Today’s WSJ thumbsucker Gates Talks Suggests Relations With Iran to Remain Tense contains the usual bla-bla about the plus ca change plus c’est la meme back and forth between Iran and the US. Evidently this week Obama & Co. are looking more askance on the fanatics in Tehran with an Obama face-to-face with A-jad less likely.
Mr. Gates, in a speech to be delivered Saturday, accused Iran of fomenting instability in Iraq and continuing to pursue both nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Iran’s “every move seems designed to create maximum anxiety in the international community,” Mr. Gates said, according to the prepared text of his remarks.
Well, duh, when did they not? What’s missing from this farcical will-she-won’t-she game about face-to-face negotiations is the ever obvious super gigantic elephant in the room. Ahmadinejad is not the leader of Iran in the first place. Ayatollah Khamenei is and has been since long before Ahmadinejad was in office and probably will be long after (if the Ayatollah’s health cooperates). What then is the point of the US President ever meeting with Ahmadinejad? It’s a farce–he doesn’t have real authority–and should be refused flat out.
I am aware, of course, as most of us are, that this is all a dumb show and we have been negotiating with the Iranians for years through various back channels. But wouldn’t it be amusing if we played it honestly for once and Obama offered to negotiate directly with Khamenei? It would be fascinating to see what the mullahs would do. [Don't expect Obama to do that. He's from Chicago. Their politics is super conservative. -ed. What word did you just use? I meant traditional.]
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
17 Comments
1. Mike_K:Obama has now accomplished the only task he has ever mastered; getting elected. The rest is a very visible education in the realities of governing. Nobody knows how this will turn out because nobody knows what Obama can accomplish aside from getting elected. The handling of the Blago scandal is not encouraging.
Dec 13, 2008 - 8:50 am 2. Markus:The big story in US-Iran relations is the article from Wednesday in Haaretz, that Obama would be willing to grant Israel a nuclear shield…according to Phillip Giraldi at American Conservative, Haaretz has excellent sources within the Obama transition, and so this article is probably highly accurate:
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1045687.html
I’m hoping that if true, Obama sticks to his guns on this very sensible proposal.
Dec 13, 2008 - 9:11 am 3. Roger L. Simon:The nuclear shield question is complex. In probability, Israel has had one for a long time. Can you imagine the US not reacting if Iran attacked Israel with nukes? I can’t. So why publicize now?
Dec 13, 2008 - 9:14 am 4. Minerva:Oh:I:see. Obama wants to give a speech to those of the Religion of Peace somewhere in the Umma. Yeah, that’ll work. The old: “If only I could talk to that (insert dictator) fellow…”
Dec 13, 2008 - 9:47 am 5. Markus:Conceivably, one or another hardliner could argue that a nuclearized Iran could survive an attack by taking out Israeli nukes. This would explicitely make it clear that this wouldn’t work.
Dec 13, 2008 - 10:14 am 6. marymcl:There is no reason on earth why the Israelis should place their very survival at the mercy of Barack Obama’s foreign policy. This proposal is insane. (There is a long and thorough discussion about the many reasons why this is so over at Belmont Club)
As catastrophic as this would be for Israel (and if anyone doubts that, look at a map sometime) what does it say about non-proliferation in general? The only thing that’s explicitly clear is that the world is becoming more dangerous by the day, and our new CIC is telling the world that we think Israel’s days are numbered and that’s OK. This is too shameful for words.
Dec 13, 2008 - 10:53 am 7. cfbleachers:The nuclear shield question is complex. In probability, Israel has had one for a long time. Can you imagine the US not reacting if Iran attacked Israel with nukes? I can’t. So why publicize now?
Roger, you obviously are not familiar with Project Hava Lov. As in hava lov is better than none.
It works like this. We are desperately seeking Arab Absolution from the sins of our “cowboy” past. We want to be liked, in a needy, pleading sort of way.
So, we have to go on bended knee and basically scrape and bow before the assorted mullahfia henchmen.
However, in doing so, we have to pretend toward continue loyalty toward Israel. After all, appearances of NOT “reducing the Zionist influence” became necessary after Jesse Sr. spilled the beans in France.
So, with our hava lov project in need of dual carburetors…we simply say that we will offer “defense” against unprovoked attack against Israel.
Note what is NOT said. In essence, we give illusory “continued loyalty” to Israel in the form of something they don’t need, by way of a policy that won’t work, in the manner of a project we won’t admit, to gain an absolution we won’t receive.
The mullahfia are famous for keeping their hands clean. They let that little peacock strut around, saying all that they are thinking and threatening to drive Israel into the sea.
We now go about telling the world that we want to make love, not war. We are “diplomats” now, interested in talking and talking and talking. The UN is now hallowed ground and what are a few dozen more slanders against Israel among friends?
Project hava lov allows us to play footsie with the mullahfia, seek our asbolution, allow Iran to continue to build its nuclear arsenal, pretend to continue loyalty to Israel and buy “peace” by being eaten by the alligators last.
In essence, we are talking ourselves down off a ledge…by shooting ourselves in the head.
Dec 13, 2008 - 11:10 am 8. Carl Sesar:3. Roger L. Simon: “Can you imagine the US not reacting if Iran attacked Israel with nukes? I can’t.”
I don’t want to imagine a surprise nuclear attack on Israel by Iran, but I have to, because it’s very possible, and Iran would like nothing better than to pull it off. At the same time, however, with Bush in office, and all the more so with forked-tongue Obama there, I can very well imagine the US not reacting.
It’s also not likely the US, under Bush now, or Obama later, will launch any preemptive strike against Iran’s nuclear capabilities. Israel’s going to have to do that all by herself.
Dec 13, 2008 - 12:00 pm 9. Wellspring:The nuclear shield question is complex. In probability, Israel has had one for a long time. Can you imagine the US not reacting if Iran attacked Israel with nukes? I can’t. So why publicize now?
Often the point of a diplomatic statement is to bluster in the name of your own country’s pieties while tacitly making a concession.
Consider Obama offering Israel a nuclear shield. OK first, don’t you see that this implicitly accepts the reality of a nuclear Iran? Certainly by inauguration this would be hard to stop anyway, but then again Congress and the anti-war movement has eagerly hobbled President Bush from taking action on Iran for years.
From Iran’s point of view, this statement translates to: “Our previous position was that we would not accept you getting weapons. Our new position is that we will not accept you using them.”
Now consider the credibility of this threat. If Iran attacks, first there will be pleas for calm and preventing an escalation in the region. Dark fears of global nuclear war would be conjured. Obama would have every reason to delay, especially if Israel is destroyed by conventional invasion in the aftermath.
It wouldn’t be spun as procrastination, of course. It would be cloaked in “humanitarian aid” and “diplomacy”. Obama might seek refuge in a declaration of war, which Congress would helpfully spend weeks debating and not even pass. Or a UN security council resolution, which would be helpfully vetoed by Russia. Iran, of course, would use every diplomatic muscle they have to sow confusion and paralysis. Within even a week or two, the calls would be for a compromise that allows any jewish survivors to be airlifted out of Israel in exchange for the US “sparing” Iran. Or, perhaps, retribution would be prevented because of threats from Russia. Or by an oil shock, or even threats against the United States. What, exactly, does defending a country after it is destroyed accomplish? Whatever form it takes, Obama would have some great and statesmanly reason to abandon his pledge. And Iran understands this.
In the right situation, high-minded Obama supporters in the media could even spin it as principled statesmenship that saves the jewish people. That his words today sealed our fate will go unsaid. Because make no mistake, Iran will weigh the true meaning of Obama’s words, and act accordingly.
Reagan suffered gigantically in the media here and in Europe during the 80’s over his nuclear policy. But his policy was driven by game theory that pointed out that it was irrational to retaliate in a nuclear conflict, and so he had to create systems that bound us to irrationality, to force Russia in turn not to attack. Obama is a smart guy, with smart advisors. They can’t not understand this, so I strongly expect that they do and don’t care.
Dec 13, 2008 - 1:31 pm 10. Carl Sesar:“Can you imagine the US not reacting if Iran attacked Israel with nukes? I can’t.”
I can. Israel is on her own now. To make sure such a nuke attack doesn’t happen, Israel must destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities as soon as possible, before it’s too late, and then brazen it out, no matter what, when all the noise starts.
Dec 13, 2008 - 3:16 pm 11. ManosTheHandsOfFate:Israel should take matters into their own hands while they still have the luxury of doing so. It would be foolish to trust the Obama administration, for the simple reason that if Obama was to follow through and nuke Iran in retaliation for a strike against Israel, it would destroy the Democratic Party. It’s all blustering BS and Iran knows it. They’ve got just the president they want in power now.
Dec 13, 2008 - 4:52 pm 12. ManosTheHandsOfFate:In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if we start seeing reports that Iran already HAS nukes, even though only months ago they were supposed to be years away from obtaining them. The Dems don’t want to be the party in power when Iran gets nukes (but they’re going to be…heh), so they’ll have to reinvent the narrative and make it Bush’s fault.
Dec 13, 2008 - 4:58 pm 13. Wellspring:Those reports have already appeared, Manos. Expect them to deny that they did anything to prevent Bush from pressuring the Iranians.
Something to consider: if the US does renege on Obama’s commitment to nuke Iran back if Israel is nuked, as I consider likely, then our whole nuclear umbrella is undermined. At that point, countries in Israel’s position (and more are popping up) will realize that they have to preempt; they can no longer deter. Worst case scenario for Obama is Iran nukes Israel, we sit on our hands, and Israel survives. They have a submarine ballistic capability, but even neglecting that they will have no reason not to nuke the Middle East into the stone age, and no allies left to restrain them.
Dec 13, 2008 - 5:47 pm 14. ManosTheHandsOfFate:Wellspring, regarding the upcoming Iran narrative (it was all Bush’s fault), doesn’t Obama’s (paraphrasing) “Iran is just a no problem tiny country” rhetoric seem insanely ridiculous?” Obama is living proof that a good vocabulary does not signify intelligence. Also, btw, the way he constantly emphasizes the various words in his sentences, as if giving them the gravity of extra importance, is starting to sound real goofy and pretentious.
Dec 13, 2008 - 6:22 pm 15. Hermie:It took Obama some time to comment on the recent Russian invasion, and he managed to blame both the invader and the invaded. Look for him to make similar statements when other crises develop. It’s his way of voting ‘Present’.
If Israel is depending upon his word regarding keeping the traditional US committment to them, they should recall who he has on his foreign policy team, and the way he throws his friends and mentors under the bus when things get tough.
Dec 14, 2008 - 8:22 pm 16. LarryD:People are so focused on Iran vs Israel (for understandable reasons) that they keep overlooking that Iran is feared by Arab nations as well. If the US can’t stop Iran from going nuclear, then Saudi Arabia, Egypt, et al have to act to deal with the issue themselves. Either by getting their own nukes or by preemptively striking Iran.
Dec 15, 2008 - 11:06 am 17. Bill Befort:Will someone explain:
1. Why Iranian nuclear development is seldom discussed in terms of their need to protect themselves against Russia?
2. Why the Russians would be willing to assist Iran in nuclear development?
Maybe I just don’t get out enough, but I scarcely ever hear these aspects of the situation mentioned. Iran has a very long border with Russia. The Russians have longstanding cross-border interests. Only the strongest U.S. and British representations moved the USSR back onside after WWII. If I were running Iran, I’d worry far more about Russia than about Israel. And if I were running Russia, the last thing I’d do would be help my Islamist neighbors get nuclear weapons.
Even stipulating that these people are nuts, have traditional power relationships ceased to apply in that part of the world? Why do we hear so little analysis along these lines?
Dec 16, 2008 - 8:59 am