Confirmation

I generally agree with about 90% of David Horsey's opinions.  Today is an exception.  I think he's nailed it in one.  His subject is President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for Defense Secretary and what we can expect in confirmation hearings.  As Horsey points out, there are some serious objections being voiced on both sides of the aisle and he lays out those objections succinctly.

First -- and this is earning him enmity from both sides of the aisle -- he is not very popular with the pro-Israel lobby. It is not that his views are anti-Israel -- his skepticism about the policies of the current Israeli government is shared by a rather large number of Israelis, after all -- it is that he has not been a bouncing, bubbling cheerleader for Israel the way so many American politicians feel they need to be.

Second, Hagel, in the past, has favored negotiation rather than confrontation with Iran. He has modified this view more recently and now says all options -- including a military option -- should be considered to stop Iran's push for nuclear weapons. That is pretty much a consensus opinion in the foreign policy establishments of both political parties, but there are some saber rattlers on the right who, nevertheless, suspect Hagel is soft on the ayatollahs.

Third, the conservative social views he held as a senator are bugging liberals. His position on abortion leaned toward the wacky Todd Akin wing of his party, which led him to vote against allowing abortions in military hospitals. Now, with that prohibition lifted, some Democrats are wondering if he will try to undermine the new policy. Hagel also said some catty things about a gay gentleman who had been picked to be an American ambassador. Although he has since apologized for his remarks, gay-rights folks wonder if he is the right guy to oversee the new gay-friendly military.

Fourth, Democrats are wondering why in the heck Democratic presidents so often pick Republicans to run the Pentagon. They worry it plays into the stereotype that Democrats are not tough enough to be in charge of running America's wars.

But there is also a fifth point that Horsey makes, and it is that fifth point is where he really seals the deal:

And so, though not much has been said about it, yet, it is likely that the biggest behind-the-scenes resistance to Hagel will come from defense contractors and people within the Pentagon who think bloat is just fine. More than the pro-Israel folks, more than the bomb-Iran crowd, more than gays and abortion activists, it is those who profit from military spending and the senators who are lavished with their campaign donations who will be aiming the biggest guns to shoot down Chuck Hagel.    [Emphasis added]

So, why did Obama choose Chuck Hagel?  Apparently because he likes Hagel and because they share some common goals.  Hagel "mentored" Obama when the president was a brand new senator.  Both of them want to cut back on traditional "war waging" whenever there is a dispute, especially since our new arsenal of weaponry (e.g., drones) don't always require too many boots on the ground.  Both men want to get the troops out of Afghanistan sooner rather than later.  Both really are committed to slicing the bloat out of the Pentagon budget (like the Abrams tanks that even the military doesn't want).

Is that enough to justify the nomination and to justify the president's digging his heels in?

It's hard to tell, but I'll tell you what:  those confirmation hearings are going to be high drama.

Look into popcorn futures.  Might be a hot investment over the coming months

Here We Go, Again

(Editorial cartoon by Kevin Siers / The Charlotte Observer (July 31, 2012) and featured at McClatchy DC. Click on image to enlarge and then come on back.)

I'll be the first to admit that I took some perverse joy in the coverage of Mitt Romney's Grand Tour, taken to establish his foreign policy credibility. He has gone from gaffe to gaffe, and the MSM has been quite happy to document each mis-step, from the condescending comments on the English readiness for the Olympics, to the snubbing (and cursing) of the US press corps traveling with him, to the insulting of the Palestinian culture. It has been like watching a real "not-ready-for-prime-time" troupe.

My good cheer, however, vanished when I read some serious coverage of what he has been saying during the Grand Tour. All sorts of alarms sounded when I read Maeve Weston's article on his Jerusalem speech.

On a day that mixed religious symbolism, courtship of financial donors and tough rhetoric, Mitt Romney on Sunday declared in his most aggressive tones to date that the U.S. should stand firmly behind Israel if it chooses military action to thwart Iran's progression toward a nuclear weapon.

Flanked by several dozen Israeli and American flags, with the last glimmers of sunlight illuminating the walls of Jerusalem's Old City behind him, Romney argued in a speech that Tehran's ayatollahs "are testing our moral defenses" and monitoring "who will object" and "who will look the other way."

Accusing Iran of having a "bloody and brutal record," the unofficial Republican presidential nominee said, "We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny Iran's leaders the means to follow through on their malevolent intentions."

The conduct of Iran's leaders "gives us no reason to trust them with nuclear material," he said. As they edge toward developing nuclear weapons capability, "preventing that outcome must be our highest national security priority."

It was only with super-human restraint that I didn't embolden that whole quote.

First of all, what the hell does "the ayatollahs are testing our moral defenses" mean? I recognize the words and the syntax as English, but I just don't get it. It's not as if the Obama White House is shining Iran on; in fact, right now the White House and Congress are busy ratcheting up the pressure via sanctions in Iran. And it's not as if the rest of the world is ignoring the fact that the crazies in Iran have the know-how, and possibly the capacity already to develop and deliver a nuclear weapon. What the adults in the world are trying to do is make it clear to Iran that it just isn't worth it.

So, amidst all of this diplomacy Mitt decides to pander to the crazies in Israel (who are currently in power) that want the US to either nuke Iran or allow them to do so. Why? There's a big Jewish vote out there.

Kevin Siers' cartoons reminds us of the last Republican who was itching for a war. A decade and a trillion dollars later, and we're about to go that route again.

Kyrie Eleison

Inured To War?

[Click on image to enlarge and then come back.]

David Horsey's recent cartoon and post is quite depressing for many different reasons. I'm not sure I agree with all of Horsey's opinions on the possibility of war with Iran, but I do admit that is certainly a possibility.

War has become a matter of presidential choice. That’s why we should take seriously what the candidates for president have to say about attacking Iran. They can promise to cut the deficit or bring down gas prices or scuttle Obamacare, but, if they promise war, it’s the one promise we know they can keep. ...

Obama has pushed tough sanctions on Iran. His hard-edged diplomacy has gotten Europeans to line up with him to demand that Iran refrain from building nukes. The president, showing his grimmest face, insists he is not bluffing when he says that military action is a real and ready option if Iran does not comply with the demands of the international community (at least the international community that does not include Russia and China, which, for obvious self-interested reasons, do not approve of military intervention in countries where the governments are corrupt and authoritarian).

Obama’s rhetoric may be more nuanced than the campaign speeches of Santorum and Gingrich – that is why the Republicans attack him for "apologizing" to America’s adversaries -- but the president’s foreign policy is very much in line with the philosophy that has guided U.S. actions in the world since 1945: engagement everywhere on the globe where there is a perceived national interest, backed by military power that is second-to-none and quick to be employed.

It's pretty hard to quarrel with that, especially given the last decade or so. Congress effectively ceded the right to declare war to the White House after 9/11, but even before that presidents have pretty much gotten their way when it comes to initiating armed conflict. It became much easier after the draft was abolished because not everyone had to worry about doing the fighting or sending a loved one to do it. But Horsey carries the argument further:

The truth is, Americans are not a peace-loving people. We pretend otherwise because it seems wrong to admit that the United States is a nation that has mostly benefited from war. We were not like the contented Canadians, who patiently waited for the Mother Country to bestow self-government. We went to war and tossed the British out. Through one war with Mexico and relentless wars with Indian tribes, we became a country that spanned a continent. The Spanish-American War and the First World War marked our arrival on the world stage. And the Second World War left us as one of the two preeminent powers on the planet.

Wars in Korea and Vietnam were not popular, but, by the time of the conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans had become used to fighting wars with ambiguous results. War is now simply what we do. It is part of our national identity; facing any foe, bearing any burden in the twilight struggle to defend freedom.

Put in less idealistic terms, our country is a national security state built on the vast military-industrial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about. Our government and our economy are permanently geared up for war, and very few Americans can remember a time when this was not so. It’s hard to imagine any president resisting the temptation to use this awesome force and even harder to imagine that a majority of Americans would ever elect a man who would. [Emphasis added]

Yes, we do now live in a "national security state built on the vast military-industrial complex," but I am not so certain that the American public has become inured to the constant state of war we've been in for all these years to the point where we will just shrug our shoulders as the next one begins before the last one ends. It has become too costly, both in terms of our national treasury and in terms of our national psyche. Too much has happened, especially the last four years. Too much has been lost and too many people are tired of being the pack animals for these kinds of whims.

At least I hope so.

Beating The Drums

Well, another primary/caucus down and just 48 to go. The next one is two weeks away so we get a bit of a breather, but not much. It doesn't appear that any candidates will be dropping out of the race for the GOP nomination for president at this point. Instead, the race will get more heated as those remaining hope to stop the Romney juggernaut or at least slow it down. The dueling will continue via campaign speeches and ugly television ads.

New Hampshire did show us that the key issue there, and presumably a major issue in the rest of the country, is that of the economy. That's really no surprise. What is surprising, however, is the emphasis in the campaigns on other, more "red meat" issues. We've seen the remaining candidates trying to out-conservative each other on immigration and that will probably continue. The same is true on defense issues, particularly on what to do about Iran's nuclear ambitions. It is this issue which continues to be inflated by all the candidates but Ron Paul. He's no pacifist, but he doesn't think the country should be spending the treasury down as Policeman For The World.

The rest of the candidates have all promised to stop Iran at all costs, up to and including war. "All options must remain on the table." "We must have a regime change." We will no doubt continue to hear such phrases and more like them. Apparently at least these gentlemen have forgotten the debacle of Iraq and what it cost this country.

Micah Zenko and Emma Welch have an op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times which explores this campaign issue and notes that when it comes down to any kind of specific plans, all of the candidates are woefully inarticulate. None of them have any plan in mind, and with good reason. They, like most of the rest of the population haven't any real clue as to just where Iran is in the quest for a nuclear weapon, or even if the quest is real.

First, does the U.S. intelligence community know where every weapons-related nuclear facility is located? As demonstrated by the revelation of a potential hidden uranium enrichment facility near the city of Qom in 2009, it is impossible to know whether Iran is concealing other nuclear facilities.

Second, can airstrikes alone eliminate all nuclear facilities? Even Gingrich acknowledged: "The idea that you're going to wage a bombing campaign that accurately takes out all the Iranian nuclear program … is a fantasy."

Last, but certainly not least, have senior leaders in Iran decided to pursue nuclear weapons? Last February, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper admitted: "We do not know … if Iran will eventually decide to build nuclear weapons."

None of this will stop the candidates, however. They will continue with the glib assertions of the need to flex our national muscle at whatever cost without ever detailing just what they would do. Zemko and Welch have a few cogent words of advice for voters and the press at this point:

Initiating a preemptive military strike against Iran to eliminate its suspected nuclear weapons capability would be an enormously significant — and potentially disastrous — foreign policy decision. As the Republican presidential campaign continues, the media and prospective voters must challenge the candidates for greater explanation on this application of military force. In Iraq, the U.S. discovered the enormous costs and consequences of trying to disarm a country through regime change. It is crucial, therefore, that we demand that those running for president clearly articulate a realistic strategy for preventing an Iranian bomb before placing "all options on the table."

Not a bad idea, that.

Peace On Earth

Alan J. Kuperman, the director of the Nuclear Proliferation Prevention Program at the University of Texas at Austin, has suggested the US give Iran a rather nasty gift for the holidays. His lengthy opinion piece in today's NY Times urges the US to bomb the known nuclear targets in Iran to show we mean business, because, of course, it's Christmas and Christmas is such a good time to teach the lessons of Christianity to the heathens.

PRESIDENT OBAMA should not lament but sigh in relief that Iran has rejected his nuclear deal, which was ill conceived from the start. Under the deal, which was formally offered through the United Nations, Iran was to surrender some 2,600 pounds of lightly enriched uranium (some three-quarters of its known stockpile) to Russia, and the next year get back a supply of uranium fuel sufficient to run its Tehran research reactor for three decades. The proposal did not require Iran to halt its enrichment program, despite several United Nations Security Council resolutions demanding such a moratorium.

Iran was thus to be rewarded with much-coveted reactor fuel despite violating international law. Within a year, or sooner in light of its expanding enrichment program, Iran would almost certainly have replenished and augmented its stockpile of enriched uranium, nullifying any ostensible nonproliferation benefit of the deal. ...

Tehran’s rejection of the original proposal is revealing. It shows that Iran, for domestic political reasons, cannot make even temporary concessions on its bomb program, regardless of incentives or sanctions. Since peaceful carrots and sticks cannot work, and an invasion would be foolhardy, the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. ...

Incentives and sanctions will not work, but air strikes could degrade and deter Iran’s bomb program at relatively little cost or risk, and therefore are worth a try. They should be precision attacks, aimed only at nuclear facilities, to remind Iran of the many other valuable sites that could be bombed if it were foolish enough to retaliate.

At least Mr. Kuperman recognizes that opening a third war would be foolhardy, as would giving Israel the green light to do our dirty work. That's something, I guess. What is so painful about his essay, however, is that Mr. Kuperman has already decided that further negotiations backed by sanctions won't work, even though direct sanctions haven't been identified and threatened in any meaningful way by the parties engaged in the negotiations.

Further, he admits that the aerial bombing may not do much, if any, real damage to the nuclear facilities because of their being embedded deep underground. Would the next step in his fantasy be the use of tactical nuclear weapons, the "bunker busters" which our military may or may not have? Or would we simply move on to other targets such as oil and gas facilities or important religious sites? That's sure to garner the US a lot of good will in the region.

And what about Iran? Will the aerial bombing, effective or not, cow that nation's leaders into submission or will it stiffen their resolve and enable them to justify retaliation, either against US forces in the region, or against Israel. Will they install blockades to stop the shipment of gas and oil from the area, thereby upping the ante?

Mr. Kuperman doesn't seem to care about any of that. All he wants to do is "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." He sounds like another American, one who lost an election last year.

Moron.

Smarter Than The GOP

My visit to Watching America was a brief one this morning, primarily because I found what I was looking for almost immediately. I was interested in seeing what our European allies had to say about President Obama's decision to pull the plug on the Bush administration's Missile Defense System. I suspect this op-ed piece from Germany's Der Tagesspiegel is pretty representative.

...The whole matter revolves around whether or not Iran poses a credible threat. Either Bush is right in maintaining that Iran is making progress working toward a nuclear bomb and the long-range missiles to deliver it at least as far as Israel, Europe and U.S. military bases overseas; in that case, there must be plans in place to counter that whether one likes Bush or not. Or Obama is correct in his new approach: Tehran isn’t making the technological progress they need, as many had feared. In that case, the West can postpone – not abandon - defensive measures and give diplomacy a chance to dissuade Iran from its plans via sanctions and incentives. ...

Obama is considering only those sober facts concerning U.S. interests. He considers the missile shield a technology that doesn’t yet work against a threat that isn’t yet imminent at a cost that would be uncontrollable. Besides that, locating such a shield in Poland and the Czech Republic only serves to hinder any agreement with Moscow concerning heftier sanctions against Iran. The projects in Eastern Europe, therefore, will be halted because their cost is higher than their worth. If a missile defense system becomes necessary, it could be based in Turkey or on naval vessels. [Emphasis added]

Which is essentially what I said here, and what Sec. of Defense Gates and President Obama said on Thursday. And as to the GOP whines about selling out Poland and the Czech Republic, the columnist even has that covered:

...One side effect of the policy change: the disappointment with the United States is pulling Poland and the Czech Republic closer to Western Europe. The chasms opened during the Bush years have been closed at least a little.

Why, yes, I believe that covers things nicely. Too bad the Republicans can't see the light, but considering where their heads appear to be lodged, that isn't too surprising.

Good News/Not So Good News

Yesterday I noted that press reports predicted that President Obama would be shelving at least part of the Missile Defense System that had the Russians so upset. While I had hopes that the entire concept of installing the fantasy system in Eastern Europe to defend our allies from Iranian missiles would be shelved in its entirety, that wasn't exactly what Defense Secretary Gates and President Obama announced later in the day.

"Son of Star Wars" was to be scrapped, but a new system, one with more reality based technology will be phased in according to a time line issued by the White House. At least initially, the missile component will be aboard ships rather than in Poland, and will be in place seven years sooner than the project envisioned by George W. Bush. A radar display will be built in a European country to be named later. We're still going to be spending billions of dollars to defend against an Iranian nuclear missile program still in its relative infancy, but at least it's one that might work, were it actually needed.

Both Secretary Gates and President Obama made it clear that the US was still in the business of protecting NATO countries from attacks emanating from the East. The military industrial complex would continue to receive its annual infusion from the Treasury. That, however, didn't stop Republicans (and their perennial ally, Senator Joe-not-Avigdor Lieberman) from profound outrage at the idea. The NY Times noted this response from the GOP's House leader:

The decision drew immediate Republican criticism. “Scrapping the U.S. missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic does little more than empower Russia and Iran at the expense of our allies in Europe,” said Representative John A. Boehner of Ohio, the House Republican leader. “It shows a willful determination to continue ignoring the threat posed by some of the most dangerous regimes in the world.”

Say, what? Defense Secretary Gates, a hold-over from the Bush administration, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff all agreed with the decision made by President Obama. Does Mr. Boehner know something they don't?

And how, exactly does this "empower" Russia? That country's leaders have been sitting back and watching the Bush administration piss away tens of billions of dollars on a weapons system that clearly was never going to work anyway. Further, the placement of the system at Russia's back door gave its leaders plenty of fuel to denounce the US as a dangerous aggressor, much the same way a US administration would should Russia decide to place missiles in, oh, say, Cuba. But facts have never deterred the Republicans, and they certainly didn't yesterday.

From a purely pragmatic point of view, President Obama did execute a rather nifty almost balletic move yesterday. While I'm no fan of the kind of military expenditure that the new system will require, I have to admit that the shift by President Obama makes some sense, something that Bush's Military Defense System never did.

A Gentle Rebuke

Vice President Biden's comments on Sunday with respect to a possible Israeli attack on Iranian nuclear sites (see my post on the issue here) have been "clarified" by President Obama. From the Los Angeles Times:

President Obama, issuing an unusual clarification of his vice president's words, said today that his administration has "absolutely not" given its blessing for an Israeli attack on Iran.

Obama said that though Israel has the right to defend itself, U.S. officials have emphasized the need to avoid "major conflict in the Middle East." ...

Biden's words set off a debate over whether the White House was hardening its line on Iran in the wake of Tehran's postelection crackdown, or whether Biden had simply committed a gaffe.

Obama said in a CNN interview today that Biden was merely stating "a categorical fact, which is that we can't dictate to other countries what their security interests are."

That the US is not giving Israel any kind of blank check for such an attack is a relief. I just wish the response had been a little quicker from Mr. Obama, but I suppose an argument could be made that too quick a public response would have unnecessarily embarrassed the Vice President (if that's possible).

Presumably someone from the White House has already sent a message to Israel's government which similarly "clarified" the Vice President's comments, but if not, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mike Mullen, forcefully reiterated President Obama's stance on tamping down the instability in that region of the world yesterday while speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, according to this AP article.

Mullen pointedly said "the strike option" - is one possible outcome. He suggested that a strike, meaning missile or other attacks to blow up Iran's known nuclear facilities, is a last resort. It would be "very destabilizing," Mullen said.

One way to be sure Israel and it's Prime Minister get the message would be to be a bit more selective in the weaponry we ship to Israel. Maybe if those "bunker buster" missiles that country wants stayed in the armories here in the US, Israel would begin to get the message that there are no longer any blank checks being sent by Washington.

Say, What?

Writing a check with his mouth that his feet can't cash is nothing new for Joe Biden. He was famous for his irreverent and careless statements when he was a senator, but most people assumed that as Vice President he would be more circumspect because what he says will now be construed as White House policy. That's why his comments yesterday on ABC's "This Week" were so stunning. From the NY Times:

Plunging squarely into one of the most sensitive issues in the Middle East, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. suggested on Sunday that the United States would not stand in the way of Israeli military action aimed at the Iranian nuclear program.

The United States, Mr. Biden said in an interview broadcast on ABC’s “This Week,” “cannot dictate to another sovereign nation what they can and cannot do.”

"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, in an interview taped in Baghdad at the end of a visit there.

The remarks went beyond at least the spirit of any public utterances by President Barack Obama, who has said that diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program should be given to the end of the year. But the president has also said that he is “not reconciled” to the possibility of Iran possessing a nuclear weapon — a goal Tehran denies. [Emphasis added]

Now, it is entirely possible that Vice President Biden had just lapsed into his old ways because he was tired. He spoke, after all, from Baghdad at the end of his trip to visit the troops and his son. If that was the case, he'll be facing a tongue lashing from another famous mouth, the one on Rahm Immanuel, for his failure of discipline, and we can expect a "clarifying" statement to issue from the White House.

However, even if the vice president's comments were not an expression of a stiffening policy from the White House, they might as well have been. The effect will potentially be the same: Israel will assume it has just been given a blank check to do what certain elements in that country have wanted to do for several years, launch an attack on suspected nuclear sites in Iran. Those elements are now in charge of the Israeli government, so such an attack is certainly not out of the question. That attack will be carried out with weaponry largely supplied by the US and paid for by US taxpayers, a fact that is well known by countries in that region and in the world.

Mr. Biden did include the standard White House line with respect to diplomatic engagement of Iran, reminding the Iranian leaders that the offer to talk is still on the table. President Obama, also speaking on Sunday, reiterated the preference for talks with Iran, as another NY Times article makes clear, but will that be enough to offset the free pass seemingly given to Israel?

That's still an open question, one that had better be answered in a hurry, if only through quiet diplomatic channels. If it isn't, we're in for more cowboy diplomacy, only this time it will involve a surrogate.

And that's not the kind of change that was promised.

Post Platonic Retreat

Ever wonder what the architects of the disastrous administration of George W. Bush administration are doing these days? Well, one of them, John R. Bolton, is currently a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (no surprise there). He also penned this op-ed piece for the Los Angeles Times, the contents of which are also not surprising.

Mr. Bolton's subject is President Obama's foolish policy with respect to Iran, foolish in Mr. Bolton's eyes because the president has determined that "negotiation" is inferior to what the neocons found to be so useful in foreign policy -- missiles and bombs.

But it is the president's underlying policies that are wrong, not just his rhetoric. Saying that he does not want the "debate" inside Iran to be about the United States is disingenuous at best. Obama's real objective is to launch negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program, in the belief that he can talk Iran out of its 20-year effort to acquire deliverable nuclear weapons. He said it during the 2008 campaign, during his inaugural address and repeatedly thereafter.

Viewed in the light of this near-religious obsession with negotiation, Obama's reticence is entirely understandable: He does not want to jeopardize the chance to sit with the likes of Iranian supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the Islamic Revolutionary Guard.

In fact, everything we know about the regime indicates that Iran, and the Revolutionary Guard in particular, will never voluntarily give up its nuclear program, so Obama's policy is doomed to failure. (Inevitably, of course, if negotiations start, Obama would change the definition of success to include accepting a "peaceful" Iranian uranium- enrichment program, which means Tehran would retain its "breakout" capability to quickly produce nuclear weapons -- but exploring this further Obama failure has to wait for another day.)

Accordingly, it is Obama's policy errors, not his rhetorical ones, that should be opposed. Rhetoric itself is not policy but only the adjunct of policy, albeit often an important one. Obama's reticence reflects his larger misjudgment -- the dangerous misconception that there is a negotiated solution to Iran's nuclear threat that can satisfy both Iran and the United States. ...

Obama's policy, and that of the United States, should be the overthrow of the Islamic revolution of 1979. The massive resistance to the June 12 elections is just another fact supporting that conclusion. ...

...Obama wants negotiations with Tehran, not regime change. Given that the Revolutionary Guard and the hard-line mullahs -- and not the people -- are increasingly likely to be the short-term winners of the current Battle for Iran, supporters of regime change must now make longer-term plans. [Emphasis added]

"Overthrow," "regime change": where have we heard that before? Iraq, maybe?

Here's what we got from that approach to the world: thousands of dead and wounded American soldiers and hundreds of thousands of dead and wounded Iraqis later, we're still mired in Iraq. Our economy is in shambles, and we're stuck with an off-budget war paid for on the national credit card that will take a generation to pay off. Our military, stretched beyond its capacity, will take nearly that long to fully recover, even with the recruitment of thirty-somethings to fill the gaps left by a war we're stuck with for at least another couple of years. All because some cowboys in Washington were looking for an excuse to get their war on.

We've seen what "regime change" costs. It's time to see what real diplomacy can accomplish.

[Note: the article has a side bar poll on the issue, one that is crudely phrased. A little "freeping" is still in order.]

Dealing With The Enemy

There was a campaign for the presidency not so long ago, when now-President Obama was constantly harassed by opponents for his commitment to dealing with the powers that are not friendly to us. Looming particularly large in his sites was the presidency of Iranian Ahmadinejad, who has been loony enough to declare he had a halo on when he spoke at the U.N., and who was ominously claiming the right of his country to own nuclear weapons.

The previous maladministration 'dealt' with Iran by declaring it a member of the Axis of Evil and cutting off the entire nation from any kind of statesmanship. Rightwingers during the campaign expressed indignation that President Obama entertained thoughts of upgrading from that diplomatic failure and acting like a functional adult.

The recent pretense of an election in Iran brought protesters out into the open by declaring a victory for their nutcase, with an obviously manipulated vote. Once again voices on the right shouted that the president should operate at the playground taunt level, and make a lot of noise - although even our wingnuts didn't pretend that that would work out very well with the administration in power in Iran.

Last night on PBS' Newshour, appearing for unknown reasons as the spokesperson of his party, the nutcase Lindsey Graham declared that President Obama was hoping that he would be working with the other nutcase, Ahmadinejad. Graham rather remarkably implied that tactics from the White House were intended to enable that worst case scenario. As usual, the media hostess, Judy
Woodruff, let that slide without any slight attempt to allow factual presentation.

The irresponsibility from the right is hardly unprecedented, and has made this into the disaster for this country that it continues to be. Where there might have been some ability to work with this other, inimical, government before, the previous maladministration isolated the U.S. from it and the rest of the Middle East. Now forces that linger on in D.C. fighting against any functional government want to pit the President against their fellow nutcase in Iran in continuation of the hostilities the previous maladministration felt comfortable with. Just the thing we need, more disastrous posturing.

Commenting at CNN.com this morning, Roland S. Martin makes the point that these seething critics are displaying their ignorance of history as well as inability to comprehend or to conduct diplomacy.

Critics of President Obama, mostly Republicans, have seethed that he has not been more forceful in ripping the theocratic leadership in Iran for their brutal handling of protesters angry with what they see as a stolen election.

In Tuesday's press conference, the president toughened his talk, saying, "The United States and the international community have been appalled and outraged by the threats, beatings and imprisonments of the last few days."

Still, Obama's measured and calm approach has been right on target, while his critics have been totally off base.
(snip)
We are seeing a remarkable amount of courage in Iran. The people there are tired of being treated like children, and are putting their lives on the line to demand change in the country.

Instead of inflaming tensions, the United States should continue to issue tempered comments, and allow the people in the streets to drive this issue. This should not become a U.S. vs. Iran discussion.

If the focus remains on those demanding change in the streets of Iran, especially if the beatings and oppression continues -- remember Selma, Alabama, and Bloody Sunday? -- then those who are silent in Iran will be silent no more, and other countries will begin to weigh in on the brutality.

The change we desire in Iran will not happen with a press release or a comment by the president of the United States or even a congressional resolution. We must show support, but from a distance. The United States played a direct role in the mess we see in Iran today. It's best that we shut up and allow Iran to determine Iran's fate.

From what they are shouting, and the way they marshal forces against anything the president attempts to do for this country, once again the wingers are trying to damage the government they don't control, in any way they can. Eight years in power showed what their intentions are, and those are not good.

It's too bad the media will not speak out, too, against the right wing's obvious ill intent toward the U.S. that has rejected their ideology. Such obvious mischief against our best interests should be treated like the hostility to the country that it is.

Maybe the entire rightwing could take a hike down or up the Appalachian Trail - the government would be much improved.

Newpolitiks

One area that exhibits right wing incapacities quite ferociously is the ability to negotiate and cooperate with other nations. There was no feeling of participation in the world of nations in the previous maladministration. A particular onus was put on the non-Christian world, perhaps most cogently expressed by its threats that had no effect on nuclear developments in Iran and N.Korea.

Today a post on the former Veep Cheney in NYT (h/t to Dan Froomkin) recalled his leaden feet on the very important accelerator that he just couldn't operate. The impression remaining of those fumbles showed up in remarks by the UN's atomic energy supervisor on wrongheadedness that left the U.S. helpless to influence Iran in its development of nuclear power.

For Mohamed ElBaradei, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, 'a combination of ignorance and arrogance' under the Bush administration squandered countless diplomatic opportunities with Iran and so allowed it to forge ahead with its nuclear program. Referring twice to Dick Cheney as 'Darth Vader,' ElBaradei told me in an interview that 'U.S. policy consisted of two mantras — Iran should not have the knowledge and should not spin one single centrifuge. They kept saying, wait, Iran is not North Korea, it will buckle. That was absolutely a mistake.

The intractable ignorance displayed by the former oilmen who gained control of the White House for eight years is quickly being remedied by President Obama. He has shown the kind of attitude that could have led to positive relationships - relationships whose loss has occasioned the direct outcome of blind aggression, rabid counter aggression. The resounding success in ending the weekend's piracy episode has been a heartening betokening of newfound ability to handle, rather than exploit, crises.

Problematic situations throughout the world have received only snarling offensiveness for eight years. Beginnings are overdue in developing a diplomatic environment that can foster our own interests for a change.

Countless opportunities have been smashed by the antagonism of the war criminal approach by our thankfully ex-executive branch. Now its time to pick up the pieces. With controlled competence the new standard, we are much more secure.

Talking Diplomacy

While most of the nation is concentrating on the economy and the unremitting stream of numbers (the Dow Jones Average, unemployment and quarterly earnings reports), occasionally some good news quietly seeps into view from another area. I admit to a sense of relief when it comes to some of the diplomatic moves the Obama administration and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have made recently.

The latest such good news has to do with Iran. No, Iran has not backed down on the nuclear issue thanks to Sec. Clinton's efforts, but it's clear that this administration realizes that Iran is a key player in the Middle East, primarily because of the ill-advised and illegal invasion of Iraq by the prior administration. The Obama foreign policy team has obviously taken notice of that fact and have found an excellent way to begin a dialogue with that nation.

From a Boston Glove editorial:

ULTIMATELY, the nuclear issue will make or break the dialogue that President Obama wants to open with Iran. But Obama has chosen the right place to test the possibilities for US-Iranian cooperation. This was the significance of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's recent acknowledgement that Iran is to be invited to "a big-tent meeting with all the parties who have a stake and an interest in Afghanistan."

Iran has supported anti-Taliban forces in Afghanistan and is suffering greatly from the cross-border smuggling of opium grown in Taliban-controlled areas of Afghanistan. It makes sense to begin the US-Iran dialogue where shared interests are clear and past cooperation was fruitful. [Emphasis added]

A diplomacy which does not start and end with military power is a refreshing change and evidence that sanity has returned to US foreign policy. Finding common ground on issues and working mutually to resolve those issues gives both parties some confidence that other, thornier issues can also be handled. The nuclear issue is not going to be easily resolved, but at least now there are some grounds for hope.

At the same time, such a shift in how issues will be handled by the US has no doubt been noticed by the rest of the world. I'm sure everyone must be breathing a bit easier.

Obama's Road To Iran

Doyle McManus has provided a rather nice bit of analysis on the new administration's likely approach to Iran. Underlying the column's argument is the assumption that Iran wants nuclear capability for weaponry rather than for the generation of power, and while that may in fact be the case, it is still an assumption. That caveat aside, I am cheered by the fact that President Obama and those he has surrounded himself with are thinking in terms of real-world outcomes to the various options currently available to them.

Most (and maybe all) of Obama's advisors see the costs of attacking Iran as outweighing the benefits. If Iran gets closer to acquiring nuclear weapons, they've warned, military action won't look any more appetizing than it did under George W. Bush.

But that doesn't mean the United States would do nothing. Instead, Obama aides suggested in their writings, the U.S. should pursue a Persian Gulf version of the containment strategy used against the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

What would that mean? For starters, a nuclear-capable Iran would face continued, serious pressure from the United States and its allies to dismantle whatever it had built. Obama might declare that a nuclear attack on Israel would be treated as an attack on the U.S. homeland. And the U.S. military would act to bolster Iraq, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf states against conventional-warfare threats from an emboldened Iranian regime. ...

None of this thinking means Obama has abandoned hope in negotiations to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons. At this point, one official said, the administration is focusing on Plan A, not Plan B. But it's welcome evidence that behind the slogan of hope lies a realistic appraisal of the possible outcomes.

President Obama has more tools to work with than his predecessor because he has made it clear, both during his campaign and after, that he is willing to talk to Iran (and to listen) without any of the insulting preconditions listed by the Bush regime. He also can go to the rest of the world for guidance and assistance without any of the baggage of the last eight years. Europe knows that they are going to be dealing with an American president who has promised an end to unilateralism carried out with bombs. Russia rattled a few sabres and was met with a measured yet firm response. And China, with the drop in energy prices worldwide, does not need to fear angering the mullahs with whom they have negotiated major contracts.

Containment, which Mr. McManus refers to as "the middle way", does appear to be the best the US and the rest of the world can hope for, but it was a successful tactic during the Cold War, and should work as Plan B during these times. Meanwhile, Plan A, open and frank discussions with Iran, should proceed.

It's about time.

To-Do List: Iran

Since I am so generously providing President Elect Obama with some suggestions for his agenda, I might as well add to the list. Iran: it's time to restore diplomatic relations with that country as well. Like it did after the Cuban revolution, the US has done its best to isolate Iran after its revolution, using the excuse of the hostage taking done by Iran in the final days of fighting.

With no direct contact between the two countries, the US has been hard-pressed to find ways to stop Iran's drive for nuclear weaponry/nuclear power and its financial and arms support for groups such as Hamas and the Mahdi Army. Furthermore, given Iran's current status as Iraq's Best Friend Forever, the US could use some help from Iran's leaders in quelling the violence in Iraq, but most of the discussions between the two nations have been indirect. President Bush's philosophy of "We don't talk to our enemies" has made relations with Iran even worse, which I didn't think was possible.

In browsing through the articles at Watching America, I found a relevant editorial in Saudi Arabia's English-language Arab News. The writer offers some advice that President Obama really ought to consider.

Obama needs to begin gradually. Any sudden volte-face would be trumpeted by the clerical establishment as a victory. It would be used by Ahmadinejad to widen his appeal to young voters. And it might be used to show that the defiance of world opinion and Western sanctions over Iran’s nuclear research is virtually cost-free. There are many steps that Washington could take, however, that would slowly isolate the hard-liners while helping to resolve the conflicts on which they base their demagoguery.

First, Washington should return American diplomats to Tehran. None has been based there since the 444-day siege of the embassy ended in 1981, with Washington having to rely on Swiss intermediaries. Second, the US should begin technical discussions, probably in international financial forums, on releasing frozen Iranian assets and easing some of the trade embargoes. Third, Washington should continue and expand low-level talks on guaranteeing stability in Iraq.

These initial steps, taken with appropriate deliberation, might very well ease some of the tensions gripping the Middle East and might remove some of the complications that make a lasting peace between Israel and Palestine such a distant dream. It might also help to resolve the nuclear issue with Iran, a resolution which would allow that country's neighbors to breathe a little easier.

It's time.

The Art Of Listening

Much of the world has a lot of advice for President Elect Obama when it comes to foreign policy issues, as this week's foray to Watching America will attest. One of the pieces I most appreciated came from Rami Khouri in Lebanon's Daily Star, which should come as no surprise.

Mr. Khouri is clearly optimistic that President Obama will be able to turn around American foreign policy to the point that the US will once again be a welcome partner in world affairs. He bases that optimism on two recently published studies on how the US should deal with Iran and its nuclear ambitions. The fact the studies were published, Mr. Khouri makes clear, is itself the sign that better days are ahead:

Here enters the best of American political culture - the free flow of ideas based on quality scholarship, and a willingness to assess in public every aspect of a national or foreign policy issue. In recent weeks the US has witnessed a veritable gusher of studies and recommendations on Iran that mostly echo what many in the Middle East have been saying for years: Engage the Iranians through normal diplomatic channels, treat them with basic respect, abide by the same rules of law and international conventions that you want them to comply with, and negotiate mutually beneficial relationships based on equal rights for all, rather than the primacy of American or Israeli interests in the Middle East.

The first study comes from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. The helpful synopsis which precedes the terse report by Karim Sadjadpour sets forth his recommendations:

The next U.S. president should:

Focus initially on areas where the United States and Iran share common interests, such as Iraq and Afghanistan, rather than issues with little or no common interest, like the nuclear issue or the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.

Refrain from any grand overtures to Tehran which risk redeeming Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s policies and enhancing his bid for reelection in June of 2009.

Deal with those who hold power in Iran, namely Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Avoid rhetoric that threatens violence. This only empowers Tehran’s hard-liners and paints the United States as the aggressor.

Maintain a multilateral approach. Tehran is highly adept at exploiting rifts in the international community.

Resist attempts by spoilers within Iran to torpedo a diplomatic breakthrough.

Pursue “secret” or “private” discussions—proven to have a greater success rate.

Support policies that facilitate, rather than impede, Iran’s modernization and reintegration in the global economy.

The second study is a product of the Iran Study Group led by Thomas Pickering and James F. Dobbins, both former US ambassadors with plenty of experience in this part of the world. Their report is published here (in Google's html replacement for the pdf file). The report contains "Five Key Steps the United States Should Take to Implement an Effective Diplomatic Strategy with Iran":

1.Replace calls for regime change with a long-term strategy.

2.Support human rights through effective, international means.

3.Allow Iran a place at the table – alongside other key states – in shaping the future of Iraq, Afghanistan and the region.

4.Address the nuclear issue within the context of a broader U.S. - Iran opening.

5.Re-energize the Arab-Israeli peace process and act as an honest broker in that process.

The important part of both studies is that they are documents about the real-world situation in Iran and the Middle East based on facts as they are by people who have studied the area and actually know things about it, not "cooked" intelligence reports that are being disseminated by neocons interested in inventing a new reality, one which bears little if any resemblance to the old, for purposes of American aggrandizement and imperialism. Both studies also make clear that any real progress for peace and stability in the Middle East will depend not on any American threat of military intervention but rather on sincere American diplomatic efforts.

Dealing with Iran in a forthright and honest manner is important for reasons beyond the Middle East, however. Our relationship with Russia has deteriorated over the past several years to the point that is more than a little reminiscent of the Cold War era, and, let's face it, neither country can afford another arms race. Yet that scenario is unfolding because of the Bush administration's insistence on a "missile defense system" placed on Russia's borders to protect our NATO allies from attacks from (yes, you guessed it) Iran. Remove Iran from the Axis Of Evil, and the excuse for the unnecessary expense of that inane defense system and the unnecessary agida from another Cold War are removed.

The trick, as Rami Khouri reminds us, is that President Obama will have to be willing to listen to the experts, all of them, and to hear what they have to say. Hopefully Mr. Obama has developed that talent to go along with his many others.

And Then, Of Course, There Is Iran

Yes, President Elect Obama's plate will be full when he takes office on January 20, 2009. Among the many foreign policy issues he will face involves Iran and their reported drive to develop nuclear weapons. Of course, it is still possible that the current administration will complicate matters further by instigating an attack on Iran, either directly or via a surrogate (Israel).

To offset concerns about that possibility, the last month or so rumors have been floated in the US and international press about a possible diplomatic breakthrough which would involve the US opening an "interests section" in Tehran, which would be the first step in establishing full diplomatic relations with Iran after over thirty years of a total breach in relations. Frankly, I don't buy those rumors. I think it more likely it is just one more intentional leak to the press by the Bush administration to misdirect attention.

Be that as it may, the solid victory by Barack Obama has changed the landscape in all sorts of ways, not the least of which involves the foreign policy arena. Even the President of Iran (no rational person himself) offered congratulations to the President Elect, something which would have been unthinkable even ten years ago. And his government went even further, according to this article in Iran's Islamic Republic News Agency (via Watching America).

IRNA, the official information station of the government, reported that [spokesman of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran] Gholam Hossein El-Ham stated that “We hope that just as Mr. Barack Obama was able to regain the trust of the American people with the promise of change, he will bring the establishment of fundamental changes in the United States of America’s approach toward global issues, the respect for human rights and nations and the conclusion of oppression and aggression toward other countries, employing the blossoming international popularity of America towards reducing the increased global mistrust toward his country.”

President Elect Obama does not need to engage in a popularity contest with the rest of the world, but he does need to issue a clear signal that the policies of the last neoconish eight years were an aberration which has ended and that the US will return to its policies of multilateralism. We will talk with those with whom we have a dispute rather than bomb them into the Stone Age, and we will seek international guidance in resolving differences. Foreign policy can be muscular without being military.

If he makes that clear right from the start, and I hope he does, then the US can return to the world stage in a more reasonable position: that of a nation which respects other nations and will work towards a better world for all, this generation and the next.

Karma, Part 2

Last Saturday, I posted on Iran's pressure to shut out US oil companies in Iraq in favor of Chinese and Russian oil companies. A measure of the success of that pressure was the awarding of a renegotiated oil deal to a Chinese state-owned oil company. In today's NY Times we learn that further moves have been taken to freeze out US and other western oil companies.

An Iraqi plan to award six no-bid contracts to Western oil companies, which came under sharp criticism from several United States senators this summer, has been withdrawn, participants in the negotiations said on Wednesday.

Iraq’s oil minister, Hussain al-Shahristani, told reporters at an OPEC summit meeting in Vienna on Tuesday that talks with Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Shell, Total, BP and several smaller companies for one-year deals, which were announced in June and subsequently delayed, had dragged on for so long that the companies could not now fulfill the work within that time frame. The companies confirmed on Wednesday that the deals had been canceled.

While not particularly lucrative by industry standards, the contracts were valued for providing a foothold in Iraq at a time when oil companies are being shut out of energy rich countries around the world. The companies will still be eligible to compete in open bidding in Iraq.

Interestingly, the article seems to imply that because certain US senators (among them Democrat Chuck Schumer) objected to the no-bid process, the Iraqis decided against proceeding with the multiple deals.

Earlier this summer, a group of Democratic senators led by Charles E. Schumer of New York had appealed to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to block the deals, contending that they could undermine the efforts of Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to reach agreement on a hydrocarbon law and a revenue-sharing agreement. This criticism was conveyed to Mr. Shahristani by the American Embassy in Baghdad in late June, and after that the deals were delayed.

Oh, those damned Democrats! Interfering with the oil companies' God-given right to all that Iraqi oil is just not nice. Now we'll have to pay 'leventy-seven dollars a gallon and drill in ANWR all because the Democrats just couldn't leave well enough alone.

Nice try, NY Times, but you should have done your homework. The US may be occupying Iraq, but our influence is pretty tepid compared to that of Iran, one of the direct consequences of the illegal and misbegotten war in Iraq. Perhaps if the Times had bothered to read the Iraqi newspapers (like Azzaman, which was the source of the article I reviewed in last Saturday's post) it might have come up with a more plausible reason for the cancelled contracts.

Of course, that wouldn't play as well during an election campaign, would it.

Karma

The GOP's nominee for Vice President, Gov. Sarah Palin, has uttered the obvious: the Iraq War was about oil. It was nice to see a Republican finally admit what the rest of the country suspected all along. Now that the causus belli is out in the open, it's pretty obvious that the gang that couldn't shoot straight screwed that part up as well. From Iraq's Azzaman:

Iran is pressuring Iraqi authorities to exclude U.S. oil majors from contracts to develop the country’s massive oil fields, sources at the Oil Ministry said.

The sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the authorities currently favor Chinese and Russian companies to those of the United States.

Their remarks come following a contract the ministry signed last month with China’s state-owned oil firm CNPC.

The $3bn oil services contract is a renegotiated deal of the Ahdad oilfield which CNPC had agreed to develop in 1977.

China is the first country to win such a contract since the 2003 U.S. invasion of the country.

And how is it that the second member of the Axis of Evil has such power over Iraqi decisions? After all, it wasn't that long ago that the two countries were at war, a war so bitter that millions from both countries died in it.

Well, there's that Shiite-Sunni thing that neither George Bush nor John McCain still quite understand. Once the US toppled Saddam Hussein and his Sunni government, the Iraqi Shiites, a huge majority in the country, could take over and could count on their Shiite neighbors in Iran for back-up. And that is precisely what Iran gave.

The Ministry of Oil and other key portfolios such the Ministry of Interior and Finance are in the hands of pro-Iran Shiite factions.

Analysts say it is difficult today for any major development, whether economic or political, to take place in Iraq without Iranian consent.

Iran has emerged as the country’s top trading partner. Its firms are present in the Kurdish north and southern Iraq carrying out projects worth billions of dollars.

Iranian goods are the most conspicuous merchandise in Iraqi shops.

Iraq, though occupied and administered by America, has grown to be so pendent (sic) on Iran that some analysts see it as a satellite state of Tehran.

In other words, the Iraq War was the biggest gift the US could have given Iran. If so many people hadn't been (and continue to be) killed and maimed on both sides, the whole thing would be darkly humorous. But they were/are and it isn't.

Heckuva job, George!

War With Iran: Another Bad Idea

We have two wars already, both being hideously executed.
This from Alex Thurston at The Seminal:

Israel/Palestine: Beating the Drum for War with Iran, Even As Talks with Syria Move Forward

Condoleezza Rice indicated yesterday that the US would not act to prevent an Israeli strike on Iran, while Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak said Israel is prepared for "uncompromising victory" in the case of military hostilities. Barak also favors increased international sanctions against Iran.

The Jerusalem Post also reports that two additional US aircraft carriers are traveling to the Red Sea and the Gulf, which is making Kuwait nervous.

I still don't expect to see war with Iran, or even war between Israel and Iran, before the end of Bush's term. Hannes Artens at the Agonist made a strong case for why a few weeks back, and I think his analysis still stands. Hopefully anyone with a scrap of sanity recognizes that any prolonged conflict with Iran would become a pit for American dollars and lives, and would stretch our military very thin indeed. Not to mention conflict with Iran would destabilize the whole region.

But even if war is unlikely, I still don't see the benefit in such aggressive rhetoric - particularly when opening diplomatic channels seems to be working on other fronts. At the same time we hear of Israel's bellicose stance toward Iran, we hear that negotiations with Syria are going forward. The EU recently offered to broker talks, and Syrians feel that while indirect talks have mostly covered old ground, the talks are moving in the right direction. So if that's the case, why not open greater diplomatic channels between Israel and Iran? Pragmatically, it doesn't seem the tough rhetoric regarding Iran has achieved much either for Israel or for us.

And when's the last time Iran attacked another country anyway? As far as I can tell, it's been a long time - it was Iraq who attacked first in the Iran-Iraq war. I think Israel is misinterpreting the nature of the Iranian threat, and misreading Iran's capacity or desire for military strikes on Israel. So while ratcheting up tensions in the region may have its short term appeal, a long term solution to these problems is more likely to come at the negotiating table than on the battlefield.