Russia is just as scared as you are...http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-11-30/moscows-bid-to-blow-up-wikileaks-russians-play-by-different-rules/?cid=bs:archive3

Why do so many people insist that Wikileaks only goes after the USA? They have gone after:

Somalian Islamic Courts union for planing political assassinations,

They have gone after Kenya over corruption and even won an award for it,

They went after Scientologists,

They went after British ultra-conservatives of the BNP,

They have gone after the UN

...Barclays Bank,

...They released the infamous climate scientist e-mails,

...They have gone after the Bilderberg group,

...and many others. (you can get an overview on wikipedia). So it IS clear that wikileaks has an agenda, but it is CLEARLY NOT a simply anti-American one.

So the "people in autocratic regimes don't get to read what Wikileaks tells themn? And you read what Wikileaks tells you via the NYT? The NYT admitted that it sent the cables it received to the State Dept. for redaction and then did further redactions of its own. And then it wrote it's story about all them there Arab states jumping on the Israeli bandwagon. Oh please, more in the time-honored tradition of Judith Miller?

Perhaps absolute transparency is an awful idea, but I don't think an example proves it one way or another.

"What would have happened if JFK had discussed the Cuban missile crisis openly in front of the American people and the world? Nuclear war more than likely."

You give an example where this kind of diplomacy was successful. Did it do anything to prevent 40 years of cold war? How about World War I? Vietnam? or even more recently this prolonged conflict with the Taliban? (Reading the AFPAK channel you get the impression that the Taliban were initially interested in reasonable negotiations.)

It seems like the current style of Foreign Policy has many failures. Secrecy may have helped in certain situations, but it may have also led to avoidable conflicts. If anything, I don't think the answer is a clear cut as it might seem.

Secrecy has been necessary in foreign policy for the last century. The Cuban Missile Crisis is a great example. It can also be seen in the Cold War. Take the Sino-American Rapprochement. When diplomatic cables were finally establish around 1970 (after 20 years of no contact whatsoever), NOBODY knew about them, not even the state department. Nixon and Kissinger's secretive diplomacy ended with the opening of China. It greatly reduced Cold War tensions and commenced the normalization of relations between China and the rest of the world. Would this have occurred if the diplomatic channels between China and the US were made public? Absolutely not. Publicity in that situation would have meant that the state department, Congress, the public, and the world would be disagreeing with Nixon/Kissinger's plan. Yet, in the end, Sino-American rapprochement occurred, and it was for the better.

As I stated, there are risks and downsides to secrecy. Your argument about the Cold War implies that transparency is sufficient to solve disagreements. That is clearly not true. Transparency has one benefit and that is alerting the people of a democracy that they are being deliberately mislead by their government. This was the case with the Pentagon Papers, but even that leak is still debatable as a "good" thing.

Transparency in diplomacy means no diplomacy. That in turn means no conflict resolution. And yes, the one example of the Cuban missile crisis is sufficient to make the point because it could have resulted in global nuclear war! Find an example where full transparency averted a similar consequence and then maybe we will have a more nuanced point of argument.

The above comment was a response to MZERTER

Does transparency mean no Diplomacy? Maybe, but how often has it been tried and to what result?

As you point out, it is true that Secret Diplomacy has worked in certain situations where it seems as though open negotiations would have failed. However, I'm not sure this is an argument for making it standard practice.

There is a body of evidence to suggest that the way we conduct our foreign affairs is less than optimal. Maybe if transparency played a larger role and secrecy was the exception, not the rule, we would have an improved system.

In not an expert on the subject, but I'd be curious what the leading ideas are on improving the field?

I think you raise a valid point and to argue that more transparency would be good while absolute transparency may not seems reasonable to me.

After all, Israel's Defense Minister is the only one that has given the US a deadline to deal with Iran.

If you can find any examples of threats or ultimatums coming from Egypt Saudi Arabia or Jordan EJ, I'd love to see them.

So how do you like your pie EJ?

I thought that the Leaks DID prove that SAudi Arabias Leadership was possibly the greatest advocate for an attack on Iran, while Israel has been insisting that sanctions seem to be working? Funny considering they both stated the opposite in public...I guess its a small lesson in how diplomacy actually works, do as I do , not as I say. Seriously though, ANYONE on this board who thinks that Jordan and especially Saudi Arabia, and the UAE would be okay with Iran having a Nuke is crazy. Sunnis are NOT okay, repeat, NOT okay with a Shia bomb. End of story. If Iran gets nukes, then so will Saudi Arabia...and we will probably end up selling them the nukes. It is NOT a good thing for the middle east for Iran to have a nike...not in any way shape or form. And despite what they say in public, trust me, the sunnis are NOT okay with Iran and a nuke.

If Iran ever decide to produce a nuke (and they haven't) , it won't be for some arbitrary reason. They are surrounded on 4 sides by nuclear states, as well as nuclear armed Israeli submarines parcked off it's coastline.

The suggestion that Iran would be responsible for starting a nuclear arms race is delusional.

And FYI. don't confuse the sentiments of Sunni leaders with the Sunni Arab population. As has been revealed by a poll, the Arab world (Sunni and Shia), believe that a nuclear armed Iran woudl be a benefit to the region.

And FYI. Israel did not say that the sacntions were working. Israel have given the US deadlines to do something (whatever it is theyr're supposed to do) about Iran's civilian nuclear program.

Firstly: read the recent Wikileaks, Israel apparently, behind closed doors has had a very positive view of sanctions. While publicly demanding deadlines, and action, they have actually been dreading a war with Iran, as in all honestly that would benefit noone. maybe the Saudis. Who on this very website are reported as stating in the most recent Wikileaks that they along with the leaders of most gulf states and egypt have a visceral hatred of Iran, and think of them as Liars, and "want to fight them to the last American" according to Robert Gates.

Also, just because a poll says something about the population, dont take that to be something genuinely important in a region where the population has never, and wont in the near future matter at all. These regimes in the middle east are just that...regimes, kingdoms, rigged "politicians". they have their own agendas that are more often than not verrry seperate from what the mostly uneducated, religiously fervent populations believe. Muslims want the bomb again to counter Israel, I get it. I really do. But dont expect king Abdullah, mubarak, the leaders of Jordan, Qatar, UAE, etc to support Iran...it will never happen. They are vehemently against Iran having a bomb, as these leaks, and others, as well as history and common sense tells us.

If Israel had a very positive view of sanctions, then it would not be threatening to attack Iran with or without US approval.

Israel are not dreading a war with Iran, they are dreading the possibility that the US will deny them permission to attack Iran or refuse to attack Iran on their behalf. What Israel are dreading is the possibility that Iran get a nuke and that this will lead to an exodus of Israelis.

Look at the cable detailing the discussion between Meir Dagan and George Mitchell. Dagan stated that even though there was no evidence of an Iranian nuclear program, that would not stop them attacking Iran.

"Also, just because a poll says something about the population, dont take that to be something genuinely important in a region where the population has never, and wont in the near future matter at all."

Why not? Does it not show the disconnect between the opinions of the entire population and the self interests of a handful of despots, who's only concern is ho9lding on to power?

"Muslims want the bomb again to counter Israel, I get it. I really do. But dont expect king Abdullah, mubarak, the leaders of Jordan, Qatar, UAE, etc to support Iran...it will never happen."

I don't expect anything from these tyrants, but then again, why should we be concerned with their agenda? Obviously, their motives are purely self serving.

"They are vehemently against Iran having a bomb, as these leaks, and others, as well as history and common sense tells us."

The leaders of Iran are also vehemently against Iran having a bomb. They told us so.

Quote (2007):

The New York Sun, a newspaper published by Ronald Weintraub and edited by Seth Lipsky, and known for its pro-Israel bias, carried an article recently on the obeisance made by Hillary Clinton to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in New York, which might almost be called a pledge of allegiance to Israel. Quoth the Sun's staff reporter, Jill Gardiner:

"A Democratic political consultant who worked on President Clinton's re-election campaign, Hank Sheinkopf, noted that the AIPAC dinner always draws a parade of politicians.

'New York is the ATM for American politicians. Large amounts of money come from the Jewish community,' he said. 'If you're running for president and you want dollars from that group, you need to show that you're interested in the issue that matters most to them.'

Mrs. Clinton, who has opted out of the public campaign financing system, has tapped into the circuit of influential Jewish donors for years and has strong support in the community. A spokesman for AIPAC, Joshua Block, said yesterday that the senator and former first lady has 'an extremely consistent and strong record of support on issues that are important to the pro-Israel community.'"

Hillary apparently sang the song that everyone at AIPAC loves to hear, for later in the Sun's article, we read, "While Mr. Edwards and Mrs. Clinton have different positions on how to deal with the Iraq war, each has used harsh language on Iran."

unquote

"As said above. It is very difficult to do _any_ negotiating out in the open, and especially peace negotiations. The general public have a limited attention span and are reactive--this is just the way it is."

The same can be said about every decision making process involving the general public. From this do we conclude that the better form of government is a Dictatorship? Or is it one more reason to ensure we have an educated public?

Yes, MZERTER hits the root of this problem - an uneducated public! In an ideal world the public could make calculated and long-term decisions and we wouldn't need to keep this basic diplomacy behind a curtain. But in reality the public is reactive and fickle with little thought for the long-term. Even if that transparency would be more "democratic", it sounds like a dangerous mentality to hold while solving prickly disagreements with nasty consequences.

Either way, with these leaks out, Back room deals will move to be more invisible. And maybe the state department's future policy will include making some cables "public" information to appease the media's call for transparency (read: phony propaganda packaged as a diplomatic cable). This changes the game.

The public is constantly being kept in the dark (9/11, Iraqi WMDs, etc) so, your main argument is to just continue to keep it in the dark, because they're not smart enough to understand the great motives of the fantastic policies. So how about changing it? How about making America the land of the free, there the public has their say in the way their country is run? Because now the decision making is based on non-disclosure, only the limited lies favorable to the government may pass through (Iraqi war).

One of the main failures of the the Soviet economy was that the central planning tools were not able to keep up with the economy and it's increasing complexity.

I wonder if we don't have something similar happening in democracies. Whether the tools to manage government can keep up with the increasing complexity of the world. What I'm starting to notice in Canada and have seen for a while in the US, is the average citizen that consistently votes against their own economic interests.

Keep in mind, Mr. Hurricane, that Sweden is one of the most pro-feminist countries in the world where men are considered "guilty till proven innocent" when it comes to rape or crimes against women. So when Julian Assange was living and working in Sweden, he should have known to take extra precautions with regards to which women he chose to sleep with. And since militant feminists tend to be hawkish in their views on war, Mr.Assange should have known better than to sleep with a militant feminist. He should have known that a militant feminist has the motive and the mindset to become a sellout to the warmongers and torturers at the Pentagon. These monsters want Julian Assange’s head on a platter and he was should have known that a militant feminist living in Sweden would help do this for them!

Also be mindful that Sweden leads the world when it comes to protecting the privacy of online users as well as safeguarding whistle-blowers from prosecution, so Julian Assange’s thinking cap was working when he chose to have WikiLeaks’ primary server located in Sweden. But apparently his thinking cap soon failed him, otherwise he would have known that Expressen (see link below), one of the most widely read tabloids in Sweden, is owned and operated by the Bonnier family, who is notorious for being a loyal lap dog for the American Empire when it comes to protecting all the criminal activities on Wall Street and at the Pentagon. Not to sound conspiratorial, but I wouldn’t put it past the Bonnier family to team up with the Pentagon in order to discredit Julian Assange and his efforts to expose to the world that the US has become a safe haven for some of the world’s worst war criminals.

http://www.counterpunch.org/shamir08272010.html

"As part of their demonizing Israel and its friends, they have argued that it is only Israel who has been pressing the US to attack Iran."

And they are right. Israel is the only country threatening to attack Israel if the US doesn't do it, which is blackmail seeing as this would draw the US into another conflict it doesn't need. Israel could never pull this attack off on their own.

"We now see from secret cables that it was the Saudis and other Arab governments, vigorously."

Actually, that's false.

1. It turns out that the State Department has redacted that claim, which was made by a Saudi diplomat BTW, not the Saudi leadership.

2. The cables are not proof of anything. As Larry Wlkerson stated during an interview, the cables have not been tested or vetted by anyone and could well be lies.

The Israelis, in contrast, simply presented their assessments.

"Reportedly there was a shouting match at the White House betweed King Saud and President Obama, in which Saud urged the US to "cut off the head of the snake" (Iran)."

Absolute rubbish. The discussion was reportedly between a Saudi diplomat and an American diplomat. Neither Obama not the Kind Abdullah (Kind Saud dies in 1969) ever had such a conversation.

"Apparently he was also so concerned about the Palestinians that he didn't mention them at all as an issue."

False. There are a dozen cables covering that topic.

"Wikileaks shows that the Israelis warned of terrorist airplane attacks on major buildings well before 9/11, and the U.S. diplomat involved pooh-pooed it. Israel argued this as one reason they need to control the airspace West of the Jordan to the sea."

It's likely that Israel did know about the 911 attack, which is why 5 Mossad agents were videotaping the attacks as they happened in New Jersey. As for the argument that they need to control the airspace West of the Jordan to the sea, that's the lie that keeps on giving. Even controlling the airspace West of the Jordan wouldn't provide sufficient time to prevent such an attack unless Israel had planes in the air.

"In another cable the Israelis warned of Iranian uranium enrichment. Several years later it was revealed that they were so doing for some time, secretly, and the news was said to "come as a shock" to the US administration."

Rubbish. Since 1996, the Israelis have been running around declaring that Iran was 6 months away from making a nukes, and they've been repeating that BS for 15 years.

If this message duplicates, it's my new keyboard.

Calling a comment about Uranium enrichment "Rubbish" by citing an entirely separate matter--when the Iranians would have the bomb, is evidence of being logic-challenged.

As far as the alleged Israeli predictions of weapons readiness, they were probably accurate at the time, and led to various clandestine measures to delay Iran's program, some of which have recently been made public. There's a big difference between "If we do nothing, X will happen" and doing something about it (not necessarily bombing). It's quite common for governments to run models, scenarios, or war games to discover vulnerabilities and then change policy and suggest policy changes to others to avoid any dire consequences of the ex ante analysis. The Fed does it daily, as do many major corporations.

It would seem that the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing about Wikileaks revelations are leading to careless argumentation.

As a side comment, FP's list of 10 country problems the US faces as a result of Wikileaks have Israel notably absent from that FP list. It is because unlike some others, what the Israelis say in private is consistent with what they say in public. Yet the comparison of this inherent honesty with the two-faced postures of many other countries seems to be beyond our Foreign Policy "experts".

Of course State will not draw the obvious conclusions--we can trust the Israelis but not the Arabs and Iranians. They will continue their (State's) poisonous foreign policy despite all the evidence of lying, cheating, stealing and murder from the Palestinians and others trying to destroy Israel.

Any signatory to the NPT is perfectly entitled to carry out uranium enrichment

"As far as the alleged Israeli predictions of weapons readiness, they were probably accurate at the time, and led to various clandestine measures to delay Iran's program, some of which have recently been made public."

Absolute rubbish. Iran didn't even begin uranium enrichment until 2002.

Israel's clandestine activities have had no connection to the delays, which have been entirely due to technical difficulties such as natural contaminants in Iran's yellow cake supplies and outdated centrifuge technology.

"There's a big difference between "If we do nothing, X will happen" and doing something about it (not necessarily bombing)."

More rubbish. The same bogus argument was made about Iraq's WMD's.

"It would seem that the cognitive dissonance you are experiencing about Wikileaks revelations are leading to careless argumentation."

No, the cognitive dissonance is entirely yours. You've made up your mid what you want to hear and are simply regurgitating Hasbara talking points. You clearly know nothing about nuclear technology and are basing your arguments on imaginary scenarios.

"As a side comment, FP's list of 10 country problems the US faces as a result of Wikileaks have Israel notably absent from that FP list."

Yes, how convenient. The Wikileaks cable dump has Israel's fingerprints all over it. Netenyahu was even boasting that the Wikileaks dump would not reflect badly on Israel before the documents were even released.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has stated it's obvious that Wikileaks is being manipulated by a foreign intelligence services . No prizes for guessing who he was referring to.

"Of course State will not draw the obvious conclusions--we can trust the Israelis but not the Arabs and Iranians."

We trust no one. The FBI has investigated at least 250 cases of Israeli spying and espionage against the US and Jonathan Pollard has been without doubt one of the greatest threats to US security in the past century.

Israel is a liability and that fact is becoming increasingly obvious, even to Israel's amen corner on Capitol Hill/

"As to Neoleft's reliance on Iranian words, the Saudis have said in Wikileaks-reported meetings with the US that the Iranians use many words and that of every 100, perhaps one of them is true."

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean. That political leaders lie? If you want to take the Saudis as an example, it turns out that not only are they NOT allies in the war on terror, but that they are financing Al Qaeda.

It's rather amusing that you are therefore suggesting that we take the finances of Al Qaeda while dismissing the Iranians as liars.

In any case, I bought up the statement from Iran's Supreme Leaders as a rebuttal to Hurricane's claim that Iran are admitting they are pursuing nukes. In fact, even Ahmadinejad said that if Iraq wanted to produce nukes, they wouldn't have a problem with declaring it to the world.

Since Neoleft's headline about reliance on right wing pundits is pure fantasy, not demonstrated in the associated text, I can only conclude he is a careless provocateur. I draw the appropriate conclusion.

"Since Neoleft's headline about reliance on right wing pundits is pure fantasy, not demonstrated in the associated text, I can only conclude he is a careless provocateur. I draw the appropriate conclusion."

This is coming from someone who claimed the cables involved a shouting match between Obama (who was never mentioned) and a Saudi King who died in 1969.

As to who the careless provocateur is, well, the conclusion to be drawn is all to obvious.

There was no conversation between Abdullah and Obama.

Your talking points fail to stand up to scrutiny.

"The neorealists are not only ethically bankrupt, but also cowardly."

The necons aare not only ethically bankrupt, but also cowardly and discredited.

"That is, when US policy toward Israel was favorable, oil prices dropped"

This had nothing to do with Israel. The agreement to keep prices low was made between the Kissinger and the Saudis, during which the US promised to protect the Saudis while the Saudis agreed to trade oil exclusively in US dollars.

Of course, under George W. Bush (the most pro Israeli president ever), oil went over $100 a barrel, so favoritism towards Israel made no difference

"I was the Chief Economist of a major international oil company during that period"

Who are you trying to kid? You're ignorant of the most basic history of oil pricing.

"Let's recall that the Saudis are the marginal producers of the marginal producers. We draw first from the US, then from friendly countries, then from OPEC, then from OAPEC, and lastly from Saudia."

Irrelevant. Demand ceased to be the biggest contributing to oil pricing long ago. Oil prices are almost entirely dictated by speculation.

"What comes through most strongly from the Wikileaks documents, however, is that U.S. Middle East policy is premised on a web of self-justifying fictions that are flatly contradicted by the assessments of American diplomats and allies in the region."

On the contrary. You're basing your entire theory about the region on cables which in themselves are not proof of anything.

A poll of Arab opinion indicates that 80% regard Israel as the major threat in the region. Iran is seen as a threat by only 10%. The poll also indicated that 57% believe the region would be a more safe place if Iran had nuclear weapons. (As with Israel/Palestine, the regimes are effectively on one side – that of America-and-Israel, and the Arab masses are on the other side – that of the Palestinians).

There has been no war by Iran against the United States. The US allies in Iraq happen to be the prio Iranian factions that were exiled under Saddam. The cable that quote Mubarak, explained that the US had given Iraq to Iran on a plate.

Ahmadinejad recently travelled to Lebanon, dined with the Lebanese Prime Minster and received a rock start welcome'

No US soldiers has fought with a single Iranian soldier, not one.

Israel are desperately trying to spin this to drum up the war with Iran, and fortunately both US presidents have ignored these delusional and crazy demands.