Iran: Negotiations Should Not Be The Last Resort
No one knows for sure if Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. But its president gives every indication that it is.
Addressing a cheering crowd in Tehran on Wednesday, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that the United States and the European Union had failed in their efforts to prevent Iran from going nuclear. "They've tried by military threats . . . and political pressure to stop [us] from our luminous path. But today they have seen that all their planning has failed. Today the Iranian nation is standing on the nuclear heights."
That does not sound like he's talking about producing electricity for air-conditioning.
I understand that Ahmadinejad does not run Iran and that his bosses, the mullahs, do. At the same time, he is president of the country. He is not irrelevant. Nor is he just a nutcase.
History has taught us the hard way that unbalanced leaders can cause the deaths of millions. In fact, the most horrific crimes against humanity have been inflicted upon the world by people as unstable as Ahmadinejad appears to be. One cannot simply laugh him off, despite the temptation to do just that.
That is why our candidates for president and our European allies are emphatic about not taking any options off the table.
Of course, when they say that, they are referring to the military option. They believe that Ahmadinejad needs to know that, under certain conditions, the U.S. government would use force to protect ourselves or our allies. That goes without saying. Obviously, the United States will do everything in its power to prevent an attack by Iran or to respond militarily should an attack take place. Still, in dealing with the likes of Ahmadinejad, there is nothing wrong with saying it.
The military option is always on the table. Just listen to the latest rhetoric emanating from the Bush administration and the Israelis.
It appears that it is the non-military option that is missing from the proverbial table.
This is a mistake.
Do we really want to wake up to the news that the United States (or Israel) has attacked Iran and that Israelis in Haifa, Tel Aviv, and Jerusalem are huddled in shelters pending Hezbollah's response? Or that the United States has returned to Code Orange because of the expectation of terrorist attacks here at home?
Before attacking another country, shouldn't we try diplomacy first?
The Bush administration argues that we have, but that is not so. In fact, the Bush administration ignored a 2003 Iranian offer to negotiate a "Grand Bargain" between the Islamic regime and the United States that would have addressed all the outstanding issues between the two countries, including WMD's, terrorism, and relations with Israel.
The idea for a "Grand Bargain" came from the Iranian regime at about the time the United States had successfully overthrown Saddam Hussein. This was before we got bogged down in Iraq, before the Iraqi insurgency coalesced, and before our Iraq policy transformed Iraq from Iran's worst enemy to Iran's Shiite ally. In other words, it was when we still held most of the cards and Iran was nervous.
According to USA Today reporter Barbara Slavin's book Bitter Friends, Bosom Enemies, the Iranian proposal was as follows. Iran would join us in the fight against al Qaeda and support stabilization efforts in Iraq. It would open its nuclear program to full international inspection. It would end its support for Hamas, disarm Hezbollah in Lebanon, and it would recognize and accept Israel.
In exchange the United States would drop its sanctions against Iran and pledge to end its pursuit of regime change.
In other words, we would get everything we want from Iran in exchange for promising, after almost three decades of rejection, to simply accept the permanence of the Iranian regime. That is little more than acknowledging that it is up to the Iranian people to implement regime change in Iran--not us.
In a PBS interview last year, Flynt Leverett, who was President Bush's Middle East Director of the National Security Council, described the 2003 offer. He said that the Iranians wanted "to resolve all of the outstanding bilateral differences between the United States and Iran. On the Iranian side, they acknowledged that they would need to be prepared to deal with our concerns about their WMD activities, their links to terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, and they said in there that they would be prepared to eliminate military support for these organizations and to work to turn Hezbollah, for example, into a purely political and social organization in Lebanon. They recognized that this would be something they would need to do as part of a rapprochement."
Leverett said that he was stunned by the breadth of the proposal. "I thought it was an extraordinary proposal, basically on a comparable scale to the kinds of representations from Zhou Enlai that were passed through Pakistan in 1971 that paved the way for Kissinger's secret trip to Beijing and then the Nixon trip to China. I thought they were proposing something on that scale of historic and strategic importance. . . ."
Leverett's superiors felt differently.
They ignored the offer. The only affirmative action the Bush administration took was to admonish the Swiss for having passed it along. A Republican Congressman did manage to brief Karl Rove about it, but that was before Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (and their neoconservative underlings) set out to ensure that the overture was ignored. After "Mission Accomplished," the Bush administration felt no need to negotiate with any member of the evil axis.
The offer disappeared without a trace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice does not deny that any of this happened. She simply says she can't "recall seeing any such thing."
It's an incredible story and, no doubt, the historians will have a field day with this missed opportunity.
Of course, we are still missing it. Although the Iraq war has significantly strengthened Iran--while significantly weakening America and Israel--the Iranians still have reason to fear us. Unless and until the United States accepts the mullahs' regime, it remains insecure and as fragile, in its own way, as the Shah's regime before it.
The tough talk from both Washington and Jerusalem--tough talk that could well be a prelude to tough action--also adds to the sense of insecurity, no matter how much bloviating we hear from Ahmadinejad. Trita Parsi, the leading American expert on Iranian-Israeli relations and the author of Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States, wrote about Iran's motivations last week in Foreign Policy. His conclusion: the Iranian government is capable of making rational decisions, never mind the rhetoric.
"When forced to choose, Tehran invariably chooses its geostrategic interests over its ideological impulses. . . . When these two pillars of Iranian foreign policy have clashed, as they did in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war, Iran's geostrategic concerns have consistently prevailed. Tehran quietly sought Israel's aid, and the Jewish state made many efforts to place Iran and the United States back on speaking terms. Faced with an invading Iraqi army and finding its U.S.-built weaponry starved of spare parts by a U.S. embargo, Tehran was in desperate need of help from Israel. Israel, in turn, was more than eager to avoid an Iraqi victory and to restore the traditional Israeli-Iranian clandestine security cooperation established under the shah, the mullahs' fierce anti-Israeli rhetoric notwithstanding."
Like China, another state built around an aggressive and paranoid ideology, Iran is not suicidal. It is pragmatic. How pragmatic can only be discovered by testing it.
The opportunity to talk is still out there.
Before initiating a war that would turn the Middle East upside down and whose results cannot be foreseen, why not explore the diplomatic option first? Shouldn't Iraq have taught us that fully exhausting alternatives to war--and not merely pretending to--is critical.
Will diplomacy work? It might. Then again, it might not.
In either case, nothing is lost by exploring every opportunity to prevent war, absolutely nothing. Pursuing negotiations, even if they fail, would build international support for any action we might be forced to take.
Yes, all options must be on the table. Shouldn't it be war, and not diplomacy, that is our last resort?
Comments (59)
"Obviously, the United States will do everything in its power to prevent an attack by Iran or to respond militarily should an attack take place."
They are going to attack Iowa!!!! And to think the National Guard is busy in Iraq or fighting the flood.
Maybe what we really need are real allies, you know the kind that would fight to defend Iowa (bring sandbags). Until we find some of those, I suggest we put off the war. Besides, the Iranians are going to have a heck of time invading Des Moines with I80 closed.
Anyway, that's the real threat out here, and if you see the National Guard over there in Iraq, send them home. They're needed where they can do some good.
June 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
While a minor thesis of your post, the back channel proposal to assist the US occurred, as I remember it, in an attempt by moderate Iranian mullahs to stop Ahmadinejad and his wingnuts from winning an upcoming election. Well, he did win big time because the mullahs couldn’t show any progress in dealing with international diplomacy. Once again, “mission accomplished” for Bushco.
June 14, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bush has given Iran every reason to develop 'the bomb' so we don't attack them and hang whoever we want-North Korea gets food aid and oil, 1/4 of Pakistan is a virtual Taleban/al Qeada playground - and we would never think of 'regime change' in those locales as they have 'the bomb'.
Additionally, experts have warned any nuclear program could only be halted for sure with an occupation of Iran, and after 6 years we haven't secured either Iraq or Afghanistan. The bottom line is Israel is just as safe if Iran gets nukes as the US has been with Russia and China having nukes, due to the concept of mutual assured destruction.
June 14, 2008 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ,
I dont think any rational person is concerned that Iran is going to attack us. So I am glad that you think we should be using diplomacy. But isn't your tone a wee bit alarmist? Seriously this piece reads if we are on the edge of nuclear war. This is the BS Tom Friedman line that we are now in the midst of a new cold war.
Let's get serious. Iran is not our friend, that's for sure. Implacable foe bent on destroying us? Not at all. C'mon.
June 14, 2008 3:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's not really about the possibility of Iran attacking the U.S. It's all about stability in the Middle East because of the oil there, and it's not just the U.S. that's interested in that, as oil is a global problem. Iran having the bomb is a threat to some in Israel and to some in Sunni states in the region. You can make an argument to them or make an argument that the world should get agnostic about Mideast stability, and say screw all the oil. But really, the argument that the U.S. should or should not be scared of direct nuke attack from Iran is just diversionary from the real reason there is concern. It's diversionary no matter which side uses it, as far as I am concerned. You're right that thinking that is not reality-based, but that doesn't change the problem of stability in the Mideast and whether Iran nukes are good or bad for that in the least. Just because some idiots in the U.S. fall for the idea that Iran would hit the U.S. with nukes doesn't mean there's not a serious problem.
June 14, 2008 6:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the problem is genuinely serious, we'll have allies willing to make tangible contributions. It's long past time the American taxpayer and the American soldier paid the only price for stability in the middle east or anywhere else.
June 14, 2008 7:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
But if it's about balance of power within the region, how many nukes can Israel amass before things are unstable? Do we know how many they have now- three, thirty, three hundred or more? Should there be an effort to at least slow down their production of nukes (or even admit they have them)? If Israel has five hundred nukes right now, not unlikely, and Iran may possibly build one in ten years or so, is that a serious threat to stability? Or is it only cause them Iranians is a bunch of craaaazy A-rabs?
June 15, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadinajad is a hack politician, like Bush, who will likely be out of office before Iran gets much closer to a nuclear weapon. Isn't ten years the timeline that's been suggested for their WMD? His domain is domestic policy i.e. the Iranian economy - which is tanking - not foreign policy, which is in the hands of the mullahs. One would hope for cooler heads and time, rather than the aggression and pissing contest between the two idiots who are Presidents of these respective countries. Our President is easily goaded by the likes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez, and if he wants to take it personally, fine, but he should leave us out of it!
June 14, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahmadinajad is a hack politician, like Bush, who will likely be out of office before Iran gets much closer to a nuclear weapon. Isn't ten years the timeline that's been suggested for their WMD? His domain is domestic policy i.e. the Iranian economy - which is tanking - not foreign policy, which is in the hands of the mullahs. One would hope for cooler heads and time, rather than the aggression and pissing contest between the two idiots who are Presidents of these respective countries. Our President is easily goaded by the likes of Ahmadinejad and Chavez, and if he wants to take it personally, fine, but he should leave us out of it!
June 14, 2008 6:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Stability in the Middle East is not our government's goal. If that had been the goal we would not have attacked Iraq. Money is the goal. Money that can be made by the oil companies who run the oil production in Iraq, money that is being made by our armaments industry providing material for the Iraq fiasco, money that is being made by the mercenaries we hire to play soldier for us there, money that will be made by the corporations who get to rebuild Iraq, etc. Money trumps stability any day.
June 14, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
gotta have a bogeyman to make money hoppy!
June 15, 2008 1:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
hoppy,
I agree. And the reason for all the bases the Bush gang wants in Iraq is to send a subtle message to the world that our military is sitting on top of that middle east oil, so they better "watch what they say", as Ari Fleischer might put it.
June 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Another philander runs for POTUS, IT'S TRUE!
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x5qzz9_mccains-exwife-speaks-up_news
June 14, 2008 8:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ: “That does not sound like he's talking about producing electricity for air-conditioning.”
It sounds like air conditioning to me. Even our politicized Intelligence Community has had to admit that Iran has no nuke program and couldn’t possibly build one in less than ten-fifteen years. They have not attacked another country (as US and Israel often do). Do we have to aid the neocons by insinuating that Iran is an imminent threat?
June 14, 2008 8:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
The situation now is much more in Iran's favor than it was in 2003. Iran enjoys a new strength in the ME, most noticeably in Iraq, Lebanon and Gaza. Iran's legal nuclear program is open to full international inspection (the IAEA says it is not diverting) and it aided th US in toppling the Taliban, nevertheless it continues to be subjected to a virtual state of war from the US.
The US position is that the US is the big dog in the ME and Iran should kow-tow to the Anglo-Americans just as it did under the Shah. This position was stated by Nicholas Burns, the recently departed Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs, and the chief US "diplomat" to Iran: "Iran needs to learn to respect us," he said. "And Iran certainly needs to respect American power in the Middle East."
Well Iran doesn't need us any more. It has powerful new friends to its north and east. So why should Iran negotiate with the US? Because they will be attacked if they don't? Iran is not defenseless. They are not the usual US pushover. Iran has the capability to put a major hurt on the US Fifth Fleet and on the US troops in Iraq, to say nothing of energy supplies.
June 14, 2008 10:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
You have to wonder if the nutty neocons have ever played a game. One of their grander delusions is that the US has the only moves in the game.
June 15, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, if we take ourselves back to that glorious yesteryear of 2003, we would not have gotten everything we wanted. We (that is to say, the Bush regime) wanted to implement regime change. Iran didn't represent a different course of possible action than Iraq. Iran was "next".
I don't think it is possible to get the Bushies to consider more than giving lip service to the diplomatic option. It is not in their interest. They have too much invested in their plans for world domination. Attacking Iran is the only way for them to keep that dream alive.
That is not to say that the Bushies are going to be able to get away with it.
The only thing we (that is to say, the rest of us, the saner community of Americans who are not Bush, Cheney, Rice, and their regime) can do is to forestall an attack on Iran until the Democrats are in the White House, and to hope that the Iranians are wise enough to forestall any stupid choices of their own in the meantime. After all, if the Iranians are as pragmatic as Trita Parsi says they are, they are keeping an eye on the possibility that an Obama administration would be willing to talk with them, and that Obama has a very good chance of winning the election.
June 15, 2008 8:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
It seems to me that the real threat posed by a nuclear-ARMED Iran is political, not military. If Iran has nuclear arms will they use them? Against whom? Clearly we are talking of Israel. Given Israel's overwhelming nuclear arsenal would Iran attack. Only if we
ascribe to the "who knows what a crazy leadership will do. and anyway look at his hateful words." This is a version of the argument that has been used in recent time against Assad, Saddam, Kim il Jong, Chavez, Castro, Qaddafi, Noriega, Brezhnev,... Of course, truly crazy people DO crazy things at times. Look at Bush. But our resident psychoanalysts in the White House need so much help themselves, that we dare not trust their prognoses. The real threat it seems to me is the political threat to Israel. In the end, the resolution of the Iran threat and many future threats to come is movement towards Israeli-Palestinian settlement. And serious movement towards non-proliferation which really requires serious movement towards nuclear disarmament by the nuclear powers and that means serious American attention toward disarmament.
June 15, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
@VLaszlo
Psychoanalytic explanations of political acts and figures has always been a terrible idea. In fact, psychoanalytic explanations of anything are a terrible idea.
The Iranian idea is that it's worth paying a heavy price to destroy Israel. It would be a relatively easy thing to do if one possessed 2-5 good sized atomic weapons. How would Israel retaliate? By destroying Teheran, Mecca, Baghdad? Not good enough. Not even nearly so.
So it doesn't sound like a crazy idea at all.
However, if Israel targeted the Saudi, Iraqi, and Arab emirate oil fields, and maybe Moscow and London or Paris... Now that would be a threat everyone would take seriously.
June 15, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ offensivetoyou
Thanks for your comment. I do not agree. You elevate the possible to the definite and in the process you and your co-thinkers, through your unjustified aggression, cause infinite misery. In the end, Israel and the rest of the world are subject to the misery and grief caused by your ultranationalistic shortsightedness. We have already seen the wisdom of the Likudnik-rightwing view in "freeing" Gilad Shalit. Your wisdom led to a disaster. For Israel. For Lebanon. For Israeli-Palestinian relations. For Gilad Shalit. Perhaps you don't give a shit about Shalit. Perhaps, he is just a pawn for you. With all the analysis you and the rightwing ultranationalistic Israel lobby have done, you certainly have accomplished precious little.
June 15, 2008 8:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
@VLaszlo
I take back my generalizations about psychoanalysis. You're clearly nuts and could use help. Don't you realize that I'm just an old guy sitting in front of a computer somewhere who has no power and never had any? Nor are your ridiculous, unfocused rants any better. Seek help.
June 15, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ says;
"The offer disappeared without a trace. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice does not deny that any of this happened. She simply says she can't "recall seeing any such thing."
Condi Rice, Christ, its not only Bush/Cheney we shortly get to say goodbye and good riddance to, its this completely incompetent, irresponsible example of window dressing that will go with them.
Good Lord, a thought just occurred to me; she will probably write a book. Regnery will no doubt be the publisher.
June 15, 2008 10:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
So Iran, when forced to chose, prefers survival over ideology. How novel. Reminds me of the Hitler-Stalin pact.
Ahmadinejad and others are on record as wanting the destruction of Israel so badly that they are willing to pay a terrible price. What good is retaliation against such an enemy? If another 6 million are destroyed will justice be served if6 or 10 or 15 million Iranians are subsequently killed?
The offer the Iranians supposedly made in 2003 is simply not believable for any number of reasons.
June 15, 2008 11:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't we compare the current situation Iran faces with Israel to the other situations they faced before they attacked other nations. I'll let you start by listing those nations, and I will then give you my analysis of how those situations are the same or different from todays. Take your time making that list. I know such an extensive list takes lots of research.
June 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
@hoppy
June 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry for the bad HTML. I omitted a closing blockquote.
June 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not to mention logic...
June 16, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
from Tom Paine's Journal
So, in this case, it was not Iran which was being dishonent, it was Rosenberg. I should have known. Iran was offering Israel recognition if, and only if, it withdrew entirely behind its 1967 borders. Some offer.
Did Rosenberg know that this was what Iran was offering in its "Grand Bargain"? Of course he did. He's not very smart, but he's smart enough to have done the most basic research. His fault is that he has no integrity, he's dishonest to the core.
June 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
The US overthrow of the Iranian government in 1953 and installation of the Shah with his secret police and terror to maintain control and deny democracy are reasons enough for Iran to hate the US and distrust us forever. The US has NO legitimate business being involved in the Middle East at all!! NONE! Our illegal use of force and terror there to maintain power and later to protect Israel who also has no legitimate right to be there are the reasons for almost ALL of the problems there now. Hopefully Iran will be able to attract allies who will help them to defend themselves against Israel and the US its lapdog. Hopefully Iran will get nuclear weapons and delivery systems that will deter Israel and the US from attacking and threatening them. Iranian political support for the Palestinian cause may make a just peace possible there. THAT is why Israel regards Iran as a threat, because Israel does NOT want a just peace in Palestine they want a victorious peace, we used to call it a Roman peace but now it would be called an Israeli peace.
June 15, 2008 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
@johnsang
I'm sure you're the kind of turd who would pass out sweets if Israel and all its Jews were extirminated while claiming justice was served at last.
Don't you realize that the justifications you advance can be mobilized in the service of almost any group or interest? That humans of all groups have participated in unspeakable cruelties both as perpetrators and victims? That the fight for survival is harsh indeed?
No. Of course not, you self-righteous ignoramous.
June 15, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
@johnsang
That being the case the ONLY just peace is one which removes it, destroys it, kills or deports its Jewish citizens.
You're so stupid you can't even see that's what you're saying (and expect others to be equally blind) so that Israel can be blamed for not agreeing to a "just" peace.
If there were any justice you and your kind would be on trial for advocating genocide.
June 15, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear offensivetoyou, the truth is Israel under its present leadership is offensive to me. The hard fearful zionist desperation that you display is offensive to me. Your lack of caring about anybody but Jews is offensive to me. I don't give a shit if Israel survives or not, it would be great if there could be an equal peace between the jews and arabs of Palestine and the two cultures could live in peace together, but I doubt it will happen. Would I cry if Tel Aviv was wiped out by some kind of attack? No, I would feel like they got what they sowed. I want peace in the Middle East with justice for all. The zionists of Israel in trying to create a place for themselves in the world to escape from their paranoia and fear have created a place of paranoia and fear for the whole world. I want this to stop! I seriously doubt that Israel will accept peace on any terms but their own. This won't work. Therefore Israel should disband, dissolve for the sake of world peace. The zionist lies and manipulations and conspiracies are becoming very evident to many people and hopefully they will backfire on your kind very soon.
June 16, 2008 8:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
@johnsang, all
So I nailed you, didn't I?
You're a filthy anti-semite whose idea of justice for all is the destruction of the Jewish state (at a minimum) so that you and your friends can have a little peace....
...and not a word of complaint from the rest of the lefty scum. Hard to deny this reality. Hey Rosenberg, are you paying attention?
June 16, 2008 9:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Do any international relations analysts here consider the US and its allies' reaction decades ago when it became clear that China was about to become a nuclear power? Hysterical, adamant `this cannot be allowed to happen` rhetoric. A nuclear China was doomsday stuff - the bomb in the hands of these hostile commies who hate us and are bent on world dominance?...
Then India. Then Pakistan. And nobody even bothers nowadays to talk about the shocking inadequacy of their nuclear command and control.
If you accept (how could you not?) that fundamentally international relations is still a function of balance of power relations: shifts, new equilibria, why the hell would anyone expect Iran and the Arab states to forever meekly acquiese in a status quo where Israel, backed by the US, is the only regional nuclear power?
So... Iran achieves nuclear power status? So what? What *really* would have changed?
MAD goes on. Deterrence continues. The world is still in the hands of bullies - there's just one more on the block. So the hell what?
Yes I know the response. The extant bullies are
not mad Islamic fundamentalists who would consider a righteous early entrance to Paradise for all their people a reward, not a virtue.
It's a junk argument. Neither are the mullahs.
All the dangers that attach to Iran going nuclear already attach to the powers that already are.
What people need to answer is the basic question: why the hell should the region be asked to accept a status quo that only one of its players - the one least like the rest of the region - be expected to continue to be the only regional nuclear power?
And no, I don't *want* Iran to go nuclear. I just don't accept that the prospect of it doing so is worth yet another bloody war where, yet again, it is innocent civilians that get slaughtered, butchered and rendered homeless - the rest of the international community takes not a blind bit of notice of their plight and simply wrings its hands over the financial cost to *them* and the *relatively* minimal cost to them in treasure.
Never in any of the blogs does one see in reference to the cost of the Iraqi war mention of anything other than US military deaths and the US deficit. The millions of refugees, almost a million civilian deaths, over 700,000 wounded, are supremely irrelevant in the national psyches of the West. The only people who ever mention them are left wing international correspondents and they are ignored by the MSM.
How does the West actually stop Iran becoming a nuclear power if it is determined to do so? The mullahs learned from Israel's previous bombing of its nuclear plant. So now the idea of a simple surgical strike is gone.
Am I the only one who thinks this whole debate is an irrelevancy? That there are so many more issues that actually matter? Like feeding people? Like actually taking on a global economic system where so much capital is now diverted away from actual production that involves real jobs to yuppie get-rich-quick self-centred jerks speculating on the overnight markets?
June 15, 2008 6:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ fran
The trouble is its not a junk argument.
Even if I agreed that Muslims are just like everyone else, proliferation is a terrible idea. But I don't agree, which makes it much, much worse.
June 15, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you admit you're a bigot?
June 16, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
@OldGrouch
Is it your contention that all people are the same, all religions are the same, all cultures are the same, all histories are the same?
June 16, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Religions? Yes, in that they are all false attempts to explain the unknowable.
Histories? No.
People? This one requires an answer complex enough to frustrate someone like you, who begs for the simplistic in order to promulgate your appalling worldview. Shorter answer, specifically for you: Alike enough to make the similarities far outweigh the differences, at every level from the genetic to the aspirational.
June 16, 2008 3:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
@the old grouch
So its your contention that there are no important differences between the Aztec religion of human sacrifice and the Quaker religion of Peace...or between Albert Einstein the half of the population which has an IQ below 100 or the quarter with one below 85?
There are the makings of a real discussion over how to differentiate between important human differences and bigotry. Too bad you're not smart enough to participate.
June 17, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
And you're still a bigot.
June 16, 2008 3:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
You lose points for playing the "bigot" card and stifling our Valuable Debate.
June 17, 2008 8:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's diplo-speak for, "No comment."
But I fear the MSM would report it as a denial. Fox certainly would.
Feh.
June 15, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me see if I've got this straight. Israel, a non-signer of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty (NPT), has developed 100-300 nuclear missiles and has threatened Iran with attack. Israel has not admitted that it has nuclear weapons, and won't allow any international inspections.
The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons, and it also has threatened Iran with attack because Iran supports enemies of Israel, people who resist Israeli expansionism.
Iran has a nuclear-enrichment program for civilian purposes, as allowed by the NPT which it has signed, and is under full IAEA inspection. The IAEA has found no diversion of enriched uranium and has found no evidence of a nuiclear weapons program.
Given these facts, the US and Israel are claiming that Iran is a threat (laughter). I'm serious! And so the US and Israel are not taking any options off the table. The US will use force if Iran doesn't quit enriching uranium. Iran bad, Israel good.
The alternate to war is -- diplomacy! Diplomacy means that Iran must stop what it is legally entitled to do, and then it will be welcomed back into the arms of western exploitation, friends again with the countries who are now threatening to attack it. Iran doesn't go for this scenario. Doh. Iran has other friends now, and doesn't need the kind of "diplomacy" that means surrender to bullies.
June 16, 2008 1:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
"The United States has thousands of nuclear weapons, and it also has threatened Iran with attack because Iran supports enemies of Israel, people who resist Israeli expansionism."
A tad bit oversimplified, but still good points.
Hezbollah and Hamas have committed themselves to Israel's destruction, NOT because it's expansionist, but because it is.
I have heard neither group say, "Israel needs to stay within its borders." Both groups say that Israel needs to stop existing.
Iran too has said the same things, however misinterpreted they may or may not have been.
If Iran wants Israel to stop threatening it, they should stop using threatening language toward Israel. That should be easy. No need to dismantle settlements. No need to deal with political blowback. All they need to do is stop saying those things and say that Israel has a right to exist however she self determines (just like the Iranian regime wants for itself). That should be easy. Israel is not seeking regime change in Iran for "democracy's sake," though Iran does call for regime change in Israel--either that, or the wholesale dismantling of the state.
Maybe you support that point of view, but you can probably understand why it makes the Israelis nervous. It was exactly this sort of eventuality that caused them to develop nukes in the first place.
While it's frequently pointed out that Iran has never invaded another country and Israel has, it should also be pointed out that Israel has been attacked at least twice and with the strong possibility they would have been on a third occasion. It's also true that Israel was founded by a people whose numbers were reduced by at least one third in the space of a few years and who have been joined by many others who suffered oppression and second-class citizenship in countries where, by rights, they should have been considered "indigenous" to those countries. And this people, the Jewish people, were not all that numerous to begin with--in part because they didn't go around zealously trying to convert others at the point of a gun or with the threat of eternal damnation. They were actually pretty content to mind their own business and participate in the general society.
I point all this out not to play the "holocaust card," but to make this rather simple point: People often say, "Why wouldn't Iran want to arm themselves with nukes. The US and Israel are threatening them." Well, with the recent history of the Jews and Israel behind them, why wouldn't Israel be worried about a country whose leaders (and proxies) may or may not be threatening to wipe them off the map and whose description of said country might provide the justification? There is a sense of vulnerability on both sides and with plausible causes.
June 16, 2008 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
June 16, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks to the 'self-righteous ignoramous scum' (to use OTY's colorful lingo) in the Bush administration and their 'self-righteous ignoramous scum' supporters and enablers, Iran now has unprecedented influence and access to power in Iraq since the USA handed the country over to the SCIRI party, the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq.
Iran had Iraq handed to them on a platter without the need for an invasion.
June 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
@NobleCommentDecider
You're right. Iran's influence in Iraq has grown tremendously as a result of our actions. So what?
We're fighting a war and things like this often happen in wartime. One might still argue that our actions against Nazi Germany are what enabled the Soviet Union. Many on the Right made just that argument at the time.
June 16, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Congratulations. This is perhaps the stupidest thing I've ever read on TPM.
You are clearly as ignorant of history as you are of modern geopolitics.
June 16, 2008 1:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
@jonsnow
How so?
June 16, 2008 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
@ jonsnow
This is a good working description of the legal status of an embassy
Naturally there have been violations
Do you have anything substantial to add...or are you just a blowhard?
June 16, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because the embassy seizure was planned and carried out by student activists without permission from or knowledge of the actual Iranian government. Do I really need to point out why claiming that this was an "attack" on America by the nation of Iran is so egregiously dishonest as to be laughable in the idiocy required to either advance or believe such a proposition?
Read a fucking book every once in a while. Mark Bowden's would be a good place to start remedying your ignorance.
June 16, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Because, as is usual among Lefties these days, you're wrong and mistake half-assed propaganda for truth.
Khomeini did not initially plan or authorize the student take-over but they informed him after the fact and he approved, and thus made the nation of Iran party to the action. Need I point out that he could have disapproved?
Now, how about an apology?
June 16, 2008 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, you're just a troll. You could have saved me the trouble of responding in the first place by making this clear from the outset.
No, actually, foreign minister Ibrahim Yazdi informed Khomeini about it and Khomeini told him to "Go and kick them out". He changed positions after the fact once the popularity of the takeover in the Islamic Street was clear.
As I said, read a fucking book once in a while. Offering support for the independent actions of individual citizens after the fact isn't an Iranian attack on America, no matter what mental gymnastics you try to perform in order to frame it as such.
June 16, 2008 2:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
JonSnow,
Offensivetoyou makes an argument you disagree with. That is not trolling. Name-calling in lieu of a rebuttal argument is the Gingrich ethic. Don't be so lazy, and stop giving "lefties" a bad name.
June 17, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
@jon snow
Sorry. The fact that the action was popular does not make it less of an attack. Au contraire. It makes it very clearly an attack of the Iranian nation which the its government was powerless to overturn.
Further, in my original post, I made it clear that this was the lesser of the Iranian attacks on a foreign nation. You could have chosen to dispute the more serious charge that Iran attempted to seize the Shiite parts of Iraq...but you didn't.
June 17, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
@jon snow
Since I don't believe assholes like you are capable of reading or understanding anything I took the trouble of looking at the Wikipedia article on Ibrahim Yazdi. From that article
So. Tell us what [comic] book supplies you with your wisdom?
June 17, 2008 5:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, he made a blanket statement about "Lefties", assumed I was one, and spectacularly failed in his attempt to be dismissive in doing so. He's a troll for asserting that I must be a "Leftie" that has been brainwashed by "propaganda" because I disagree with his laughably incompetent grasp of the facts.
Not everyone that posts on this blog is a "leftie" or cares to be counted as such. I could no more give "lefties" a bad name than do the same to Maoris or carpenters. I speak for myself and myself only. offensivetoyou is a troll and an idiot, and should at least be arsed enough to learn about something in depth before feeling the need to expound upon it.
June 17, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Where is any similar flavor of outrage for comments like,
We sure know how to be very selective about our accusations of trolling, bigotry and ignorant self-righteous indignation here in the Cafe, don't we?
June 17, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't give anti-Semites the time of day, much less feed their egos by responding to them or quoting them.
And who the fuck are you to judge what I choose to comment on? This is a transparent attempt to change the subject after you've been embarrassed by defending an idiot. Go harp on someone that might actually give a damn about your complaints.
June 17, 2008 1:47 PM | Reply | Permalink