Scratching the Bottom

Sometimes I wonder, can the Washington Post's editorials get any worse? The answer -- always -- turns out to be "yes." Today we learn not only that the Bush administration's drive toward war with Iran is in fact an effort to avoid war, but also that up is down, ignorance is strength (and Fred Hiatt is a very strong man) and that when the war does come we'll all need to blame war opponents:

If this diplomatic offensive fails, President Bush or his successor is likely to face a choice between accepting Iran's acquisition of the means to build nuclear weapons and ordering military strikes to destroy its facilities. That's why it is senseless and irresponsible for those who say they oppose military action -- including a couple of the second-tier Democratic presidential candidates -- to portray the sanctions initiative as a buildup to war by Mr. Bush. We've seen no evidence that the president has decided on war, and it's clear that many senior administration officials understand the package as the best way to avoid military action. It is not they but those who oppose tougher sanctions who make war with Iran more likely.

Have I mentioned that war is peace?

Completely missing from the Post's analysis of the issue is the idea that the US has any non-coercive tools in our toolkit. Maybe part of our diplomacy with Iran should be a willingness to put them returning to the NPT fold in the context of a broader warming in US-Iranian relations? Maybe part of our diplomacy with Iran should be a willingness to put them returning to the NPT fold in the context of our own willingness to return to the NPT fold? Maybe there's something we could do in terms of our relations with Moscow and Beijing that would make them more amenable to playing a helpful role on the Iran issue? Like maybe pushing a missile shield policy that Russia views as unacceptably threatening isn't a good way to get them to help us on the Iran front?

Meanwhile, the child-like confidence in the good sense, good faith, and competence of the Bush administration is just staggering.

Comments

Completely missing from the Post's analysis of the issue is the idea that the US has any non-coercive tools in our toolkit.

The admisntration just spent the last 7 years eliminating all the non-coercive tools in our kit.

Posted by rea | October 26, 2007 12:03 PM

People against the war in Iraq were screaming for sanctions and not war. So now we use sanctions and people are screaming that sactions are the same thing as war.

Posted by Dave | October 26, 2007 12:10 PM

Diplomacy Bush-style, "if you give up what we find objectionable, then we will talk to you about giving up what we find objectionable".

Tony Fratto even said as much regarding telecom immunity, "we will show you these documents regarding telecom spying when you put telecom immunity in the bill", even though the whole point of seeing those documents is so House members know what they are immunizing telecoms from before they do it.

It's really childish and stupid and it's no surprise it has not worked and will never work. Well, it will work with Democrats but not with leaders of other countries.

Posted by Joshua | October 26, 2007 12:13 PM

And, speaking of the NPT, may I point out that under the treaty, the U.S. is obligated to work toward total nuclear disarmament -- which we are not doing. In fact, the United States currently has nearly 6,000 operational nuclear weapons, the majority of which -- that's right, the majority -- are hydrogen bombs capable of destroying major cities, and having no other purpose. Ditto the Russians, of course. But, instead of working toward eliminating these weapons, the Chimpoleon administration wants to build a whole new generation of hydrogen bombs, plus new kinds of nuclear weapons.

Also, I know Yglesias would prefer to ignore this minor point, but why should the Iranians not be permitted to have nuclear weapons when Israel has nearly 200? And as for Iran and the NPT fold, Iran is a signatory to the NPT and is not in violation. Under the NPT, they are allowed to develop nuclear power. It is Israel, not Iran, that is not in the NPT fold. So get your facts straight.

Iran proposed making the Middle East a nuclear free zone, and the U.S. rejected the proposal out of hand, for the obvious reason that it would mean Israel would have to eliminate its arsenal, and the U.S. would have to remove the nuclear weapons which are currently on ships near the Strait of Hormuz.

Posted by cervantes | October 26, 2007 12:18 PM

Shorter Dave: 'I can be fooled not just twice, but an endless amount of times. Please take all of my money and spank my behind.'

And Joshua's right: the Democrats stand alone in being able to be bullied by this busted flush of an administration.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 26, 2007 12:18 PM

What diplomatic offensive? Are we even talking to the Iranians?

Posted by Boronx | October 26, 2007 12:19 PM

We must stop these Islamists before they turn the entire Middle East Muslim.

Posted by Bobby Bacala | October 26, 2007 12:22 PM

The Washington Post seems to be endorsing a new constitutional role for the President, implicitly bestowing upon that office the powers of "The Decider" ...

"no evidence that the president has decided on war..."

It must be some kind of irony that the people who treasure their 'intelligence' so much are the staunchest defenders for George Bush Jr's authority to decide things for them.

Posted by placidoguerra | October 26, 2007 12:23 PM

I'll abuse an old metaphor here and say with Bushco every problem is a nail and every solution is a hammer.

Posted by steve duncan | October 26, 2007 12:24 PM

Somebody needs to tell Fred Hiatt that "give us everything we want and then we'll start talking to you" does not qualify as a "diplomatic offensive."

Posted by Redshift | October 26, 2007 12:40 PM

The WA POST-Times is like my last Gateway hard drive--it has no idea what happened the last 5 years.

Posted by tom | October 26, 2007 12:42 PM

Will this nation ever recover from the shame of having Condi Rice as it's Secretary of State?

Posted by Mysterious Traveller | October 26, 2007 12:44 PM

Sanctions are now considered diplomacy?

Posted by FS | October 26, 2007 12:48 PM

What a strategic thinker, that Hiatt guy. I expected him to end the editorial with, "Now, I want some ice cream!".

Posted by jeff | October 26, 2007 1:02 PM

Fred Hiatt's 2 dimensional face lines the bottum of my birds' cage, and as far as the Washington Post ... I don't use. I suggest anyone else who's as disgusted with that phony creep as I am, google image Fred Hiatt and print his likeness for dartboard applique', the aforementioned droppings surface, cosmetic fix for fistholes in drywall and any of more than 101 other uses, including missing posters for telephone poles that stipulate he's not to be returned, but rather there's a reward for keeping him.

Posted by Jingle drums | October 26, 2007 1:05 PM

2AM: Hiatt household

(Ring...Ring...Ring)

"Hello, Hiatts. Fred speaking"

Mr Hiatt, I have a little tape here I want you to listen to, courtesy of Verizon and the NSA.

"Hey, who is this?"

"This is Turdblosso...Never mind who this is, just shutup and listen...Got it?"

"Hump hump hump baa baa baa"

"Ok. OK, you got me. Whadda ya want me to say tomorrow, Mr Blossom?"

Posted by Pete Lorre | October 26, 2007 1:05 PM

I did a close study on Missile Defense back during the late 80s. Yes, I agree with Putin. Star Wars is far more useful as an offensive, first-strike weapon than it ever was or ever will be as a defensive weapon. Even if that's not true, we quite reasonably fear a gladiator with both a sword and a shield more than we fear one with just a sword.

Posted by Rich | October 26, 2007 1:06 PM

"Meanwhile, the child-like confidence in the good sense, good faith, and competence of the Bush administration is just staggering."

I think you're far too kind to Fred Hiatt. I think he's about as childlike as Dick Cheney. I think he believes it's his job to tell the American people whatever is most likely to make them swallow the Bush line. His statement "We've seen no evidence that the president has decided on war ..." probably means "We've seen no evidence that the president would go to war with Iran as long as it agrees to do exactly what he tells them to do." Fred Hiatt's goal is to deceive his readers.

Posted by Alan Vanneman | October 26, 2007 1:12 PM

Hiatt's strawman is that diplomacy has an End. Diplomacy and negotiation can go on for years, like it has with North Korea. If Clinton was still president of course, NK would not have become such a huge problem.

Sad how black and white their world view is. I love my colorful world with many shades of gray.

Posted by lilybart | October 26, 2007 1:16 PM

So Fred Hiatt and Hillary (at least according to Wes Clark) are working from the same play book:

In supporting legislation that seeks to exert diplomatic pressure on Iran, Senator Clinton is standing up to the Bush administration, which has recklessly refused to talk to Iran about its clandestine nuclear program. In voting for a non-binding resolution that urges the administration to designate the Iranian Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization, she is forcing the Bush administration to apply diplomatic pressure.

Posted by Keith | October 26, 2007 1:18 PM

Hiatt: We've seen no evidence that the president has decided on war, and it's clear that many senior administration officials understand the package as the best way to avoid military action.

It's deja freakin' vu all over again.

Change an 'n' to a 'q' and fix a couple of other details, and Hiatt could have written that editorial five years ago. Hell, he almost surely did.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | October 26, 2007 1:30 PM

If you accept the premise that we should prevent Iran from getting nukes, then the WaPo is entirely correct. Bush has been attempting every non-military means possible to get the Iranians to agree to stop enriching Uranium: years of painstaking diplomacy via the EU-3, UN security council sanctions, an offer of a grand bargain to the Iranians last year, etc.

If the Iranians refuse to stop enriching uranium, and Bush orders air strikes against them in the next several months, there is no way any serious person could call that a "rush to war", since he will have tried everything else short of war. The only objection that Matt and others could make would be that we shouldn't bomb Iran in any case, since the consequences of that would be worse than a nuclear-armed Iran. If that's your position, make that argument.

Posted by Juan | October 26, 2007 1:31 PM

what's also missing is the simple fact that Iran's program is inspected and regulated by the IAEA and they have been found to be operating within the bounds of the international laws and treaties to which they are signatory. also missing is the fact that Iran does in fact ALREADY have the capacity to make nuclear weapons, but is DEMONSTRABLY not doing so. they could, but aren't. WHY on earth is this never mentioned? how ignorant can our press corps be?

Posted by onceler | October 26, 2007 1:36 PM

You know, and I realize I'm engaging in some pretty broad speculation, nothing at the height of Nixon's reign even began to approach what's happening in this country today.

I like to think that, if it had escalated to this point, with the attacks on the Constitution, the drive to successively more disastrous wars, the disingenuousness of the mainstream media, that there'd be more happening than a lot of blog-yammer and armchair huffing and puffing.

The silence from people both good and decent in this country as we slide deeper and deeper into the murk, is terrifying.

Posted by megisi | October 26, 2007 1:38 PM

You have to always remember that Fred Hiatt WANTS war.

Therefore it should not be surprising that he would editorialize in a way that supports Bush while he repeats the Iraq choreography.

Right now we're at the part of the dance where Bush insists that war is the last option, even though he's already decided on it and picked a date. If you dare to suggest this might be what is happening, you disrupt the dance. Hiatt doesn't want the dance disrupted, and he's perfectly willing to write bullshit he knows is false to oppose any potential disruption.

Posted by Fluffy | October 26, 2007 1:42 PM

"what's also missing is the simple fact that Iran's program is inspected and regulated by the IAEA and they have been found to be operating within the bounds of the international laws and treaties to which they are signatory."

Then why did the UN Security Council vote to sanction Iran over its nuclear activities?

Posted by secondceler | October 26, 2007 1:42 PM

Hiatt's mission, as before, is to whip the subjects into childish panic and fear in order to promote Dear Leader's Next War. Any voices that oppose that mission must be branded as irresponsible traitors who are forcing Dick Cheney's hand.

Who will reprise the role of Judy Judy Judy?

Posted by melior | October 26, 2007 1:43 PM

The UN Security Council vote is irrelevant. The Security Council cannot direct Iran to take any action to which they are not obligated by the NPT.

The Non Proliferation Treaty, to which both the US and Iran are signatories, explicitly gives Iran the right to develop nuclear technology for energy production.

This is not in dispute.

We are simply ignoring the treaty, because we don't like Iran. We expect Iran to develop a nuclear industry based on fuel provided by other nations, even though we again and again demonstrate that if they did so we would prevent them from getting fuel from other nations. Since this is not reasonable, the Iranians are somewhat predictably arranging to enrich their OWN fuel.

Posted by Fluffy | October 26, 2007 1:46 PM

Fluffy,

You explain it so well. Thanks. I can understand why our president might want to sanction Iran anyway, but can you explain to me why the rest of the UNSC countries went along with this, if Iran is, as you say, perfectly within its rights to enrich uranium?

Posted by secondceler | October 26, 2007 1:56 PM

We've seen no evidence that the president has decided on war

GOD DAMN that's fucked up. Are we really at the point where we all sit around waiting for the president to decide whether or not we go to war? Like it's his decision?

Posted by Jason C. | October 26, 2007 1:56 PM

"Bush has been attempting every non-military means possible to get the Iranians to agree to stop enriching Uranium: "

Not true at all. Bush has never pressured Israel to legitimize or draw down the nuclear force it has pointed at Iranian civilians.

I'm not a trade expert, but what do we sell Iran that they can't get someplace else?

Posted by Chris | October 26, 2007 1:59 PM

Secondceler -

Perhaps because the US maintains enough prestige with the Security Council that it occasionally gets it way? Or perhaps the Council feels the way Hiatt wants us to feel - obliged to go along with measures short of war, to placate a US that is hell bent to go to war.

If we had a different President or if this were a different decade, they might even be right to do so. But there is nothing anyone can do to appease this President and avert his blood lust. He will absolutely, positively attack Iran in some way prior to leaving office, regardless of what the UN, the Congress, or anyone else says. That's just who he is.

Posted by Fluffy | October 26, 2007 2:02 PM

So, Hiatt is condemning Bush's opponents for not accepting a decision that Bush hasn't made yet.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | October 26, 2007 2:17 PM

There is only one word that explains how anyone could be as blind or illogical as the washington post editorial board.

BLACKMAIL.

What do think Karl Rove did with no paperwork, no oversight, warrantless wiretap power?

In the 21st century, reality has overtaken satire, and everyone is a conspiracy theorist.

Posted by feckless | October 26, 2007 2:19 PM

As the latest Esquire discloses, within the past 6 years Iran offered to give up its nuclear program, plus cede several other points Bush claims to be seeking. And Bush flatly refused the offer.

Just as Saddam offered to go into exile and was turned down, Iran can do NOTHING that will dissuade the Bushies when their intent is war.

Hiatt is merely a wide stance closet neocon.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | October 26, 2007 2:25 PM

As the latest Esquire discloses, within the past 6 years Iran offered to give up its nuclear program, plus cede several other points Bush claims to be seeking. And Bush flatly refused the offer.

Just as Saddam offered to go into exile and was turned down, Iran can do NOTHING that will dissuade the Bushies when their intent is war.

Hiatt is merely a wide stance closet neocon.

Posted by Kevin Hayden | October 26, 2007 2:26 PM

Remember the times when calling the Post "Pravda" was kind of a joke? I once wrote to a Post journalist to thank him for a very good article - which of course totally undermined the editorial page's line - and said something like "well, it's articles like these that make me read the Post despite its editorial page". He write back to say "just ignore the editorial page, that's what I do."

So I guess Hiatt is a bit of an embarrassment for the whole paper.

Posted by christian h. | October 26, 2007 2:31 PM

Criticism of Hiatt = gun + fish in barrel. His shilliness is no longer an interesting topic. You write as if the Post can be redeemed, but that's nostalgia, not 21st century reality. It's time you start giving Hiatt and Co. the same respect you accord Fox's talkers, which means don't waste your time and ours. Meaningful dialogue will not come from the current royalty at the Post and Times.

Posted by Radio Head | October 26, 2007 2:33 PM

Does Halliburton know that Bush is stopping their lucrative trade with Iran?

Posted by gonzone | October 26, 2007 2:33 PM

That was fun. I just got telemarketed by the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, and was read a script about how "we need to get to 60 votes" which is why nothing can get done because Republicans...blah, blah, blah. I told the caller that there was plenty that can be done with 51 votes, including making Republicans take bad votes and not OKing war funding. I said the party was misusing its majority, and wasting time and goodwill. She said this is the first time she'd heard such an opinion. When you get the call, be sure to tell the DSCC why you're giving only to strongly anti-war candidates and not them. Oh, and I've switched my support to Dodd and sent him a donation yesterday. Reward good behavior.

Posted by Radio Head | October 26, 2007 2:58 PM

"If this diplomatic offensive fails..."

Many years ago, in the previous millenium, diplomacy was not conducted in the form of offensives, but so-called overtures, and later, using talks. Moreover, besides threats, positive inducements were used too.

Thinking about it, the recent agreement with North Korea includedd positive inducements.

It was noted that Iran is not obliged to do what we want by any treaty. Perhaps Iranian leaders could relent nevertheless out of their desire of making Bush look good. But what if their desire is the opposite?

Posted by piotr | October 26, 2007 2:58 PM

"If this diplomatic offensive fails..."

Many years ago, in the previous millenium, diplomacy was not conducted in the form of offensives, but so-called overtures, and later, using talks. Moreover, besides threats, positive inducements were used too.

Thinking about it, the recent agreement with North Korea includedd positive inducements.

It was noted that Iran is not obliged to do what we want by any treaty. Perhaps Iranian leaders could relent nevertheless out of their desire of making Bush look good. But what if their desire is the opposite?

Posted by piotr | October 26, 2007 3:00 PM

And yet again I'm reminded of schoolyard sandbox fights: one child has broken the rules and gotten away with it while another child is being scolded in front of the whole class for doing the exact same thing...

Posted by akisma | October 26, 2007 3:14 PM

I used to be anti-war, but I've completely changed my mind. Yes in the presence of an authentic miracle, one can do aught, or naught, but admire and aquiesce. And a miracle is, without doubt, occurring! Apparently Bush and Cheney have found a way to wage war that does not consume soldiers! Miraculously, when we started this imbroglio, we had just enough soldiers, well, half the soldiers needed, to invade Iraq. Even though this invasion has been, and has continued to be, a stunning success, instead of consuming soldiers our War On Iraq seems to generate soldiers! And now we have enough to go to war with Iran. Under these conditions, we don't need a draft, we just need to go to war on many more countries, then all our boys (and girls) can come home, and the soldiers freshly engendred and equipped through this administration's miraculous machinations will do a tour or two or three or four and we'll all feel gay when Johnny (amd Jilly) come marching home.
Not that there's anything wrong woth that!

Posted by Mooser | October 26, 2007 3:24 PM

I used to be anti-war, but I've completely changed my mind. Yes in the presence of an authentic miracle, one can do aught, or naught, but admire and aquiesce. And a miracle is, without doubt, occurring! Apparently Bush and Cheney have found a way to wage war that does not consume soldiers! Miraculously, when we started this imbroglio, we had just enough soldiers, well, half the soldiers needed, to invade Iraq. Even though this invasion has been, and has continued to be, a stunning success, instead of consuming soldiers our War On Iraq seems to generate soldiers! And now we have enough to go to war with Iran. Under these conditions, we don't need a draft, we just need to go to war on many more countries, then all our boys (and girls) can come home, and the soldiers freshly engendred and equipped through this administration's miraculous machinations will do a tour or two or three or four and we'll all feel gay when Johnny (amd Jilly) come marching home.
Not that there's anything wrong woth that!

Posted by Mooser | October 26, 2007 3:25 PM

What BushCo actually tends to do is say, "Do X, and then we'll talk to you."

When X is done, then BushCo says, "Well, do X + 1, and then we'll talk to you. Until then, you are soooooo wrong and evil and bad we can't talk to you."

And so on and so forth--until the troops are in place, and then, because of the weather or some idiotic excuse, war must be waged. No time to talk or let the UN do anything further.

This is BushCo diplomacy.

Different country? Just rinse, lather, and repeat.

Posted by jawbone | October 26, 2007 5:33 PM

we shouldn't bomb Iran in any case, since the consequences of that would be worse than a nuclear-armed Iran

Oh, yes, Jaun. Yes! It's "not a rush to war" because if we don't bomb them in the next three months, we'll certainly be up against "a nuclear-armed Iran" in the next three months, don'cha know?

Posted by Harry r. Sohl | October 26, 2007 5:41 PM

The embarrassment that is Juan said thusly:

"The only objection that Matt and others could make would be that we shouldn't bomb Iran in any case, since the consequences of that would be worse than a nuclear-armed Iran. If that's your position, make that argument."

1) Yes, that is a correct argument. Bombing Iran is and will be worse than Iran having a nuclear weapon.

2) It's irrelevant since Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

3) The issue is bombing Iran over what is entirely their legal right - enrichment as part of a nuclear energy program.

I love the combination of total ignorance and maliciousness that characterizes Juan's posts. First he ignores the fact that Iran has every right to enrich. Then he assumes that the only other option is to bomb them. Then he talks about a "grand bargain" to the Iranians which has never existed. Then he refers to "diplomacy" which has never been done except by the IAEA itself - the only offers the EU has made are basically "suspend enrichment and MAYBE we'll talk to you." The US has made NO offers and has refused the "grand bargain" the Iranians offered the US in 2003. The US has done nothing but threaten war and sanctions.

It's laughable.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 26, 2007 6:17 PM

I find it simply insane that all the while we have been hearing there's no possible alternative to bombing and a nuclear Iran is unthinkably bad, we have been using those futile diplomatic techniques--and using them successfully--with North Korea.

the administration and its supporters consustently act as if North Korea doesn't exist, and our actions have never happened.

If as the wingnuts say. our dealings with Iran are proper, then our dealings with North Korea are unconscionable.

If our dealings with North Korea are proper, then our dealings with Iran are unconscionable.

Posted by pbg | October 26, 2007 8:09 PM

Dave writes almost intelligibly:

People against the war in Iraq were screaming for sanctions and not war. So now we use sanctions and people are screaming that sactions are the same thing as war.

This is hilarious. No ONE that I know, No ONE that my friends know. No ONE that my friends' friends know would have ever "screamed for sanctions against Iraq"

Anyone with half a brain--that apparently doesn't include you Dave--would ever have asked for the sanctions to continue. The sanctions as we all knew in the peace movement were war by any other name.

What we honestly asked was pretty simple: leave Iraq alone.

Do you know about the historical record, do you know what war and sanctions were and what they did to the people of Iraq (destroy them and their families and their infrastructure day by day and make Saddam stronger and stronger by the minute) ? If you had merely a glimmer, say 10% knowledge, a tithe's worth of actual information I bet you'd gasp like a guppy fish at what a sick joke your comment is now.

So here's a curse for you: may you and your children suffer just 1/10th of what your stupidity has caused the Iraqis to suffer.

Posted by DelicateMonster | October 26, 2007 11:14 PM

I believe Fred Hiatt. Bush has been so effective at avoiding war so far in his presidency that I'm sure he will avoid war with Iran just as effectively.

Posted by Gullible | October 27, 2007 10:03 AM

Uh, Dave, sanctions against Iraq had already been in place for years before the war began. Invasion opponents were not screaming for sanctions. They were asking that the inspectors be allowed to do their jobs. Bush refused and launched an attack.

Posted by Gullible | October 27, 2007 10:10 AM

Juan Buddy:

You wrote: "an offer of a grand bargain to the Iranians last year, etc."

It was an offer FROM the Iranians of a grand bargain, not to them.

Big difference, don't ya think?

Posted by N. R. Murray | October 28, 2007 12:02 AM