The Limits of "Diplomacy"

I've had this nagging disquiet with the Democrats' diplomacy-talk on Iran, and now Josh Marshall formulates it well:

But another point -- diplomacy is a tactic, not a strategy. Our whole strategy is wrong in the region. Leaving more time for the diplomatic phase of the policy just delays getting to where the policy is taking us: full-scale war with Iran.

Right. The question isn't "do we use diplomacy?" the question is what are we trying to do — are we talking about a good faith effort to deal with the Iranian nuclear program in the context of a larger effort to put our polices in the region on the right track, or is the diplomacy part of a larger effort to portray events in the Middle East as a zero sum conflict between the US and Iran.

Comments

One candidate -- I think it was Biden -- said in the post-game that the whole line about Kyl-Lieberman opening up a diplomatic track, given that the US position vis à vis Iran is 'concede everything and then we'll negotiate'.

To use a formulation favoured by Atrios: between now and January 2009, there is not some Pundit Track For the ME, or Hillary Plan For ME, or Obama Plan For ME. There is the George Bush Plan, and more importantly, there is the Dick Cheney Plan.

'Diplomacy' doesn't mean 'not bombing just yet'.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | October 31, 2007 1:50 AM

Jesus Christ son, don't you ever go to bed?

Posted by Anonymous | October 31, 2007 2:12 AM

Despite my disputes with Josh Marshall, when he gets it right, he's right.

He also gets it right with the preceding sentence:

"Say it again, fundamentally this is not even about an Iranian bomb."

This is exactly why I complain about Obama's stance. Saying Iran is a "serious threat" exactly mirrors the Bush line and boxes Obama in when it comes to REAL "diplomacy" - if Obama even HAS any real intent to use diplomacy.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 2:19 AM

I'm getting arrested when plan Iran get's rolled out for consumption. I'm going to sit in the road at a busy intersection, I doubt I'll need a sign.

That probably won't accomplish anything, but at rock bottom when my grandkid's ask what the hell we were thinking I'll be able to say I tried something.

Posted by Ed Marshall | October 31, 2007 2:37 AM

Russert asked a question that was so laughably pro Rudy in its inherent bias.
It was unfortunate that one of the candidates did not tease him or point out that even Rudy himself made fun of Russert for asking suspiciously pro Rudy questions.

People - It is absurd for Rudy to declare Iran will not get a bomb - unless he promises to grease the entire Iranian nation if they get one.

Yet - Russert asked all the candidates to match Rudy and they all fell short and looked weak trying to measure up to Tim's absurdly framed question.

Posted by Comment | October 31, 2007 2:39 AM

I'm trying to remember the last time I saw a Democratic debate whose terms hadn't been framed by the Republicans. They are SO trapped in the "Iran is a clear and present danger" shtick. It works every fucking time. The GOP understands this. I'm not saying Rudy will win, but by rights it should be Hillary in a landslide.

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 7:46 AM

Our government's motives regarding Iran are rather abstruse. However, the sympathies and urges they're appealing to in the selling of their policies are not. Bush knows full well 9/11 left an open wound on our society which he can pick at and keep festering. He also knows the public wants that wound assuaged through the killing of "them". Them are generally non-Christian brown people. The public will produce at least a nominal plurality supporting whatever Bush wants to do so long as it seems to avenge the deaths of 9/11 and achieve the larger purpose of holding off the godless brown Muslim hordes. The same thing went on when we danced in the streets after vaporizing two cities full of yellow people in a waning war that had all but run its course. War with Iran is inevitable. Bush and Cheney have a bloodlust they can satisfy whilst they do whatever else it is they're up to behind the curtain.

Posted by steve duncan | October 31, 2007 7:59 AM

One finds many Democrats lately saying things like "I believe we need to ratchet up the pressure against Iran, but ..." or "I believe we need to tighten the screws on Iran, but ..." or "we must thwart Iranian regional hegemony, but ..." or "the Iranians are fighting a proxy war against us and killing our soldiers, but ..." These "what Bush said, but" positions have apparently become the new sensible, moderate position on Iran.

They continue to delude themselves into thinking that they can accept the Republican portrayal of the facts and the threat, while simply rejecting the Republican tactics. But this just makes them look weak - like they are trying to delay the inevitable.

At some point, Democratic politicians need to break out of this compulsive habit of trying to please everybody. If you continually try to split the difference between the latest Republican craziness and genuine rationality, you end up with a permanent net drift toward craziness.

Democrats have also gone along with the latest Newsspeak according to which economic sanctions, including divestment, have now been re-classified as "diplomacy". Apparently, in the new world of foreign relations, everything that is not war is diplomacy.

They are also complicit in a disinformation scam that claims US-Iranian diplomacy has "repeatedly failed", and seeks to portray ratcheted-up toughness against Iran as a sad necessity for a country nearing the end of its diplomatic rope. If you polled Americans with the following question:

How many times in the last five years has the United States conducted direct diplomacy with Iran over its nuclear program?

a. more than 15 times
b. 10 to 15 times
c. 5 to 10 times
d. 1 to 5 times
e. not once - never

I suspect only a small minority would indicate the correct answer, which is "e. not once - never". How long are Democrats going to let right-wingers get away with perpetrating this fraud on the public.

Posted by Dan Kervick | October 31, 2007 8:18 AM

As for delaying the inevitable on Iran, am I the only one who noticed that Hillary kept saying there should be no "rush to war"? Am I the only one who interprets that as merely a slow and steady progression towards war?

Posted by Bill | October 31, 2007 9:01 AM

There are three possible strategies with respect to the middle East:

• Establish energy independence and get the hell out of there.
• Subject the place to the New American Empire and grab the oil.
• Screw the Jews and Hooray for the Arabs.

.

Posted by Duncan Kinder | October 31, 2007 9:37 AM

The fact that Bush and company are reckless and incompetent doesn't allow us to ignore the underlying issue.

Iran with nukes would be a disastrous development in the Middle East. Not so much because that single country is all that dangerous, but because its local rivals (Saudi Arabia, Syria, possibly Jordan and Egypt) would feel the need to develop a nuclear counterthreat.

This would immediately reduce our ability to influence events in the region, even if all the new nuclear powers behaved with perfect responsibility. Although many of you would not consider this such a terrible outcome, or be too concerned with the increased pressure this would place on Israel, consider the possibilities if one of those countries does something irresponsible.

The chances of that irresponsible action (i.e. nuclear terrorism) increase with each new country that develops nukes. From my perspective, it is worth the short term disruptions of a confrontation in order to keep that area of the world nuke free (Israel aside). Make our stand at the first domino, so to speak.
Diplomacy first, and I agree that the administration has been appalling in this regard, but if Iran remains intransient, there will a point when we have the choice between a nuclear Iran and some sort of direct military action (sabotage by bomber squadron).
I am fully aware that even perfectly executed set of surgical strikes (dream on) will infuriate both the regime and the Iranian people, and that the consequences may well be disastrous for the region. The consequences of a nuclear Iran would be worse, however, and they have the potential to extend well beyond the Middle East, even (though this is low probability) to our own shores.

Posted by heedless | October 31, 2007 10:19 AM

The chances of that irresponsible action (i.e. nuclear terrorism) increase with each new country that develops nukes

Reasons Not To Wet Ourselves About Iran

1. No nuclear-armed nation has ever transferred control of a nuclear weapon to another nation.
2. No nuclear-armed nation has ever transferred control of a nuclear weapon to a non-state entity.
3. No nuclear-armed nation has ever launched a nuclear attack on another nuclear-armed nation, either directly or by proxy.
4. No nuclear-armed nation has ever launched a serious conventional attack (as distinct from border skirmishes) on another nuclear-armed nation. (No, Kargil doesn't count.)
5. No nuclear-armed nation has ever used the threat of nuclear attack on another nuclear-armed state in order to reinforce aggression by a non-nuclear ally. (No, the Cuban Missile Crisis doesn't count.)

Posted by ajay | October 31, 2007 10:29 AM

Iran with nukes would be a disastrous development in the Middle East. Not so much because that single country is all that dangerous, but because its local rivals (Saudi Arabia, Syria, possibly Jordan and Egypt) would feel the need to develop a nuclear counterthreat.

See, I think it's for this reason that it's not necessarily in Iran's interest to develop a nuclear weapon. Right now, Iran has conventional military superiority over its neighbors in the Persian Gulf. If Iran were to go out and develop nuclear weapons, and its neighbors were to follow suit by producing their own nuclear weapons, then that military advantage would be eroded. My guess is that Iran wants to maintain the capability for nuclear weapons production without actually developing those weapons.

However, the likelier the possibility of an American attack of Iran, the greater the incentive for Iran to develop nuclear weapons to deter an attack. So a policy of implicitly threatening to attack Iran merely on the suspicion that it has a future intention to acquire nuclear weapons can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Posted by Peter H | October 31, 2007 11:10 AM

The chances of that irresponsible action (i.e. nuclear terrorism) increase with each new country that develops nukes. From my perspective, it is worth the short term disruptions of a confrontation in order to keep that area of the world nuke free (Israel aside). Make our stand at the first domino, so to speak.

Israel is quite obviously the "first domino."

This would immediately reduce our ability to influence events in the region, even if all the new nuclear powers behaved with perfect responsibility. Although many of you would not consider this such a terrible outcome, or be too concerned with the increased pressure this would place on Israel, consider the possibilities if one of those countries does something irresponsible.

This is tiresome. As you very well know, Israel can be just as "irresponsible" as any other country. You know this very well. And I am tired of pointing this out. So unless you intend to attack Israel also, your position is nonsense. And it is no wonder that the Muslims are angry at your ilk. You are asking for it; you know it; and you intend it.

Posted by Ralph | October 31, 2007 11:36 AM

President Ahmadinejad is not in charge. That's the first point to keep in mind when discussing Iran. Remember the two previous presidents? They were more reform-minded than the ruling group of mullahs and the supreme leader, and their accomplishments were limited. The current president is (apparently) more eager for confrontation with the West than the ruling group, whose main desire is to remain in power. So arguments about what the Iranian "president" said, and whether he means it, are beside the point. To put it in terms the Bush/Cheney administration might understand, Ahmadinejad is not the "decider." So our diplomatic efforts should be focused on a low-profile, back channel discussion with the people who actually run the place.

Second, remember September 12, 2001 in Iran: there were large demonstrations in sympathy with the US. Had you forgotten? That doesn't mean that the Iranian people want to be "liberated" by the US Army - that approach would drive most Iranians into the arms of the most repressive elements in Iranian politics. But there is a residual admiration for many aspects of America & Europe - many Iranians have friends & family abroad, and far more access to reliable information about the world than was available in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or than is available in present-day North Korea. Most Iranians would like to live under a different, freer regime, though Islam would still play a greater role in their society than we in the West are used to giving to religion.

Third, we need to recognize that possession of nuclear weapons by the current Iranian regime would be a significant risk. Just shrugging one's shoulders at the prospect is a sure way to get swing voters to write off the Democratic Party on security issues yet again. Our task instead is to make clear that (a) we don't trust the Cheney/Bush administration to do anything right, and (b) diplomacy is a lot more than sitting down and being polite over a cup of tea. Diplomacy means setting priorities and then being prepared to sacrifice lesser priorities to gain the greater priorities. For example, if an Iranian bomb is a major security threat (I think it is), and if we need Russia's help to pressure the decision makers in Tehran (we do), then we have to be prepared to drop the plan for anti-missile bases in Poland and the Czech Republic. That would give Putin something to crow about (and we wouldn't lose much, since the anti-missile program couldn't hit a biplane piloted by the Three Stooges, much less a real missile). In return, we would want major economic sanctions by Russia on Iran. Need China's cooperation? Then be prepared to give them something they want. As for Europe, they take the Iranian nuclear program very seriously, too (as Sarkozy has made clear). American support of European environmental positions would draw the US and Europe closer (as well as being good for the planet, regardless of what George Will thinks).

As for communications with the rulers of Iran (NOT their president, remember?), these should be handled by experienced diplomats knowledgeable about Iran....i.e., not by Cheney or Rice. One goal would be to lay out a vision of what good relations between the US and Iran would look like.

I have to get back to work, so I'll have to cut this short. Let's just remember that diplomacy (that much-maligned word) seems to be working with North Korea, a much more difficult regime.

Posted by BPJ | October 31, 2007 3:47 PM

"From my perspective, it is worth the short term disruptions of a confrontation in order to keep that area of the world nuke free (Israel aside)."

Israel aside.

There you go.

Zionist freak.

Disarming Israel's nuclear arsenal should be priority one for the US and the international community, both for reasons of getting a nuclear free zone in the ME and for reasons of preventing nuclear terrorism, since Israel's weapons would be much easier to use for such terrorism than a weapon weighing a couple of tons that the Iranians MIGHT have SOMEDAY - IF they HAD a nuclear weapons program, which they don't.

Given that, getting a nuke free zone in the ME would be a "cakewalk" - to coin a phrase.

The Iranians have already said that they would support that, that they don't NEED nukes, and they don't WANT nukes because of precisely the problem that it would harm their ability to diplomatically engage the other nations in the region - not to mention that their supreme religious authority has already issued a fatwa against Iran ever possessing nuclear weapons because they are "un-Islamic."

"Heedless" is an appropriate handle; "headless" would be even better.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | October 31, 2007 10:51 PM