"Loose Lips" Biden Strikes Again
If anyone abetted Iranians' brave, breathtaking defiance of the anti-republican rot in the "Islamic Republic" of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei last month, it was Barack Obama. George W. Bush had strengthened that regime by offending Iranians' national pride. Obama weakened it with his March 19 Persian New Year address and his June 4 Cairo speech, eight days before Iran's elections.
"The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations," he said on March 19, "but it comes with real responsibilities, and that place cannot be reached through terror or arms, but rather through peaceful actions that demonstrate the true greatness of the Iranian people and civilization."
Enough Iranians took him up on this to remind the world that sometimes America's strength lies more in its civic depth than in its armed might. As Turkish scholar Ibrahim Kalin put it, "People see in [Obama - and, I'd add, in our 2008 election] something they would like to see in their own leaders, and that, in itself, creates huge expectations." Those expectations are still rising: Yesterday, major Iranian clerics called the election and the regime "illegitimate."
But now comes Joe Biden, raising different expectations.
Today on ABC's "This Week," Obama's vice president called the president's responses to Iran "pitch-perfect," but then he added that we wouldn't block an Israeli attack on Iran's nuclear program. "Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else," he said, answering a question from George Stephanopoulos.
Biden spoke truisms. But why speak them at all, if that will help the regime in Iran to rally support, as Bush & Co. helped it to do?
You can read the standard neocon line on this sort of diplomatic dilemma in a New Republic post by Nader Mousavizadeh, of the International Institute for Strategic Studies. He sounds like Ahmed Chalabi, the would-be liberator of Iraq who had been in exile a bit too long to be credible in his claims about what a stronger American hand would accomplish.
Mousavizadeh, who makes sure to inform us that his grandfather was a justice of the Iranian Supreme Court under the Shah, does not bring himself to say what, exactly, Obama should do to take a stronger hand, but he accuses him of having been rolled by the thugatollahs. That is also being said by many others who've shown us repeatedly and disastrously that they don't really understand American strengths or how to manage them. The question is why Biden threw them a crumb and Khamenei a new lease on life.
For a much richer, more nuanced report on what is actually happening inside Iran now and on how and how not to respond to these developments, read Mahmood Delkasteh in OpenDemocracy.
I can't vouch for Delkasteh's claim to have participated in the 1979 revolution, but his stunning piece also links an Open Democracy symposium and other commentaries published there on Iran that are among the very best I've found. Here is a website that has earned its distinction because its contributors believe in democracy intelligently, not ideologically, opportunistically, or in terms of Wilsonian power-wielding that so often asphyxiates the democratic power it claims to promote.
Biden is an experienced foreign-policy operator who should understand when to hint at the military option and when not. But maybe he's not yet used to being Vice President of the United States rather than one of a hundred senators. Someone should have him read Delkasteh before he opens his mouth again on Iran.
What is wrong with Biden stating that we are not Israel, nor are we in control of it? We can't legally "block" Israel from doing whatever lame-brained thing they want to do.
If they do make an attempt at starting World War III by attacking Iran, why not put it out there that we are not on board?
I may have missed the memo, but what exactly is wrong with what Joe Biden said?
"Biden spoke truisms, but why speak them?" So much better to speak BULLSHIT, EH?
And maybe you should understand that what Biden said was NOT a "hint" at the military option.
Let me repeat: The United States of America is NOT Israel.
A very important concept for all to grasp, if even at this late date.
July 5, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille - the choice is not between speaking truisms and speaking bullshit, but between speaking and not speaking. Here, Biden's comments may offer the Iranian hard liners ammunition to aim at their adversaries seeking freedom, simply because it links America's condemnation of the hardliners with acquiesence in a putative Israeli attack against Iran. That can't help the Iranian protestors, the U.S., or for that matter Israel. It would have been better, I believe, merely to state that we support the legitimate aspirations of the Iranian people, but we are troubled by nuclear weapons proliferation in the Middle East. That kind of formulaic, uninformative response is often the best kind in circumstances such as these.
July 5, 2009 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think what you want has been aptly demonstrated by your blogs, so your desire to have Biden keep silent is somewhat tainted by your obvious tilt towards whatever Israel wants...
July 5, 2009 7:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
I should say here, at the top, what I've just said near the bottom of this thread, in response to another commenter:
Preventing Iran from acquiring "the bomb" is the right end-game here. The Middle East must not go nuclear, and Israel (and Pakistan) are bad enough. As far as I can see, Iran's dismal history since WW I suggests that its best hope, and he region's, lies in its further democratization. And one must say this with no illusions about what democracy sometimes brings.
History doesn't have to repeat itself. All creditable accounts I've read and heard tend to reinforce the gist of the OpenDemocracy article I linked.
It's true that Iranians are nationalistic and that democratization can be a wild card, unleashing demagogues of all kinds. But it seems to me that the widespread and deepening disillusionment with Ahmadenijad's and Khamenei's kind of demagoguery is a good sign, and that Obama has had more than a little to do with it, as I mention above. Therefore we (not just Joe Biden) should be very, very wary of doing anything that gives the regime a chance to re-unite the populace behind it against an outside threat. A military attack would surely do that, so it really does have to be a very last resort.
July 7, 2009 4:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
CVille buy a map. Or check out the one in this post.
http://angrybear.blogspot.com/2009/06/trace-bombing-route-from-israel-to-iran.html
And then review the very detailed study by Anthony Cordesman and Abdullah Toukan
http://csis.org/files/media/csis/pubs/090316_israelistrikeiran.pdf
Study on a Possible Israeli Strike on Iran’s Nuclear Development Facilities
Israel cannot strike Iran without active complicity by the United States Air Force. Or alternately NATO ally Turkey. Period. Dead stop. Conceivably they could get a strike force on target without overt help but they simply cannot extract their planes without refueling support from the U.S., at a minimum in allowing Israeli refueling planes spend several hours in US or Turkish controlled air space. IT CAN'T BE DONE.
The Israeli's know this, and more importantly the Iranians know this. My only hope is that Jones, Gates and Mullen know it too. Maybe Biden doesn't understand things like air range but knowingly or not he is signaling that it is possible that the United States will allow Israel to launch a preventive war in violation of every world treaty obligation either Israel or the United States has.
An air attack on Iran with active U.S. assistance either in refueling or protecting Israeli aircraft from Iranian counterattack would be an act of war by the U.S. on Iran. Neo-con loons like Perle and Ledeen understand this, a war between Iran and the United States is a feature and not a bug of their plans, but certain elements of the Democratic Party including our V.P. need to let go of their Inner Likudnik and re-learn the difference between the national security of the United States and Bibi's odds for keeping his party in control of the Knesset.
Emphasizing Israel's sovreignity in this way isn't even as subtle as a dog whistle, Biden is blowing a klaxon loud enough to be heard in Tehran, and apparently by design.
July 6, 2009 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Catastrophizing is what I call the leap from Israel can do what it wants, it is sovereign, to, if Israel wants to to something we will help. If Israel needs the US or Turkey to get to Iran, there is nothing in Biden's actual words to support we would support Israel in that effort. Biden said, they are on their own. He was acknowledging their free will. It was a sign of respect, nothing more. If this was a burning ember, maybe you could fan it into a flame, but this is not even flammable despite the gas you wish to pour on it.
July 6, 2009 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
CVille Dem,
Every country in the world is a sovereign country, and therefore has the "rights" of a sovereign country. But that has never stopped the United States from expressing many strong opinions over the years about what other countries should or should not do. And in some cases, the United States has also made a point of insisting on our sovereign rights to take actions in the pursuit of our interests that will encourage these other sovereign nations to behave in the ways we would like to see them behave. Biden was given the opportunity to comment not just on Israel's abstract rights as a sovereign nation, but also on the US position on the desirability of an Israeli strike. Why didn't he say more, instead of stopping at what many in the region are now interpreting as a green light.
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/05/say_it_aint_so_joe#comments
There is also the question of just how far a country's sovereign rights of self-defense extend. Iran, by all accounts, has at present no nuclear weapons. So at this point an Israeli strike on Iran would be an unprovoked preventive - not preemptive - attack. So are we to assume that it is the US position that such assaults are justified?
July 5, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
pre⋅emp⋅tive
/priˈɛmptɪv/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pree-emp-tiv] Show IPA
Use preemptive in a Sentence
–adjective
1. of or pertaining to preemption.
2. taken as a measure against something possible, anticipated, or feared; PREVENTIVE; deterrent: a preemptive tactic against a ruthless business rival.
July 6, 2009 7:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quick Wiki:
Preventive war aims to forestall a shift in the balance of power[1] by strategically attacking before the balance of power has a chance to shift in the direction of the adversary. Preventive war is distinct from preemptive war, which is first strike when an attack is imminent.[1]
July 6, 2009 11:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Walt tortuously splits hairs in these definitions. Using Walt's definition the Bush/Cheney fiasco in Iraq was a preventive war.
July 7, 2009 7:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Furthermore;
Jump to: navigation, search
In political rhetoric "preemptive war" may also be used to refer to preventive war
Preemptive war (or a preemptive strike) is waged in an attempt to repel or defeat a perceived inevitable offensive or invasion, or to gain a strategic advantage in an impending (allegedly unavoidable) war before that threat materializes. Preemptive war is often confused with the term preventive war. While the latter is generally considered to violate international law, and to fall short of the requirements of a just war, preemptive wars are more often argued to be justified or justifiable (although international law categorically rejects Preemptive war).[citation needed]
Beauty, it seems, is not all that is left to the eye of the beholder.
July 7, 2009 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, Bush confused the terms himself initially, but was quickly corrected by his handlers. From Chomsky (2002):
The grand strategy authorises the US to carry out preventive war: preventive, not pre-emptive. Whatever the justifications for pre-emptive war might be, they do not hold for preventive war, particularly as that concept is interpreted by its current enthusiasts: the use of military force to eliminate an invented or imagined threat, so that even the term "preventive" is too charitable. Preventive war is, very simply, the supreme crime that was condemned at Nuremberg.
July 7, 2009 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
OK, so all three of you are smarter than the Vice President. Sadly we have no standing to lecture any nation about "preventive," "preemptive," or for that matter, "testosterone induced" invasion.
If we really had only our own interests in mind rather than who is paying for our elections:
We would stop automatically taking the Israeli side in the Middle East conflict.
We would divert all that money towards our own infrastructure and the good of our country
We would have single-payer health care.
I would go on, but I'm sure I'll have enough trouble with the brick-bats coming my way from what I've already said.
July 5, 2009 6:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Sadly we have no standing to lecture any nation about "preventive," "preemptive," or for that matter, "testosterone induced" invasion"
We may have no MORAL standing. But we certainly have a LEGAL standing. Any preventive war launched on a signator of the UN Treaty is legally a war on all. And as a permanent member of the UN Security Council the United States has a positive duty to act in a way that at a minimum discourages illegal wars. And as the supplier of much of Israel's war machine that goes double.
Yes Bush squandered most of what world standing the U.S. had. That doesn't mean we should let ourselves our our ally act like we or it were North Korea and not bound by international law and treaty obligations.
July 6, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Rec'd for the comments and on behalf of Uncle Joe.
July 5, 2009 6:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
While our very intelligent VP is on occasion too forthcoming and sometimes puts his foot in his mouth, I do not think this occasion represents either.
July 5, 2009 7:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agree
July 5, 2009 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we can all agree that in the diplomacy, not to mention in Iranian culture, which has some very distinctive ways of conveying meanings by saying the opposite of what it meant, a U.S. Vice President's statement that Israel (which depends on us almost entirely for its armaments) is a sovereign country and that it can do whatever it wants, he will certainly be taken to have said the opposite -- namely,that Israel is our proxy and, like proxies anywhere else in the world, it will do things we won't do, so that we can keep our hands clean. Can we agree that this is what he will be taken to have said by most other players in this game?
Notice, please, that I did not say that this rendering of what Biden's statement gives an accurate summary of what it actually does mean; nor did I say that this is what it should be taken to mean.
What I do say is that this is what it will be taken to mean, and that, for that reason, a nation with power as immense as ours in this instance should be very careful about emitting signals that will be taken to mean something more than what they actually say.
July 5, 2009 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry about the several dictional glitches above. Here's a clean copy, with a small addendum:
Perhaps we can all agree that in diplomacy (not to mention in Iranian culture, which has distinctive ways of conveying meanings by saying the opposite of what is meant), when a U.S. Vice President says that Israel (which depends on us almost entirely for its armaments) is a sovereign country that can do whatever it wants, he will certainly be taken to have said the opposite -- namely, that Israel is our proxy and that, like proxies anywhere else in the world, it will do things we won't do, so that we can keep our hands clean. Can we agree that this is what he will be taken to have said by other players in this game?
Notice, please, that I did not say that this rendering of what Biden's statement means gives an accurate summary of what it actually does mean; nor did I say that this is what it should be taken to mean.
What I did say is that this is what it WILL be taken to have meant and that, for that reason, a nation with power as immense as ours in this instance should be careful about emitting signals that will be taken to mean something more than what they actually say. Unless, of course we do mean them to be taken to mean something more.
And if Biden (or the rest of the administration) did mean for his comment to be taken as something more, then I think that he and/or they made a mistake. His comment cut against what has been done well so far using a different, more diplomatic approach. Diplomacy is like that.
July 5, 2009 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps we can all agree that in diplomacy (not to mention in Iranian culture, which has distinctive ways of conveying meanings by saying the opposite of what is meant), when a U.S. Vice President says that Israel (which depends on us almost entirely for its armaments) is a sovereign country that can do whatever it wants, he will certainly be taken to have said the opposite -- namely, that Israel is our proxy and that, like proxies anywhere else in the world, it will do things we won't do, so that we can keep our hands clean
Excellent construction of a complex thought in one neat transparently grammatical sentence! Bravo!!
July 5, 2009 10:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing I would dare to question is the use of a dash instead of a colon in "said the opposite—namely…" since a dash is taken mostly as a sign of an aside while the colon is a device for delivering on something that precedes it in a sentence.
July 5, 2009 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when in international affairs is "sovereign country" used interchangeably to mean "a country that can do whatever it wants"? Sovereign nations are bound by all sorts of international laws, not to mention common-sense moral restrictions. None of them should be regarded as utterly free to just do "whatever they want", especially when the "whatever" consists in using military force against other countries. Nor are other countries in the world prohibited from having and expressing opinions about the desirability or wisdom of another country's actions.
Last week, following the coup in Honduras, there was early talk from Chavez that in response to the coup Venezuela might send troops to Honduras. Now suppose Biden had been asked about the US position on potential Venezuelan military action in Honduras and the conversation had proceeded as follows:
BIDEN: Look, Venezuela can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Honduras and anyone else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?
BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.
Wouldn't it have been obvious how odd and inappropriate is the position that Venezuela is "entitled" to launch a military mission in Honduras?
July 5, 2009 7:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dan is absolutely right. I'm sure this honestly reflects what Biden thinks, but he still hasn't learned when to answer and when to duck hypothetical questions.
Not only will Iranians think he's given Israel a green light, some Israeli leaders will also argue that is what he has done.
And, in fact, with Dennis Ross now occupying a nearby White House office, who is to say that this isn't the direction U.S. policy is drifting?
Why are Americans seemingly so determined to sabotage and undermine whatever progressive forces emerge in Iran? It's like a compulsion.
July 5, 2009 8:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden plays the role of Fool and does at times think before speaking. But he is a useful Fool. I have no doubt that he would not make a statement like that without a go-ahead. And there really could be no stronger signal sent than this (i.e. America won't stop you). Of course, they were reading it as such in Israel immediately (at least according to the JP and others). This on a day when the Saudis said they would not interfere if Israel flew jets through their airspace to attack Iran. And all coming after several weeks of a phony, hyped uprising demonizing the Iranian leadership. Coincidence?
July 5, 2009 9:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don can you give a link to that Saudi green light of an attack on Iran? That not only seems implausible in light of Saudi Arabia's internal political situation (restive Shi'ites on the Gulf Coast) but in its economic interest. The Iranians could make the Saudis' lives pretty miserable by clamping down on the Straits of Hormuz.
July 6, 2009 10:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Okey doke.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6638568.ece
It's Neo-Con spin based on claims that someone knows what secret advice Mossad gave Netanyahu with the only named source that of fricking John Bolton.
So we have 'secret talks' that led to 'unconfirmed reports' in the Israeli press that were 'denied by Saudi officials' that should still get us to swallow that S.A. has 'tacitly agreed' to a bomb strike, all confirmed by well known non-insane truth teller John Bolton. Oh and published in a Murdoch outlet.
Haaretz and incidentally the Israeli government isn't buying. Israel denies Saudis gave IDF airspace clearance for Iran strike
Of course maybe Saudi Arabia really put Iran on double, secret probation and decided the leak the word through Bolton but I am getting more that a whiff of Neo-Con fantasy world here. Single source reports that appear in any Murdoch news source favorable to the PNAC position are suspect by nature.July 6, 2009 11:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
That would be like George HW Bush giving Saddam HUssein permission to invade Kuwait!
July 6, 2009 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many apologies for repeating this without checking it out, Bruce. I was in a hurry and had to leave shortly after. I think I scanned it in a British paper (probably the tabloid Times) but saw the headlines in several big papers. I was reading the VP’s comments at the time and was a bit too credulous. Ha’aretz and others are denying the story today but all I saw yesterday was a page of headlines on Google news reporting S.A. would allow the flyover. Like you say, it's just more neocon warmongering. Thanks for the correction. I’m glad to be proven a dupe in this instance.
July 6, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know that, in reality (Not DC), it was unreasonable for Chavez to float that idea. One reason Zelaya was ousted was because he was trying to dismantle the elite's stranglehold with US assistance over Honduras. He joined ALBA, a trade and allied states organization promoted by Chavez. So it might have been the prerogative of this organization's member states to come to the aid of a member overthrown in an obvious coup that the US has tolerated. The question is: why is the US "abetting" a false revolution in Iran to install the Butcher of Beirut responsible for the deaths of 300 American soldiers (a "revolution" undoubtedly assisted by the US, GB and Israel), while at the same time allowing if not participating
in a coup to overthrow a true reformer in Honduras?
July 5, 2009 8:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
"True reformer in Honduras" that is laughable, unless you believe a coup led by the countries elite to maintain there power is reform.
July 6, 2009 7:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Compared to Mousavi, Zelaya is a reformer. Zeleya was trying to institute real reforms, though most of his efforts were met with resistance from established powers. He also made some foolish moves and would not reign in the police. But he wasn’t trying to extend his term unconstitutionally. But joining Alba, raising the minimum wage 60%, land reform, etc. were aimed at lifting the poor.
July 6, 2009 2:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, that is the code term used all the time to indicate that a country can do whatever it wants. Even George Bush stumbled over the term, not sure what it meant, but he was nevertheless absolutely positive that "sovereign" meant something really, really , majorly imortant.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdimK1onR4o
July 5, 2009 9:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I give up! What he said about Honduras, what he said about Israel, what he said about the economy -- it is a mystery to me! Maybe the fact is that we can't have a sound-bite explanation for what is going on in the world. Maybe we haven't all figured it out yet.
I can promise all of you this: The world is in better hands than it was a year ago, but considering the pathetic mess it has been left in, that doesn't mean much!
I am wondering if perhaps someone will rise up through the ashes and say, "What should we do to make this Earth a better place?" I fervently believe that republicans do not have that in mind. And their BullShit stuff about global warming is just one bit of proof.
July 5, 2009 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
If they aren't able to use "what he said", they would just use what he didn't say or something someone else, ballyhooed as a top official, did or didn't say.
just sayin'...
July 6, 2009 7:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would bet the following way :
1.) Whatever is being presented to the Americans is a fake story. Americans are regarded as a parcel of easily duped credulous boobs. This attitude was proved correct just a few years ago when the American public was lead into a faked-up war. This proposal is exactly the same.
2.) It is a put-up job. Maybe the Saudis want Iran bombed; why not ? They like to work behind the curtain. They can get the Americans to tool their ally to bomb their common enemy ... In any event the stated reason is not the real reason.
3.) It will backfire spectacularly. This will start another war that will end badly for the people who initiate it. Ever notice Japan and Germany have not started any wars in the last sixty years ? Ever wonder why not ?
4.) After the fact the trail back to the source will be covered up. The American public will believe a faked-up story about what happened. The guys who made it happen will not be blamed.
Another big fat lie stuffed down the throats of the voter and the taxpayer : tooled like the suckers they are.
July 5, 2009 10:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who can argue with even one word of what you said? If the country can patriotically support a completely fake war, what can they NOT support? Torture? Surely our country would not let anyone get away with TORTURE -- especially not if they looked into the camera and admitted it!
US of A, meet your downfall...DickCheney
July 5, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
When ever you hear a politician say the American people are smart, you can bet it is preceded by or followed a lie.
July 6, 2009 8:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am just stopping by here to ask Jim what he thinks about MJ deleting his latest post, after several people including Jim had taken the time to pen comments on it.
July 5, 2009 11:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
including Jim had taken the time to pen comments on it.
Now that's a real pity. I have always wished to see more interaction here between columnists as a discussion on a single thread, talking TO each other rather than talking AT each other with individual blog posts. That's something I really would enjoy reading much more than individual speeches. You know, real discussions? The software is there, but people cling to tradition, for no seeming reason some times. I realize the "talking at each other" with blog posts is blogosphere tradition, but it is one that developed for advancing name recognition and traffic via cross-posting (not to mention for purposes of howling at the moon and getting dittoes on that howling.) I always thought that if people really were interested in communication and interchange, they might consider: discussion! Rather than speech-like bloviation of the print form op-ed writer--you know, use the advantages of a new medium? Believe it or not, guys, the software is right here, ready to use, you just write comments to each other like Mr. Sleeper apparently did to M.J. Rosenberg before his comments were unceremoniously disposed. I would have liked to see them.
July 6, 2009 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, MJ and I are "muy sympatico" on many things, even when our emphases differ, and we occasionally do post comments to each other's posts, always in a constructive spirit, even when we have flatly disagreed. I respect him tremendously (Am I beginning to sound like a diplomat? But it's true!). So I'm sure that if he removed his column it was for good and sufficient reasons that don't require reading too much into them.
July 6, 2009 2:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
GOOD LUCK WITH THAT! I've often wondered why television has so many "radio" shows on it.
July 6, 2009 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
A U.S decision to allow its proxy to attack Iran could well prove to be the start of WWIII and the worst foreign policy error of the 21st century. Once those ICBMs are fired from Israel, with or without nuclear warheads, then, arguably, everyone living today will suffer the consequences.
From Alaska to Mexico and from London to Oman and Karachi – the world will have years to reflect on our stupidity and the arrogance of our elected representatives.
July 6, 2009 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole, whose opinion on this I sought out, and who does not agree with Jim or MJ in his assessment that Biden didn't misspeak, says this:
"As for the other news of the weekend, I think Biden's remarks on Israel and Iran were aimed at underlining the independence of US policy-making toward Iran. He underlined twice that the US would not alter its own posture toward Iran, regardless of what others did. That he also said that the Israelis are sovereign and that the US could not stop them from launching a missile strike on Iran, is just the United Nations Charter. I.e. it is boilerplate. In my view the significant bit is this:
' BIDEN: Look, Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Whether we agree or not?
BIDEN: Whether we agree or not. They're entitled to do that. Any sovereign nation is entitled to do that. But there is no pressure from any nation that's going to alter our behavior as to how to proceed.
What we believe is in the national interest of the United States, which we, coincidentally, believe is also in the interest of Israel and the whole world. And so there are separate issues. '...So what Biden was really saying is that the Obama administration intends to engage Iran diplomatically, and that if anyone wants Iran attacked they will have to do it themselves. This is not a green light to the Israelis, who hardly need one. It is a tough message to the right wing of the Israel lobbies that the Obama administration is not going to launch any hostilities with Iran, even after the hard line power grab of three weeks ago.
Oh, and the statement may serve as a reminder to a recalcitrant Iran of what might happen to Tehran if it refuses to negotiate in good faith over its nuclear enrichment program. (By the way, that there is no good evidence that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead, and that its current technological capacity is too limited for it to dream of such a thing any time soon, was again underlined by outgoing International Atomic Energy Agency head Mohammad Elbaradei.
Meanwhile, in the real administration position on hostilities with Iran was clearly stated by Adm. Mike Mullen, which is that they would produce enormous instability (implied is that such instability would be bad for US troops in Iraq and Afghanistan).
In my view, Biden watchers still for the most part haven't gotten him right."
Just my opinion, but I don't think official Washington, and several posters above who like to pile on Biden, are quite as smart as they pretend to be.
July 6, 2009 11:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Juan Cole: "That he also said that the Israelis are sovereign and that the US could not stop them from launching a missile strike on Iran, is just the United Nations Charter. I.e. it is boilerplate"
Well while I personally hold Cole's views on the Middle East to be pretty much determinative I think he has dropped the ball on the United Nations Charter, in fact he has kind of got it backwards. The United Nations was in origin the name for the allies that banded together to resist the wars of aggression launched by Germany and Japan and was formalized in 1945 into a world organization designed to ensure that such wars never happened again. The Charter does NOT say "Hey anyone can launch missiles anytime they feel it supports their sovreignity", if so North Korea would be under sanctions now. Israel launching a missile at Iran would be a direct violation of its agreements as a signatory to the charter. Unless someone can document the opposite.
July 6, 2009 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
The eye of the beholder, and all that.
I watched Biden's interview yesterday, and I heard his meaning pretty much the way Cole did.
What I heard was not the literal words, which you focus on, but the real message I saw implied in it. He said to Israel (his intended main target, I believe, with Iran a second one), was essentially "You can launch an attack if you want to, Bibi, but if you do, you're on your own. For our part, we're not going to be bullied by you, your neocon supporters in this country, or, for that matter, the hardliners in Iran. We're in this for the long haul, and we're going to follow our national interests as we see them, not as they're dictated by extremists."
But as I said, 'eye of the beholder...'
July 6, 2009 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you!! And, of course, Juan Cole. When I listened to the Biden interview -- BEFORE everyone came blasting out "explaining" what he had said -- what I heard was "Iran, you might want to think carefully because we aren't in control of what the Israelis may decided to do; don't rely on us to keep you safe" -- and -- "Israel, you may want to think carefully because we aren't going to blindly rubber-stamp any decision you make but instead think of our own best interest and security first."
And what the HECK is wrong with that????
I echo your comment -- "I don't think official Washington, and several posters above who like to pile on Biden, are quite as smart as they pretend to be." -- and many made by CVille Dem above.
July 6, 2009 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
"n my view, Biden watchers still for the most part haven't gotten him right."
That was a stupid comment by Juan Cole. It's Biden's responsibility to be clear about what he means to say, and if he didn't intend to give Israel a green light, then it's not the fault of "Biden watchers" that they didn't correctly parse the words of the great one.
Personally, I think Biden is a buffoon, someone who can be counted on to ram his foot into his mouth every time he opens it, so I have no idea what he meant to convey.
July 6, 2009 5:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to Marc Lynch, a number of Israeli and Arab commentators took Biden's remarks to be a green light for Israel. And that's the problem--it doesn't matter what our oh-so-statesmanlike VP thought he was saying, when his statement was so poorly phrased people took it to mean the opposite of what he intended (which is true, no matter what his real meaning was).
http://lynch.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2009/07/05/say_it_aint_so_joe
July 6, 2009 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, that's very interesting. "It's up to Biden to convince people of the wisdom and meaning of what he says but, of course, I think he's a buffoon and wouldn't listen to anything he says." I'm extremely glad that Biden doesn't waste his time trying to "convince" folks like you who buy into the accepted caricature and think no further.
Those of us who actually DO listen to him, with an open mind, find him to be quite intelligent and to have some very good ideas ..... and skills. (Like perhaps sending respectful and nuanced messages, which I'm sure have been agreed on with Obama, to the decision-makers in the countries involved, clearly sailing over the head of commentators both here and abroad who are looking for a "hot" headline and engaging in the knee-jert Biden-is-a-buffoon storyline.)
July 7, 2009 7:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree. I thought what Biden said was appropriate in this circumstance.
And I tire of people wanting to make him into some charicature or scapegoat/punching bag because he has occassionally said things that were too forthcoming or put his foot in his mouth. The reality is Biden is a very intelligent guy and I am glad he is the VP. We are a million times better off than we were when we had Bush/Cheney.
July 6, 2009 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think that being better than Bush/Cheney is setting a high standard.
July 6, 2009 9:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
That is true. It's a pretty low bar.
But try this on for size: Try to imagine what Vice President Palin might have said to George Stephanopoulos about Isreal, and how those remarks might have been interpreted...
Sends shivers up my spine!
-- ARG
July 7, 2009 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Correction: "... that Biden missspoke"
July 6, 2009 11:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
*sigh*
Linky: http://www.juancole.com/2009/07/iraqis-project-hopes-fears-onto-biden.html
July 6, 2009 11:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the Cole reference, Goshen, and I'm inclined to take Juan Cole seriously -- and not always inclined to take the New York Times seriously -- but this time, I think, the Times account and assessment of Biden's comments pointed us to something important.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/06/us/politics/06biden.html?scp=1&sq=biden%20and%20%22pitch-perfect%22&st=cse
This is a high stakes game, a high-wire act, with Iran's own internal stability hanging in the balance. The question in my mind is whether Biden's comment weakens the insurgent democrats there (and even the insurgent clerics), and I remain concerned that it did.
July 6, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
From what I can glean, the current situation in Iran is that something very fundamental has shifted. The current regime has lost legitimacy in the eyes of many (of course not all). That legitimacy will not return from a comment by Biden.
It is precisely that sense of nationalism, as well as the quest to regain the spirit of the revolution, that you fear will be sparked by Biden's comment that is driving the current resistance. I don't think Biden's comment helps the resistance, but I don't see it doing much harm. At the same time, it makes clear to Iranian government that the US clearly stands on the side of a nuclear bomb-free Iran.
July 6, 2009 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget that Joe Biden has declared himself to be a Zionist and that Juan Cole's Bahai background influences his opinions on Iran. Context does matter.
Most importantly, if America wants to avoid the consequences to our interests caused by an Israeli attack on Iran, it is well within our means to prevent them from carrying out their plans on both military and diplomatic levels. Curiously, George didn't find it important to ask Joe the obvious question about what such a move by Israel would mean for America and Americans.
It's almost as if both participants in the interview were deliberately ignoring the elephant with the big "Made in the USA" banner that would lead the parade of world reaction to an Israeli strike. Given that Joe is now the appointed pointman for Iraq, the omission of the probable consequences for our remaining interests there is more than odd.
The bald truth is that Israel can't attack Iran without our active participation. Trying to sell the notion that the US wouldn't be involved is utter nonsense on many levels. This tie-in has long been a concern of those contemplating the consequences and blowback.
The peculiar emphasis placed on Israeli's "sovreignity" is, IMO, an effort to de-emphasize our own involvement in the eyes of Americans in the increasingly likely case that Israel carries out her threats. This pre-emptive branding of American innocence/blamelessness could rally the deluded citizenry to approve of our joining in the festivities in order to defend ourselves against the evil mullahs who hurt us just cause they hate us.
In a cautionary OpEd, Yair Lapid attempts to remind Israelis of some likely consequences:
Will world applaud us?
As opposed to what many Israelis believe, world won't applaud Iran strike
snip]
On top of that: While we will somehow address the guaranteed barrage of rockets from Lebanon and Gaza, the Iranians will also invest immense sums of money in a series of attacks on American troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The voices we've been hearing in the US, whereby Americans are fed up with paying with body bags when Israel does whatever it wishes, will grow stronger.
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3741171,00.html
July 6, 2009 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good take on this, Lally. I also think it's mainly a message to the American public. It's CYA. If the admin wants to say anything to "Bibi" regarding their sovereign rights or our support, they'll say it privately.
July 6, 2009 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Biden’s statement is a go ahead to Israel and designed to put fear in the minds of the security apparatus in Iran that is still backing the Mullah regime.
He, in effect, said that the US wouldn’t come in the way, if Israel attacks Iran. Which means the US would not support or condemn the Israeli attack. Looking back at the history, the US has looked at many Israeli across the borders incursions with amusement in the last 30 odd years. Some allegedly had the US support and the others were NOT publicly supported by the US after gauging the international reaction.
This is a well-orchestrated, well-designed threat to Iran’s Mullah regime.
Let us not forget one thing though; from now on, the US has lost any control whatsoever over the future Israeli actions with regards to Iran. Providing blanket nod to Israel is poor diplomacy and the Obama Admin has relinquished any chance of peace it had with the regime in Iran.
If the security apparatus in Iran continues to support the Mullah regime, Israel threat will be activated. Israel does not even need to lookover its shoulders about the Obama admin’s reaction anymore.
Thanks.
July 6, 2009 4:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then I guess it's time for the Iranians to preemptively strike the Zionist Regime. They have inconvertable evidence the Zionist Regime is a grave and growing threat.
July 6, 2009 6:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
A flip flop on the Obama administration's foreign policies or a rogue Vice President?
http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=5675
.
July 6, 2009 5:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whatever Biden was trying to say, he most definitely left many in the ME with the impression that he was giving Israel a green light to attack Iran. If he didn't mean that then a clarification is needed. Sleeper is right on this one.
July 6, 2009 8:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
RE: "Israel can determine for itself -- it's a sovereign nation -- what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else..." - Joe Biden, 07/05/09
Does Biden mean to imply that Israel is not encumbered by international law including the Geneva Conventions ratified by Israel? What about the U.S.?
So whenever one nation decides another nation is an "existential threat" (even if as a result of its own bad intelligence or paranoia) then it is 'bombs away'?
I know that Biden is a self-proclaimed "Zionist", but really!
July 6, 2009 9:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS. Is it possible that "Loose Lips" Biden is channeling "Bonkers" Bolton? "Enquiring minds want to know!"
July 6, 2009 10:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The State Department clarifies:
"We are certainly not going to give a green light to any kind of military strike, but Israel is a sovereign country and we're not going to dictate its actions," State Department spokesperson Ian Kelly said on Monday.
I think Hillary has just reclaimed her authority over ME policy. Boy, Biden can be a loose cannon.
July 6, 2009 11:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
sleeper - Someone should have him read Delkasteh before he opens his mouth again on Iran.
i don't dispute the perception of biden the gumflapper (see cups [sic] of joe).
but with all respect to "mahmood delkhasteh", i'm sure some might agree the "archaeology" of iran's regime long predates khomenei. or have you forgotten your al-tabari?
i'd also imagine you're aware he, we, israel, certain arab neighbors are currently committed to the geopolitical kabuki that would demilitarize iran's nuclear program to serve separate though (somewhat) overlapping interests.
July 7, 2009 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree that preventing Iran from acquiring "the bomb" is the right end-game, but, as far as I can see -- and precisely because that country's history is what it is -- the best hope lies in further democratization.
History doesn't have to repeat itself. All creditable accounts I've read and heard tend to reinforce the gist of the OpenDemocracy article I linked. It's true that Iranians are nationalistic and that democratization can be a wild card, unleashing demagogues of all kinds. But it seems to me that the widespread disillusionment with Ahmadenijad's and Khamenei's kind of demagoguery is a good sign. So I think that we (not just Joe Biden) should be very, very wary of doing anything that gives the regime a chance to re-unite the populace behind it against an outside threat. A military attack would surely do that, so it really does have to be a very last resort.
July 7, 2009 4:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
you'd probably agree what biden blurted alta voce was sotto voce for months if not years hence the ref. to kabuki, with good cops (u.s.), bad cops (israel), dirty cops (al sauds) all playing, alternating roles.
because biden's subaltern to the prevailing though untenable proposition that "all nukes are not alike" (they are) was, i thought, pretty basic: engagement > appeasement, israel was & will remain a useful proxy (not just to the u.s.) when carrots fail.
as to seas of green, reformers (and related media mouthpieces) could just as easily "blame" any preemptive strike on the failed, regressive leadership of supreme and/or falsely reelected incumbents, couldn't they?
otherwise, i'm (personally) unconvinced the "right" end-game is the most effective end-game ibid. 60 years of displacement despite (or because of) 60 years of regional deterrence. what besides a nuclear neighborhood would accelerate israeli détente? israel finally bargaining in good faith? a real "existential" threat to compel neighborly priorities, compromise or behavior?
else what's more maddening, a nuclear bully tacitly partnering with corrupt neighbors (e.g., al sauds.) to preserve a regional status quo of represssion, internecine conflict, petro profiteering with or without the spectre of endless war? or a doctrine of m.a.d. that would exact destruction upon 1st-strikes but otherwise level critical playing fields?
July 7, 2009 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
corr. (lt symbol parsed by comment software)
"because biden's subaltern to the prevailing though untenable proposition that "all nukes are not alike" (they are) was, i thought, pretty basic: engagement [not eq] appeasement, israel was & will remain a useful proxy (not just to the u.s.) when carrots fail."
July 7, 2009 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink