Obama and Iran, Redux

Some suggestion that this post was unfair to Barack Obama. An, certainly, this August 28 statement on Bush's Iran / mushroom cloud remarks from Obama doesn't sound like the words of a man looking to beat the drums of war:

There is an eerie echo to the President's words today. Five years ago, he made a misleading case to the American people that the trail to al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden somehow led through Iraq, and too many in Washington followed without asking the hard questions that should have been raised. Now we are dealing with the consequences of that failure of candor and judgment, and the President is using the politics of fear to continue a wrong-headed policy. It's time to turn the page on the failed Bush-Cheney strategy and conventional Washington thinking, remove our combat troops from Iraq, mount a long overdue surge of diplomacy, and focus our attention on a resurgent al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Similarly, one plausible (albeit frightening) interpretation of what's happening here is that the Bush administration is blocking legislative efforts at an approach to Iran centered around sanctions and carrots specifically in order to be able to proclaim that the diplomatic approach "failed" and military strikes are needed. So, okay, I don't think Obama's trying to grease the skids for war. At the same time, his Daily News op-ed did get the head and subhead "Hit Iran where it hurts: Democratic presidential hopeful takes a get-tough stance against tyrant of Tehran." Writers don't pick their own headlines, but you've got to imagine that the campaign signed off on that framing on some level. What game is Obama playing? Well, according to the Jewish Week:

Capitol Hill insiders say Obama genuinely believes in the necessity of curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions — but also that his championing of the Iran divestment measure is part of a concerted effort to reassure Jewish voters that began with his March speech to a Chicago gathering of AIPAC.

“There are soft spots in his campaign,” said Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn. “He doesn’t have a long record; he got negative attention for suggesting he would negotiate with Syria and Iran. So he wants to stake out a piece of the Mideast question where he knows he’s not going to get any Jewish flak.”

Basically, there seems to be one policy here, namely that curbing Iranian nuclear ambitions is an important priority that needs to be accomplished through a greater commitment to diplomacy on both the carrots (willing to hold talks without preconditions) and sticks (sanctions) front, and that a war with Iran would be a bad idea. But there also seem to be two messages here, one about a "get-tough stance" that's supposed to "reassure Jewish voters" and another about an "eerie echo" that's aimed at other people. I'm not sure how long an Iran message divided against itself can stand. I'm also not sure what the evidence is that Jewish voters (as opposed to AIPAC board members) have unusually hawkish views on Iran.

Comments

American Jews are definitely less hawkish on Iraq than most Americans, I doubt if they're more hawkish on Iran.

Posted by William Burns | September 2, 2007 5:23 PM

William Burns,

The prospect of an Iranian nuke is a greater threat to Israel than Saddam Hussein's regime ever was, so American Jews who are concerned about Israel could conceivably be more hawkish. Of course, there are other American Jews who are keen to show that they aren't concerned much about Israel, and being against military action against Iran is a good way for them to signal this.

Something else to consider: What if Bush doesn't plan a unilateral strike on Iran, but a multilateral one, perhaps including the French, among others? The act of getting this coalition together could be strong enough warning to cause the Iranians to concede before a strike is necessary.

Posted by Juan | September 2, 2007 5:31 PM

Matt,

I don't think it's fair to base the assertion that Obama is trying to "reassure Jewish voters" on anonymous "Capitol Hill insiders" and the analysis of one political scientist. I'd like to see more direct evidence that he's pandering to AIPAC with this bill.

Posted by br | September 2, 2007 5:37 PM

If we accept Obama's premise that Iran can be prevented from becoming nuclear by efforts short of war, then I'm not sure I see the contradiction.

If you're worried about Iran getting nuclear weapons, well, so is Obama--and he'll do what's necessary to prevent that result.

If you're worried about another war in the middle east, well, so is Obama--and he doesn't think one is necessary or wise.

But if you wanted to destroy Obama's chances, then i suppose you would want to detach some of his support by making him take a position on what he would do if diplomacy fails.

Posted by southpaw | September 2, 2007 5:39 PM

Where exactly are Jewish voters relevant? New York is pretty solidly democratic, and they have only small numbers elsewhere. Florida maybe?

Point being, I believe that when democrats pander this sort of sentiment, its for AIPAC and the people who influence donations, press coverage, not your average Jewish voter who as MY notes tends to be not so hawkish on war issues.

Posted by graeme | September 2, 2007 5:48 PM

1. It seems possible that Obama is actually trying to win the nomination, with hopes of winning the election, rather than just establishing himself as Teen Beat heartthrob for liberals everywhere. That means he has to take electoral realities into account.

2. It might not be Jewish voters to whom he's trying to appeal. It might be hawkish Jewish Americans who are important in the informal Dem election infrastructure.

If, per Brownstein, he stays exclusively the candidate of the wine and cheese crowd, he's not going to win.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | September 2, 2007 5:50 PM

"his Daily News op-ed did get the head and subhead..."

As I imagine you'd be aware upon re-reading, this is absurd reasoning.

-----

At the end of the day, you need to object to what Obama is actually proposing here, if you want to object at all.

And best I can tell, it's an utterly defensible proposal.

(Unless you want to make an argument that this fits a larger pattern, such as Obama's fetishization of triangulation. I don't think you're making that argument, though I do think it's a mostly correct argument.)

Pandering for donations to a Democratic interest group by making utterly defensible proposals that they like isn't a problem in this particular universe.

Or to think about it another way, expecting leading Democratic politicians to avoid ever saying un-nice things about the Iranian government because the current WH might use those statements in their pursuit of an unwise war is an untenable position.

Posted by Petey | September 2, 2007 6:00 PM

"It seems possible that Obama is actually trying to win the nomination"

I've seen no evidence to date that they're particularly hung up on getting the #1 spot in '08.

Posted by Petey | September 2, 2007 6:03 PM

Juan,

You may be right, but let's not forget that Saddam was hyped as a threat to Israel in the runup to the Iraq war as well.

As for any international coalition forming under George Bush's leadership, it seems unlikely. Nobody wants to be the next Tony Blair.

Posted by William Burns | September 2, 2007 6:06 PM

"It might not be Jewish voters to whom he's trying to appeal. It might be hawkish Jewish Americans who are important in the informal Dem election infrastructure."

Wrong on both counts, (at least as the prime motivation.)

Pure campaign dollars.

Posted by Petey | September 2, 2007 6:06 PM

"If, per Brownstein, he stays exclusively the candidate of the wine and cheese crowd, he's not going to win."

The only way he's going to win this thing is if there is some funny Hillary/Edwards suicide pact in January and Obama walks through.

Weirder things have happened. Obama won his Senate seat without having to beat anyone.

Obama is perfectly nominatable, but given the strategic direction Team Obama has chosen, he's only getting the #1 spot this cycle if he doesn't have to beat anyone.

Posted by Petey | September 2, 2007 6:13 PM

""It might not be Jewish voters to whom he's trying to appeal. It might be hawkish Jewish Americans who are important in the informal Dem election infrastructure."

Wrong on both counts, (at least as the prime motivation.)

Pure campaign dollars.

Posted by Petey | September 2, 2007 6:06 PM "

I'm not sure you really are contradicting him. Think how important AIPAC fundraising has been to everyone running for president for a while now.

Posted by Reality Man | September 2, 2007 6:14 PM

Just to amplify slightly, no one running for office outside NYC (to exaggerate very slightly) cares about Jewish voters. What they do care about is Jewish campaign dollars.

Posted by Petey | September 2, 2007 6:17 PM

Re William Burns

I guess I'm going to have to repost the link I posted yesterday where a former State Department functionary states categorically that the Government of Israel from Prime Minister Sharon on down was opposed to the Iraq adventure from the get go. This goes to prove that the Iraq adventure was about oil, not Israel or 9/11 or Saudi Arabia or democracy in the Middle East or any of the other phony rationals.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3444393,00.html

Re Obama

What everybody is forgetting is that Iran is unpopular across the political spectrum because of the actions of the mullahs in the 1980 hostage crisis. I suspect that there would be very little opposition in the Congress on either side of the isle to a bombing campaign against Iran. Many people would consider it payback for the 1980 events.

Posted by SLC | September 2, 2007 6:35 PM

SLC,

Did you even read what I wrote? You did notice that I said American Jews were less hawkish on Iraq? As far Saddam being hyped as a threat to Israel, he was. Remember all the babbling about how if we cut off Saddam's payments to Palestinian suicide bombers that would end the intifada? And for that matter, unlike the Iranians, Saddam had actually attacked Israel during the first Gulf War. This doesn't mean the war was about Israel, because, like I said, it was hype.

As for 1980, it was a while ago. I'm not sure that many Americans still immediately associate Iran with the hostage crisis.

Posted by William Burns | September 2, 2007 6:48 PM

Some suggestion that this post was unfair to Barack Obama. An, certainly, this August 28 statement on Bush's Iran / mushroom cloud remarks from Obama...

Dude, come on! Isn't there someone at the Atlantic that you can authorize to correct your most egregious typos and simple grammar errors? I mean, you're like the intellegent and critical lefty blogger. Indulge yourself a little.

Posted by Tyler Simons | September 2, 2007 6:50 PM

Obama is trying to counter the Michael Gordon sockpuppet A1 war drums we get from the Bush administration.

Look at this UPI analysis of current Iran sanctions: "The Iran Sanctions Act, first passed as the Iran-Libya Sanctions Act in 1996, forbids most business activity between American firms and Iran and threatens penalties for foreign firms that invest more than $20 million in one year in the energy sector. Enforcement has been weak, however, in part because the executive branch has utilized the waiver provision."

Got that? At the same time the Bush administration is beating the Iran War drums they are issuing waivers to their corporate friends to do business with Iran.

Back to the Obama op-ed: "The only obstacle now is a single senator who placed an anonymous "hold" on the bill, blocking it from coming to a vote. This is exactly the kind of unaccountable obstruction that needs to change in Washington. Instead of having a debate in the open, a Bush administration ally is blocking the bill through a secret Washington maneuver - a maneuver that would be banned if a sweeping bipartisan ethics reform bill that I led the fight to pass is signed into law."

Haaretz on the Obama bill: "Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama has put Barack Obama's bill on divestment from Iran on hold, and sources involved in the matter said they believe he is doing so following a request from the Bush Administration. Shelby says the bill should pass through the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, of which he is a ranking member, before it goes for a vote. The sources said, however, that the real motivation behind the step is that the Bush administration is concerned such legislation won't sit well with the international coalition partners, especially in Europe, that are badly needed if it wants to effectively tighten the sanctions against Iran."

Now does anyone really believe that the Bush administration is concerned that the Obama bill is going to muck up U.S.-European efforts against Iran? Far more likely is that the Iran Sanctions Enabling act would allow U.S.-European efforts to unite more strongly behind something that precludes military action.

Blocking the Obama bill makes it easier for the Bush administration to poison the diplomatic well with Iran. Talking about Iran in any context other than war makes war more difficult. That's why the Obama bill is getting blocked.

Posted by joejoejoe | September 2, 2007 6:50 PM

Thanks Matt for returing to this subject, as this second post on "Obama and Iran" is much more thoughtful and substantive than your first.

One thing that I think is characteristic of Obama is that he often tries to determine, first, what is the best or most reasonable course of action to address a particular problem, and then second, highlight those aspects of his solution or policy that may appeal to specific, influential organizations or parts of the electorate.

For example in talking to a group of AIPAC members in Chicago earlier this year he made it a point to talk "tough" on Iran (i.e. a Iran with nuclear weapons is unacceptable), but at the same time did not shy away from his position that we must be willing to talk with Iran's leaders to further our national interests.

By taking the lead on a bill that has the potential to inflict real punishment on Iran economically he is able to demonstrate that 1) he takes the threat of a nuclear Iran seriously 2) he supports taking clear and tough action to prevent this from happening and 3) there are ways to deal with Iran's nuclear ambitions other than going to war with or bombing them, which would be disasterous not only for the United States, but the entire region.

In order to put to rest any concerns that he does not take seriously the threat (to Israel and/or the United States) of a nuclear Iran he make sure to publicize and/or highlight points 1 and 2 above. Though people who are paying attention and who listen to or read his speeches on this subject should understand that point 3 remains an important aspect of his position on this issue.

In conclusion, I'd also note that while I agree with some of the commenters above that American Jews are NOT as hawkish on Iran as AIPAC or the Bush Administration (and hence do not support going to war with Iran), American Jews ARE at the very least CONCERNED about Iran obtaining nuclear weapons, and do in fact worry about what that might mean for the security, and perhaps existence, of the Jewish State.

By taking the position that he has Obama is able to address those concerns while at the same time demonstrating that American has other options with which to deal with this problem other than using military force.

Posted by Aaron | September 2, 2007 6:51 PM

But there also seem to be two messages here, one about a "get-tough stance" that's supposed to "reassure Jewish voters" and another about an "eerie echo" that's aimed at other people. I'm not sure how long an Iran message divided against itself can stand.

Where's the contradiction? Why is it not possible to criticize the President's Iraq policy and advocate a carrots and sticks approach to Iran? Hey, I'm not down with AIPAC either, but is it really reasonable to recoil in disgust at any policy that might -- just incidentally -- reassure Jewish voters? Is anything between being a foaming-at-the-mouth hawk and an abject dove a contradiction?

Posted by Wagster | September 2, 2007 6:55 PM

"Payback for the 1980 events"? Do people still seriously give a rat's ass about 1980? It's been 27 years—just as 1980 came 27 years after Kermit Roosevelt knocked over the Iranian government. A hearty round of "my bads" between leaders would take care of that end of things.

Posted by Some dude | September 2, 2007 6:56 PM

What everybody is forgetting is that Iran is unpopular across the political spectrum because of the actions of the mullahs in the 1980 hostage crisis. I suspect that there would be very little opposition in the Congress on either side of the isle to a bombing campaign against Iran. Many people would consider it payback for the 1980 events. Posted by SLC

There would be enormous opposition unless Iran attacked 1st.
1. Knowledge that we only have 10 ground comnbat elements in our ultra-expensive military, less than 1/12th the number we had in WWII, and that they are tied up in another small country less than 1/4ths Iran's population.
2. Distrust of Bush running any war, after he fucked up Iraq so bad. A sentiment shared by conservatives and independents.
3. Distrust that Zionist money and influence are manipulating America into war.
4. People can be educated fairly quickly that we paid them back in spades for the hostage takeover by helping Iraq kill an extra 100 thousand or so Khoumeni-Heads, and blocked Iran from victory in the Iran-Iraq war.

On the other hand, Obama's faith in sanctions is naive.
Only-US sanctions, like on Cuba, are a joke.

Tough, tough UN sanctions on Iraq did not stop Saddam's WMD program from going full tilt, nor did weapons inspectors - we only found out how bad it was when the two son-in-laws had a family foght and ratted the whole program out to the Jordanians.

So any sanctions on Iran would have to be at least as tough on them as the ones that Saddam blamed for killing half a million Iraqis.

And would have to accept that Iran would mess up the oil market in a way Saddam didn't choose to do because he wanted the oil-for-food money. And accept that many nations, like China, would have a harder time with buying into sanctions than the US just blasting them and reopening business and trade under more moderate Iranian management.

Otherwise, Obama's unilateral sanctions on Multinationals might just lead to Venezuela, Shell of Nigeria, FINA - which all do business with Iran and the US, washing their hands of bringing their oil product to the US rather than be dictated to by the naive Obama and AIPAC.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 2, 2007 7:28 PM

Re Some dude

I don't know about Mr. Some dude but I give a rats' ass and I think that Iran is due for some payback. This is particularly true because of the persistent claims from many former hostages of the direct involvement of Mr. Amadinejad. Mr. Some dude might ask those former hostages if they give a rats' ass.

Re reality man

"As far Saddam being hyped as a threat to Israel, he was."

The point of the Ynet article is that he wasn't being hyped as a threat to Israel by Israeli leaders, military officers, or Mossad officials. Quite the contrary, they considered him a at worst a nuisance and strongly advised the administration against the invasion. As I stated, and apparently Mr. reality man agrees, the hype about the threat to Israel was phony, just as all the other stated justifications were. By the way, it should be noted that the Administration and their acolytes in the media like Kevin Hannity never mentioned oil as a reason.

Posted by SLC | September 2, 2007 7:32 PM

Somehow I think the support we gave Iraq in the Iran -Iraq war covers the "payback."

Posted by William Burns | September 2, 2007 7:36 PM

Mr. Some dude might ask those former hostages if they give a rats' ass.

And while we're at it, we should let the surviving relatives of the 9/11 dead make all our foreign policy decisions regarding the Middle East. After all, those who have been victimized are naturally best qualified for level-headed leadership.

Posted by James Gary | September 2, 2007 7:59 PM

Tough, tough UN sanctions on Iraq did not stop Saddam's WMD program from going full tilt, nor did weapons inspectors - we only found out how bad it was when the two son-in-laws had a family foght and ratted the whole program out to the Jordanians.

Completely untrue, but I realize that's not the point here. Carry on.

Posted by Jon | September 2, 2007 8:07 PM

I give a rats' ass and I think that Iran is due for some payback.

Well, get over it. "Payback" is for people who give you wedgies.

As I was pointing out, in the grand scheme of things keeping some spies and diplomats hostage isn't the worst kind of payback you can give to a country that toppled your government. And if we're talking payback, Iran might owe us some for supporting Iraq in the war that killed ~1 million Iranians.

Maybe the best thing would be to leave the past in the past and work towards a mutually beneficial relationship that works in our interests and theirs!

Posted by Some dude | September 2, 2007 8:13 PM

"Tough, tough UN sanctions on Iraq did not stop Saddam's WMD program from going full tilt, nor did weapons inspectors "

Chris Ford made a funny.

Posted by Andruw | September 2, 2007 8:21 PM

Re: 79 hostage crisis supposedly sooo long ago, everyone forgot about it, no one cares anymore.

So wrong! This is something Bush & the neo-cons understood and which some of you apparently don't (maybe because your stuck in an echo chamber?) It's a main reason they could sell their war.

If you lived through it, which I might add, more than a few voters have (we haven't all croaked yet) you would know that that was where the term "towelheads" got popularized. Before the Iranian hostage taking, you had plane hijackings, hijacked Olympics and Achille Lauro's, but for most Americans, that was always about that far away Israel thing, not really about the U.S.

See, some people, like the kind that vote but only might have a high school education, they don't distinguish between one kind of Islamic guy saying "death to America" in 1979 and another kind of Islamic guy saying "death to America" in 2001. It's all one continuum from Iranian revolution to Marine Barracks in Lebanon to Somalia to U.S.S. Cole to Embassy bombings 9/11 to Iraq, and all the many other incidents inbetween, all "death to America" by Islamic wingers since the Iranian revolution, get it?

Why bothering figuring out more when they keep saying "death to America"? What more might one need to know if one thinks in black and white about defense issues? This type of American voter is not interested in figuring out the difference between motives or between the types of Islam, sees no reason to, as long as it's one where the spokesperson is saying "death to America," whether Iranian mullah, Hezbollah, Taliban, Hamas, Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, Abu Hamza in the UK, Doebandi Pakistani, Shiite Sadrist, Al Qaeda of Mesopotomia, Revolutionary Guard, Sunni tribal leader, Saudi imam, etc., they know they are all fundies with towels and strict theocratic ways, and they don't care to understand why or need to know more when they are saying "death to America."

And even I must admit seeing very little difference between Zawhiri's latest missives and those we heard way back on Ted Koppel's Nightline show, "America Held Hostage."

And Matt: you're forgetting about the Hezbollah-related issues.

Posted by artappraiser | September 2, 2007 8:28 PM

Tough, tough UN sanctions on Iraq did not stop Saddam's WMD program from going full tilt, nor did weapons inspectors "Chris Ford made a funny.
Posted by Andruw

Saddam's son-in-laws revealed the huge, hidden weapons program Saddam had ramped up despite "tough sanctions" and UN inspectors. Indeed, when the two guys talked, the UN was on the verge of given Saddam a clean bill of compliance and recommending loosening sanctions.

How easily Lefties that do not follow events forget the UN THEN going in and Saddam destroying tons of nerve agent and anthrax from 1994-95.
Suspicion that he hadn't fully complied, based on reports he told his generals that plenty was still hidden away, led to Clinton recommending and Congress approving "regime change of Hussein" was a policy goal of the US.

Of course, the son-in-laws were invited back in all this, told by Saddam that all was forgiven, then found their house surrounded by Tikriti clan there to kill them and then mutilate their bodies..

Turns out Saddam did the dumbest bluff in the recent history of mankind. He destroyed all his "special stuff" but told his military brass he had it, they in turn leaked to major intelligence agencies who all - from the Chinese to the Egyptians to the Russians to the Israelis, French, UK, Germans, Saudi secret police - all were convinced he hadn't come clean. And the UN inspectors had low credibility after the 1991-1994 Fiasco - they had fucked up badly on the 1st phase of "WMD inspections".

And when the Armies mobilized outside his Borders and everyone said time was short, Saddam refused to lay down his cards, convinced his bribes particularly to the Russians, French at the UN - and the Lefty protests would stop Bush and Blair.

It's a shame being a dumbass isn't a hanging offense in Iraqi law. It would have been fun to hear him try to explain why he bluffed and let Iraq endure another 8 years of sanctions when he had already proved sanctions were ineffective when he built up his nerve gas and anthrax stocks after the Gulf War and was doing nuke work until 1994.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 2, 2007 10:02 PM

Yeah, it's campaign donations more than votes that give Jewish-identified organizations such influence. It's really a perfect storm. For one, Jews spend more politically than any equivalent demographic group, and that's an edge right there. Moreover, Jews, and especially Jewish wealth, is disproportionately concentrated in three areas: Florida, West Los Angeles*, and greater New York City. The latter two are in cities and states that are solidly Democratic, so people who want to make a difference in politics are more inclined to donate at the national level.

This concentration, plus the various Jewish practices and traditions that serve to encourage ties to other Jews, means it's easy to build fundraising networks or co-opt existing ethnic affinity organizations and put on fundraisers that rake in tons of cash in one fell swoop.

On top of that is the Jewish concentration within certain industries in these areas, particularly media and finance. That means that supporter networks have another level of ties - professional - to knit them tighter, helping build the solidarity that both makes them more effective money-generating machines and allows them to stand tough enough to extract a cost for their support. Jewish donors in these industries are also likely to have ties to and some degree of personal influence on wealthy gentile colleagues who don't care much about "Jewish" interests as such.

Every single one of these factors gives Jewish-identified groups an edge in fundraising, and influence to match, and they've become a vital component of the national Democratic structure. What's more, unlike other elements of this base, there's no natural counterforce of any strength. Donations from labor unions and trial lawyers are just the yin to the yangly donations of their natural opponents, business lobbies. But CAIR's writ just doesn't seem to run past Michigan, so for now it's a gimme.

(*It should be noted there are a good number of Persians - Jews, irredentists, and otherwise, floating around in the same Los Angeles fundraising ecosphere, that subtly textures these appeals too.)

Posted by Senescent | September 2, 2007 10:09 PM

Chris Ford: "Saddam's son-in-laws revealed the huge, hidden weapons program Saddam had ramped up despite "tough sanctions" and UN inspectors."

Ooooh scary...how many WMD's were used on US soldiers?

Posted by Andruw | September 2, 2007 11:10 PM

Petey nails it (the 6:00 comment, I mean). As a rule, I find Petey to be very sound on issues not involving John Edwards.

Yes Obama is advancing an issue that presumes an unfriendly relationship with Iran. But we already have that relationship. Indeed, we already have sanctions that should prevent American companies from doing business with Iran. All Obama's doing here is fighting the corrupt practice whereby some favored powerful companies aren't forced to abide by the sanctions. And Obama complains that a Bush loyalist Republican is apparently standing against better enforcement of existing sanctions intended to apply pressure on the current alleged public enemy number one.

It sounds to me like Obama is making an excellent point here on the subject of Republican hypocrisy. The idea that he is beating the war drums with this action is ludicrous - who do you think he want bombed, Chevron?

Posted by Warren Terra | September 2, 2007 11:40 PM

Chris Ford, I'm confused:

On the one hand, you bash the Jewish neocons for their hawkishness, but on the other hand, you seem to share that hawkishness. What's the deal? You are in favor of staying in Iraq and you are in favor of bombing Iran, but you just hate that some Jews are in favor of those things too?

Posted by Juan | September 2, 2007 11:40 PM

"The prospect of an Iranian nuke is a greater threat to Israel than Saddam Hussein's regime ever was"

Bullshit.

Unless of course Israel intends to overthrow the Iranian regime - or get the US to do it for it.

THEN an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a threat.

See my post on the other thread on this topic. The only reason Iran would want a nuclear weapon would be to take "regime change" off the table as a feasible policy of the US and Israel.

Disarm Israel's nuclear arsenal - then Iran won't need a bomb.

Iran would support a nuclear weapon free Middle East zone - would Israel?

Hah.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 12:04 AM

And just to repeat myself - go see my post on the other thread - sanctioning Iran is only different in degree, not in kind, from attacking Iran.

The sanctions that exist have made no sense for the last twenty five years. The Iranians could be on the US's side with a little work from the US. Or at least neutral toward the US. They'll never probably actually LIKE us, but they'd be willing to work with us if we didn't keep trying to screw them over - like everybody else in the Arab world we've screwed over for the last half century.

As for "payback", the Iranian revolution was "payback" for the Shah - whom the US supported. Try to remember that before you get your doilies in an uproar.

Read my lips: there is ZERO justification for sanctions OR military action against Iran - which makes Obama a nitwit, a hypocrite, and a politician.

Obama is touting the notion that there IS an Iranian nuclear weapons program - for which there is ZERO evidence. If HE has evidence, let him show it. That makes him a shill for Bush, whether he likes it or not - and whether his supporters like it or not. The same applies to Hillary.

The only proper tack to take on Iran is that Iran MIGHT want a bomb to counter the Israeli nuclear arsenal. Therefore Israel should be disarmed of nukes, and all the countries in the Middle East - including Israel - asked to commit to a "nuclear weapon free zone". Then Iran and any other country that wants a nuclear energy program should be assisted in getting one - provided they agree to a highly intrusive inspection program.

Try selling that program to Obama's Jewish campaign contributors.

And that's all you need to know about Obama.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 12:20 AM

Obama's situation is a version of the basic security dilemma Democrats have faced since late 2002: how to make it clear that you think an aggressive militaristic approach towards potential threats of various kinds is stupid, without making it seem like you're ignoring the existence of a threat.

Nobody should be sanguine about the fact that Iran might develop a nuclear weapon. It's not good that Pakistan has nukes, it's not good that India has nukes, it's not good that North Korea has nukes, and it wouldn't be good for Iran to have nukes. In the Pakistani, Iranian and North Korean cases, there's a particular danger that some chain of events might lead to one of their nukes being handed off to an unaccountable third party (Al-Qaida, Hezbollah, a fiendish criminal genius played by Nicholas Cage in a long swirling black coat who plans to hold L.A. hostage, whatever) and used in terrorism or extortion.

Obviously, though, military action against Iran to forestall their nuclear weapons program would backfire so catastrophically that preventing such a US first strike has to be a top political priority. The problem is that if you spend all your time talking about the insanity of attacking Iran, people will think you're a starry-eyed peacenik who doesn't care about the possibility of an Iranian nuke. It makes sense for Obama to embrace the approach he's taking, and it makes sense for him to talk about it. The real problem is that Americans have a reflexive dismissive reaction to talk of sanctions and negotiations and bills in Congress -- a sort of "blah blah with your bureaucratic pussy-assed bull crap" reaction. And it's very hard for Obama to get across the fact that economic consequences and diplomatic engagement actually are the tough, sensible approaches to this adversarial situation.

Posted by brooksfoe | September 3, 2007 12:23 AM

Just as a quick point of order, Matt Stoller is rarely right about much of anything, and citing his histrionic ramblings does little to endear you to me. He got torn to shreds in his comments section for that incredibly stupid post, and rightfully so.

Posted by Nasara | September 3, 2007 12:28 AM

"Nobody should be sanguine about the fact that Iran might develop a nuclear weapon."

I disagree. Note that I don't disagree that ANYBODY having nuclear weapons is a bad thing.

Hell, I think the state existing is a bad thing.

So where do I go to register my discontent?

The bottom line about Iran is that:

a) There is ZERO evidence that they are developing a bomb.

b) There is ZERO evidence that if they HAD a bomb that they would use it in any circumstance except regime survival - just like everybody else with the bomb (except the US, who used it - in WWII - when "regime survival" wasn't even an issue.)

c) There is a better approach than sanctions or military action: namely, disarm Israel, so nobody else in the Middle East would need a nuclear weapon any time soon.

As an aside, for all those nuts who think Islam is such a "militant religion" and who think the division between Shia and Sunni is enough to start wars all over the place - just how many times has the Middle East BEEN at war in the last fifty years?

Hmmm - against Israel, yes. Saddam invaded Kuwait - for good reasons in his terms anyway - and the US told him it didn't care initially. Saddam also attacked Iran - with US support, by the way - supposedly as US "payback" for the hostage crisis - which in turn was "payback" for the Shah whom the US supported.

So where is all this militancy when it doesn't involve Israel or the US?

When was the last time Iran invaded anybody? Saudi Arabia? Syria (Lebanon doesn't count - peacekeeping operation)? Jordan? Egypt? Iraq before Saddam?

Take Israel and the US out of the picture. How many wars would there have been in the Middle East by now?

The reality is that Iran is no threat to anybody, let alone Israel. Iran has absolutely no capability to attack Israel without taking a regime-ending counterstrike back - and won't for decades, if ever. The best Iran can do is support Hizballah - whose only interest is in keeping Israel out of Lebanon.

So who cares if Iran gets a nuclear weapon?

I'll tell you who - the Zionists who want the Iranian regime overthrown as part of their general policy to destabilize the Middle East for Israel's benefit, and the US war profiteers and oil companies who want control of Iran's oil resources.

Nobody else with a brain cares.

Oh, sure, Iran could have another revolution and some nut will take control and nuke Israel just to get in good with Allah.

Right - equally likely is that some Christian nut will get in the White House who claims he "talks to God" and wants to nuke Iran for his "historical legacy".

Oh, wait...

You don't want Iran to have a nuke? Work with them so they don't need one.

If the US supported IRAN instead of ISRAEL - if IRAN could call on the US for help when Saddam invaded them - would Iran need a nuke?

Reverse the positions of Israel and Iran. Who would the US be better off supporting? A bunch of Jews - or the guys who have the oil? Seems we don't have that problem with the Saudis, do we?

Personally I don't think we need to support ANY of these clown states. But if you don't want Iran to have a nuke - why not try reversing US policy and actually working with them?

I mean, just for a change...You can always go back to bombing them later.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 12:42 AM

And best I can tell, it's an utterly defensible proposal.

It's not. It's a rather stupid proposal, just as our entire Iran and Middle East policy is stupid. Obama's version is not very, very, very stupid in the way of the Bush policy. It's only quite stupid.

Unless ... unless perhaps this is all part of a sneaky ultra-clever plan to finally sink US Middle East policy for good, and isolate us completely from our remaining allies and half-allies, while pretending to police an ineffectual and unenforceable divestment campaign in a throughly globalized financial market? no ... I'm afraid not. Obama is just being a tool.

Just read a bit about who the prime movers are behind this divestment campaign. It's the same old cast of characters. This another desperate neocon effort to isolate and devastate Iran, and promote chaos, civil violence and regime change. Not that I think Obama sincerely cares about any of this. All he primarily cares about is raking in more LA money and Florida votes.

I have yet to see a single comment today that articulates clear, concrete goals to this campaign, which will at best be ineffectual, and at worst will devastate the lives of millions of people in a developing country, all for the sake of a made up crisis about a made up weapons program in a made up totalitarian theocracy engaging in made up expansionism in a made up Middle East.

This campaign, along with the rest of our Iran policy since 9/11, is all about the Saudis and Israelis eliminating a potential rival for US attentions, and preserving their special relationships with the US, which come with many carte blanche benefits and privileges. Iran is, coincidently, the most democratic country in the Muslim Middle East, which is another reason the Saudis and Israelis don't like them.

The rest of the world is interested in investing in Iran and engaging with it, and the US is just swimming absurdly against the tide here. Although Benjamin Netanyahu may still have plenty of influence with AEI and a handful of pro-Israel advocacy groups, and by extension a few US politicians out hustling for votes on the campaign trail, that's about as far as it goes. Why don't we join the real world now, rather than prolonging our fatal attraction to the one that is rapidly vanishing?

I'm really losing my compassion for the US electorate, whose sorry state can't be put down entirely to getting hosed by G.W. Bush. I'm thinking you lackeys really deserve the world of shit Washington has put us in. You deserve to get Judith Millered over and over and over again. What's one more time? Why don't you just bend over now and get it over with?

If you really support Obama, tell him to get his head out of his ass, get a grip, and get to work on formulating a US Middle East policy that actually maximizes the potential benefits to US citizens, rather than one that mainly pleases Bibi Netanyahu, Frank Gaffney and the mayor of Beverly Hills.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 3, 2007 12:43 AM

OK, we've got most of the commenters backing Obama on this particular dispute. This should suggest something.

Even more conclusively, Chris Ford, Dan Kervick, and Richard Hack are attacking Obama. If that can't convince someone to take a second, more sympathetic look at Obama they haven't been reading these comment threads.

Posted by Warren Terra | September 3, 2007 12:51 AM

Terra, can I ask a question? Who the fuck are YOU?

That taken care of, here's an interesting comment from a post over at TPM about divestiture and how it's being used to justify the Iran war:

==============================================
On September 2, 2007 - 8:54pm lally said:

This must read article about the difficulties faced by those in the pro-Israel community in walking the fine line about openly advocating for war on Iran has some hopeful bits about the rising perceptions that the US public is increasingly against the military option.

Rep Steve Israel's constituents are giving him grief about the notion:

"Signs of the shifting public mood are everywhere. Rep. Steve Israel (D-L.I.) sees it every time he goes home to his district.

“I am hearing a lot of this from constituents,” said Israel, who opposes efforts to take the military option off the table. “People are writing and saying, we just don’t buy the arguments about enriched uranium, we don’t want you contemplating a military solution. Iran is one of the things that keeps me up at night, but it would be exceedingly difficult for me to stand up at a town meeting on Long Island at some point and make the case that that if diplomacy has failed, we have to consider the military option.”

While polls show widespread awareness that a nuclear Iran would pose a significant security threat to U.S. interests, support for military action is low and — according to some surveys — dropping."

http://www.thejewishweek.com/news/newscontent.php3? artid=14460

While other individuals quoted in the article believe that Americans could be sold on the idea of attacking Iran, the overall mood is not very optomistic and caution is being advised:

" With public sentiment against new military conflicts running at flood tide, “It’s a difficult situation for pro-Israel groups to be in,” Ginsberg said. “They have to lie low and bring pressure from the sidelines.”

The article ends by discussing the efforts of selling the idea of local/state divestments, sanctions, etc against Iran as "anti-war" tactics in order to counter the American publics' growing preferences to let the EU and UN handle the Iran problem rather than trust US politicians of either party.

One might think the Dems could muster up some huevos and re-introduce legislation demanding congressional authorization of military action against Iran. But if Bush orders an attack, they can simply whine that they were in favor of more sanctions, etc.

They're safely embedded in status quo land.
===========================================

In other words, they're selling divestiture as an "anti-war" tactic because most of the United States public couldn't care less about Iran and damn sure don't want the US to go to war there.

And morons like Obama - and half the posters here if Terra is correct - are going along with it instead of dealing with the real issue of engaging Iran to avoid not only the war but the whole so-called "crisis".

Let's remember - there IS NO "Iranian nuclear weapons crisis". It was entirely manufactured out of whole cloth by the United States by spinning some questions the IAEA has about Iran's PAST activities as meaning that Iran has a "nuclear weapons program".

Some nitwits talk about "carrot and a stick." Yeah, that worked on you real good when you were a kid, right? Except Iran is not a kid - and stupid kid's notions of international diplomacy aren't appropriate here. You want to threaten somebody, you do it AFTER they've turned down your "carrot", not before. So far, Bush has offered Iran NO CARROT.

Anybody here of these brilliant posters that Terra refers to see a problem with that approach?

As in what happened in Iraq? Saddam was cooperating. We know that now. The UN inspectors knew it. Iraq was on the verge of being cleared of any wrongdoing with regard to its (non-existent) nuclear weapons program and on the verge of having an inspection program put in that would eliminate any chance of their ever having one without being detected.

But Bush wasn't about to offer that "carrot", was he?

No, the "stick" was already on and had been on for a year before - as we also know now.

So where's Iran's "carrot"? Where is the US agreement that Iran SHOULD have a nuclear energy program - as the US SHOULD be doing given the NPT Charter - provided it agrees to the maximum intrusive inspection system?

Obama isn't talking about any of this, is he? So why does he get props for deliberately mis-stating the situation and ramping up the rhetoric against Iran - which does nothing but shill for Bush and the Israelis - and his Jewish campaign donors?

If Obama was anything but a politician and a hypocrite, he would be touting a policy of a "Middle East nuclear weapon free zone" - including Israel - and offering to support Iran's nuclear energy program as long as they agree to a full IAEA maximally intrusive inspection system, Additional Protocol and all.

Until he does that, he's a shill for Bush.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 1:28 AM

Kervick, thanks for the link to the Jim Lobe piece.

Nice to know who's behind it, so we can identify them to the suckers who think this is something to do with South Africa.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 1:35 AM

The Sunday Times ( "Pentagon ‘three-day blitz’ plan for Iran"):

"THE Pentagon has drawn up plans for massive airstrikes against 1,200 targets in Iran, designed to annihilate the Iranians’ military capability in three days, according to a national security expert.

Alexis Debat, director of terrorism and national security at the Nixon Center, said last week that US military planners were not preparing for “pinprick strikes” against Iran’s nuclear facilities. “They’re about taking out the entire Iranian military,” he said.

Debat was speaking at a meeting organised by The National Interest, a conservative foreign policy journal. He told The Sunday Times that the US military had concluded: “Whether you go for pinprick strikes or all-out military action, the reaction from the Iranians will be the same.” It was, he added, a “very legitimate strategic calculus”."

Posted by Richard Steven Hack is a Shill for Iran | September 3, 2007 1:41 AM

Needless to say I have no idea what the post above mine actually means to say.

Probably came from SLC since it's on a par with the level of Zionist intellectual honesty.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 2:03 AM

Well that's a nice little ad hominem quip there Warren Terra. However, perhaps you have some independent thinking of your own to contribute? If I'm wrong, you might demonstrate I'm wrong rather than hiding behind snide but content-free one-liners.

You may be interested in knowing that there is still a very good chance I will vote for Obama in the New Hampshire democratic primary. The only candidates I have definitely ruled out are Clinton and Richardson (and Gravel, if he still counts). I'm also disinclined at present to think Edwards has the right stuff to be President, although he has many fine attributes, and I still might vote for him. I'm of the opinion that the way to get the toughest, smartest and least addled candidate in the end is to give all of the contenders a viciously hard ride, don't pull any punches and force them to rise to a higher level by exposing the many inanities and foolish, bastardized policy proposals into which political campaigns constantly push them.

What I see here is a lot of poorly argued, kneejerk, partisan defenses of the precious golden boy. I'm not going to lay down for this crap. The challenges facing this country are too great to concede the debate to a bunch of partisan toadies, or to the same motley bipartisan crew of interest groups and insiders who have landed us in our present mess. I've got a son who I am determined to keep out of future Middle East wars, keep out of the poorhouse, keep out of new cold wars with China and Russia and save from an environmentally devastated future. I'd also like to help bequeath him a world that contains viable options for dignified ways of life other than the culturally vapid and commerce-polluted world-o-crap many of us live in now. And frankly I don't see a lot of people in the political field doing a very good job at advancing the causes I'm most interested in. So I plan to let them have it, and will not lay down for the designated standard bearers, just because they are "our" standard bearers. We've got more than enough layin' down fools in this country, and that's one reason why hundreds of people are getting killed every week in Iraq.

In my view, our country has a totally sick and dysfunctional political culture and sytem right now, and our Iran policy is just one shining example. Most candidates from both parties seem determined to drive this country's fortunes off the edge of various cliffs because they are trapped inside cage lined with corporate and major donor money and framed by interest group politics. Maybe if they receive enough ridicule some of that will change slightly.

Posted by Dan Kervick | September 3, 2007 2:04 AM

These articles ought to please Obama and his Jewish campaign donors (such as SLC):

Iran builds cultural centre for Jews
http://www.thenews.com.pk/daily_detail.asp?id=70803

Poll: 71% of Israelis want U.S. to strike Iran if talks fail
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/860903.html

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 3:59 AM

Re Richard Steven Hack

There has been some speculation as to whether Mr. Hack is a garden variety whackjob, based on his insane ramblings, or whether he is actually a Mossad agent whose intent is to discredit the anti-Zionist position by presenting it as nuttiness. Based on his comments relative to Iran, it is beginning to seem that the latter is the case. On some occasions, Mr. Hack has argued that there is no evidence that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability and on other occasions has argued that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons capability to counter Israels. Since these positions are totally incompatible with each other, I have concluded that nobody could be that stupid which leaves only the Mossad agent hypothesis.

Posted by SLC | September 3, 2007 7:34 AM

Chris Ford:

Saddam's son-in-laws revealed the huge, hidden weapons program Saddam had ramped up despite "tough sanctions" and UN inspectors. Indeed, when the two guys talked, the UN was on the verge of given Saddam a clean bill of compliance and recommending loosening sanctions.

How easily Lefties that do not follow events forget the UN THEN going in and Saddam destroying tons of nerve agent and anthrax from 1994-95.

No, this is completely false; in fact, it's close to the opposite of the truth. But I'm sure you believe it, which raises the interesting question of where you got information that's wrong in such an intricately detailed way.

What actually happened when Saddam's sons-in-law defected is that the more important one (Hussein Kamel, who'd run Saddam's WMD programs) told UNSCOM, the US and UK that Iraq had no banned weapons remaining at all and hadn't since 1991. He even said this on CNN. And he told UNSCOM that inspections had been "very effective." (They also defected in August, 1995, so it couldn't have led to anything happening "from 1994-95.")

What Kamel did say—and what the garbling machine clearly used as the basis for the imaginary history you picked up somewhere—is that Iraq had never been honest about what they'd produced before the Gulf War in 1991, particularly in the biological area. And his defection led Iraq to turn over something they actually had been hiding: enormous amounts of documentation on their pre-91 WMD programs.

So the significance of what happened wasn't that Iraq could successfully hide ongoing programs under the noses of the inspectors. However, it did demonstrate that, even though UNSCOM suspected this was happening, Iraq could hide lots of paper about stuff they'd done before 1991. Presumably Iran might be able to do that too.

Don't worry about it, though. As I say, I understand that reality isn't the point.

Posted by Jon | September 3, 2007 9:52 AM

There we have the insane anti-Semites joining Chris Ford with the Hack-a-doodle. Insane hate-mongeres, mongering.

Hack-a-doodle and Chris Ford, you are viciously nuts beyond all help.

Posted by Jennifer | September 3, 2007 10:54 AM

Matt, I am confused by your stance on this. Obama has not made a single comment that suggests that he is in favor of using military force against Iran. Perhaps he is using slightly tougher sounding language than he would otherwise due to political calculations (can you imagine?), but even the evidence you cite for this is weak (a guy told a guy that Obama wants to reassure AIPAC).

Unless you view the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran as no biggie and/or a forgone conclusion, I am not sure what candidates are supposed to say that would pass muster. I don't think the fact that President Bush overhyped and distorted the threat from Iraq and apparently some in his administration are insane enough to be seriously considering the use of force against Iran to taint any tough talk about Iran by other, more responsible folks.

Posted by Greg | September 3, 2007 11:32 AM

Chris Ford, I'm confused:
On the one hand, you bash the Jewish neocons for their hawkishness, but on the other hand, you seem to share that hawkishness. What's the deal? You are in favor of staying in Iraq and you are in favor of bombing Iran, but you just hate that some Jews are in favor of those things too?
Posted by Juan

I am in favor of staying in Iraq, but the last 4 years has made me and most Americans believe it was a mistake to have listened to the Neocons and gone in in the 1st place.
I'm not in favor of bombing Iran unless we are provoked into it because they openly attack our troops, fail to heed the world and all measures short of war regarding their nuclear weapons program.
However, I am not in favor of people that seek to bribe & manipulate the US power structure into spending American lives and treasure mainly to serve a foreign nation's interests. Sometimes our interests will coincide, but much of the saber-rattling by neocons in the immediate Iraq postwar "see, it was a cakewalk!" and peak of neocon triumphalism and Sharanskyitism was about using America's lives and treasure to advance Israel's objectives. It was about invading Syria to get regime change, then the imperative to wipe out Hezbollah and "bring democracy" to Lebanon, then bombing and invading Iran (faster, faster please!!). It was clearly an effort to have the big dumb Golem wipe out Israel's enemies that were no threat to us at the time, while the saber-rattlers stayed safe elsewhere. Their efforts to whip up Christian Fundies into a Rapture, End of Days lather as willing tools of Zionists have hardly gone unnoticed by the rest of America.

People instinctively dislike outside meddlers, even when the meddler may have some value in their advice.....because it is not their place to stick their noses in.

Posted by Chris Ford | September 3, 2007 3:43 PM

Here's another reason Obama is clueless about foreign policy vis-a-vis terrorism.

The Sanctuary Delusion by William S. Lind
http://www.d-n-i.net/lind/lind_9_28_06.htm

Obama and the rest of the morons in the Democratic crowd think that somehow he can clean up Pakistan's Waziristan and thus stop Al Qaeda from having a "safe haven."

He's a nitwit.

Meanwhile, SLC has demonstrated an inability to read as well as total intellectual dishonesty. Nowhere did I say both that Iran has no nuclear weapons program and that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. I said Iran has no nuclear weapons program, and IF - repeat IF - they DID want a nuclear weapon, the reasons would be as I indicated.

SLC is just a troll.

"Jennifer" isn't even that since she hasn't said anything worth reading other than children's insults.

Greg, on the other hand, has some misunderstanding of the situation, which I now address.

"Obama has not made a single comment that suggests that he is in favor of using military force against Iran."

Yes, he has. He has explicitly said that the military option is on the table and explicitly this means that if Iran does not suspend its PERFECTLY LEGAL uranium enrichment process, he is is favor of military action against Iran. Q.E.D. He has merely not said that he is in favor of using military force NOW without more "diplomacy".

A nice safe thing to say - except that it's fundamentally wrong given the facts of the situation.

"Unless you view the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran as no biggie and/or a forgone conclusion, I am not sure what candidates are supposed to say that would pass muster."

Let me reiterate the FACTS of the situation:

1) There is ZERO evidence that Iran is attempting to become a "nuclear-armed nation."

2) Even IF - read that IF closely, SLC - Iran intended to be so, the means Obama recommends to deal with this issue would be incorrect. Neither sanctions nor military action would be sufficient to deal with the problem - certainly not without seriously aggravating the destabilization of the Middle East at worst and damaging the Iranian civilian population in the same manner the Iraqi sanctions killed Iraqi civilians at best - nor would they be rational responses. Only engaging the Iranians with diplomacy and addressing their highly legitimate concerns over Israel and Iraq and "regime change" would be rational.

3) Why can't Obama simply admit that there is NO solution to the Iranian "crisis" except to admit that a) there IS NO 'crisis" - it is entirely made up by the Bush administration in an IDENTICAL manner to the Iraq war run up - trust me, most of the US public ALREADY BELIEVES THAT, so it's hardly a big negative for Obama to say it, and b) we need to defuse the situation by engaging the Iranians in the manner recommended by most diplomats and by following the NPT Charter.

I assume Obama doesn't have the balls to actually call for a Middle East nuclear weapon free zone - to include Israel - that would cost him the election as the Zionist fanatics would tear him apart.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | September 3, 2007 8:05 PM

Chris Ford:

"People instinctively dislike outside meddlers, even when the meddler may have some value in their advice.....because it is not their place to stick their noses in."

So why aren't you in favor of us pulling out of Iraq again? Why do you think we should remain "outside meddlers"?

Posted by Juan | September 3, 2007 8:54 PM

Unless you view the possibility of a nuclear-armed Iran as no biggie and/or a forgone conclusion, I am not sure what candidates are supposed to say that would pass muster. I don't think the fact that President Bush overhyped and distorted the threat from Iraq and apparently some in his administration are insane enough to be seriously considering the use of force against Iran to taint any tough talk about Iran by other, more responsible folks.

How about the candidates say the truth, which is that a nuclear-armed Iran is an exceedingly remote possibility, not requiring any urgent action at the moment and far better dealt with by engagement than threats.

I disagree with Petey; Democrats who join in the pretense that the big issue with Iran is about nuclear weapons are laying the groundwork for a war -- or for being painted as wimpy by rightist Republican candidates. Only way out of the trap is to tell the truth. Not that I expect any of them to take that advice in an election season, which it seems to be all the freaking time now.

Heartfelt appreciation to Dan Kervick; uncharacteristically emotional post, but the topic's worth of healthy outrage. The lying that goes on around this constellation of issues is part of a sick political culture.

Posted by Nell | September 3, 2007 9:51 PM

Re Richard Steven Hack

It is interesting to see Mr. Hack invoking an article written by an official of the Free Congress Foundation, namely Mr. Paul Lind. Just for the information of those on this blog who have never heard of this outfit, the purpose of this organization is to replace the Constitution of the United States with law based on the Hebrew bible, i.e. to turn the United States into a theocracy, just like Mr. Hacks favorite country, Iran. Its founder is a certain Paul Weyrich who is well known as an extreme right wing spokesman. Attached is a link to an web site run by People for the American Way, hardly a Zionist organization, which describes this organization and its goals. The fact that Mr. Hack invokes articles written by members of this organization tells one everything one wants to know about Mr. Hack and his views. I suspect that not even the most vigorous critics of the State of Israel on the blog, including even Mr. Don Williams, would care to associate themselves with followers of people like Paul Weyrich.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=4314

Posted by SLC | September 4, 2007 8:39 AM

Uh, SLC: Paul Lind (Lynde)? Maybe you have 'Hollywood Squares' on the brain.

The paleocon you have in mind, that RSH cited, is William S. Lind.

Posted by Nell | September 4, 2007 2:30 PM