Was it a tough guy letter? Sure, I don’t think the tone was particularly conciliatory. But it is not discouraging: it urged Obama to “fully explore” diplomatic initiatives, and if anything, the letter was advice to proceed into negotiations from a position of strength. I think the letter goes a little too far in that respect, but we are down to issues of nuance, because the letter doesn’t say anything substantively inconsistent with Obama’s approach to Iran.
And now I think we see the heart if the matter. It’s back to the “if something is happening in foreign policy that’s scary, it’s cuz America is imperialist and Bush sucks too” line of debate. You are stating that “we” are doing this or that; asking how “we” are trustworthy; etc. But the fact is that this issue is us negotiating side-by-side with the P5+1, meaning that “we” should not be the United States, but “we” are the six most influential countries in the world. Does it make you feel better that the majority of the countries sitting down at the negotiating table with Iran actually opposed the Iraq war?
I’m still perplexed by this new strain of thought among a portion of the left about nuclear weapons. For decades, seems to me that most folks left of center talked about a world without nurse weapons. Shoot, when Reagan was in office, you couldn’t swing a dead cat in Berkeley without hitting a bumper sticker advocating a ban on nuclear weapons. Now it seems that there’s a line of though among people who are generally anti-war who seem to be arguing against the United Nations, against the vision of a denuclearized world, against the Nonproliferation Treaty, against Iran’s own legal commitments, and basically saying, “Eh, if Iran wants the bomb, who am I to say no? Whatevs.” I just don’t get it.
Because it does. Anyone reading that can see for himself. I’m not get into yet another debate with you where plain English means something different to you than it does to everyone else who speaks the language.
Besides, I thought the content of the letter doesn’t matter? Has that changed now so that it does matter? I lost track…
And yet they negotiated an agreement right afterwards. hmmmmmm. Faced with more sanctions from Congress they came to the table. And by doing so they raised their own stakes. Now they have to live up to their word or the President is faced with action. And the action from Congress has already been addressed.
Did they draft a new letter? You can’t be saying that verbally drawing a red line is bad as you started a whole thread about a Dem who did just that and called it masterful. The difference here is one was a military threat and the other not.
Artfully worded, “not particularly conciliatory”. How about not at all?
“Issues of nuance”, indeed. When long time enemies seek some sort of detente, its like porcupines making love, one must proceed gingerly. See any nuance here? Is this the nuance so subtle as to be undetectable? We need them to be able to detect it. Assuming we are sincere, of course, and many of us here are not. As many of them there are not. Give peace a chance? No? OK. how about half a chance?
Oh, please. The question is not how easily we can reassure ourselves of our good intentions, we are experts at that, we forget our past as swiftly as a stripper un-dons an article of clothing, poof! Gone!
Them, Ravenman, them! What about them? We peer into Iranian politics as through a glass, darkly, but this much we pretty much know: there are powerful men in Iran who’s political base is set firmly on hostility with us. We also know that a new generation is coming up in Iran, and they are more amenable, an opportunity has arisen. But it ain’t gonna be easy.
Never mind me pointing out our faults and failings, what about them? Again, why should they trust us? And we didn’t go to war over American imperialism, we didn’t even have that! We had nothing! Zero, zip, nada damn thing! Would you be willing to turn your fate over to people like that?
Its liberal hypocrisy.
But now that you mention it, who are we to say that? “You can’t have those things, because you can’t be trusted. Not like our buddies in Pakistan, salt of the Earth, they are. And Israel, of course, beloved of the nations for their firm dedication to peace and accommodation.” And us, of course, the Shining Citadel on the Hill…
You can sell that here, no doubt. How about there? Because however much we may have faith in our own peace-loving intentions, it means squadoosh if they don’t. And I humbly submit they have very good reasons to be suspicious, and we don’t appear to have any significant interest in allaying those suspicions.
“Trust us, or else” is not a negotiating position, it is an ultimatum. Surely we can do better than that without putting ourselves at grave risk from Iran’s massive military might? We have how many thousands of thermonuclear weapons, and we are clutching our pearls and fainting dead away because they might make a bomb?
Thats like an armored division quaking in terror when the other guys develop a crossbow.
The US hasn’t much to fear about a nuclear Iran. True, but the US (and lots and lots of other nations) are concerned about stability in the ME. Does a nuclear Iran make the ME more or less stable?
I recognize the shameful hypocrisy we are showing as a country on this. And, I think the US should do its best to prevent Iran from getting nukes, while at the same time preparing for the almost certainty that they will get them, at some point, if they want them.
And again, I don’t see why everything has to be viewed through such a US-centric prism. Of the 200-odd countries in the world, how many think it’s a good idea for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons? If the US bowed out tomorrow, the Europeans would still be trying to stop Iran from getting the bomb.
“Nuance here” meaning, what? Nuance in what you and I believe? Sure, we both seem to be in favor of the interim agreement but you’re more upset than I am that not everyone supports it. Nuance in the letter? Yep, the letter explicitly urges the President to pursue diplomacy and that the election of Rouhani is an opportunity; and the letter also talks tough about sanctions and military options. My disagreement is that you’re obsessed with the latter parts to the exclusion of the former. Nuance in the overall Iran-US relationship? Here is where I think you’re really off base.
You keep bringing up the “how can they trust the US in this reconciliation” angle. Here’s the big, giant, glaring, obvious point you’re missing: Iran isn’t negotiating with the US, Germany, France, UK, Russia and China out of some altruistic need to “give peace a chance,” as you put it. They are primarily negotiating because most of the civilized world agreed to sanctions on Iran, and Iran needs to find a way out.
That is the central issue driving everything today: the fact that Iran’s economy is falling apart. It isn’t about how Iran sees the US, it isn’t about what the youth of Iran thinks. The reason Iran is at the table is that the sanctions and the economic pain that now exist have forced the hardliners to explore a negotiation that they would rather not pursue.
It’s as simple as that, and while there are a million and one reasons why these negotiations may not succeed, it is a fundamental mistake to think that the negotiations are about Iran extending an olive branch or moving to the middle. Rouhani is indeed more moderate, but the letter stated this perfectly: without the Supreme Leader supporting these talks, they would not be happening.
But you’ve also got to drop this false perception that this is about the US and Iran; Obama and Rouhani; and similar American-centric rants. This is about the P5+1. This is about Iran’s relationship with the region and most of the world. It is not a US vs. Iran dispute and hasn’t been for years. You might as well vent your spleen about, say, China’s foreign policy failures because you know what? They are right there at the negotiating table, too. And so is Russia. And so is Germany; etc.
So why don’t you make your next post about what gives Germany, or heck, the United Nations, the right to be concerned about nuclear proliferation? Because the United States is working hand-in-hand with them to tackle this issue.
As well they should. I humbly submit that the best route to that happy end is to convince them that they don’t need it. Not gonna be easy. “Trying” would be a good start.
Shirley there is something we can offer that will not put us too much at risk from the Iranian juggernaut? Food? Medicine? I-phones preloaded with Islamic rap music?
Your mission, should you decide to accept it, is to convince Benjamin Netanyahu (yes, you may call him “Bibi”, but not “Bibi, baby!”) to destroy his nuclear arsenal. Good luck, and please report back in 1 year on your progress.
Well, I think it’s an unnecessarily high bar to set-- convince Iran it doesn’t need nukes. There are other ways to avoid war without having to do that. Mainly, we convince them that other thing are more valuable. Push come to shove, though, and they’ll get nukes. If NK can do it, a much richer country like Iran will have no problem.
Not to beat a dead horse, but let’s not overestimate the role of goodwill in rapprochement. When Nixon thawed relations with China and the Soviet Union in the 1970s, how much of that was because of the US coming to China and, separately, the USSR with a vision for a better future?
I would say relatively little. The US thawing of relations probably had more to do with the Sino-Soviet split in the 1960s and the US fully exploiting it, rather than these countries getting in touch with their inner selves and doing what’s right for humanity.
The fact that the cause of events that further peace are sometimes attributable to exploiting the weaknesses of other countries (as in the U.S. opening to China and the detente with the USSR) or the product of considerable arm-twisting and punishment (as hopefully is the case with the crippling sanctions on Iran) is quite ironic, and often makes me think of Lorenzo St. DuBois’ crowning performance on Broadway:
My English is fine. And it is apparent that you cannot explain specifically what you think may be wrong with my English.
There is no need to divert this discussion to your questioning of my English ability. What you need to do is explain in plain and proper English how it could be that toughening sanctions is the same as easing sanctions since you chose to back Magiver’s argument that the July letter mirrors Obama’s policy on sanctions.
My position is that toughening sanctions is the opposite of toughening sanctions.
There is no debate that I am correct and Magiver made an error when he posted what he posted.
Secretary Kerry made the case in Congress today for why what I consider the nutjobs in the Senate who wanted to toughen sanctions should not have got their way. The interim deal worked out by the UNSC and Germany and Iran explicitly forbids any nation passing new sanctions. If the nutjobs had their way the interim deal would be scuttled.
Kerry and Obama prevailed today because the Senate will not pass new sanctions.
The nutjobs in the US Senate have so far not prevailed in their determination to mess up the peaceful process.
So why did they do it and why did that huge majority of 76 Senators back down?
Has the threat they feared when they opposed the President around Thanksgiving time suddenly gone away after talking to Kerry?