Tough talk about—talking
Charles Krauthammer charts the shifting sands of Obama’s changing desire to talk to Iran, without preconditions and/or with.
The responses in the comments section of his piece break down in the usual fashion. Supporters write, “You tell ’em, brother!” Haters excoriate the slimy neocon Jew.
But a goodly number of the commenters harp on an old theme, which is that anyone who opposes or criticizes Obama and does not believe we should be talking to Iran sans conditions is motivated by, of all things, fear.
I’ve written about these cries of “fraidy-cat!” from the Left towards the Right many times before (see this, this, this, this, and this), especially in connection with the fight against Islamic totalitarianism and/or the reaction to 9/11. So it comes as no surprise that the “fraidy-cat” meme is now being used in the service of defending Obama.
Many of the commenters write that anyone (that means, of course, anyone on the Right) who doesn’t agree that negotiations with the Iranian leaders without preconditions would be a good thing is motivated by fear. Here’s a typical offering:
Could you please explain what you are so afraid of? Are you afraid that the President of the United States would somehow be upstaged or somehow outfoxed by leaders of other countries?…Either we are a superpower or not. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t go around telling the world that you are the world’s “only superpower”, that you are the greatest country on god’s green earth, yet you are afraid to sit down and talk with someone.
And here’s another, with a somewhat more machismo tone:
Obama is right. Why should the greatest country in the world be afraid to talk to little Iran and North Korea. Would republicans rather run home to their mommies with their tail between their legs. Kennedy had the balls to talk to bad old Russia and now we’re afraid to talk to a couple of third world countries!? Pathetic.
The commenters feel this truth is self-evident: no talk equals fear. That, of course, tends to be exactly the opposite of the way the mullahs (or the Soviets, back in the good old days of the Cold War) perceive it.
The Left often accuses the Right of a blindness and an ethnocentrism, an unfamiliarity with cultural diversity. But (if the comments quoted here are sincere and not just the equivalent of empty schoolyard taunting) it seems it’s the Left that’s ethnocentric, imagining that our admiration for the willingness to engage in “dialogue” even with an enemy is shared by that enemy. It is not; it’s seen as a weakness to be exploited, and those who think otherwise are considered to be “useful idiots.”
Then there’s this argument, which states that by engaging the mullahs on their terms we’d actually be sending a sympathetic message to the Iranian people:
…there is a more important reason to meet with the leaders of a country like Iran, and that is to send a signal to its people (who mostly hate Ahmadinejad themselves) that the US is not “anti-Iran” or “anti-Islam” or “anti-Shiite”. That we respect Iran’s people and its culture. We don’t happen to like its puppet leader nor its real leaders the Ayatollahs. But we will talk to them because we respect dialog and respect the Iran people and we want them (the people of Iran) to be partners in peace.
This argument is about as far from the truth as it could be. Here’s the reason why (written by, of all people, the reptilian Dick Morris, proving that even a stopped watch is right two times a day):
[Iran] lacks the foreign investment and technology necessary to increase, or even to sustain, its petroleum output…With domestic consumption of energy increasing at 10 percent a year—due in part to the massive subsidies which hold the price down—Iran is expected to see its oil exports cut in half by 2011 and entirely eliminated by 2014. If Iran cannot export oil, it cannot pay for social peace and the regime could be in dire trouble…
If a President Obama were to meet with President Ahmadinejad, it would send a signal to the Iranian people that they are not isolated but that the rest of the world has come to respect them and to have to deal with them. The leading argument for toppling the current regime will have been fatally undermined.
But if the West sustains a policy of economic sanctions, curbs on foreign investment, and diplomatic isolation, the Iranian regime’s days are numbered.
Ah, but this is apparently too nuanced for many Obama supporters. Here’s a fine example of the wishful thinking evidenced by those who would like the world to be a different place than it actually is, and who believe that war is caused by the failure to talk without preconditions to people such as the mullahs:
The downside to talking to our enemies is what? That an audience with an American leader will enhance the enemy’s prestige? This is reptilian thinking, the sort of stubborn, dogmatic view that ensures perpetual war. I’m voting for Obama because we need to move on; we need to transcend the inflexible, dogmatic myths that the Charles Krauthammers of the world cling to so stubbornly.
Another commenter expounds further on this inane and historically oblivious point of view:
It is absurd for any Nation to refrain from having a dialog with another Nation on the ground that their developing interests mutually conflict; as such a policy is just prone to create a permanent adversary.
Systematically omitting to invest diplomatic efforts to keep an adversarial relation from further degrading, eventually turns the one time adversary into a permanent enemy.
Never talking to one ‘ s enemy (i.e. alienating one ‘s enemy) eventually leads to war with this enemy and to the massive blood letting consequences of such a war.
Ah yes. Tell it to Chamberlain.
I would just like to know what Obama intends to talk about, or perhaps what the proponents of more talking think should be said. On second thought, maybe I don’t want to know.
Nonetheless, it is easy for Obama to meet Ahmadinejad and actually say nothing, other than “Hi, this tea is fantastic, let’s do this again–Bye now!” and yet his supporters would hail him as a diplomat par excellence.
And meanwhile Iran will be that much closer to nuclear weapons.
Lame-R,
I believe Ed Morrissey identified what Obama actually proposed to say to “whoever-we-are-to-project-him-to-be-talking-to-at-some-future-time-in-Iran” a few days ago. It amounted, unsurprisingly, to nothing more than what the Bush administration is already saying to the Iranians in many fora around the world. “Verifiably stop enriching uranium. Stop training, supplying and sending men and weapons into Iraq to kill Iraqis and Americans. Stop supplying rocketry to Hezbollah and stop underwriting Hezb’s ability to undermine the legitimate Lebanese Gov.” Nothing new, in other words, but you won’t find Obama stressing that minor particular.
McCain needs to get on top of the false “talk vs. not talk” meme. Obama’s sophomoric improvisation suddenly and seriously threatens McCain.
McCain must aggressively communicate why Presidential level talks would help Iran and hurt the U.S.A. McCain needs to be Reagan in his communication skills.
what you are seeing, in things like your statement where they accuse the other of what they are doing while being blind to it.
they are blind, they have to be blind in order to state and believe what they do.
what they have done is paint exit on entrance signs and entrance on exit signs, and then created crisis. then each person runs to the entrance to save themselves. they realize they are running the wrong way and scoring for the other team way too late.
http://www.historyguide.org/europe/lecture10.html
Totalitarian regimes — thanks to technology and mass communications — take over control of every facet of the individual’s life. Everything is subject to control — the economy, politics, religion, culture, philosophy, science, history and sport. Thought itself becomes both a form of social control as well as a method of social control.
lets see.. socialism for the economy – check. stalinism, leninism for communitarian politics – check. liberation theoloy, secular religion, and social justice for religion – check. cultural marxism for culture (PC), marxism and politics of meaning for philosophy, ideology replaces science so we are all procrustian equal, revisionism (stalinism) for history, and title IX for sports.
poltical correctness to impose correct party line and thinking.
anyone care to point out how all that spells freedom?
In the end, totalitarianism meant a “permanent revolution,” an unfinished revolution in which rapid and profound change imposed from above simply went on forever. Of course, a permanent revolution also means that the revolution is never over. The individual is constantly striving for a goal which has been placed just a hair out of reach. In this way, society always remains mobilized for continual effort.
this is change we can believe in. obama on top will be change from the top imposed on the rest of us.
in case anyone doesnt know the state that did this first, it was Stalins Russia.
However, Stalinist society did have its frightening aspects and none was more frightening than the existence of brutal, unrestrained police terrorism
the FLDS is still fighting to have 400 kids returned even though the state has no agreed that they shouldnt have been taken. CPS can enter a home and take children and does not need a warrant. its an example of the same unconstitutional delegation of powers that stalin used.
the constitution states that our politicos power comes from the people, so the polticos cant delegate constitutional powers or powers beyond the constitution. but in child and family court (a secret court that the decidedly communist rad fems have changed), such delegation has already happened. (violating innocence till proven guilty, the parents are guilty and are trying to prove innocence. presumption of guilt is common. right to know your accuser, has morphed into no right to know the woman if involved (women who are the perpetrators are shielded too). no warrants violating the search and seizure laws, etc).
in stalins russia, these things are and were being used against those that the public didnt like. in this case you can see that they first applied these constitutional breaking things to situations like the drug war (civil forfeiture, manditory sentencing, violating posse comitatus, etc)… and with FLDS (innocence clauses, knowing accuser, equality before the court (replaced by morgans maxim that in order for us to be equal the court must treat us unequally), no warrant searches and ability to grab the children for ideological reasons, etc).
in property law we have kelo… and we have posse comitatus weakened… etc.
terror was increasingly used against party members, administrators and ordinary people. No one would ever be above suspicion — except Stalin, of course. Some were victims of terror for deviating from the party line — others were victims for no apparent reason other than Stalin’s moodiness. One Soviet recalled that in 1931, “we all trembled because there was no way of getting out of it. Even a Communist can be caught. To avoid trouble became an exception.”
what happens is that when change from above occurs, it keeps happening. it keeps us off balance. we dont know how to avoid trouble.
we dont know if we will be punished if we are too successful… anyone else see the parallels of the kulaks in thought not deed with the oil companies? the state makes .40 a gallon and oil companies make .09 a galon, but they are the bad ones.
seen in this light, it makes sense that obama would want to talk to iran… just as stalin wanted to talk to hitler and did to make plans. (molotov ribbendorf)…
the other reason people dont want these too meet is because it allows them to come together and make plans to carve up the world. after all, it gives the chance that obama can then plan a coupe of america, put us in a military rule situation, and then create change from above, being able to install any plan possible.
Modern totalitarian regimes made their appearance with the total effort required by the Great War. The reason for this is quite simple — war required all institutions to subordinate their interests to one objective at all costs: victory. The individual had to make sacrifices and so their freedoms, whatever they might have been, were constantly reduced by increasing government intervention. The invisible hand of Adam Smith had to be replaced by the visible hand. Governments could not longer remain idle hoping that some “laissez-faire” mentality would carry them through the day. No. Governments had to intervene and the great event which made this notion of intervention a necessity, was the Great War.
its not that the left is against war… the left is against war when they are not in power. then they cant be the ones that can exacerbate and change things to make us less free…
you can already see paranoia in obama. and i am surprised that others dont see it or mention it. that he wants to be able to have a vanilla race, and wants no one to comment on his wifes comments, etc.
he wants to control the rules so he can control the outcomes.
he is already making that very clear.
this is the whole basis of the left… power to change the rules and force outcomes by controlling history…
obamas choice of church shows that he only feels comfortable when his paranoia is confirmed. same with his wife.
read history carefully, each thing was different, but they wre the same too… hitler purged the SA in favor of the SS, stalin killed bukharin… beria killed stalin… che read out sentences for castro… the list goes on…
the only time it doesnt happen is when the harm that it causes in dealings wiht a country like the US is too expensive, but when the US is no longer what it was or is, then what?
stalin and his ilk are more the rule than the exception in history.
These public show trials and the secret trials of the generals provide only a faint idea of the extent of the Great Terror. Every member of Lenin’s Politburo except Stalin and Trotsky were either killed or committed suicide to avoid execution. A partial list of those who ceased to exist would include:
–two vice-commissars of foreign affairs
–most of the ambassadors in the Soviet diplomatic corps
–numerous members of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
–almost all the military judges who had sat in judgment and had condemned
–the Red Army generals
–two successive heads of the NKVD
–the prime ministers and chief officials of all the non-Russian Soviet republics
–the director of the Lenin Library
–the man who had led the charge against the Winter Palace in 1917
–a 70 year old schoolteacher who owned a book which included a picture of Trotsky
–an 85 year old woman who made the sign of the Cross when a funeral passed
–a man who took down a portrait of Stalin while painting a wall
Not since the days of the Inquisition had the test of ideological loyalty been applied to so many people. And not since the days of the French Revolution had so many died for failing the test. Arrests multiplied tenfold in 1936 and 1937. Anything was used as an excuse for an arrest: dancing too long with a Japanese diplomat, not clapping loudly enough or long enough after one of Stalin’s speeches, buying groceries from a former kulak. People went to work one day and simply did not return — they were either killed immediately or sent to the GULAG. The NKVD employed millions of secret informers who infiltrated every workplace. Most academics and writers came to expect arrest, exile and prison as part of their lives. A historian could be sent to exile for describing Joan of Arc as nervous and tense just when the general party line wished her described as calm in the face of death. When a linguistic theory that held that all language was derived from four sounds was accepted as official, professors who opposed this view had their books confiscated. By 1938 at least one million people were in prison, some 8.5 million had been arrested and sent to the GULAG and nearly 800,000 had been executed. In fact, before the KGB was dissolved in 1991, it was revealed that 47 million Soviet citizens had died as a result of forced collectivization and the purges. That figure, of course, represents the recorded tally. How many more people died without being recorded is a matter of conjecture.
today belmont and others are teachnig that what is above is a fantasy… that it never happened. that its right wing propaganda to get us not to want communism…
to one that rememvers we see the parallels clearly…
how similar is our culture to this now?
Soviet life in the 1930s, purge trials aside, was one of constant propaganda and indoctrination. Party members lectured to workers in factories and peasants in the field. Newspapers, films and radio broadcast endless socialist achievements and capitalist evil. Art, literature, film and science were politicized — sovietized. The intellectual elite of the 1930s were ordered by Stalin to become “engineers of human souls” or, as Maxim Gorky put it, the “CRAFTSMEN OF CULTURE.” Russian nationalism had to be glorified. Capitalism was portrayed as the greatest of evils.
hitler copied stalin who copied lenin… each trying to improve upon the means socialism would take to create the utopian end.
and so the parallels of the focus on the young and youth are also there.
after all, the taking of the FLDS people technically is because they are not mainstream enough. so far out of the 30 who were supposed to be children and pregnant, 15 have had their day in court and have been shown to be adults, one of them being a 27 year old mistaken for a minor (thats what clean living gets you – take a look a amy winehouse for comparisson)
The Nazis also made their appeal to GERMAN YOUTH. Hitler and his aides were, in general, much younger than other leading politicians. In 1931, for instance, 40% of all Nazis were under thirty years of age, 70% were under 40.
so what we have isnt the same because no one copies the past exactly… what we have is a cherry picking of the best techniqueis and actions and their outcomes… so nazi tactics are used not lenins because fighting in the streets is not wanted… though hatred of capitalism is higher more like the soviet propaganda..
its different because its the best of both and more later on.
in obamas willingness to deal with people like the head of iran, is the same willingness to attempt to acheive cooperation. but not cooperation that people think, but cooperation of the kind where iran would orchestrate the disaster that the SA did for hitler (and that leftists tried to make 9/11 into for bush).
if only a huge crisis can be created and with outside help, that becomes easy.
hitler did a lot of good for the people of germany… thats what allowed them to look the other way on the bad that he would do later for germany.
hitler didnt seem so bad in the begining… like today, people didnt mind the rules broken for those theyd idnt like.
the theme parallels in obamas constant statments that things are so bad… so much so that he then can claim once in office that he has improved things so much.
In January 1937, unemployment stood at 7 million. Twelve months later it had fallen to 1 million and by 1938, Germany witnessed a shortage of labor. The standard of living increased by 20% and business profits were finally increasing.
thats in the play books too.
race and such in nazism was a fluke for fascism. we focus on it and believe that if we are not based in that, then its not fascism. but it is.
WWII happened because two men did not like paleo liberal ideas and individualism (things reversed today in liberals so they run for the entrances rather than exits). the same things that are seriously out of fashion from both left candidates.
they attempted to force their utopuias on everyone to subordinate it all to the state…
just like we are doing now..
we tend to judge stalin and hitler by the end story… and we fail to see that there is a story leading up to it… and that people never sided for the end story, but were happy, as we are, to embark on the path that ended up there.
just like we are doing.
stalin and hitler were two people trying to use each other and then betray each other. stalin betrayed hitler first passively, and then hitler betrayed stalin actively…
when the whole world becomes socialist, it will not be world piece as stated… it will be war as they then can fight it out to figure out who is the top dog in the prison yard.
while people believe america is the war country, check out who started most of them after the age of kings.
oh correction.. the vatican opened up the archvies on the inquisition… only 3000 people… thats it… no more… the millions was a left lie against religion as a valid thing.
Iranian people, very much like our own American people, will support their government when their nation is verbally and physically attacked. Our American people reacted with strong nationalism in support of President George Bush following September 11 attack.
Our present policy using the financial leverage and threat of physical attack has backfired over the last 20 years. This policy has promoted an opposite effect to the response we had anticipated; it has mobilized Iranian people in support of their government. We have been confused between our own national interests and those of Israeli Lobby.
Senator Obama has recognized that the present hostility of our government toward Iranian people will not create a positive response. Iranian people all along have expressed their friendship toward the American people; while strongly have rejected the bullying policy toward their country.
Dialogue and frank diplomacy will create a positive response from Iranian people.
The problem with Chamberlain is not so much that he *talked* with Hitler. If he had talked to him and said something like:
“Listen, Adolph, you put one single foot into Czechoslovakia and you’ll really find out what the Royal Navy and the RAF can do”
…that might have done some good. The real problem with Chamberlain is that he didn’t understand that Hitler was not a rational “economic man” like those he was used to dealing with in business.
Paul Reynaud, who became prime minister of France just before the German invasion of 1940, said:
“People think Hitler is like Kaiser Wilhelm. The old gentleman only wanted to take Alsace-Lorraine from us. But Hitler is Genghis Khan.” (approximate quote)
Chamberlain didn’t understand this about Hitler. Neither does Obama understand it about today’s enemies.
Neo, your daily insistence that Obama is not criticized is the same type of sophomoric dribble you accuse the posters you quoted in this blog. Just criticize and get on with it!
But Tucker Carlson would be proud!
St Mike,
In my view, you make a common error in looking at Iran through a Western lens. What the Iranian people believe at this moment in time is irrelevant. They have no power to resist the regime, which is far better at maintaining control than the Shah ever was, and things are nowhere near bad enough for them to have a “Ceaucescu Moment” anyway. The Guardian Council (which does not include Ahmadinejad) controls the means of coercion in Iran (police, military, Rev Guards, Basij, intelligence services), and these senior clerics are, by and large, extremely hostile towards the West in general and the U.S. in particular. That will not change because we suddenly make nice with them. They, and most Iranians, view the Gulf region and western Afghanistan as their natural sphere of influence, and (correctly) see the U.S. as disrupting that influence. Plus they actually believe all that stuff about the 12th Imam and his return. They believe in it the way a devout Christian believes in the Resurrection. It isn’t just something they trot out for Western consumption, and it isn’t a negotiating point, either.
So here’s my question to you, one which I frequently ask, and which I never have had answered adequately: what sort of policy would you have the next president, D or R, follow towards Iran? What changes would you make that would benefit the U.S.? (I don’t care if the changes benefit the Iranians; we don’t elect a president to help foreign nations) What would you do to lessen the influence of the mullahs over their own population and reduce their tendency to export Shia extremism to other parts of the world? Before you answer, remember several things, however. First, “win-win” is an entirely Western concept. Politics in the Middle East are zero-sum, and flexibility is always, ALWAYS seen as weakness. Second, Iran is not a democracy and the GC doesn’t really care what Reza the taxi driver thinks. If he gets out of line, the regime will throw him in jail or kill him. Third, information is tightly controlled in Iran, and when a publication or TV show or website goes too far off the reservation, it will be shut down, period. Which leads to point 4: what makes you think that any “good deed” the U.S. does towards Iran will be portrayed as anything but submission in the Iranian media? Remember zero-sum. Iran wins, U.S. loses.
I agree that our current policy is a makeshift one that has imperfectly addressed our requirements over the last 30 or so years. (And I disagree that it is unduly influenced by Israel). What would you have our next president do to make it better?
I’ve had these quotes saved from Iran . made about 3 years ago. Nothing in their rhetoric since then should make anyone think they aren’t serious about this.
and
and
The Regime is motivated by Twelver Shia (the main branch of Shia Islam) theology and eschatology.
The Shiia have been waiting for the blood-related descendant of Mohemmed to come out of his well where Allah put him around 1000AD so that there could be a proper Islamic State on Earth.
Whereas Sunnis believe they could form the next Caliphate by consesus, the Shiia believe that Allah and his agent, the 12th (thus Twelver) Imam, Imam al-Mahdi, will miraciously reestablish the Caliphate.
Thus the Shiia have been relatively passive throughout history.. waiting for Allah to send them the Mahdi. The group in power in Iran believe they can create the planetary geopolitical conditions that are the prerequiste for Allah to manifest the Mahdi.. and that’s basically nuclear war.
No one should be fooled that when the Iranians say they will destory Israel that they are stopping there. Israel is the Little Satan.. the United States is the Rome of our time.. the Great Satan.
Everytime you hear a statement from Iran about Israel you shold put into your mind that whatever they have planned for Israel , they will be doing to us.. and probably beforehand..
Look at this poster that Iran’s A’jad is standing in front of at the “World Without Zionism” conference.
Note what little ball lays shattered broken on the floor as Israel falls through the hourglass.
http://images.google.com/images
Agree with you, Vince. These guys are serious, and any president forgets that at his (and our) peril. The West sometimes loses sight of the fact that Ahmadinejad is more of a front man for the GC than a real decision-maker, but he must not be ticking them off too badly, since he keeps spouting the same line.
This was the World Without Zionism link to the picture I mentioned:
http://images.google.com/images?q=World+Without+Zionism
Try this if the link doesn’t work
Waltj,
You seem to have a much better grasp of the Iranian situation than I. Surely you have some thoughts on what proper policy might be regarding Iran.
I have several questions that I sometime ask people to gauge their reactions and understanding.
Do you think Iran will get a nuke?
Do you think they will use it if they do get one?
Personally I believe that human nature is more or less a constant through time. While history may not repeat itself precisely there is little in current events that contradicts the broad patterns of the past. That said, I think Iran will get a nuke and will use it on Israel.
Referring back to the constant of human nature, it is my observation that most people will procrastinate when faced with unpleasantness. Problems allowed to fester usually get bigger and if a solution is implemented it is much more costly than if pursued earlier. I believe Machievellia has been given a bad rap by modern thinking. A critical examination of the Prince leads me to note that generally speaking Nicolai’s pragmatic policies lead to less rather than more suffering.
I share much of your feelings about the Mid Eastern mindset towards zero sum politics vs. negotiated win/win policies. If the carrot of a win/win situation is forcefully and repeatedly rejected than I advocate the stick. Much is made of the idea of proportionate response. This is, in my mind, a wrongheaded policy. Recent history from Sherman’s March to the Sea to the defeat of Germany and Japan indicates that overwhelming crushing defeat gives maintaining peace in the aftermath a better chance than leaving a foe defeated but unvanquished. This is a harsh, cold, pragmatic viewpoint. However unpleasant situations sometimes have unpleasant solutions.