in being the West's lackey. That said should this revolution occur, and perhaps even it does not, this revolution unlike the last may make the world a less dangerous place.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
Some Barnett Thoughts
TW: A little smorgasbord of thoughts from national security analyst Barnett. He belongs to that group of analysts who are about as politically unbiased as humanly possible.
From Tom Barnett's blog:
On continued anti-American sentiment in Pakistan:
"Hard to see how, over time, if we are to succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan, that we won't be pushed in the direction of isolating Pakistan for its combined inability to police the FATA and unwillingness to let outsiders step in. I just don't see this bilateral relationship surviving--hence my continuing message to choose India first in whatever strategic decisions we make."
TW: Barnett is a huge fan of aligning the U.S. as closely as feasible with India, a nation which is growing almost as quickly as China economically but democratic, an Anglo legal system and even more people.
On the continuing diplomatic dialogue with Cuba
"I like the quiet approach on Cuba. Also the broad engagement.
The good stuff usually goes on quietly."
TW: As I have said before our closed door policies with Cuba are an asinine result a single interest group blocking a policy for the greater good. To the extent we can mitigate these policies so much the better.
On Iran getting nukes:
"My argument for five years now: Iran has maneuvered itself effectively into this position. We either deal with this reality or pretend the lid can be kept on the box. But just as important to realize: this is a failed revolution deep into its Brezhnevian funk, with a Solidarnosc-like popular rebellion in the works. In sum, this is a manageable problem. We've been down this path before. No freaking out, please!"
TW: Barnett is in the camp of accepting Iran is going to get nukes. Furthermore Iran attaining nukes is a containable development. Barnett also firmly believes Iran's governance will undergo major evolution away from the mullahs sooner rather than later.
And finally (referring to their recent "toughness" re Iran)
"The French are somewhat amazing: when you need tough, they disappear, and when tough is pointless, they're right up front. Amazing how they come up with these leaders!"
TW: This is America, we abuse the French (and vice versa) it is a true marriage.
From Tom Barnett's blog:
On continued anti-American sentiment in Pakistan:
"Hard to see how, over time, if we are to succeed in stabilizing Afghanistan, that we won't be pushed in the direction of isolating Pakistan for its combined inability to police the FATA and unwillingness to let outsiders step in. I just don't see this bilateral relationship surviving--hence my continuing message to choose India first in whatever strategic decisions we make."
TW: Barnett is a huge fan of aligning the U.S. as closely as feasible with India, a nation which is growing almost as quickly as China economically but democratic, an Anglo legal system and even more people.
On the continuing diplomatic dialogue with Cuba
"I like the quiet approach on Cuba. Also the broad engagement.
The good stuff usually goes on quietly."
TW: As I have said before our closed door policies with Cuba are an asinine result a single interest group blocking a policy for the greater good. To the extent we can mitigate these policies so much the better.
On Iran getting nukes:
"My argument for five years now: Iran has maneuvered itself effectively into this position. We either deal with this reality or pretend the lid can be kept on the box. But just as important to realize: this is a failed revolution deep into its Brezhnevian funk, with a Solidarnosc-like popular rebellion in the works. In sum, this is a manageable problem. We've been down this path before. No freaking out, please!"
TW: Barnett is in the camp of accepting Iran is going to get nukes. Furthermore Iran attaining nukes is a containable development. Barnett also firmly believes Iran's governance will undergo major evolution away from the mullahs sooner rather than later.
And finally (referring to their recent "toughness" re Iran)
"The French are somewhat amazing: when you need tough, they disappear, and when tough is pointless, they're right up front. Amazing how they come up with these leaders!"
TW: This is America, we abuse the French (and vice versa) it is a true marriage.
Monday, September 28, 2009
The Qom Iranian Nuke Facility
From Tom Barnett:
" 'I am shocked! Shocked to find out there's gambling going on in this institution!'
--'Colonel, your enriched uranium.'
'Ah yes. Round up the usual suspects!'
Bet on Iran having already set up the sites where they'll continue enrichment AFTER Israel bombs them."
TW: Iran is pursuing nukes. We know this and have known this for a long time. It is logical for them to do so. One can think of many reasons why WE would not want them to have them but not so many as to why THEY would not want them. Their nuke program is not an Ahmedinejad initiative it is a national Iranian goal with widespread public support. I am highly skeptical that the international community will support sufficiently robust sanctions to deter the Iranians. I am also highly skeptical that the U.S. and other nations will use military force to stop the Iranians. Furthermore, I believe use of force would be ineffective in stopping their drive towards nukes unless applied in an overwhelming fashion of the sort likely not feasible (i.e. surgical air strikes would not get it done, casualties on both sides would be high).
The right-wing in the U.S. will use this likely evolution to claim Obama and the Dems are weak. There is a big difference between weak and simple-minded. The price we would rationally pay to prevent their acquisition of nukes is lower than the price they would rationally pay to obtain them. And if the world can live with Pakistani nukes, we can live with Iranian nukes.
From Economist:
"Victor David Hanson has produced a predictably unhinged rant in response to the revelation that Iran has a nuclear-enrichment plant that it has been keeping secret...
But ignoring Mr Hanson's many faulty arguments, his frustration is justified. As an anonymous administration official says in the Times, "They have cheated three times...So what now? Well, I think Mr Hanson gets this part right when he says that "there is nothing the international community can or will do about Iran's road to a small arsenal of nukes." Sanctions will be mulled and then, possibly, passed. Iran may even agree to stricter inspections. But we've been there before, and now we're here.
What other options do we have? A bombing campaign (whether carried out by America or Israel) might set back Iran's programme, but only briefly, and even then it might speed it up. A change in government may not produce the wanted results—even Mir Hossein Mousavi wasn't willing to give up Iran's nuclear programme. Short of invading and occupying the country (a terrible option and an impossibility with America's military currently overstretched), the one thing the West can do is make the journey to nuclear-bomb capacity as painful as possible for Iran...But ultimately it will be Iran's decision whether to take the final steps on that journey, and the West's capacity to stop it is rather limited. So forgive Mr Hanson for lashing out. That's what one does in a helpless situation."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/how_do_you_solve_a_problem_lik.cfm
" 'I am shocked! Shocked to find out there's gambling going on in this institution!'
--'Colonel, your enriched uranium.'
'Ah yes. Round up the usual suspects!'
Bet on Iran having already set up the sites where they'll continue enrichment AFTER Israel bombs them."
TW: Iran is pursuing nukes. We know this and have known this for a long time. It is logical for them to do so. One can think of many reasons why WE would not want them to have them but not so many as to why THEY would not want them. Their nuke program is not an Ahmedinejad initiative it is a national Iranian goal with widespread public support. I am highly skeptical that the international community will support sufficiently robust sanctions to deter the Iranians. I am also highly skeptical that the U.S. and other nations will use military force to stop the Iranians. Furthermore, I believe use of force would be ineffective in stopping their drive towards nukes unless applied in an overwhelming fashion of the sort likely not feasible (i.e. surgical air strikes would not get it done, casualties on both sides would be high).
The right-wing in the U.S. will use this likely evolution to claim Obama and the Dems are weak. There is a big difference between weak and simple-minded. The price we would rationally pay to prevent their acquisition of nukes is lower than the price they would rationally pay to obtain them. And if the world can live with Pakistani nukes, we can live with Iranian nukes.
From Economist:
"Victor David Hanson has produced a predictably unhinged rant in response to the revelation that Iran has a nuclear-enrichment plant that it has been keeping secret...
But ignoring Mr Hanson's many faulty arguments, his frustration is justified. As an anonymous administration official says in the Times, "They have cheated three times...So what now? Well, I think Mr Hanson gets this part right when he says that "there is nothing the international community can or will do about Iran's road to a small arsenal of nukes." Sanctions will be mulled and then, possibly, passed. Iran may even agree to stricter inspections. But we've been there before, and now we're here.
What other options do we have? A bombing campaign (whether carried out by America or Israel) might set back Iran's programme, but only briefly, and even then it might speed it up. A change in government may not produce the wanted results—even Mir Hossein Mousavi wasn't willing to give up Iran's nuclear programme. Short of invading and occupying the country (a terrible option and an impossibility with America's military currently overstretched), the one thing the West can do is make the journey to nuclear-bomb capacity as painful as possible for Iran...But ultimately it will be Iran's decision whether to take the final steps on that journey, and the West's capacity to stop it is rather limited. So forgive Mr Hanson for lashing out. That's what one does in a helpless situation."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/09/how_do_you_solve_a_problem_lik.cfm
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
The Humanization Of Iranians
TW: Regardless of the outcome of the on-going struggle in Iran, as the piece posits, the world and particularly American view of Iran has been greatly altered. We tend to demonize our "enemies" (see our WWII Japanese caricatures) or even potential "enemies", especially the non-European ones. We have been pissed off at the Iranian government for a long time. Bombing demons and caricatures is must more palatable than the alternative.The recent events in Iran will make any moves towards belligerence much more challenging. Perhaps explaining partially at least the visceral reaction from the neo-cons to Obama's measured responses.
From Economist:
"ONE thing seems certain to emerge from the chaos in Iran. Whether it becomes the next revolution or the next Tiananmen, Iran has been humanised to Americans—and to many others around the world—to a degree not possible in the earlier era of "mad mullahs" versus "Great Satan". For a long time, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad *was* the face of Iran for those in the West who feared it (or wanted to engender fear of it). Now, that face may as well be Neda Soltani (pictured), the young woman shot dead on the street while she spoke on her mobile phone.
With what result? Iran is now likely to play a role in the American imagination more like that of Poland during the cold war: as a country of good people dominated by a few bad people, not as a country of martyrdom-seeking Shiite maniacs. I'm guessing this also makes the possibility of bombing Iranian nuclear facilities even more remote under a President Obama than they were before. Simply put, we may have forever lost our appetite for bombing nuclear sites near population centres, with Iran's population brought to our televisions and monitors as they have been this past week.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
How Big Is This Iran Thing? What Is This Iran Thing?
TW: BIG. Very big.
The world is witnessing an organic push for democracy, not imposed by the West, an internal organic push by its own citizens. This would be a first in that part of the world. Mind you this is not a push for liberalized Western democracy with codified individual liberties, strong judiciary etc. so the resulting regime, should it ever assume power, would be a different animal than say a Vaclav Havel Czech republic. Yet it would be a massive improvement compared to the status quo.
Two pivotal events occurred in 1978-1979, the overthrow of the Shah with an installation of the Shiite theocracy in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both events have led to a spiraling series of negative impacts on the West.
An agitating Iran seeking to foment problems for the West at many turns (i.e. Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, indirect terrorist acts in the 1980's etc.). While the Afghani Soviet freedom fighters originally strongly supported by the West morphed directly into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (two related but very different entities).
Imagine an Iranian regime less outward focused on causing distracting mischief and more inwardly focused on addressing its own population's needs and desires. The Iranian economy has never come close to its potential under the clumsy leadership of the theocracy and the populist Ahmadinejad. The economic sanctions imposed by the West while by no means 100% effective could if reduced greatly help the economic development of a nation under more enlightened leadership.
An Iranian pluralistic revolution would also create a template which could have serious implications for the balance of the Middle East and South Asia. The Islamic Revolution of Khomeini launched the strident, radicalized Islam with which the West has wrestled for thirty years. Radicalized Islam replaced the nationalistic but secular movements of Nassar in Egypt and Assad in Syria as the leading anti-Western alternative.
A less theocratic, more pluralistic Iranian revolution could provide (especially combined with the evolving Iraqi nation) a means by the people of the region could engage with the West in a far more constructive manner.
Will this happen? who knows. Even if it does the challenges will be considerable- the Iranian nuclear program will not go away and a less theocratic and pluralistic Iran would still have no interest in being the West's lackey. That said should this revolution occur, and perhaps even it does not, this revolution unlike the last may make the world a less dangerous place.
The world is witnessing an organic push for democracy, not imposed by the West, an internal organic push by its own citizens. This would be a first in that part of the world. Mind you this is not a push for liberalized Western democracy with codified individual liberties, strong judiciary etc. so the resulting regime, should it ever assume power, would be a different animal than say a Vaclav Havel Czech republic. Yet it would be a massive improvement compared to the status quo.
Two pivotal events occurred in 1978-1979, the overthrow of the Shah with an installation of the Shiite theocracy in Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Both events have led to a spiraling series of negative impacts on the West.
An agitating Iran seeking to foment problems for the West at many turns (i.e. Hizbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Palestine, indirect terrorist acts in the 1980's etc.). While the Afghani Soviet freedom fighters originally strongly supported by the West morphed directly into the Taliban and Al-Qaeda (two related but very different entities).
Imagine an Iranian regime less outward focused on causing distracting mischief and more inwardly focused on addressing its own population's needs and desires. The Iranian economy has never come close to its potential under the clumsy leadership of the theocracy and the populist Ahmadinejad. The economic sanctions imposed by the West while by no means 100% effective could if reduced greatly help the economic development of a nation under more enlightened leadership.
An Iranian pluralistic revolution would also create a template which could have serious implications for the balance of the Middle East and South Asia. The Islamic Revolution of Khomeini launched the strident, radicalized Islam with which the West has wrestled for thirty years. Radicalized Islam replaced the nationalistic but secular movements of Nassar in Egypt and Assad in Syria as the leading anti-Western alternative.
A less theocratic, more pluralistic Iranian revolution could provide (especially combined with the evolving Iraqi nation) a means by the people of the region could engage with the West in a far more constructive manner.
Will this happen? who knows. Even if it does the challenges will be considerable- the Iranian nuclear program will not go away and a less theocratic and pluralistic Iran would still have no interest in being the West's lackey. That said should this revolution occur, and perhaps even it does not, this revolution unlike the last may make the world a less dangerous place.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
Who Is Moussavi? (cont.)
TW: Others are starting to question exactly how Moussavi would govern. He is an Iranian nationalist with close ties to the Islamic leadership. If he were not he would not be a leading candidate for POTI. Will he continue to pursue nukes, bet on it (pursuing nukes is a logical step for Iran but that is for a different post). Will he be more amenable to reaching a constructive accommodation with the West and even Israel, perhaps. In many ways he would provide a much more challenging POTI than Ahmadinejad.
Ahmadinejad has become a caricature, easily defined as a radical. Moussavi would pursue Iranian interests in a more subtle and less confrontational manner. Moussavi represents liberalization of a very conservative state, but his ascension would validate Iran as a pluralistic society seeking a means to integrate more fully into the world structures. A good thing.
From Economist:
"...There are those who distrust Mr Moussavi. One sceptic writes, "His reserved tone and sudden populism mask a dark history of religious fanaticism, support for terrorism, and perpetuation of authoritarianism." Certainly his years as prime minister, 1981 to 1989, were marked by some controversial policies—support for the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a place on Hizbullah's leadership council, a defence of the taking of American hostages. Yet, in the FT interview and elsewhere, Mr Moussavi comes off as a very cautious, pragmatic, vague and increasingly shrewd ;politician. During his "20 years of silence", as he worked in Iran's arts community, he seems to have moderated. Should the protests prove successful, "the world could expect a President Mousavi who fits somewhere between the accommodating reformism of Khatami and the strident nationalism of Ahmadinejad," says Mehrzad Boroujerdi, in a less attention-grabbing profile.
Whichever profile fits, most can agree that Mr Moussavi is hardly the perfect representative of the reformist, liberal Iranians who have taken to the streets. And, as happened with Mohammad Khatami, this will likely lead to some disappointment should Mr Moussavi win power. For now, though, this matters little. Matt Steinglass puts it well:
'[H]e’s no radical reformer. But what’s happened is that simply by representing an alternative, Moussavi became a vehicle for the expression of the hopes of people who are far more radical in their reformist attitudes than anyone in the dominant power structure. Even though the players in the Iranian elections were all screened for their personal views, the simple fact of an election became a forum in which radical and unacceptable political views could express themselves and ultimately co-opt one of the candidates.'
The current battle is over power and control of the electoral system—the clerics have it and the people want it. The specifics of governing will be worked out later, should the people succeed. But the ambiguity surrounding Mr Moussavi is yet another reason why Barack Obama should continue to play his cards close to his chest. If Mr Moussavi takes power, he's not going to abandon the nuclear programme, accept the existence of Israel or announce that it is now the Methodist Republic of Iran. When the energy of the protests fades and a sense of normality returns, no matter who has come out on top, America and Iran will still be left with very real differences on very many things. None of which is to say that America shouldn't be rooting for the opposition.
Update: Barack Obama beats me to my point.
Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/06/rationing_not_so_scary.cfm
Ahmadinejad has become a caricature, easily defined as a radical. Moussavi would pursue Iranian interests in a more subtle and less confrontational manner. Moussavi represents liberalization of a very conservative state, but his ascension would validate Iran as a pluralistic society seeking a means to integrate more fully into the world structures. A good thing.
From Economist:
"...There are those who distrust Mr Moussavi. One sceptic writes, "His reserved tone and sudden populism mask a dark history of religious fanaticism, support for terrorism, and perpetuation of authoritarianism." Certainly his years as prime minister, 1981 to 1989, were marked by some controversial policies—support for the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, a place on Hizbullah's leadership council, a defence of the taking of American hostages. Yet, in the FT interview and elsewhere, Mr Moussavi comes off as a very cautious, pragmatic, vague and increasingly shrewd ;politician. During his "20 years of silence", as he worked in Iran's arts community, he seems to have moderated. Should the protests prove successful, "the world could expect a President Mousavi who fits somewhere between the accommodating reformism of Khatami and the strident nationalism of Ahmadinejad," says Mehrzad Boroujerdi, in a less attention-grabbing profile.
Whichever profile fits, most can agree that Mr Moussavi is hardly the perfect representative of the reformist, liberal Iranians who have taken to the streets. And, as happened with Mohammad Khatami, this will likely lead to some disappointment should Mr Moussavi win power. For now, though, this matters little. Matt Steinglass puts it well:
'[H]e’s no radical reformer. But what’s happened is that simply by representing an alternative, Moussavi became a vehicle for the expression of the hopes of people who are far more radical in their reformist attitudes than anyone in the dominant power structure. Even though the players in the Iranian elections were all screened for their personal views, the simple fact of an election became a forum in which radical and unacceptable political views could express themselves and ultimately co-opt one of the candidates.'
The current battle is over power and control of the electoral system—the clerics have it and the people want it. The specifics of governing will be worked out later, should the people succeed. But the ambiguity surrounding Mr Moussavi is yet another reason why Barack Obama should continue to play his cards close to his chest. If Mr Moussavi takes power, he's not going to abandon the nuclear programme, accept the existence of Israel or announce that it is now the Methodist Republic of Iran. When the energy of the protests fades and a sense of normality returns, no matter who has come out on top, America and Iran will still be left with very real differences on very many things. None of which is to say that America shouldn't be rooting for the opposition.
Update: Barack Obama beats me to my point.
Well, I think first of all, it's important to understand that although there is amazing ferment taking place in Iran, that the difference between Ahmadinejad and Mousavi in terms of their actual policies may not be as great as has been advertised. Either way, we were going to be dealing with an Iranian regime that has historically been hostile to the United States, that has caused some problems in the neighborhood and is pursuing nuclear weapons. And so we've got long-term interests in having them not weaponize nuclear power and stop funding organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas. And that would be true whoever came out on top in this election."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/06/rationing_not_so_scary.cfm
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
Why the Russians Are Stuck In the Past: Ahmadinejad and Putin
TW: Putin plays a bad hand of cards very well (as opposed to W. Bush who played a good hand like crap) in terms of geo-political power. But he pursues power regardless of any principles such as liberty, democracy etc. There is a difference between effective and right. Hanging out with the Ahmadinejad's of the world should shame his fellow Russians.Who Is Moussavi?
TW: With the evolving turmoil in Iran, little has been written about the person opposing Ahmadinejad. This piece is merely a start, two things struck me. One, Moussavi is clearly a different cat than Ahmadinejad and two how similar in certain ways their debate sounded relative to one of ours. The big question would be how would Moussavi govern differently than Ahmadinejad should he somehow actually gain power. Stay tuned for a later post...
From NYT:
"...Iran's former premier and reformist presidential candidate...The sharp attacks by the candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, came during a fierce 90-minute debate with Mr. Ahmadinejad that was broadcast throughout Iran. The two candidates clashed repeatedly during the one-on-one debate, with each accusing the other of radicalism and undercutting the country’s interest.
Mr. Moussavi, a former prime minister whose moderate views have won him support from other reformers in Iran, including former President Mohammad Khatami...Support from the Islamic authorities for the Ahmadinejad, who is a religious conservative, appears to have weakened, and he is now widely criticized for Iran’s economic malaise.
....Mr. Moussavi was on the offensive during the debate...At one point he accused Mr. Ahmadinejad of moving Iran toward “dictatorship.” At another, he said that the president’s foreign policy suffered from “adventurism, illusionism, exhibitionism, extremism and superficiality.”
He also took issue with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s constant questioning of the Holocaust, saying that it harmed the country’s standing with the rest of the world and undermined its dignity. “For the past four years you kept saying that the United States is collapsing,” Mr. Moussavi said. “You have said Israel is collapsing. France is collapsing.”
He added, “Your foreign policies have been based on such illusional perceptions.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who opened the debate, presented himself as a lonely incumbent who was being challenged by a powerful circle of leaders eager to bring him down. He said that two former presidents, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, were supporting Mr. Moussavi to end his tenure.
He accused Mr. Rafsanjani, an influential cleric, and Mr. Rafsanjani’s sons of corruption and said they were financing Mr. Moussavi’s campaign. Mr. Ahmadinejad also cited a long list of officials whom he accused of unspecified corrupt acts, including plundering billions of dollars of the country’s wealth.
...Mr. Ahmadinejad contended that the early founders of the Iranian revolution, including Mr. Moussavi, had gradually moved away from the values of the revolution’s early days and had become “a force that considered itself as the owner of the country.”
...Because the state-run television has given presidential candidates limited time to broadcast campaign videos, the debates could prove crucial. Analysts believe that in the 2004 election, Mr. Ahmadinejad won the support of many voters with a video in which he showed his modest home. The video was broadcast a few nights before the election..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html?_r=1&scp=18&sq=nazila%20fathi%20moussavi&st=cse
From NYT:
"...Iran's former premier and reformist presidential candidate...The sharp attacks by the candidate, Mir Hussein Moussavi, came during a fierce 90-minute debate with Mr. Ahmadinejad that was broadcast throughout Iran. The two candidates clashed repeatedly during the one-on-one debate, with each accusing the other of radicalism and undercutting the country’s interest.
Mr. Moussavi, a former prime minister whose moderate views have won him support from other reformers in Iran, including former President Mohammad Khatami...Support from the Islamic authorities for the Ahmadinejad, who is a religious conservative, appears to have weakened, and he is now widely criticized for Iran’s economic malaise.
....Mr. Moussavi was on the offensive during the debate...At one point he accused Mr. Ahmadinejad of moving Iran toward “dictatorship.” At another, he said that the president’s foreign policy suffered from “adventurism, illusionism, exhibitionism, extremism and superficiality.”
He also took issue with Mr. Ahmadinejad’s constant questioning of the Holocaust, saying that it harmed the country’s standing with the rest of the world and undermined its dignity. “For the past four years you kept saying that the United States is collapsing,” Mr. Moussavi said. “You have said Israel is collapsing. France is collapsing.”
He added, “Your foreign policies have been based on such illusional perceptions.”
Mr. Ahmadinejad, who opened the debate, presented himself as a lonely incumbent who was being challenged by a powerful circle of leaders eager to bring him down. He said that two former presidents, Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani and Mohammad Khatami, were supporting Mr. Moussavi to end his tenure.
He accused Mr. Rafsanjani, an influential cleric, and Mr. Rafsanjani’s sons of corruption and said they were financing Mr. Moussavi’s campaign. Mr. Ahmadinejad also cited a long list of officials whom he accused of unspecified corrupt acts, including plundering billions of dollars of the country’s wealth.
...Mr. Ahmadinejad contended that the early founders of the Iranian revolution, including Mr. Moussavi, had gradually moved away from the values of the revolution’s early days and had become “a force that considered itself as the owner of the country.”
...Because the state-run television has given presidential candidates limited time to broadcast campaign videos, the debates could prove crucial. Analysts believe that in the 2004 election, Mr. Ahmadinejad won the support of many voters with a video in which he showed his modest home. The video was broadcast a few nights before the election..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/world/middleeast/04iran.html?_r=1&scp=18&sq=nazila%20fathi%20moussavi&st=cse
Monday, June 15, 2009
Iran!! (cont.)
TW: Big things are happening in Iran. Regardless of the outcome, our lives will be impacted for better or worse, count on it. That we have a proper POTUS can only help but will not be the primary driver, some things are just not about us.
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.
...But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."
...This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/obama-aide-on-iran-its-not-about-us/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"This blog has long been interested in Iran, especially in its younger generation so open to the West. Part of it is that I've long believed that Iran was much more likely to become a democracy than its neighboring Arab states - and that this might be the key to unwinding the clash of civilizations that was hurtling us toward apocalyptic scenarios. Part of it is that being immersed in online media, I'm perhaps more aware of the vibrant debate, evolving culture and amazing passion of Iran's Millennials. So this day is a moment of great hope and joy for those of us who have been waiting for it and knowing that one day, it would come. But many Americans have, sadly, been left unaware of this phenomenon - and a glance at the cable news of the weekend helps explain why..."
From Mike Schearer at Time:
"Despite the occasional English-language sign toted amid the protesting masses in Tehran, one fact remains: the protests in Iran this week, unlike the turmoil that preceded the 1979 Iranian revolution, does not have so much to do directly with the United States. The dispute now gripping the Iranian streets is one of domestic politics in the most literal sense, with different factions of the government and political elite struggling against each other over mostly domestic issues.
...But the White House is consciously working to avoid any statements that might provide fuel for Ahmadinejad's populist rants. All of the public comments so far have sought to minimize the United States role in adjudicating or intervening in the Iranian dispute. "The point is this is not about us," said one administration official, who has been working on the issue of Iran. "The point here is we will continue to monitor the situation to see how it, in a sense, resolves itself over the coming days. The pressure is on them to demonstrate to the world that this was a legitimate election and that the outcome reflects the will of the Iranian people."
...This position makes diplomatic sense. Obama is seeking expanded relations with the Iranian government no matter who controls the presidency. But as Scott Wilson points out in the Washington Post today, the wait-and-see approach is also not always the rule in U.S. diplomacy. It took just one day for the Bush Administration to recognize the unelected interim government in Venezuela, after Hugo Chavez was briefly toppled in a coup in 2002. The decision quickly turned into an embarrassment for the White House, as Chavez regained power a few days later."
http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2009/06/15/obama-aide-on-iran-its-not-about-us/
From Andrew Sullivan:
"This blog has long been interested in Iran, especially in its younger generation so open to the West. Part of it is that I've long believed that Iran was much more likely to become a democracy than its neighboring Arab states - and that this might be the key to unwinding the clash of civilizations that was hurtling us toward apocalyptic scenarios. Part of it is that being immersed in online media, I'm perhaps more aware of the vibrant debate, evolving culture and amazing passion of Iran's Millennials. So this day is a moment of great hope and joy for those of us who have been waiting for it and knowing that one day, it would come. But many Americans have, sadly, been left unaware of this phenomenon - and a glance at the cable news of the weekend helps explain why..."
What the Iranian "Election" Means
TW: The incumbents in Iran appear to have almost certainly short-circuited the electoral process in Iran in order to retain power. What are the implications? My take based on my biases, extremely limited information and overall ignorance (which still leaves me ahead of many in the media):
1) Why do we care? Where to start? We have 250K+ troops deployed on Iran's borders to their west and northeast, Iran can either make our troops more or less challenging. Iran is a major oil provider sitting astride the Straits of Hormuz through which massive quantities of other oil moves. Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weaponry, how their pursuit evolves will determine whether we end up with another major military confrontation or perhaps design a resolution supporting a more stable region. Iran is a large pluralistic society with whom should we be able to establish positive relations world history could change for the better.
2) Iran is not a pluralistic, open society in the sense of a "liberalized Western" nation but Iran has been significantly more pluralistic than say Saudi Arabia. This "stolen" election severely undermines the pluralism within Iran. Pluralism equates to soft power, Iran's soft power suffers.
What does that mean?
A) Iranian pretensions to represent the "Middle Eastern street" lose credibility.
B) Iranian government's claim to be something other(better) than a mere oligarchy with power (i.e. Saudi Arabia/Egypt) loses credibility
C) Iranian prestige internationally loses credibility
What does loss of credibility mean- the bad stuff?
A) It increases the likelihood of confrontation with the West
B) With Ahmedjinead and the Grand Mullahs governing as despotic oligarchs it will be easy to portray the Iranian government as the "bad" guy for better or worse.
C) Will Ahmedinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei move away from the precipice of direct confrontation with the West or step back? With Moussavi in power the Ayatollah would have had more room to maneuver, with Ahmedinejad in power, the Western trigger fingers will tense up.
What does loss of credibility mean- the good stuff?
A) If Iran loses street cred. then their adherents such as Hamas and Hizbollah suffer as well
B) Iran was building soft power by combining social spending abroad with a scent of pluralism. The funds can still flow but they will be merely funds no longer supported by any claim to represent an alternative governance approach compared to the Arab oligarchs. Money is not a problem in that part of the world, in fact many of the problems result from too many petro-dollars sloshing around a poorly governed region. What is needed is good governance, Iranian claims in that area have been shattered.
More later.
1) Why do we care? Where to start? We have 250K+ troops deployed on Iran's borders to their west and northeast, Iran can either make our troops more or less challenging. Iran is a major oil provider sitting astride the Straits of Hormuz through which massive quantities of other oil moves. Iran is aggressively pursuing nuclear weaponry, how their pursuit evolves will determine whether we end up with another major military confrontation or perhaps design a resolution supporting a more stable region. Iran is a large pluralistic society with whom should we be able to establish positive relations world history could change for the better.
2) Iran is not a pluralistic, open society in the sense of a "liberalized Western" nation but Iran has been significantly more pluralistic than say Saudi Arabia. This "stolen" election severely undermines the pluralism within Iran. Pluralism equates to soft power, Iran's soft power suffers.
What does that mean?
A) Iranian pretensions to represent the "Middle Eastern street" lose credibility.
B) Iranian government's claim to be something other(better) than a mere oligarchy with power (i.e. Saudi Arabia/Egypt) loses credibility
C) Iranian prestige internationally loses credibility
What does loss of credibility mean- the bad stuff?
A) It increases the likelihood of confrontation with the West
B) With Ahmedjinead and the Grand Mullahs governing as despotic oligarchs it will be easy to portray the Iranian government as the "bad" guy for better or worse.
C) Will Ahmedinejad and Ayatollah Khamenei move away from the precipice of direct confrontation with the West or step back? With Moussavi in power the Ayatollah would have had more room to maneuver, with Ahmedinejad in power, the Western trigger fingers will tense up.
What does loss of credibility mean- the good stuff?
A) If Iran loses street cred. then their adherents such as Hamas and Hizbollah suffer as well
B) Iran was building soft power by combining social spending abroad with a scent of pluralism. The funds can still flow but they will be merely funds no longer supported by any claim to represent an alternative governance approach compared to the Arab oligarchs. Money is not a problem in that part of the world, in fact many of the problems result from too many petro-dollars sloshing around a poorly governed region. What is needed is good governance, Iranian claims in that area have been shattered.
More later.
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Iran!! What Next?
TW: The situation in Iran is fascinating. The election appears to have been at a minimum severely disrupted by the incumbent powers. Will the incumbents be able to put the "democracy" genie back into the bottle? How will markets react on Monday? What if anything can the U.S. and the West do to postively influence the outcome? What is the positive outcome?
For now many more questions than answers but I have a hunch that this is going to be big one way or the other.
From Steve Benen at Washington Monthly:
"White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs told reporters today that the administration..is now "monitor[ing] the entire situation closely..."
...It's tempting to think "monitoring the situation" is not only passive, but unproductive. It's why I was interested in this item from Spencer Ackerman, who talked to the strongly anti-Ahmedinejad Hadi Ghaemi, a spokesman for the International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran.
"...I think it's wise for the U.S. government to keep its distance," Ghaemi says. The White House can and should "show concern for human life and protesters' safety and promote tolerance and dialogue." But to get any further involved, even rhetorically, would "instigate the cry that the reformers are somehow driven and directed by the U.S., whether under Bush or under Obama, and there's no reason to give that unfounded allegation" any chance to spread. [...]
After years of being told in this country that no initiative for the expansion of global human rights will occur absent active U.S. support, Ghaemi's advice can come across as passivity or indifference. But that reflects a certain arrogance, and occurs at the expense of the goal in question. "We should not have the U.S. lead," says Ghaemi.
In other words, the more the administration pushes, the less it's likely to help. So, we get a lot of "monitoring the situation," with subtle references to "reports of irregularities" and "hopes" that the outcome "reflects the genuine will and desire of the Iranian people."
Thursday, June 11, 2009
It Was a Start
TW: Our sound bite journalism does not abide subtlety well but what Obama is trying to do is very subtle. It will take time to bear fruit if it ever does. Folks on the left (not enough criticism re women rights) and on the right (too much self-criticism), want things in purer black and white instead of the Obamian grays. I hope we and others give him time to play these things through.
From George Packer at New Yorker:
"The other evening, three Iranians came over for dinner—women activists, journalists, the sort of people who would be quick to pick up on and criticize any lessening of American commitment to human rights in their country and across the Muslim world. I wondered what they thought of that part of Obama’s Cairo speech—should it have been stronger, more forceful, as some critics (including the Egyptian politician and democracy advocate Ayman Nour) have said? No, on the contrary, the Iranians told me. This is not the moment to lecture and scold, or else the speech wouldn’t be heard. Obama’s first job was to begin to clear the poisonous air that’s filled the space between America and the Muslim world since 9/11. Soaring public perorations to freedom and democracy without a clear, concrete reckoning with the state of things today would have produced a backlash and achieved nothing. Obama needed to earn the authority to tell hard truths, and that could only be done by first acknowledging the various grievances and perceived wrongs that have accumulated over the years, on all sides (in this way, the Cairo speech was the foreign equivalent to the speech on race that he gave in Philadelphia during the campaign, with many of the same rhetorical moves).
The Iranians added that, later, in private, they want Obama to press governments like their own (if negotations with Iran ever start) on human rights. At that point, we’ll know more about the degree of realpolitik in Obama’s foreign-policy views. For now, though, he’s doing the essential work of making it possible for America to be heard by Muslims. And that’s a strategic necessity all by itself."
From George Packer at New Yorker:
"The other evening, three Iranians came over for dinner—women activists, journalists, the sort of people who would be quick to pick up on and criticize any lessening of American commitment to human rights in their country and across the Muslim world. I wondered what they thought of that part of Obama’s Cairo speech—should it have been stronger, more forceful, as some critics (including the Egyptian politician and democracy advocate Ayman Nour) have said? No, on the contrary, the Iranians told me. This is not the moment to lecture and scold, or else the speech wouldn’t be heard. Obama’s first job was to begin to clear the poisonous air that’s filled the space between America and the Muslim world since 9/11. Soaring public perorations to freedom and democracy without a clear, concrete reckoning with the state of things today would have produced a backlash and achieved nothing. Obama needed to earn the authority to tell hard truths, and that could only be done by first acknowledging the various grievances and perceived wrongs that have accumulated over the years, on all sides (in this way, the Cairo speech was the foreign equivalent to the speech on race that he gave in Philadelphia during the campaign, with many of the same rhetorical moves).
The Iranians added that, later, in private, they want Obama to press governments like their own (if negotations with Iran ever start) on human rights. At that point, we’ll know more about the degree of realpolitik in Obama’s foreign-policy views. For now, though, he’s doing the essential work of making it possible for America to be heard by Muslims. And that’s a strategic necessity all by itself."
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Why We Will Win
TW: Obama's speech is just that a speech. The reviews are running rampant, many highly predictable but what Obama and the U.S. is trying to do is thread a series of needles. And we should never forget that despite all of our challenges, the evolving world political and economic systems, and our sometime tedious and inane domestic politics, only one nation is able and willing to try to thread those needles. Obama is trying new approaches, some will fail but he is trying and he is VERY good.
The day, if ever, the leader of China or Brazil or Iran is standing in front of an audience in Cairo eliciting such attention and derision will be the day you will know the world has truly changed. We are no where near that day but the world needs enlightened leadership to the extent we can provide that then that day will be very far off.
From Tom Ricks blog at Foreign Policy mag:
"I was interested that the home page of the Iranian news agency has not a word about President Obama's speech in Cairo. I think this is an interesting sign of success for Obama, because it suggests to me that he just flummoxes the anti-American element in the Middle East. Good for him.
I also was impressed by Jeffrey Goldberg's take on the speech:
"An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible."
The day, if ever, the leader of China or Brazil or Iran is standing in front of an audience in Cairo eliciting such attention and derision will be the day you will know the world has truly changed. We are no where near that day but the world needs enlightened leadership to the extent we can provide that then that day will be very far off.
From Tom Ricks blog at Foreign Policy mag:
"I was interested that the home page of the Iranian news agency has not a word about President Obama's speech in Cairo. I think this is an interesting sign of success for Obama, because it suggests to me that he just flummoxes the anti-American element in the Middle East. Good for him.
I also was impressed by Jeffrey Goldberg's take on the speech:
"An African-American President with Muslim roots stands before the Muslim world and defends the right of Jews to a nation of their own in their ancestral homeland, and then denounces in vociferous terms the evil of Holocaust denial, and right-wing Israelis go forth and complain that the President is unsympathetic to the housing needs of settlers. Incredible, just incredible."
Obama In Cairo
James Baker (fmr. Sec. of State and WH Chief of Staff for Reagan) before Obama's Cairo speech on how one pushes the ball up the hill in the Middle East:
"Well, you get there by doing what the president is doing. Show these people that we value the relationship that has existed formany years between their countries and our country. Pay them attention,which he is certainly doing. Meet with them, listen to their concerns. And explain to them the importance of U.S. policy goals. That's a way you get there. And I think it's very healthy that he is doing this."
From Craig Crawford after the speech:
"...It was a moment that made good on the promise of this man to begin the process of transforming relations and undermining terrorists.
"You have the ability to reimagine the world," Obama to young Muslims at Cairo University.
For the first time since Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords we have a president with the skills, understanding and commitment to make peace in a region that has bedeviled the world for generations. Carter's 1978 brokering of a deal between Egypt and Israel to recognize each other and pursue peace still stands as the only lasting agreement of its kind since those days.
Obama's phenomenal speech gracefully shifted from historical tensions to current conflicts between Muslim nations and the western world. Without taking sides he was not shy about noting the wrongdoing of extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance.
Perhaps his most controversial words at home will turn out to be calling Afghanistan a war of necessity, while labeling Iraq a "war of choice." Although Obama has said such things before, his political foes will probably seize upon his decision to say it on foreign soil.
But acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- or at least seeming to say so -- will probably do more to impress the Muslim world than just about anything else in this great speech."
From Economist:
"...Mr Obama didn't shy away from the hard questions; indeed he said early and clearly that one speech wasn't going to change much, and that the problems are severe. More than anything, he was frank. Whether talking about a need for an Israeli settlement freeze, reminding the audience that America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, or taking on the Arab conspiracy theories about 9/11, he didn't shy away from the hard topics. The question isn't whether we heard anything new—nobody expected that. The speech was, in my view, honest. That, in itself, is significant for a Muslim audience too used to hearing one thing and seeing another.
...Mr Obama's speech in Cairo closed with a standing ovation, a stunning sight in itself. The knee-jerk reaction of too many Americans is to recoil at the notion of foreigners cheering an American president, as if unpopularity abroad was a sign of virile vigor. This is a new and ugly strain in conservatism. The first sentence of the first official document of the United States paid tribute to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Mr Obama took that seriously today."
"Well, you get there by doing what the president is doing. Show these people that we value the relationship that has existed formany years between their countries and our country. Pay them attention,which he is certainly doing. Meet with them, listen to their concerns. And explain to them the importance of U.S. policy goals. That's a way you get there. And I think it's very healthy that he is doing this."
From Craig Crawford after the speech:
"...It was a moment that made good on the promise of this man to begin the process of transforming relations and undermining terrorists.
"You have the ability to reimagine the world," Obama to young Muslims at Cairo University.
For the first time since Jimmy Carter's Camp David accords we have a president with the skills, understanding and commitment to make peace in a region that has bedeviled the world for generations. Carter's 1978 brokering of a deal between Egypt and Israel to recognize each other and pursue peace still stands as the only lasting agreement of its kind since those days.
Obama's phenomenal speech gracefully shifted from historical tensions to current conflicts between Muslim nations and the western world. Without taking sides he was not shy about noting the wrongdoing of extremists on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for instance.
Perhaps his most controversial words at home will turn out to be calling Afghanistan a war of necessity, while labeling Iraq a "war of choice." Although Obama has said such things before, his political foes will probably seize upon his decision to say it on foreign soil.
But acknowledging that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake -- or at least seeming to say so -- will probably do more to impress the Muslim world than just about anything else in this great speech."
From Economist:
"...Mr Obama didn't shy away from the hard questions; indeed he said early and clearly that one speech wasn't going to change much, and that the problems are severe. More than anything, he was frank. Whether talking about a need for an Israeli settlement freeze, reminding the audience that America overthrew Iran's government in 1953, or taking on the Arab conspiracy theories about 9/11, he didn't shy away from the hard topics. The question isn't whether we heard anything new—nobody expected that. The speech was, in my view, honest. That, in itself, is significant for a Muslim audience too used to hearing one thing and seeing another.
...Mr Obama's speech in Cairo closed with a standing ovation, a stunning sight in itself. The knee-jerk reaction of too many Americans is to recoil at the notion of foreigners cheering an American president, as if unpopularity abroad was a sign of virile vigor. This is a new and ugly strain in conservatism. The first sentence of the first official document of the United States paid tribute to "a decent respect for the opinions of mankind". Mr Obama took that seriously today."
Sunday, May 3, 2009
An Actual Suggested Solution For Iran
TW: Many speak of either launching some sort of military action or a "diplomatic" approach. But this Cohen piece proposes an actual diplomatic solution with some meat on the bones which to me makes sense. The deal is predicated upon Iran being rational and interested in joining the world community in a constructive manner, two things which I believe to worth believing and pursuing. Many disagree. To repeat myself Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons because it is a rational move on their part, we can huff and puff but unless we are willing to blow their house down (and accept all of the blow back from Iran and elsewhere) then we need to get real about negotiating something that would benefit both parties.
From Roger Cohen at NYT:
"...Imagine if Roosevelt in 1942 had said to Stalin, sorry, Joe, we don’t like your Communist ideology so we’re not going to accept your help in crushing the Nazis. I know you’re powerful, but we don’t deal with evil.
That’s a rough equivalent on the stupidity scale of what Bush achieved by consigning Iran’s theocracy to the axis of evil and failing to probe how the country might have helped in two wars and the wider Middle East when the conciliatory Mohammad Khatami was president.
Seldom in the annals of American diplomacy has moral absolutism trumped realism to such devastating effect. Bush gifted Iran increased power without taking even a peek at how that might serve U.S. objectives.
...American realism is now essential. It should heed ElBaradei’s view: “I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy.”
I think it’s almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil’s or Japan’s mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran’s advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how “virtual” Iran remains.
One context changer was Obama’s call for a nuclear-free world: it’s hard to argue for nonproliferation without tackling disarmament. “You can’t have nine countries telling the likes of Iran nuclear weapons are dangerous for you, but we need to go on refining our arsenals,” said ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and ends his term later this year. “It’s a different world.”
...Here’s one normalization scenario:
Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a “Malaysian” approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record.
The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic’s security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran’s right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran’s acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran’s entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.
Any such deal is a game changer, transformative as Nixon to China (another repressive state with a poor human rights record). It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won’t accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=roger%20cohen%20realpolitik&st=cse
From Roger Cohen at NYT:
"...Imagine if Roosevelt in 1942 had said to Stalin, sorry, Joe, we don’t like your Communist ideology so we’re not going to accept your help in crushing the Nazis. I know you’re powerful, but we don’t deal with evil.
That’s a rough equivalent on the stupidity scale of what Bush achieved by consigning Iran’s theocracy to the axis of evil and failing to probe how the country might have helped in two wars and the wider Middle East when the conciliatory Mohammad Khatami was president.
Seldom in the annals of American diplomacy has moral absolutism trumped realism to such devastating effect. Bush gifted Iran increased power without taking even a peek at how that might serve U.S. objectives.
...American realism is now essential. It should heed ElBaradei’s view: “I don’t believe the Iranians have made a decision to go for a nuclear weapon, but they are absolutely determined to have the technology because they believe it brings you power, prestige and an insurance policy.”
I think it’s almost certainly too late to stop Iran achieving virtual nuclear power status — something like Brazil’s or Japan’s mastery of the know-how without a weapon. Iran’s advances of the past eight years cannot be undone. What can be transformed is the context Iran operates in; that in turn will determine how “virtual” Iran remains.
One context changer was Obama’s call for a nuclear-free world: it’s hard to argue for nonproliferation without tackling disarmament. “You can’t have nine countries telling the likes of Iran nuclear weapons are dangerous for you, but we need to go on refining our arsenals,” said ElBaradei, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005 and ends his term later this year. “It’s a different world.”
...Here’s one normalization scenario:
Iran ceases military support for Hamas and Hezbollah; adopts a “Malaysian” approach to Israel (nonrecognition and noninterference); agrees to work for stability in Iraq and Afghanistan; accepts intrusive International Atomic Energy Agency verification of a limited nuclear program for peaceful ends only; promises to fight Qaeda terrorism; commits to improving its human rights record.
The United States commits itself to the Islamic Republic’s security and endorses its pivotal regional role; accepts Iran’s right to operate a limited enrichment facility with several hundred centrifuges for research purposes; agrees to Iran’s acquiring a new nuclear power reactor from the French; promises to back Iran’s entry into the World Trade Organization; returns seized Iranian assets; lifts all sanctions; and notes past Iranian statements that it will endorse a two-state solution acceptable to the Palestinians.
Any such deal is a game changer, transformative as Nixon to China (another repressive state with a poor human rights record). It can be derailed any time by an attack from Israel, which has made clear it won’t accept virtual nuclear power status for Iran, despite its own nonvirtual nuclear warheads..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/13/opinion/13iht-edcohen.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=roger%20cohen%20realpolitik&st=cse
Friday, May 1, 2009
If Iran Gets the Bomb the Whole World Falls Apart
TW: The premise of the piece rests on what would happen in the world should the naive Obama Administration not join with the Israelis to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. The attitude embodied from this Israeli newspaper displays what one gets when you combine myopia, patronizing context and paranoia.
The piece weaves a convoluted domino scenario whereby Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons leads to:
1) alliance between Iran/Iraq and many of the Gulf states
2) fall of pro-Western Arab regimes
3) European-Chinese alliance at expense of U.S.
4) another world-wide Great Recession
5) etc., etc.
It is such apocalyptic nonsense that makes generating viable and sensible policy so challenging. The right-wing in the U.S. is building a similiar case against Obama. As in "if Obama does not condone torture, expand the defense budget even faster and aggressively push American/Israeli agendas down the throats of potential adversaries, then Obama is opening the U.S./Israel to terrorism and would arguably at that point be criminally negligent".
Such unabashed peace through strength is simplistic, risky and ultimately dangerous. The piece invokes the FDR name. But FDR was the polar opposite of a fool like W. Bush. FDR was subtle, adroit in embracing international allies, politically accommodative when needed. He was not a single note player with an end in mind who sought to bash his head and his country's resources (blood and treasure) mindlessly about in an effort to mitigate any risk and pursue ideological agendas.
We will be attacked again some day and Obama and us Dems will take major fire from the right. But the paranoid, purely nationalistic, rights ignoring is not the answer. A later post will examine what a nuclearized Iran might actually look like.
From Haaretz:
"Even now, in November 2012, it is hard not to think back with elation on Barack Obama's first year as president of the United States. In his first 100 days in the White House, the energetic president took a series of daring steps that extricated the American economy from its worst crisis since the 1930s. Immediately after that he put an end to torture, indicted Dick Cheney, convened a Middle East peace conference and made historic reconciliation visits to Havana, Damascus and Tehran. Obama's economic and foreign policies were both based on a moral worldview that inspired Americans and non-Americans alike. After years of despair and cynicism, the 44th president proposed a new national and international agenda based on dialogue, demilitarization, justice and peace.
The first signs that something was wrong had already appeared at the end of that first year of grace. Nevertheless, Washington was astounded when, in the summer of 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he was expelling international inspectors and galloping full-tilt toward the production of nuclear weapons. The shock turned to horror on the eve of Christmas 2010, when Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, stated that his country had its first three nuclear warheads - aimed at Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.
Spring 2011 was dramatic. First a mutual defense treaty and an agreement to collaborate on oil exports were signed between Tehran and the fragile Baghdad government. Then Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai bowed their heads and signed treaties that made them protectorates of the rising Shi'ite state. Saudi Arabia took the opposite approach: In May 2011, it announced that it had purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan both for itself and for its ally Egypt. But Egypt's sudden nuclearization failed to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. Mass demonstrations forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign shortly after he suspended the peace agreement with Israel.
By Thanksgiving 2011, the situation was clear. Jordan's King Abdullah left for exile in London. Hezbollah took control of Beirut and a bloody war of attrition erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. The unrest in western Asia had repercussions on the rest of the international arena: Afghanistan went up in flames, Pakistan collapsed and Russia raised its head. In view of Washington's helplessness, some European states began to lean increasingly toward China. When the price of oil rose above $200 a barrel, the American economy plunged into another deep recession.
Obama had no chance in the snows of Iowa in 2012. So with Oprah Winfrey wiping a tear at his side, the most promising president ever announced he would not run for a second term. What went wrong? Where did Obama go astray? In retrospect, the answer is clear and simple. In the summer of 2009, the president had to make the most courageous decision of his life: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, opting for confrontation would have been incompatible with the DNA of the liberal Democrat from Chicago. Ironically, however, only such a decision could have saved his legacy and advanced the noble values he believed in. Only that decision could have led to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
If Obama had decided three years ago to impose a political-economic siege on Tehran, he would have changed the course of history. The Roosevelt of the 21st century would have prevented regional chaos, a worldwide nuclear arms race and an American decline. Yesterday, immediately after television networks announced the sweeping Republican victory of November 2012, close friends gathered around the outgoing president. They found him sad but sober. Obama had no doubts: Had he known at the beginning of his term what he knows now, he would have made a different strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program. If only it were possible to go back, the pensive president told his humbled chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. If only he could have made a different decision in the summer of 2009"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081979.html
The piece weaves a convoluted domino scenario whereby Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons leads to:
1) alliance between Iran/Iraq and many of the Gulf states
2) fall of pro-Western Arab regimes
3) European-Chinese alliance at expense of U.S.
4) another world-wide Great Recession
5) etc., etc.
It is such apocalyptic nonsense that makes generating viable and sensible policy so challenging. The right-wing in the U.S. is building a similiar case against Obama. As in "if Obama does not condone torture, expand the defense budget even faster and aggressively push American/Israeli agendas down the throats of potential adversaries, then Obama is opening the U.S./Israel to terrorism and would arguably at that point be criminally negligent".
Such unabashed peace through strength is simplistic, risky and ultimately dangerous. The piece invokes the FDR name. But FDR was the polar opposite of a fool like W. Bush. FDR was subtle, adroit in embracing international allies, politically accommodative when needed. He was not a single note player with an end in mind who sought to bash his head and his country's resources (blood and treasure) mindlessly about in an effort to mitigate any risk and pursue ideological agendas.
We will be attacked again some day and Obama and us Dems will take major fire from the right. But the paranoid, purely nationalistic, rights ignoring is not the answer. A later post will examine what a nuclearized Iran might actually look like.
From Haaretz:
"Even now, in November 2012, it is hard not to think back with elation on Barack Obama's first year as president of the United States. In his first 100 days in the White House, the energetic president took a series of daring steps that extricated the American economy from its worst crisis since the 1930s. Immediately after that he put an end to torture, indicted Dick Cheney, convened a Middle East peace conference and made historic reconciliation visits to Havana, Damascus and Tehran. Obama's economic and foreign policies were both based on a moral worldview that inspired Americans and non-Americans alike. After years of despair and cynicism, the 44th president proposed a new national and international agenda based on dialogue, demilitarization, justice and peace.
The first signs that something was wrong had already appeared at the end of that first year of grace. Nevertheless, Washington was astounded when, in the summer of 2010, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad announced that he was expelling international inspectors and galloping full-tilt toward the production of nuclear weapons. The shock turned to horror on the eve of Christmas 2010, when Iran's spiritual leader, Ali Khamenei, stated that his country had its first three nuclear warheads - aimed at Riyadh, Cairo and Tel Aviv.
Spring 2011 was dramatic. First a mutual defense treaty and an agreement to collaborate on oil exports were signed between Tehran and the fragile Baghdad government. Then Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi and Dubai bowed their heads and signed treaties that made them protectorates of the rising Shi'ite state. Saudi Arabia took the opposite approach: In May 2011, it announced that it had purchased nuclear weapons from Pakistan both for itself and for its ally Egypt. But Egypt's sudden nuclearization failed to appease the Muslim Brotherhood. Mass demonstrations forced President Hosni Mubarak to resign shortly after he suspended the peace agreement with Israel.
By Thanksgiving 2011, the situation was clear. Jordan's King Abdullah left for exile in London. Hezbollah took control of Beirut and a bloody war of attrition erupted between Israel and the Palestinians. The unrest in western Asia had repercussions on the rest of the international arena: Afghanistan went up in flames, Pakistan collapsed and Russia raised its head. In view of Washington's helplessness, some European states began to lean increasingly toward China. When the price of oil rose above $200 a barrel, the American economy plunged into another deep recession.
Obama had no chance in the snows of Iowa in 2012. So with Oprah Winfrey wiping a tear at his side, the most promising president ever announced he would not run for a second term. What went wrong? Where did Obama go astray? In retrospect, the answer is clear and simple. In the summer of 2009, the president had to make the most courageous decision of his life: to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Granted, opting for confrontation would have been incompatible with the DNA of the liberal Democrat from Chicago. Ironically, however, only such a decision could have saved his legacy and advanced the noble values he believed in. Only that decision could have led to a comprehensive peace in the Middle East.
If Obama had decided three years ago to impose a political-economic siege on Tehran, he would have changed the course of history. The Roosevelt of the 21st century would have prevented regional chaos, a worldwide nuclear arms race and an American decline. Yesterday, immediately after television networks announced the sweeping Republican victory of November 2012, close friends gathered around the outgoing president. They found him sad but sober. Obama had no doubts: Had he known at the beginning of his term what he knows now, he would have made a different strategic decision about Iran's nuclear program. If only it were possible to go back, the pensive president told his humbled chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel. If only he could have made a different decision in the summer of 2009"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1081979.html
Monday, April 20, 2009
Why No Apparent Good Option Exists For Iranian Nukes
From Dem. in America Economist blog:
How would a nuclear Iran change the dynamic in the region?
Prof. Rashid Khalidi (Columbia Univ): A nuclear-armed Iran is an outcome to be avoided if at all possible, as is any further nuclear proliferation in this volatile region. However, this problem must be addressed in the context both of a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the major powers, and as part of a regional non-proliferation effort. The latter would perforce have to place on the table not only Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but also the considerable nuclear arsenals of Israel and Pakistan, both of which concern Iran and other regional powers. All of this would require ending the ongoing American-Iranian mini-cold war, itself a tall order.
However, if such an ambitious approach fails or is sabotaged (whether by Israel, Iran or in the corridors of power in Washington), as may well happen, the most likely alternatives are unpalatable in the extreme: a nuclear-armed Iran, which would be on a hair trigger, especially if regional conflicts are not defused; and an attack on Iran, whether by Israel or the United States. The latter option would lead to several grave outcomes, among them an unquenchable determination on the part of an embittered Iranian leadership to obtain nuclear weapons, whatever the cost, an effort that would probably eventually succeed, with incalculable consequences."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/04/six_questions_for_rashid_khali.cfm
TW: Well that sounds promising...but Khalidi does frame some of the challenges although no viable solutions. But then the challenges are fairly obvious. Neither Pakistan nor Israel are going do anything with their nukes to placate Iran partly because their nukes are not oriented primarily or even secondarily in Pakistan's case towards Iran. An attack on Iran would open a pandora's box of problems but then Iran's possession of nukes would as well.
One always circles back to reality that Iran wants nukes and passive measures will not dissuade them, hence one either works with a nuclear Iran or attacks them. Most are comfortable stating that neither of those options is acceptable. I suspect the endgame is near by which Israel/U.S./Iran engage a game of chicken relative to the attack threat. I remain convinced the Iranians will win the game of chicken.
How would a nuclear Iran change the dynamic in the region?
Prof. Rashid Khalidi (Columbia Univ): A nuclear-armed Iran is an outcome to be avoided if at all possible, as is any further nuclear proliferation in this volatile region. However, this problem must be addressed in the context both of a reduction in the nuclear arsenals of the major powers, and as part of a regional non-proliferation effort. The latter would perforce have to place on the table not only Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but also the considerable nuclear arsenals of Israel and Pakistan, both of which concern Iran and other regional powers. All of this would require ending the ongoing American-Iranian mini-cold war, itself a tall order.
However, if such an ambitious approach fails or is sabotaged (whether by Israel, Iran or in the corridors of power in Washington), as may well happen, the most likely alternatives are unpalatable in the extreme: a nuclear-armed Iran, which would be on a hair trigger, especially if regional conflicts are not defused; and an attack on Iran, whether by Israel or the United States. The latter option would lead to several grave outcomes, among them an unquenchable determination on the part of an embittered Iranian leadership to obtain nuclear weapons, whatever the cost, an effort that would probably eventually succeed, with incalculable consequences."
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/04/six_questions_for_rashid_khali.cfm
TW: Well that sounds promising...but Khalidi does frame some of the challenges although no viable solutions. But then the challenges are fairly obvious. Neither Pakistan nor Israel are going do anything with their nukes to placate Iran partly because their nukes are not oriented primarily or even secondarily in Pakistan's case towards Iran. An attack on Iran would open a pandora's box of problems but then Iran's possession of nukes would as well.
One always circles back to reality that Iran wants nukes and passive measures will not dissuade them, hence one either works with a nuclear Iran or attacks them. Most are comfortable stating that neither of those options is acceptable. I suspect the endgame is near by which Israel/U.S./Iran engage a game of chicken relative to the attack threat. I remain convinced the Iranians will win the game of chicken.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Avoiding Another Huge War
TW: When I agree almost unequivocally with Pat Buchanan, I get very nervous. But I think he is spot on with this piece.
From Pat Buchanan at American Conservative:
"Real men go to Tehran!” brayed the neoconservatives after the success of their propaganda campaign to have America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War victory.
Now they are back, in pursuit of what has always been their great goal: an American war on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:On being chosen by Israel’s President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud’s “Bibi” Netanyahu declared, “Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.”
Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by the mullahs. “Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say,” said CNN. “Iran has enough uranium to make a bomb,” said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon appeared imminent.
...In the neocon Weekly Standard, Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu, urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians on a back burner. Why?
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies.”
The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.
But before we let ourselves be stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.
First, last week’s acknowledgement that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.To construct a nuclear device, the ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).There is no evidence Iran has either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz.
And the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain full access to Natanz. And rather than accelerating production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle. Why? Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to negotiate with the United States, but without yielding any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear power plants.
For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, none of which signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N. Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do. Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Bottom line: Neither the United States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear device and has never demonstrated a capacity to weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one. Why, then, the hype, the hysteria, the clamor for “Action This Day!”? It is to divert America from her true national interests and stampede her into embracing as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.
None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter, defend against or defeat enemies.But that is no threat to us to justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran that has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American.
Can we Americans say the same?"
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22113.htm
From Pat Buchanan at American Conservative:
"Real men go to Tehran!” brayed the neoconservatives after the success of their propaganda campaign to have America march on Baghdad and into an unnecessary war that has forfeited all the fruits of our Cold War victory.
Now they are back, in pursuit of what has always been their great goal: an American war on Iran. It would be a mistake to believe they and their collaborators cannot succeed a second time. Consider:On being chosen by Israel’s President Shimon Peres to form the new regime, Likud’s “Bibi” Netanyahu declared, “Iran is seeking to obtain a nuclear weapon and constitutes the gravest threat to our existence since the war of independence.”
Echoing Netanyahu, headlines last week screamed of a startling new nuclear breakthrough by the mullahs. “Iran ready to build nuclear weapon, analysts say,” said CNN. “Iran has enough uranium to make a bomb,” said the Los Angeles Times. Armageddon appeared imminent.
...In the neocon Weekly Standard, Elliot Abrams of the Bush White House parrots Netanyahu, urging Obama to put any land-for-peace deals with the Palestinians on a back burner. Why?
“The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is now part of a broader struggle in the region over Iranian extremism and power. Israeli withdrawals now risk opening the door not only to Palestinian terrorists but to Iranian proxies.”
The campaign to conflate Hamas, Hezbollah, and Syria as a new axis of evil, a terrorist cartel led by Iranian mullahs hell-bent on building a nuclear bomb and using it on Israel and America, has begun. The full-page ads and syndicated columns calling on Obama to eradicate this mortal peril before it destroys us all cannot be far off.
But before we let ourselves be stampeded into another unnecessary war, let us review a few facts that seem to contradict the war propaganda.
First, last week’s acknowledgement that Iran has enough enriched uranium for one atom bomb does not mean Iran is building an atom bomb.To construct a nuclear device, the ton of low-enriched uranium at Natanz would have to be run through a second cascade of high-speed centrifuges to produce 55 pounds of highly enriched uranium (HUE).There is no evidence Iran has either created the cascade of high-speed centrifuges necessary to produce HUE or that Iran has diverted any of the low-enriched uranium from Natanz.
And the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors retain full access to Natanz. And rather than accelerating production of low-enriched uranium, only 4,000 of the Natanz centrifuges are operating. Some 1,000 are idle. Why? Dr. Mohamed El-Baradei, head of the IAEA, believes this is a signal that Tehran wishes to negotiate with the United States, but without yielding any of its rights to enrich uranium and operate nuclear power plants.
For, unlike Israel, Pakistan and India, none of which signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and all of which ran clandestine programs and built atom bombs, Iran signed the NPT and has abided by its Safeguards Agreement. What it refuses to accept are the broader demands of the U.N. Security Council because these go beyond the NPT and sanction Iran for doing what it has a legal right to do. Moreover, Adm. Dennis Blair, who heads U.S. intelligence, has just restated the consensus of the 2007 National Intelligence Estimate that Iran does not now possess and is not now pursuing a nuclear weapons program.
Bottom line: Neither the United States nor the IAEA has conclusive evidence that Iran either has the fissile material for a bomb or an active program to build a bomb. It has never tested a nuclear device and has never demonstrated a capacity to weaponize a nuclear device, if it had one. Why, then, the hype, the hysteria, the clamor for “Action This Day!”? It is to divert America from her true national interests and stampede her into embracing as her own the alien agenda of a renascent War Party.
None of this is to suggest the Iranians are saintly souls seeking only peace and progress. Like South Korea, Japan and other nations with nuclear power plants, they may well want the ability to break out of the NPT, should it be necessary to deter, defend against or defeat enemies.But that is no threat to us to justify war. For decades, we lived under the threat that hundreds of Russian warheads could rain down upon us in hours, ending our national existence. If deterrence worked with Stalin and Mao, it can work with an Iran that has not launched an offensive war against any nation within the memory of any living American.
Can we Americans say the same?"
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22113.htm
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Engage Or Combat?
TW: Our relations with Iran have been a mess for decades. The Iranians are going to obtain nuclear weapons unless we decide to engage in full out war to prevent it. Put yourself in their shoes would not you wish the security of nuclear weapons? Obtaining nuclear weapons will be hugely risky on their part as any future nuclear attack would likely be attributed to them regardless of the circumstances there by risking devastating retaliation.
To me Iran is a country with a brittle but hard thin crust of mullahs capping a populace bristling with opportunity.
From Roger Cohen:
"...Iran, on the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, is full of defiance and suspicion of President Obama's motives in reaching out to Tehran. But it is equally full of longing. Most people are under 30 and, like these soldiers, they thirst for contact with the outside world and, above all, an America that looms with all the power of myth
...The revolution freed Iranians from the brutality of the Shah's secret police, Savak, and delivered a home-grown society modeled on the tenets of Islam in place of one pliant to America's whim. But like all revolutions, it has also disappointed. Freedom has ebbed and flowed since 1979. Of late, it has ebbed.
...Competing pressures bear down on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and behind him the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They know that with unemployment at 14 percent (and rising), inflation at about 25 percent, oil revenues set to plunge by about two-thirds this year, and the country's oil and gas infrastructure in desperate need of modernization, opening to the West and its technology makes sense.
They also know Iran is composed of two worlds: the surface and the subterranean. The former is placid; the latter is hungry for more of the freedom the revolution promised. This, too, speaks for an engagement that might over time end Iran's bipolar state.
...On the other hand, a revolutionary government that deprives itself of its great enemy is one that has lost the core of its galvanizing propaganda. Opening equals risk.
..."The Arabs are chickens," he said. "Just look at what Egypt did about Gaza. Those big-bellied Arabs, you take up a stick and they run away."
Scratch the surface and there's no love lost between Persians and Arabs, another reason to be careful in distinguishing Iranian rhetoric, which can seem monolithic, from Iran's many-shaded reality.
...A few days after this meeting, I found myself on the Tehran subway. A bunch of youths started smiling and pointing. "This guy's an American!" they exclaimed. There was no menace, only curiosity...."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/11/opinion/edcohen.php
To me Iran is a country with a brittle but hard thin crust of mullahs capping a populace bristling with opportunity.
From Roger Cohen:
"...Iran, on the 30th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, is full of defiance and suspicion of President Obama's motives in reaching out to Tehran. But it is equally full of longing. Most people are under 30 and, like these soldiers, they thirst for contact with the outside world and, above all, an America that looms with all the power of myth
...The revolution freed Iranians from the brutality of the Shah's secret police, Savak, and delivered a home-grown society modeled on the tenets of Islam in place of one pliant to America's whim. But like all revolutions, it has also disappointed. Freedom has ebbed and flowed since 1979. Of late, it has ebbed.
...Competing pressures bear down on President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and behind him the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. They know that with unemployment at 14 percent (and rising), inflation at about 25 percent, oil revenues set to plunge by about two-thirds this year, and the country's oil and gas infrastructure in desperate need of modernization, opening to the West and its technology makes sense.
They also know Iran is composed of two worlds: the surface and the subterranean. The former is placid; the latter is hungry for more of the freedom the revolution promised. This, too, speaks for an engagement that might over time end Iran's bipolar state.
...On the other hand, a revolutionary government that deprives itself of its great enemy is one that has lost the core of its galvanizing propaganda. Opening equals risk.
..."The Arabs are chickens," he said. "Just look at what Egypt did about Gaza. Those big-bellied Arabs, you take up a stick and they run away."
Scratch the surface and there's no love lost between Persians and Arabs, another reason to be careful in distinguishing Iranian rhetoric, which can seem monolithic, from Iran's many-shaded reality.
...A few days after this meeting, I found myself on the Tehran subway. A bunch of youths started smiling and pointing. "This guy's an American!" they exclaimed. There was no menace, only curiosity...."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/11/opinion/edcohen.php
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)