Who said Senators aren’t diplomats? More talking about talking with Iran
On the topic of James Baker and Lee Hamilton’s suggestion that we talk to Iran and Syria about helping us out in Iraq, I’d say a person would have to be either abysmally stupid, mindbogglingly ignorant, or stark raving mad (or perhaps some combination of all three) to think it might be a good idea. And that’s the polite version of what I think.
Victor Davis Hanson calls such a suggestion “surreal.” I’m with him, as well.
But Senators–ah, Senators!–are much more refined in questioning whether the ISG’s suggestion to turn to Iran for help in Iraq is really the wisest possible course. For example, ISG head James Baker and member Lee Hamilton were quizzed Thursday by Joe Lieberman thusly:
I’m skeptical that it’s realistic to think that Iran wants to help the United States succeed in Iraq. They are, after all, supporting (the Islamist militant group) Hezbollah, which gathers people in the square in Beirut to shout “Death to America.”
Not to mention that’s this is not a recent occurrence: for thirty-five years Iran has been actively working and praying (loudly) for our destruction. Color me “skeptical” about whether the proposal is “realistic,” as well.
John McCain’s statement on the topic was a bit more to my liking:
I don’t believe that a peace conference with people who are dedicated to your extinction has much short-term gain.
Or long term gain, I might add.
But here’s Baker on the subject:
What do we lose by saying, “we’re getting all of Iraq’s neighbors together, we want you to come, and if they say no, we show the world what they’re all about?”
That actually is an interesting question that seems reasonable on the face of it. I’ll take a stab at an answer: the world already knows exactly what Iran’s about, and the world doesn’t much care, as long as Iran’s not directly affecting them at this moment in any dramatic way. The world is relying on the US to do something about Iran, when/if it should ever become necessary, because “the world” never will. And then, when/if the US ever does act against Iran, “the world” can criticize whatever that action might be. If “the world” doesn’t have enough information about Iran’s goals and nature by now, then “the world” is willfully ignoring the truth, and has motivations to continue to do so.
What’s more, making obeisance to Iran by asking them for “help” (the way such talks have been framed) makes us look both foolish and weak. It’s not a winning combination to convey. If I were one of the mullahs, I’d be flabbergasted at the amount of foolish naivete such an act indicated–flabbergasted and pleased.
I’ve always thought it’s usually not good to communicate desperation to one’s enemies. But maybe that’s just me.
One more thing: many of Iran’s people would like to overthrow their government. They look to the US for a sign that we would support them in such an endeavor. I would wager, from what they’re seeing of our current behavior re Iraq, they’re not getting a lot of assurance that we’d be there for them when the chips are down. But talking with Iran would be just as bad as the message of our possibly abandoning Iraq; it would tell the people who would like to topple the mullahs that we are dangerously out of touch with reality, and willing to bargain with our enemies and sell out our principles in order to do so.
[CORRECTION: Iran, of course, has been working for our destruction since 1979: twenty-seven years, not thirty-five.]
“Delusional maniacs rarely take the reins of power for an entire nation, and on those rare occasions that they do, are typically killed by their own or destroy their own nations.”
I can name one delusional maniac who, indeed, took reins of power of entire nation and was not killed by his own: Adolf Hitler. Attempts to kill him took place, but only after imminent catastrophe of Nazi regime became clear, and dozen million people already perished. And these attempts failed. Are you ready taking risk to repeat this scenario? I do not. Also, I would not gamble to see, if Ahmedinedjad is really mad or only plays mad; many pacifists before WWII hoped that Hitler was simply a clown. This wishful thinking is utterly irresponsible and dangerous.
“I’ll take a stab at an answer: the world already knows exactly what Iran’s about,”
OK Neo. We are all waiting. Please tell us “what Iran’s about”.
“What do we lose by saying, ‘we’re getting all of Iraq’s neighbors together, we want you to come, and if they say no, we show the world what they’re all about?'”
I thought everyone with experience in negotiation knew that: if you show you’re desperate for a deal, you’re not going to get a very good one.
It’s hard to believe that Baker really has experience as a corporate lawyer.
I dare to propose another option – people’s diplomacy. Talk not to the mullahs, but to Iranian people, directly, by every possible means, preferably by President in person. Talk to Revolution Guard rank-and-file, persuade them disobey mullahs and their bosses; talk to bosses to scare them by military tribunals for their atrocities; talk to people in the streets to destroy the myth of strength of regime. (This myth is the only pillar of it.) Talk to Kurds and promise them their own state; promise women citizen rights; promise everybody everything what they hope or fear. I simply astonished by US neglecting propaganda might in GWOT, both externally and domestically.
People who are physically strong, never had much reason to focus on propaganda and illusion making. It is endemic, really. Weaklings, focus on words and propaganda because they aren’t strong enough to overwhelm through sheer military might. America suffers from our own strengths. Sun Tzu again.
As much as it bothers me at an emotional, instinctual level to go and talk to Iran and Syria, I do have to point out that for the 60 year duration of the Cold War– during which time the Soviet Union was a far greater threat to the United States and her interests than Iran could ever dream of being– we had constant communication and diplomacy with the Soviet Union.
We are capable of being creative and subtle when it suits us, and of playing as long and deep a game as Iran. We should do so.
I have not settled the matter in my mind entirely, but a good spokesperson for the idea is Thomas Barnett:
http://www.thomaspmbarnett.com/weblog/
Okay, I’ll bite. Once and for all, let’s just drop the “illegal occupation” meme, okay? Name any country in the world. It exists either because it a) conquered somebody else’s territory, b) surrendered to somebody else and gave up some ground to keep what was left, or c) was created out of somebody else’s territory by a third party…and was agreed to by the rest of the nations of the world.
Does that explain most countries? Good. So “occupation” it may be, but not “illegal”— or else we’re all criminals no matter where we live. So, Palis and their fellow travelers can just STFU and learn to live with Israel, or keep complaining, fighting, and ultimately be destroyed because someday, we’re all going to get really sick and tired of their b**ching and moaning and just do them in. How’s that for a “racist, Zionist, imperialist neocon baby-killing, carpet bombing, Republican” rant?
yo, justa/stevie/neoconned/unknown blogger—even as “Anonymous” your cant shines through.
Does that explain most countries? Good. So “occupation” it may be, but not “illegal”— or else we’re all criminals no matter where we live. So, Palis and their fellow travelers can just STFU and learn to live with Israel, or keep complaining, fighting, and ultimately be destroyed because someday, we’re all going to get really sick and tired of their b**ching and moaning and just do them in. How’s that for a “racist, Zionist, imperialist neocon baby-killing, carpet bombing, Republican” rant?
Pretty revealing. I don’t know what that has to do with the content of this thread, however. I do know that if Israel had come about 100, or 150 years ago, they could have slaughtered the Ottomans and the original inhabitants and then been done with it. But the world doesn’t work like that anymore. Maybe it will again, someday. Who knows?
I think your fantasy about “doing in” the Palestinians is not likely to take place. But you are entitled to live in your own world.
BTW, I agree with Vitruvius. We should talk to Syria and Iran, and Israel should sit down with Hamas. Enough already. Maybe nothing will come of it, but getting all worked up over the mere prospect strikes me as rather an over-reaction.
If we are to negotiate with countries who have dedicated themselves to destroying us and our interests, let it be from a position of strength. Put a couple of divisions of troops on Iran’s border and engage a few “hot pursuits” of fighters trying to get into Iraq. Let them know we mean business instead of crawling to the table under meakly behind our ISG study, brought on high by Baker from Mt. Sinai on stone tablets. We should also begin noisy attempts at supporting opposition in Iran and Syria to let them know that they can be removed at any time. If we do this, then we can talk. But if all we’re doing is trying to slice up Iraq as Baker wants to slice up Israel so that we can have a graceful exit and wash our hands of the Middle East, no thanks.
I feel like this is such a critical juncture in our history, and yet we don’t seem to have the will or leadership to turn it into our moment rather than our undoing.
I think Iranian support for the Shiites, and Syrian and Saudi support for the Sunnis, is a no brainer, and could have been foreseen by anyone.
Theoretically, I believe the fact that these three countries are helping insurgents hurt Americans is a respectable casus belli. However, there are two problems:
The American people will not support a widening of the war, Bush cannot do it without congressional support, and he won’t get it.
We don’t have near enough ground troops to win such wars, and without them, we won’t win.
Of course there are other consequences, such as the effect on the global economy and the fact that the rest of the world will condemn us, but I assume that no one cares about those things.
“We should talk to Syria and Iran, and Israel should sit down with Hamas.”
And then we’ll have “peace in our time.”
And this time, we’ll be sure to ally ourselves with the Nazis early on, instead of standing up for our sovreignty. Once the Final Reich has conquered all, there will be nothing left to kill or die for, yes?
Now step into the shower chamber. It’s important to maintain cleanliness in a camp. Can’t have any inferior life forms running about.
Someone in this thread called for “doing in” the Palestinians if they didn’t STFU. I wonder why no one called that poster a Nazi.
Because we’re all nazi sympathizers, Steve. You’ve found us out. Shhhh. Remember, collaborators will be rewarded.
Or maybe we’ve just learned to ignore nonsense in the comment section, from both sides of the aisle. Anyone who uses “STFU” in an argument is automatically ignored in Holmes’ Rules of Internet Etiquette.
Well, just to be a bit repetitious myself, I’ll say that personally I’m all in favor of talking to Iran and/or Syria, as long as we’re bombing them at the same time — that way we’re all on the same footing.
Oh, and don’t worry, Steve — we won’t need any more troops for that. The added arms production might even stimulate the world economy. And that part of the “rest of the world” that still has backbone and a basic sense of justice will actually be cheered to see us standing up for ourselves. It’s the rest of the rest of the world that we don’t really care about.
Communication and diplomacy with Soviet Union made sense, because its leaders were not delusional maniacs, MAD was in place, and since Khruschev, “peaceful coexistence” was official government policy. Talks lead to treaties, that hold (more or less). Nothing of this apply to Iran.
Good post. I’ve linked to you here: http://consul-at-arms.blogspot.com/2006/12/re-who-said-senators-arent-diplomats.html
Great opening line/para by the way.
“What do we lose by saying, “we’re getting all of Iraq’s neighbors together, we want you to come, and if they say no, we show the world what they’re all about?” Baker
Hey, James, why wouldn’t they accept?
Then turn the quasi-public negotiations into a p.r. campaign which would have many of our own useful idiots on their side and, regardless, turn the focus onto a process Baker seems to imply would be fruitless.
Behind the scenes probes are fine, but we shouldn’t have a big formal meeting until the deal has already been made, and even then it’s hard to imagine what a beneficial deal would be, and how to enforce it.
Compare with the problems the U.N. is again having in holding Iran to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and had holding Saddam to his surrender agreements. “Groundhog Day” solutions, James?
Why in the world do we worry about the world? As someone said above, “the world” will damm us if we do and damm us if we don’t.
Like most entities, “the world” is looking after Number One. This is rational behavior, designed to maximize whatever they want to get.
Steve: people stink. They too consider what’s best for Number One. Sucking up to the world never got anyone anything worth while. In that position you get crumbs from the table. At best.
Why did Bush appoint a bunch of over the hill diplos to a panel? I suspect that deep down it’s all – at best – a fig leaf.
Give the ISG your sincere thanks for a well done (like a roast turkey) report and send them back to their gated retirement home. Let them sit in their rocking chairs on the veranda and tell each other how diplomatic and smart they were.
To turn Lenin’s phrase around: they are non-useful idiots.
Not to mention that’s this is not a recent occurrence: for thirty-five years Iran has been actively working and praying (loudly) for our destruction.
Dang, that made me feel old. No, Iran has only been actively working and praying for our demise for 27 years, since 1979. How time flies when you are having fun!
The War Goes On Despite Ceasefire
December 8, 2006: The U.S. Congress passed a law that bans aid to Palestinians unless Hamas drops its calls for the destruction of Israel. That law may be replaced by more pro-Hamas legislation, as representatives of the new Democratic Party majority in Congress have been secretly meeting with Palestinian officials. Hamas also has convinced many European nations that a ceasefire with Israel should be sufficient, to get aid restored. The Europeans are willing to live with the Hamas policy of ultimately destroying Israel. Europeans have always been more tolerant of this sort of thing. During the eleven day ceasefire, 17 Palestinian rockets have been fired into southern Israel. The Palestinians consider this compliance. Hamas is stockpiling weapons for some major attacks on Israel.
In Lebanon, Hizbollah supporters are trying to topple the current anti-Syrian/Iran government with massive demonstrations in the capital. The government blames the United States for all this, because the U.S. did not stop Israel from defending itself last Summer, and bombing Lebanon. Because Israel did not re-occupy southern Lebanon, Hizbollah declared a victory and is able to get more Shia Lebanese to join these demonstrations. However, there has been some violence with Sunni and Christian Lebanese on the fringes of the demonstrations, and that violence may grow. The majority of Lebanese do not want a return of a pro-Syrian government.
December 7, 2006: An internal report of Israeli military operations last July accuses Israeli military leaders of being too dependent on air power, delaying the calling up of ground forces reservists, and allowing reservist training and discipline to decline (in response to the frequent reservist call ups to deal with the six years of Palestinian terrorist attacks.) There was a political component to all three of these decisions (Israeli soldiers are voters), but that’s no excuse for screwing up.
December 6, 2006: The UN is trying to raise $450 million in aid for Palestinians, who have been cut off from some of this aid since Hamas took over the Palestinian government last Spring. The unemployment rate among Palestinians is 29 percent, but opinion surveys indicate the majority of Palestinians back continued war with Israel, and the eventual destruction of Israel. Since last Spring, Hamas has smuggled in at least $66 million in cash from Arab countries, and international (mainly European) aid organizations have delivered over $800 million in aid direct to Palestinians, without going through the Palestinian government. This reduces the amount of aid stolen by the Palestinian government, but Hamas and Fatah continue to take a percentage by levying a “tax” on some Palestinians who receive this aid. Palestinians civil servants have been getting about two-thirds of their pay.
Link
Your right Neo, talking with the Mullahs and their Mahmoud Ahmadinejad sends a discouraging message to our democratic friends and allies inside Iran. Finally got it :/
Blame the dense residual Leftist in me.
Neo, I would take Dr. Sanity as diplomat over the competitors.
Pat tough love
Given a choice between the balanced view of Lieberman and you, Neo, I’ll choose “knock them down and bury them in sand” instead.
The fabulous Baker Boys fail to realize that Iranian regime, facing acute crisis at home, has a direct interest in seeing Iraq in chaos.
Since it took power in 1979, Iran’s clerical regime has coveted its neighbor Iraq. Article 11 of Iran’s constitution stipulates, “All Muslims are one nation, and the Islamic Republic of Iran is duty-bound to rest its general policy on the unity of Islamic nations and undertake efforts to realize the political, economic, and cultural unity of the Islamic world.”
For many historical reasons, Iraq was the most strategic target. The appetite of Iran’s ayatollahs is no secret: They want to establish a proxy regime in Iraq, which has the world’s second-largest known oil reserves and a majority Shiite population.
Despite the countries’ eight-year war in 1980s, Ayatollah Khomeini failed to fulfill his dream of “liberating Jerusalem via Karbala.” (Khomeini’s Manifest Destiny) He died in 1989, but his disciples pursued the dream. Iraqi opposition groups were trained, financed, and nurtured for years, waiting for another opportunity. Even in his political will, Khomeini urged his successors to continue their efforts to foment an Islamic revolution in Iraq. Al-Hayat reports that its sources in Washington are saying that Iraqi Shiite cleric Abdul Aziz al-Hakim ( Al-Hakim is the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, a Shiite fundamentalist organization founded in Tehran in 1982 when many Iraqi Shiite activists had sought Ayatollah Khomeini’s protection from Saddam Hussein. He spent over 20 years in Iran.)brought with him a letter from the government of Iran for Bush, when he met with the president on Monday.After the invasion about ten thousand members of the SCIRI’s military wing the Badr Brigades poured into Iraq from the north, south and center to seize towns and government buildings. With guidance and support from Iran they setup secret intelligence cells throughout the nation. They took positions including ranking intelligence posts inside the cabinet of the Interior Ministry, and they presently control about forty to fifty percent of the Iraqi police.
Iran’s aims seem to include building a nuclear weapon, thwarting America in Iraq, destroying Israel and spreading the ideas of its 1979 revolution, which is now, after the rout of Iran’s reformists, enjoying a second wind. Talking to Iran is like asking the arsonist to help put out the fire.
Talking to the Rogues
November 30, 2006
The Washington Times
Editorials/Op-Ed
One of the worst-kept secrets in Washington is the Iraq Study Group’s expected recommendation that the United States negotiate over Iraq’s future with rogue regimes in Iran and Syria — whose support for terrorist groups and militias helped turn post-Saddam Iraq into a powderkeg in the first place. Administration critics depict the Bush approach to dealing with Iran and Syria as essentially an across-the-board refusal to engage in substantive talks.
But this is silly: Syria has an embassy in Washington and the United States has one in Damascus, and all three countries are represented in organizations such as the United Nations. Since September 11, the Bush administration has discussed issues, including Afghanistan, Iraq and al Qaeda with Iran and Syria. What really bothers Mr. Bush’s critics is his refusal to hold higher-level, higher-profile talks with Iran and Syria that would amount to a public-relations windfall for these regimes. They disregard the fact that the Bush administration — like many of its predecessors — has tried time and again to resolve differences with Tehran and Damascus at the most senior levels. With both governments, the result has been a nearly unbroken series of diplomatic failures dating back to Jimmy Carter’s presidency.
In the wake of the Iranian Revolution, then-President Carter was determined to improve relations with the Islamist regime. So, he sent National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski to meet Iranian Prime Minister Mehdi Bazargan, a relative moderate, on Nov. 1, 1979, in Algiers. Iranian radicals loyal to Ayatollah Khomeini responded three days later by seizing the American embassy in Tehran — putting an end to any possibility of rapprochement. In 1985 and 1986, then-President Reagan tried unsuccessfully to sell arms to Iran in exchange for the release of American hostages. In 1998, after Mohammed Khatami was elected, Bill Clinton and Secretary of State Madeleine Albright moved to weaken U.S. sanctions on Iran; former FBI Director Louis Freeh maintains that Mr. Clinton dragged his feet in the investigation of the 1996 bombing of the U.S. military barracks at Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia, in which 19 American servicemen died. It all came to naught when the regime responded by demanding that Washington pay reparations to the Iranian people and denounced improved relations with Washington as “treason.”
Other U.S. efforts to engage Tehran collapsed due to Iranian provocations. Cooperation on Afghanistan ground to a halt in early 2002, after Israel captured the Karine-A, a ship carrying 50 tons of weapons to Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Authority. In May 2003, Washington broke off talks after Iran was found harboring al Qaeda leaders implicated in suicide attacks which killed Americans. Last year, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice dropped U.S. opposition to Iran’s admission to the World Trade Orga
World Trade Organization and agreed to the transfer of spare aircraft parts in exchange for Tehran’s coming clean about its nuclear program — something it still refuses to do.
The pattern with Syria was similar, dating back to Damascus’ spurning Mr. Carter’s efforts to persuade it to join Egyptian President Anwar Sadat in making peace with Israel. During the 1990s, Syria worked to sabotage the Clinton administration’s efforts to attain an Israeli-Palestinian peace settlement. Between 2001 and February 2005, the Bush administration sent five senior-level U.S. delegations to Syria in an effort to persuade President Bashar Assad to change his behavior on terrorism and his subversion of Lebanese independence; all of those efforts failed.
In sum, the burden of proof is on advocates of engagement to show that this time, high-level negotiations with Tehran and Damascus will achieve something useful.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/op-ed/20061129-091012-4449r.htm
Steve: people stink. They too consider what’s best for Number One. Sucking up to the world never got anyone anything worth while. In that position you get crumbs from the table. At best.
People in general do stink, which is why people shouldn’t get too close to each other. However, talking is good. It’s hard to kill someone when you are talking to them. I’m not advocating sucking up to anyone, I’m advocating talking, and I’m a bit mystified at this visceral opposition to talking. That’s all.
I’m advocating talking, and I’m a bit mystified at this visceral opposition to talking. That’s all.
Me too — talking and bombing. Just like they do. What’s wrong with that?
Sally: I just don’t think your strategy will be very effective. But, bombs away. I have no dog in that fight.
Let’s talk:
– So Mr Amadinehjad, why do you want to go nuclear for?
– Death to America! Death to Israel!
– I see. So, you’re saying it is just for peaceful purposes, right?
– The Holocaust never happened. Israel must be destroyed. The US is the Great Satan.
– Thanks. Say, if we let you go nuclear, could you give us a helping hand with Iraq?
– Convert do Islam or die, infidel!
– It was a pleasure talking to you, Sir.
Iran does not currently have nuclear warheads – at least, so far as the CIA professes to know. But they do have missiles which, if deployed in Venezuela, would be capable of hitting the United States.
But it goes against the pattern of Iranian regime behavior to act so overtly against the United States. Tehran’s mullahs prefer acting by indirection, through proxies, just as they are murdering Americans today in Iraq through proxies.
Ahmadinejad: We will stop the insurgency if only you will recognize the legitimacy of our regime, accept our nuclear program, and stop all efforts to support pro-democracy movements inside Iran. We can keep Americans from getting killed.
“Come hither, Little One,” said the Crocodile, “and I’ll whisper.”
In Rudyard Kipling’s Just So Stories, the Elephant’s Child is tempted by his ‘satiable curtiosity’ to seek out the Crocodile, and cannot believe the beast will actually try to eat him. As the Elephant’s Child pulls and pulls to free his nose from the Crocodile’s teeth, it grows and grows – and that is How the Elephant got its Trunk.
We won’t get off so easily.
Steve: I just don’t think your strategy will be very effective.
And how, pray tell would yours be — “talking” with nothing to talk about? Apart from the comic relief that Zeno provides above?
I have no dog in that fight.
You never did, it seems.
Many of the people in these countries stink. They want to blow up people with car bombs — civilians, citizens of their own country, women, children, anybody. People are degraded to being numbers. The higher the number killed, the better, in their eyes.
Mesopotamia — cradle of civilization, my ass. They are loony low-life scum. They are the biggest abusers of human rights the world has seen in a long, long time.
It was foolish to think deposing one dictator would reform the moral values of their society. The brutality of Saddam was carried out by the citizens of Iraq. We give them democracy, they blame us for their own incessant actions of inhumanity.
The world needs to occupy Iraq and line up all those brutal human rights abusers against the wall and exterminate them, so they are as ancient a part of world history as the Neanderthals. They are a menace to everyone. I hate their bloodthirsty religion and I hate them. Anyone who says it is OK to blow up a car bomb and kill anonymous people should be put to death — all the religious leaders and anyone else who advocates car bombs. Otherwise the future of the world is perilous.
This is why the USA wants out. They are crazy. They succeed in killing our sons and daughters too often. We hate them. We give them democracy and they thank us by killing our children.
There is no reason for anyone to kill anyone else anymore in Iraq, yet their society is on a killing spree. Perhaps they are infected with rabies. But one thing is certain: I hate them.
This is a call for the world: the USA and the Coalition started the job. The USA is sick of it. China, Russia, Venezuela, Malaysia, Japan, send your troops in, lock down that society, and kill the killers. We have tried, but we are sick of it. We have done our share by letting them write their own Constitution, form their own political parties, elect their own government, but we are thanked by being blamed for their own immoral inhumane behavior.
They are hateful people who do not believe in human rights.
See Neo. Mike is just one of the examples of a power source that Bush can tap into, but doesn’t because of “morality” concerns. Bah. Worry about morality after the war is over and people have stopped fighting.
Sergey:
Communication and diplomacy with Soviet Union made sense, because its leaders were not delusional maniacs, MAD was in place, and since Khruschev, “peaceful coexistence” was official government policy. Talks lead to treaties, that hold (more or less). Nothing of this apply to Iran.
I am not at all convinced that these statements are correct, or where correct, that they are apt in the same way.
For instance, I am totally unconvinced that the leaders of Iran are, as you say, “delusional maniacs.” Delusional maniacs rarely take the reins of power for an entire nation, and on those rare occasions that they do, are typically killed by their own or destroy their own nations. Robert Mugabe appears to be a delusional maniac. Ahmadinejad appears to carefully cultivate that impression while acting in an extremely precise and rational manner.
(The alternative position, of course, is that we are getting completely outflanked and outmanuvered by delusional maniacs– the same position that frothing democrats had been in as regards Bush, for the first 6 years of his presidency.)
I’m not convinced the reference to MAD is reasonable, since IRan has not the capaity to significantly damage the United States, and even given nuclear weapons will have several more large technical hurdles before it can reasonably begin to contemplate the destruction of the United States by brute force. Israel, perhaps, but not the United States.
In any event, the statement is wrong, as the MAD doctrine was made technically feasible by the 1959 generation of George Washington submarines, and was not fully articulated until the 60’s under McNamara. Khruschev’s “peaceful co-existence” doctrine started earlire, in 1953, and regardless the United States and the Soviet Union never really stopped talking to each other… nor lying to each other and trying to get around the other one.
Moreover, no one should understand “talk to Iran and Syria,” as code for “give up.” The idea here is– or should have been– to bring Iran and Syria to the table in order to lock in whatever gains we had made while we still had them. We still have some, but our position is qualitatively weaker now than a year ago, thus the incentives for Iran and Syria to bother with us are correspondingly smaller, and what we’d need to give up in order to lock in our smaller remaining gains is correspondingly higher.
No one should be under the impression that talks are meant to be a mechanism for giveng up, or a mechanism for somehow pulling a quick upset victory out of the system. It’s not. But if the situation can be cooled down, and some level of basic security achieved, we might be able to shift the conflict to something a whole lot less glamourous, but infinitely more effective– an economic and sociological contest.
If we can lock in even a partly open society in Iraq, with reasonable and enforced freedoms of economy, of political choice, and of expressi
Well, that seems to have cut me off…
If we can lock in even a partly open society in Iraq, with reasonable and enforced freedoms of economy, of political choice, and of expression (in roughly that order of importance) then I think in twenty years that neither Iraq, nor Iran, nor Syria will be much fo a threat to anyone.
Neither Iran or Syria have anything that can compete with the West, or specifically with the United States.
There was a brilliant American movie completely devoted to theme of talks with aggressive psyhos: “Mars attacks”. I believe it resolved the question in decisive way, and I recommend everybody to see it again: it is really fun.
These people don’t need to compete in the real world, they have a monopoly on oil. That’s all they need.
Sergey:
I can name one delusional maniac who, indeed, took reins of power of entire nation and was not killed by his own: Adolf Hitler. Attempts to kill him took place, but only after imminent catastrophe of Nazi regime became clear, and dozen million people already perished. And these attempts failed. Are you ready taking risk to repeat this scenario? I do not. Also, I would not gamble to see, if Ahmedinedjad is really mad or only plays mad; many pacifists before WWII hoped that Hitler was simply a clown. This wishful thinking is utterly irresponsible and dangerous.
You seem to be, perhaps unintentionally, mischaracterizing my remarks. I never characterized Ahmadinejad or anyone in the Iranian ruilng elite, as a clown. I certainly do not believe that they should be treated that way.
It is also really quite difficult to characterize Hitler as a delusional maniac, since he took a broken, defeated nation on the plains of Europe to challenging the rest of the West. One could make similar claims about Stalin and Mao, but at that point, given their obvious successes on the world stage, the phrase “delusional maniac” ceases to be anything but a pejorative.
The comparison is still not apt, though, because there is no sense in which the state of Iran can threaten the United States with any serious defeat except that of popular opinion. The capacity for Iran to defeat the United States in any other way simply does not exist– their second best route to a victory would be economic through an oil embargo. Careful historians will have noted that this attempt was tried and failed some decades ago, doing more damage to Iran than to the United States; careful economists will note that this strategy is even less likely to work now, due to structural changes in the economies of both states.
I have to say, the quality of arguments against talks is actually convincing me that there might be some merit to the idea.
Sergey, thanks for your reply on my blog.I have responded.
On this subject, no one is suggesting we “gamble” with Iran in any way.Equating negotiations with gambling is absurd and emblamatic of much “reasoning” of neocons.
Sergey:
You wrote: “Also, I would not gamble to see, if Ahmedinedjad is really mad or only plays mad; many pacifists before WWII hoped that Hitler was simply a clown. This wishful thinking is utterly irresponsible and dangerous.”.
I knew at least two people who actually met and talked with Hitler. They agreed on one thing: Adolf was the most charming man they had ever met.
When Hitler wanted to get something out of someone, he would turn on the personality and charm the mark. One of these academics admitted that he was really tempted by his particular offer…but turned it down since he was half-Jewish. And left Germany ASAP after that episode.
The other guy stayed in Germany, although he managed to keep the Nazis at arm’s length up to the final catastrophe, working on engineering projects for submarines as his cover. He recalled the fear and terror that surfaced after the Bulge 1944 Offensive failed…the worst time (until May 1945) in his life.
Sergey: one of my professors met Stalin at the Tehran conference in 1943. I asked his impressions.
He smiled and replied: “When Stalin entered the room, you could sense and almost smell the terror he invoked in the Soviet delegation. Grown men were almost paralyzed with fear…”.
Old English Proverb: “By their fruits you shall know them.”
Merry Christmas, Sergey…
My characterization of Hitler as delusional maniac still holds because his idea to occupy Russia and wage two-fronts war without strategic resources was obviously mad, and every German general in that time would say just the same. Many psychologists analized Hitler’s behaviour and public speeches, and on this point there is a broad consensus. What is important in this in respect to Iran, is that such crazy leaders can not be reliably deterred. So any political calculation based on deterrence is a gambling indeed.
He smiled and replied: “When Stalin entered the room, you could sense and almost smell the terror he invoked in the Soviet delegation. Grown men were almost paralyzed with fear…”.
I so wish Bush would cultivate the same kind of atmosphere amongst our enemies.
But Sergey, I didn’t bring up deterrence as a pre-condition for negotiations…! You did!
And based on a simply incorrect historical timeline of events, as far as I understand you.
I’m not really sure I understand your reasoning. (Your point, of course– that negotiations are bad– is crystal clear.)
All negotiations with enemy must be based on reliable deterrence. (As it was with USSR during Cold War, including Cuba rocket crisis.)If this is impossible, there should be no negotiations. Ergo, never negotiate with nut-cases. What can be more clear, than that?
Yes, Iran is no “threat” to the U.S., in the conventional sense of a nation that could destroy us outright, or even mount an effective offensive against our armed forces. But that’s not the threat Iran poses, in an era of asymmetric warfare. One or two nuclear devices in major cities in the U.S. could easily destabilize the country, causing damage equal to a severe attack, not to mention the horrendous casualties. Is this the “gamble” you wish us to take, MV? Those who profess that Iran is not a threat are “stuck on stupid”…you know, their thinking is so 20th century.
Also, imagine concequences, if Kennedy retreated under Khruschev’s rocket blackmail and allowed USSR keep their rockets at Cuba. Expansion of Communism in this case would be unstoppable. But Kennedy did not yield, and era of “peaceful coexistance” began. This was the begining of the end for Soviet Union; if Kennedy yielded, this would be begining of the end for Western democracy. Now world is approaching another turning point, with Iranian ticking nuclear time bomb. Geopolitics is a lizard’s brain game; it could not be successfully played in geriatric ward, because you need enough testosterone in your veins for limbic cortex function properly.