TPMCafe
« The Late Morning Buzz | Home | Franken Announces His Candidacy »

Misfiring on Iran

user-pic

While President Bush is trying to make the case that Iran is arming factions in Iraq, elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran.

I’ve always tried to stay out of this debate in this venue, but this setting of this litmus test is not only dangerous – it’s dangerously misguided.

The reason why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all refusing to take the military option off the table is because there is no credible expert on Iran, nonproliferation, or any combination of the two who would advise them to do so.

Now, before someone charges that the Beltway establishment is a bunch of no-nothing warmongers, let me be clear: they are receiving this advice from a wide array of experts, with differing views on the region (I can assume this with some degree of confidence having sat through some of these same briefings – given by people who advise the entire field -- with other candidates).

Also, in the very same breath that they are undoubtedly getting this advice, they are also being told in no uncertain terms that a military strike against Tehran, much less total war, would be long, nasty, costly, and unwise. But precisely because these Democrats want to avoid war with Iran that they must offer the now familiar formulation: no nukes for Iran, no options off the table. Hillary Clinton stated this today, Barack Obama gave a version of it two years ago, and John Edwards said it last month. If I had the time to Google, one would find this same formula parroted by dozens of Democrats.

Does this mean that we should not be skeptical of the Bush Administration’s attempt to “sell” an Iran adventure? No. Does this mean that Congress should not have oversight over any such potential action (as Senator Clinton said today)? No.

What it means is that the keyboard commentariat needs to come to grips with the realities of diplomacy. It would hurt America’s interests right now if Iran felt that they could proliferate without ultimately facing a military response. It is the most important stick we have, and as we use other ways to pressure the Iranians and also look into what carrots may be employed to walk them back from going nuclear, it would undermine our position if we unilaterally said that this move was off the table.

Now, there are some who are generally pacifist and believe that the US should always take the military option off the table; I am sure there are others who actually believe that Iran doesn’t mean what its leaders say or don’t see that regime having the bomb as a threat; and still others may question this strategic rationale of keeping the military option on the table.

Yet there is no mainstream Democratic candidate who is running as a pacifist or should; and those who refuse to believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests, are misinformed or naïve.

And as for those who doubt the strategy of no nukes, no options off the table, my only question is: what is that based on? Again, is there any person with real experience with the Iranians, diplomacy, or nonproliferation who has argued that? If so, let’s hear it. But – to my mind – rightly, the major candidates are listening to seasoned experts on this issue, and are thus sticking with the above formulation of no nuclear Iran, no options off the table.

So, let’s cut our candidates some slack and do away with this self-defeating Iran litmus test. What we should be asking our candidates are questions like: how do you perceive the Iranian threat? How does Iran and its designs intersect with the stability and future of the region – and our country’s interests? And how would you handle Iran if you were president?


173 Comments

| Leave a comment

Mr. Baer, I hardly ever agree with anything you say and this is not very different. However I agree that it is not necessary for candidates to foreswear military action against Iran. What IS a requirement for any Democrat to get my vote is an attack on the Bush attempt to trump up a case for war following (just to make it easy to follow) the precise same script that he used in Iraq). Now if you, or Hillary, or Edwards or Obama are too tied to AIPAC to speak out forcefully against another phony war then our differences are clear. Otherwise it is absolutely essential that Bush's march to war with Iran right now be opposed without ambiguity by any serious candidate. So the bottom line is not foreswearing military action, it is making clear pre-emptive war is completely off the table.

Facebook

This is a smart blog. I mean it. You have so much knowledge about this issue, and so much passion. You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses. Youve got a design here thats not too flashy, but makes a statement as big as what youre saying. Great job,children health indeed.

I guess we all hear what we want to hear. I hear many, many voices, including 'authorities', saying that such a continued militaristic attitude will only lead to what amounts to an asymmetrical WWIII (or IV, if one counts the cold war as III).
I also read and hear voices all over the world challenging such a 'preemptive' position. The US, being the only true superpower now (eventhough a fast-fading one in my humble opinion), has every reason to conduct itself above reproach in international affairs, something it has sunken to new depths at in recent years. If we have learned anything from history and current events, it is that violence ONLY breeds more of the same: what you do will come back to you - a fundamental law of nature.
I personally see absolutely no reason why Iran should first, not have nuclear energy (and you can check my blog here about this), and secondly, so what if they have a weapon. Do you really believe they would ever use it, first? If you say 'yes', all I can do is shake my head at the fear that you have absorbed from Zionist and Bushite propaganda. Personally, I have two fears myself: that Israel would use its nuclear bombs first(the ones it doesn't have...lol), thinking someone else is about to get the draw on them, because they just can't let the holocaust be history....even though African-Americans have had no choice but to let their own much worst and continuing Middle Passage go; and, second, that all of the focus on Iraq and Iran have totally distracted us from real terrorists (not the kind that dropped 4-million cluster bombs in the last two days on Lebanon)securing nuclear material to blow the shit out of us here in this country, or other US interests; I doubt they are any threat to Israel since its borders are much more secure than ours ever could be.

Yet there is no mainstream Democratic candidate who is running as a pacifist or should; and those who refuse to believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests, are misinformed or naïve.

Perhaps if you'd laid out what these "serious repercussions" were, your post would have some substance. You didn't; it doesn't.

Baer: "...Let me be clear: they are receiving this advice from a wide array of experts, with differing views on the region (I can assume this with some degree of confidence having sat through some of these same briefings – given by people who advise the entire field -- with other candidates)..."

Then please give us some names? Which 'think-tank' advisors and experts? Next, as you have sat through some of these briefings, whose responsibility is it to filter that expert advice that arrives at our candidates table?

Also, I'm still trying to get my head around Clinton and others giving nuclear technology to India, "particularly since India, unlike Iran, has not signed the Nonproliferation Treaty." Isn't trying to stabilize relations between India and Pakistan also in America's national interest rather than possibly starting a arms race? Does this mean we are going to have Democratic candidate that has no interest in working towards Nonproliferation of nuclear technology and weapons, just doesn't want Iran to have them - hypocritical maybe?

"...Critics of the deal say it could boost India's nuclear arsenal and sends the wrong message to countries like Iran, whose nuclear ambitions Washington opposes.

"By shipping India fuel for its civilian reactors, this legislation potentially frees up their [India's] entire supply of domestic uranium for use in weapons," House Democrat Ed Markey said before the vote..."

Baer: "...Yet there is no mainstream Democratic candidate who is running as a pacifist or should; and those who refuse to believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests, are misinformed or naïve..."

What do you mean... economic interests or military? That's seems to be the GUT of the issue... And if we are talking about serious economic "repercussions" then no I'm not naive... Nor are many of us that have noticed that China has a far chunk of our DEBT and is also after Iranian energy and oil... So, that's why I think our candidates should come clean -- who is advising them?

I'm not a pacifist, but I totally disagree with using tactical nukes and US kids to fight for corporate interests. If the US has to adjust to the crazy policies of our Free Traders (with zippo regulations) then let's have that debate.

Mr Baer

Thank you for bringing some sense to this issue. Giving Iran an out by waiting for the next Democratic President does not seem to sensible.

The Democratic Party has an enormous advantage going into 2008 having George Bush as the sitting President. However, how do Democrats convince that rest of the country that the Party does not stand for defeatism and unilateral surrender and stil cope with the blogsphere?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

One thing that just plain goes without saying is that all nations reserve the right to use force of appropriate scale, when it is in their interest. So overtly referencing force is not simply announcing the obvious, it is a pointed reminder that force is not that far down the priority list.

I guess we have gone far beyond the confidence of TR who thought it best to speak softly. We have a plenty big stick--only wimps need to wave sticks for attention.

The only reason Bush is ratcheting up the rhetoric on Iran is that he is an idiot who is still listening to Cheney and other morons who sold him a bill of goods on Iran. Oppose the heated up rhetoric and encourage rational foreign policy decisions.

Tom

I'll address Baer's question--how would I handle Iran if I were Pres? Assuming I had not made promises about force in order to get elected I would simply do nothing about their nuclear program. I would, however, open negotiations on a security plan for the region, since they are an important player and could be an anchor.

The paradox is that in the campaign there might not be room to maneuver on Iran.

I note that Baer is assuming Iran is "proliferating". Iran is for now only enriching uranium, overtly. I would think that if Iran was planning a covert weapons program they would not advertise enrichment. They would have to be incredibly stupid to think they could hypnotize us with a peaceful enrichment operation, and then achieve breakout capability while we were lulled into complacency. Since exactly the opposite has happened, with a rudimentary enrichment operation instigating talk of bunkerbusters and the like, if that was the goal it has failed.

Could it perhaps be that the obvious is also the truth? There is enrichment, barely, and it is a national-pride endeavor, because it requires top-quality machines and engineers. With the West's history of sabotaging Iran, why should they trust anybody to provide them with fuel when some dispute arises? I sure would argue against it if I lived there. Would we really prefer they simply pump carbon to stay warm in winter?

If we go down this road of shooting first at folks that just act funny we'll become even more Roman.

Oh, perhaps with some realistic perspective to deal with fearmongering? It's hard to be defeatist with respect to Iran when Iran is presenting no significant threat other than a loudmouthed politician without much authority, although something of a flair for public relations.

As far as perspective, a good start would be pointing out that a goal is reducing terrorism worldwide, and that operations in Iraq are only one part of a whole. Many nations have had eventual victory when they recognized unworkable situations and reallocated resources, as with the British at Gallipoli and Dunkirk, or the US at Chosin Reservoir.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

[Imagining Bush briefing]

"Well, yes. Why not help Indiana's economy with nuclear technology? It would make Dan Quayle happy. Maybe they'll let me start the Indy 500 this year.

"What? Not Indiana? Oh...well, next thing on the agenda...the bunker busters on the nucular facilities under Des Moines.

"Not Des Moines? I thought the threat was in a place starting with I, four letters, and not Iraq...

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yes, there are no credible experts left in the country. Donald Rumsfled once said on national television: “they were all wrong”; he was referring to CIA intelligence on Iraq. He only said that because it became obvious that there was no Weapon of Mass Destruction but Weapon of Mass Deception. He has to blame someone and CIA is the scapegoat. What a shame, a $30 billion organization can make such a BIG mistake. Now, whatever “experts” America may have, there is no credibility anymore.

It is interesting to see how this Cowboy President is able to balance the budget now that it is obvious America is sending more money out of the country than bringing in. It is a disgrace for the Harvard University, the world number one, to accept and produce a substandard student and to allow him to manage a country of 300 million people with no proper project plan. He has no project management training and cultural and linguistic abilities to understand foreign countries and dignitaries, all he has is a bunch of cowboy enthusiasm and “bring it on” attitude,

The consequence of a war with Iran would be:
1. More money spends outside the country which could have otherwise spent on health care and education and infrastructure and wealth creation within the country.
2. more casualties suffered on both sides
3. more hatred towards America around the world
4. the military is already stretched too thin and soldiers would become insane
5. more countries would seek nuke to protect their own interest against American imperialism
6. More American children would be left behind without proper education and as a result there will be more social problems in the years ahead.
7. More allies would be leaving Iraq and Afghanistan and distance away from America and America would ultimately bare the full cost of the war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Iran. In other words, the American economy would collapse in order to micromanage a few other countries. The cost could run up to many trillion dollars.

May God has mercy on the soul of this cowboy president and ask him to repent and show kindness and mercy to others. It is enough of accusing others of wrong doing and takes a step back to reflect how much damage he has done to others. It is ironic that America has the best universities to produce the best students in the world and yet it has turned out a bunch of liars and aggressors to tell everyone in the world what is right and wrong. It is also ironic that America is teaching the world about democracy and human rights and America is doing the exact opposite by terrorizing, intimidating and bribing weaker nations and justifies torturing of other nations. This is not democracy, it is called hypocrisy.

Mr. Baer,
How do you respond to Duncan Black's analysis of this process?

=== How It Goes


Winter/Spring - The clone army of foreign policy "experts" from conservative foreign policy outfits nobody ever heard of before suddenly appear on all the cable news programs all the time, frowning furiously and expressing concerns about the "grave threat" that Iran poses. Never before heard of Iranian exile group members start appearing regularly, talking about their role in the nuclear program and talking up Iran's human rights violations.

Spring/Summer - "Liberal hawks" point out that all serious people understand the serious threat posed by serious Iran, and while they acknowledge grudgingly that the Bush administration has fucked up everything it touches, they stress, and I mean stress, that we really must support the Bush administration's serious efforts to deal with the serious problem and that criticisms of such serious approaches to a serious problem are highly irresponsible and come only from irrational very unserious Bush haters who would rather live in Iran than the U.S. ===

It's the spillover effect from the antics of this administration. Only quiet time with a more rational adminstration will solve it.

. . . elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran. Kenneth Baer

Sounds like a strawman to me. See, Garance Franke-Ruta, here.

WHAT TOTAL & UTTER BALONEY STINKING TO HIGH HEAVEN!!!!!!

So there are no "credible expert on Iran" who would advise taking the "war-crime" option off the table, huh?

Here's a start: In this list, you'll find pretty much the who's-who of Iran experts in the US and around the world (people who have dedicated their entire lives to the issue and not made for TV insta-experts pushing the agenda du jour) in addition to Nobel Laureates, US ambassadors, and other distinguished persons.

We the signatories of this letter have dedicated our lives to studying the Middle East and it is in that capacity and as concerned citizens that we write to strongly oppose and warn against the military option in Iran....

Joel Beinin, Professor of Middle East History, Department of History, Stanford University.
Richard Falk, Albert G. Milbank Professor of International Law Emeritus, Princeton University.
Nikki Keddie, Professor Emerita of History, UCLA.
William O. Beeman, Professor, Anthropology; and Theatre, Speech and Dance Former Director, Middle East Studies, Brown University.
James E. Akins, US Ambassador, Ret.
Ted Swedenburg, Professor of Anthropology, University of Arkansas.
Mehrzad Boroujerdi, Director, Middle Eastern Studies Program Syracuse University.
Ahmad Sadri, Professor of Sociology, Lake Forest College.
Hamid Zangeneh, Professor of Economics, Widener University.
Ervand Abrahamian, Distinguished Professor of History, City University of New York.
Djavad Salehi-Isfahani, Professor of Economics, Virginia Tech.
Chris Toensing, Editor, Middle East Report, Washington, DC.
Kaveh Ehsani, editorial board of Middle East Report.
Sohrab Behdad, Professor and John E. Harris Chair in Economics, Department of Economics, Denison University.
Ali Akbar Mahdi, Professor of Sociology, Ohio Wesleyan University.
Guity Nashat, Associate Professor, University of Illinois, Chicago.
Mansour Farhang, Catharine Osgood Foster Chair, Bennington College.
Mahmoud Sadri, Associate Professor of Sociology, Texas Woman’s University.
Nader Hashemi, Post-Doctoral Fellow, Northwestern University.
Said A. Arjomand, Distinguished Service Professor, Department of Sociology, State University of New York.
Abdulaziz Sachedina, Frances Myers Ball Professor of Religious Studies, Department of Religious Studies University of Virginia.
Binesh Hassanpour, Dept. of Political Science, University of Toronto.
Farideh Farhi, Adjunct Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Hawaii at Manoa.
Maziar Behrooz, Assistant Professor of History, San Francisco State University.
Niloofar Haeri, Professor of Anthropology, Johns Hopkins University.
Deborah J. Gerner, Professor of Political Science and Co-director, Center for international Political Analysis
Mark Gasiorowski, Professor, Director, International Studies Program, Louisiana State University
Nayereh Tohidi, Professor of Women's Studies, California State University at Northridge.
Dr. Richard H. Beal, research associate, Hittitology, University of Chicago.
Kazem Alamdari, Department of Sociology, California State University, Los Angeles.
Norma Claire Moruzzi, Associate Professor, Political Science and Gender and Women's Studies, University of Illinois at Chicago.
Goudarz Eghtedari, Voices of the Middle East.
Laleh Khalili, Dept. of Politics and International Studies, School of Oriental and African Studies - London.
Kamran Rastegar, Assistant Professor of Arabic & Persian Literatures School of Literatures, Languages and Cultures, University of Edinburgh.
Andrew J Newman, Department of Islamic and Middle Eastern Studies University of Edinburgh.
John Walbridge, Chair, Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Director, Middle East and Islamic Studies Program, Indiana University.
Hamid Dabashi, Hagop Kevorkian Professor, of Iranian Studies and Comparative Literature, Columbia University.
Noam Chomsky, Institute Professor Emeritus of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Majid Mohammadi, Classical and Near Eastern Studies Department, SUNY Binghamton.
Kamran Talattof, Associate Professor of Near Eastern Studies, The University of Arizona.
Mary Ann Tetreault, Una Chapman Cox Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, Trinity University, San Antonio TX.
Christine Dykgraaf, Adjunct Lecturer of Near Eastern Studies, University of Arizona.
Nader Entessar, Professor & Chair, Dept. of Political Science & Law, Spring Hill College.
Ann Elizabeth Mayer, Associate Professor of Legal Studies, Department of Legal Studies and Business Ethics, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Behad Nakhai, Nuclear Engineer, Entergy Corporation.
Joel Walker, Assistant Professor, Department of History, University of Washington.
Charles E. Butterworth, Department of Government & Politics, University of Maryland
William A. Dorman, Professor of Government and Journalism, California State University, Sacramento.
David Yaghoubian, Assistant Professor of History , California State University, San Bernardino
Shahrough Akhavi, Professor of Political Science, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
Edward D. Martin, Director, Central and Southern Asia Program Mennonite Central Committee.
Charles D. Smith, Professor of Middle East History, Near Eastern Studies, University of Arizona.
Farhang Rajaee, Professor, Political Science & Humanities, Carleton University.
Hooshang Pazaki, Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania.
Sattareh Farman Farmaian, President Emeritus, College of Social Work, Tehran.
Majid Tehranian, Professor & Director, Toda Center for Globar Peace and Policy.
Darius Rejali, Professor of Political Science, Reed College.
Mona El-Ghobashy, Assistant Professor, Political Science, Barnard College, Columbia University.
Sussan Siavoshi, Professor of Political Science, Trinity University.
Jeffrey A. VanDenBerg, Associate Professor of Political Science and Director of Middle East Studies, Drury University.
Masoud Kheirabadi, Ph.D., International Studies Program, Portland State University.
Narges Erami, Dept. of Anthropology, Columbia University.
Farzaneh Milani, Professor of Persian Literature and Women Studies and Director of Studies in Women and Gender at the University of Virginia.
Ali R. Abootalebi, Professor of Middle Eastern and Global Studies, University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire.
Mohsen Mobasher, Associate Professor of Anthropology & Sociology, Department of Social Sciences, University of Houston.
Behrooz Ghamari-Tabrizi, Departments of History & Sociology, University of Illinois.
Sherry Vatter, Department of History, California State University, Long Beach.
Hassan Mohamadi Nejad, Professor of International Relations and Political Science, Antioch College, Antioch University.
Reza Afshari, Professor of History and Human Rights, Pace University.
Ali Mostashari, Ph.D., Editor, Iran Analysis Quarterly, Co-Founder, Iranian Studies Group at MIT.
David Filipi, Curator, Wexner Center for the Arts, The Ohio State University.
Matthew Gordon, Department of History, Miami University.
Negin Nabavi, Fellow, Middle East Center, University of Pennsylvania.
Mahmood Monshipouri, Professor, Political Science Dept., Quinnipiac University.
Hamideh Sedghi, Department of Political Science, Villanova University.
Hamid Hosseini, Professor of International Business and Economics King's College.
Janet Afary, Associate Professor of History, Purdue University.
Ariel Salzmann, Associate Professor of Islamic and World History, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario.
Zohreh T. Sullivan, Professor of English & Comparative Literature, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Arzoo Osanloo, Assistant Professor, Department of Anthropology and Law Societies and Justice, University of Washington.
Arsalan Kahnemuyipour, Department of Languages, Literatures and Linguistics Syracuse University.
Shira Robinson, Assistant Professor, Department of Histor, University of Iowa.
Mojtaba Aghamohammadi, Coordinator, Project on Culture and Conflict (PCC), University of Arizona; Founder, Universal Coalition for Interfaith and Intercultural Dialogue and Discourse.
Poopak Taati, Ph.D., Media for Thought, Sociologist and Journalist, Washington DC.
Minoo Moallm, Professor of Women Studies, San Francisco State University.
Leila Hudson, Assistant Professor, Near Eastern Studies, University of Arizona.
Ali Mirsepassi, Interim Dean, Gallatin, School of Individualized Study, New York University.
Freeda Saba, Journalist/ TV commentator, IRTV Communications, The Iranian Television Program.
Jill Crystal, Professor, Department of Political Science, Auburn University.
Sheida Shirvani, Professor of Communication Studies, Ohio University-Zanesville.
Cyrus S. Behroozi, Professor Emeritus, Indiana University.
Mehran Kamrava, Professor of Political Science, California State University, Northridge.
Nancy Gallagher, Chair, Middle East Studies Program; Co-Director, Center for Middle East Studies; Professor of History, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Esfandiar Bakhtiarnejad, Georgia Institute of Technology; Chair, Center for Middle Eastern Research and Studies, Inc.
Zahra Taheri, Visiting Associate Professor, Tokyo University of Foreign Studies Tokyo.
Ali Ferdowsi, Ph.D., Chair, Department of History and Political Science, Notre Dame de Namaur University.
Kamal Aras, Dept. of Economics, Cologne University-Germany
Fereydoun Safizadeh, Lecturer, Dept. of Anthropology, Boston Uinv.
Fred Dallmayr, Packey J. Dee Professor of Philosophy and Political Science, University of Notre Dame.
Simin Karimi, Associate Professor, Department of Linguistics, University of Arizona.
Reza Farahani, Adjunct Professor, City College of City University of New York.
Robert A. Rubinstein, Professor of Anthropology and International Relations, The Maxwell School of Syracuse University.
Juan Cole, Professor, Middle East History, University of Michigan.
Keyvan Tabari, International Lawyer, San Francisco.
Shaun Marmon, Associate Professor, Department of Religion, Princeton University.
Timothy Mitchell, Professor of Politics, New York University, International Center for Advanced Studies.
Shahla Haeri, Director of Women's Studies and Associate Professor of Anthropoogy, Boston University.
Morgan L Phillips, Professor of Hebrew Scripture and Jewish History; Chair, Religion Department, Ohio Wesleyan University. .
John Damis, Professor of Political Science and Director, Middle East Studies Center, Portland State University.
Reza Baraheni, Iranian Poet & Novelist; Professor of Comparative Literature, University of Toronto; Former President of PEN Canada.
Nadine Naber, Assistant Professor, Program of American Culture and Department of Women's Studies, University of Michigan.
Hossein Bagher Zadeh, former Professor of Mathematics at Tehran University, Human Rights Activist.
Maboud Ansari, Professor of Sociology, William Paterson University.
Houchang Hassan-Yari, Professor and Head, Department of Political and Economic Science, Royal Military College of Canada.
Julia Clancy-Smith, Associate Professor of History, University of Arizona.
Touraj Daryaee, Associate Professor and Vice-Chair of History Department California State University, Fullerton.
Arang Keshavarzian, Assistant Professor, Department of Political Science Concordia University./li>
Kambiz GhaneaBassiri, Assistant Professor of Religion and Humanities, Reed College
Dr. Khaled Abou El Fadl, Professor of Law, UCLA School of Law.
Cyrus Bina, Ph.D., Distinguished Research Professor of Economics and Management, University of Minnesota.
Ali Behdad, Chair, Department of Comparative Literature, Professor of English and Comparative Literature, University of California, Los Angeles.
Mehdi Noorbaksh Ph.D., MBA, MHA, Assistant Professor, Center for International Studies, University of St. Thomas.
Hooshang Pazaki, Associate Professor of Sociology, Department of Sociology, East Stroudsburg University of Pennsylvania.
Naghmeh Sohrabi, Brandeis University.
Jasamin Rostam-Kolayi, Assistant Professor, Department of History, California State University, San Marcos.
Afshin Matin-asgari, Associate Professor, Middle East History, California State University, Los Angeles.
Shirin A. Khanmohamadi, Assistant Professor of Comparative and World Literature, San Francisco State University.
Wali Ahmadi, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of Near Eastern Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
Mary Elaine Hegland, Associate Professor of Anthropology and Women & Gender Studies, Santa Clara University.
Nader Najafi, Ph.D., President & CEO, ISSYS Inc.
Haideh Salehi-Esfahani, Senior Lecturer in Economics, University of Washington.
Koorosh Angali, Ph.D., lecturer, University of California, Berkeley.
John Chalcraft, Ph.D., Lecturer in the History and Politics of Empire / Imperialism, Department of Government, London School of Economics.
Shahin Navai, Ph.D., Humboldt University, Germany.
Nahid Mozaffari, New York University.
A. Kamron Jabbari, Ph.D., President, Mazda Publishers, Inc.
Jaleh Pirnazar, Ph.D., Iranian Studies, Near Eastern Studies Dept, University of California, Berkeley.
Houri Berberian, Ph.D., Associate Professor/Graduate Advisor, Department of History, Director of Middle Eastern Studies Program, California State University, Long Beach.
Hussein Ibish, Ph.D., Executive Director, Foundation for Arab-American Leadership
Ali Zarrin, Lecturer, Regis University.
Barbara Emadi-Coffin, D.Phil., Senior Lecturer in International Relations Staffordshire University, UK.
Dariush Zahedi, Lecturer in International Political Economy and Peace and Conflict Studies, University of California, Berkeley.
Maryam Tabibzadeh, Author of Persian Dreams, Raeligh, NC.
Hamid Naficy, Nina J. Cullinan Professor of Art & Art History/Film and Media Studies, Rice University.
Omid Safi, Associate Professor of Islamic Studies, Colgate University.
Ghada Talhami, Professor of Politics, Lake Forest College.
Lawrence T. Geraty, President and Professor of Archaeology, La Sierra University.
Omnia El Shakry, Assistant Professor, Department of History University of California, Davis.
Camron Michael Amin, Associate Professor of History, The University of Michigan-Dearborn.
Dr. Esmail Koushanpour, Emeritus Professor, Northwestern University Medical School.
Adam H. Becker, Assistant Professor of Classics and Religious Studies New York University.
Hossein Kendy, Activist, Iran House of Greater Chicago.
Ahmad Karimi-Hakkak, Director, The Center for Persian Studies, University of Maryland.
Ali Rezaei, Department of Sociology, Universty of Calgary.
Mehdi Hashemi, President, Asian American Association for Advancement of Georgia.
Gladys Frantz-Murphy, History & Politics, Regis University.
Lisa Rofel, Professor, Graduate Director, Department of Anthropology, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Alan Richards, Professor of Economics and Environmental Studies University of California, Santa Cruz.
Muhammad Sahimi, NIOC Professor of Petroleum Engineering, Professor of Chemical Engineering & Materials Science, University of Southern California, Los Angeles.
Helene Moglen, Presidential Chair in Literature, University of California, Santa Cruz.
David E. Skinner, Professor of History, Santa Clara University, California.
Mehrdad Mashayekhi, Georgetown University, Dept. of Sociology.
Shouleh Vatanabadi, General Studies Program/Global Cultures, New York University.
Glenn E. Perry, Professor of Political Science, Indiana State University.
Hadi Jawad, Co-Founder Crawford Peace House.
Timothy May, Assistant Professor of Middle Eastern and Central Asian History Department of History, North Georgia College & State University.
Robert Crews, Assistant Professor, Department of History, Stanford University.
Todd Hasak-Lowy, Assistant Professor of Hebrew Language and Literature at the University of Florida.
Louise Halper, Professor of Law, Washington & Lee University School of Law Lexington, VA.
David Ede, Associate Professor of Comparative Religion (Islamic Studies), Western Michigan University.
Martin Love, Middle East Writer/Journalist, American Academy of Palestine Tubas, West Bank, Palestine.
Adam Sabra, Assistant Professor of History, Western Michigan University.
Ali M. Sadegh, Professor, City University of New York
Christopher Stone, Associate Professor of Arabic, Hunter College of the City University of New York.
Bahman Fozouni, Ph.D., Professor & Chair, Department of Government, Director, Iranian & Middle Easter Studies Center, California State University, Sacramento.
Nader Rastegar, Independent Researcher.
Mina Safizadeh, Adjunct Professor of Sociology, University of Massachusetts Amherst.
James A. Paul, Executive Director, Global Policy Forum, Ne York.
Masha Rahnama, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Economics, Economics and Geography Department, Texas Tech University.
F. Jamil Ragep, Professor of the History of Science, University of Oklahoma.
Wendy DeSouza, PhD candidate in Modern Middle East History, University of California, Los Angeles.
John F. Robertson, Professor of Middle Eastern History, Central Michigan University.
Bahar Fata, Ph.D. candidate, University of Southern California
Ulrike Siddiqi, President, Pan-Pacific and Southeast Asia Women's Association, Hawaii
Donald Alford Weadon, Jr., International Lawyer, Weadon & Associates, Washington DC.
Reza Ghorashi, Professor of Political Economy, Richard Stockton College, New Jersey.
K.V. Nagarajan, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
Edmund Burke, III, Director, Center for World History, University of California, Santa Cruz
Professor Juan E. Campo, Department of Religious Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.
A. Verdi Farmanfarmaian, Professor Emeritus, Former Chairman and Graduate Director, Rutgers University, Piscataway, NJ.
Gladys Frantz-Murphy, Professor of Middle East History, Regis University, Denver.
Marjorie Cohn, Professor of Law, Thomas Jefferson School of Law President-elect, National Lawyers Guild.
Arash Khazeni, Assistant Professor of History, Claremont McKenna College.
Supporters: (Add your signature)

Asef Bayat, Professor and Academic Director, International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World and Chair, Leiden University, The Netherlands.
Richard Tapper, Emeritus Professor of Anthropology, University of London
Andrea Kavanaugh, Senior Research Scientist, Virginia Tech.
Monireh Mohammadi, Director, Richmond Hill Academy of Music & Arts.
Fatemeh Haghighatjoo, Visiting Scholar, Center for International Studies, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Mark Rupert, Professor of Political Science, Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs.
Betty Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate; President and Founder World Centers of Compassion for Children International
Haleh Afshar, OBE, Professor of Politics University of York
Turi Munthe, Fellow, Middle East Program, Royal United Services Institute, London.
Daniel Thomas, University of Pittsburgh, Russian and European Studies.
Ahmad Hadavi, Associate Director, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University.
Nader Haghighipour, University of Hawaii, Institute for Astronomy.
Maria Sabaye Moghaddam, Department of Biochemistry, University of Toronto.
Diala Al Jabri, Media/Political and Socio-Economic Analyst, Higher Council for Science and Technology, Amman, Jordan.
Saideh Lotfian, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran
Taghi Azadarmaki, Professor in Sociology, Social Science Faculty, The University of Tehran; Visiting Professor at New York University.
Golbarg Bashi, Department of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures, Columbia University.
Jahan Salehi, International Director, Agence Global.
Shahram Mostarshed, Member of the Board of Directors (US), Campaign Against Sanctions and Military Intervention in Iran (CASMII).
Siamak Namazi, Managing Director, Atieh Bahar Consulting.
Ziba Mir-Hosseini, Research Associate, London Middle East Institute.
Fred A. Reed, Outremont, Québec Author: Persian Postcards; Anatolia Junction; Shattered Images.
Rami G. Khouri, Syndicated columnist, Beirut, Lebanon.
Bjørn Olav Utvik, Associate Professor, Director of Middle East Studies University of Oslo.
Dr. M. Parvizi Amineh, Senior Research Fellow, International Institute for Asian Studies (IIAS), University of Leiden.
Siavash Abghari, Professor and Chairman Dept. of Business Administration.
Jahanshah Javid, Publisher, Iranian.com.
Amir Zanjanian, M.D., Clinical Assistant Professor, University of Medicine & Dentistry of New Jersey
Sherry Shokouhi, Psychotherapist, Queens Child Guidance Center.
Ghassem Ghassemi, Visiting Researcher, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Germany.
Carol Key, Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Tarleton State Unviversity.
PhD Hossein Sheiban, Senior Lecturer, Department of History, Stockholm University.
Azadeh Kian-Thiébaut, Associate Professor of Political Science, University of Paris.
Kenneth P. Goodrich, Ph. D., Retired Vice President of Academic Affairs Linfield College, McMinnville, Oregon.
Reza Fani Yazdi, California Department of Health Services.
Dr. David N. Rahni, Professor of Chemistry, Adj. Professor of Environmental Law, Pace University, New York; Adj. Professor of Dermatology, NY Medical College.
Mateo Farzaneh, Center for Middle East Studies, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Thomas M. Ricks, Ph.D.
Tayebeh Rezaie, M.Sc., Ph.D., Assistant Professor, Molecular Ophthalmic Genetics Laboratory, Department of Surgery, University of Connecticut Health Center.
Mohamad Navab, Professor of Cardiology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Azam Niroomand-Rad, PhD, Professor; President, International Organization For Medical Physics,Department of Radiation Medicine, Georgetown University Medical Center.
Thomas A. Green, Associate Director of Libraries & Head of Public Services L. A. Beeghly Library, Ohio Wesleyan University.
Marguerite G. Rosenthal, Ph.D., Professor & MSW Coordinator, School of Social Work, Salem State College.
Shirine Mafi, Associate Professor, Otterbein College.
Ida Mirzaie, Department of Economics and Finance, John Carroll University.
Lowell S. Gustafson, Director, Graduate Program in Liberal Studies Villanova University.
Aziz Karamlou, M.D, UCLA school of Medicine
Shahrzad Mojab, Professor and Director, Women and Gender Studies Institute, University of Toronto.
Katayoun Khosravani, MD, Preventive Medicine Physician, University of Maryland.
Ali Nayeri, Department of Physics, Harvard University.
Mahmood Shafizadeh, President Board of Education Orange Crescent School, Member Executive Committee Islamic Society of Orange County.
Mohammad Haji-Abdolhosseini, Applied Linguistics & Technology and Human Computer Interaction, Iowa State University.
Abbas Edalat, Professor of Computer Science and Mathematics Department of Computing, Imperial College, London.
Afsaneh Matin, DDS, Assistant Professor, University of Southern California.
J. R. Aman, Associate Professor of Computer Science, Saint Xavier University.
Bahar Bastani MD, Professor of Internal Medicine, Saint Louis University, Missouri.
Judith Caesar, Associate Professor of English, American University of Sharjah.
Kevin B. Anderson, Associate Professor of Political Science and Sociology Purdue University.
Giuseppe Palleschi, Head of the Department, Università di Roma Tor Vergata Dipartimento di Scienze e Tecnologie Chimiche, Roma.
Dr Stephanie Cronin, Research Fellow, University of Northampton
Soraya Nouri, MD, Emeritus Professor of Pediatrics at St. Louis University, Clinical Professor of Pediatrics at Washington University St. Louis.
Bahram (Bob) Farahmand, Ph.D., Boeing Technical Fellow, Fatigue & Fracture Mechanics (Analysis & Testing).
Saeed Honarmand, Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, Ohio State University.
Jalil Roshandel, Department of Political Science, Duke University.
Richard Peterson, Department of Philosophy, Michigan State University.
Jaleh Taghavi Miller, President, Persian American Women's Network, San Francisco.
Louis Kriesberg, Maxwell Professor Emeritus of Social Conflict Studies, Syracuse University.
Dr. Susanna S. Bellocq, Professor, Ohio Wesleyan University
Benjamin Wolf, Cinematographer, New York City
Elham Semsar, Concordia University.
Ghassem Ghassemi, Visiting Researcher, Max-Planck-Institut für ausländisches und internationales Strafrecht, Germany.
Siavash Ansari, CPA, CMA.
Reza Saberi, Pharm. D., Ph.D, Science Writer.
Rusti Findley, Executive Assistant to Betty Williams, Nobel Peace Laureate President and Founder - World Centers of Compassion for Children International.
Ramezan Dowlati, PhD, Northern Virginia Community College.
Bahram Zahir Azami, Ph.D. CTO, Hivva Technologies.
Abdolreza Sadri, B.Sc. UMIST, M.Sc. Mel. Construction Management.
Rostam Pourzal, Journalist; Board of Directors, Iranian Cultural Association of Washington DC.
Mandana Kompani, PhD.
Amir Farrahi, Ph.D. Senior Staff Engineer, Sun Microsystems, Inc., Sunnyvale.
Mohammad H. Naraghi, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering Manhattan College, Riverdale, New York.
Saeed Manii, Senior Manager with the Telecommunication Industry.
Kaveh Tashakori, Architect, Bethesda, MD.
Alan Martin, College of Engineering, San Jose State University.
Mirjam Künkler, Ph.D. Candidate, Columbia University, Department of Political Science.
Nahid Saberi, Ph.D. candidate, McGill University.
Hamid Rezai, PhD Candidate, Columbia University.
Mujeeb R. Khan, Doctoral Student, Dept. of Political Science, The University of California-Berkeley
Lawrence Reza Ershaghi, Candidate for J.D. at Chicago-Kent School of Law Sadegh Farzaneh, PhD Candidate, Concordia University.
Trita Parsi, Ph.D., Johns Hopkins University SAIS
Ahmad Jalili M.D., Ph.D., Division of Immunology, Allergy and Infectious Diseases (DIAID) Department of Dermatology, Medical University of Vienna.
Miriam Jiménez Román, Queens College, City University of New York.
Hoss H. Ravandi, President. EzItSolutions
Robert G. Newby, Professor of Sociology, Central Michigan University.
Hoora Naeimi, M.A. Candidate in Economics, Concordia University.
Sami Zubaida, Emeritus Professor of Politics and Sociology, University of London.
Nemat Sarnevesht, Director, Web and Architecture, Openwave Systems.
Pardis Minuchehr, Ph.D., NELC Department, University of Pennsylvania.
Behdokht Neshat, Founder and CEO, Institute for Advancement of Democracy, New York
Sally M.Ameli, Accounting Clerk.
Ata Alijani M.D., Radiology Resident, SUNY Upstate Medical University.
Jalil Doostkhah, Ph.D., former Professor, University of Isfahan; Editor of Center for Iranian Studies, Australia.
Majid Mirmontahai, Middle East studies and Independent Journalist, Washington DC.
Khosrow Hassani, Ph.D. Candidate, McGill University, Canada.
Nader Sadeghi, MD, FRCSC, Associate Professor of Surgery; Director, Head and Neck Surgery George Washington University.
Iraj Ershaghi, Omar B. Milligan Professor and Director of the Petroleum Engineering Program, University of Southern California.
Amy Watts, Research Assistant, San Francisco.
Lily Yazdi
Ryan R. Farsai, Laguna Hills.
Dr. Niloofar Gheissari, Postdoc Researcher, National ICT Australia (NICTA), Canberra.
Roya Sedighian, IT Specialist, New York.
Abbas Semsar, Shiraz University, Iran.
Mehrdad Nourani, Associate Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, University of Texas at Dallas.
Helia Naeimi, Computer Science Graduate Student, California Institute of Technology.
Allahyar Kangarlu, Ph.D., Senior Physicist, Faculty of Clinical Neurosciences, Columbia University and New York State Psychiatric Institute.
Leyli Shayegan, Teachers College Press, Teachers College, Columbia University.
Shahab Alizadeh
Dr. Mohammad Amin
Mohammad H. Naraghi, Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Manhattan College.
Reza Karimi, Artist and Art Conservator.
Benjamin Wolf, Cinematographer, New York City.
Armin Sorooshian, Graduate Student, Department of Chemical Engineering, California Institute of Technology.
Bijan Moshaver, Medical Scientist, VU University, The Netherlands
Ali Eghbal, MS EE
Kambiz Hassani, Civil Servant, New Zealand.
Saeed Ghanbari, Ph.D. Candidate, Centre for Atom Optics & Ultrafast Spectroscopy (CAOUS), Swinburne University of Technology, Australia.
Seyed Vahid Ghavam Shahidi, EE, Sydney.
Evan Siegel, Ph.D., New Jersey City University.
Maryam Nikizad, M.S of Electrical Engineering, USC.
Niloufar Afshar, SUNY New Paltz, New York.
Mohammad Ala, Ph.D., Professor of Management
Riaz Tejani, Ph.D. Candidate Princeton University, J.D. Candidate USC Law School
Behnam Kamali, Ph.D., Professor of Electrical & Computer Engineering, Mercer University.
Maybritt Jill Alpes, Fondation nationale des sciences politiques, Paris.
Carol Key, Professor of Sociology, Tarleton State Universiy
Oranus Dabestani
Kaveh Karimi, M.S. Candidate in Nuclear Engineering ,Tehran Science and Research Azad University.
Kia Bazargan, Assistant Professor, Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Minnesota.
M. Khatamee, M.D., FACOG, Professor, NYU School of Medicine, Executive Director, Fertility Research Foundation.
Hossein Partovi, California State University, Sacramento.
Fariba Adelkhah, CERI/Sciences-po, Paris.
Shaghayegh Azimi, MA Candidate MA student of Middle East Politics at the School of Oriental and African Studies, Coordinating editor of the London Middle East Institute's magazine in London.
Jeffrey Montez de Oca, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Sociology, University of Southern California.
Reza Tayebnejad, Ph.D.
Ramon Blecua, Diplomat, Spain.
Tobias Etzold, Ph.D. candidate, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.
Soroosh Sorooshian, UCI Distinguished Professor, Deptartment of Civil Engineering, University of California, Irvine.
Hengameh Hanna Tadbiri. Registered Nurse.
Nastaran Moossavi, Visiting Professor of International Studies, Trinity College, Connecticut; Member, Iranian Writers Association.
Mina Shirvai, MA, Financial Planner
Saeed Sokhanvar, P.Eng., Ph.D. Candidate, Concordia University.
Masood Irani, P.E.
M. Reza Vaghefi, Professor, University of North Florida.
Dr Shuaib Manjra, Occupational and Environmental Health Physician, Cape Town.
Saeed Paivandi, Professor, Director Dept. of Education, University Paris VIII.
Roobik Gharabagi, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Electrical Engineering, Saint Louis University.
Loes Bijnen, Activist for Human Rights in Iran, The Netherlands.
Jim Kenney, Executive Director, Interreligious Engagement Project, Lake Forest, Illinois.
Darius Kadivar, Film Historian, Author and Journalist.
Curtis Bronson, Advisory IT Specialist.
Hossein Akhlaghpour, CEO, ObjectJ Inc.
Nanna Keeling
Bijan Pirzadeh, M.S. of Civil Engineering
Asal Pirzadeh, Doctoral Student
Eva Patricia Rakel, Lecturer, University of Amsterdam
Ulrik Svensson, Senior Software Consultant, Ford Motor Company.
Reza Goharzad, Journalist.
Maziar Moini, Real Estate Consultant.
Sina Amoushahi, M.S. of Mining Engineering, Research & Science Campus, Iran
Fereshteh Kianersi, Staff Strategic Alliances Manager, Synopsys.
Lynn N. Villagran, MSW, Social Worker, San Jose, California.
Lana Jennifer van Galen, LanavanAtelier, Barrabool, Victoria, Australia.
Nadia Sorkhabi, PhD, future Professor of Child and Family Studies, California State University, Los Angeles.
Manochehr Dorraj, Professor, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth, Texas.
Mohsen Shakerin, Project Management Consultant.
Hassan Soleimani, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Wales, UK
Soodabeh Shakerin, Vice President, Wells Fargo Bank.
Hani Salehi, MD, Harvard Medical School, Department of Ophthalmology
Elahe Mohtashemi, Real Estate Broker.
Manucher Mohtashemi, MD, FACS, Cardiac Surgeon (Ret.)
Iraj Imam, Ph.D., The Center for Applied Local Research, Richmond, CA.
Mahnaz Aria
Mazdak Vaezpour, University of California, Los Angeles.
Zohreh Keshavarz, Ph.D. Candidate, Australia.
Bahram Dahi, Ph.D. Candidate, Biomedical Engineering, University of Tennessee Health Science Center.
Amir Abbassi, Ph.D., LPC, LMFT, Assistant Professor, Department of Counseling, Texas A& M University
Mahmood Karbasi, Software Professional, San Jose, CA.
Mahdokht Sanati
Amy J. Hopkins, Senior Help Desk Analyst.
Soheila Lighvani, Director, Design Engineering, Toshiba America Electronic Components, San Jose, CA.
Aidin Vahedi
Amir Moayedi, Medical School, University of Geneva, Switzerland.
Daryoush Mehrshahi, Geography Department, Yazd University, Yazd, Iran.
Ophelia Parvizad, Marketing Manager, Pezhvak of Persia.
Nazanin Amani
Nina Zumpalova, MA Candidate, School of Oriental and African Studies, London.
Firouzeh Mohajer, Lecturer, Tehran University.
Ashk Dahlén, Ph.D., Uppsala University, Sweden.
Shouraei Samahat, Radio Ghasedak / An Iranian radio program, Zürich
Forough Nayeri Tamimi, Cultural Antropologist
Silke Riemann, M.A., PhD Candidate, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, Politikwissenschaft I, Germany.
Steven Galovich, Professor of Mathematics, Lake Forest College.
Majid Movahed, Civil Engineer.
Ahmed Vawda, Deputy Director: Higher Education, South African Qualifications Authority.
Mozafar Banihasemi, University of New Mexico, Department of Sociology
Hossein Samakar, Author, California.
Behrad Majdabadi
Mirko Bastian, Consultant, Caritas, Germany.
Shirin Pakfar, United Nations
Kamran Arjomand Ph.D., Middle East Special Subject Collection, University and State Library of Saxony-Anhalt, Martin Luther University, Halle, Germany.
Arghavan Sadeghi, MFT, Marriage and Family Therapist.
Siavash Abghari, Chair, Dept. of Business Administration Morehouse College.
Fataneh Scampa.
Gibran Mir, Account Executive.
Pantea Javidan, Law Offices, Emeryville, CA.
Shervin Malekzadeh, Ph.D. candidate, Government, Comparative Politics Georgetown University.
Javad Mirsaidi, PE, CCM.
Naheed Kalhor, University of California San Francisco.
Ali Javadian.
Mohsen Nejad, Political Activist.
Rennie B. Schoepflin, Professor of History, California State University, Los Angeles.
Morteza Tajally, CEO, PMP, Inc., San Jose, CA.
Sara Hajiamiri, Assistant Policy Analyst & PhD fellow, RAND Graduate School.
Rikki Braas amd Abbas Shafii, Amsterdam.
Mona Ghassemi, high school student, Montreal.
Firooz Afiattalab.
Amir E. Piroozfar, Ph.D. candidate, School of Architecture, University of Sheffield, UK.
Hooman Heydarbeygi, PhD, Economist/Biometrician.
Ubaldo Cordova-Figueroa, California Institute of Technology.
Mokhtar Paki, Artist / College instructor, California College of the Arts.
Nader Entezam.
Seyf Ehdaie, Associate Professor of Environmental Science, University of Texas of the Permian Basin.
Reza Javidan, Teacher, San Francisco Unified School District.
Ali Karbassi, IT Consultant, London.
Alireza Daneshkhah, PhD, Research Associate, Department of Probability and Statistics, University of Sheffield.
Mohsen Aarabi, MB ChB, MPH, PhD Candidate, Academic Unit of Clinical Pharmacology Division of Clinical Sciences (South) University of Sheffield.
Mohammad Hassan Nasiri, Ph.D. candidate, University of Sheffield, UK.
Pegah Zhafereh, Iran CFC Accountant.
Ali Noorollahi.
Booker T. Gibson, New York public school teacher (ret.)
Firooz Behseresht, Chartered Surveyor, Scotland, UK.
Parviz Forghani
Michael Schaefer, former Adjunct Professor of History, Adult Services Provider, St. Louis Public Library, St. Louis, MO.
Parviz Boroumand, P.E. Civil Engineer.
Tineke Lintjens, Coördinator Stem in de Stad , the Netherlands.
Mehri Ansari, S.E
Mohammad Manzarpour, Journalist, Producer.
Manoo Missaghi, President & CEO WebViews Inc., Toronto, Canada.
Maziar Shirazi.
Cyrus Khalatbari, Toronto.
Hassan Zeheri, writer.
Fred Missaghi, Richmond Hill, Ontario.
Jay Sharifi, P. Eng., Brampton, Ontario.
Mohammad Govahi,
Ahmad Sakhavarz, Political Cartoonist.
Hossein Honarmand, School of Busuness Management, Ryerson University, Toronto.
Hormoz Vahid, Public Works Engineering.
Bahram S. Biria, MS CE, Canada.
Hossein Nikdel, IT & Engineering Diretor.
Nuchine Nobari, President, Library Technology Alliance, NY.
Amir Mazinani, Ph.D.
Nakisa Malakooti, Researcher, Melbourne, Australia.
Carole Srole, California State University at Los Angeles.
Brooke Glass-O'Shea, Law Student, Gould School of Law, USC.
Mir Fazeli, Political Science student, York University, Canada.
Jeff Akbarzadeh, A professional on camera technologies.
Alberta Rozsay, student, University of Nevada Las Vegas.
Zoya Zarafshani, studeM.Sc. Candidate, Polymer Engineering and Science, Technical University of Berlin, Germany.
Abdool Valodia, C E O, Superfoam C C, South Africa.
Majid Ahmadi, Professor, Director of Research Center for Integrated Microsystems Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering University of Windsor, Ontario.
Tobias Keil, M.A. of Political Science and History, Author, Germany.
Esmail Hejazifar, Ph.D., Professor of Physics, Wilmington College.
Homa Assar, Scientist.
Monda Tajbakhsh.
Zeb Akbar. Working Together.
Esmaeel Naeemi, Ph.D., Faculty at Seattle Community College Seattle, Washington.
Niaz Salimi, President,The Muslim Canadian Congress.
Arif Maftuhin, The Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington.
Hoda Mirafzal, Undergraduate Chemical Engineering Student at Cooper Union, New York.
Omar Tawakol, Concerned Citizen.
Hoseyn Rahbar.
Jeffrey Bass, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Lake Forest College
Fariba Sahraei, Journalist.
Behrouz Vafa, Co-founder of Financial Sciences Corp, NJ.
Foruohar Aghili, UMA University asistant in Renewable Energy Dept.
Davoud Navaian B. Sc., Chemical Engineering, Teacher, Gothenburg; Sweden
Fatemeh Ebtehaj, Associate member, Centre for Family Research, University of Cambridge.
Shahrzad Afshinpour, Electrical Engineer, Raleigh, NC.
Mary Shahrzad Ossati from England.
Amir Torkamani, USC Gould School of Law.
M. Hadi Hadizadeh, Visiting Research Professor, John E. Edwards Accelerator Laboratory, Department of Physics & Astronomy, Ohio University.
Sima Shakhsari, Ph.D. Candidate, Department of Cultural and Social Anthropology Stanford University.
Amir Naghshineh-Pour, Aerospace Engineer, San Diego, CA.
Fanny V.Heymann, psychologist consultancy from The Netherlands.
Sina Emami, Aerospace Engineer, San Diego, California.
Rana Rabei, Neurobiology and Physiology undergraduate student at University of Maryland .
Ali Shokouhbakhsh, Economics Instructor, Bay Area Community Colleges California.
Masoud Rezvani.
Leela B.Ghaffari, Assistant Professor, New York University.
Fereshteh Kujoory.
Ali Torkamani, Ph.D. Candidate, Biomedical Sciences, University of California, San Diego.
Denis Salter, Professor, McGill University.
Amir Yavari, Application Support Specialist.
Betty Farrahi, Farsi teacher.
Shapour Neshatfar, Ph.D., Vice President, Goldman Sachs.
Fariborz Shokoofh, Vice President, ABB Schweiz AG.
Soody Neshatfar, Systems Engineer.
Babak Daraie, CTO, Walnut Creek, CA.
Mehri Farzaneh, Telecommunication Software Engineer Columbus, Ohio.
Musa Marashi.
Nadine Kollmeyer, Social Scientist, Germany.
Mohsen Kermanshahi, DDS.
Morteza Ghassemi, Ph.D., Research and Development in Telecommunication Industry.
Ronnie D. Lipschutz, Professor of Politics, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Walter Goldfrank, Depts. of Sociology and of Latin American & Latino Studies, Univ of California, Santa Cruz.
Ruby Rodriguez, Ph.D. candidate in anthropology, UC Santa Cruz.
Pilgrim J. Jackson, Postdoctoral researcher, University of California, Irvine.
Jennifer A. Gonzalez, Associate Professor, History of Art and Visual Culture University of California, Santa Cruz.
E.G. Crichton, Associate Professor of Art, UC Santa Cruz.
Massood Seyedin, Ph.D. Professor of Mathematics, El Camino College.
Fereshteh Khajehnouri.
Fariba Mirbaha, Ph.D. Candidate, University of North Texas.
Jennifer Yaghoubian, High School Teacher, Redlands, CA.
Ken Bonetti, MS Economics, Academic Advisor, Department of Economics University of Colorado.
Keith Lammers, Director, Library & Learning Resources Gerard Cottet Library Pennsylvania College of Optometry.
Matthew Alford
Paul V. Van Merode, Advisor, Brussels, Belgium.
Gary Goodpaster, Professor of Law Emeritus, UC Davis, School of Law.
Rev. Charles Cornell, Ecumenical and Interfaith Officer, Episcopal Diocese of Northern California.
Leonard Koscianski, Professor, Art Department, Anne Arundel Community College, Annapolis, Maryland.
Anne Gagnon, Former Professor at University of Quebec at Montreal.
Peter C. Haney, Ph.D., Lecturer in Mexican American Studies, University of Texas at Austin.
Charles Hoerr, Childcare Worker, SUNY New Paltz.
Benj Hellie, Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of Toronto.
Tim C. Smith, Ph.D. Indianapolis, IN.
Dr. Thomas C. Hull, Associate Professor of Mathematics, Merrimack College North Andover, MA.
Tim C. Smith, Ph.D., Scientist.
William D. Fergus, Jr., Attorney at Law.
Dr Casem Majd, Vice President of a Telecommunications Company.
Alex Abramowicz, Los Angeles.
Luke Gelinas, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Toronto.
Joanna Picciotto, UC Berkeley, Department of English.
Stephen Roddy, Associate Professor of Modern & Classical Languages, University of San Francisco.
Kooshy Afshar, President, Printup Graphics.
Mori Dinauer, Political Science, Graduate Student, Portland State University.
Jennifer Jones, Ph.D., Highline Community College.
Martin van Bruinessen, Professor, International Institute for the Study of Islam in the Modern World, and Utrecht University, The Netherlands.
Francis A. Mlynarczyk, Jr., Ph.D., New York.
Joel H. Shapiro, Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University.
Jia-Jia Zhu, Undergraduate at University of Albany.
Poulod Borojerdi, student.
Daniel J. Philbin, SMSgt USAF(Ret.)
Isis Stafford, politics student at the University of York.
Behrooz Sheyda, Literary Critic, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abbass Bozorg, Assistant Professor of Financial Economics, Boston University.
Paul Raymond Gunderman, Former Adjunct Assitant Professor, Business and Management, Cardinal Stritch University, Milwaukee Wisconsin.
Farshid Ketabchi, Irvine, California.
Marc Ferguson, Professor of History, American International College.
Reza Shirazi, TV producer
Ray Ormandy, Associate Professor (retired), Literature Dept., Seijo University, Tokyo.
Azita Mashayekkhi, MHS, Staff Industrial Hygienist, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Washington, DC.
Eugene Kelly, Professor, Roanoke College, Virginia.
Will Jennings, Lecturer, The University of Iowa.
Ali Faegh, Professor of Economics, Northwest College, Houston.
Joyce Neu, Executive Director, Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace & Justice, University of San Diego.
Majid Zamani, MPA Candidate in Public Administration, Columbia University.
Dr. Hugh McElwain, Professor of Religion, Dominican University, River Forest, IL.
karen Brand.
William Coleman, Film Production Manager.
Janet McCracken, Provost and Dean of the Faculty, Professor of Philosophy Lake Forest College.
Jawed Siddiqi , Professor of Software Engineering, Informatics Research Group Sheffield Hallam University.
Reza Sahandi, Bournemouth University, UK.
Ardeshir Anbarestani, Sweden.
Ana Echague, Researcher, FRIDE, Madrid.
Pooya Hashemi, Mechanical Engineer.
Janne Bjerre Christensen, Ph.D. candidate, Roskilde University, Denmark.
Forogh Hashabeiky, Ph.D., Iranian Languages, Researcher and lecturer at Uppsala University, Sweden.
Gary Yeritsian, Undergraduate Student, History, International Relations University of Southern California.
Ali R. Borojerdi, P.E., Needham, MA.
Denise Conner, Graduate student (Chemistry) at Pennsylvania State University.
Katie Moore, Graduate Student, Peace & Justice Studies, University of San Diego.
Danusia Garrison, MA candidate International Peace and Justice Studies, University of San Diego.
Mark Woods, Associate Professor, Department of Philosophy, University of San Diego.
Michael Chejlava, Chemist, Lafayette College.
James Gill, Commerce, CA.
Steve Snyder, Editor, Dallas, TX.
Edward Danforth, Returning Scholar, University of Chicago.
Amir Oskui, Student and Political commentator, Kuwait.
Alex Najafi, M.A., USF International Relations.
Khosrow Aryan, President, Pacific Realty & Mgmt. Chicago.
Ardeshir Anbarestani.
Maryam Molavi, Urban Planner/ Architect California.
Nooshin Vassei.
Zinda Mahmood Bajwa, Secretary Public Affairs, Ahmadiyya Movement in Islam, USA.
Sassan Rahimzadeh, V.P. Rahimzadeh Investment Group, Inc.
Alex R. Zebarjadian, MS., Senior Industrial Hygienist, San Francisco, California.
Nasser Kanani, Professor of Materials Science, Berlin University of Technology (TUB) Berlin, Germany.
Hadi Moradi, Ph.D., Research Professor, Intelligent Systems Research Center, SKKU.
Mohammad Nariman, M.S. Electrical Engineering, University of Southern California.
Jan Keulen, Journalist, Chairman Communication for Development Foundation, The Netherlands.
Michael A. O'Toole Jr., Professor Emeritus, Schoolcraft College.
Joshua Goldstein, Assistant Professor, History Department, USC.
Martin Stewart.
Jim Roberts, Ph.D., Retired.
Timothy Hammond-Williams, father of two, ordinary citizen, concerned American Oregon City, Oregon USA.
John Chandler, Winston-Salem, NC.
Reza Naghshineh-pour, Industrial Engineer, San Jose, CA.
Betty Molchany, J.D., Front Royal, VA.
Stephen Oren, Ph.D.
Molly Rad, MD
Roksana Bahramitash, Ph.D., Concordia Univeresity, Montreal.
Edmund Acton Schofield, Jr., Ph.D., Boylston, Massachusetts.
Laura Pollecutt, Ceasefire Campaign, South Africa.
Susan M. Waters
Dr. Nadia El-Sayed El-Shazly, Former Assistant Professor Dept of Political Science, American University in Cairo.
Mariam Gheshlaghi, student at Red Cross Nordic United World College.
Daniel Bonilla-Torres, Opera Singer and Actor.
Habeeb Al-Aidroos, Lakefield, Ontario
Jim Glasson
Tsewang Bhuti, student at Red Cross Nordic United World College, Norway.
Maricel D. Avena.
Ali Raiss-Tousi, Journalist in London, England.
Howard Winant, Professor of Sociology, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Douglas Bennett, Chairperson for Citizens for Responsible Government, Redding, CA.
Dr Ross Wilcock, grandfather, Canada.
Inayat I. Lalani M.D. Delegate, 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Mariano Giampietri, Red Cross Nordic United World College.
Lawrence M. Firman
Gunvant Govindjee, Teacher of Human Rights, Red Cross Nordic University

Care to explain the provenance of this list? Since we can assume you didn't interview them, it is from where? Especially given the unwieldy size.

Not that I doubt these are all opposed to pressuring Iran with force threats. It's just not persuasive without more info. (I need no persuading--it's others that might.)

Others can click on the goddamn link provided.
Here it is again, just to make it clearer: AntiWarPetition.com

Funny, this guy who claims there are "no credible Iran experts" is himself hardly qualified to judge other people's credibility on the issue & has probably never set foot in Iran himself but he feels free to opine about Iran-this and Iran-that.

Where does TPM get these guys?

America has used satellite images and evidences obtained from torturing to justify a war against Iraq and it is proven all wrong and many people are dead, America has lost its credibility among the world community. It does not matter how many signatories that you have obtained, it is just not credible anymore. Your list is questionable and suspicious. America is no more the voices of the truth. Any moron can manufacture a list like yours, just like the list used against Saddam Hussein. The world does not trust the cowboy president, what makes you think the world can trust you or your list.

Ah hass, you fail to understand the unimpeachable logic of these things. Since the experts on your list are strongly opposing and warning against the military option in Iran, they are a fortiori "not credible". Only experts who refrain from warning politicians and the public about the dangers of attacking Iran qualify as credible.

Your failure to grasp this simple rule of US foreign policy management hereby qualifies you as a non-credible blog commentator.

Don't you know the consensus for keeping all the Iran options on the table is incredibly broad? It stretches all the way from one end of the Council on Foreign Relations to the other.

I find no link in the list post, but the one here explains fine. Thanks.

I’ve always tried to stay out of this debate in this venue, but this setting of this litmus test is not only dangerous – it’s dangerously misguided.

Well, you know Mr. Baer, I would like to be able to assure our esteemed candidates that I will not use a firm anti-war, pro-talks Iran position as a litmus test of their candidacy, but as a mere voter without a lot of leverage to bring to bear on moving candidates toward my prefered position, I feel it is important to keep all my options on the table.

I think you need to come to grips with the realities of democracy. It is not in the public interest if rascally politicians are convinced that they can proliferate noxious political gas on Iran, without facing the possibility of a firm electoral response. So I will refrain from taking the "no antiwar litmus test" pledge at this time. Consider my position one of "strategic ambiguity."

By the way, why have you "tried to stay out of this debate in this venue"? Some might think it's actually an important debate. Perhaps it is the terror felt by that "wide range of experts in Washington" of participating in debate on Iran outside of the constricted circle of approved, orthodox venues that accounts for the confusions, gaps and double-thinking group-think on display in their reasoning. And maybe that's what accounts for the fact that our candidates are all getting the same uniformly bad advice.

The link in the original post is

Here's a >>start

I hate the new fad of removing the underline for links as TPM does but nothing I can do about it.

Back to the point: I really want to see this guy eat some crow. So, there isn't any "credible Iran expert" opposed to the war "option", huh?

FYI even planning to launch wars to resolve disputes IS ILLEGAL AND A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW. A candidate who claims that attacking another country is an "option" is A CRIMINAL.

Frankly this guy embarrasses us Oxbridge grads.

Daniel, I know you are smart enough to realize that there are an infinite number of options between waging another preemptive war and unilateral surrender. I have never heard a single US citizen ask that we surrender at any time in my 70 + years on this planet. And, that will not change, I am sure. Defeatism is nothing but a charged word devoid of meaning. Usage of that word in an otherwise intelligent debate adds nothing at all of value.

Mr. Baer, I suspect, is much more concerned with what would happen to the "defense" industry if we really did take the option to wage preemptive wars on a whim off the table. I'm disappointed in him.

Hoppy in Sacramento

Its not my list, don't blame me. Juan Cole cites it in his article:


Here is what the real Iran experts think about the prospect of an Iran war.

More about it here.

If you were really qualified to opine about Iran on TPM, you'd know about this list. But you didn't, did you Kenneth?

Touche'! Point, set and match! He scores!! Grand Slam!

Hoppy in Sacramento

This is the dumbest thing I've read in quite a while. Two things to consider:

1) Given the state of our military and the logistical difficulties of conducting serious operations in Iran, it's altogether possible that a US attack could be repelled militarily. At this point it may be beyond our power alone to decide whether or not Iran can proliferate nuclear weapons.

2) Nations don't pursue nuclear weapons in a vacuum. Have any of you folks bothered to ask why Iran is interested in acquiring them, beyond the argument of pure, insensate evil? They want them because Israel has them, pure and simple. Has anyone in Washington considered that our selectivity in opposing nuclear proliferation might be part of the problem?

I'm guessing that you pride yourself on not being consumed by the babble of the Beltway establishment, but I still think you might benefit from a field trip or two.

It would hurt America’s interests right now if Iran felt that they could proliferate without ultimately facing a military response.

The issue has never been about Iran proliferating (for that we have Pakistan, our friend). It's been about building a bomb and changing the deterrence equation in the middle east. Is Baer mendacious or ignorant?

Baer's "seasoned experts" ! (Gotta love the seasoning. Paging Kenneth Pollack.)

If I had the time to Google

I can picture Bush saying something like that.
"So time-consuming the googles."

Iran also wants nukes to protect itself from our whack job President and our demented VP.

Tom

elements of the liberal blogosphere are trying to make the case that Democratic candidates for president need to meet a new litmus test on Iran: forswear any military action against Tehran.

Which dirty hippie blogofascist elements are saying this, please?

Isn't the litmus test now simply "More evidence than 'Because Cheney says so'"? 

 

Dissent Protects Democracy.

cscs - don't be a stranger; we need you here.

Tom

Ah, yes. Now I found the link.

Even with underlining, a single-word link is easy to miss. I like to select a complete phrase and make it bold type.

Agree. I would say out loud that war with anyone must be off the table for now because the White House incumbant has already proven that he cannot be trusted with having that option.

The trouble with anyone saying now that military action must be kept on the table is that for 23 more months the United States will be governed by lunatics. Maybe a candidate cannot say that, but we can.

global citizen

Mr, Baer, You are in the communications business. We have no idea where your money is coming from or who your clients are. IIRC, one of your posts about an Iranian cartoon was lifted off the MEMRI website, of all places.

Who or what group is paying your bills?

There's a problem here. Yes, of course, any presidential candidate should say that during any negotiation involving nuclear weapons and state support of terrorism, all options should be on the table.

However, at the moment we have a president who is does not believe all options should be on the table. The only options he has are ultimata and the use of force. So there is, and should be, pressure on the Democratic candidates to stop any military action directed against Iran, at this time, under this president.

Does that weaken the president's bargaining position? Yes. Does that make it more likely that Iran will act with impunity? Yes. How have we gotten to this point? Not by democrats who support having all options on the table. By a republicans who will not put all options on the table.

If I were a candidate, I'd talk a lot about ALL the options, and make clear that I do not mean what the president means. When I say "all," I mean all.

Daniel: we so often differ so vehemently on other issues that I find myself surprised to find at least one point of agreement with you here. (We also disagree, I believe, on the amount of risk actually posed by Iran.)

Be that as it may, thinking of this issue purely in political terms, we need only to remember the way the Swift Boaters went after Kerry to realize the risk of such a stand. However dishonest it might be, there inevitably will be opinion-shapers on the right that will paint them as defeatists, should the democratic candidates all say that they would never attack Iran, and a significant number of voters (including some that might tend otherwise to vote Dem) will inevitably believe them. So I agree that liberal members of the blogosphere ought not to impose this litmus tests on Democrats regarding the Iran issue (if that is what they really are doing in the first place seems arguable to me as well); it just poses an unnecessary risk that could hamper the electability of our candidates. There are other approaches that will accomplish the most imperitive goal: to prevent another foolish Bush war.

I think Vlazlo above stated it very well:

...it is not necessary for candidates to foreswear military action against Iran. What IS a requirement for any Democrat to get my vote is an attack on the Bush attempt to trump up a case for war following (just to make it easy to follow) the precise same script that he [Bush] used in Iraq).

Politics is the art of preventing people from taking part in affairs which properly concern them. --Paul Valery

You beat me to it, Dan. 

This formulation is an ancient rhetorical fallacy.  Agree with me you're credible, don't agree with me, you're not credible.  It guarantees that debate on the issue itself will be diverted and profoundly unfair.  Thanks for reminding me of the Latin. 

aMike

Yet there is no mainstream Democratic candidate who is running as a pacifist or should; and those who refuse to believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests, are misinformed or naïve.

Do you remember that MLK said "violence begets violence."

Taking this a bit further, when America uses the pentagon as a role model,.... you certainly have to worry about "monkey see, monkey do!"

In my eyes, if the US can assert its hegemony in the region ("protect Amercian Interests") they why not Iran? Isn't that democracy?

Anyway, I like Dennis Kucinich and I don't believe that he's naïve. Instead, I think he's brave enough to go "off script" and puts the people's needs in front of the special interests.

Tom, it's important to make an honest evaluation of the Iranian regime, and what seems to be the case now is that they're bluster exceeds their capability -- for now. That gives the rest of the world time to consider options.

However, the Iranian regime has a long track record of supporting terrorism (while officially denying it). They've also demonstrated an appalling lack of concern for the civil rights and lives of their own citizens since 1979. Khomeini was many times worse than the Shah in terms of sheer brutality.

The nightmare scenario I could see developing in Iran is a counter-revolution -- which isn't out of the realm of possiblity. So, let's say this took place and the mullahs, armed with nukes, were faced with being driven from power. What would they do? I don't know the answer to that, but given their links to Hezbollah, they would have a lot of nefarious options for blackmail and/or actual use of those weapons -- with nothing to lose at that point.

I hear this blather from liberal hawks all the time:
Such a litmus test is dangerous...
It is risky for the US to foreclose on the military option...
Foreswearing a military response would tie our hands...

Folks, when has this actually ever happened in history, that the US has foresworn military action, and that such a stance has led to a disaster? What is the likelihood that such a thing could ever happen? Never. Zero.

So this blather is just silly. A warning against something that has never happened, and isn't going to happen, is meaningless.

What has happened, time and again, and is looking more and more likely to happen in the case of Iran, is that *refusal* to foreswear military action leads to saber rattling leads to provocation leads to exaggerated charges leads to limited military strikes leads to undeclared war. "Keeping the military option open" is code for "not being willing to try diplomacy very hard, or to give it time to work."

Isn't a consequence that has actually happened, and is at least somewhat likely to reoccur, more important to warn against than one that hasn't happened and is not likely to happen?

A great Republican President said "speak softly, but carry a big stick." There were a couple of decades of concurrent Mutual Assured Destruction and arms control talks.

When we are taking things off the table, let us be sure we have a table. In other words, keep options open, but also start talking. Let us say the Administration offers unconditional direct talks with Iran and Syria, at the ministerial level. Will either country believe, even if we said we'd "forswear the use of force", that they would believe that no force would be used in drastically changed circumstances?

I'd rather hear candidates say that the approach to regional security involves talking, in any place, at any time, that might improve cooperation. Let the conditions start applying once an overt communications channel exists, and there is a mechanism for negotiating them. The talks might be multiparty, as with North Korea; talks directed at Iraq clearly would need to be multiparty. The US-USSR talks that deescalated the Cuban Missile Crisis -- and be assured the saber-wielders were covered by heavy artillery -- were bilateral, not including the Cubans.

Whether one likes it or not, military force is one of the many options in grand strategy. Barring relatively real-time events like a revolution or a direct attack on the United States, it is rarely necessary to go immediately to military force. We now know the Gulf of Tonkin Incident involved confusion on all sides. Were immediate reprisals appropriate? In retrospect, no. Of course, this was yet another area where there were no talks.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

To deal with Iran the U.S. need not go to war. However, sanctions or containment might work only if the U.S. is to gear up a greater effort than George Bush is willing to start. Afterall how many more tax cuts will limit Iran?

If the U.S. is prepared to engage Iran as Flynt Leverett proposed that might work but do people believe the Saudis and the Jordanians will sit idly by for such an agreement? What the U.S. ought to do is what it should have done on 9/12/01 and engage the entire world in economic, anti-terrorist and other efforts led by America. It means less whining about globalism and more honesty about its benefits.

However, to believe Iran is not now a serious threat seems naive at best. If the Democrats as a political matter take going to war off the table before they are even elected it will be a political disaster. Iraq and Bush as not made Americans either pacifists or isolationists. To be not too creative Democrats need to be for a forceful engagment in which military action is never the first choice but is available beyond those who see the globes problems through the prism of American actions regardless of who is president.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

If there was such brutality as you suggest I don't think the mullahs would still be in charge. That's just not credible.

And if we emphasize the power of the mullahs let's remember that the chief one issued a fatwa that defined nulear weapons as un-Islamic, contrary to teaching. If we think the religious sector is both in charge and fanatical, why not give credence to a religious pronouncement?

Finally, it is not the mullahs that are bragging about capabilities but mini-Bush, Ahmadinejad, whose power is more akin to that of a Texas Governor than a President here. And even little bigmouth has only claimed enrichment capability. So whence this assumption of a weapons program?

Iran is hardly alone in supporting proxies to do the nasty stuff--remember the Afghani mujahideen and the contras. We currently support the MEK, while keeping them on the terror list. But we and others do this because we are not willing to go in publicly and in force. So Iran is likely in the same boat; it uses proxies to do what it can't do in a big way.

Given that we did not back up the mujahideen with nukes, and the Soviets did not back the Cubans in Angola with nukes, what basis is there to assume Iranians are psycho and not like other people and countries?

Thank you, Tom. Believe me, I'm the one suffering from the lack of blogging time.

Alas, real life has reared its ugly head, preventing me from stopping by the Cafe. Nothing bad, just overextended, too damn busy, and unfortunately it's blogging time that's getting cut.

Dissent Protects Democracy.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the vast majority of the comments that the post is more unforgivable pablum from liberal hawks. Yes, I don't mind a bit when Obama, Edwards, or Clinton offers the caveat that all options remain, while demanding negotiations and demanding Bush come to Congress for authorization for war. It's normal to talk in generalities upon entering negotiations, and anyhow they're only candidates, not entering on anything yet. It's no more than acknowledging that pigs could fly by the time they're president. It's not at all equivalent to Baer's insistence that maybe military action might not be as harmful as people say after all.

I feel we're grown-up enough to read that kind of context. A president might say we want peace and then both speaks and acts accordingly; another might incorporate a clause to that effect as the beginning of a speech taking America to war. We're smart enough to know the difference. A scientist can note that evolution is a theory and then explore its truth; a fool can remind us not to trust or teach evolution. We're smart enough to know the difference.

I don't say Baer's not smart enough to know the difference. I'm saying he's on the wrong side. The dismissive rhetoric he uses, with the bland invocation of all experts and lack of interest in learning more, is part of how that side works. Like Bush, it's not part of the reality-basec community. It knows too much.

I'm afraid that's also why it utterly dominates foreign policy posts on TPM Cafe, and I have to say, sadly, that I hold Josh accountable for that. He is not living up to his disclaimer that all views are welcome here. He's consistently airing an agenda, even as he disavows doing so and gets angry when it's pointed out.

John

http://www.haberarts.com/

user-pic
how do Democrats convince that rest of the country that the Party does not stand for defeatism and unilateral surrender and stil cope with the blogsphere?

Yes, and while we're at it, how do we convince the rest of the country that the Party does not stand for opening the prisons and letting all the rapists free? How do we convince the rest of the country that we aren't secretly intending to award medals to pederasts?

Geez, Daniel, you usually do better than this, don't you?

user-pic

John, note the top post linking to those disagreeing with Ken currently featured on top.

This is almost too ridiculous to comment on. Almost. But I really need to call you on those unnamed elements of the liberal blogosphere who serve as your straw person.

Really, why are we having this conversation? Is this some pitiful attempt to get "the liberal blogosphere" to behave defensively and start yelling "I favor bombing the crap out of Iran."

Too silly for words.

user-pic
However, to believe Iran is not now a serious threat seems naive at best.

In what way is Iran more of a serious threat than Pakistan, North Korea or Saudi Arabia? In what way is Iran more of a serious threat than the Soviet Union was for 45 years?

If we could travel in time back to 1946, would you have been one of the people shouting "march on to Moscow!" to prevent the Soviet Union from having any possibility of getting nuclear weapons? Would that have been the correct move?

I do not see Iran as a uniquely dangerous threat to the United States, especially given our overwhelming firepower advantage and the undeveloped state of their nuclear program, not to mention their complete lack of interest in threatening the US. The problem is that US foreign policy is not predicated on defending the US, but rather on "American interests", which is a neat excuse for protecting American hegemony.

I don't see the current sabre-rattling, evidence-fabricating administration in the White House as being at all capable of dealing intelligently with Iran. To my eyes, the Bush administration is contributing at least as much to the problem as Iran itself is, if not more. No, that doesn't mean I'm starry-eyed about Iran or its leaders. (And before you tell me that the public is too stupid to understand the difference, I would caution you about presuming to know the public better than I do.)

I just think the United States needs to return to a sane foreign policy where pre-emptive military strikes are not seen as the solution to whatever crisis du jour arises. Because, to be honest, the people who repeatedly sell us on the latest crisis always seem to have a new impending calamity to sell. And I rather suspect that they are not so much concerned with the future of the United States as a whole, but rather with their own personal economic interests.

user-pic
all nations reserve the right to use force of appropriate scale, when it is in their interest

I think you are misusing the language of "rights" here. Did Japan have the right to use force to invade Manchuria? They certainly felt an invasion was in their interest. Did Germany have the right to use force to invade Poland? Czechoslovakia? The Low Countries and France?

You are confusing "power" and "rights". No nation has the "right" to invade another sovereign nation purely to advance its own interest.

user-pic

Along these lines, I just have to remember how many people told me five years ago that I was naive to think that Saddam Hussein had been sufficiently cowed by the various inspection routines and wasn't trying to secretly develop WMDs, in spite of all of the international pressure against that kind of effort.

If the example of Iraq can teach us anything, it ought to teach us that assuming the worse about other nations, especially what said nations just happened to be inhabited by people of a different race, is a piss-poor way to go about conducting foreign policy. The latest round of Bush shenanigans includes the accusations that (Shia!) Iran is secretly supplying weapons to (Sunni?) insurgents in Iraq to kill American soldiers. We've yet to have any good explanation of what Iran could possibly gain from such a strategy.

Can we please direct this debate to a discussion of what the various actors in the drama are actually trying to accomplish, as opposed to degenerating into a pissing game of "I'm tough, you're naive!"??? 'Cause, if the past five years should teach us anything, brainless unfettered hawkishness is definitely not good for the United States.

user-pic

Actually, the CIA knew that Iraq had shut down its WMD program. They just don't ordinarily have the freedom to go on TV and defend their collective reputation against the smears of a incompetent primate like Donald Rumsfeld.

After all these great responses, I have only one thing to add:

 

PWNED!

user-pic

Your point is that America has lost its credibility in terms of people who justify war, and therefore we should not take at face value a list of alleged experts who all oppose the war?

I think you didn't really understand the point of the post. Seriously, why would anybody think that damage to the credibility of the warmonger crowd should translate to damage to the credibility of the people opposed to the war? What kind of logic is that?

The United States of America has endorsed an official policy of launching nuclear weapons on a first-strike basis against Iran. About half-million Iranian were killed in a war with Iraq in which the US was arming Saddam with chemical weapons (60,000 Iranian dead as a result of chemical warfare) So Exactly who is a "serious threat" to whom?

LOL! Yes, how short-sighted of me. The "credible Iran experts" are from AIPAC, JINSA, CFR and oh, AEI. Read all about the war criminals here

Yes, you're correct. I should have used the term "option". All states keep their powder dry.

My point was that mentioning this makes a point by itself.

WTF is everyone talking about? Daniel, why does the U.S. have to “deal” with Iran? They threaten America how? They have no nukes, do not support global terrorists (Hizbollah is not al Qaeda), have declared no jihad against America (though they have declared that they will answer any attack) and have not invaded other countries. Israel’s enemies are not automatically ours.

Iran is our enemy only because George Bush has said so. They are part of an Axis of Evil because George Bush says they are. Democrats have acted like chickensh*ts for five years because they are afraid of being called chickensh*ts.

Congressional leaders should make it clear to Mr. Bush that he does not have authorization to engage Iran militarily. It doesn’t matter if an IED was made in Japan, Congress is the only body that can authorize war.

The midterm election was a mandate against Bush’s War of Civilizations or War of the Free World as it's sometimes called (read: War on Muslims). They should start this new chapter by rejecting Bush’s and the Neocon’s definitions, sham intelligence and propaganda campaigns.

You make a key point: that current foreign policy seems to regard force, or the threat of force, as the first step in dealing with a difficult country. I do not renounce force, but I believe it is generally the last resort. Wherever possible, Just War doctrine should apply, not just to be nice but because doing so has proven to be wise for nations using force.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Considering that the US was arming Saddam with chemical weapons to use against Iran and the Kurds, and that the US shot down an Iranian civilian airliner inside Iranian airspace and then tried to blame it on the Iranians, I don't think we have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of "supporting terrorism". Who was arming and supporting nun-raping, village massacring death squads in Central and Latin America? Iran? Guess again.

ADDENDUM: Berckowitz - if you hae a problem with this post state your case instead of troll rating it on the sly.

No one can talk about the real reason Iran is our enememy, Saudi Arabia. That is the real conflict who gets to control the Middle East and we picked them.

Check out this list as well, one presidential candidate is willing to take it off the table:

http://thinkprogress.org/iran-military-option

You weren't troll-rated, you were given a 1. I did not state my case, Dear Leader, because it is customary either to give a rating or a reply, not both, other than in the most unusual circumstances.

In this case, however, I find your language inflammatory and your presentation too angry for reasoned discussion, your statement about arming Saddam in the general range of false to misleading, and the suggestion that US policy was nun raping, as an example of exaggeration.

Saddam was allowed to buy some dual-use chemicals from the US. No chemical weapons were ever provided to him. Dual-use materials also came from France and Russia. I define "chemical weapon" in the terms of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Isopropanol, for example, is a widely used industrial chemical, common rubbing alcohol, and yes, one of the two precursors for binary Sarin. US export controls slipped in not noticing the amount of thiodiglycol sold, but, even if he had been blocked from using that intermediate for the more efficient LOST synthesis, all precursors for the Lewinstein synthesis were available domestically in Iraq.

In the case of the Iran Air shootdown, it is true that the captain and some of the crew of the USS Vincennes tried to justify it as a valid threat. Yes, Vice President Bush 41 tried to defend it, but there has been compelling evidence to the contrary.The investigation by Adm. Fogarty showed considerable negligence. Since the report has never been fully declassified, I consider that a coverup. The Navy tried, as far as I can tell, to assign blame where it was due, even in the censored investigation report. Significantly, the US paid reparations, although I do not feel the US formally took responsibility.

I do not, incidentally, consider it more heinous to rape a nun than any other woman. That being said, yes, there were death squads. In later years, the US made distinct efforts to get human rights principles across to Latin American security forces, with varying results. To suggest that rapes and massacres were deliberate American policy requires more documentation that the US had full control. Regrettably, there were rapes by US troops in Iraq. Rape apparently was a policy, or at least tolerated at high levels, on the Eastern Front of WWII Germany. The historical record shows the difference when something is policy.

Next time you want to give me peremptory orders, at least spell my name correctly. You will find that if you continue phrasing things as orders, you will be ignored. Josh, I believe, has agreed that a continuing pattern of discourtesy is grounds for troll rating -- a rating I did not give you.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

So lets see now

You say you didn't troll rate me, but you did give me a 1. What's that if not a troll rating - and based on what - because you don't "approve" of my "tone"? WELL YOU CAN GO TAKE A SOAK as far as I am concerned. People are DYING and you come here trying to deny it? LOL! I'll say my part the way I want to say it and you don't have to read it, how's that?

You say that the US provided "dual use" chemicals to Iraq as if we fell off a truck and didn't know what use it was actually being put to (the fact that Iraq was on our list of terrorist states didn't seem to get in the way - we just removed it from that list) Go tell your apologist NONSENSE about "dual use" crap to the Washington Post:

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program. The Commerce Department also approved the export of insecticides to Iraq, despite widespread suspicions that they were being used for chemical warfare. The fact that Iraq was using chemical weapons was hardly a secret.

U.S. Had Key Role in Iraq Buildup
Trade in Chemical Arms Allowed Despite Their Use on Iranians, Kurds"

As for the "reparations" paid for the downing of Iran-Air 655, the fact remains that they were paid on an "ex gratia" basis meaning that we never accepted liability and still officially blame the Iranians themselves. NO ONE has been held responsible for the deaths of 290 people, and in fact several of the people involved received commendation medals. Adm Crowe only admitted that the VIncennes was inside Iranian waters AFTER he retired - 4 years after the incident. The Adm. Fogarty's investigation included presenting a map to Congress on which an Iranian island HAD BEEN ERASED. And you say the Navy was honest? Give me a BREAK.

And you want to know about nun-raping death squads who were supported by the US murdering entire villages? Fine - start with the Massacre at El-Mozote

Sheesh - denial is an ugly thing.


Here, read some more about what your lovely, innocent, white-as-the-driven-snow US government has done and lets see you try to deny it:

Analysis of thousands of captured Iraqi secret police documents and declassified U.S. government documents, as well as interviews with scores of Kurdish survivors, senior Iraqi defectors and retired U.S. intelligence officers, show (1) that Iraq carried out the attack on Halabja, and (2) that the United States, fully aware it was Iraq, accused Iran, Iraq's enemy in a fierce war, of being partly responsible for the attack. The State Department instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame. The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center.
International Herald Tribune


Yes, that's right. The US provided chemical and other weapons and financing and intelligence and political support to Iraq while Saddam was gassing Kurds - and then tried to blame it on Iran.

GO PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT.

I'll try not to take up too much of your tone, except in quotes:


You say you didn't troll rate me, but you did give me a 1. What's that if not a troll rating - and based on what - because you don't "approve" of my "tone"? WELL YOU CAN GO TAKE A SOAK as far as I am concerned. People are DYING and you come here trying to deny it? LOL!

The pulldown rating defines 0 as "troll" and 1 as "unproductive". Do you have difficulty distinguishing 0 from 1? Is innumeracy, as well as anger, one of your problems?

I'll say my part the way I want to say it and you don't have to read it, how's that?

No, I don't think that's acceptable. I do not run the place, but I have as much right as any poster to rate. If I believe your tone is inflammatory and detracts from the discussion, I will so rate it. This is an explanation of my criteria for rating you, so don't expect additional explanations.

A 1994 investigation by the Senate Banking Committee turned up dozens of biological agents shipped to Iraq during the mid-'80s under license from the Commerce Department, including various strains of anthrax, subsequently identified by the Pentagon as a key component of the Iraqi biological warfare program

I've read that committee report, which apparently was never read by anyone with a background in microbiology. The Saccharomyces strain leading one of the lists is quite potent, if you want to brew fine Belgian ale.

A continuing mistake among people who do not bother to study the details of biological warfare, yet want to make claims about it, is that getting the microbial strain is terribly difficult. It's the easiest part, and, for that matter, anthrax is endemic in Iraq and they could get it easily. They may have used some of the American Type Culture Collection strains in their BW program, but the same strains have completely valid use in a medical or veterinary microbiology lab.

And you want to know about nun-raping death squads who were supported by the US murdering entire villages

Supported, or controlled?

You go on, liar, to claim that I consider the US government "lovely, innocent, white-as-the-driven-snow". You go on with an unattributed quote (although there is a floating bit of text saying "International Herald Tribune"), which describes the undisputed attack on Halabja by Saddam, but not one word about the US having supplied chemical weapons. Some of its language reads more like propaganda than reporting, although it might have fit in an opinion column. Indeed, it doesn't especially read like something written by one for whom English is a first language.

The result of this stunning act of sophistry was that the international community failed to muster the will to condemn Iraq strongly for an act as heinous as the terrorist strike on the World Trade Center.

Dual-use chemical intermediates, according the the Chemical Weapons Convention, are not chemical weapons.

I'll blast the US government when it needs it, which is increasingly more often. As far as your criticism, see my .signature below. I seem to be doing my job in offending one wingnut, and have done my duty today.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"I need no persuading--it's others that might."

I guess I am one of those others. The only name I recognise on this list of "who's-who of Iran experts" is Noam Chomsky! So I googled a couple of names and found an artist and a Bible scholar -- nope, no Iran experts there,

I'm sure that among the 193 signatories there are many very knowledgable about the current situation in Iran. And, you know, I could have signed that petition myself, I agree with the statement. But I do believe that petitions like this are essentially meaningless.

Yes, Bush has been nothing if not a cowboy in foreign policy, at least, in talk. Soft power is nuanced and they don't do any of that namby-pamby nuance. But look at the deal they are negotiating with No. Korea right now. True, Asian countries are acting as a beard, but there has never been even a hint that we might attack Korea in some pre-emptive way even though they were actually and openly, for reals, building and testing nukes and long range missiles. They were included in the Axis of Evil as bad company and guilt by association; to make Iran and Iraq look bad, not the other way around.

Hass,

Howard correctly points out that there is no link to the quote you attribute to the International Herald Tribune. Could you remedy that? And short of that, are you quoting an article or an opinion piece and if it's the latter, could you identify the person who wrote the op-ed?

One reason I ask is because last week you attributed an opinion from an op-ed columnist in the Christian Science Monitor to the Christian Science Monitor itself. As we discussed, I didn't think that it was appropriate to do that (and you disagreed) and, based on that discussion, I'm curious about this current citation you make to the International Herald Tribune without further attribution.

Thanks.

P.S. In your reply to Howard above, you refer to the "article" from the International Herald Tribune. Please provide the link to the "article" you cite, so that the readers of your piece can have a genuine understanding what you are basing your arguments on, to wit, either an opinion (informed or otherwise) or a news article.

Thanks again.

Just beccause Bush is a liar and a fool does not make everything he says wrong. As the "The Coming Crisis With Iran: A Conversation About Political, Diplomatic And Military Options" (Center for American Progress 12/15/2006)points out Iran is a very real danger to the interests of much of the world.

It is strange that you raise Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and North Korea as threats too and then suggest that means doing very little about any of them. For the Democrats to have a batch of candidates declare surrender before even taking office maybe the only way to get a Republican elected in 2008.

If you read my second post you will have noticed that I agree that U.S. need not use military force against Iran but that is not the same thing as guaranteeing that it won't. Presumably the Mullahs want to be assured that the U.S. will not over throw the regime. If they agree not to develope their nuclear weapons program, gain reprocessed material from the IAEA and cease support for terrorism that is one part of a deal that can be made. Then efforts should be made to expand the international economic institutions and actively involve Iran and the other nations of the Middle East. I am not confident that this will stop the growing hostility between Shiia and Sunnis but it is worth a try.

Just following WWII I would not have gone to Moscow. However, unlike some I would not have let the Soviets have had free run of the world because I was worried about American hegemony. Instead I would have prepared the nation and the world for 40 plus years of Cold War including actual wars in Korea, Vietnam, 2 Wars in the Middle East, Dominican Republic and Angola to name some.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

I tried posting the link but couldn't go back to edit it and my html skilsl are limited. But Are you people Google impaired?

Here the LINK

But if you're looking for an excuse to "shoot the messenger" and try to discredit the author of the article, note that at the time he was an official with Human Rights Watch. And he's hardly the only person who'se written about this FACT.

And I would appreciate it if you didn't LIE about the CSM situation - I provied the actual link to the full artilce there and cited CSM as the SOURCE not the author, and did not "attribute it to the Christian Science Monitor" as you falsely claim. SO gtet your facts straight before making up nonsense.

It’s true that our support of the House of Saud (our oil partners) is one of the reasons behind the anti-Americanism. And no one talks about the Sunni insurgents that flood into Iraq from Saudi Arabia, even though we threaten Syria for the relatively few that have come from there. These are the insurgents who are actually killing American troops with IEDs and the like.

I don't give a flying freak if you rate me minus100, but you're doing so based on whether you "approve" of the contents tone and can't hold up on a debate on teh facts.

Supported- controlled- whatever. You're splitting hairs. We armed them, We financed them, We trained them, We provided political cover for them. Call that what you want - WE"RE STILL COMPLICIT AND JUST AS RESPONSIBLE.

So go on and yammer about how the article in the International Herald Tribune is "propaganda" but that's just the flat-earth society speaking.

People who are members of that society DESERVE condescension and anger. YOU"RE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

Incidentally, I find it laughable how you suddenly cite the authority of a convetion when it comes to defining chemical weapons, but you do your best deny that the defintion of GENOCIDE under the relevant convention applies to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

Here's a hint or two:

WE GAVE CHEMICALS TO SADDAM THAT WE KNEW FOR AN ABSOLUTE FACT WERE GOING TO BE USED TO GAS PEOPLE TO DEATH.

WE GAVE HIM MONEY.

WE GAVE HIM ARMS.

WE GAVE HIM MONEY TO BUY ARMS.

WE ENCOURAGED OUR FRIENDS TO GIVE HIM MONEY AND ARMS.

WE GAVE HIM INTELLIGENCE - INCLUDING INTELLIGENCE USED TO LAUNCH CHEMICAL ATTACKS.

WE PROVIDED ANTHRAX TO SADDAM - NOT BECAUSE THERE WAS A SUDDEN SHORTAGE OF ANTHRAX IN IRAQ.

WE DID ALL THIS KNOWING FULL WELL WITHOUT THE SLIGHTEST QUESTION ABOUT WHAT SORT OF RULER SADDAM WAS.

IN FACT WE HAD TO REMOVE SADDAM'S IRAQ FROM THE LIST OF TERRORIST NATIONS TO DO ALL THIS.

THEN WE TRIED TO BLAME THE IRANIANS FOR SADDAM'S GASSING OF THE KURDS.

THESE ARE ALL INDISPUTABLE, ABSOLUTE, UNQUALIFIED FACTS

It's possible you haven't studied the history of the Khomeini regime. Basically we're talking about a Stalinesque purge in which tens of thousands of Iranians were executed -- both inside and outside the country. Some were even assassinated in Western countries. I know this because i've got good Iranian friends who were forced to flee here after half their family was lined up against a wall and shot. Ironically, Iran is the only country I know with an official policy of hunting down Marxists (who Khomeini despised)throwing them in prison and executing them. This makes the whole Chavez/Iran alliance quite bizarre.

Stalin maintained his grip on power precisely because he was willing to go to any lengths to keep it. Khomeini followed the same playbook.

My counter-revolution scenario is very real. Kurds and Sunni Arabs are 2nd-class citizens in Iran. There are uprisings in their regions on a regular basis. 11 Revolutionary Guards were blown up yesterday in the Arab sector. With restless minorities and 30 million living below the poverty line, this government is in a very fragile position. If they ever get cornered, no one can predict what they will do.

As for enrichment, no intelligence service seriously believes Iran is after strictly peaceful energy. If that were the case they would have taken the Russian deal to import fuel in exchange for big economic incentives. They want the bomb and no fatwah is going to get in the way. Khomeini basically broke all his promises to the Iranian people. I wouldn't trust the safety of my family to a fatwah.

Oh really? LOL!! So the fact that you don't recognize Iran experts means they don't exist .... you being such the expert yourself on Iran studies... and oh wait, you can Google and google can answer everything right?

Have you ever read anything by, say, Nikki Keddie? Do you have the slightest idea who she is? How about Ervand Abrahamian? Mark Gasiorowski? Hamid Dabashi?

If you were an actual student of Iran studies, you'd know these names, and very well. Naturally you may be more familiar with the talking heads that come on TV a lot - like Pollack - who don't actually speak farsi and have never really been to Iran and yet are supposedly "Iran experts" - but these two people on the list alone have more knowledge of Iran in their little pinky than all the talking heads combined.

Thank you for the link Hass. The link you provide confirms that you have cited to an opinion columnist named Joost R. Hilterman. If you click on Mr. Hiltermann's name on the byline above the opinion column you cite, you will be directed to various references to Mr. Hilterman in the International Herald Tribune. I found this reference interesting, in the form of a correction in the Trib., which reads:

"The article "Who minded Iraqi mustard gas in 1983?" (Views, Nov. 29) was a personal comment by Joost R. Hiltermann and was not written in his capacity as Middle East project director for the International Crisis Group."

And Hass, the fact that you write "lie" in capital letters doesn't transform anything I've written into a lie. You now seem to have a propensity, as demonstrated with respect to the CSM episode last week, and with respect to this current Trib incident , to obfuscate the important and material distinction between an op-ed piece, an editorial (for which attribution to the paper itself is appropriate) and a news article.

And that's no lie.

By the way, for what it's worth, I have no dog in this fight. I wouldn't be surprised in the least if the Reagan Administration provided some of the means for Iraq's chemical and biological programs in the 80s. I have no doubt that the Reagan Administration viewed Iraq as a buffer against Iran and pursued a foreign policy accordingly.

Why is Noam Chomsky on the who's-who of Iran experts list? I can just see Chomsky giving this issue the consideration it deserves: "Hmmm, I wonder, should the US bomb Iran or not?" I'm sure glad he decided against bombing.

Why do you wish to insult me? My point is that petitions like this are essentially meaningless. I'd rather read a thoughtful outlook from real experts (including those that are on this list) rather than this cattle-car petition approach.

Denial denial denial...how pathetic. Any moron who read the article can see what it is - they don't need me to explain it. I cited the CSM and IHT as the SOURCE of the info, and it is YOU who are trying to muddy the waters by shooting the messenger and distract this thread into a question of my honesty when it is about the Bush administration.

So the fact that the author sat down and reviewed thousands of the documents and makes his view "just an opinion" (implying that he's being dishonest!)--- tell me if the paper itself has editorialized it, that would be "just an opinion" by the paper too, wouldn't it? In fact, short of Ronald Reagan waking up from the dead and testifying, you won't accept anything would you? Probably not even that.

The funny thing is that I"M the one who is actually citing verifiable sources that everyone else can follow-up on and read for themselves, and all you're doing is denying denying denying and and trying to evade the issue instead by complaining about citiation style. I cited my source on the Halabja incident, now lets see your source that says something else & let the readers determine things for themselves. GO on, I dare you.

You can lead a horse to water...but here, you want 'articles' about how how the US was complicit in Iraq's chemical weapons crimes? How about declassified US documents about


The Reagan administration's decision to improve political and economic relations with Iraq
The U.S. commitment to this policy despite reports of Iraq's use of chemical weapons and Saddam Hussein's nuclear weapons ambitions."

National Security Archives

Hass, I am returning to my paying job after this post. The principal problem with your reply in my opinion is that you assume that I'm trying to "shoot" your messenger. I'm not. I think you have cited a cogent and persuasive messenger.

It's your argument style I have a problem with. Name-calling and capital letters aside (getting used to that here), I think it's fair to ask that we all cite our sources appropriately (meaning that people reading what we post should know who or what we are relying on to support our positions).

Come on your being obtuse.

He provided a document signed by dozens of experts and you single out Chomsky?

You insult yourself. I guess the point was too complicated for you to grasp: that there are lots of real Iran experts who do NOT think that use of force should be an option - contrary to what Bauer claims. The petition is signed by Mideast experts not limited to Iran - but among them are many top Iran experts (Iran being part of the Mideast.) Thus, Bauer's claim is demonstrably false. I just can't explain it more clearly.

Now, by all means feel free to read their books. No one said you shouldn't.

As for Chomsky - he has written extensively about the mideast. Feel free to doubt his qualifications, but there just isn't any question that there are lots of well-known experts on Iran and the mideast on this list.

Yeah yeah whatever. If you have something to add about the SUBSTANCE OF THIS DISCUSSION I'd be happy to read your post but if all can contribute is to complain about my 'argument style" , you can go to heck. I'm not really interested in your opinions of me. I don't seek your approval, and I don't think anyone else really cares either.

Apparently, your reading skills are right up there with your numeric skills. With the latter, you were apparently unable to tell the difference between a 0 and 1 rating. You claim:


I don't give a flying freak if you rate me minus100,

Obviously, you do. What are you trying not to notice? Anger management might help both your expression, and your ability to get people to agree with you.

but you're doing so based on whether you "approve" of the contents tone

but the TPMcafe rating policy is exactly about the expression of the idea, including its tone, not about agreement with it. Someone may make a post taking a position with which I totally disagree, but, if it is well-written, provides relevant links where appropriate, and makes original arguments, it deserves a 5. Someone who posts on one of my favorite ideas, but is abusive, poorly written, and makes unverifiable quotes or, as in your case, misinterprets them, gets, at best, a 1. Again according to Cafe management, a persistent pattern of personal attacks (no, I am not channeling Spiro Agnew) can earn themselves a 0.

Your knowledge of science, or certainly chemical and biological weapons, seems to be right up there with your literacy and numeracy. Do you know why a legitimate laboratory would want reference cultures of anthrax, or other pathogens? Do you understand the purpose of the American Type Culture Collection? Do you understand the relative significance, compared to cultures, of fermenters, refrigerated centrifuges, and lyophilizers of over 100 liter capacity?

Incidentally, I find it laughable how you suddenly cite the authority of a convetion when it comes to defining chemical weapons, but you do your best deny that the defintion of GENOCIDE under the relevant convention applies to Israel's treatment of the Palestinians.

The US signed the Chemical Warfare Conventions with no restrictions, but quite a few nations signed the Genocide Convention with restrictions. In any event, however, I will agree the Israelis are committing genocide as defined by the convention if you demonstrate you understand the Chemical Weapons Convention and its Schedules, and the supplementary, additional US export criteria, the Militarily Critical Technologies List. I will further continue to argue that the Genocide Convention perverts the meaning of real genocide, even though I regard the Government of Israel as something that American lawyers would find too unethical to join. In point of fact, I consider the recent Israeli weapons use in Lebanon much closer to genocide than their reprehensible actions in the Occupied Territories.

Supported- controlled- whatever. You're splitting hairs

Ah, waving of hands is acceptable when you do it, as in chemical and biological warfare, but not when I find reason to disagree with the Genocide Convention.

Fascinating.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

The ATCC is a scientific entity - that in NO WAY distracts from the fact that the anthrax was shipped to a KNOWN WEAPONS LAB front organization in IRaq. This was NOT - repeat NOT - a harmless scientific exchange of a bit of anthrax to iraq for scientific research.

Dudes,
I love you both. Let's call it off, eh? It is distracting us from dealing with Mr. Baer, on which I think the two of you are in 97% agreement.

sPh

Dudes,
I love you both. Let's call it off, eh? It is distracting us from dealing with Mr. Baer, on which I think the two of you are in 97% agreement.

sPh

hass,
My cattle-farming cousin explained to me when this came up during the First Iraq War exactly how anyone anywhere in the world could order as much anthrax culture as they wanted. Since 9/11 and the anthrax attacks this is no longer possible, but it was not hard in those days. Any veterinarian in Iraq could have place an order with the University of Iowa at that time.

In any case, my previous comment stands: I would ask you two to stop, or at least take it outside.

sPh

Man, these voices of reason can be so damn reasonable at times. Thanks for the wake-up sPh. Point taken and duly noted. :)

No, I don't care what your cattle farming uncle says. you don't get to make an assertion that demand that no one reply to it. Iraq could NOT order anthrax. Iraq was on the list of terrorist nations which prevented that. Iraq was removed from the list in 1982 by the Reagan administration in order to remove legal impediments to shipping dual use items that we knew perfectly well were going to weapons production.

Not only was the US providing anthrax to known Iraqi weapons fronts, the British were training them to weaponize it.

The Observer News Page Iraqis given anthrax secrets by Porton Down scientists SHYAM BHATIA

01/25/1998
The Observer
Page 003
(Copyright 1998)

THE FATHER of Iraq 's biological warfare programme benefited from a three-day anthrax workshop hosted by scientists from the Government's chemical and biological research centre at Porton Down , Wiltshire.

The embarrassing British link to Iraq 's deadly anthrax research, revealed by United Nations sources, comes only days after Foreign Secretary Robin Cook's assertion that Saddam Hussein makes enough anthrax every week to fill two missile warheads.

The West's role in providing Iraq with anthrax know-how began at a key workshop in Winchester in 1988. Among 80 scientists from around the world were Dr Nasser el-Hindawi and his assistant, Dr Thamer Abdel Rahman, microbiologists working for Iraq 's secret biological weapons programme. The programme's aim was to develop weapons to spread anthrax , gas gangrene, botulism toxin, brucellosis, rabbit foot and tetanus.

Hindawi, who is still active in Iraq , was the academic supervisor of another British

trained Iraqi, Dr Rihab el-Taha, widely known as Dr Death. Taha, trained at the University of East Anglia, was in charge of the Al Hakam biological weapons factory blown up in 1996 by UN inspectors.


SOURCE: "Iraqis given anthrax secrets by Porton Down scientists " by
SHYAM BHATIA
01/25/1998
The Observer
Page 003
(Copyright 1998)


Read more about this here

The funny thing is, if you and hcb weren't into it hammer and tongs on this thread-drifting point, this is exactly the type of incredibly detailed, hyper-technical post he would have written!

Here's a hint for both of you: a lot of stuff goes on that isn't exactly as written in the Law and Regulations of the Land(tm). And a lot of people know a lot of stuff, even if they don't have security clearances or even engineering degrees. You would be surprised.

sPh

I'm perfectly willing, now that I have reminded Hass of the rating criteria, out of courtesy rather than a requirement, to stop commenting on that. I am concerned, however, about his putting out substantial misinformation, especially about chemical and biological weapons.

While Saddam's missile programs were indeed rocket science, the rules, at the time Iraq bought the beer yeast and anthrax cultures, were not as strict as they are today. Your uncle is quite correct; just yesterday, on the PROmed mailing list of the International Society for Infectious Diseases (with support from the Centers for Disease Control), there was a report on an anthrax outbreak in Australia, for which reference cultures would be needed in public health. Another outbreak was reported, in Peru, on Sunday. Yet another report came from Zimbabwe on February 6.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

I have no idea what youre talking about.
This isn't "hyper technical" - this is FACT. This is the basic history of US-Iraq relations, widely written about. Everyone SHOULD know it except of course the flat-earthers.

Heck even 60 Minutes did a show on this

Back in the late '80s when Saddam was considered by some as our friend or at least the enemy of our enemy Iran, we provided Iraq with two of the deadliest substances known to man, bacteria that produces botulism and anthrax . Among those who thought that what we were doing was all wrong was a former deputy undersecretary of defense named Dr. Steven Bryen.

Trust me, sPh. I don't think you want either hypertechnical or misinformation. While I recognize 60 Minutes is threatening to take over the authority of Bergey's Manual of Determinative Bacteriology or the Centers for Disease Control, there's a fairly glaring technical error that Hass managed to include even in the paragraphy he copied.

I shall now be silent on CBW in this thread, and rate appropriately those posts that are abusive.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Like I said, I'm the one who is repeatedly citing verifiable sources and all you're doing is deny & deflect and evade...

FACT: Iraq could NOT have ordered anthrax from the US - not while it was on the State Dept list of terrorist nations.

FACT: Reagan took Iraq off that list in 1982.

FACT: The anthrax samples were sent to known weapons fronts in Iraq.

FACT: The US congress investigation showed that the same anthrax was weaponized in Iraq.

This had nothing to do with cows.

60 Minutes is interviewing a deputy undersecretary of defense named Dr. Steven Bryen. DOCTOR Byren, who said:


"Dr. BRYEN: I was shocked to see that biological samples would be going to the Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission because in--it was absolutely clear that--that--that the at--Is--Iraqi Atomic Energy Commission was involved in their nuclear weapons programs and God knows what other weapons programs. "

Obtuse? I don't think so. I think hass' misrepresentation is funny and my harping on Chomsky is how I express that.

Baer is NOT talking about whether the US should bomb Iran now. Not Baer and not even one person who reads this thinks we should bomb Iran now. And yet hass comes back with a list of hundreds of people -- INCLUDING Chomsky -- who think we shouldn't bomb Iran!!!

An excellent case of hijacking the discussion. And as a result 13 TPMCafe'rs rate it an "Excellent." This is high humor indeed! And hass' repeated insults add extra flavor to this comedy.

The five is merited because you point out something very significant, and that is that this is not a debate about bombing Iran now.

Frankly, I do not understand the merits of saying never never never with respect to going to war with Iran. I do not understand how that is prudent policy.

That does not mean that war should not be limited to legitimate self-defense situations and I'm sure there's lots to debate in terms of what is legitimate. But turning this debate into whether a bona fide Democratic presidential candidate must, without question, take a military option against Iran off the table strikes me as being off the mark. It's kind of like a union going into a labor negotiations and saying no matter what happens we won't strike.

From your writing, I could tell you have not traveled around the world to understand the world issues and I could also tell that you are very much an American with an American attitude that the US government does not represent the will of individual Americans.

I hate to give you an education but it is essential for your understanding of the world. The world sees the US government as the ultimate authority of the American people, it does not matter whether you agree or not, it is what every country regards the current Bush administration as the voices of the American people.

When the US government lies, intimidates, terrorizes, bribes other nations, it reflects badly the whole country. Now and around the world, US has lost its credibility and whatever claims it may have against another nation, in this case we are talking about Iran, it does not matter how sophisticated and accurate the information may be, it is just not credible anymore.

Credibility is very important in the world community and America does not have any at this stage. All it has is a bunch of BS and lots of money and lots of sophisticated weapons. The list that I am talking about, may just be another BS, any moron can produce such a list. Where is the credibility? None, I have not seen any, even if it is against the current administration.

Following your logic, no American has credibility as long as the visible government says something false. What would you have Americans do, overthrow their government? Perhaps educate other nations that there really are differing opinions, which, in my travels around the world, seems to be understood in democracies from Japan to Sweden.

Apparently, your government never lies. Would you mind sharing its name so we can learn from it?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Oh playing dumb again ,aren;'t you?

See, unions have a right to strike.
The US does not have a right to go around bombing other countries and launching wars whenever it feels like it.

Simple really. The difference is readily apparent to most morons.

Kissing up won't vindicate you. Sorry.

Anyone can read Baer's article where he states point blank:

The reason why Obama, Clinton, and Edwards are all refusing to take the military option off the table is because there is no credible expert on Iran, nonproliferation, or any combination of the two who would advise them to do so.

And I provided a list of over 200 mideast experts who say the opposite.

First you claimed that the list didn't have any mideast experts. Then you complained about Chomsky signing it. Now you're pretending that Baer didn't really mean what he wrote.

If that's "misrepresentation" its only because you're being intentionally obtuse.

Howard,

I didn’t know it is you. I thought it was an uneducated American fool posting on TPM café. I have read your post and you seem to be very educated though not necessary well-travel. Your last post seems unCOOL and berserk and intimidating.

I don’t think I want to get into argument with you. Anyway, America is telling the whole world what to do and what not to do and it does exactly the opposite quietly and secretly. Some of the CIA agents were so disillusion with the agency that they left and openly discredited the US government. Many countries do not play the role of a world police to enforce law and order and change of regime and so they do not have the problem of integrity like America has.

I like your post and would you like to publish some interesting posts.

So, Hass, stripped to its essence, what is it your saying? That the "US does not have the right to go around bombing other countries and launching wars whenever it feels like it" is something I absoluely agree with. I guess you and I Hass, two peas in a pod. Welcome to my world.

Duplicate

Triplicate?

Hee!  One of my former professors is on that list!  Of course, he also had a yellow, diamond-shaped sign in his office that read: "tenured trouble maker on board."

I suspect I might get pounded for this, but what the heck. Can somebody tell me if the United States has ever in its history taken the option of military force "off the table" in a situation where there was a real, dangerous conflict with another nation?

In the case of Iran I identify strongly with the notion that things are getting vastly blown out of proportion by the Bush Administration and that it is an administration that lacks credibility. I also believe that Iran's attainment of a nuclear capability is something that should be of real concern to this country (whether we have credibility or not with the rest of the world).

So if you assume that the U.S. and Iran are in conflict (and I think most people do or else there would be no need for the negotiations that most people seem to be calling for)is there an analogous historical precedent in which the U.S. has embarked on such a negotiation with a pledge that it would never use force against the nation across the table?

I honestly can't think of any such historical precedent, but I'm no historian. Would love to hear from the history buffs on this one.

Arguably, one example would be in the no-invasion provision of the settlement, with the Soviets, of the Cuban Missile Crisis.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Yea, I hear you there, except that was the product of the settlement. Isn't the proper analogy with respect to my question the pre-settlement posture of the parties in that dispute?

In the most literal sense, yes. Looking at it in the context that the US has yet to negotiate with the Cubans but presumably would be bound by it, no.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

This is a general comment on this particular thread. It is really incredibly disappointing. Hass answers a point directly that Baer makes concerning no expert on Iran being willing to take the military option off the table. It is debunked thoroughly and entirely. Marcf doesn't like Chomsky, or feels he is not an Iranian expert. I am sure he knows more about Iran than marcf, Hillary, Baer and me put together. Anyone who knows anything about Chomsky knows he is terrific; really knowledgeable about an incredible range of topics. But even if you weren't happy about Chomsky on the list aren't you using that as a red herring the way right wing news tries to discredit an argument by ridiculing one spokesperson as being too slimed to be credible...the way they do with Dean, or Kerry, or try to do with Obama. Or the way marcf does with Chomsky. Couldn't you see the political point of giving such a list? Oy.

"I also believe that Iran's attainment of a nuclear capability is something that should be of real concern to this country (whether we have credibility or not with the rest of the world)."

You need to be more precise here and narrow down what you mean by "nuclear capability" as there is some evidence that hardliners object to Iran having any nuclear capability whatsoever.

What Iran has asked for is assurances that we won't pursue regime change.

The United States - and the entire world -took the "military option" off the table when they ratified the United Nations Charter which quite explicitly prohibits the use for force to solve disputes except in cases of self defense (indeed before then since the prohibition is part of customary international law.) Under Article 2, paragraph 4 of the UN Charter:

All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

In the US, the United Nations Charter forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution.

Launching a war is ILLEGAL. It is a WAR CRIME. It is NOT merely "an option." Any candidate who says so is in fact endorsing a crime for which he/she can be HANGED as others have been.

Nuremberg Principles Principle VI The crimes hereinafter set out are punishable as crimes under international law:

(a) Crimes against peace:

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;

(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

Principle VII
Complicity in the commission of a crime against peace, a war crime, or a crime against humanity as set forth in Principle VI is a crime under international law.


And no, attacking Iran can't be made to fit into the self-defense exception. It is narrowly defined to deal with imminent threats of attack, urgent necessity, no practicable alternative to action in self-defence, and permits only a proportional response, among other limits.

I don't think you're qualified to opine on what "serious intelligence agencies" believe.

The US intelligence community has concluded that it has inadequate evidence to make a judgment on the issue.

Even the CIA hasn't found evidence of nuclear weapons programs in Iran.

And oh, the bombing occurred in Zahedan, which is the opposite end of the country from the "Arab sector" as you call it. It near the border with Pakistan and Afghanistan, where Iran is fighting drug lords and Taliban remnants. Perhaps you're not so well informed on Iran as you think?

The rules in my world allow you to love everything Professor Chomsky has ever written. I've said nuttin to the contrary.

To me, the issue is not attacking Iran in the absence of conditions for self-defense, rather than specifically taking nuclear weapons off the table.

Really as an aside, I tend to find Chomsky so steeped in blame-America, second only to Ramsey Clark, that I discount him when discussing anything except computational linguistics -- where he is an unquestioned authority. In this long a list, however, I don't see him as polluting it.
--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

Lally:

Respectully, you state: "You need to be more precise here and narrow down what you mean by "nuclear capability . . .".
Fair enough, "nuclear capability" is not an inherently precise term, so I understand why you would ask for more precision.

But then you state the reason that I "need to be more precise" is because "there is some evidence that hardliners object to Iran having any nuclear capability whatsoever".

I can understand wanting to know what I mean about "nuclear capability", but I don't understand your inquiry into my "hardliner" status or lack thereof.

I mean, even if I was a "hardliner" based on your definition of that imprecise term, what difference would that make relative to the principal point of my post, which was to invite discussion addressing the historical predicate for what appears to be a popular position on here (i.e. that Democratic presidential candidates should make certain pledges about what they would or would not do if Iran proceeded on a clear and unambiguous path to develop nuclear weapons, or acted in this or that manner)?

Finally, I did not mean to ignore the issue of "regime change" in Iran. Is anyone on here advocating regime change in Iran? Are any of the Democratic presidential candidates? Are you saying that the candidates should have to come out and say: "I'm not for regime change"? I remain unconvinced that such a statement is necessary or prudent or even helpful to the cause of peace.

For what it's worth, I frankly think that the Iranian people are fully capable of doing their own house-cleaning if and when they so choose, and I also believe that an effective foreign policy with Iran would take that into account. As I've posted before, I genuinely believe that the American and Iranian peoples are natural allies.

there are no weapons to find -- yet, Hass. It's the true intention of the program that's being evaluated. I actually wouldn't blame the mullahs for trying to make a bomb -- it gives them a huge card to play (ala N. Korea) in int'l negotiations.

[T]hose who claim that Iran lives in a dangerous neighbourhood and therefore must be seeking nuclear weapons as a deterrent are engaging in a logical fallacy known as "subverted support": they are attempting to explain a phenomenon when there is no evidence that the phenomenon exists in the first place.
Rhetoric of War: First Iraq, then Iran? Global Dialogue, Volume 8, No. 1-2, Winter-Spring 2006

OK so I'll give you a serious answer. Perhaps Baer is sloppy in his writing, but with careful reading his meaning is obvious. Let me try to restate that meaning.

Baer believes the Democratic candidates "believe that Iran is a threat and bent on asserting its hegemony in the region, which will have serious repercussions to American interests" Baer also believes that the Democratic candidates all agree that "a military strike against Tehran ... would be long, nasty, costly, and unwise." The question is, GIVEN THESE BELIEFS, should we "question this strategic rationale of keeping the military option on the table." Baer is specifically addressing those like Ezra Klein and Publius, whom he links to. hass' list of "experts" is completely irrelevant to Baer's posting.

I am actually very fond of Chomsky. He attended my high school. But you must agree that Barak Obama is not about to call up Chomsky and ask for advice. hass wants to have a different conversation entirely than Baer's post addresses, and I call that hijacking the discussion

Bslev. The use of the phrase "nuclear capability" is sometimes used in leiu of "nuclear weapons capability" and confuses an already contentous issue.

I was thinking that perhaps you are unaware that the hardliners most interested in war on Iran are opposed to them having any nuclear capacity. They are also supporters of regime change. These goals predate the current Iranian president and underlie the campaign against Iran. They are the "why" behind the refusals to entertain the possibility negotiations with Iran. In short, that's the policy although very few will admit it.

I wasn't aware that this discussion was predicated on the scenario of Iran's proceeding on a "clear and unambiguous path to develop nuclear weapons". Since that isn't the case, why frame a question in terms of what Dem candidates would or wouldn't say about a hypothetical situation? The ambiguity is the problem.

Your question about whether or not any of the pro-talk Dem candidates advocate regime change in Iran is a good one and I have to chuckle at the notion of them having to answer it. If the answer is an unambiguous "No", that's an indicator that the aspirant in question at least understands that one can't enter into any form of negotiations with a government targeted for a coup by any other means.

Steve Clemons highlights an excellant article by Michael Tomasky that gets to the problem of the group think that informs what passes for domestic foreign policy expertise and how it affects Hillary's positions. Imo, it's a problem for all Dem candidates, but he uses her inability to say she's sorry to make his point:

".... But I'd like to posit a much less-discussed third reason, and it's the most important one, because it tells us far more about how she might actually conduct foreign-policy as president. It has to do with what we know in Washington as the "Foreign-Policy Establishment".

The FPE consists of intellectuals, analysts, and scholars, many of them former government officials, collected at the various think-tanks in Washington DC (and to some extent New York, home base of the Council on Foreign Relations). If you lived here and worked in politics, you would note quickly their ubiquity and influence. They're forever holding panels and issuing papers, and the resident fellows and scholars advise many a candidate on both sides.

And the FPE, you see, is fairly conservative. There's one house, the New America Foundation, that has admirably made itself the center of the foreign-policy opposition in Washington. But outside of New America, the FPE is dominated by conservatives, neo and otherwise in redoubts like the American Enterprise Institute, and centrist Democrats. This last category is typified by Kenneth Pollack, of the nominally liberal Brookings Institution, whose 2002 book, The Threatening Storm, made a case for the Iraq war which many liberals endorsed. In fact, it's fair to say that most of the FPE was pro-war, and even today, many of its prominent members will admit only to botched execution on the administration's part, not to any broader problems with the whole idea from the start.

This is a bunch whose views are well to the right of the Democratic primary electorate. And it is a bunch in whose good graces Hillary Clinton, a cautious and establishment politician at her core, is fervent to stay. And as was once said of love in the movies, so it must be said today that staying in the FPE's good graces means never having to say you're sorry.

And this is where a potential Clinton presidency becomes a concern. If she is elected, she will likely draw most of her foreign-policy brain trust from this world - not from the neoconservative wing, but from the pro-war neoliberal wing; in other words, from a group of people who got Iraq completely wrong. Her secretary of state, for example, might be Richard Holbrooke, who was belligerently pro-war in the beginning. All this points in a certain direction, as to how she'd handle the Middle East, particularly (doubted by Jewish Israel hawks back in 2000, she has taken pains to become one of their darlings), but also for just about every major question the next president will face, including how she'd clean up the Iraq mess.

And this is the main reason she will almost certainly be issuing no apology. It would dispirit and alienate a class of people she's spent six years currying favor with. And if primary voters choose to read into her refusal a sign that she would not, on foreign policy matters, be the kind of president they'd prefer, well, they would be on solid ground."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/michael_tomasky/2007/02/sorry_seems_to_be_the_hardest.html

I had to smile at Tomasky's phrase "nominally liberal" and speculate that it could be used to accurately describe many more entities than the Brookings Institute.

GIVEN THIS BELIEF? LOL! The whole point is that there are lots of "credible experts" who DON'T AGREE with that premise.

Your spin is sort of like this: Space aliens, who are hiding behind the moon, pose a threat to the world and are intent on invading the planet. GIVEN THIS BELIEF no credible expert would remove the option of blowing up the moon from the table.

But you do bring up an interesting point: who exactly are the mideast advisors to the candidates, and don't the voters have a right to demand that these candidates take their advice from a broader range of experts than the one's Bauer approves of as "credible"?

Let me make it clear that my response above was specifically addressed to "you" VLaszlo, whose opinions I value and respect, even though we are almost always in disagreement. My response was not to hass, with whom I fear I cannot have a civil conversation.

You're in a lonely position, Hass. We've seen several other Arab states suddenly express interest in a nuclear program, most recently the Saudis. They don't trust Iranian intentions, and even if Iranians are telling the truth, preception is reality at the moment. Uhbridled Iranian nuclear activities are going to spark the same across a very troubled region.

Maybe you want to trust a government that has lied about even having their program in the past as well as denying involvement in terror attacks (despite overwhelming evidence). Last Aug was a classic example. First they weren't aiding Hezbollah, then 3 days later they change their story and admit they are.

Iran is not a responsible government, and even though other nuclear states like Pakistan are unstable and scary, why shouldn't we do something to insure another won't be created? All this talk about their "nuclear rights" is nonsense. This government tramples on their people's rights repeatedly. The West should make it clear the mullahs can't pick and choose the inalienable rights they want to stand up for.

marcf thanks for your kind words. Let me take advantage of your friendliness and insert a lengthy post from Digby at Hullabaloo discussing head on the issue Baer raises hopefully in a positive way:

......................


Now You're Talking

by digby

Bill Richardson figured out a way to talk about Iran without sounding like he's talking underwater. He's asking people to sign a petition:

I am joining Bill Richardson to send a clear message to the Bush administration that we will not tolerate ill-conceived and unauthorized aggression against Iran. It would be a mistake for the US to take military action in Iran before exhausting all diplomatic avenues. Tough, direct diplomacy backed by strong international alliances can work. This is exactly the strategy that worked in North Korea and it can work in Iran.

I demand this administration start direct diplomacy with Iran immediately and stop the irresponsible aggression.

This administration has stubbornly refused to pursue real, honest diplomacy in Iran and engage our allies around the world to help negotiate a solution. Instead, they are pursuing a strategy of non-negotiation and threats of possible US military action. We are clear and united - we want negotiations now and no unauthorized and unwarranted attacks in Iran.

See how easy it is to not sound like like a Republican asshole? And to think he did it without making a fetish of saying "all options are on the table." Why, someone might even think the man has some experience doing this type of thing.

There are other ways too. Dover Bitch sent me this YouTube of Congressman Sandy Levin yesterday. I think you'll find this part particularly satisfying:

"The debate we are having today is about the future of our nation's policy in Iraq. So my main focus will not be to catalog the litany of the Administration's past grave mistakes and misstatements over the last four years.

"At the same time, as a lesson for the future, it is important to remember that the war in Iraq was the first application of what has become known as the Bush Doctrine. This policy was unveiled by the President in his commencement speech at West Point in June of 2002 and made policy a few months later in the Administration's 2002 National Security Strategy.

"The Administration's doctrine stressed preemptive attack, U.S. military superiority, and U.S. unilateral action. This flawed policy has proven to be disastrous. It has destabilized Iraq and threatens to undermine the stability of the entire region. The doctrine blinded the Administration to the Pandora's Box it was opening when it invaded Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist, and 9-11 terrorists that were not there.

"Far from strengthening U.S. security, this misguided doctrine has put our nation's vital interests at greater risk. The elevation of unilateralism has helped erode our nation's standing in the world

. .....................


I really think if Hillary, Obama, and Edwards reflected this sort of sentiment (which isn't necessarily at odds with the part of Baer's comments that has a kernel of validity), then we wouldn't be having this heated debate today. Like, Digby I do not understand why it is so hard for our leading candidates to formulate their position in a way that makes clear how very much it differs from the reckless, irresponsible and repugnant policies of the Bush idiocies. If they cannot do a better job, then at some point one just wonders if their thinking is in fact more clear-headed than the neocons.

I agree with you. I think Baer is wrong. But we should say so without misrepresenting Baer's ideas. That is essential for a blog like this to work.

btw I'd say that Clinton HAS indeed removed the force option by insisting that Bush get Congressional approval. He'd never get it unless there is a radical change in the situation.

Facebook

Thanks for your patience and sorry for the inconvenience!

Best regards, Mary, CEO of youtube converter

What happens with a couple days away from the computer?  Baer, the problem we have with Iran is that Bush doesn't think he has created enough problems yet. 

Open your f***ing eyes.  We are not all powerful.  Even the Israelis must realize that if all the other major powers decide to isolate us, we are gonna be one mighty weak giant.  We are already despised by the peoples of the world, their governments can only tolerate us for so long before they have to get on board with their populations.

If we act precipitously towards Iran, the world is gonna sympathize with Iran, not with us.  Americans will find out what being ostracized is like.  It won't be pretty.

Meanwhile, the creeps like Bush (or for all I know, you) will just move away. 

Hass,

I agree with you completely. But the point I was trying to make, and that I think bslev picked up on, is that the UN Charter notwithstanding, the US has never really taken the military option off the table. Especially in our recent history, it is almost as if our leaders have a weird sort of Tourette's which causes them to utter words which equate to "Now, we're not promising that we won't attack."

If we did renounce military action, and we were subsequently attacked by an unprovoked aggressor, no treaty or charter that we have ever signed would prevent us from "putting the military option back on the table", ie. retaliating.

So the whole idea that we are causing *any problem at all* by saying, in advance, that we promise not to attack Iran, as a foundation for negotiations about arms limitations, the stabilization of Iraq, nuclear energy capability or *anything else*, is ridiculous. The only risk to saying we promise not to attack is a domestic political risk to the "president" or presidential candidate who makes the statement. There is virtually no military risk to making such a promise.

S. Arabia has expressed an interest in nuclear power as have pretty much the entire rest of the world simply because nuclear power is the energy source of the future. You're confusing "expressing an interest with nuclear power" with "seeking to acquire nuclear bombs to deter Iran"- naturally.

But assuming that they're interested in nuclear weapons, note that there has long been speculation about the Saudi-Pakistani nuclear ties, and Egypt's nuclear program long predates Iran's and in fact Egypt was caught conducting secret experiment by the IAEA too.

What makes you think that YOUR government is so honest and "responsible"?

user-pic

Pardon me, but I kind of thought that negotiating with other countries was exactly what we Democrats/Liberal Leaners have been arguing for for the past 6 years? Egg Donor Program

user-pic

Your article was very well written response to many problems, that is what I do not know, thank you.This
is my website!I hope you like it!
Christian louboutin|
Abercrombie and Fitch

Facebook

You also know how to make people rally behind it, obviously from the responses taking time and real effort to make a good article !!
online store

Facebook

I absolutely adore your site! You aggressive me as able-bodied as all the others actuality and your broiled PS is absolutely nice. Thank you for afflatus and accumulate up the acceptable work thanks!
Messebau München

Facebook

I absolutely adore your site! You aggressive me as able-bodied as all the others actuality and your broiled PS is absolutely nice. Thank you for afflatus and accumulate up the acceptable work thanks!
Kabar

Facebook

BacklinkBooster
Exciting post... These tips are very useful especially to those who want to avail in this topic.

Facebook

This was exactly what i was searching for. Have been fighting for a while to do this, thanks for have posted.
wedding videographer hertfordshire

Facebook

That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.
Cursussen

Facebook

Page Rank Backlinks
This is the first time I am visiting this post.I have gathered much of it.Really a interesting firm things.

Facebook

I absolutely adore your site! You aggressive me as able-bodied as all the others actuality and your broiled PS is absolutely nice. Thank you for afflatus and accumulate up the acceptable work thanks!
background graphics

Facebook

Thank you so much for your work on keeping the site together and keeping these flowing.
gemlengan spiritual

Facebook

Really like your blog content the way you put up the things…I’ve read the topic with great interest and definitely will stick your blog routinely for other great posts.
ouazzanepress

Facebook

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!
Poems and Quotes

Facebook

Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts. thank you for sharing great information to us.
hulu Australia

Facebook

This information is very useful!Thank you!
Best regards, Katya, CEO of backup hyper v, iscsi mscs

Facebook

I absolutely adore your site! You aggressive me as able-bodied as all the others actuality and your broiled PS is absolutely nice. Thank you for afflatus and accumulate up the acceptable work thanks!
Loan Lenders

Facebook

I enjoy your weblog and will sign up to your feed so I will not miss anything. Fantastic content.
korean fashion

Facebook

Exciting post... These tips are very useful especially to those who want to avail in this topic.
health insurance

Facebook

Exciting post... These tips are very useful especially to those who want to avail in this topic.
godaddy coupons

Facebook

That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.
cheap designer handbags

Facebook

Great post! I'm just starting out in community management/marketing media and trying to learn how to do it well - resources like this article are incredibly helpful. As our company is based in the US, it's all a bit new to us.
peep toe pumps

Facebook

Exciting post... These tips are very useful especially to those who want to avail in this topic.
web designer

Facebook

Exciting post... These tips are very useful especially to those who want to avail in this topic.
google adsense

Facebook

Finally, an issue that I am passionate about. I have looked for information of this caliber for the last several hours. Your site is greatly appreciated.
wizard of oz books
snow cone syrup

Facebook

This was exactly what i was searching for. Have been fighting for a while to do this, thanks for have posted.
free movies

Facebook

This was exactly what i was searching for. Have been fighting for a while to do this, thanks for have posted.
kindlereader

Facebook

This was exactly what i was searching for. Have been fighting for a while to do this, thanks for have posted.
meet new friends websites

Facebook

This is so cool. I am such a huge fan of their work. I really am impressed with how much you have worked to make this website so enjoyable.
funny pictures

Facebook

I absolutely adore your site! You aggressive me as able-bodied as all the others actuality and your broiled PS is absolutely nice. Thank you for afflatus and accumulate up the acceptable work thanks!
Wounded Warrior

Facebook

Would you please provide way more information on this issue?? By the way your blog is amazing. Best regards..
isu semasa

Facebook

I high appreciate this post. It’s hard to find the good from the bad sometimes, but I think you’ve nailed it! would you mind updating your blog with more information?
job interview questions

Facebook

That is some inspirational stuff. Never knew that opinions could be this varied. Thanks for all the enthusiasm to offer such helpful information here.
Games Online

Facebook

Very useful tips, I like it. Thanks for sharing such a wonderful trivia.
verified safe

Facebook

This is a very intriguing post, I was looking for this knowledge. Just so you know I found your web site when I was searching for blogs like mine, so please check out my site sometime and leave me a comment to let me know what you think.
private jet charter

Facebook

This is so cool. I am such a huge fan of their work. I really am impressed with how much you have worked to make this website so enjoyable.
niche list

Facebook

Would you please provide way more information on this issue?? By the way your blog is amazing. Best regards..
Jilbab Faira

Facebook

This was exactly what i was searching for. Have been fighting for a while to do this, thanks for have posted.
Key File Kaspersky

Facebook

Si vous etes interesses par le dossier, ou desirez en savoir plus, contactez-moi par mail, et je vous mettrai en contact.
Best regards,Jane, CEO of virtualization high availability

Facebook

Your work is very good and I appreciate you and hopping for some more informative posts. thank you for sharing great information to us
pvc dograma

Facebook

Great post! I'm just starting out in community management/marketing media and trying to learn how to do it well - resources like this article are incredibly helpful. As our company is based in the US, it's all a bit new to us.
kumpulan cerita hantu

Facebook

Great post! I'm just starting out in community management/marketing media and trying to learn how to do it well - resources like this article are incredibly helpful. As our company is based in the US, it's all a bit new to us.
TOSCANA VALDERA HOTEL

Facebook

Great post! I'm just starting out in community management/marketing media and trying to learn how to do it well - resources like this article are incredibly helpful. As our company is based in the US, it's all a bit new to us.
seo geneva

Leave a comment

Advertisement
Please disable your adblocker!
Ads are how we pay the bills!

Subscribe

The Coffee House
TPMCafe's regulars

House Brew
From Your Cafe Editor

Special Guests
Big names and big brains

Special Features
Pressing topics and trends

Table for One
An expert's week-long talk.

All Reader Posts
TPM readers discuss.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address