Posted By Stephen M. Walt
Friday, February 3, 2012 - 4:27 PM
Share
The drumbeats for war with Iran keep pounding, as you can read about here and here. There are some features of the campaign that are scarily (or maybe comically) reminiscent of 2002-2003 (as Glenn Greenwald documents here), but for now there's one key difference. Back in 2002, the neocon-heavy Bush administration led the charge to sell the invasion of Iraq. Today, by contrast, the case for war is being made primarily by other countries (i.e., Israel), or by assorted think tanks, lobbying groups, and national security commentators in the United States. The Obama administration isn't leading the campaign, having correctly concluded that a war is neither necessary nor wise. In particular, they do not seem to have bought into the rampant threat inflation that forms the core of the hawks' case for war.
But today I want to focus on another remarkable feature of this situation: the absence of any sort of meaningful diplomacy between the United States and the country whose citizens we would be attacking and killing if we were to launch a strike. The United States had diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union from 1933 on, including the period when Joseph Stalin was murdering millions. We never broke relations with Moscow during the Cold War, even though the United States and USSR had thousands of nuclear warheads pointed at each other and were waging bloody proxy wars in Korea, Vietnam, Africa, the Middle East, and Africa. U.S. and Soviet leaders met repeatedly at summit meetings (some of them contentious), and U.S. and Soviet diplomats interacted more-or-less constantly on matters of mutual concern. The purpose of these various exchanges wasn't appeasement or even accommodation; we talked to them so that we could figure out what they thought, and so that we could explain our positions to them. It was important that each side know what the consequences of different courses of action might be, and sometimes that involved spelling it out for each other.
And what was the result? Not only were the two superpowers occasionally able to cooperate in mutually beneficial ways (i.e., managing crises, reducing nuclear risks, ending wars, etc.) but the United States eventually won the Cold War and presided over the Soviet Union's demise without triggering a direct U.S.-Soviet clash. Indeed, U.S. diplomats did a good job of picking Mikhail Gorbachev's pocket as the USSR imploded, in part because they had established a good working relationship with him. Furthermore, contacts between Russians and Americans seem to have helped thaw communist society, in part by teaching younger Soviet elites that the West was doing better and was not irrevocably hostile.
By contrast, the United States hasn't had diplomatic relations with Iran for over three decades. That is a longer hiatus than occurred after either the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 or the communist seizure of power in China in 1949. Only a tiny handful of U.S. officials have direct experience with their Iranian counterparts. Few Americans have extensive dealings with Iranians, save for Iranian exiles who often have their own agendas. We don't have a good sense of where the different Iranian factions are, what they think, or how they might respond to different U.S. policies. Yet we blindly assume that there is no recourse but to sanction and maybe bomb them.
The Obama administration likes to portray itself as having "extended a hand of friendship" to Iran, but it was a half-hearted effort at best. Even now, we seem unable to offer Iran a "yessable" proposition, and we merely repeat our long-standing position it simply comply with our demands. The administration has done a good job of rounding up international support for its position, but isn't it ironic that we've devoted far more time and energy to that task, instead of exploring whether there might be a mutually acceptable solution to the current impasse itself.
The bottom line: I find it bizarre that anyone is seriously contemplating waging war on a country about whom we know so little and with whom we barely engage. And why do we know so little? Because we are too scared, or proud, or politically paralyzed to even talk to them. This is not the behavior one expects of a confident, mature great power: it is the behavior of a government that is either afraid it will get tricked by devious Persians, or that is more worried about domestic criticism than foreign consequences.
Winston Churchill has become something of an iconic figure among U.S. hardliners, including many in the vanguard of the war party. But it was Churchill who famously remarked that "to jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war." Rather than unleashing the U.S. Air Force, in short, how about unleashing our diplomats instead?
Oh, wait. It's an election year. Never mind.
AFP/Getty Images
EXPLORE:MIDDLE EAST, DIPLOMACY, DISASTERS, IRAN, NUKES, OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, U.S. CONGRESS, U.S. FOREIGN POLICY 
what are you going to offer in "negotiations" with iran?
what will they likely want? I can guess...like you want walty, iran's going to want the US to abandon israel. And like you walty, irans going to want israel to be nuclear free.
both propostions will go nowhere....so what will be accomplished? nothing except they will have run out the clock, and you know this is the case...
walt, I think you are an anti semite and I similarly think you are a coward hiding behind your so called academic bona fides...what you are peddling is something far below true academic pursuit.
Prof. Walt's confusion explained.
The absence of "real" negotiations, not proven more than absence of negotiations with Russia (remember the stuff with Georgia & the Black Sea?), is difficult for Prof. Walt to understand because it extends over multiple administrations, Republican & Democratic. In the end, Prof. Walt simply has not found the appropriate combination of "neo-cons" to explain matters. To see how this works, consider Prof. Mearsheimer's hero (also approved by Prof Walt), Mr. Atzmon, THE WANDERING WHO, p 31:
Unlike old-fashioned Britain, where Tony Blair recruieted Lord Levy to encourage his ‘Friends of Israel’ to donate their money to a party that was just about to launch a criminal war, in America Alan Greenspan provided his president with an astonishing economic boom. It seems that the prosperous conditions at home divert the attention from the disastrous war in Iraq.
Greenspan is not an amateur economist, he knew what he was doing. He knew very well that as long as Americans were doing well, buying and selling homes, his President would be able to continue implementing the ‘Wolfowitz doctrine’ and PNAC philosophy, destroying the ‘bad Arabs’ in the name of ‘democracy’, ‘liberalism’, ‘ethics’, and even ‘-women’s rights’.
__
Most folks would not make the leap from federal reserve policy to foreign polic like that, especially sans evidence of communication between Mr. Greenspan & Mr. Wolfowitz. Nonetheless because Mr. Greenspan is named a "third category" Jew, the logic swiftly follows. Most would assume, to the extent Mr. Greenspan created prosperity, this was done to create prosperity. No reason on earth to assume that a policy maker is succeeding at what he is tasked to do other than because that is what he is tasked to do.
If Jews are Satanically empowered, it follows any ostensibly good act is an evil act whose real nature simply requires more study. Prof. Walt cannot understand the Jewish cause behind this problem simply because he cannot connect the Jews as well as his & Prof. Mearsheimer’s new saint can.
This is an extension of an old habit. Here limned is Atzmonian dialectic:
Which race must the National Socialist race fight against?
The Jewish race.
Why?
The goal of the Jew is to make himself the ruler of humanity. Wherever he comes, he destroys works of culture. He is not a creative spirit, rather a destructive spirit.
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/catech.htm
That’s from Prof. Bytwerk’s fabulous site. Ostensibly good acts, such as creating a prosperous economy or becoming physicians, are thus evil acts needing additional study. With The Israel Lobby, a Jew’s writing of a letter to a Congressman is membership in “the Lobby”. A Jew may be write about social security, the budget deficit, crime, abortion, perhaps even his or her electric bill, but to Profs. Walt & Mearsheimer, the real goal is to dominate foreign policy.
So wishing to avoid a war that will kill up to a million people, irradiate half of Asia, wreck the world economy, bankrupt the United States, and best of all, be waged entirely at the behest and in the interests of a foreign country are all indicators that one is anti-semite. Thank you for that very clear set of guidelines.
Poor little Israel. Always ready to fight to the last American. And most unfortunately, always disturbingly eager to do to others what was done to them.
israel has NEVER asked america to fight its wars..not once. As a matter of fact, israel has been on the front line fighting on the front line for america's interests! you ungrateful pricks. You list all of the frankly hysterical prognostications of what would come of a stike on irans nuclear facilities...but what you dont list is what the next war will look like once iran actually has nuclear weapons. Of course, this is not something you wish to debate....all you wish to do is abandon one of your best allies thinking wrongly, that if only you do that then the whole arab world will leave you alone....which is pure fantasy. An America that abandons its allies is forever weakened, forever on the downslope into irrelevancy. America would cease to be what at its core it was always about...freedom, truth, justice. If you think throwing in your lot with iran or any other arab nation, you are going to be in for one nasty surprise.
Mr. Hitler was against smoking, wanted exercise as a national habit, & wanted improved treatment for animals.
Prof. Walt defined the Israel Lobby in such a way as to impugn morals of any Jew who wrote a letter to his or her Congressman.. Prof. Walt exonerated his partner, Prof. Mearshiemer's support of Mr. Atzmon. Prof. Walt was one of the only Americans interviewed by Niedziela in 2006,
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?nr=200409&dz=spoleczenstwo&id_art=00032 .
The paragraph beginning the interview:
______
In order to understand the US policy of the last decades one must realize the fundamental fact: the United States are the closest ally of Israel and the defence of Israeli interests is a priority of the American policy. The relationship has been evident in the American policy in the Middle East. The special relationships between the biggest world power and Israel result from the activities of the Israel lobby, the most influential group on the American political scene (and not only this scene). These conclusions were reached by two American professors: Stephen Walt, Harvard University, and John Mearsheimer, University of Chicago, the authors of well-documented study entitled 'The Israel Lobby'.
_______
Niedziela, today somewhat reasonable, often supported Radio Maryja
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=polska&id_art=00072
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=komentarz&id_art=00032 ,
published multiple denunciations of Prof Gross
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=polska&id_art=00093
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=polska&id_art=00090
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=z_historii&id_art=00058
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=z_historii&id_art=00057
http://sunday.niedziela.pl/artykul.php?dz=z_historii&id_art=00068
Not one article appears in their archive search with words "anti semitism", "antisemitism", "antisemitic", "jew hatred", or "judenhat".
Rep. Barr showed integrity by denouncing the Council of Conservative Citizens http://www.adl.org/presrele/asus_12/3305_12.asp
No such denunciation emerged from the first 11 pages of Google search-- niedziela "stephen walt"
He's arguing that we normalize relations with Israel. That we hold Israel to the same standard as we'd hold the rest of the Middle East. Clearly, only an anti-semite would suggest such a thing. If you don't treat Israel as special, if you don't see Israel as the incarnation of G-d's will, then you're anti-semitic. Never mind that viewing Israel as prophecy made manifest is blasphemy to many orthodox Jews--you, Goy, don't have the liberty of that position. Bow down and show your fealty NOW, or be branded a Jew hater.
He's arguing that we normalize relations with Israel. That we hold Israel to the same standard as we'd hold the rest of the Middle East. Clearly, only an anti-semite would suggest such a thing. If you don't treat Israel as special, if you don't see Israel as the incarnation of G-d's will, then you're anti-semitic. Never mind that viewing Israel as prophecy made manifest is blasphemy to many orthodox Jews--you, Goy, don't have the liberty of that position. Bow down and show your fealty NOW, or be branded a Jew hater.
Changing the subject does not refute the argument.
Mr. Ray Kelly's son has been accused of rape. What would you say were someone to say "this guy is amazingly handsome, successful as a journalist, well known in various NYC circles"? Would you not say "let's look at the evidence & see if he is guilty of rape"?
Unfortunately, Prof. Walt did define Jews as was said. Unfortunately, Prof. Walt did give that interview to Niedzela. Unfortunately, Prof. Walt did support Prof. Mearsheimer with respect to Mr. Atzmon.
Consider the following statement:
GILAD ATZMON'S THE WANDERING WHO IS A LEAKING BUCKET OF SEMI-LIQUID COW MANURE THAT COATS ALL WHO SUPPORT IT WITH DUNG.
Now it can be saiid:
MARTIAL SUPPORTS THE NOTION THAT GILAD ATZMON'S THE WANDERING WHO IS A LEAKING BUCKET OF SEMI-LIQUID COW MANURE THAT COATS ALL WHO SUPPORT IT WITH DUNG.
What about you?
The term "anti-semite" has virtually lost its meaning. Instead, one should simply say one is discussing whether or not Prof. Walt bears Judenhat or whether or not he is a Jew baiter. That's far more polite.
The reason US supports is singled out for Israel, is because this tiny country's existence has been under threat of annihilation, and repeat of the Holocausts onto the Jews.
With their virulent and publicly expressed hatred of Jews (what they call Zionists), and what Israel stands for, no group helps the Israeli Lobby of convincing the American public and U.S. congress, more then the Arabs & Islamist like the Mullahs in Iran do.
Sympathy is less important than utility, exc. to State Dept
The lack of knowledge of recent history astonishes. Good heavens, 1967 was what ended Mr. Nassar's campaign to establish an empire that included Yemen. No kidding. Look it up. Mr. Nassar, hero to so many, used banned chemical weapons to attempt to foment revolution. Yemen's civil war persists. After this, Isreal was the sole reliable ally in the region. If you look, you will see the USSR supporting the Palestinians & the US supporting the Isrealis over & over & over again. After all, no American blood was spilled over the Suez Canal during that period. The USS Liberty was not Isreali war upon the US, its sole partner. So what thanks do the Israeli's get for keeping American blood off the soil directly connected to the Suez Canal? The right to be held up as Jewish bogeymen for Jew baiters. Note that Mr. Dallas there could not bring himself to say that little phrase. Let's see what can be done with respect to Libya, shall we?
You conveniently left out the Lavon Affair, aka "Operation Susanah" in which Israeli agents infiltrated into Egypt and placed bombs in British and American sites including movie theatres, and planned on blaming the resultant deaths on the Egyptians.
Yes, Israelis tried to kill Americans and blame it on the Moslems.
A single affair detracts not from decades of work together.
Whatever the Lavon Affair was, whatever occurred on the USS Liberty, does not change the nature of the blood of Israeli soldiers sacrificed in the service of US interests. Israel's enemies were in the back pocket of the USSR.
Iran’s Terrible Rationality (By Rich Lowry, NRO)
National Review Online
February 24, 2012
Iran’s Terrible Rationality
A highly ideological leadership with a sense of desperate urgency is the enemy of deterrence.
By Rich Lowry
The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, thinks that Iran is a “rational actor.” He is indisputably correct.
Iran has, quite rationally, concluded that if it spins thousands of centrifuges to enrich enough uranium, it will soon have the bomb. Just as rationally, it believes it can string the West along. Then there is its airtight chain of cause and effect in the alleged plot against the Saudi ambassador to the United States: If it hired a Mexican drug gang, and that gang blew up a Washington, D.C., restaurant, and the Saudi ambassador was dining there at the time, the ambassador would die. Q.E.D.
General Dempsey said too little and too much about the Iranian regime. Tehran couldn’t have made itself into the world’s foremost exporter of terror and extended its tentacles throughout the Middle East without resorting to rational calculation. That’s obvious. What Dempsey is implying, though, is that a regime capable of such calculation can necessarily be deterred if it gets a nuclear weapon. That’s an unsupportable leap.
If there’s one thing we should have established beyond doubt during the past decade, it is that involvement in terror attacks on American soil is extremely costly to the perpetrators. Nonetheless, according to the U.S. government, the Iranians hatched a plot against the Saudi ambassador where the risk bore no relation whatsoever to the possible reward — from our perspective.
More fundamentally from our perspective, there is no point in establishing a theocracy, killing innocents abroad, pursuing sectarian war, crushing protesters, denying the Holocaust, and threatening Israel with annihilation, either. From the point of view of the Western liberal tradition, the Islamic Republic itself makes no sense. Yet there it is, withstanding punishing economic sanctions to pursue the weapon that the regime wouldn’t want in the first place if it accepted international norms.
If the Soviets, the famous “evil empire” bristling with thousands of nuclear weapons, could be deterred, why not Iran? The Soviet leadership became more pragmatic over time. After Nikita Khrushchev renounced Josef Stalin, it didn’t believe that war with its enemies was imminent and inevitable. Iran’s religio-ideological fire, in contrast, is still burning hot.
A highly ideological leadership with a sense of desperate urgency is the enemy of deterrence. In 1941, Dean Acheson rightly said: “No rational Japanese could believe an attack on us could result anything but disaster.” Except the Japanese — driven by a sense of honor alien to us — believed that they only had two choices: getting squeezed out of China by the U.S., or launching a risky war.
Even in the Cold War, deterrence almost failed. During the Cuban Missile Crisis, the airstrike and invasion pushed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff might well have unwittingly prompted a nuclear exchange. The defense secretary at the time, the late Bob McNamara, maintained that “we lucked out.” Ah, yes, that crucial backstop to deterrence — luck.
The Israelis can be forgiven for not feeling very lucky. Do we think Israeli prime minister Bibi Netanyahu and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei will establish a “red telephone” to smooth out misunderstandings after Iran goes nuclear? The Iranian regime is factionalized, and it is sure to be the most fanatical elements that control the nukes. It is also prone to bouts of popular unrest threatening its existence. If the regime ever believes it is going down, national martyrdom might look gloriously alluring.
In March 1945, Adolf Hitler gave his infamous Nero Decree, essentially calling for the destruction of Germany. After the first U.S. atomic attack on Hiroshima, the Japanese war minister mused about how wonderful it would be if his nation were destroyed “like a beautiful flower.” It is in this tradition that former Iranian president Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani — a relative pragmatist — said that “even one nuclear bomb inside Israel will destroy everything. However, it will only harm the Islamic world. It is not irrational to contemplate such an eventuality.”
On his own perverse terms, Rafsanjani’s reasoning is unassailable. He’s just another “rational actor.”
— Rich Lowry is the editor of National Review. He can be reached via e-mail: comments.lowry@nationalreview.com. © 2012 by King Features Syndicate
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/291862/iran-s-terrible-rationality-rich-lowry
The nature of American "diplomacy"
What has Obama offered so far?
Apparently, it's this: Iran must stop all enrichment, and in return the USA is happy to sit down with the Mullah's and tell them when they can restart i.e. go can recommence When We Are Satisfied.
Quite how Obama expects the Iranians to find that acceptable is, honestly, beyond me. After all, it grants to the USA a right of veto over Iranian enrichment, and all Obama has to do is keep saying "No, I'm not fully satisfied yet".
Why not real negotiations, like: you sign the Additional Protocols and we'll sign a document saying we're happy with Iran's nuclear program?
Win/Win for both, and nobody dies.
Iran has already signed the Additional Protocols.
Try to keep up. Iran signed the Additional Protocols in December of 2003.
Get your facts right, CHINGHILLA
"Iran signed the Additional Protocols in December of 2003."
Noooooooo, they didn't.
They announced in December 2003 that they would follow the Additional Protocols as a "confidence building measure" while they were in negotiation with the E3 countries.
Once those negotiations collapsed then so did those measures.
But, no, at no time had Iran signed anything that would commit themselves to the APs.
Iran signed the Additional Protocol, and voluntarily implemented it for 3 years even though it was not ratified by Parliament, and has offered to ratify and permanently implement it, if Iran's rights under the NPT are also recognized. THe US has refused.
Not only was there no evidence of any nuclear weapons found during those three years that the AP was effective in Iran Iran has since then allowed inspections that exceed even the requirements of the AP by allowing inspections at non-nuclear facilities such as at Parchin - twice - with again no evidence of any nuclear weapons program found.
Indeed, the US doesn't even accuse Iran of HAVING a weapons program. Instead it accuses Iran of harboring the "intent to obtain the capability" to make nukes at some indefinite point in the future -- something no one can "inspect".
All of the talk seems to ultimately focus on enrichment. The Iranians want to do it, as guaranteed by the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The Israelis want them to stop. The Americans want the Iranians to stop rocking the boat in the region because they are doing it. Without direct discussions with Tehran, how can we uncover just what sort of deal would be required to persuade the Iranians to voluntarily forgo enrichment, which is what we're expecting them to do? When do the US, Israel and the EU proffer a deal which makes any sort of continued enrichment activity clearly foolish? The Iranians understand the souk. When do we offer a deal which can't be refused, with relying solely on using the stick as we've done?
No, it isn't about enrichment. That's just a convenient pretext. Even if Iran gave up enrichment, the US and Israel would cook up some other excuse. This is about regime change -- the "Iranian nuclear threat" is just a pretext, just as "WMDs in Iraq" was a pretext.
...the case for war is being made primarily by other countries (i.e., Israel), or by assorted think tanks, lobbying groups, and national security commentators in the United States..."
ON TONIGHT'S (2/03/12) ABC EVENING NEWS WITH DIANE SAWYER:
"...Iran's nuclear weapons program..." ~ Martha Raddatz (at 11:35 in the video below - The Iran segment begins at about 09:05)
World News 2/3: Severe Midwest Blizzard
20:25 | Aired on ABC 02/03/12
Denver Snow Storm Grounds 600 Flights; Jobs Gained in January Lowers...
VIDEO - http://abcnews.go.com/watch/world-news-with-diane-sawyer/SH5585921/VD55168023/world-news-23-severe-midwest-blizzard
The "think tanks" are Israeli strongholds and the "other countries" are American allies.
The independent countries are supporting Iran, as proven by China and India increasing their Iranian oil purchases, and the fact that Iranian diplomats and government figures are welcomed in many countries around the world (irregardless of the US/Israeli lie about Iranian "isolation")
"This is not the behavior one expects of a confident, mature great power: it is the behavior of a government that is either afraid it will get tricked by devious Persians, or that is more worried about domestic criticism than foreign consequences. "
"Afraid, worried" ??
Gotabe kidding: The man that calls for the assassination of the USA President remains free.
I think you sum things up nicely. I'm afraid that too many people are convinced that Obama's inaugural 'open hand' gesture toward Iran constituted 'diplomacy'. They've now concluded that diplomacy won't work. I do think Obama would like a diplomatic solution, but there is no political cover or public will in this unfortunate year where misleading claims about Iran's nuclear program are converging with domestic election cycle politics.
One question that I never see any analysis about is whether or not Iranian leaders have an interest in a diplomatic solution. Given the divisions within the conservative leadership and their own domestic concerns, is there the will and/or ability among Iran's leaders to seriously engage?
Yes, prof. Walt, but the U.S. has two things to do
America has two things to do here, 1) decide whether it's really wise to attack Iran (the answer being NO), 2) prevent Bibi & assorted hawks in Israel to arrive at the same position.
Especially number 2 will be a very difficult job. Probably the Israeli timetable for the coming Iranian job is set by now. (It may have been decided quite a long time ago.)
So, what will remain for President Obama to do, when Bibi unleashes his American-made attack jets, bunker bombs and other paraphernalia, is to convince the Iranians, and the world, that America is not in on this business. And THAT will be a difficult job, the most precarious one during Mr Obama's whole tenure as President of the United States. Leaving the "ironclad" union with Israel ...
Timing... We know you are a troll.
Can anyone make a cogent case as to why the US government needs to protect Israel to the extent that it does? I think nobody can as there is no rational interest for the US to deploy human and financial resoureces to the extent that it does, especially when compared to what the US do with other countries.
Also, can anyone make a cogent case as to why the Iranian government would attack the US, either directly or indirectly, with a nuclear weapon and not incur in the ultimate retaliation?
All this fuss is only for the purpose of appeasing Israel since it can influence the US Jewish electorate..... correct .... the US Jewish donors. It is all about the financial resources poured in the US election process and overall in the US political system when not in election mode (which is not that often considering that there are elections every 2 years).
Solution: ban and outlaw with serious penalties all private money from the US political process and everything will be fine.
Frankier,
AIPAC, the most powerful USA political lobby, registered as a domestic lobby, is an outlaw because in practice it works for a foreign country. Our politicians know it but they do not have the courage to make it write. That qualify our politician as collaborators, traitors.
Trita Parsi recent book "one throw of the dice" describes in excruciating detail how Obama has avoided, either consciously or out of passivity, negotiations with the Iranians
Bromwich at huf po has a nice essay on the same suject:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-bromwich/obama-iran-war_b_1250668.html
And the Leverett's (from raceforiran) have a review of Parsi's book that has even more.
The next 10 months will be very dangerous times. We know that the US (admin, State, CIA and military) do not want to go to war with Iran. However, Israel will be working over time along with their Lobby that controls the House and Senate on this subject to provoke a war.
We all know that Israel does not have the military power to seriously damage Iran, but an Israeli attack could very well suck in the US. If the US ends up in a war against Iran in the next year, every sentient being on this planet will know that it was Israel and her penetration of our government that was responsible.
David Bromwich's article on Huffington Post
Thank you, TOIVOS, for this link!
I sure agree that the coming months will be very dangerous times. Also for people not living in the ME.
In return, I propose the following link, to the latest article by Gideon Levy, in Haaretz:
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/israelis-should-be-afraid-of-their-leaders-not-iran-1.411087
was thinking that a link to BHLevy for a minute. I feel dirty for having thought of him. Sorry, bringing his name up is akin to farting in the debate hall.
To funny Gideon Levy.
This is the same fool that said for years Bashar Assad is a man of peace and its Israel thats the war monger.
In the last year with Assad murdering some 6000 Syrian civilians, leveling entire Syrian towns like his father did in 82. With Assad murdering civlians in hospitals, clinics who he deem's anti Assad, Gideon Levy has not wrote one article criticizing Assad.
I just read this great article.
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=1374
Only Israel gets Goldstoned
David M. Weinberg
Febuary 15, 2012
Although on most issues, including the disapproval of a military strike on Iran, I strongly side with Prof. Walt, I believe he is rather looking at the very long-running and poisonous relationship between the Islamic Republic and the US simplistically.
Yes, one may ask why hasn't there been even a minimum of diplomatic relationship between the two countries and America could receive a part of the blame. But from my understanding of the Iranian regime and the 30 years of ups and downs and disappointments in its view of the US, I should admit that the lack of such a channel of diplomacy and the level of tension should is more the Iranian government's fault. They simply do not have a healthy, or slightly rational view of the world and especially the US. A good part of their identity is based on bashing the US--they cannot simply abandon that.
Secondly, the US through France, the UK, and Germany years ago and repeatedly offered some very generous packages of immense economic benefit to Iran in return of them halting their enrichment process and they all hit deadlock.
All I'm trying to show is that the record is much grayer than it might appear. I'm terrified by the Netanyahu government and their possibility of going to war with Iran. But I have objectively come to blame the Iranian government far more than I do the West in the deadlock nuclear situation.
We all know that the bully isn't to blame. Poor Iran, so much like the little kid trying to walk home unmolested. We should blame HIM for betting confronted and harassed by the bully. It HE that failed to stop punching himself in the face, it was HE that was leery of the gift trojan horse. Clearly, we weaker country that constrains it's actions to it's own region of the world is the real instigator against our pan global leviathan.
The European deals you refer to and claim were "generous" etc were actually characterized by independent think tank as "an empty box with pretty wrapping"...
http://www.basicint.org/publications/paul-ingram/2005/preliminary-analysis-e3eu-proposal-iran
Perhaps the real problem is that the US lacks a statesman either as President or in the role of éminence grise. Obama appears a nice guy, that is to say not a nasty, but he combines the disparate, indeed mutually exclusive attributes of idealism and pragmatism, a combination that only occasionally and almost incidentally yields rational response. Much is written about Israel and the lobby, and Congress and so on, all doubtless valid but such problems would, surely, dissolve before the determination of a President who was a true statesman or, for that matter, one who was truly rational.
Many words pass under bridges in the matter of Reason but I want to suggest just one more thing. When you are guided by Reason, you are less free than when you keep Reason at bay, that makes many uncomfortable, and rightly so. In fact you use up your freedom in determining to be rational. Just think, someone who is completely irrational is free to do anything whereas someone who is rational has fewer options in proportion to his rationality, and ultimately maybe none since the more he thinks about, that is to say approaches full understanding of, the environment in which his action and its consequences are to be set, the faster the options drop like autumn leaves until there are no longer any left, only the obvious and compelling necessity to act in a particular way. In this case, perhaps, pick up the ‘phone and talk to the guy.
The Iranian impasse is plain dotty but what makes it continue so is not AIPAC, neoconservatives, salivating arms manufacturers, or corrupted Legislators, you can't blame the pooch if you leave a steak on the table, it is the President himself. He appears to lack the necessary to overcome what might be compared to an infestation, of bed bugs for instance. There is too much at fault in the system at home for any commonsensical solution to what are in fact fantasy problems like Iran.
I just love the conspiracy theorists that follow walt
its amazing...a legion of jew haters...all disciples of the protocls of the elders of zion....all with their cute theories of this lobby, of that neoconservative...lol...control of congress , of the media, of the banks, of the monetary system, of the mlitary industrial complex.......they control all grocery stores and convenience stores, all pizza parlors, all future shos, all bed bath and beyonds...LOLOLOLOL....
man are you guys nuts. your jew hate is just so strong that the fact as they really are get totally clouded over...and no rationale discussion can ever take place.
get this through your thick skulled jew hating brains...iran is a global problem, not just israels.You would do well to remember that. If you want to unleash your hate somewhere, try putin first and maybe hu second. They are the real culprits here...and then you can look at the now dead kim jong il, AQ khan, pakistan, and many more truly anti american psychopaths...
aipac is a lobby like any other...every country has one, every trade, every industry have lobbies...aipac's lobby is more than justified standing up for the just and moral cause that is israel. ...you might see some evil workings, I and many many others see a lobby that effectively supports an open, free democratic society that is in fact SURROUNDED by closed theocratic 12th century jihadis...
i am continuously amazed at how wrong you have this whole situation, but like I said, your sick jew hate precludes you from having any rational thought.
I've been called a hasbara central guy, a fascist, a lobbyist, etc..etc...when in FACT, i am a secular mostly liberal guy who is jewish, who is not religious, who does not support settlements but who does believe that israel is historically and in the present, legitimate.. The same as some jews emigrated to israel, so too did some arabs emigrate to israel, formerly, palestine, which was as you know, named by the romans as such to denote the land of the JEWS~!
but you go on and put your eggs into the arabs basket...see what you get...
Are you not being a shade anti-Caucasian?
"...in FACT, i am a secular mostly liberal guy who is jewish, who is not religious, who does not support settlements but who does believe that israel is historically and in the present, legitimate..."
If that be true, you need to see that it's YOU who has the blinders on. You say you're liberal. Surely you know some Americans who refuse to criticize this country, some good ol' Conservatives. If you're liberal, you've seen this. Well guess what, it's you who has the pathological inability to criticize Israel. How do you look at a fight between a far more powerful party and weak one, and blame the weaker guy? No one argues that we should stake a fair, middle ground between the slaveholder and the slave. Remember Solomon? Not all problems are to be split down the middle. Israel can withdraw to the Green Line, or she can kill the whole baby.
"but you go on and put your eggs into the arabs basket...see what you get..."
We have seen what we've got when all the eggs where in the Israeli basket.... 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, maybe even Iran, and, for sure, lots of $$$ down the drain on both a one-time and continuous basis.... Thanks a lot.
Go ask your fellow Harvard Prof. Nial Ferguson and his deranged wife. Go ask the Cuban exile community why we haven't gone to war with the Castros. Ask, why we relegate foreign policy to the most psychologically unstable among us. Is Nial a historian or an economist? And, why doesn't the man know the difference between gross profits and net profits? Confusion on this leads to low tax rates, a liquidation of manufacturing and employment and austerity budgets. See, the higher to top marginal tax rate, the greater the incentive to invest. Since investment, business expansion, employee benefits, R&D, advertising are all deductible. Raise the tax rates, and these deductible avenues become increasingly attractive to profitable firms facing increasing tax rates.
I am shaking my head in disbelief.
"Stephen M. Walt
Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs
International Security Program,
Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs"
What a loft title? With this type of pageantry, one would think this professor would put forth comments with depth more then this one.
1. Why aren't we negotiating with Iran?
Because, if he was familiar with that Iranian attribute of duplicity of Ta'arroff (which I know he does very well), famous for lie you in your face - he would not be asking this ill informed question.
For over 10 years, the West has been trying to do just that - negotiate. All to no avail. The Mullahs were just using them to gain time to complete their military program, until it would be too late.
2. He compares the leaders of USSR to the Mullahs. As crazy they were - suicidal they were not. Stalin, Brezhnev, and certainly Gorbachev were not fanatic, nor they believed in some lunatic religious belief that a Mahdi showing up. These Mullahs certainly do. They will use their nuclear weapon, because Allah had commanded Khamnei to remove the infidels, and pave the way for the missing Mahdi to show up and save humanity.
Their hatred of Israel and Jews, is based more on religious ideology, rather then their heart bleeds for the Pals.
So Stalin was a paragon of forthrightness? Don't be such an idiot. It's idiots such as yourself that we shouldn't negotiate with.
As you can see from the comments here alone, the reason why the US can't negotiate with Iran is because of Israel and the influence-peddling of the pro-Israeli lobby, which is desperate to spark yet another war in the Mideast for the benefit of Israel.
And even if Obama decided to sit down and actually negotiate with Iran, the fact is that he could not actually compromise with the Iranians because he can't legally lift any sanctions on Iran. Congress has imposed sanctions, and since Congress is bought-and-paid-for by Israeli lobbyists, no one in Congress dares to appear "soft" on Iran.
Really, our dysfunctional Iran policy is yet another sympton of our pathological relationship with Israel. Israel is the albatross around our necks and the steel ball around our ankles. Israel was always a liability, more so today than before.
Time to ditch this burden.
Friends, I took another look in my copy of "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy", by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt; printing year 2007; chapter 10 "Iran in the crosshairs". I recommend anyone to do the same.
Media reporting, and politician's talk on the matter at the time, were strikingly similar to what is going on today. The great difference being that before 9/11, and the precidency of George W Bush, there was a very good chance of good relations between the U.S. and iran.
Why the US is not negotiating with Iran.
The reason that the US is not negotiating with Iran is because the few billionaires that control the US government with their millions of puppets are only interested in money and power, thus more wars.
These few billionaire also silently control the Federal Reserve, a privately owned corporation; the mass news media; the FDA; the military-industrial complex; the world oil industry; and most of the large industries, corporations and governments throughout the world.
Thus, all the useless yak, yak, yak in the mass news media, online, and by the puppet politicians.
Also, more yak, yak, yak from the Federal Reserve, a private corporation whose only goal is to make more profit for it billionaire rulers and millionaire puppets. The Fed loans billions of dollars to the US Government and charges interest to keep America in debt, thus controlling the world. The Fed controls all aspects of money.
For a real education and a history of money from barter, to coins and paper and finally to electronically produced money created from nothing watch the multiple award winning film "The Secret of Oz". Solutions are presented to the financial crises and most other crises in America and the world.
Watch the latest free online edition of the "The secret of Oz" at documentarywire.
John F. Kennedy and Robert Kennedy both wanted to nationalize the Fed.
Which candidates want to nationalize the Fed?
America has two things to do here, 1) decide whether it's really wise to attack Iran (the answer being NO), 2) prevent Bibi & assorted hawks google reklam ver in Israel to arrive at the same position.
Especially number 2 will be a very difficult job. Probably the Israeli timetable for the coming Iranian job is set by now. (It may have been decided quite a long time ago.)
So, what will remain for President Obama to do, when Bibi unleashes his American-made attack jets, bunker bombs and other paraphernalia, is to convince the Iranians, and the world, google reklam that America is not in on this business. And THAT will be a difficult job, the most precarious one during Mr Obama's whole tenure as President of the United States. Leaving the "ironclad" union with Israel ...
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer professor of international relations at Harvard University.
Read More
May/June 2013
-
Profile
-
FP Power Map
-
Think Again
Follow us on Twitter | Visit us on Facebook | Follow us on RSS | Subscribe to Foreign Policy
About FP | Meet the Staff | Foreign Editions | Reprint Permissions | Advertising | Writers’ Guidelines | Press Room | Work at FP
Services:Subscription Services | Academic Program | FP Archive | Reprint Permissions | FP Reports and Merchandise | Special Reports | Buy Back Issues
Privacy Policy | Disclaimer | Contact Us
11 DUPONT CIRCLE NW, SUITE 600 | WASHINGTON, DC 20036 | Phone: 202-728-7300 | Fax: 202-728-7342
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the FP Group, a division of The Washington Post Company
All contents ©2013 The Foreign Policy Group, LLC. All rights reserved.
(47)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE