More Like It

Barack Obama opens up a clear policy difference with Hillary Clinton, a strategy toward the greater Middle East centered around an effort to forge a "grand bargain" with Iran. This doesn't necessarily sound incredibly different from Clinton's strategy of saying that the United States "should be prepared to offer Iran a carefully calibrated package of incentives," but it's pretty different. The difference, in particular, is that as Flynt Leverett has argued in a non-campaign context the "grand bargain" approach might work, whereas Clinton's approach won't work.

Zbigniew Brzezinski and other people in the Obama circle have long been advocates of this more sensible approach to Iran, but until now the subject has been considered to "hot" politically to touch. But now Obama's going there and it's a very good thing he is. This is what we should be debating in this country — strategy, not tactics. A diplomatic approach that doesn't work followed by war is really not much better than a "rush to war", what's needed is a strategy that avoids war and advances the interests of the United States. And now Obama's putting one on the table.

Comments

This doesn't necessarily sound incredibly different from Clinton's strategy...

This is the key observation. Obama can't win Iowa by drawing policy distinctions. HRC will blur any distinctions that emerge and charge him with naivete.

Either he goes for the jugular and focuses on the weakness that was exposed in the debate -- talking out of both sides of her mouth -- or he loses. If he lets the moment slip away as he has done so often in the past, he loses.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 2, 2007 10:07 AM

The only clear policy difference in in the rhetoric with Obama's typically high-flown BS. If you loved the results Jimmy Carter got dealing with Iran, you'll love Zbigniew Brzezinski's latest.

Posted by RalphB | November 2, 2007 10:19 AM

If you loved the results Jimmy Carter got dealing with Iran, you'll love Zbigniew Brzezinski's latest.

Release of the hostages without loss of life? A steadfast approach to the rule of law?

Compare that with Reagan dealing arms to Iran. That turned out well.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 2, 2007 10:21 AM

This is EXACTLY what the HRC campaign wants to be talking about now: small -- some might say indistinguishable -- differences in policy toward Iran.

Obama has to decide whether he wants to win the nomination or not. If he insists on continuing to pick pepper out of fly shit, right after HRC has exposed her major weakness for all to see, it's over for him.

Edwards showed him what to do on EVERY issue.

She successfully used a character issue against him: naivete. He has to successfully use a character issue against her: duplicity.

Either he does it, or he loses. Politics ain't beanbag.

Posted by Econobuzz | November 2, 2007 10:35 AM

There is not guarantee that the Obama/Brezinski approach will avoid war either. Ahmadinejad may not be willing to take yes for an answer.

Posted by Rich | November 2, 2007 10:36 AM

One thing that has to be made clear is that Iran really isn't much of a threat to us. Even if they get a nuke, they won't give it to al-Qaeda, what with the Sunni/Shi'a thing I doubt they'd want to arm their eternal enemies. And are there really too many other terrorist organizations that want to take the fight to our shores? My impression is that Hamas and Hezbollah could give a damn about America--they just want to achieve their goals in the Mid-East.

Posted by Lev | November 2, 2007 11:44 AM

I love Hillary and the idea of her winning and keep trying to love Barack but he and his team make it hard:
He said in the times article this morning that it would be a mix of carrots and sticks to bring Iran on board if possible:
HOW is that any different from Hillary's existant notion that it will be a carefully calibrated mix of incentives. Can you say thesaurus? Can we say disingenuine? same difference?
But it makes him a phony to claim that his positions are different or better or even more transparent

Posted by Michael | November 2, 2007 11:47 AM

"There is not guarantee that the Obama/Brezinski approach will avoid war either. Ahmadinejad may not be willing to take yes for an answer.

Posted by Rich | November 2, 2007 10:36 AM"

Dude, you really don't know who is really in charge in Iran, do you? As long as we allow A-jad to look like a fool and embarrass himself in front of his own people, he'll be thrown out of office and the mullahs would probably welcome it (think how after his Holocaust denial the mullahs approved of and financed a documentary on Iranian state TV that said the Holocaust did happen, it did unjustly target Jews and others and that one should sympathize with its victims).

Posted by Reality Man | November 2, 2007 12:03 PM

HOW is that any different from Hillary's existant notion that it will be a carefully calibrated mix of incentives.

She's not offering a context in which those carrots will be delivered. So far, all she's done is sign onto KLA, which she claims is about diplomacy, but fails to include any language establishing that point. She's essentially co-signing Bush's approach, which is agree to all of our pre-conditions and then we'll talk (although there won't be anything to talk about since the pre-conditions are the whole ball of wax (or at least most of it)).

Again, this is a matter of framing (See S.970 which Obama co-sponsored--it provides a diplomatic framework, at least more so than KLA). At least in my opinion.

Everyone:

Dinner Jacket is NOT the leader of Iran. He's the public face of the current regime, but he's not a decision-maker.

Posted by Keith | November 2, 2007 12:40 PM

re: "this more sensible approach to Iran, but until now the subject has been considered to "hot" politically to touch."
Why is this - all the polls suggest that attacking Iran would be unpopular.

Posted by Comment | November 2, 2007 1:27 PM

Captain Ed explains. The US has bent over backwards to negotiate with Iran and has nothing to show for it. Preconditions have never been a factor. And anyhow, Iran is at war with the US and isn't interested in any carrots that may be offered. History in one instance dates to 2005 and in another to 1979. Reinforcing evidence lacks context and is repeated relentlessly and tells anyone all they need to know. There is no counter-narrative of any significance. So while Matthew Yglesias or some Democrat may say 'X', it's already been discounted. There is no foundation on which proposition 'X' can stand. Anyone failing to address the premises of the dominant narrative only looks foolish, naive, unaware and certainly untrustworthy on matters of national security. Hang it up. This one's been lost.

Posted by racrecir | November 2, 2007 1:35 PM

It's the duty of the Edwards supporter, whenever another candidate comes out with a progressive policy proposal, to point out that Johnny was there first. From his own mouth:

Here's my view about what we ought to be doing in Iran.

Number one, you have a radical leader, Ahmadinejad, who is politically unstable in his own country. The political elite have begun to leave him, the religious leaders have begun to leave him, the people aren't happy with him, for at least two reasons: one, they don't like his sort of bellicose rhetoric, and second, he was elected on a platform of economic reform and helping the poor and the middle class, and he hasn't done anything. In fact, while he was traveling, the leaders of the legislature sent him a letter saying, `when are you gonna pay attention to the economic problems of our country.' So, I think we have an opportunity here that we need to be taking advantage of.

First, America should be negotiating directly with Iran, which Bush won't do. Second, we need to get our European friends, not just the banking system, but the governments themselves, to help us do two things -- put a group, a system of carrots and sticks on the table. The carrots are, we'll make nuclear fuel available to you, we'll control the cycle, but you can use it for any civilian purpose. Second, an economic package, which I don't think has been seriously proposed up until now. Because their economy is already struggling, and it would be very attractive to them. And then on the flip side, the stick side, to say if you don't do that, there are going to be more serious economic sanctions than you've seen up until now. Now of course we need the Europeans for this, cause they're the ones with the economic relationship with Iran, but the whole purpose of this is number one to get an agreement. Number two, to isolate this radical leader so that the moderates and those within the country who want to see Iran succeed economically, can take advantage of it.

Now that's on the one hand, the flip side of this is what happens if America were to militarily strike Iran? Well you take this unstable, radical leader, and you make him a hero -- that's the first thing that'll happen. The Iranian people will rally around him. The second thing that will happen is they will retaliate. And they have certainly some potential for retaliating here in the United States through some of these terrorist organizations they're close to, but we've got over a hundred thousand people right next door. And most people believe that they have an infrastructure for retaliation inside Iraq. So, that's the second thing that'll happen. And the third thing is there are a lot of analysts who believe that an air strike or a missile strike is not enough to be successful. To be successful we'd actually have to have troops on the ground, and where in the world would they come from?

Posted by Neil the Ethical Werewolf | November 2, 2007 1:42 PM

How many times are we going to get this bullshit from you, Matt?

Diplomacy is a *tactic*, not a strategy.

What is our strategy in the Middle East? The same since FDR's time. Make sure the place doesn't explode, in order to secure oil supplies. A postscript was added in the 1960s by Johnson, make sure Israel is safe.

As long as our strategy is to neutralize threats to our energy supplies, while ferociously protecting Israel, nothing will change.

Frankly, I don't particularly *mind* that those are our two objectives. If that makes me ruthless, so be it.

But don't think for one second the Iranians don't realize all of this. They do, and so unlike the various parts of the US punditocracy, they move to make sure they don't get caught up in it.

Posted by Greg | November 2, 2007 2:23 PM

Wasn't Brzezinski a huge Iran hawk back under Carter? Did his views change or does he still think the US should have tried to reinstate the Shah in spite of his more dovish views on the present?

Posted by Andrew | November 2, 2007 4:34 PM

Besides Ahmadinejad's official position, there's his part in the IRGC's political infrastructure;
the Iranian Special Forces and CIA combination with powerful industrial connections. This is the tie to Larijani, another IRGC veteran with a general's star and former head of propaganda forces; and a likely presidential candidate. His successor, Saed Jalili, is another IRGC veteran with diplomatic responsibilities in South America before he became a Presidential spokesman. Those who whine about Cheney's influence, should consider if there was a true American analogue to Ahmadinejad; a former Green Beret/ with CIA experience with detention facility experience (Evin Prison)with multiple termination of foreign dissidence. Rafsanjani, that other Iranian
'moderate' who promised Israel's immolation by nuclear fire in the 90s; isn't much of an alternative. Neither is Ahmadinejad's successor in the Tehran mayor's office; secret police chief Gholibaf.

Posted by narciso | November 2, 2007 10:11 PM

While this statement by Obama is leagues better than his previous statements - and light years ahead of anybody else's statements - he STILL hasn't repudiated the "Iran is a serious threat" attitude.

He also has this problem:

Mr. Obama declined to say if he would consider military action if Iran did not abandon its presumed nuclear weapons program or if he would settle for a strategy of deterring and containing a nuclear-armed Iran.

“My decision making, with respect to military options versus diplomatic options, a containment strategy versus a strike strategy, is going to be informed by how is that going to impact not just Iran,” he said, “but how is that going to impact the stability of the region and how’s that going to impact our long-term security interests.”

While that certainly sounds better than any of the Republican candidates (except Paul), and is clearer than anything Clinton has said, it's STILL leaving the military option open because of an Iranian ability to enrich uranium - which is their legal right.

In other words, Obama still believes that Iran has no legal right to acquire nuclear weapons CAPABILITY (uranium enrichment CAN lead to nuclear weapons IF Iran were to leave the NPT) as opposed to nuclear weapons themselves. Well, but it does have that right. There is no difference between Obama's attitude and Bush's in that respect.

The only candidate this country needs is one that recognizes that THERE IS NO MILITARY OPTION FOR IRAN - there is only an engagement option.

This statement of Obama's not only demonstrates his fundamental mis-understanding of the issues, it also demonstrates his fundamental ignorance of the consequences of ANY military attack on Iran.

In fact, even if Iran were to attack US forces FIRST, say, in Iraq (by conventional means), it would STILL be a disaster to retaliate. Note that I'm not saying that retaliation would be incorrect if the US is attacked. I'm saying that it would still be a disaster, and therefore the only truly correct approach is to find a way to move Iran towards being a neutral, if not an ally, in relation to the US.

And that requires MAJOR changes to the basic US foreign policy with regards to the ME, Israel, Palestine, and in addition, our dependency on oil.

MAJOR changes, not nuances, none of which I've heard Obama talk about.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 11:55 PM

Oops - fucked up the blockquote tag!

That'll teach me to PREVIEW! PREVIEW!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | November 2, 2007 11:58 PM

Jeffrey Davis,

"Release of the hostages without loss of life"

The hostages were released only after Reagan came to power. Clearly the Iranians knew that unlike "Jimmah", Reagan was not going to f$#k around.

The lesson is that your enemies are your enemies for a reason. Iran will not change its ways because Obama is being "nicer" to them than Bush. All this "give peace a chance" and "kumbaya" crap will do is one of the following:

1. Make war more likely by emboldening Iran as Obama convinces the Mullahs, that he will not stand up to them, but will offer them "carrots".

2. Peace is achieved, but America is shown to be so weak and desperate, that they will grant Iran WTO status after which they always have the option to build WMDs later (assuming they ever cease enrichment of Uranium). After all what is Obama going to do if they break the agreement?
Offer a new "Grand Bargain"? Please!

A man who believes that Israel must be wiped off the map will not stop thinking that because Obama uses "aggressive diplomacy". He will not give up the weapons that can make the destruction of Israel the easiest.

Its a nasty world out there and the likes of Ahmadinejad dont give a shit how nice you are or how man inducements you offer.

You hippies really need to wake up!

Posted by dark | November 3, 2007 2:00 AM

It really is amazing how mean and nasty the leftists in the nutroots blogosphere can be. If you could just channel some of that aggression to the enemies of this country instead of always being willing to bargain your shirt, pants, and pride away, we'd be ok.

If only the Democrats were as focused on preventing Iran from getting a nuke as they are on preventing Bush from stopping them from getting one.

If my Aunt was a man she'd be my uncle.

If Liberals had balls they would be Conservatives

Posted by dark | November 3, 2007 2:06 AM

Dark-Read your history. You're off in a couple of spots.

How to handle Iran? We don't...the best we can do over there with any of the oil rich countries is what Obama suggests...bribe them to back down.

While that transpires, initiate a completely different foreign policy with the simple measure of issuing an Apollo-like edict that we will be oil free in 20 years...and fund it.

Bottom line, that's the only way we affect real change in the ME...take away their bargaining chips and they fall into the irrelevance abyss.

Besides all that, Pakistan already has nukes and is a whole hell of a lot more unstable than Iran. The Grand Ayatollah will keep Iran from busting at the seams...Pakistan has no strong leader like that...

Put it all in perspective...it's a giant jig saw puzzle and we have to stop ripping up the pieces if we're ever going to see the whole picture.

Posted by G Davis | November 3, 2007 3:12 AM

The hostages were released only after Reagan came to power. Clearly the Iranians knew that unlike "Jimmah", Reagan was not going to f$#k around.

Yeah, he sure showed them who was boss. Selling 'em weapons systems and all. The sort of tough guy stuff you only get from purveyors of comfy chairs.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | November 5, 2007 10:08 AM