Deep Breaths

Charles Krauthammer huffs and puffs an awful lot before raising a real question about proposed negotiations with Iran:

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Unlike all the other words in this column, this makes sense, except for the part where Krauthammer does that thing conservatives do where they misinform their audience about who controls Iranian foreign policy -- Krauthammer is afraid that an Obama administration would strike an unwise deal with the government of Iran. But what's not clear is why Krauthammer believes this. It's not like the possible contours of a U.S.-Iranian rapprochement are all that mysterious.

The United States has various problems with current Iranian policy (their nuclear activities and their support for Hamas and Hezbollah primarily) and we've undertaken various kinds of sanctions against them and threatened to overthrow their government. A deal with Iran would involve them modifying some of their policies, and us relaxing some of our coercive measures. Krauthammer's paranoid fantasies about Obama somehow selling Israel down the river to curry favor with Iran have nothing to do with it -- why would Obama make an offer like that? Why would Iran even be interested in an offer like that?

Comments

Charles "Klinghoffer" Krauthammer's every column can be understood if you realize that any policy prescriptions (or condemnations) he issues always seek to further Israel's strategic wishes.

The interests of the USA come second -- if at all.

Posted by Anon | May 23, 2008 4:54 PM

It's like MattY won't acknowledge that BHO is a secret Muslim intent on changing US law to be sharia-compliant. Everyone who's paying attention knows that OBL is Obama's preference for the first opening on the Supreme Court. Krauthammer just has his eyes open. So of course he'll sell out Israel--anyone who doesn't wear a flag pin ALL THE TIME can't be trusted.

Posted by zaleriana | May 23, 2008 4:56 PM

Krauthammer is one of those guys who needs to back military action to solve anything to make themselves feel masculine. That's why they always accuse their opponents of being weak because hyperventilating on op-ed pages is the most masculine thing they've done in their lives and it's all they know. Diplomacy can only be undertaken successfully by confident people aware of their own strengths and weaknesses, which is the opposite of a neocon. Neocons are obsessed with the idea of appearing to be strong and projecting the idea of strength instead of starting out being strong and then working from there.

Posted by Reality Man | May 23, 2008 5:00 PM

You construct a lame and inane straw man in the last half of this blog post. The column itself was pretty good, K is one of the conservative columnists with half-decent rhetorical abilities.

Posted by JFD | May 23, 2008 5:02 PM

Adding

This is probably the best that the conservative argument against negotiations can be made. The stuff about Truman and Kennedy is pretty persuasive. Especially Kennedy getting decimated when he met the Ukranian Midget.

Posted by JFD | May 23, 2008 5:08 PM

Typical conservative drama scripting: Only they, the world-wearied right wingers, have the stuff to avoid the sweet temptations by those wily and exotic foreigners that more weak-willed, multi-culture crazy liberals will fall for.

Posted by El Cid | May 23, 2008 5:11 PM

Isn't an easy counter-argument that Obama doesn't know what he'll offer because we refuse to talk to them in order to find out what they might want? Which would be the whole point of sitting down with them in the first place.

Overly simplistic, but these arguments seem to be based on a definition of 'negotiation' that only exists in their minds. If we knew exactly what they wanted and were willing to give us in return, then we wouldn't have to negotiate.

Posted by daveNYC | May 23, 2008 5:18 PM

I still think people are stupid for falling for the argument that the US has nothing to offer Iran. How about them sanctions? You might remember that we have been sanctioning the crap out of them? We could remove sanctions in return for cooperation. If this isn't effective, then why have sanctions? The US makes a lot of things Iran might want to buy, like planes and iphones (well we don't actually assemble the iphone, but you get the point). You can't negotiate to lower sanctions in return for a change in behavior if you don't, you know, negotiate.

Posted by freddiemac | May 23, 2008 5:21 PM

I still think people are stupid for falling for the argument that the US has nothing to offer Iran. How about them sanctions? You might remember that we have been sanctioning the crap out of them? We could remove sanctions in return for cooperation. If this isn't effective, then why have sanctions? The US makes a lot of things Iran might want to buy, like planes and iphones (well we don't actually assemble the iphone, but you get the point). You can't negotiate to lower sanctions in return for a change in behavior if you don't, you know, negotiate.

Posted by freddiemac | May 23, 2008 5:28 PM

"A deal with Iran would involve them modifying some of their policies, and us relaxing some of our coercive measures."

Matt, you just proved Krauthammer point for him. If Iran cared at all about our "coercive measures" (sanctions), then they would not have enacted their policies (trying to enrish weapons grade uranium) in the first place.

Posted by Dave | May 23, 2008 5:41 PM

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program?

Let's not forget to point out that Ahmadinejad is not the Iranian guy who's able to make any concessions on the nuclear program.

Obama might as well ask me to make concessions on the interior design of my house, which is a sphere of power controlled by my mullah, er, wife.

Posted by Anderson | May 23, 2008 5:45 PM

OK, let's get serious as to what bargaining chips an Obama administration would have, instead of buying into Krauthammer's absurdities.

We could decisively reign in MEK. We could cease support for separatist movements in Iran. We could cease support for what Iranians surely regard as terrorist activities in Iran (there have been some notable bombings...). Both sides could stand down in the low-intensity war that we have, fairly quietly, been having with Iran. We could release the Quds Force captives we're holding. We could quit the saber-rattling. We could quit provocative war games in the, ahem, Persian Gulf. We could reduce carrier battle group over-deployments there. We could publicly drop the idea of fomenting regime change in Iran. We could lift the sanctions regime, which provides an almost infinite array of possible bargains in and of itself.

I'm a railroad lawyer, not an (alleged) foreign policy guru like CK. But if I can come up with all of that off the top of my head in about five minutes, you'd think he, if he wasn't just doing partisan sneering, could have managed to think of just some of those.

Posted by Wendell | May 23, 2008 5:53 PM

If Iran cared at all about our "coercive measures" (sanctions), then they would not have enacted their policies (trying to enrish weapons grade uranium) in the first place.

Dave, let me explain something to you. People don't always know (or think through) all the consequences of their actions.

Say my neighbor stops mowing his lawn, which pisses me off. So in retaliation I start blasting music from my backyard boom box.

Thus, two parties find themselves in an equilibrium which is bad for both of them, but neither is willing to back down unilaterally, because it would look like a concession ("appeasement").

The solution to this problem is to negotiate, with the likely outcome that I will stop blasting music if my neighbor mows his lawn.

In actuality, Iran would like to be rid of economic sanctions. But they don't want to look like they're being pushed around by America's imbecile president.

Posted by theo | May 23, 2008 5:58 PM

If Iran cared at all about our "coercive measures" (sanctions), then they would not have enacted their policies (trying to enrish weapons grade uranium) in the first place.

Well done, sir. [applause] You win the thread!

All must bow before the mighty reasoning of...Dave.

Posted by scythia | May 23, 2008 6:19 PM

What concessions does Obama imagine Ahmadinejad will make to him on Iran's nuclear program? And what new concessions will Obama offer? To abandon Lebanon? To recognize Hamas? Or perhaps to squeeze Israel?

Unlike all the other words in this column, this makes sense,. . . .

Constructing a complete straw man out of whole cloth (not to mix too many metaphors) "makes sense"? Huh?

Posted by gordonminor | May 23, 2008 6:40 PM

First of all, Dave is a moron, because Iran has never enriched weapons grade uranium. Never. The IAEA has repeatedly said this in every report they've issued. This is the level of stupidity you get from these right wing clowns.

In fact, there's little evidence that the Iranian centrifuges can even DO that. Not to mention that Iran made the offer at one point to only use centrifuges that CANNOT do that - that offer was rejected.

Now let's take Matt's idiotic post point by point:

"The United States has various problems with current Iranian policy (their nuclear activities and their support for Hamas and Hezbollah primarily)"

Another vague Matt post about Iran's nuclear programs. What "nuclear activities", Matt? Are you saying they HAVE a "nuclear weapons program"? Or are you saying they have a "nuclear ENERGY program" that the US "has problems with"? If so, why? Care to comment?

Thought not.

Support for Hamas and Hizballah? Okay, fine. We know the US complains about that.

" and we've undertaken various kinds of sanctions against them and threatened to overthrow their government."

Yup, no problem there, that's true.

"A deal with Iran would involve them modifying some of their policies,"

Which ones, Matt? The nuclear ones? How? Why?

"and us relaxing some of our coercive measures."

Okay.

"Krauthammer's paranoid fantasies about Obama somehow selling Israel down the river to curry favor with Iran have nothing to do with it -- why would Obama make an offer like that? Why would Iran even be interested in an offer like that?"

Here we see Matt drift off into la-la land again.

The primary conflict that Iran has with the US is over the Palestinian issue (and Iraq, of course, but that is recent, if you don't go back to the Iran-Iraq war that the US supported Iraq in, anyway). Iran wants the US to pressure Israel to come to the table honestly. They also want the US to promise not to try to overthrow the Iranian regime - or help Israel do it.

And of course, there is the little matter of Israel's nuclear arsenal, which every country in the Middle East would like to be gone, Iran especially. You can't discuss that issue here, Matt? Why? Afraid of AIPAC? Afraid somebody will confuse you with Norman Finkelstein?

Since Iran is THE hot button issue with Israel these days, one begins to wonder if maybe the reason Matt can't make any substantive post on Iran is not so much because of his previous boo-boo on Iraq, but perhaps his intellectual cowardice extends more to cowardice of a different sort.

Maybe he's just afraid of Alan Dershowitz and Natalie Portman?

Maybe he's afraid he'll be painted as a "self-hating Jew" because he doesn't support war with Iran?

Or is it really true, as I've suspected, that he's just afraid of being painted as another "liberal hawK" after being wrong on Iraq and apparently wrong on Iran?

In any "grand bargain" with Iran, Obama really should specifically bring up the issue of Israel's nuclear arsenal. The ONLY way Iran can take a US President's statements about security guarantees seriously is if Iran see that the US President is prepared to bring up the ONE truly serious existential security issue in the Middle East - that arsenal.

Obama needs to promise Iran that the US will support a UN resolution requiring Israel to join the NPT, submit to IAEA inspections of all nuclear facilities, and agree to a nuclear disarmament plan. In return, the US can request that Iran ratify the Additional Protocol (which they would probably be happy to do, having operated as if it was in force for three years) and allow unannounced, intrusive inspections of their nuclear facilities.

But maybe Matt's afraid to bring that up? So instead he disingenuously suggests that Israel has nothing to do with Iran?

In this case, clearly Krauthammer has the more obviously correct view (if from the wrong perspective) - that Israel IS an important bargaining point with Iran.

But Matt can't talk about that.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 6:55 PM

Re: The primary conflict that Iran has with the US is over the Palestinian issue

Nonsense, Iranians aren't even Arabs, and they don't have a dog in that fight. Sure, they love to champion the Palestinians to gain prestige in the Arab world (which is not overly fond of Iran) but Iran would sell Palestine down the river in a heartbeat it could benefit thereby. Iran's interests are, well, Iran's interests.

Posted by JonF | May 23, 2008 7:17 PM

JonF: Prove it.

You might well be right that if Iran got what it wanted from the US in terms of security guarantees, it might well back off from supporting Hamas and Hizballah. Not to mention that Iran wouldn't BE supporting Hamas and Hizballah if it wasn't for Israel.

But Iran can NOT trust the US on security guarantees UNLESS the US takes Israel to task on the two main issues in the Middle East - the Palestinians and the Israeli nukes.

That should be obvious.

Israel IS THE main issue between the US and Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 9:12 PM

Re JonF

Actually, the Palestinians are disliked by virtually all the Arab states. For instance, the late and unlamented Hafaz Assad considered them pests. They were kicked out of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, and now Iraq and are locked up in refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon. When Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip, the Palestinians living there were not allowed to travel to Egypt without going through numerous contortions. In 1971, the Government of Jordan kicked the PLO out of Jordan after an attempted coup.

Posted by SLC | May 23, 2008 9:17 PM

So what?

Israelis are universally disliked in the Middle East as well - for good reasons.

YOU don't even like them.

Bwahahahahahahaha!!!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 23, 2008 10:08 PM

pardon my bluntness, but-

Krauthammer is a wicked and odious ziocon Jew buzzard. A fifth columnist and traitor to the Red, White, and Blue. His allegiance is to "The Jewish Homeland" - a parasitic, pariah State whose Apartheid regime we've propped up to the tune of 1.4 Trillion Dollars since 1973. In return- they gave us 9/11. On one of Krauthammer's malformed talons drips the blood of appx. the 4,400th American goy to die in Iraq...on the other the fresh blood of just the most recently killed Iraqi 7 year old. Charlie Krauthammer licks the blood off each talon and from his high pseudo-mandarin media perch...the morose ziocon buzzard calls for ever more dumb goyim and Muslim child to be shed because, what else?- It's "good for the Jews."

Posted by Trevor | May 24, 2008 5:25 AM

"To recognize Hamas?"

Heaven forbid, no. Better to close your eyes and just pray very, very hard that somehow, sometime those unrecognizable trrsts just disappear...

NEVER. EVER. RECOGNIZE.

Posted by Dominique | May 24, 2008 6:21 AM

Re Trevor

I certainly hope that Mr. Trevors' screen plays use better dialog then his last post which sounds like something from an Ed Wood movie.

Posted by SLC | May 24, 2008 9:23 AM

Yes, we all know that the most effective method of handling a negotiation is to spell out, ahead of time, in public.....exactly what cards you hold in your hand and what you will be asking for.

Sheesh....

Posted by Mark | May 24, 2008 9:27 AM

Like I said, Mark, this isn't rocket science.

Both sides know exactly what is at stake and what is likely to be productive in the negotiations.

There's no harm in being forthright about your intentions - otherwise you end up trying to double-deal and that's precisely what sinks negotiations.

Try reading any text on negotiating. They all say the same thing. While you can hold back and dick around, in the end offering somebody something they want and getting them to offer you what you want is the essence of the process.

And that's helped by knowing in advance what everybody wants - if NOT what everybody will ACCEPT. That last is what you want to conceal since it's always less than what you want.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 24, 2008 8:33 PM