Thomas Friedman's Flawed Analogy on Iran
I've had a hard time taking Thomas Friedman seriously ever since his advocacy of the war in Iraq. But I have to acknowledge that there are still occasions when he's right on the money -- as he has been in urging cooperation between the U.S. and China on clean energy technologies.
Unfortunately, Friedman's punditry may be taking a turn for the worse. His article in today's New York Times is one of his most illogical and ill-considered since his "invade Iraq" days.
In suggesting that the new National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iran has reduced U.S. leverage in moving Tehran towards capping or eliminating its nuclear enrichment program, he uses one of the most tortured (and inaccurate) analogies I have seen in a long while.
Here it goes. He compares Iran and its nuclear program to a drug dealer who has paused in his activities after years of producing and selling heroin:
"Gulf Arabs feel like they have this neighbor who has been a drug dealer for 18 years. Recently, this neighbor has been very visibly growing poppies in his back yard in violation of the law. He's also been buying bigger and better trucks to deliver drugs . . .," says Friedman.
And the metaphor goes on: after police pressure, our unfriendly neighborhood drug dealer shuts down his heroin laboratory; the police have now declared that this rogue poppy grower is not a drug dealer any more, but only by taking a narrow, legalistic interpretation of that term. But the neighbors aren't convinced -- it's not as if he's just growing flowers for the fun of it, and as recently as 2003 he was turning his poppy crop into heroin.
Does this analogy make any sense? Well, no. First of all, unlike the heroin dealer, Iran has never successfully manufactured the product in question (a nuclear weapon). It doesn't even have enough poppies (enriched uranium) to make the product, and is still having considerable difficulty learning how to grow them. Meanwhile, there are neighbors who do know how to make the product (nuclear weapons) and have significant stockpiles of it. Not to mention the chief of police (the United States) who has one of the largest stockpiles of the product in the world and is in the midst of building a new improved production facility. Last but not least, the chief keeps saying that he can't rule out the idea of burning down the alleged drug dealer's house if he doesn't agree to stop growing poppies.
I know, it's a bit elaborate, but blame Friedman; it's his metaphor, not mine. But the main point is that by echoing the Bush administration's after the fact "spin" on the NIE's findings, Friedman is contributing -- consciously or not -- to the larger effort to dismiss the impact of the estimate.
As these things go, the NIE was reasonably clear: the 16 intelligence agencies involved have concluded that Iran stopped its nuclear weapons program four years ago and that there is no indication that it is poised to re-start it. Rather than treating this as good news that will give diplomacy more time to work, President Bush has suggested that the fact that Tehran once had a program means it is time to ratchet up the pressure even higher than it was when the administration's assumption was that there is currently a program under way.
The NIE on Iran is a positive development, and for once the intelligence community was allowed to state its conclusions without interference from the Cheney/neo-con wing of the administration. The NIE should be a building block for a more reasonable diplomatic strategy -- far from reducing U.S. leverage, it might actually make it easier to bring countries like Russia and China on board for a workable joint strategy, as occurred with North Korea.
Or maybe Iran is the nuclear equivalent of a recidivist drug dealer. Friedman reports, you decide . . .
Hi William, as with almost all analogies, Friedman's cannot be taken to the bank from every angle, in every detail. That's why it's almost always a mistake for a writer to use one. But I think your column goes a bit far in dismissing Friedman's main point, which is that, whether or not Iran is currently making a bomb, it is enriching uranium, and that's troubling to its neighbors with whom Friedman has been meeting at a conference in Bahrain.
Friedman's interlocutors, and he himself, do not take exception to what's contained in the NIE, but with its top line. Whether you find that objectionable, it's apparently what these people genuinely think. And it seems to me that they have a plausible case that U.S. leverage is reduced; it's certainly not a silly inference.
Few side with Bush's and Cheney's persistent saber-rattling. However, I too have been troubled by the abrupt succession of intelligence reports. If the prior reports were extremist in their alarmism, the latest NIE is jarring in going the other way. It makes me think it may be best to absorb the data, but be cautious in our own policy.
Your last message -- that the NIE should be a building block for more reasonable diplomacy -- is the take-away line from the column. Thanks for that.
Steve LeVine, author
The Oil and the Glory (Random House)
http://www.oilandglory.com
December 12, 2007 10:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Steve,
Your area is oil, so perhaps you could answer a question for me. How much of the concern about Iranian enrichment from GCC states is due to concerns about the possibility of Iranian nuclear weapons, and how much is due to concerns about the economic ramifications for OPEC of Iran replacing much of its domestic oil consumption with nuclear power, thus liberating more of Iran's oil product for export. I read recently that the GCC states are also planning to develop nuclear power for these reasons.
My hypothesis is that a lot of these Arab worries about Iran have to do the possibility of an emerging Iran-Iraq OPEC bloc, which would then be in a position to seize control of OPEC policy and decision-making.
December 12, 2007 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hi Dan, in general the Shiite states make the Sunni majority Gulf states nervous. While we may not ourselves obsess in conspiracies, the region has no shortage of it, so emerging petro-power in Iran and Iraq can't ease them. That said, I think that the main answer in this case is right on the surface -- the difference between a nuclear-power hegemon and a nuclear-armed hegemon is considerable, and they know that. Best, Steve
December 13, 2007 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gag. These Gulf Neighbors are the very states that financed Saddam's murderous invasion of Iran in 1980. They also are utterly blinded by anti-Shia prejudice and can't stand that a Shia state is rising in power in the House of Islam.
Acting like the Gulf Arabs are somehow in a position to judge Iran is laughable.
December 12, 2007 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Five guys and their camel is not a "state"
All put together, they don't amount to the population of a section of Tehran.
December 12, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
And why is that 17 years after Kuwait was "liberated" they haven't had real democratic elections? Pretty much sums up the "Freedom Agenda" of West, doesn't it?
December 13, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course the new NIE estimate has reduced US leverage. How could it not. We had a policy built on a lie and the lie is exposed. I guess Friedman is arguing that the policy was, in its essence, correct so we shouldn't change it because it was fraudulently presented. The ends were pure if the means were flawed. Such are they dynamics in politics and diplomacy that the policy is in tatters now as it should be.
December 12, 2007 10:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does seem as the NIE estimate would reduce US leverage, but there is another interesting (if speculative) take on the NIE and Iran at watchingamerica.com (see "Smart Side to US Intelligence")
Friedman is often more compelling when he writes on other subjects. I'm weary of Friedman's work on the Middle East. His ideas on the subject don't always have the original quality and feel of ideas that come from the heart and an open, rigorous mind.
I once read Friedman regularly, but I was really disappointed when he did not open his NYT columns up for comments as Kristof did. I thought Kristof showed himself to have the confidence of a classic truth-seeker who welcomes challenges to his ideas.
December 13, 2007 5:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
First of all, unlike the heroin dealer, Iran has never successfully manufactured the product in question (a nuclear weapon).
By that same logic, German rearmament in the 30s wasn't a threat, because blitzkrieg had never been tried before. (Apologies for skirting the edge of Godwin's Law there.)
Not to mention the chief of police (the United States) who has one of the largest stockpiles of the product in the world and is in the midst of building a new improved production facility.
Policeman with gun = religious psycho with gun. Okay, I think we're done here.
December 12, 2007 11:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you implying that Iran would be willing to use nuclear weapons against the US if they had them in their possession?
December 12, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an example of a a basic delusion that is widespread in the US: American foreign and war making policy is for the benefit of the rest of the world. We are the friendly cop on the beat.
The rest of the world has a different take: America is the single greatest threat to world peace and that its policies are being pursued in the interests of the US and Israel without regard for other's interests.
December 12, 2007 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, would you care to remind me how many countries the "religious psycho with a gun" has invaded?
Don't get me wrong, Iran is a rival with hegemonic aspirations (greatly advanced by Bush's gun slinging) in a region that is of vital strategic interest to the US, but lets drop the infantile habit of building foreign policy upon cartoonish exaggeration and the need to defend ourselves against the Bogeyman.
Iran does pose a threat to the American interests. Ignoring that threat would be naive, however, Tehran has pursued its regional aspirations with far more restraint than either the United States or Israel for the past thirty years. Iran has advanced it's cause through "covert" support of proxies like Hezbollah and met with it's greatest successes by taking advantage of American and Israeli blunders and bluster.
The best course to take with Iran is to consider the possibility that the best solution to a problems isn't always to kill something, ratchet down the rhetoric, try to stabilize the region by extricating ourselves from the Iraqi quagmire and generally regroup. In short, let's stop peeing ourselves every time a third rate power demonstrates the temerity f pursuing their own interests rather than the Republican party's interests, hmm?
December 12, 2007 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Okay, would you care to remind me how many countries the "religious psycho with a gun" has invaded?"
Be glad to.
Start with Afghanistan and Iraq. But if you consider all of Bush's advisors and hanger-ons, Guatemala, El Salvador, Haiti, Grenada, Chile Lebanon... how many more can you name?
December 13, 2007 5:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
By that same logic, German rearmament in the 30s wasn't a threat, because blitzkrieg had never been tried before.
If you go back and re-read Mr. Hartung's post, you will see that he never said that Iranian ambitions weren't a threat, merely that they have been grossly exaggerated. Sadly, when it comes to foreign policy, American tend to lurch from disengagement to hysteria - just about the only constant is ignorance.
Iranian aspirations do pose a threat to American interests in the Middle East, but there are degrees of threat. Germany in the 1930's was a modern, wealthy industrial powerhouse forced into a European order that simultaneously offended German pride and ignored German potential to violently restructure that order in its favor.
Iran is a militarily impotent, politically divided power with an unstable, poorly developed economy which depends primarily upon selling petroleum to its enemy.
Fevered brows aside, Iran is no Germany!
The ability to differentiate between a regional rival and an existential threat, however, eludes the rabid right, which so reliably mistakes moderation for appeasement, prudence for cowardice and hysteria for courage.
December 12, 2007 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Existential threat?" Is that like Sartre telling Saint-Exupery he's going to throw a drink in his face?
It's interesting that the neocon perversion of this adjective actually results in a descriptive term more accurate than their intent. The "existential threat" posed by Iran is not a threat to our existence, but a vague and baseless sense of aimlessness and anomie among neocons looking for their next war. The "threat" posed by Iran is no more reality-based than the vague sense of purposelessness felt by existential anti-heroes: it's real, all right, but it comes from within, not from an external source.
For these warmongering assholes, there will always be an "existential threat" to beat the war drums over.
December 13, 2007 3:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
And imagine if Iran had invaded as many of its neighbors as Isarel has? How come we never hear about Isarel's invasion of Egypt in 1956? Talk about being a threat to your neighbors.
December 12, 2007 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, please. Israel and Egypt were at war in 1956, as they were from 1948 until the Camp David Accords. Israel violated a cease fire to launch a preempive strike on a sworn and dangerous enemy. I'm no blind apologist for the Israelis. They've done plenty to help dig the hole they are in now. But this complaint is really reaching.
You want to bitch about the settlements on the West Bank, The Wall, blatant land grabs that cannot stand if there's to be peace, I'll listen to that. But don't try to tell me Israel is evil because they attacked Egyptian armed forces massed on their border 50 years ago.
December 12, 2007 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Funny, Dwight D. Eisenhower didn't see it that way. He saw it for what it was: a war of aggression by Britain, France and Israel against Egypt. He went so far as to threaten to ruin the British economy by utterly devaluing the pound to force a cease fire and withdrawal.
It sounds to me like you're maybe confusing the 1956 Suez Crisis with the 1967 Six Day War.
December 12, 2007 8:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
LOL. The "massed on their border theory." Otherwise known as the old boot-strapping argument.
Can't imagine that would justify an Egyptian strike on Israel. I am always amused that Israel's Pearl Harbor attack in 1967 is termed "preemptive"; Egypt's Pearl Harbor strike in 1973 is called "sneaky."
December 13, 2007 8:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nope, you didn't skirt the edge of Godwin's law with this one. You fell right in. Had you cited either German rearmament alone or blitzkrieg alone you might - just might - have been able to plead forgiveness. Together, you have no right to request forbearance.
Iran either has the right, under treaty, to experiment with developing nuclear enrichment capability or it doesn't. Which is it? How do you explain to the Iranians that they don't have the right as a treaty signatory to do something that treaty allows when non-treaty signatories and violators are encouraged by US policy? Just admit that you want the law of the jungle and the doctrine of "might makes right" to prevail here, but don't ask anyone to believe you hold the moral high ground.
December 13, 2007 3:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Friedman's problem is, and has always been, that he still thinks of our government (the current version, with Bush in charge) as fundamentally serious and patriotic. He supported the invasion on the premise that it would be "done right" and then complained when it wasn't. This despite the fact that a person in his position should have known better.
Now, he complains that the NIE has forced us to overplay our hand and show our cards prematurely. This ignores the fact that Bush/Cheney crazies have shown a clear inclination to attack Iran. Since they've done it before, one would have to take this threat seriously and do everything possible to avert a disaster. Thus, the intelligence community did something unprecedented and, in a different context, probably unwise. But context is everything. As much as this might put the US in a hole diplomatically, at least there is little chance we will get into a third war.
December 12, 2007 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
To torture the analogy further, the chief of police in this case also happens to be best buddies with a primary rival, another notorious neighborhood drug dealer, who has been the most vocal in calling for the house to be burned down.
December 12, 2007 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is hard to take seriously those who opposed getting rid of a monster like Saddem. Iran, is still violating its agreements when it comes to nuclear materials. What the NIE seems to have shown was that Iran was working on a nuclear weapons program until 2003. That is hardly likely to sit well with their Arab Sunni neighbors.
Bush being a lying does not make a glib dismissal of the Iranians threat to their Arab neighbors or their perception of their threat just too sensible.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
December 12, 2007 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think there are many people who opposed getting rid of Saddam Hussein. On the contrary, I have never encountered anyone who has ever expressed regret that Hussein was toppled and brought to justice. However, all things come with a price tag and many of us understand that the death of upwards of 600,000 Iraqis, the displacement of millions more, the destruction of Iraqi civil society (such as it was) and the destabilization of the country for decades to come, might have been a bit of a high price to pay.
But no matter, it's only a bunch of Arabs who have to pay the butcher's bill!
December 12, 2007 1:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"But no matter, it's only a bunch of Arabs who have to pay the butcher's bill!"
You think? No, we are going to be paying the bill, as we paid the bill for Vietnam -- and it wasn't much fun.
December 12, 2007 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Removing Saddam Hussein from power has cost the US in both blood and money (and will for years to come as you correctly point out), but the price paid by the Iraqis is several orders of magnitude removed both in absolute and in relative terms.
December 12, 2007 2:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
500,000 Iraqi children killed as a direct and foreseeable result of US pre-invasion sanctions on Iraq. And that was just the start.
December 12, 2007 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It is hard to take seriously those who opposed getting rid of a monster like Saddem."
Come out from behind that strawman, Daniel, and tell us, yes or no: was the removal of Saddam worth the death and displacement of millions if Iraqis, the death of thousands of American soldiers, and a cost of what will be ultimately over a trillion dollars to the US Treasury?
December 12, 2007 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
The obvious answer is NO.
However, tell us Brewmn, what would be acceptable price for you?
December 12, 2007 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
$1.05
December 12, 2007 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Call me old-fashioned, but we never should have supplied Saddam with chemical weapons in the first place, nor encouraged him to wage war on his Iranian neighbor. Funny, how those crimes aren't mentioned.
December 12, 2007 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to agree with you that US was and is an evil empire. American people are evil people. Given crimes commited by American people they deserve 1000 911s.
And no, I wouldn't call you "old-fashioned".
December 12, 2007 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, come to think of it, Iran suffered about 80,000 casualties as a result of US-approved and backed Iraqi chemcial weapons. That's the about equivalent of 26 times Sept 11s.
And thats not counting the Iraqi Kurds nor the rest of 500,000 Iranian casualties in the war for which Rumsfeld was literally shaking Saddam hands.
December 12, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have no gift for sarcasm. Have you tried vaudeville?
December 13, 2007 8:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
My "price" would not include the death of American soldiers or innocent Iraqis. Saddam man was simply not a threat to US interests or security. That is why Daniel's argument is utterly disingenuous.
December 13, 2007 7:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Are you outraged that Israel hasn't been forced to sign the Non-Proliferation Treaty? If not, you have no credibility.
December 12, 2007 3:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that the NPT allowed the declared powers of the time to join and keep their arsenals, but additional powers, who had not signed the NPT and thus were not prohibited from developing nuclear weapons, would have to disarm to join. India, Israel, and Pakistan are in this category; North Korea had signed but declared intent to withdraw.
Realistically, those three powers are not going to disarm, and it is unrealistic to say they could be pressured into it. The most reasonable approach, from my point of view, is to allow them to join as declared nuclear powers.
Doing so would bring them under a nonproliferation agreement, which is of most concern for Pakistan. Pakistan is not going to disarm and leave India with nuclear weapons, and vice versa.
There has been question of whether providing better "positive control" technology to countries not in the NPT would qualify as proliferation. I don't believe that it would, but such things as silo hardening probably would be prohibited. Making hardening technology available, however, might well be stabilizing.
As a separate issue, I'd like to see all nuclear powers, declared or not, establish, at a minimum, "hotline" communications. The US and Russia have exchanged 24/7 liaison teams for their strategic warning centers, which seems wise for all powers.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 12, 2007 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The problem is that the NPT allowed the declared powers of the time to join and keep their arsenals"
Not true. The NPT specifically calls on the nuclear powers to negotiate in good faith to reduce and eliminate their stockpiles. Truth be told, the United States is far more in violation of the NPT than Iran.
December 12, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
While there is no single number by which an arsenal is measured, it is not unreasonable, when considering numbers and yield of warheads, of delivery systems, and other metrics, to say the US and USSR have reduced their stockpiles by 2/3 to 3/4. They are in active mutual verification programs. That's about all that is politically possible.
I am willing to look at nuclear control, but not disarmament. Also, I have made no accusations about Iran; I don't see evidence that they are working on a significant weapons program.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 12, 2007 9:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was one of the folks screaming at the Reagan and B*sh I administrations for actively supporting that monster Saddam. Guess where he got the helicopters and dual use chemicals to gas his own people. Oh, and the satellite imagery and targeting data to gas the Iranians.
At the time I remember conservatives telling people like me to "grow up" and "live in the real world". Funny how they all became defenders of human rights when they wanted the oil...err, to free the poor souls of Iraq (maybe it was a "make good" for telling them to rise up in 1991 and then sitting on their hands while tens of thousands were slaughtered).
That Saddam was a tyrant is indisputable. That we have sunk as low in removing him is also indisputable.
B*sh II got rid of Saddam by committing war crimes. He lied our nation into a war of aggression; Richard Perle himself has admitted that the invasion of Iraq was illegal. Having lied to Congress, subverted our intelligence agencies, undermined our Constitution and even the authorization of force to get his invasion, he then compounded his crimes by having no idea what to do next.
Also, lest we forget, Iran was very open to changing the dynamic with the US. When we went in to Afghanistan Iran assisted us. After our illegal war of aggression against Iraq Iran offered to settle all issues with us, including the nuclear question, and help in Iraq.
There is no reason why we have to attack Iran. Besides being completely illegal and an action that would justify ANY Iranian response, including direct attacks in the United States, it is just not necessary. Ahmadinejad is a nutter but he is not the be all and end all of Iranian politics. Worse, in much of the world's eyes he's certainly no more wacky that George B*sh and Dick Cheney.
We need to take this opportunity to get back to where we were in 2003 and negotiate with Iran, including addressing their ascendant position...which is due almost entirely to our idiotic, illegal war in Iraq. B*sh negotiated with North Korea after all his bluster and piss went for naught, certainly we can do the same with Iran. Too bad if our Saudi and Gulf States buddies don't like it; it's the first step to restoring our shattered power in both the region and the world.
December 12, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why is everyone making the false assumption that George W. Bush, or Americans in general have any business who the Iraqi people "elected" to be their leader?
Democracy cannot be forced on a people from outside themselves. To work, it must start as a movement of the people themselves.
December 13, 2007 5:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
No it is not. You are simply regurgitating another lie promoted by the Bush Admin. Gordon Prather (found at antiwar.com) has some detailed and frankly quite boring articles that describe how Iran's activities are consistent with the NPT. Do a little homework you might learn something.
December 12, 2007 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
December 12, 2007 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Assuming that the NIE is accurate, how can telling the truth reduce your credibility.
There are many reasons for the loss of US influence in the world, but they could be summarized as a loss of credibility, especially in regards to our good intentions. Without credibility, diplomacy cannot be effective with either our friends or our enemies. Anything that restores that credibility will increase our influence. Not in a day, but over time. There is no quick fix for a loss in credibility.
The NIE report is exactly the right first step and, if we can continue on course, I believe that Mr. Friedman will be proved wrong on this one.
December 12, 2007 1:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
What would prove him wrong, what would prove him right?
December 12, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Like me, if it seemed something wasn’t quite right with Friedman’s common guy persona, it helps to read this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....26164.html
Friedman married into one of the wealthiest 100 families in America. He goes to their parties, chats up what is wrong with America's economy, receives the latest spin on the neocon's version of foreign policy and then parrots their views in his columns.
Brooks, Cohen, Friedman, quite the neocon spokespeople blanketing the pages of the New York Times. It is a sign of the times when the “liberal” paper of record hires a bevy of neocon spokespeople to lead us into Iraq and make loud noises about Iran, holds back critical wiretapping information until after the 2004 election, and pines for the good ole’ days in Latin America with tyrants and death squads taught at our very own School of the Americas.
The NYT has been thumping their chest at Latin America lately. Did anybody see them apologize for their April 2002 editorial condoning the CIA back coup against a democratically elected Chavez? I missed it, all I have seen is more recent propaganda designed to pave the way for more CIA activities against Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador.
It must be hard work fro Friedman to play common man and billionaire man day in and day out. This article is more of the same spin.
December 12, 2007 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Calling Brooks, Cohen and Friedman neocons is not only inaccurate, it deprives the term of some of its opprobrium. We don't agree with them, perhaps, and they are often wrong about war and George Bush -- but that doesn't equate them with Cheney, Wolfowitz, et al.
December 12, 2007 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
When they walk like a duck and quack like duck...
Are we to believe Brook, Cohen and Friedman were spewing the neocon propaganda for the war for some other reason. Would you agree that they are mouthpieces for the neocons, just not the card carriers?
When six-more-months Friedman entertains among his fellow billionaire friends and returns to write his column that serves to perpetuate this neocon's war endlessly, I just don't know what other conclusion one could reasonably draw.
December 12, 2007 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Slightly off the point here, but speaking of the NIE and of Jewish opinion leaders -- could anyone tell me about the agenda of the "American Jewish Committee". I've posted about it before because it advertises on my local Air America radio station of all places. Today, it had a new ad denouncing the NIE as inaccurate and once again warning about the grave threat Iran poses to me out here in Minnesota.
I suppose I should be glad that the little AM America station has any advertisers at all and surely this committee is wasting its money because you could probably count on one hand the listeners who favor aggressive action towards Iran.
December 12, 2007 3:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've had a hard time taking Thomas Friedman seriously ever since his advocacy of the war in Iraq. But I have to acknowledge that there are still occasions when he's right on the money -- as he has been in urging cooperation between the U.S. and China on clean energy technologies.
That's a mighty high bar you've got there. Advocating clean energy technologies? Whoa! My head's spinning like I'm in Disneyland on the teacup ride!
In any case, I am pleased that entire grade-school classes around the world are also right on the money.
December 12, 2007 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please, let's stop adding to Google hits by mentioning TF's name. He's unimportant.
December 12, 2007 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Thomas Friedman is unimportant, a few more hits would make no diff, if Thomas Friedman is important, a few more hits would make no diff,
so it doesn't mattter if we use TF or Thomas Friedman, it wouldn't make any diff for Thomas Friedman :-)
December 12, 2007 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
The dunderheaded public roll-out of the NIE
December 12, 2007 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Given that your camp was uninterested in accepting Iranian offers before Iraq, there is no point in listening to this stuff now.
BTW, who are you quoting? I don't want to go to The New Republic(ans) site to find out.
December 12, 2007 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dennis Ross.
I don't belong to any camp. When somebody offer his opinion, should be able to evaluate it without knowing who the person is and what camp this person belongs to.
December 12, 2007 5:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, I can evaluate the opinion--it has no weight.
But if there was any information in there, a sense of the source quality would be helpful. And when the speaker has a track record of either good or bad judgement that informs our wiilingness to take the guy's word for it.
December 12, 2007 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
A very few people had a good judgement to be for the first Iraq war and against second Iraq war. Al Gore is one of very few.
December 12, 2007 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still having trouble understanding why we wink and nod at Israel having nuclear capabilities but deny their neighbors the same rights and yet stand in child-like wonder that we are viewed as hypocrites.
But beyond that simple truth, there is also Pakistan and India. We know Pakistan was caught selling nuclear technology but they are partners...
Can Iran develop a civilian nuclear program without incurring the sanctimonious wrath of the U.S.?
I don't understand how we have a shred of credibility left. The past 40 years of endless arms sales to Iran, Iraq, Israel and the rest of the Middle East and failure to enforce U.N. resolutions directed at Israel has brought us here.
At this point our NIE's are for domestic political consumption designed to further an existing agenda. I think the rest of the world understands that pretty well.
December 12, 2007 5:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am still having trouble understanding why people wink and nod at their real desires.
For example, Mythbuster wants Iran to get nuclear weapons.
You are somewhat ambiguous. On one hand, you seems to suggest that Iran have a right to have nuclear weapons, like Israel, Pakistan and India.
On another hand you just ask
Can Iran develop a civilian nuclear program without incurring the sanctimonious wrath of the U.S.?
I'm not sure if you really mean
Can Iran develop a MILITARY nuclear program without incurring the sanctimonious wrath of the U.S.?
Even harder to read William Hartung hidden agenda. He doesn't really present a good argument against THOMAS FRIEDMAN or Dennis Ross.
However, I doubt that he wants Iran to get nuclear weapons. So I'm not sure wghat to make of his post.
December 12, 2007 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stop trying oh so hard to attribute views to others that they do no hold.
December 12, 2007 9:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, Mythbuser wants the following:
1. A nuclear weapon-free ME, including Israel;
2. An end to the rule of Saudi Royal Family;
3. Free elections in Kuwait, Egypt, and Syria;
4. Drivers licences for women in Saudi Arabia (just to start with...)
5. Secular rule in Iran;
6. A truly free, secular Palestinian state; and
7. Israel to be become a real democracy, i.e., a state of all its citizens.
8. An end to any people claiming that God chose them, cares more about them than others, or has imbued them with a divine mission.
As you can see, I am a "dangerous radical".....
December 13, 2007 8:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
What a great wish list. Most of these would have been radical agenda items...in the 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries. What a pity that most are either not progressing or actually regressing to a pre-18th century level.
December 13, 2007 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, If ME will be like Western Europe, little small Israel would need nuclear weapons as much as Luxembourg need nuclear weapons or any weapons at all. I'm also sure that while Israel is a real democracy today, Israel will be a better democracy.
The question is how to get there?
December 13, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Swing and a miss. If Belgium was trying to annex Luxembourg, your analogy might be appropriate.
December 13, 2007 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Germany occupied the Luxembourg in World Wars I and II, however things have changed in Europe.
In any case, my question was how do you propose to make ME like EU?
December 13, 2007 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Frankly, I'm not all that concerned about Iran developing a nuclear weapon. Nuclear weapons are useful for two purposes: prestige and insurance against attack by the United States - that's about it.
-Without operation delivery systems (which are far more difficult to develop and build than the weapons themselves), a direct strike against the US off the table.
-Israel's own nuclear arsenal eliminates the possibility of a strike on them.
-Our non-nuclear allies in the region and throughout the world would be understood to fall under the American nuclear umbrella. The massive retaliation that would follow precludes an Iranian nuclear attack on anyone anywhere.
-The possibility of a neo-nuclear power simply giving a nuclear weapon to a terrorism group is patently absurd! Nobody, and I mean NOBODY voluntarily surrenders control of a nuke.
The bottom line is that nuclear weapons just aren't very useful instruments of policy, either military or political. For four decades, two irredeemably hostile ideologies armed with massive nuclear arsenals deployed on advanced delivery systems confronted each other through multiple crises without either side finding it in their interest to actually use the damned things. About the only thing nukes are really and truly useful for is suicide.
December 13, 2007 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
SoCal,
good post.
I personally don't care if Iran gets a nuke as I have yet to hear any convincing argument on what horror Iran would do with a nuke if they had one.
December 13, 2007 5:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
>Not to mention the chief of police
>(the United States) who has one of the largest
>stockpiles of the product in the world and is
>in the midst of building a new improved
>production facility.
Policeman with gun = religious psycho with gun. Okay, I think we're done here.
Self-appointed "policeman" with gun, i.e. an armed religous psycho vigilante with delusions that he acts under color of law when he kills for Jesus. (You can't have law without religion, as we learned from Mitt last week).
You lose. Thanks for playing.
December 12, 2007 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone's the "religious psycho with a gun" it is Israel and the Bush administration, both of which are undr the influence of apocalyptic messianism.
December 12, 2007 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
davai,
I meant can Iran develop a civilian nuclear program which is legal under existing agreements.
Also, how do you know "their real desires?"
The question is not if anyone "want Iran to get nuclear weapons." But we must be able to answer the question that if we allow Israel to have a nuclear weapon, why can't Israel's neighbors develop nuclear weapons to protect themselves. We would do that--- right?
The U.S. militarily threatens Syria, Iran, invades/occupies Iraq and passes resolutions that call the Iranian guard a "terrorist organization, in response these very small militarily insignificant countries-- in contrast to the U.S.-- must feel like they need to protect their national security.
It makes sense right? We arm Israel with the latest military technology so that Iran and Syria must feel the need to respond. Look at what happened to Lebanon. They will be cleaning up the illegal cluster bombs Israel dropped on Southern Lebanon for decades.
In that context, along with Israel's refusal to comply with existing UN resolutions, must lead their neighboring countries to feel the need to protect their national security.
From Friedman's special position he writes cover stories like the one discussed above to obscure what the rest of the world can clearly see.
December 12, 2007 8:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Iran's nuclear program IS legal.
December 12, 2007 9:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
--
Howard
*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]
December 12, 2007 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is the unrealized danger of this phony "crisis." The US, UK, and France are trying to renegotiate the NPT: We now claim it means that civilian nuclear power is a country's right--if we say so.
This is what Chomsky means when he says that the "International Community' really means the Anglo-American Community (with Sarko the American thrown in).
December 13, 2007 8:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Plus Russia and China who also voted or sanctions. So Chomsky really means Anglo-American-Russian-Chinese-Zionist conspiracy.
December 13, 2007 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Poor over-reach. They voted for meaningless sanctions on the Iranian leadership. I guess we won't see the Leader vacationing in Europe or Sochi this year. What will be interesting is whether any further sanctions will be applied in light of the NIE.
On a shallow level, you may believe the Chinese and Russians agree with us. On a deeper level, they may have just gone along with meaningless sanctions just to forestall American recklessness. We shall see....
December 13, 2007 11:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't understand your point.
You seems to suggest that Iran has good reasons to build nuclear weapons. If Iran has good reasons, it probably tries to to build nuclear weapons. You think that given bad behavior of US and Israel, Iran has every right to build nuclear weapons and attempts of US to stop it are unfair.
I don't want to argue with you, we are too far appart to agree on anything.
However, Williams wants to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons, so he is in a diffrent camp.
December 12, 2007 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I'd find it more threatening if we suddenly discovered that Iran had launched a clandestine program to pull itself out of the middle ages.
December 13, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Iran's nuclear program started in the 1960s with the full support and encouragement of the United States (link) because it makes perfect economic sense and Iran does need nuclear power.(link)
The IAEA has stated repeatedly that it has no evidence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran - not today, not in 2003, not ever.
There's absolutely no reason why anyone should accept the NIE's claim that Iran had a nuclear weapons program in 2003.
December 12, 2007 9:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
With oil at $94/barrel, Iran can't well afford not to develop alternative energy sources. Every barrel they consume is a barrel they can't sell, so they forego $94 in revenue for every barrel of oil they consume themselves.
December 13, 2007 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's inescapable that Friedman just is not a particularly intelligent person. He's a sort of blustery, well-intentioned, even possibly well-informed yokel who can't think or write his way out of a paper bag. That he has the Foreign Affairs column in the New York Times is testimony to how far the paper has fallen. He can barely write a coherent English sentence, never mind his close-to-imbecilic rantings about foreign relations.
After hearing him cheerlead Bush's invasion with absurdities like, "I'm in favor of the invasion if it can be done perfectly," it IS just silly to take anything he says seriously. And Hartung is far too polite in giving him credit for promoting US-China development of clean energy technologies. I mean, is that a no-brainer, or what? It's like coming out against littering.
Friedman is a blithering, talentless jackass and everybody is too polite to say so. He's got a rich wife. Does that mean everybody has to be nice to him or something?
December 13, 2007 2:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Long Tom said:
Not so, you just said it :-)
I agree, and as for him working for the NYT, maybe he works gratis. I put Friedman in the "Always wrong about Iraq" gang.
December 13, 2007 5:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Reminds me of when Jon Stewart interviewed Chris Matthews... Matthews was already on the ropes when he asked Stewart why he was attacking his book. And Stewart's retort was - I'm not attacking your book, I'm attacking your entire philosophy on life.
Friedman is not some shining intellectual, and this article is emblematic of his simpleton mindset. Leaving aside the poppy analogy, his grand insight here is that because the Iran NIE stated that it is likely the Iranians do not currently have a nuclear weapons program, we have no leverage negotiating with Iran.
Let me try an analogy to show what Friedman couldn't...
Imagine you are in a business where it is you or one rival who will one day succeed the CEO. You are the favorite, but the other person might have some skeleton in his closet which if it came out would absolutely guarantee that shareholders would support you.
Let's say the skeleton in the closet is that the rival had a relationship with another employee, a la Wolfowitz. Suddenly, out of the blue, this other employee comes out and says: yes, we had a relationship years ago, but since working in the same firm nothing has gone on between us. It isn't absolutely cut and dried, but most likely there is no violation of company policy (assuming this person is telling the truth).
So question: Does this revelation reduce your leverage in your quest to become CEO?
Answer: It depends in large part how you have behaved up till this point.
If you had kept shtum to date and let the facts speak for themselves, your leverage is probably enhanced.
If you had been spreading rumors you might now be seen as a scurrilous sh!tbag, your leverage is probably diminished. But even then, you are better off having this information in the open now rather than having this bombshell dropped at the apex of your fight to become the next CEO.
Overall, it's very difficult to measure the impact, and only a fool would claim to know exactly how things would play out.
The bottom line is that Tom Friedman's article argued that the hurling of false allegations is the way you enhance leverage. And it tends to prove one thing only - that Little Tommy has never been engaged in a serious negotiation in his life.
December 13, 2007 6:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bad analogy.
Having a poppy end product and using it or selling it is quite different than having a nuke and using it or selling it.
The drug dealer chances going to jail,
Iran chances annihilation. Some Iranians may be crazy, but they're not nuts.
December 13, 2007 4:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is incredibly apparent that Mr. hartung and most of the posters above have let their anger with Friedman over Iraq color their reading of him on everything. I completely disagreed with Friedman during the run-up to Iraq, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have good opinions on other things. Instead of getting hung up on an analogy that may or may not have been perfect, look at what he wrote at the end of the column:
"As I have said before, I’d rather see Iran go nuclear, and contain it, than have the Bush team start another Middle East war over this issue. But I’d much prefer a negotiated end to Iran’s enrichment. Right now there is a silly debate: Should we negotiate with Iran “conditionally” or “unconditionally” on this issue. Wrong question. The right question is should we enter such negotiations with or without leverage.
If we sit down with the Iranians without the leverage of a global coalition ready to impose tighter and tighter economic sanctions — should Iran not halt enrichment — we’ll end up holding a stuffed animal. The peculiar (obtuse?) way the N.I.E. on Iran was framed has deprived all who favor a negotiated settlement of leverage.
“It was the C.I.A. doing its job of collecting intelligence really well and presenting it really badly,” said Mr. Samore. Now we have to depend on — Oh, my God! — President Bush to persuade the world to read the whole N.I.E. and see it in a balanced perspective. As I’ve also said before: Some things are true even if George Bush believes them, but good luck getting anyone to buy that anymore."
If Mr. Hartung would get off his high-horse, he would see that Friedman is ON OUR SIDE on this issue. He doesn't want to go to war on this issue, even if it means Iran goes nuclear. Who can disagree with the idea that negotiating an end to any future nuclear ambitions by Iran is a good idea? He makes the point that this issue is hugely complicated by the complete lack of credibility of President Bush and his ilk. Do you disagree with that? Finally, the NIE could have been written in a way that defused the possibility of war, but didn't completely absolve Iran, thus keeping a tenuous foundation for convincing other nations to pressure/negotiate with Iran, rather than blowing off the issue.
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?
December 13, 2007 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
gaines_weaver makes a good point in citing the other key positions in the Friedman piece, particularly his assertion that he would not favor military action against Iran even if it had the bomb. This is major, perhaps one of the few columnists I have seen that takes this posture. However, my concern in writing the piece was that the Friedman analogy -- which distorts the current position of Iran and its nuclear program -- will give solace to hardliners who do not support diplomacy of any sort. Not because Friedman necessarily intends to -- but I fear that this will be the result nonetheless (I can hear the Iran hawks no saying something like "Even Tom Friedman agrees that Iran poses a greater danger than the NIE suggests").
So, I would say that Friedman may be on our side, but that his loopy analogy has hurt the cause. Furthermore, there are different kinds of diplomacy, and the "wratchet up sanctions" route is far less likely to achieve results than one that involves a genuine attempt at give and take.
December 13, 2007 9:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you took the looney analogy and the Quotes out of Friedman's column, what have you got left?
This: He thinks its best if Iran doesn't have a nuke, but if they do, contain them with international pressure. No military attack by the Bush gang.
Good Lord, I know a high school student that could have written that column.
December 13, 2007 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you point me to any column by any commentator with exception of Krugman that can't be written by a high school student?
December 13, 2007 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink