What to say about Iran
As always it is important for D's not to misconceive the important issues in elections. Our party has a knack for gnashing its teeth about the failure of the other side to be "rational," when elections are about trust and character, and policy is only the language of these virtues in political discourse.
The Iran debate, if you can call it a debate, brings this time-honored Democratic Party way to drop the ball on the goal line into contemplation once again.
We need to be stating home truths, and ethical stances. After all, complicated thinking is necessary for designing a microprocessor or a search engine, but it is not by any means a guarantee of the right answer in world affairs. And even very subtle thinking, a la Kissinger or Nixon, is hardly a guarantee of virtue or even common sense. Nor does proof of elite education count for much; we see in the Iraq embroglio that Harvard, Stanford and Yale degrees don't assure practical or even consistent judgment, much less execution.
So let's try the simple approach for Democrats speaking
on Iran.
First, of course any American President will consider the use of military force to eliminate any notable threat to the United States. Iran doesn't have missiles or airplanes that can hit America, and we would not permit that country to build such a force.
Second, Iran does not now have the capability to build an atomic or nuclear weapon. However, it's important to stop Iran from copying Pakistan and others in building such weapons, so we should meet directly and immediately with Iran -- as we should have done with North Korea in 2001 -- to obtain a very verifiable and trustworthy agreement barring Iran from such an effort. The President has to spend at least a year on this job, and the current President should do that, subject to conditions set forth below, from January 2008 to January 2009, just as President Clinton tried in his last year to strike a deal between Israel and Arafat. No, giving up in October 2008 won't do. If the President doesn't do this, then in 2009 the new President will give it a try.
Third, if we can't reach that agreement, then we need to hold in reserve the possibility that we will use military force to bar the construction of nuclear weapons-generating facilities. We must neither commit nor preclude this possibility.
Fourth, the nuclear weapons in other countries are just as alarming if not more so. The President has to launch a new global effort to strike a nuclear non-proliferation agreement.
Fifth, we aren't going to launch a ground or naval offensive bent on occupying Iran or overthrowing its government. That is crazy talk. It is Iranian nuclear power we should focus on, not its internal domestic governance. We don't need another ground war in Asia.
Sixth, the Presidential effort to reach agreement with Iran needs to be bipartisanly supported. A bipartisan and well-empowered delegation should be appointed by the President and Congress to lay the groundwork for the Presidential negotiation. That delegation should go to Iran immediately, or even better find a neutral country to host talks.
The principles Democrats should espouse in this way are: focus on the real problem, don't fearmonger, don't put American lives in danger, do tell the truth about the situation, have a stated goal, don't be disingenuous, don't be partisan over international objectives.
Whoah, what's this reference to the Dems as "our party", kimosabe? I think not. To paraphrase Groucho Marx: I wouldn't join any party that would have me as a member.
On the issue of Iran: One can certainly make the point that an Iran with nuclear weapons, which it shows no indication of developing, would be a stabilizing influence in the Middle East. The US has never attacked a country with nukes, Israel would be loath to do so and the same Mutually Assured Destruction would keep Iran from using its weapons.
Just think of the possibilities of a good cooperative US/Iran relationship such as that which prevailed during the Afghanistan operation in 2001 and how it might contribute to a more stable Middle East. Just think about how cooperation works so much better than confrontation in our personal lives--just so in international affairs! Do you raise hell when a neighbor decides to keep a well-stocked gun cabinet? Better not.
ecotourism
WeGoEco.com
November 4, 2007 8:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
We have to get past this "false choice" presented by the Bush administration, according to which Iran is racing to build nukes, and the "only" options available to us is to either sanction or bomb Iran.
Iran has said that possessing nukes would not help them, and has already repeatedly offered to implement "very verifiable and trustworthy agreements" that would prevent even the theoretical possibility that Iran's nuclear program can be diverted to make bombs: operate Iran's nuclear enrichment facility as a multinational venture, with the participation of foreign governments and corporations. The Bush administration has refused to even acknowledge this and the other Iranian compromise proposals because the nuclear issue is a pretext really, and the actual agenda is for war. That's why Rice imposed a ridiculous preconditions on talks with Iran, and why Bush torpedoed the US-EU3 talks during the Paris Agreement talks.
We have no right to threaten other countries with the use of force in order to get them to do whatever we want - that is illegal and a violation of international law. Our explicit threat to nuke Iran was the height of folly.
The assumption that we have the "option" of bombing others into submission should be "off the table"
And, we should accept Iran's proposition - made way back in 1974 - to make Iran a nuclear-free region. This applies explicitly to Israel, whose nuclear arsenal we must inevitably address if we are serious about securing US interests in the Mideast - and for that reason, I doubt we will do so.
November 4, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
This is all fine for 2009. But we still have fourteen months of the current administration to deal with.
Whether the public finds some proposed Iran policy reasonable or not depends on their perception of Iranian behavior, and their perception of the nature and seriousness of the Iranian threat. Recent polls suggest that White House fear-mongering and propaganda about Iran is beginning to pay off, and a majority of the public is now obediently prepared to take action.
The administration is promoting the view that the Iranians are already fighting a war against us. They are telling the American public that Iranian operative are crawling all over Iraq and Afghanistan, killing American soldiers and giving weapons to others for the express purpose of killing American soldiers. They are telling the public that the Iranians are the world's godfathers of terror. They are telling the public that the Iranians' nuclear program is already a nuclear weapons program, and that the Iranian bomb project is nearing completion. They are telling them that Iran is, in effect, taking over the Middle east, and that Iranian "hegemony" is a threat of Hitlerian proportions. They are telling them that Ahmadinejad is the "dictator" of Iran, etc.
Even when the administration does not tell outright lies about Iran, they use slick and deceptive language that is designed to lead their target audience to draw unwarranted conclusions. Those of us who pay very close attention may be able to sift out the lies and exaggerations. But masses of other Americans are not.
This White House quite evidently either wants military confrontation soon with Iran, or wants an indefinite prolongation of a hardline rejectionist policy toward talks with the Iranians (which will very likely lead to confrontation down the road as well). And the White House is determined to promote its policy through its power to control public perceptions of the Iranian background story.
If Democrats intend to win over the public to an alternate policy agenda, Democratic candidates and leaders must be much more aggressive in countering the White House story. It is not enough to offer a different policy. They must willing to label lies and disinformation as lies and disinformation. The more diplomatic Democratic policy will only make sense to Americans if it is accompanied by a more accurate story. If Democrats do not counter the White House story, they will lose their case. The public will say "If the Iranians are already fighting a war against us, and are working and plotting even now to nuke New York and Washington through their dark-skinned proxies in America, why does Barack Obama want to spend a year talking to them?"
November 4, 2007 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
With your comment
and
I'm sadly reminded of how some of the issues are cast, and I despair, wondering if you have any ideas I don't on introducing the American public in critical listening and thinking.
Let me take a couple of examples that have nothing to do with the Middle East, although one vaguely bears on national defense.
I have a very valued friend who constantly goes ballistic about "the Democrats" wanting to take away all Second Amendment rights. He is one of those that insists that armed citizens are the key Amendment that guarantees the rest, and only with guns in private hands is the First Amendment protected. He is fervent that certain bans on advertising close to an election, which may indeed be questionable, by issue groups, are there only to block the NRA.
Given the areas where he often lives and works, I don't disagree that he reasonably might want personal defense firearms. I'm not opposed to concealed carry for law-abiding adults. The irony, however, is that he routinely does not have a firearm on his person or in easy reach, and I haven't known him even to practice "dry-firing" (i.e., practicing handling the weapon with no ammunition) in over a year. In contrast, some soldier friends of mine, back from National Guard deployments or one active service in the US, don't feel they keep proficient unless they fire at least 100 rounds per week in practice. I wonder, if a house invasion were to hit him, if he could find his weapons in time and decisively outshoot the invaders.
Now, I rarely watch TV, except for some historical things and weather. My housemates, however, leave it on, although admittedly often on the History Channel. I am repeatedly reminded to watch my blood pressure, when direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads come on, and either are significantly misleading, or pushing a drug that does not demonstrated better effect over cheaper competition. In fairness, a few ads do report actual breakthroughs.
This is the only industrialized country, as far as I know, that allows this sort of direct-to-consumer advertising. I am extremely opposed to the practices of libraries, when I was growing up in the fifties and sixties, keeping medical texts on locked sheles. Still, I also recognize one needs a substantial amount of medical knowledge to see how these ads mislead.
*sigh* and then the memes turn to things, in the case of Iran, that is rocket science. In the grand scheme of technology, rocket science isn't that hard. Good rocket engineering and manufacturing is another matter. Still, I can do some fairly simple calculations that assumed Iran went to an active nuclear weapons development program, and what the strategic balance might be.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
November 4, 2007 10:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
That is one of the tragedies of Kyl-Lieberman, that the Dems (espeacially HRC) rubber-stamped US lies and failed to speak truth to power. "Truth is the first casualty of war."--Sy Hersh.
Americans are being poorly represented by people who should (and maybe do, but have been bought) know better.
November 4, 2007 10:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
You didn't say anything new that Clinton, Obama or Edwards didn't say already
November 4, 2007 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
"It is not enough to offer a different policy. They must willing to label lies and disinformation as lies and disinformation." I'm not sure you can separate the two. I'd say Reed made a decent start, and the "home truth" line at least suggests someone might be, well, lying. Maybe a bit more apologetic about the Democrat's belief in a strong America than I feel is warranted, but that's quibbling over a stump speech.
John
http://www.haberarts.com/
November 4, 2007 4:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fourth, the nuclear weapons in other countries are just as alarming if not more so.
"Other countries" includes the United States. The Democrats need to seize the plan by Schultz, Nunn, Kissinger and Perry and run with it.
November 5, 2007 6:46 AM | Reply | Permalink