Monday Open Thread [11.25.13]
The Iranian Agreement is the subject of today’s open thread. I have a simple question to those who so vehemently support Israel that they are confused about which flag they are supposed to pledge allegiance to. Is there any deal with Iran that would garner your approval? Or is the only option that is good for Israel the complete destruction of Iran and its people?
I suspect the answer to the first question, if you are a Netanyahu apologist, is no. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is Israel’s Dick Cheney or John McCain. There are never enough wars to fight, never enough Muslims and Arabs to kill. They are relics of a different time. I no longer listen to those who are always so reflexively pro-Israel that they always, without fail, reject peace. And those who I talk about will now say I am anti-semetic or anti-Israel. No, I am pro-peace. Peace in the Middle East is in the best interests of Israel. War in the Middle East is not.
Ending Iran’s capacity to make a nuclear bomb is in America’s interests. It is also in Israel’s interest. This deal has a chance of that goal. Yet Israel’s government rejects the deal out of hand. Juan Cole:
The only question here is whether the agreement is in American interests. It is. Ever more severe sanctions increasingly risked war with a country three times as big geographically and 2.5 times as populous as Iraq (the American occupation of which did not go well). That danger is now receding, which can only be a good thing. And if negotiations and UN inspections can indeed succeed in allowing Iran a civilian enrichment program while forestalling a weapons program, it is a breakthrough for the whole world and an important chapter in the ongoing attempts to limit proliferation.
Paul Woodward argues that Israel would have objected to any deal. I agree.
At a time when the diplomatic momentum was clearly not moving in Netanyahu’s favor, one might ask: why did he not back down from his maximalist demand on zero enrichment and find a way of offering qualified support for this emerging nuclear accord? Why hold on to a set of conditions that Iran would find impossible to accept?
The reason is that Netanyahu’s goal has never been for the nuclear issue to be resolved. It’s political value resides wholly in this remaining an unresolved issue and in Israel’s ability to cast Iran as a perpetual threat. For Netanyahu, any deal is a bad deal because absent an Iranian threat, Israel will find itself under increasing pressure to address the Palestinian issue.
Indeed. Netanyahu holds onto power so long as he keeps Israelis, and his supporters in America, afraid. There is a name for that kind of government. Starts with an F.
Sheera Frenkel reports on Netanyahu’s bluster:
“There is no doubt that Netanyahu is a big loser in the Iran deal,” said Gil Hoffman, political editor at the Jerusalem Post. “His whole political career is built on two things: number one is that he persuaded Israelis that only he could protect them from Iran, and number two is his image as someone who could speak to the world in his perfect English in a persuasive way better than any other Israelis. And here he failed.”
If I had one single reason for supporting Obama in the last election, it was that he and he alone had the strategy and perseverance to end the Cold War with Iran. He hasn’t done that yet – but he has, with remarkable global unity, started down a diplomatic path that could liberate the forces for moderation and democracy in that country, and unwind a dangerous ratchet toward war. That was always his larger promise from the get-go: not just to end the disastrous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq; not just to end the torture regime that made a war criminal of the president and ruined both our moral authority and the integrity of our intelligence-gathering; but to begin to defuse the deeper forces of polarization and conflict that seemed only likely to intensify after 9/11. I have always seen Obama as the antidote to Bush. This weekend, he fully inhabited the role.[…]
Now consider this: in the past few months, Obama has both begun to remove the threat of WMDs in Syria through diplomacy and found a way to ensure that Iran’s irrevocable nuclear know-how will be verifiably channeled into peaceful, civilian use. These two acts of diplomacy compound one another to make the world a much more peaceful place. Yes, there remains a risk. Of course there does.
But there was also a risk in reaching out to Gorbachev in the 1980s, and yet two Cold Warriors, Reagan and Thatcher, chose to do business with him. And they were right to. As with the Soviets and the arms race, there comes a point when the pain inflicted on the other party by sanctions is so great you have maximal external leverage for reform. Too much and the sanctions would be counter-productive; not enough and we would only have military power as a lever. It takes judgment to know if the time is ripe to take yes for an answer. But, in my view, Reagan was as right to embrace Gorbachev as Obama is to reward Rouhani.
Michael Crowley considers the possible longterm consequences:
It’s worth thinking about the long path Obama has trod to get here. When he ran for president in 2008, Obama’s rivals warned he couldn’t be trusted to deal with a nuclearizing Iran. Hillary Clinton would brand him “irresponsible and naïve” for saying he’d meet with Iran’s leader. John McCain later called that a sign of his “inexperience and reckless judgment.”
Six years later, Obama’s Iran policy has the potential to reshape the Middle East and define his legacy. If it proves a success, historians might compare it to Richard Nixon’s breakthrough with China.
Those who preferred Obama to Clinton because of the distinction in their positions on the authorization to use military force in Iraq now have something concrete to point to, to argue that electing Obama would lead to a more peaceful world than would electing Clinton.
John Bolton, the treasonous neocon, urges Israel to strike Iran unilaterally. Now.
Undoubtedly, an Israeli strike during the interim deal would be greeted with outrage from all the expected circles. But that same outrage, or more, would also come further down the road. In short, measured against the expected reaction even in friendly capitals, there is never a “good” time for an Israeli strike, only bad and worse times. Accordingly, the Geneva deal does not change Israel’s strategic calculus even slightly, unless the Netanyahu government itself falls prey to the psychological warfare successfully waged so far by the ayatollahs. That we will know only as the days unfold.
If Israel did strike now, it would become the enemy of the world. A rogue state like North Korea. Mitchell Plitnick explores the motives of those who oppose the deal:
There is only one reason to oppose this deal and that is that, whether with weapons of war or sanctions that will lead to a full-blown humanitarian catastrophe in Iran, an all-out attack on Iran with the hope of regime change is what this is really about. The conclusion is inescapable—if you oppose this deal, you are looking for a lot more than the neutralization of Iran’s ability to construct a nuclear weapon.
Bob Dreyfuss doubts an Israeli strike is in the cards:
Israel’s reaction is, predictably, apoplectic. Naftali Bennett, Israel’s economic minister, said, “If five years from now a nuclear suitcase explodes in New York or Madrid, it will be because of the deal that was signed this morning.” But Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will have trouble playing that card for long, since Israel is drastically isolated from the rest of the world and risks an open break with Washington. Already, some Israel leaders, such as President Shimon Peres and the newly installed leader of the Israeli Labor Party, have issued mild to moderate statement that undermine Netanyahu’s bluster. And, ironically, though, the harsh reaction from Israel will help Rouhani and Zarif sell the deal in Iran, since they can point to Israel’s criticism of the deal as a sign that it was, indeed, a victory for Iran’s “nuclear rights.”
Secretary of State John F. Kerry:
“I believe that from this day, for the next six months, Israel is in fact safer than it was yesterday because we now have a mechanism by which we are going to expand the amount of time in which they [Tehran] can break out [toward making a nuclear bomb]. We are going to have insights to their programme that we did not have before,” he added.
This is really, really good reading: How Heritage Action (the political action group) is Burning Most of Heritage’s (the think tank’s) bridges in Congress
Has anyone seen any statements of any of our Congressional delegation on the Iran deal? Nothing has showed up in my in box and you’d think this would be important to comment on.
This is an outstanding piece of reporting on this initiative with Iran, DD, well worth a bookmark for future reference. Thank you!
We must recall that we Americans played a major role in the push to Islamist extremism with our attempts to impose the Shah of Iran.
The opposition of Republicans is predictable, since they have been and still are happy to have the Israelis as our front line in the Middle East, thus continuing to jeopardize the possibility for eventual peace in that region. On a grander scale, could this perhaps be a turning point from a period of escalating tensions in that region which started with the partition of Palestine in 1947?
Just to review a little post WWII history: Motivated by control of Middle East oil in the 50’s, we (the CIA) deposed the democratically elected Mohamed Mossadegh, set up Iran’s intelligence agency, and in effect imposed our choice, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, to lead Iran. The Shah then recognized Israel, further inflaming tensions, all this leading up to the revolution of 1979 deposing the Shah and setting up Iran’s Islamist regime, leading also to the hostage taking at the end of the Carter presidency. Finally, our taking the side of Iraq in the Iran-Iraq War further exacerbated the tensions.
So here we are. Given this background, we may have an amazing development beginning to happen wrt the relations between Iran and the West. I certainly hope so.
From the White House Web site, here are the key elements to this interim agreement.
This President will go down in history as America’s great peacemaker with our exit from Iraq, stripped down role in Afghanistan, the Syrian chemical weapons elimination and upcoming peace talks and this monumental accomplishment with Iran, not to mention bringing Israel/Palestine back to the peace talks. Iran deal summarized:
. Iran commits to neutralize its stockpile of near-20% uranium
. Iran commits to halt progress on its enrichment capability
. Iran commits to halt progress on the growth of its 3.5% stockpile
. Iran commits to no further advances of its activities at Arak and to halt progress on its plutonium track
.Unprecedented transparency and intrusive monitoring of their nuclear program
.IAEA verification
.Limited, Temporary, Reversible Relief on some sanctions
.Humanitarian relief for Iranian people
We continue to maintain economic pressure on Iran
Cassandra – that Heritage Action article is quite a read. Thanks.
An acceptable deal would involve the following:
a) Iran would cease to enrich uranium
b) Iran would dismantle the Arak plutonium facility
c) Iran would dismantle their uranium enrichment facilities
d) Iran would transfer control of their enriched uranium to the IAEA
I’m trying to figure out what exactly Iran gave up in this deal.
What Iran gave up in this deal is six months — no progress on advancing their nuclear program for six months. This isn’t meant to be the final deal — it is one confidence building step to give negotiators time to work out the larger and hopefully final deal on Iran’s nuclear program.
@abc “An acceptable deal would involve the following”
I’m guessing that you’re not a professional mediator.
…and the only way you would have taken a mediation course in college is if you mistook it for a meditation course.
In other news, Rick Santorum’s christianist Christmas propaganda film is a total flop.
The same conservatives who said sanctions would not work are now saying keep the sanctions because they brought Iran to the table.
“Ending Iran’s capacity to make a nuclear bomb is in America’s interests.”
If only this deal did that.
“Republicans mindlessly oppose Iran nuclear deal”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/dana-milbank-republicans-mindlessly-oppose-iran-nuclear-deal/2013/11/25/b87f65ce-5603-11e3-835d-e7173847c7cc_story.html
This is the story about how a whole pile of Republicans slammed the deal with Iran BEFORE any of the details of the deal were actually announced.
Ari Fleischer chimed in within 8 minutes of the basic announcement. I guess he prefers war… but we already knew that… followed by dozens more.
Slam! Slam! Slam! Slam! …but they all had zero clue as to what they were slamming. ZERO! There had been no announcement yet.
So what was the real fatal flaw in the agreement??? (hint: starts with O and ends in bama).
The ONLY Republican who comes out looking wise and reasonable in this story is Jeff Sessions.
The best part of the deal is that we won’t be sucked into to a military solution by Israel acting unilaterally and America being forced to finish the job.
They could have gotten Republicans to buy in if they pretended that George W. Bush got this deal done through saber rattling.
No. Better yet they could have persuaded the media that Ronald Reagan did the deal, like the hostage release cover story. Teabags would be going nuts over this deal if they could only credit Reagan.
Real flaws?
None of the sanctions will have any effect whatsoever on Iran’s development of the capability to build nuclear weapons. None. They do not have to close their plutonium plant, they do not have to dismantle any of the 10,000 centrifuges they have deployed to enrich uranium, and they do not have to turn over any of the already enriched uranium.
Here’s a hint to the non-scientifically oriented: The conversion of the 100 lb of 20% enriched uranium to oxide is a reversible process.
Meanwhile they get a six month respite from sanctions. And we send about 7 billion taxpayer dollars to a country whose Supreme Leader issued the following statements:
“Zionist officials cannot be called humans, they are like animals,
“the Israeli regime is doomed to failure and annihilation,”
“The Zionist regime is the rabid dog of the region.”
Does that sound like a reasonable deal to you?
If you are an anti-Semite, I guess so.
“…they do not have to dismantle any of the 10,000 centrifuges.”
You know how many they had when Bush got into office? You don’t want to know.
“Real flaws”
Of course there are real flaws. They have to turn over all material enriched to 20%, but they could continue to enrich greater than 5% since they keep the centrifuges, but then they agreed to international inspection, so there’s that. See each flaw has a response. Will it work? I sure hope so because what’s your alternative? Wanna nuke ’em until they glow? Want to put boots on the ground? Want to keep the sanctions up until they final knuckle under and dismantle anything related to nuclear? Do you have any solutions that actual viable? Diplomacy involves compromise. Unfortunately, that’s not a characteristic possessed by certain folks.
If the Israelis feel threatened let them formulate their own response. I prefer to keep our sons and daughters alive. That’s not anti-Semitism, that’s pro-American. If you want Iran to not have access to nuclear technology, then perhaps you can convince Israel, India, and Pakistan to do the same. Semitism is just as bad as anti-Semitism.
Let’s remember first that it took the Pakistanis 26 years to develop nukes from the time they started their program.
Let’s remember second that our friends the Saudis, according to credible sources, are now on the market trying to purchase their own nukes from Pakistan, India, or other sources.
Let’s also recall Stuxnet and the assassination of Iranian scientists (both of which were arguably illegal under international law) and the really wonderful piece by Jon Stewart where he reminded us that the guys at Mythbusters have better delivery systems for nukes than the Iranians.
The energy expended by those who see Iran as the new Third Reich in the middle of the Middle East would be laughable if (a) they didn’t spend so much time trying to drag us into a war that will kill Iranian people not the Iranian leadership; and (b) trying to silence any real discussion by labeling anyone who disagrees with them as an anti-Semite.
If you can’t see the difference between Israel possessing nuclear weapons and Iran possessing nuclear weapons than I can’t see having a constructive dialogue on this topic.
My alternative?
Keep the sanctions in place until the Iranians agree to dismantle their capability to build nuclear weapons. Period.
Compromise here shows weakness and there is no need for it.
Not compromising when the Iranians signaled a willingness to be influenced by sanctions would have shown weakness.
Diplomacy is a process. It doesn’t present the stark black and white choices that conservatives find comforting.
That Heritage article is great, but I take issue with:
And yet Needham’s blithe remark came as no surprise to the former veteran staffer at the Heritage Foundation. “One of the hallmarks of that millennial profile is an inability to acknowledge mistakes,” the staffer said, sounding equal parts bemused and exasperated. “Everything is right and nothing was a mistake, and they can spin it any way they want.”
Nope. He’s just a jerk. They have those across generations, I’m pretty sure.
XYZ if we truly do not want nuclear weapons in the middle than we should impose the same sanctions on Israel until it disarms theirs. That would make us an honest broker for a change
Where do we get the right to dictate to any country what weapons they can or cannot have?????
Diplomacy is a process. It doesn’t present the stark black and white choices that conservatives find comforting.
Right. And it doesn’t make them confront the fact that the US can’t dictate much of what happens in sovereign countries — not without alot of costs to Americans. Because the rest of the world doesn’t pay. Our interests here are not in following the Realist lead here, but our own needs for the region.
If it wasn’t for the religious elements, Iran could be a natural ally for the U.S. and Israel in the Middle East. They are Persians and Shiites in the land of Arabs and Sunnis. The most extremist elements come from the Saudis and Yemenis. For the most part Iran has a secular and pro-western bend. Conservatives are ill-suited to conduct any foreign affairs because they see everything in black and white, while the real world is much more complicated than that.
Before they acquired their nuclear arsenal Israel was invaded three times in the space of two decades by an Arab coalition determined to drive them into the sea and destroy their nation.
This after a major European state killed 6 million innocent Jews following a leader whose rhetoric sounded much like the Ayatollah.
They are the only functioning democracy in the Middle East.
I will give them a pass on their nuclear arsenal. They have earned the right to defend themselves.
Terrorist states that issue statements like the quotes above, not so much.
They haven’t done any more to “deserve” their nuclear arsenal than Pakistan has. The Iranians were pestered and invaded by the Iraqis and using your logic, they are just as much entitled to nuclear weapons. They are only a democracy if you forget the arabs in their midst.
Time to stop defending their bad behavior — which destabilizes the rest of the area — and stop spending hard-earned American tax money in support of their destabilizing efforts.
Since Iran’s nuclear program flourished under Bush’s belligerent saber rattling (from zero to 10,000 centrifuges) and has begun to be curtailed due to Obama’s diplomacy, you have to ask yourself something.
Is it more important to you that the United States is tough, or effective?