Henry Kissinger once remarked that if an intellectual gets it wrong, all he has to do is write another book, while if a policy maker gets it wrong, people may die. To which I would add that our pundits have learned that they don’t have to pay any attention to getting the past right; they can ignore it. Hardly anyone bothers with history, so the scribblers simply look at the headlines and think as deeply as they can. And so, in all the commentary on the latest “negotiating” fiasco with Iran, I look in vain for someone who points out that we have just witnessed the umpteenth iteration of Western diplomats getting kicked in a tender spot by the mullahs. Nothing new at all. But nobody seems to know that. They think it’s all about these Americans, or these Iranians, these Brits and these French. Not so. It’s part of a well established pattern. And to make matters worse, our leaders don’t seem to know that, either.
After all, every president from Jimmy Carter to George W. Bush sooner or later become convinced that it is possible to strike a grand bargain with the mullahs, if only we could find the right formula. I devoted a long chapter to this sad story of self-deception in “The Iranian Time Bomb,” noting that the most egregious example came during the Clinton years, which in many ways prefigures the current embarrassment. Clinton had been very critical of Bush-the-Elder during the presidential campaign, and, once elected, talked very tough about Iran. But then Khatami was elected president, and Clinton, Gore, Albright, Lake and Berger decided that they had a glorious opportunity to make a deal. No doubt the “intelligence” supported that fanciful conclusion, and the administration went all-in (I’m writing this in Las Vegas and that’s a common expression in these parts) to sweeten the pot for the mullahs.
Iranian assets were unblocked, wrestlers got visas, the president and the secretary of state fell all over themselves talking sweetly, apologizing for sins real and imagined, trade deals were offered, etc. etc. Just like today. And then, one fine day, the Supreme Leader–the same as today–dissed the Americans and that was the end of it.
We just won’t accept the fact that Iran is at war with us. From time to time I ask an audience: “you’ve all seen demonstrations organized by the regime in Iran, thousands of people in the streets, chanting ‘death to America,’ right?” And they agree, yes, they have seen it. And then I ask them, “what do you think they mean? Is it some subtle nuanced message to us, or what?”
They’ve been trying to kill us since 1979, and yet we still think we are one little clever move away from the Grand Bargain. We’re not. They don’t want a bargain, they want to destroy us. And they will keep at it until they have either won or lost. Yes, there are various tactics now and then, but they don’t really matter much. At the moment they just want to get to November, when they think Obama will be elected, and Obama has already bought into the deception; he’s good for a few years of folly, at a minimum. They don’t know about McCain (nor do I), but they suspect he’d be more of a problem.
They have plenty of willing allies in the scribbling community. Thus, Elaine Sciolino, of the New York Times, commenting on the BS the Iranians provided the Western diplomats:
The Iranian document, which has not been made public, offered a snapshot of Iran’s negotiating style. It put the burden on the other parties. Its imprecise language and misspellings were in sharp contrast to the rigorous approach by Iranian negotiators, many of them career diplomats, who were in charge in 2003 when France, Britain and Germany began the initiative of incentives in exchange for suspension of major nuclear activities. Those diplomats have since been replaced.
Yeah, those more disciplined spellers were a lot better, weren’t they? They kicked us with good grammar.
Pfui.
Digg This
del.icio.us
PJM Home
11 Comments
Dan:Hey Professor, hope you’re enjoying the summer, enjoying the not infrequent glass of Italian wine…. Note bene the stress on “not infrequent….”
Did you get a chance to see Melanie Phillip’s recent column, where she blasts GW as something of a reincarnate Chamberlain?
I was hoping you might comment on that.
Jul 22, 2008 - 8:36 pm Ira Zad:I feel sorry for the New York Times, they are is still trying to get the Euro-mullahs back in power in Iran by just “scribbling” far from Iran in their plush New York condos (too bad they are halved in price now though)!
I’d stick with Ahmadinejad over Euro-mullahs Khatami and the Pregnant(with hope sof being Prez again in March 2009 thru his EU Darlings helo)mullah Rafsanjani. Ahmadinejead’s “goon diplomats” may not be able to spell right, but at least with him and his faction in charge, we have the ghost of a chance, to benefit from “Intensification of Antagonisms”– something we need a big big dose of just about right now with Iran’s Islamic Republic of Terror.
Jul 23, 2008 - 2:08 am Winston:The Iranian regime is only interested in 3 things: Killing Americans, Oppressing Iranian people, Exporting radical Islam through out the world
Jul 23, 2008 - 9:37 am Curt:I’m not sure if GW sent his envoy to the talks with Iran as an effort to reach a deal. I think he knew that the mullahs wouldn’t compromise. Rather, I believe this was an effort to show the Europeans (and American public) that the US was willing to go the last mile for peace. What follows next is an Israeli strike against Iran.
Jul 23, 2008 - 10:37 am j green:George W and every president before him has negotiated with the mullahs. We didn’t need to have this showcase “negotiation” to prove some sort of willingness to be diplomatic. Our diplomatic record is both well-established and, unfortunately, well-ignored by the MSM who pretend that, on Iran, we never negotiated. Even Clinton stood outside the restroom in the U.N. to “run in to” Mullah Khatami, and Mullah Khatami must have had diarrhea, because he made Clinton wait outside for a while–that’s deeply embarassing.
Dr. Ledeen is absolutely right about this Grand Bargain fetish that every adminsitration has. Lets just try to listen to what Iran says to us for a change–no interpretation, just listen to it:
-Death to America
-America is the Great Satan
-Erasure of the Zionist Entity
-Holocaust is a myth
-Jews will be killed bigger than the alleged Holocaust
-We have missiles that can hit Israel
-We have artillery to clogs the Persian Gulf
-We WILL NOT stop enrichment
-Every once in a long while we say that we believe nuclear weapons are against Islam but according to Islam we can also definitely use the Koranic principle “Taghieh”, (legalized lying under Islam)
Do we have a problem of comprehension here?
One usualy picks a moment when both sides have a common base of something as a foundation for negotiations. Without this common foundation, negotiations are impossible and only an uneducated moron would demand them. If I think the object in your hand is green and you think that same object is white, there is absolutely nothing we agree upon to negotiate abut that object! With Iran, where do we start negotiating–where is our foundation? How does one open the subject with them?
“Sir, we can prove we aren’t the Great Satan”
“Sir, please don’t erase Israel”
“Sir, we can prove the Holocaust for you”
or “carrots and sticks”:
“Sir, please accept our humble apologies for the brazen act of establishing a democracy next door to you and stop killing our soldiers in Iraq, then we will give you (insert gift that they don’t care about, don’t need, and already have plenty of, like money or trade or everything else under the sun, here)”
I can imagine one negotiating method that would probably gain their attention:
“Sir, we have disbanded our military and have converted to Islam as per your wise demand letter addressed to the infidel Bush. We humbly request you raze the Capitol and build a magnificent mosque in its place to solidify our break with the wrong path. We will stone women who got raped forthwith, just as you do”.
That might be a good starting point for a negotiation, no? I’m sure they’ll be happy to cooperate. Khamenei might even say “they’re listening for a change!”
Jul 23, 2008 - 11:30 am J.J. Sefton:J. Green: Absolutely right on target. About the only thing I can say is, maybe it’s all just cover for the administration to say “look, we went against our stated principle of non-negotiation to go the extra mile,” before launching a strike, or assisting Israel in one. If that were the case, if GWB still had some backbone, he would’ve went himself and said “This is not a negotiation. This is your last warning. Stop the enrichment now or immediately suffer the consequences.”
Oops, just woke up. Yeah, right. Sure.
Jul 24, 2008 - 10:50 am saus:What I enjoy the most is the breathless anticipation on left leaning media & blogs.
We’re always ‘oh so close’ to a massive breakthrough, every belch out of Iran is followed by reams of excited writing, followed a day or two later by muted posts claiming the Iranians are trying desperately to negotiate and the US is not pursuing diplomacy, further followed by the inevitable denial - When the news is reported of yet another head-fake, where upon the usual suspects come up..
The so called grand bargain deal rejected by the US faxed in by the swiss, and the fantasy where the planet will joyfully enrich uranium in conjunction with Iran and their centrifuges, in some delusional atomic love fest monitored by the clueless El Baradei, mixed in with the inevitable comment of ‘inalienable rights’ or some other relativist position topped with occasional Zionist bashing seasoning.
The Apologist Motto: Wash, rinse, repeat cycle.
Jul 24, 2008 - 4:45 pm Ira Zad:This is an article from The Jewish Daily,which tells the real sad facts. It does not support the notion that Geneva was a “warning, not a negotiation”. Let’s face it, Condi has won, and the VP is in a box on Iran.
EXCERPTS:
“…The only birds left in the administration are poultry. Ms. Rice is the fowl in chief. ”
” “While much of the world was hyperventilating over the possibility that the United States (and maybe Israel) were getting ready to launch a new war against Iran, Bolton was looking at the realities and concluding that far from bombing, the U.S. was preparing to do a deal with Iran,” Sick wrote in a recent posting. “He will have observed that the worst of the neocons (including himself) are now writing books and spending more time with families and friends, cheerleading for more war by writing Op-Eds from the outside rather than pursuing their strategies in policy meetings in the White House.”
“…The decision to send Burns to Geneva, Wilkerson said, was “a sign that the administration believes it has gained some strategic leverage vis-à-vis Iran and that it can now pursue what Bush has said he was pursuing all along — real diplomacy. This means that Rice is ascendant and [Deputy National Security Advisor] Elliott Abrams and Dick Cheney are in their boxes. How long this lasts, however, is a good question. ”
http://www.forward.com/articles/13852/
Jul 25, 2008 - 2:29 pm Tessa:Winston, you left out destroying the State of Israel.
Jul 25, 2008 - 7:33 pm Ira Zad:Why Bush Folded on Iran
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/07/31/iran/
Let’s go home, it’s all over for Iran.
Aug 2, 2008 - 2:46 pmThis administration will be a despised one by left, and the right as well. A blot of shame in our foreign policy history.