Interesting Point On The Iran Debate

Noah Pollak makes a good point on the question of a Presidential meeting with Iran - it is not as if no one has been talking to them for the past few years, yet where are we?

Comments

[MikeS]

My understanding is that Barack has an ingenious new argument that is going to make the Iranians realize they have been wrong all along. Something about clinging to nukes and Korans.

[clarice]

Here's another interesting point--I can't remember who I'm stealing it from. Obama was in Wright's church for 20 years and spoke regularly to him and was unable to persuade him away from his hateful theology . Why should we assume he'd be more successful with Ahmadasahatter or Castro or Chavez?

[Gmax]

Or maybe worse, he did not dissuade him cuz he believes the carp. And he probably believes the socialist carp coming out of Chavez and Castro too so why will he act any differently than the last 20 years?

[narciso]

So Barry won't meet with the elected leader of a theocratic oligarchy, but he will meet
the unelected theocrat who controls the country through the principle of vedak al fagih "rule of the guardians" I feel much better.

[ParseThis]

My understanding is that the Iranians learned that the United States couldn't be trusted to act in good faith after affirmative efforts by Iran in 2001 and 2003 were met with "talk to the hand." Iran may have a burr up its ass for Bush and is waiting for regime change.

[GnuCarSmell]

There are such things as implacable enemies. The regime currently ruling Iran is just such an enemy. Iran's rulers have made it clear that the extermination of Israel is non-negotiable. (Ditto the United States, eventually).

Obama cannot grasp the concept that negotiation is not possible when the your opponent starts off with a non-negotiable position. No wonder Iranian surrogate Hamas has endorsed Obama.

[Topsecretk9]

this is just a small sampling of Iraq in 1999

IN THE MIDDLE EAST, ARAB GOVERNMENTS HAVE REACTED ANGRILY TO IRAQ'S WALKOUT SUNDAY BY ARAB FOREIGN MINISTERS MEETING IN EGYPT. RICHARD ENGEL REPORTS FROM CAIRO THAT OBSERVERS SAY IRAQ MAY HAVE MISCALCULATED ITS LEVEL OF SUPPORT AMONG ARABS, AND HAS FURTHER ISOLATED ITSELF FROM ARAB GOVERNMENTS. TEXT: NEWSPAPERS IN THE MIDDLE EAST MONDAY SAY THAT IRAQ WASTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBTAIN SUPPORT FROM ARAB NATIONS. THEY ADD THAT IRAQ'S WALKOUT OF AN ARAB LEAGUE MEETING WILL ONLY WORSEN ITS RELATIONS WITH ARAB GOVERNMENTS. QATAR'S PENINSULA NEWSPAPER SAYS BAGHDAD HAS NOT ONLY FORFEITED AN OPPORTUNITY TO WIN VALUABLE SUPPORT FOR THE LIFTING OF SANCTIONS, BUT ALSO SQUANDERED AN OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND A yada yada yada yada

Now, clearly it shows that diplomatic efforts with Saddam-Iraq were virtually impossible because even middle east countries weren't able to "diplome" with Saddam, especially given Iraq walked out and gave them a "talk to the hand."

So wish Obama was there to have just asked for a sit down with no preconditions and a grievance list, just once.

[bgates]

The regime in this country is a constitutional republic, with officeholders sworn to defend the constitution. People who mistake any particular officeholder in this system with the kind of rule by strongman found in Saddam's Iraq should probably content themselves with tv watching and leave thoughts about foreign policy to grownups.

Parse that.

[capitano]

Why should we assume he'd be more successful with Ahmadasahatter or Castro or Chavez?

GMAX has the answer. Why do we suppose he plans to be successful? He'll just ask what they want and give it to them in exchange for some vague promises down the road. End of story.

The template here is not Nixon going to China; it's Bill Clinton hosting Arafat in the White House umpteen times...and for what? To get jerked around for months so the terrorist Arafat could milk the PR and ultimately stick his thumb in Clinton's eye.

[Elliott]

I'm going totally on memory here, but following up on capitano's point, didn't the Clinton administration attempt to woo Iran begin with expressions of regret over the CIA's efforts in the 1950's Ingratiation by apology doesn't seem a good approach if you are in fact interested in winning concessions from the other side.

While I haven't seen Obama go that far, I would like him to extend his remarks about the reactions of the world community to the behavior of one nation to cover Iran, for example, "You can't support Hamas and Hezbollah, allow 9/11 hijackers to traverse your territory without indicia placed upon their passports, provide weapons to those perpetrating atrocities in Iraq, continue to enrich uranium in pursuit of nuclear weapons* and expect the rest of the world to say that's okay."
_____________
*Sorry, I got carried away and forgot about the NIE.

[mkultra]

The reason we are talking to them is that they own Iran.

Your 28 percenters believe that handing over Iraq to Iran was a good idea. And then you make fun of that fact.

Junior High much? Geez?

[mkultra]

Make that they own IRAQ.

[Elliott]

***** efforts in the 1950's? Ingratiation*****

[Cecil Turner]

My understanding is that the Iranians learned that the United States couldn't be trusted to act in good faith after affirmative efforts by Iran in 2001 and 2003 were met with "talk to the hand."

The US couldn't be trusted? By Iran? That's rich. As to "affirmative efforts," here's Iran's stand-out performance in 2001:

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2001. Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Ministry of Intelligence and Security (MOIS) continued to be involved in the planning and support of terrorist acts and supported a variety of groups that use terrorism to pursue their goals.

Might be understandable that could cause a little bit of friction with the US in 2001, eh? By 2003, it was more of the same:

Iran remained the most active state sponsor of terrorism in 2003: Islamic Revolutionary Guard and Ministry of Intelligence and Security personnel were involved in planning and support for terrorist acts. Although Iran detained al-Qaida operatives in 2003, it refused to identify senior members in custody. Tehran continued to encourage anti-Israel activities, both operationally and rhetorically, providing logistic support and training to Lebanese Hizballah and a variety of Palestinian rejectionist groups.

Make that they own IRAQ.

It was smarter the first time 'round. Unless your brainwave candidate gets his way . . . then all bets are off.

[kim]

It must frustrate Chavez that he hasn't a religion with which to emulate Ahmadi-Nejad.
==========================

[PeterUK]

"My understanding is that the Iranians learned that the United States couldn't be trusted to act in good faith after affirmative efforts by Iran in 2001 and 2003 were met with "talk to the hand." Iran may have a burr up its ass for Bush and is waiting for regime change."

Iran has been talking to Europe for several years now,the result? Nothing.

[PeterUK]

Obama reminds me of a second rate lounge act who,out of the blue, finds himself with a record bubbling in the charts. Suddenly he has to invent a persona for himself,develop view on subjects he has never thought about before.
In a phrase,Obama is winging it.

[kim]

Another thing, P, McCain has had years of having to come up with policy statements; he apparently knows where to look for answers. Obama has not been through such a process; he's still just taking advice that is thrown at him, by, as we see, the likes of Ayers and Wright.
=======================

[clarice]

Exactly,PUK. He is winging it. Unfortunately on foreign affairs he's winging it in the company of the looniest policy advisors since Carter left office.

[Jane]

I saw most of Oporkma's speech last night - what a pack of lies.

Of course none of that will be reported, which is getting a bit tiresome...

Oh and Good Morning!

[HoosierHoops]

Peter:
Obama reminds me of a second rate lounge act who,out of the blue, finds himself with a record bubbling in the charts. Suddenly he has to invent a persona for himself,develop view on subjects he has never thought about before.
In a phrase,Obama is winging it.

ohhhooohh. I don't think so.
I think Obama knows exactly what positions he has on Foreign policy and who he is and what he stands for. He just doesn't want to show his cards before election because his views are so hard left leaning as to make him unelectable in the general.
So Baby Jesus isn't winging it.. He's performing a miracle..Standing on the far left bank while appearing to walk on water down the middle of the river..
Let's see Hillary try that one..

[capitano]

PUK:

Obama reminds me of a second rate lounge act who,out of the blue, finds himself with a record bubbling in the charts.

Heh! He's Lou Canova.

But then he knows how rock stars can draw a crowd -- maybe as many as 75,000:

Unmentioned in national reporting was the fact that Obama was preceded by a rare, 45-minute free concert by actual rock stars The Decemberists. The Portland-based band has drawn rave reviews from Rolling Stone magazine, which gave their 2005 album Picaresque four and a half stars (out of five), and another four and a half stars for 2007's The Crane Wife.

How many of the people showed up to hear Obama, and how many to hear the band?

[MayBee]

PUK is right, and we even have Sweden (I think it's Sweden) acting on our behalf in the Iran talks.

I honestly believe that Obama believes the US president speaking to these world leaders will show them we find them to be our equals, and they will like us. His argument with Iran has been that they use the fact that we try to isolate them as leverage to get the rest of the world to feel sorry for them. I don't buy it.
Iran has relations with other important countries, and they don't change their ways.
They are doing exactly what they want to do.

[MayBee]

Yesterday, Obama said to Jake Tapper:

The one area we saw progress, North Korea, and that is in direct proportion to the Bush administration's reversing itself and participating in the six-party talks when early on they refused and (North Korea) developed nuclear weapons they didn't have when George Bush took office. We will return to common sense, bipartisan approach to diplomacy that existed before George Bush. In fact, his father practiced the same diplomacy I'm talking about.

Balderdash.
We forced NK into six party talks when they (and the Democrats) wanted to have direct talks.
As for Bush 41, sure he met with some world leaders, but not all. I'm not aware that he ever met with Saddam, and didn't he refuse to meet with Arafat (what am I remembering there?).

[Gmax]

Thanks Capitano, I wondered outloud on another board if Jerru Garcia had come back to life and took the Grateful Dead up to warm up the crowd. Looks like they found a local band with huge appeal in Portland to do the trip, Jerry was available for.

How quaint that the Times missed the free concert in their reporting.

[MayBee]

Oh, this is what I'm thinking about:

unless and until the PLO recognized Israel and accepted U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338. Congress codified the pledge into law (Section 535, P.L. 98-473, October 12, 1984), and added that the PLO also must renounce terrorism. PLO chairman Yasir Arafat told the U.N. General Assembly meeting in Geneva (because the United States would not grant Arafat a visa to attend the U.N. session in New York) that the PLO recognized Israel, accepted U.N. Resolutions 242 and 338, and renounced terrorism. Secretary of State George Shultz [under President Reagan] stated on December 14, 1988, that the PLO had met the conditions stipulated by the United States, and that the United States would open a dialogue with the PLO in Tunis, Tunisia, on December 16, 1988. It was not made public why the Reagan Administration, considered by most to be pro-Israeli, chose to open the dialogue with the PLO at that time. Some speculated that President-elect George Bush asked President Reagan for the gesture as part of a Bush plan to address the Arab-Israeli issue.

The United States maintained the dialogue with the PLO in Tunis until June 20, 1990, when President Bush [Senior] ended the talks because the PLO did not denounce an attempted terrorist attack near Tel Aviv on May 30, 1990. President Bush announced on March 6, 1991 (in the wake of the Gulf war), that he would pursue Arab-Israeli peace negotiations; he dispatched Secretary of State [James] Baker to the Middle East where he met with Palestinian leaders from the occupied territories. Baker's 8 trips to the region and his contacts with the Palestinians, Jordanians, Israelis, Syrians, Egyptians, and others lead to peace talks in Madrid on October 30, 1991. But at Madrid and the subsequent meetings, the United States (and Israel) treated the Palestinians as part of the Jordanian delegation, not as a separate entity.

Is this what Obama is going to do?
Set preconditions and send his SoS to meet with leaders once they meet them?

LUN

[Cecil Turner]

Good catch, MayBee. That part's just plain wrong, and this part's misleading:

. . . developed nuclear weapons they didn't have when George Bush took office.

If he really wants to find the architect of the enabling diplomacy on that score, his ol' pal Jimmuh has the notes. (And Brzezinski can probably explain it to him, if necessary.)

[narciso]

The Ayatollah Khameni, who was Khomeini's successor, happens to be Azeri, directs all policy in Iran. He may not prefer
Ahmadinejad, because he lacks nuance in deception operations; but he likes his record of service to the Iranian state; in the Quds force, 'the pistachio archipelago'
of Evin, and other detention facilities. The only real influence the Iranians had were in Western Afghanistan, near Herat, where ironically Zarquawi had his training
camp at Al Faruq. Herat is controlled by Ismail Khan, a warlord who's rebellion nearly 30 years ago, forced Amin's hand
and led to the Soviet invasion.

[capitano]

Obama's crew may be doing exactly what they want in explaining his foreign policy, but some of their biggest cheerleaders are concerned.

Obmama's communications director, Robert Gibbs, was on MSNBC this morning and the Morning Joe crew lobbed him a softball to respond to Joe Lieberman's recent critique of Obama's "no preconditions" gaffe. Gibbs tried to avoid the question.

First he said that Lieberman would make a good Secretary of State for McCain because they both believe 4 more years of GWB's foreign policy is good for America. He repeated this several times when pressed and finally said BO would only meet with Iran if they pledged to abandon their nuclear plans.

HUH? Isn't that essentially Bush's policy?

Their parting suggestion to Gibbs was that if he ever finds himself in a White House press conference, these are the type of questions he should expect.

Final grade: Truly substandard.

[Soylent Red]

I think Hoosier is probably partially right.

It seems to me that the Obamessiah, while perhaps inclined in a certain direction based on His Lefty worldview, is leaving His options open by saying nothing.

You notice that every time He says "This is what I believe", He gets pinned down and has to issue clarifications. I think His campaign strategy is to say nothing and be hopey-cheerful and hope nobody call Him on it. When they do (to the extent the media will let them) He simply screams "DISTRACTION!" until the problem goes away.

He's totally running the Deval Patrick playbook and McCain's people better have been studying that for the last 90 days, or they are irredeemably stupid.

On the subject of irredeemably stupid...

mkultra: You are a fool.

Iranian and Syrian intelligence services are up to their asses in Iraq. We know that because we have captured members of both.

They are there specifically because neither "owns" Iraq, but because they and their Iraqi quisling would like to.

And while not AQ, the Mahdi Army has been training with Hezbollah in Iran, establishing a link between Sunni Arab Syria, Shiite Arab Jaysh al-Mahdi, and Persian Shiite Iran (specifically the IIRG Qods Force). All groups the brilliant strategists on the Left continue to bleat "will never work together".

Read this
from the (former) newspaper of record, re-read it, then shut the hell up.

[MayBee]

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/interview-with.html>Here is the Jake Tapper interiew excerpt.

[MayBee]

Have you noticed Obama's "no preconditions" has morphed into "aggressive diplomacy"?

I noticed that in his speech last night, and I would have fallen off my chair had I been sitting down. It was especially funny because he said John McCain is afraid of it.

[Pofarmer]

Obama reminds me of a second rate lounge act who,out of the blue, finds himself with a record bubbling in the charts. Suddenly he has to invent a persona for himself,develop view on subjects he has never thought about before.
In a phrase,Obama is winging it.

One hit wonder? We could be so lucky.

[Soylent Red]

Maybee:

This caught my eye:

"I also think we should open direct talks with Cubans without any preconditions but with a whole lot of preparation."

What constitutes, I ask, "preparation" as opposed to "preconditions". I'm sure He must have some nuanced differentiation in terms other than getting his tie knotted correctly and his makeup just right.

[MayBee]

Soylent- there's always the size of the table to worry about.

[clarice]

MoDo has a pretend last debate between the RW and Baby Jesus-here's a sample:
"Once Harold Ickes works his dark magic on the delegate rules to count Michigan and Florida, I’ll have the popular vote. And then the superdelegates will grovel back. They know in their hearts that they don’t want to go on a blind date with a guy who’s going to be BFF with Cuba, Hamas, Iran and retired Weathermen. You can bet your white turban that I’m not raising the white flag.”

[Jane]

Now Soylent,

Bring that up is a distraction.

[Soylent Red]

who’s going to be BFF with Cuba, Hamas, Iran and retired Weathermen

HA! BFF! Maybe Raoul and Ahmadinejad will sign The Prom King's yearbook after they succumb to His brilliant and persuasive negotiations. Because He is so very dreamy.

[Jane]

BringING - sheesh

[capitano]

Preparation "O" -- Clarity and Consistency

Appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press," Mr. Ford, the chairman of the Democratic Leadership Council, criticized the idea of meeting with "those that lead rogue nations without some conditions." Mr. Hart, a former Colorado senator and presidential hopeful, said on CNN's "Late Edition": "I don't think Barack Obama or any other president is going to meet with a head of state without lower-level discussions preceding that. It doesn't lead to anything."

Semantics appear to be tripping up the Democrats in the diplomacy discussion. Mr. Obama has said that while there would not be "preconditions" for a presidential meeting with rogue leaders, there would be "preparation," which could include initial meetings between lower-level officials.

"Barack Obama has been clear and consistent in calling for tough and principled diplomacy without preconditions," a campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, said.

[Jane]

This is interesting, and Off Topic:

Bay State politicians said Tuesday it was too early to speculate about a successor to Kennedy. The Legislature changed the Senate succession law in 2004, stripping then-Gov. Mitt Romney of appointment power and establishing a special election process.

LUN

I guess that falls into the "you reap what you sow" category.

[Ranger]

What constitutes, I ask, "preparation" as opposed to "preconditions". I'm sure He must have some nuanced differentiation in terms other than getting his tie knotted correctly and his makeup just right.

Posted by: Soylent Red | May 21, 2008 at 09:49 AM

Its Democrat double speak. Just like Wes Clark saying on Meet the Press that Kosovo was ok because it was a "preventive" war, but Iraq was wrong because it was a "pre-emptive" war. Democrats promis "no more pre-emptive wars", but they reserve the right to start "preventive" ones.

[RichatUF]

Elliot-

I'm going totally on memory here, but following up on capitano's point, didn't the Clinton administration attempt to woo Iran begin with expressions of regret...

Your memory is good. He gave his groveling, weepy near apology during the 1998 World Cup match-up between the US and Iran. The Iranians sneered that it didn't go far enough. After the weepy moment (a few days or so), the Clinton Administration asked, but did not receive, cooperation regarding the 1996 Khobar bombing.

This would have also been during the time that AQ Khan was at gearing up his Iranian sales program because of the successful Pakistani nuclear tests a month or so earlier. In addition, this was also about the time that the Charlotte Hezbollah cell was discovered and the FBI started to build their case against them.

Talk has gotten us really far with the Iranians.

[clarice]

Ranger, Good catch. It would be fun to have JOM work together to put together a glossary of Demspeak.

[Sue]

MayBee,

I noticed that in his speech last night, and I would have fallen off my chair had I been sitting down.

The sad thing is he is going to be elected president without MSM bringing it to anyone's attention. We in the blogosphere are the only ones aware of it.

[PeterUK]

Why does Obama want to engage all these nobodies,he isn't a street organiser any more? Why not talk to India and China. The man's obsession with left wing icons blinds him to the realities of the world.

[Walter]

You notice that every time He says "This is what I believe", He gets pinned down and has to issue clarifications.

Over on Talkleft, they've developed an acronym for this phenomenon: What Obama Really Meant.

Won't that look good superimposed on splitscreen ads in October?

[Elliott]

From Obama's speech of yestereve:

Change is an energy policy that doesn't rely on buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family and then begging them for oil - an energy policy* that puts a price on pollution and makes the oil companies invest their record profits in clean, renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and leave our children a safer planet. That's what change is.

Is "invest their record profits" now a synonym for "windfall profits tax," in which scenario the government will be spending the proceeds profligately on alternative energy projects (or so it is purported)?

Or, does Obama really want the evil, feudal overlords of Bush and Cheney (known to many simply as oil companies) to become industry leaders in alternative energy? What could any good progressive possibly find objectionable with such a state of affairs?
______________
*I am amused that his construction is grammatically ambiguous such that "an energy policy that puts a price on pollution... a safer planet" could be misconstrued as being in apposition to "buddying up to the Saudi Royal Family and then begging them for oil." I know that's not what he means, but I am still amused.

[MayBee]

He is, Sue.

He is going to be elected because Dems want the office so badly, and nobody else is really listening to what he says.
McCain should hold as many debates with him as he can, because he's the only one that will hold Obama accountable for what he says he's trying to say.

[RichatUF]

Elliott (sorry I misspelled your name above);

I heard that re: the BHO speech and Friedman in the NYT circles the square. It seems that they would like to return to the Carter Era energy policy (its all in his malaise speech) instead of building refineries, exploring and drilling for oil in the US, and expanding nuclear power. Gas lines, rationing, amd sweaters-the hopechange of the Obamessiah.

[narciso]

He doesn't want us to drill for our own oil; in fairness neither does McCain or Hillary, but the former's more likely to
have an oil lobbyist in his crew. How are we ever going to stop Goldman, Citigroup's
& other ICE's component bid for $5.00 a gallon oil. God knows, with Davenport, Goodyear, and Loeffler; he's got to find
someone who can argue for logical policies. Loeffler, what kind of self respecting Texas takes 'blood money;from Saudi Arabia.
McCain is still the most sane in the bunch; although that's not saying much. To see what
a Obama Justice Department might
prospectively consider; look at this thread from Balkinisation's guest lecturer from New Zealand; comparing Yoo to the Nazi legal advisor:href*<http://balkin.blogspot.
com/2008/05/john-yoo-and-justice-case.html>
They won't buy Quirin as an argument, for military tribunals but they'll consider Alstoetter, as an indictment against us for
the 'crime' of defending ourselves from attack. Now allmighty Glenn has gotten around to blurb that Richardson piece on Yoo
I mentioned last week; which was more palatable than the 'tongue bath' Charlie Pierce, gave Obama in the same issue. In
other news; Newsweek which should save money and just merge operations with the Obama campaign has another leak from a Justice Department report tut tutting us for not giving Zubeydah a lawyer before now;
and they have had to 'walk the cat back' on
the firing of Ahmed Chalabi; which apparently never happened

[clarice]

I knew Chalabi was never fired. It was the same snakes in the CIA and State who fed all that carp about Ahmed back at work again feeding more morsels to Spikey.

[Pofarmer]

profits in clean, renewable sources of energy that will create five million new jobs and leave our children a safer planet.

Has Obama got a Fairy Godmother or something?

It ain't like there aren't folks working on that stuff.

[PeterUK]

"Has Obama got a Fairy Godmother or something?"

Nearly,he was taking the cow to market and swapped it for a bag of magic beans.

[RichatUF]

Pofarmer-

It ain't like there aren't folks working on that stuff.

For the last 30 years. Had a back to the future moment a few weeks back cleaning up a storage shed-a Road and Track from 1974 with a big glossy section about Energy, Environment, and the Automobile. Hydrogen as the fuel of the future, the end of oil in the 1990's, the electric car. How long has Father Earth and the Gaiaists been riffing off this script?

[Pagar]

" Iran may have a burr up its ass for Bush and is waiting for regime change. IMO, every terrorist is the world is waiting for regime change. Here's a possible reason why they might want One

"Allah Will Send An American Gorbachev To End The American Empire Soon."