Adventures In Stupidity
MichaelW on May 20 2008 at 4:42 pm | Filed under: Domestic Politics, Election 2008, Foreign affairs, Media, MichaelW's Page
The leftosphere is up in arms over John McCain “lying” about Barack Obama’s stated intentions vis-a-vis Iran. The latest source of righteous outrage comes courtesy of a Joel Klein interview with McCain:
At a press conference here, I just asked John McCain about why he keeps talking about Obama’s alleged willingness to talk to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has no power over Iranian foreign policy, rather than Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, who does. He said that Ahmadinejad is the guy who represents Iran in international forums like the United Nations, which is a fair point. When I followed with the observation that the Supreme Leader is, uh, the Supreme Leader, McCain responded that the “average American” thinks Ahmadinejad is the boss. Didn’t get a chance to follow up to that, but I would have asked, “But isn’t it your job to correct those sorts of mistaken impressions on the part of the American public?” Oh well.
That prompted such scintillating analysis as this from Matthew Yglesias:
It’s increasingly clear that John McCain intends to use his special relationship with the press to run a campaign based on relentlessly lying about his opponent
And this from “BJ” at Newshoggers:
The Iranian power structure is a byzantine beast at best, but the tthe guy at the top is Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, rather than the eminently (mis)quotable Ahmadinejad. Given how “serious” a threat McCain and his supporters all tell us Iran is, you would think such a fact might be an important one to learn.
The rest of the lefty commentary basically play off of these two themes of (a) Obama never said “Ahmadinejad” and (b) McCain’s so stupid he doesn’t know who really runs Iran.
Starting with theme (b) first, why does it matter which leader McCain names when the charge is that Obama wants to negotiate without precondition with Iran? Whether he talks to Ahmadinejad or Khamenei is pretty irrelevant to that charge, and focusing one’s attack on something so ridiculously semantic and capillary simply underscores how much the Obama campaign really does not want to deal with this issue. And that’s not even to mention that meeting with Khamenei without precondition does not make Obama out to be a foreign policy genius either (he’s “slightly less anti-semitic”? Seriously? That’s a defense?).
Secondly, those accusing McCain are piling up the crow to eat:
September 24, 2007, 2:05 PM
Obama: I Would Still Meet With Ahmadinejad
Posted by Brian MontopoliDespite the controversy that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s visit to New York City has triggered, Senator Barack Obama still vows to meet with rogue leaders if he is elected, reports CBS News’ Maria Gavrilovic.
“Nothing has changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries,” Obama told reporters at a press conference ….
Obama said he would not have invited Ahmadinejad to speak at Columbia University, but he believes in academic freedom. “They have the right to invite people to speak. As I said, it’s not a choice that I would have made but we don’t need to be fearful of the rantings of somebody like Ahmadinejad.” Obama says the United Nations provides an adequate forum for Ahmadinejad to speak.
Obama was asked if his statements about Ahmadinejad were contradictory – why would he meet with the Iranian leader as U.S. president but not invite to speak if he were the Columbia University president? “There are two different functions, as president of the United States, my job is to look out for the national security interests of this country,” Obama said.
Michael Goldfarb dug up the video and adds:
I can’t say I’m surprised that Time magazine and the Obama campaign managed to miss this clip which completely undermines their shared narrative. But now we have a new narrative: Obama intends to meet with Ali Khamenei, the man with the real power in Tehran, because even though Obama pledged to meet with Ahmadinejad, and said it was a “disgrace” that Bush had not, he never had any intention of meeting with Ahmadinejad, and McCain is a liar for saying different.
See also here for more confirmation that Obama did in fact say he would meet with Ahmadinejad.
As for the new Obama meme, that he’ll meet with Khamenei (but not that nutjob Ahmadinejad!), Goldfarb provides the relevant transcript of advisor Susan Rice speaking to Wolf Blitzer:
BLITZER: “How does Senator Obama defend that decision to meet without preconditions with a leader like Ahmadinejad?”
RICE: “Well, first of all, he said he’d meet with the appropriate Iranian leaders. He hasn’t named who that leader will be. It may, in fact be that by the middle of next of year, Ahmadinejad is long gone.”
BLITZER: “Let’s be precise because when they criticize Barack Obama, not only John McCain but others, for suggesting that he would meet without preconditions with Ahmadinejad, who only last week on Israel’s 60th anniversary called Israel a ‘stinking corpse.’ The question that they ask is what is Barack Obama going to talk with him about?”
RICE: “Well, first of all as I said, it would be the appropriate Iranian leadership at the appropriate time – not necessarily Ahmadinejad.”
As his nomination becomes more likely, Obama’s supporters have twisted themselves into rhetorical knots attempted to explain away their candidate’s everchanging positions. In this case they have chose the stupidest of all tacts in declaring that it is McCain who is lying and doesn’t know what he’s talking about when, in fact, Obama has clearly stated what McCain said he did, and the attempted defense actually indelibly implants the fact that OBAMA WILL MEET WITH IRAN WITHOUT PRECONDITION! in the minds of the voters.
Quite possibly this could be one of the dumbest political moves ever made, and certainly some of the dumbest retorts I’ve ever seen. And yet, somehow Obama will still end up being president.
Sphere: Related Content22 Responses to “Adventures In Stupidity”
Trackback URI | Comments RSS
I’m sorry, but I forgot again where the problem is with talking to leaders unconditionally? Doesn’t that mean there are no conditions upon the start of negotiations? And isn’t that how things get settled without following Bret Stephen’s advice to bomb the Damascus airport?
Also, it says something that Obama can be tone deaf enough to say something so poorly, yet he still stands a good chance at beating McCain. I thought McCain was the (would be) foreign policy president?
Maybe Obama will ask Ahmadinajad, or the Supreme Ayatollah or whoever to stop executing homosexuals for, you know, being homosexual. And maybe the Revolutionary Government of Iran will comply since Obama asks so nicely. That would be awesome.
Did you forget, or did you not know in the first place? Negotiating without conditions is an invitation to disaster when dealing with a terrorist supporting regime. Without any leverage, we would simply be legitimizing their tactics, and we’d have nothing to offer in exchange for compliance with our demands. Going to Iran without any preconditions whatsoever simply tells them (and every other terrorist regime) that holding the sword over the heads of innocents is a ticket to the negotiation table. In short, we would be inviting more terrorist actions instead of dampening them.
Somebody (I forget who) recently said that negotiation is a tool, it’s not a solution. If really want Iran to cease being a threat then we need to have something other than our sincerest approval when we approach the table. Without some bite to our bark, we’re no better than a UN resolution — and we know how well those have worked when it comes to terrorist regimes.
I guess I thought “preconditions” was a concept different from “leverage” and “approval.” Saying you’ll meet with someone without preconditions is a bit different from unconditional surrender, which is how you’re spinning it here. Obama is promising nothing aside from sitting down and talking the President of a sovereign country. Unless you have a problem with us talking with the heads of state of Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, even Venezuela, I don’t understand where all the belligerence comes from, or why Iran is such a special case.
It’s a bit disingenuous to call something “negotiations” when all you have room for are your own demands. That’s not negotiations, it is surrender. Demanding Iran surrender to our demands is certainly less limp-wristed than offering to meet without preconditions, I agree, but it isn’t any more mature.
I’m not spinning anything, Josh, that’s just how negotiations work. Maybe I’m short-circuiting the discussion by not explaining the finer pints of negotiation, but it seems rather elementary to me that when Party A behaves in an irrational and destructive manner and Party B agrees to engage them in a settlement dialog, then Party A is in control of the discussion.
What can Party B offer to persuade Party A to come to its own way of thinking? For example, imagine that you are a car buyer going to a (”evil capitalist” if you like) dealer and having nothing to negotiate with. Do you think you will get anything from the dealer that doesn’t involve you paying top dollar? If not, why not? Why would the dealer lower his price without you providing some incentive to do so? Every negotiation involves this same rubric.
Accordingly, when Obama declares that he will negotiate with Iran without any preconditions, he is simply stating that he will allow Iran to drive the substance and the tenor of the negotiations. It is a signal of weakness and it forebodes bad tidings for our side.
Again, without something to give up, we’re not “negotiating” we’re asknig for a favorable surrender. You have plenty enough experience with the Muslim world to understand that this is the case, no matter what “sophisticated” Western standards might suggest.
From my own personal experience, where something like 75% of my job is to negotiate a favorable settlement for my clients, I can assure you that approaching the table with nothing other than concessions is simply an invitation to exploit my position. America seeking to engage Iran (a terrorist-supporting organization) without any preconditions is simply asking for trouble — from Iran, and every other terrorist-supporting regime now existing, or contemplating such activity in the future. Allowing bullying and unmitigated aggression to be the ticket to the table only encourages such future behavior.
Your car dealer example would work better if you said, “I won’t even talk to you about a car unless you agree to lower the price 30%.” A precondition is different from entering negotiations with a definite goal in mind. And demanding more surrender—i.e. humiliating them yet more—out of a Muslim country is not going to contribute to a long term solution there.
I still think the relevant question is what would Obama hope to accomplish with no preconditioned discussions with Iran. What argument is he going to make that hasn’t been made in the past 29 years.
That’s a fair question. No longer agitating for the violent overthrow of the ruling regime might be a good start — on both sides.
Here’s another thought: offering something radical, like fully normalized diplomatic relations as well as sponsorship in the WTO might go a long way toward pushing Tehran out of a defensive crouch and nudge them toward being a productive member of the International Community. Hell, it worked with China, and they already had nuclear weapons (and had fought a far more vicious proxy war against us in North Korea).
That may not be the perfect solution. The point is, there are many tacks besides belligerence that have better records of success than punitive isolation with the constant threat of bombardment.
fully normalized diplomatic relations as well as sponsorship in the WTO might go a long way toward pushing Tehran out of a defensive crouch and nudge them toward being a productive member of the International Community.
In exchange for what exactly from Iran? Or are you advocating we just do this and hope for the best?
You’re trying to trick me into using the word “conditions” when talking about this. But that’s the thing — negotiation is all about give and take: you give up weaponized nuclear projects, we sponsor your full membership in the international community. But you don’t even get a chance to say anything if you don’t get them to the table. Such an offer might not work, but it is a step above “give up nukes so we don’t bomb you.”
Carrots work better than sticks.
Follow-up question: did Nixon put any preconditions on his visit to China?
Nixon, after all, didn’t just go to China to talk. He sent Kissenger first to meet with his counterpart from China in Pakistan. I would guess, the results Nixon sought were probably already largely agreed to before Nixon stepped out of the plane. Would Nixon have gone if he didn’t know the outcome?
So, who would Obama send first to hammer out the details, and what a “Tehran Communique” might look like…
Iran needs to
to stop its nuclear program,
to stop its support for terror,
to stop intimidating its neighbors,
at some point hopefully to provide greater freedom to its own people.
In exchange for:
Pledge not to attack them (Current US policy is to seek a diplomatic solution.)
WTO membership
A path towards normalized relations
Of course, the crux of the matter is that without Iran agreeing to the first three things, the things we could pledge wouldn’t mean a thing. And since Iran isn’t about to agree to the first three things we are at an impasse.
Backing away from our reasonable demands and giving Iran anything in return for nothing concrete, is not a negotiating path that any sane nation would consider.
Of course, Obama is all about HOPE, so maybe he hopes that if we don’t anger the tyrants and thugs of the war, they will be nicer to us.
Oh, and what common goal would the Iranians have with us, that would make them want to sit at the table with us?
China after all had the Soviets as a common enemy with us.
No preconditions?
Nixon and Kissinger met privately with Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai where they confirmed understandings on sensitive issues such as Taiwan and the normalization of diplomatic relations.
This would seem to indicate that there were already understandings on the issues, and what the respective positions were before the Nixon trip.
Common interests? The Taliban. Iran almost invaded Afghanistan in 1998 when the Taliban murdered 11 of their diplomats, and they helped us fund and direct the Northern Alliance to retake Kabul and Herat. THey were also major players in the Bonn process and the Six-Plus-Two framework. We actually have a common enemy in Sunni extremism.
BTW you forgot to mention that Obama’s hope is also AUDACIOUS. Getting back to the original point of the post, I don’t understand how the intention to meet with adversarial foreign leaders is any less or responsible than McCain laughing and singing, “”>bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb iran.”
In what way is it in the interest of the Iranian people, the nation of Iran, the United States of America, the world, or even humanity itself to confer upon a cadre of religious zealot thugs ”normal(cy)” for their gunpoint rule? The short answer is “in no way at all.” See the next post up, The Danger of Funding Thugs, for a little further argument.
“Carrots work better than sticks.”
When dealing with mules (i.e. normal governments) this is certainly true. When dealing with wolves however, it is so famously untrue that it conjures the cliche “famous last words.” In the end, wolves are only about meat.
yours/
peter.
Peter, you could have said the same of the Soviet Union. Yet we “legitimized” their existence by talking with them, maintaining diplomatic relations, and — despite their violent expansionism in Europe, the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, and China, something the Iranians have never demonstrated — still held regular summits and even managed to secure arms reductions. Even while unflinchingly calling it exactly what it is, an evil empire, Reagan still met with his counterparts without preconditions on the initial meeting.
Hell, the Cuban Missile Crisis would not have turned out well if we weren’t willing to talk with those Russian wolves. Negotiations and dialogue actually have a much better history with our violent and dangerous enemies than you’re willing to give credit for.
When the wolves have nuclear missiles targeting you it changes the equation somewhat, but it can’t exactly be characterized as a position of strength or even audaciousness. But since you bring them up, which of those famous agreements with the Soviets did they live up to? In the Cuban missile crisis the USSR agreed to remove their missiles and we agreed not to launch. Is this where we want to eventually wind up vis-a-vis Iran?
You seem to forget that having missiles pointing both ways was much more stabilizing than only one side having them. And it’s not a position of strength. We do not have leverage over Iran save the threat of attack. Which doesn’t mean we should wave around the threat of an attack — we don’t like it when North Korea does it to us in South Korea, and Iran doesn’t like it when we do it to them. Frankly, I am of the view that all the flapping jaws out there who think we can engage the Iranian state with little or no consequence are delusional and ignorant — there is a very good reason Fallon was so nervous about attacking Iran (as one example: the Millenium Challenge was a war game that highlighted the systemic vulnerabilities of our Navy operating in a semi-green water environment, as well as the ways Iran has adapted its far smaller military to match our close-to-shore capabilities).
In other words, nukes really aren’t the issue — nuke or no, we can’t definitively attack Iran in a way that doesn’t further destabilize the region or risk enormous losses (I hesitate to say “catastrophic”). Nukes would probably stabilize the situation, however, since we would be forced to take a preemptive strike off the table and resort to old-fashioned negotiations.
Which, as this thread is bearing out, isn’t very popular among the war set. If we are totally unwilling to concede on anything, including Iran’s right to defend itself (which is what its nuke program really is), then any of the other objectives — including the eventual de-weaponization of its nuke program — will never be met. Give and take is how this works, though not when one side badly overestimates its capabilities. There are precedents for countries willingly denuclearizing — South Africa, Ukraine, Kazakhstan — yet instead of looking at how politics and diplomacy made de-nuclearizing a better prospect than continued weaponization, we resort to empty rhetoric.
There is room for a significantly greater amount of sophistication there. Talking to them is one part of it.
Who has said that Iran doesn’t have the right to defend itself or pursue a peaceful nuclear energy program?
Interesting editorial on the results of Obama’s “no preconditions” on the current diplomatic efforts by the US, the EU3, Russia and China through the UN Security Council, to open up Iran’s nuclear program to gain assurances that it isn’t for developing weapons per the NPT.
Obama’s words on “preconditions” have helped ease domestic pressure on Ahmadinejad to comply with the United Nations and the IAEA. The Iranian president is telling his domestic critics to shut up until after the US election. Why, after all, should he make concessions that a putative President Obama has already dismissed as unnecessary?
For someone who speechified that “WORDS MATTER,” Obama doesn’t seem to grasp that his choice of words also matter.
The White House has not allowed room for Tehran to develop peaceful nuclear energy projects, even if this makes good economic sense for them. “Halt Iran’s nuclear program” is not “halt the weapons program but continue peaceful nuclear energy development.” And Bush is now obsessed with making Iran the capstone of his presidency, since he can’t point to Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea, Somalia, or Climate Change as victories.
As you say: words matter.
The White House has not allowed room for Tehran to develop peaceful nuclear energy projects…
BS…
What the current kerfluffle is about.
But I also talked about the need to defend Israel, the need to not negotiate with the likes of al Qaeda, Hezbollah and Hamas. And the need to make sure Iran doesn’t get a nuclear weapon.
The Security Council resolutions we’ve pursued are meant to ensure the Iran’s nuclear program is for the sole purpose of nuclear energy. Which is not the path that Iran is on, and which likely wont change until after the Nov elections now.
Q In the past, the administration has made the argument that Iran’s claims of its needs for a domestic civilian energy program are not credible because they have such enormous oil reserves. Should competitors to Saudi Arabia fear that they are in the process of trying to develop a nuclear capacity for something other than domestic purposes, given the fact that they have enormous oil reserves sufficient for their domestic energy needs?
MR. HADLEY: Who is?
Q Saudi Arabia has nuclear intentions beyond domestic energy production.
MR. HADLEY: Well, they said very clearly that they haven’t.
Q That’s what Iran says, too.
MR. HADLEY: Well, but the situations are dramatically different. Saudi Arabia, in a very public way, consistent with IAEA standards, and subject to the IAEA, is beginning to talk about nuclear energy writ large, which is not just an issue about civil nuclear power, but as you read the agreement, it involves cooperation on a number of other things — very much at the early stages.
Iran, of course, got into the nuclear business in secret with a program outside the IAEA safeguards, that we only found out about it because of the action by the IAEA, tipped off by dissident groups within Iran, and they started their program in a very curious way. Rather than, as the Saudi Arabians have talked about getting civil nuclear power reactors, they started out and went and developed enrichment capability before they had a single civil nuclear reactor on line.
So they developed a capacity to enrich uranium, which, yes, can be used to fuel a civil nuclear reactor, but also can also be used to continue to enrich to a level of weapons-grade for a nuclear weapon. They did that in secret, without disclosing it to the IAEA, in an un-safeguarded way before they ever had a civil nuclear power reactor, which could have been a plausible need for the enrichment fuel. And it is almost calculated in a way to raise suspicions on the international community that they had something else in mind. So I think the situations could not be more different.
(as one example: the Millenium Challenge was a war game that highlighted the systemic vulnerabilities of our Navy operating in a semi-green water environment, . . .)
Yeah, if you buy the leaked story by the Red commander. I find it odd that a carrier let potentially hostile “civilian” craft close enough to sink it, specially since this game occured post-Cole. You can put me down as a skeptic.