Prestige

Yesterday, not only did George W. Bush decide to take the basically unprecedented step of lashing out at his domestic political opponents in a speech to a foreign parliament, but John McCain chimed in to say he agrees with Bush. He busted out the frequently heard idea that "serious negotiations" that are "done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do" is a step that "enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists" and sundry other evils.

This is such a common talking point on the right that you'd think that somewhere out there you could find some kind of causal explanation of how this works. Obama takes office. The Iranians, having heard his campaign rhetoric, send a message through the Swiss or something about the possibility of arranging a summit. Our guys talk to their guys, the meeting happens, and this gives Khatami enhanced prestige in the eyes of whom? And what does this enhanced prestige allow him to do? What, in other words, are we afraid of?

Comments

And what does this enhanced prestige allow him to do?

Floor seats at the Verizon Center.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | May 15, 2008 5:47 PM

You've been over-using the word "sundry" lately.

Posted by chad | May 15, 2008 5:50 PM

Anyone, who talks to Bush, has to talk to a confirmed State Sponsor of Torture.

The world is full of morally crippled leaders. The U.S. has no moral foundation for picking and choosing. That foundation was flushed away by Bush, with McCain's connivance.

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 15, 2008 5:50 PM

Fareed Zakaria goes so far in The Post-American World to describe India and China as places where people just don't have religions.

the social science shows that south asia and east asia are very different. south asia is more like the middle east; lots of association, identification and belief in, institutional religion. in east asia a lot less strength for institutional religion, a more diffuse belief in supernatural concepts.

some data on china. look at south korea vs. india. i assume most readers of this blog will know that south korea is far more religious than japan and china? (25% christian, 25% buddhist, 50% no religion)

Posted by razib | May 15, 2008 5:54 PM

Wait -- are you suggesting that Republicans don't have the right to perpetually accuse Democrats of being back-stabbing un-patriotic terrorist-supporting fellow travelers and the sympathizers of tyrants?

Posted by El Cid | May 15, 2008 5:56 PM

Khatami? You're a bit optimistic there, Matt.

Posted by nanne | May 15, 2008 5:56 PM

Not talking with leaders we don't like is boundlessly stupid. In fact, Republicans all the way through the LAST President Bush were willing to talk with leaders they didn't like. The soft power of diplomacy is one of MANY tools of statecraft that responsible and intelligent leaders make use of.

Why arbitrarily remove a weapon from your arsenal? Even if it isn't your favorite weapon, and for many Republicans it isn't, why limit your options?

But that aside...

George W. couldn't have helped Obama out more today unless he openly called Obama a racist slur. I mean seriously! Obama is just getting ready to transition into a general election campaign mode and is starting to worry about reaching out the Democrats who supported Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, etc. and Bush hands him THIS gift?

This did more to swiftly unite the party behind Obama than a dozen speeches reaching out to Hillary supporters could have accomplished.

I've felt that our current president is an idiot for years, but he keeps going out of his way to prove me right.

Posted by Jim Crozier | May 15, 2008 5:59 PM

It's just a sign of weakness in the eyes of the right to speak to anyone who you disagree with for any reason. My mother is Irish and she always said there's two ways to treat people you don't like, first, give them the silent treatment, and second, kill them with kindness. I guess the tough guys on the right picked the first option since it's served them so well the past eight years.

Posted by Paul | May 15, 2008 6:00 PM

Not to try to change the subject or let MattY's argumentation style rub off on me and engage in LogicalFallacies, but a few years back NancyPelosi accused the U.S. government of terrorizing people, and did so in a foreign country that has an interest in the matter. There wasn't outrage about that because she was complaining about something that would have had an impact on powerful companies' bottom lines, making it OK.

Posted by TLB | May 15, 2008 6:03 PM

I think pretty much everyone in the world except the Republican party in the United States understands the difference between talking to a foreign leader and giving away territory to fucking Hitler.

Jesus.

Posted by southpaw | May 15, 2008 6:05 PM

Props to Joe Biden for an assertive, well articulated rebuttal. Obama and Kerry took the wrong tone in their responses. That the Bush comments were "sad" or "shameless" isn't the point -- they were STUPID. It's pure bullshit and malarkey, as Biden aptly put it. Negotiation and engagement is not appeasement (you don't HAVE to agree), and the blanket refusal to negotiate is idiotic. The response to this nonsense should be that these blowhards are incompetent boobs who don't know what they are doing and can't be trusted with power. See, e.g., the last 8 years.

Posted by Led | May 15, 2008 6:11 PM

Yeah, that meeting Carter took with Hamas worked out so well. Beyond making him look stupid, it achieved nothing. Any meeting with the Iranians will go about the same.

Here's a question: To negotiate, there has to be something on offer. So - what can the US offer Iran that they would find of value? Likewise, what can they offer us that we would find to be of value?

Further, given the Islamic theory of Hudna, and the fact that Iran is a deeply theological state, what makes you think that any negotiation with them will have lasting value?

This isn't like dealing with Canada over logging imports.

Posted by James Robertson | May 15, 2008 6:13 PM

"So - what can the US offer Iran that they would find of value? Likewise, what can they offer us that we would find to be of value?"

Now I know America has been down and out lately, but I was under the impression that things were made here that could be bartered or sold. Cars, iphones (made in China yes, but designed in the US), airplanes. It seems to me that Iran might find these things of value. As to what they could offer in exchange...lemmie think here...oh yes, oil! They seem to have a little bit of that stuff around, and the last time I checked Americans were willing to buy the stuff.

Posted by freddiemac | May 15, 2008 6:18 PM

The US has A) money and B) security guarantees to offer Iran. They want both, badly. They can, in turn, offer the international community the opportunity to turn their nuclear program away from weaponizable technologies and towards reactors that don't as readily turn into bombs.

See? I'm not even a specialist and I did that. My understanding is that there are people at the State Department who are even better at it.

Posted by NBarnes | May 15, 2008 6:18 PM

Ezra Klein linked to this poll from Israel:

Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less than one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks.

According to the findings, Israelis are fed up with seven years of Qassam rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza, as well as the fact that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half.

An increasing number of public figures, including senior officers in the Israel Defense Forces' reserves, have expressed similar positions on talks with Hamas. [...]

The survey also showed that Likud voters are much more moderate than their Knesset representatives. About half (48 percent) support talks with Hamas.

Got that? Almost 1/2 of Likud voters support talks with Hamas. The US take on Israeli politics is to actual Israeli politics what the Mexico pavilion at Epcot is to Mexico itself.

Posted by joejoejoe | May 15, 2008 6:20 PM

"So - what can the US offer Iran that they would find of value? Likewise, what can they offer us that we would find to be of value?"

Now I know America has been down and out lately, but I was under the impression that things were made here that could be bartered or sold. Cars, iphones (made in China yes, but designed in the US), airplanes. It seems to me that Iran might find these things of value. As to what they could offer in exchange...lemmie think here...oh yes, oil! They seem to have a little bit of that stuff around, and the last time I checked Americans were willing to buy the stuff.

Posted by freddiemac | May 15, 2008 6:22 PM

Here's a question: To negotiate, there has to be something on offer. So - what can the US offer Iran that they would find of value? Likewise, what can they offer us that we would find to be of value?

Matt already addressed this:

Meanwhile, Bush continues to fundamentally misunderstand the purpose and nature of diplomacy. The idea of talks isn't that you marshall convincing arguments and beat your enemies back with force of words. The idea is that it's sometimes possible to achieve a reconciliation of partially divergent interests. Maybe Iran wants a nuclear weapon in order to deter American attack. And maybe America wants a nuclear-free Iran to help preserve stability in the region. Down one path, we have conflict and the U.S. sanctions and bombs Iran which causes suffering but only delays Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon. But down another path, each side discusses it's top priorities and we reach an agreement on verifiable disarmament in the context of security guarantees and a path to normalized relations. Down the road, that gives the U.S. the stability we want and creates more prosperity and security for Iran.

Of course, it's also not that tough to figure out on your own.

Posted by southpaw | May 15, 2008 6:23 PM

Reagan-Gorbachev
Nixon-Mao
Bush-Cheney

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 15, 2008 6:23 PM

I am SO TIRED of hearing non-Muslim dudes comment on Islamic laws that they don't understand!!!!!

Posted by Not even a Muslim!!!! | May 15, 2008 6:27 PM

Here's a question: To negotiate, there has to be something on offer. So - what can the US offer Iran that they would find of value? Likewise, what can they offer us that we would find to be of value?

You can't possibly know the answer to these questions until you actually engage the other side. But you haven't answered Matt's question. Suppose we sit down with Iran and it turns out there's no deal to be done, so we get up and walk away. So what? What's the downside? None. And, in fact, there's potential upside even if talks go nowhere because the opposition in Iran would get a PR weapon if the mullahs take an unreasonable position that inures to the detriment of the Iranian people. On the other hand, U.S. saber rattling gives the mullahs the PR weapon. This isn't freakin' rocket science.

Posted by Led | May 15, 2008 6:27 PM

The logic of the "don't talk to them!!!" argument is so stupid. It is like our country is being run by high school girls.

Does Bush think ahmadinejad is just waiting by the phone with baited breath?
"O if only George calls me I will know he likes me and then maybe I can feel him up under the bleachers"

Posted by AJ | May 15, 2008 6:28 PM

So - what can the US offer Iran that they would find of value?

A promise not to attack and invade them?

Likewise, what can they offer us that we would find to be of value?

Oil?

Jeez, this negotiatin' stuff sure is hard....

Posted by Stefan | May 15, 2008 6:30 PM

Everybody's piling on Robertson (and spot-on, btw), so allow me to continue:

that meeting Carter took with Hamas worked out...achieved nothing.

Hmm, I wonder why...

To negotiate, there has to be something on offer.

Wow, maybe there's a qualitative difference between a representative of the state department and an unpopular ex-president. Thanks, James!

Posted by scythia | May 15, 2008 6:34 PM

The logic of the "don't talk to them!!!" argument is so stupid. It is like our country is being run by high school girls.

More frames like this, please.

Posted by scythia | May 15, 2008 6:37 PM

Does Bush think ahmadinejad is just waiting by the phone with baited breath?

That joke keeps getting funnier and funnier.

Even better, though, was a restaurant review that had a comment about a "toe-headed child."

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 15, 2008 6:38 PM

Maybe Bush refused diplomacy because he is afraid they will all get along too well. Sort of like an alchoholic is advised to stay away from parties where people will be drinking a lot.

While up to this point in terms of insanity, in the grand scheme of things, he has only been sneaking sips, perhaps a good sit down with another lunatic would lead to a full scale bender. In short I think its best that they are kept apart and allowed to call each other drunks.

Posted by AJ | May 15, 2008 6:45 PM

McCain was 100% right. You can't negotiate with Iran or anyone like them. McCain would be following in the tradition of Reagan. You just tell them how it's going to be and what you'll do if they don't do what you say. That's the only negotitation needed. Obama would have America give up concessions in order to make Iran behave better. That's just typical liberal appeasement and it won't work.

Posted by Mike | May 15, 2008 6:46 PM

Our guys talk to their guys, the meeting happens, and this gives Khatami enhanced prestige in the eyes of whom? And what does this enhanced prestige allow him to do? What, in other words, are we afraid of?

We are arrogant for the same reason anyone is arrogant: it makes us feel big. If we have to talk to our enemies, we're not as big as we thought, which would suck.

Posted by Gary Sugar | May 15, 2008 6:46 PM

Maybe Bush refused diplomacy because he is afraid they will all get along too well. Sort of like an alchoholic is advised to stay away from parties where people will be drinking a lot.

While up to this point in terms of insanity, in the grand scheme of things, he has only been sneaking sips, perhaps a good sit down with another lunatic would lead to a full scale bender. In short I think its best that they are kept apart and allowed to call each other drunks.

Posted by AJ | May 15, 2008 6:46 PM

Even better, though, was a restaurant review that had a comment about a "toe-headed child."

Posted by Jeffrey Davis

The investigators Mitchell & Webb followed a similar situation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9al-mpqXjc

Posted by El Cid | May 15, 2008 6:49 PM

Mike, Reagan negotiated with Gorbachev. (Or were you being sarcastic?)

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | May 15, 2008 6:50 PM

Mike,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Summit

Smoke less pot, hippie, and hit the books harder.

Posted by scythia | May 15, 2008 6:53 PM

... a step that "enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists" and sundry other evils.

Man, whatever happened to all of that storied Republican bravado? It's just stupid and weak to assume that if America's leaders and best diplomats engage in a diplomatic round with Iran's leaders and best diplomats, the Iranian side is bound to emerge as the diplomatic victor. What kind of loser attitude is that? It's much more likely that US diplomacy would succeed in diminishing the prestige of Iranian leaders through diplomacy rather than enhancing it.

The Iranians would come into those talks with a mountain of vulnerabilities, not the least of which is that they are currently saddled with a loose-toungued, holocaust-denying, low-class bumpkin for a president, who is viewed around the world as a bit of a buffoon who doesn't know when to stop running his mouth. And their government is viewed with genuine suspicion by both US friends and neutral parties. With the albatross Bush off of the US neck, and Obama in office, the US would be in the diplomatic driver's seat again. Any moderately skilled and well-prepared diplomatic team will be able to turn the slightest Iranian intransigence into major propaganda gains. We should be able to swing a very sweet deal.

So the way I see it, Republicans are diplomacy pussies. They have so internalized the Bush posture of inarticulate, in-over-his-head ineptitude that they have no guts anymore when it comes to playing to win at the diplomatic gaming table. They've been following a dufus-president who couldn't sell a lollipop to a five year old, and they now assume the whole country is characterized by that kind of weakness. Have some confidence men! And if you can't get it up, just move aside and let some serious people take over.

One of the facts about Barack Obama that is not as well known as it should be is that, according to his friends, he is an excellent poker player.

Posted by Dan Kervick | May 15, 2008 6:58 PM

The leading Republicans refuse to talk to regimes they don't like because they are stupid little boys (and girls) who think everything is about interpersonal relationships.

Posted by Bengt Larsson | May 15, 2008 6:59 PM

I think Mike was being sarcastic, unless he meant that Reagan negotiated with Iran by saying "the price is $x per missle"

Posted by Eric K | May 15, 2008 7:02 PM

Didn't Bush offer negotiations with Iran if they suspended their nuclear enrichment? Considering how Iran has played rope-a-dope with the UN and the EU-3 on this issue for years, Bush's negotiating pre-condition seems eminently reasonable. Otherwise, the Iranians would just use the negotiations with us to play for time while they continue to enrich uranium, just like they did with France, Germany and the UK.

What makes you think the Iranians wouldn't play a similar rope-a-dope with Obama?

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2008 7:03 PM

The leading Republicans refuse to talk to regimes they don't like because they are stupid little boys (and girls)

No, they're girls. Stupid little girls. Get the talking point down.

OT, but in no particular order, this is what I would like to see the Dems run on in '08:

-Republicans are little girls, or otherwise feminine.
-Republicans are weak on national security, and want the terrorists to win.
-Republicans are fiscally irresponsible.
-Republicans are opposed to Christianity, and have conned the true believers.
-Republicans want to raise your taxes.
-Republicans want to take away your guns.

(and if anyone can figure out how to frame the last two, i've got a cookie with your name on it.)

Posted by scythia | May 15, 2008 7:05 PM

The problem, Fred, is that Bush's pre-condition for negotiation was also the desired end result of said negotiations.

So if the Iranians did in fact suspend enrichment and sat down at the table, the negotiations would already in effect be over, without us having to concede anything.

Pretty baller from our point of view, but not so much for the Iranians, which is why it didn't work.

Posted by scythia | May 15, 2008 7:11 PM

And of course they are entirely inconsistent. On the one hand, we are told how they *hate* us and don't respect us. But on the other hand, talking to them or negotiating with them somehow enhances their prestige and improves their image. Huh? Well, I guess one of these things can't be true, then.

~

I think Led has the right take on it. The proper response isn't to be offended or outraged. Rather, it should be one of derision. You should be putting guys like Biden out there just rolling their eyes and saying things like, "well, what do you expect - we all know the President isn't very bright"...hell, I think even AJ's line about high school girls would be fine.

Posted by McKingford | May 15, 2008 7:11 PM

It has to be gently pressed in upon the American public that talking to Iran isn't a game, but a process that has an actual economic result for the American public - that is, cheaper oil. In fact, the only way Obama and the Democrats can do anything, given budgetary realities, that is semi-Democratic - for instance, national healthcare assistance of some type - depends on reproducing at least one of the conditions of the Clinton years. Oil can either keep going up or we can recognize Iran and we can all move on to another decade before we have another period of 130-180 dollar oil - which we are heading into, otherwise.

There needs to be a carrot attached to the proposal that the U.S. actually not follow its traditional, predatory, warmongering path. Americans are used to that path. They like it, if they don't have to sacrifice anything for it.

Posted by roger | May 15, 2008 7:11 PM

Post Stalin, the Soviets weren't entirely insane - they could be negotiated with (although rarely in good faith - they broke most agreements).

Iran is in favor of destroying Israel, and is a Shia, theocratic regime. What "security guarantees" can we offer them that they would care about?

Posted by James Robertson | May 15, 2008 7:14 PM

What, in other words, are we afraid of?

Democrats.

The people we are talking about-- the dick-swinging wing of the GOP, and that's all that's left, except Chuck Hagel on odd-numbered days of the month -- do not have a foreign policy.

They have an election strategy, and a bank balance.

That's it.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 15, 2008 7:17 PM

James, what evidence do you have that the rulers of Iran are entirely insane? I'm talking in terms of actions here, not just empty rhetoric.

They've been in power for 30 years, and have been involved in exactly one conflict, which was a war they didn't initiate.

Given how their "Shia, theocratic regime" is totally out of line with virtually every other gov't in the region, don't you think there'd be a least one major example of aggressive behavior?

And don't bring Ahmadenijad into this: the president of Iran has about as much power as the president of Israel or the queen of England.

Posted by scythia | May 15, 2008 7:22 PM

"The problem, Fred, is that Bush's pre-condition for negotiation was also the desired end result of said negotiations."

Not really. A desired end result was a permanent end to Iran's enrichment activity (another was an end to its sponsorship of terrorists). If Iran sat down for negotiations, and it didn't like where they were heading, it could have broken off the negotiations and re-starting its enrichment. That it wasn't even willing to suspend enrichment temporarily to engage in this sort of "grand bargain" negotiations suggests the leaders of Iran weren't really interested in such a deal. Which makes sense from their point of view, if you think about it. The Revolution is a little long in the tooth at this point. It probably wouldn't survive a full normalization of relations with the U.S.

It's worth remembering that despite the Iranian's rejection of the "grand bargain" negotiations, our ambassador to Iraq has had discussions with his Iranian counterpart about Iraq, during regional diplomatic conferences held in Iraq.

Posted by Fred | May 15, 2008 7:28 PM

I can say I've never loved Joe Biden more than today. He absolutely unloaded on Bush.

"pure politics"
"beneath the presidency"
"truly disgraceful"
"outrageous"
"disturbing"
"ridiculous hypocrisy"
"long-distance Swiftboating"
"For this president to go on the attack against Barack Obama, it cannot go unanswered."
"get in touch with his administration."
"I assume he's going to fire his Secretary of State and Secretary of Defense"
"This is the kind of political rhetoric which continues to masquerade as policy"
"This is why we're in the situation we're in"
"should try to figure out how to dig us out of the God awful hole this president has gotten us into."
"abject failure"
"truly delusional"
"backwards"
"The president's saber rattling has been the most self-defeating policy imaginable ... spurs instability in the Middle East ... increase in price of oil ... plays into the hands of those Iranian leaders he rails against."
"He writes letters, 'Dear Mr. Chairman' to Kim Jong Il."
"He oughta get a life here ... Under George W. Bush's watch, Iran, not freedom has been on the march ... They're a lot closer to the bomb ... He calls Maliki our guy ... Whose policy produced that? Whose watch was that? ... Iran's proxy Hezbollah is on the ascendancy. Don't take my word for it, look at NIE ... Afghanistan, Pakistan, Al Qaeda is stronger now."
"We should take zero backseat to this president, talking about appeasement. ... Under him, Israel is less safe."

Positively beautiful.

Posted by jbryan | May 15, 2008 7:33 PM

Please, Imam Jim-Bob, share all of your wide and deep knowledge of the Middle East, so that we can laugh at you some more.

What Bush did was grubby. Simple as that. If he weren't a political irrelevance, a crap shag that America is trying to pretend never happened, it would matter more, but it was just grubby nonsense.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | May 15, 2008 7:36 PM

Fred,

Fair enough. Although post-2003, I think the Iranians were (rightly IMO) concerned that we were gunning for them next, so assuming they were enriching uranium for offensive purposes, you can see why they'd be reluctant to assume good faith in our part before suspension.

It's worth remembering that despite the Iranian's rejection of the "grand bargain" negotiations

See, it's my understanding that WE were the ones who broke off the post-2001 negotiations. I'm out the door so no time to fact-check, but perhaps this could be the point of difference between our views viz-a-viz Tehran's potential to be engaged diplomatically.

Regardless, always nice to talk to someone across the aisle who's willing to discuss substantive facts rather than score rhetorical points. Sometimes I think there's hope for this country yet...

Posted by scythia | May 15, 2008 7:38 PM

Matthew,

You just don't get it. There is no mystery here. McCain, Bush, and Cheney, hold the postions that they do for the same reason Hitler didn't negotiate with Poland, Stalin didn't negotiate with the Baltic States, and so on. Because they are mass murdering thugs who are in love with death.

Posted by LarryM | May 15, 2008 7:44 PM

Fred and Robertson, as usual, are idiots.

Iran will not suspend enrichment for the simple and obvious reason that if they want a nuclear energy program - note, not a nuclear weapons program - they cannot do so.

They have to have the indigenous development of the entire nuclear fuel cycle because, due to the hostility of the West, they cannot trust any other country to provide them with nuclear fuel.

No sovereign nation would accept a deal like that from its stated enemies.

Iran has never rejected any "grand bargain" because no such "bargain" has ever been offered by the West, including the most recent offer. Also, Iran itself made such a "grand bargain" offer to the US in 2003 - and it was rejected by Bush.

The Iranians aren't stupid. They KNOW that Bush and Cheney intend to attack them because of oil and Israel - and no amount of "diplomacy" is going to change that. Right now, the Iranians are just waiting for a new administration to come in. The problem with that is that almost certainly Bush and Cheney will attack Iran this year - and the new administration - whether Democratic or Republican - will have its hands tied by that act. Certainly McCain wants to attack Iran - and Clinton has threatened to "obliterate Iran" and even Obama is on record as saying "Iran is a threat" and advocated harsh sanctions to attempt to pressure Iran into "negotiating".

So who is Iran going to "negotiate" with? Over what? A non-existent nuclear weapons program? Support for national resistance movements like Hizballah and Hamas?

And once again, Matt STILL hasn't answered my two questions on Iran.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 7:47 PM

Chris Matthews, of all people, makes some wingnut shouting "appeasement!" look like a complete idiot:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1wSZBTAXRs

Posted by blah | May 15, 2008 7:51 PM

Everytime I think that the Democrats cannot possibly find another stupid thing to whine about, they prove me wrong. Bush takes a swipe at pacifists while talking in Israel. Was this really the most important thing that happened in Obama and Pelosi's lives today?

Posted by John | May 15, 2008 7:51 PM

"Regardless, always nice to talk to someone across the aisle who's willing to discuss substantive facts rather than score rhetorical points. Sometimes I think there's hope for this country yet..."

Not from Fred, there isn't.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 7:55 PM

So, I guess that maybe the right wing blogging types need to STFU about "Godwin's Law" as a prescriptive rule now, eh?

Posted by El Cid | May 15, 2008 8:13 PM

Iran is in favor of destroying Israel, and is a Shia, theocratic regime. What "security guarantees" can we offer them that they would care about?

Wait, they're worse than the Godless Communist Menace that invaded scores of countries, killed MILLIONS of their own people, had a massive gulag system, and not only threatened in the '67 war to destroy Israel but also had the military capabilities to do so? SERIOUSLY?

We've established that the President's committed to the foreign policy of a 14 year old girl--now I'm wondering if his trolls are likewise 14 year old girls.

That's not fair. I am being VERY insulting to 14 year old girls.

Posted by anonymous | May 15, 2008 8:15 PM

I agree with that last - calling them "girls" is sexist.

Just call them "assholes" - everybody understands that one.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 15, 2008 8:34 PM

NOte to nitwit "appeasement wasn't talking it was giving up half of Czechoslovakia. Of course Bush and McCain don't know history. McCain should since he's older than dirt.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/larisa-alexandrovna/all-the-presidents-nazis_b_102022.html

Posted by Eh? | May 15, 2008 9:07 PM

McCain was 100% right. You can't negotiate with Iran or anyone like them. McCain would be following in the tradition of Reagan. You just tell them how it's going to be and what you'll do if they don't do what you say. That's the only negotitation needed. Obama would have America give up concessions in order to make Iran behave better. That's just typical liberal appeasement and it won't work.

Posted by Mike | May 15, 2008 6:46 PM

No, he would have just armed them like he did Iran. BTW, talking to someone isn't appeasement, giving up the Sudetenland is. Giving up Taiwan because you botched the six party talks is appeasement. Talking is just talking.

Posted by Kyle Huckins | May 15, 2008 9:14 PM

I always like the witless rightwing morons solemnly assuring us that we cannot deal with Iran because they sponsor terrorism, while we placidly send 3 billion dollars to nuclear powered Pakistan as it sponsors both the Taliban and Kashmir jihadis, and has done so for decades.

I don't really believe the obsession with Iran has to do with economics, although it has been good for the oil companies the past eight years. I believe it is simply pathological stupidity. How else could you even attempt to explain the enthusiasm of the half wits for Maliki, the leader of the Dawa party, Hezbollah's long term ally in the Middle East? It is the song of the voluntarily lobotomized Fox watchers. But it looks like the Dem tide is going to strand them. They'll have to cling to their Rush and their delusive thought leaders even more. I expect, though, that they are going to go through a whole lotta nasty shocks in the next couple of years.

Posted by roger | May 15, 2008 9:19 PM

"Man, whatever happened to all of that storied Republican bravado? It's just stupid and weak to assume that if America's leaders and best diplomats engage in a diplomatic round with Iran's leaders and best diplomats, the Iranian side is bound to emerge as the diplomatic victor. What kind of loser attitude is that? It's much more likely that US diplomacy would succeed in diminishing the prestige of Iranian leaders through diplomacy rather than enhancing it."

Republicans can't talk anyone into anything, which is why they can only get laid by paying for a hooker or tapping their foot in a stall.

"Not really. A desired end result was a permanent end to Iran's enrichment activity (another was an end to its sponsorship of terrorists). If Iran sat down for negotiations, and it didn't like where they were heading, it could have broken off the negotiations and re-starting its enrichment."

So basically their only chip left would be cutting off their relationship with Hezbollah, which both sides would know isn't that big an issue for American national security, considering Hezbollah hasn't attacked the US since the early 1980's. Negotiations where one side has only one chip tend not to work unless that side is negotiating how they are going to surrender after losing a war. In addition, the Iranians made diplomatic overtures to us in the wake of 9/11 to help us in Afghanistan against mutual enemies, al-Qaida and the Taliban, that the State Department was pursuing. However, Cheney found out about this and shut it down. The Bushes have already shown they would enter into such negotiations in bad faith without a radical change in policy, so when they propose the type of bargain you have laid out here, it doesn't sound real to the Iranians, but like how adults sound on Charlie Brown. Right now Tehran just has no reason to trust Bush to enter into negotiations in good faith.

Posted by Reality Man | May 15, 2008 9:21 PM

So, I guess that maybe the right wing blogging types need to STFU about "Godwin's Law" as a prescriptive rule now, eh?

Actually, interesting twist, the Unitary Executive isn't subject to Godwin's Law.

Didn't you get the memo?

Posted by southpaw | May 15, 2008 9:24 PM

As no doubt many others have noted, it would be really really nice to enhance the prestige of ex-president reformer and all around Mensch Mohamammad Khatami, but Obama was talking about meeting with the current leaders of Iran.

That would be President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad (if Obama were an idiot) or supreme poobah Ali Husseini Khamenei, with whom he can discuss the hassle of having a very inconvenient middle name, and the great advantage of the final i which, for all I know, makes a huge difference for people who want to run countries that hate the late Saddam Hussein.

OK I cheated on the spelling of the middle name which is Hosaynî in Wikipedia, but the last name is Hhameini not Khatami.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | May 15, 2008 9:28 PM

I'm particularly amused that the same folks complaining about the prestige certain countries would get from their leaders meeting with the President also like to talk about these countries posing a threat to the world on a par with Nazi Germany. Nice PR work, guys.

Of course, the truth is that they want war, and indeed want their own glorious version of WWII, which is their real reason for wanting to avoid diplomacy--namely, because diplomacy just might work!

Posted by DTM | May 15, 2008 9:31 PM

Deep thought:

There is, in fact, a difference between (a) speaking with a guy and (b) giving him a sizable chunk of Czechoslovakia.

Posted by southpaw | May 15, 2008 9:38 PM

He busted out the frequently heard idea that "serious negotiations" that are "done in a face to face fashion as Senator Obama wants to do" is a step that "enhances the prestige of a nation that's a sponsor of terrorists" and sundry other evils. . .This is such a common talking point on the right that you'd think that somewhere out there you could find some kind of causal explanation of how this works.

Look, I can't believe I have to spell this out for you, but here it is. The U.S. is Amanda Peterson and Iran is Patrick Dempsey (back when he was a dork, not a hunk). By hanging out with us, Iran can convice all the other cool kids in the world that it's really a cool kid too. But we have to be careful because if Iran gets too cool it will start acting like an asshole, shit bomb its old friend's house and generally make a fool of itself. Worst of all, Iran could invent a stupid dance and perform it on the floor of the UN triggering an embarrassing episode of synchonized dancing throughout the General Assembly. To avoid that scenario, all options must be on the table.

Posted by Ronald McDonald Miller | May 15, 2008 9:55 PM

this is a good post, matt, but this:

"This is such a common talking point on the right that you'd think that somewhere out there you could find some kind of causal explanation of how this works."

is one of the dumbest things you've ever written. I know you have to be "reasonable" and blah blah blah...but why would anyone with the slighest understanding of conservative politics write such a thing?

Posted by Client #11 | May 15, 2008 10:41 PM

In 2005, Iran's military spending was 1.25% of the United States'.
Germany's spending in 1939 was 38 billion dollars, the United States' was 1.3 billion.
Stratergy.

Posted by Comparativist | May 15, 2008 10:49 PM

I hope Dumbya Fucking Bush slams Obama every day between now and the election. Since Bush is about as popular as an AIDS-infected child molester these days, it would clinch the election for Obama.

So bring it on, Bushpigs.

Posted by MoeLarryAndJesus | May 15, 2008 11:25 PM

Part of the problem for McCain here is that Bush has the sort of personality that prevents him from simply staying in the background and letting the election play out. With this recent salvo, Bush is showing that he feels he has to be the center of attention. Turning this election into Bush vs. Obama can only be bad for McCain.

Posted by Tyro | May 16, 2008 12:26 AM

If Zakaria seriously claims that China and India don't have religions, he is beyond the point of cultural illiteracy. Did he miss Buddhism, Daoism, Hinduism etc?

Posted by google | May 16, 2008 1:10 AM

We are Good. They are Evil. If We talk to Them, people will get confused.

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 16, 2008 1:59 AM

We are Good. They are Evil. Good must conquer Evil, not talk to it.

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 16, 2008 2:01 AM

Take your pick.

Posted by SqueakyRat | May 16, 2008 2:05 AM

It's children's story foreign policy. If you give Iran a cookie, it's going to want a glass of milk!

Posted by Jason | May 16, 2008 2:24 AM

Just out of curiosity, did any of you watch Ahmedinejad's famous visit to Columbia? A negotiation with him without preconditions would look a little like that. The American president states his issues, Ahmedinejad launches into a rambling prayer about the hidden imam, denies reality (e.g., "we have no gays in Iran"), does a little rope-a-dope, and gets in a couple of zingers for the anti-American peanut gallery. In the end, nothing resolved.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 2:31 AM

Was Ahmedinejad's Columbia appearance a negotiation? Nope. Then you have contributed nothing to this discussion. Why would the primary negotiations about military/security issues be with Ahmedinejad? He doesn't control the military. Fred, at this point you are just rambling.

In addition, negotiations often require multiple sets of negotiations. North Koreans basically do the Marxist version of what you describe here, but with patience and tact it's possible to get somewhere.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2008 3:25 AM

You see, the world consists of good guys and bad guys. Doing harmful stuff to the bad guys is good, and doing beneficial stuff to the bad guys is bad. Negotiations could benefit Iran (bad guys), therefore they're bad.

Posted by Julian Elson | May 16, 2008 3:46 AM

Reality man is tripping on some bad acid. Ahmadodojihad virtually controls the Basij & Revolutonary Guards, AKA the SS & SA [Brownshirts], so why quibble, unless you're on a terminal bummer.

Democrats like Obama "can't handle the truth," as they're all a virtual-bunch of second-rate trial lawyers unable to figure out that bad people are not defendants. They love to sit down & do symbolic gimcrackery like the energizer-bunny Gee-mah Carter.

But bad people are 'splodin' dudes who HAVE TO BE STOPPED. And not with Obambi negotiations or Carter-like "symbols." If Iranian & Syrian controlled sock-puppets like Hezbollah & Hamas keep rocketing Israeli civilians, we should defend Israel. No "hypocrisy" there.

Bush & McCain should keep attacking Obama [& of course Pelosi] on that line & bring in Pelosi wearing her ridiculous burka plucking the hem of terrorist-chieflet Bashar Assad's robe in Damascus. That borders on treason, as Syria is a declared supporter of international terrorism & supports Hezbollah and Hamas, allowing Khaled Mashaal to reside in Damascus. And of course, those two organizations treat women as human chattel, which doesn't seem to bother Nancy.

Obama keeps floating like a butterfly on these issues without being called to account by non-journalist Obamaniacs in the MSM [including Yglesias]. Taking both sides of an issue and instinctively defending culprits and mass-murderers is one of those Democrat bad habits that Bush & McCain should keep pointing out.

Reagan never had any sit-down negotiations on the hostages with Iran [they released, and Democrat history is just as politicized as Repub history, if not more. You don't sit down & negotiate with terrorists like Stick-Insect Assad or Ahmadodojihad.

They're Hitler wannabes & they'll give you "a scrap of paper" just like Chamberlain got from Hitler.

Posted by daveinboca | May 16, 2008 3:46 AM

The appeasement of Israel has only led to more cluster bombing campaigns against innocent civilians (Lebanon), and the forced starvation of Gaza reminiscent of what Stalin did to the Ukraine. and more "settlements" The appeasement of ziocon jews who pushed us into the Iraqi War (the N.Y. Times hires Bill Kristol) has intensified his and his fellow ziocons war cries to nuke Iran. And, the general appeasement of the Bush Administration by the Democrats and MSM has led to the purging of anyone who would caution against a New War against Iran (Admiral Fallon). Appeasement against scrofulous Evildoers does NOT work.

Posted by Trevor | May 16, 2008 3:52 AM

Reality Man,

Your second paragraph implicitly contradicts your first. Helpful tip for the future: decide ahead of time whether you want to snarkily (and inaccurately) dismiss someone's comment as irrelevant, or whether you want to engage with it. Doing both in the same post just makes you look like a dick and an idiot.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 4:02 AM

Because conservatism isn't about achieving results. It's about finding a way to feel smug and righteous. In this case, they achieve smugness my not talking to evildoers because that would send the wrong message.

It's the diplomatic equivalent of slut shaming.

Posted by aatos | May 16, 2008 4:20 AM

Go to sleep, fellas. You're getting cranky.

Fred, even if we negotiated with A-jad (again, not the real decision-maker, but whatever) and he did just what you describe, I think it accomplishes a lot. The U.S. looks reasonable for having negotiations, the president of Iran is shown to be a raving loon. Facts on the ground stay the same, but world opinion shifts accordingly.

If we give these crackpots a rope, they'll hang themselves. It's by turning into symbols of anti-American resistance that they're able to consolidate power. That's not the only reason we push diplomacy, but it's a big one.

Posted by scythia | May 16, 2008 4:28 AM

Reagan may have sold weapons to the Iranians, but at least he didn't negotiate with them!

Posted by Julian Elson | May 16, 2008 4:33 AM

Matt asks, in relation to the US's refusal to negotiate with Iran:

What, in other words, are we afraid of?

Losing the bogeyman, of course. How can you scare people without the bogeyman. How can you eavesdrop on everybody, torture people, make corruption the norm, bankrupt the country with unnecessary military expenditure, create a "permanent majority" that is one-party state, and pave the way for Big Brother, without the bogeyman. Answer: you can't.

Tough luck, Iran. Someone has to be "Hitler" for the program to work, it just happened to fall on you.

Posted by Hans B | May 16, 2008 4:52 AM

Google:

What do you call it when someone calls themselves a Christian but doesn't take biblical stories as literally real?

What's a religion? If religion is a vessel of theology and cultural traditions, and you have the theology taken as metaphor or superstition, then what you have is what I think Zakaria has in mind.

Posted by Jeff Morgan | May 16, 2008 4:58 AM

Google:

What do you call it when someone calls themselves a Christian but doesn't take biblical stories as literally real?

What's a religion? If religion is a vessel of theology and cultural traditions, and you have the theology taken as metaphor or superstition, then what you have left is what I think Zakaria has in mind.

Posted by Jeff Morgan | May 16, 2008 4:59 AM

"Your second paragraph implicitly contradicts your first. Helpful tip for the future: decide ahead of time whether you want to snarkily (and inaccurately) dismiss someone's comment as irrelevant, or whether you want to engage with it. Doing both in the same post just makes you look like a dick and an idiot.

Posted by Fred | May 16, 2008 4:02 AM"

Ummm, not really my little racist puppy. Are we going to be having the main negotiations with A-jad? Not likely. However, in the abstract even if someone likes to play crazy, you can still get somewhere when negotiating with them. That means even if A-jad was in charge, we could still deal with them. I was at a talk a couple of years ago given by a Republican former diplomat who related a story of how former Korean president Kim Dae Jung was talking with Kim Jong-Il and telling him to lay off the anti-American rhetoric because unlike the nearby giants (China, Japan and Russia), the US has never really had their eye on imperial control of Korea. According to Kim Dae Jung, Kim Jong-Il on some level seemed to get this for a second and he could see the wheels turning in his head. He still said some silly anti-American things, but his worldview was a little shaken. Remember, the North Korean government is probably the second-craziest in the world after Burma's. Those gradual things can matter.

Posted by Reality Man | May 16, 2008 5:04 AM

I am guessing that Matt meant the supreme leader Kamenei, CiC, in charge of foreign policy, nuclear policy and anything of significance, and not ex-president Khatami who is not even nominally in charge of very much.

Did anyone notice Bob Gates remarkable contribution (by way of Sullivan):

"We need to figure out a way to develop some leverage . . . and then sit down and talk with them," Gates said. "If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."

Posted by Chris Dornan | May 16, 2008 6:40 AM

There is, in fact, a difference between (a) speaking with a guy and (b) giving him a sizable chunk of Czechoslovakia.

Posted by southpaw

I myself talk to many people and none of them have ended up giving me a sizable chunk of any European nation.

Posted by El Cid | May 16, 2008 7:23 AM

Re: Further, given the Islamic theory of Hudna, and the fact that Iran is a deeply theological state, what makes you think that any negotiation with them will have lasting value?

In the Cold War Mao's China was a deeply radical state, even "theologically" so. Does that mean Nixon should not have gone to China?

Re: Iran is in favor of destroying Israel, and is a Shia, theocratic regime.

Mao's China was in favor of destroying the United States (and already had nuclear wepaons in the 70s). It was, as I said above, a rigid ideological state.

Posted by JonF | May 16, 2008 7:41 AM

McCain has a crystal ball and can see far into the future, 2013, of what the country will look like under his administration. But he can't remember the past. Case in point: he brings up Hamas in relation to Obama; he ridicules diplomacy with Iran. But 3 years ago McCain said it was ok to talk to Hamas. Read the Washington Post article

They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.

Huffington post even has the video

Posted by BluePearl | May 16, 2008 7:52 AM

McCain has a crystal ball and can see far into the future, 2013, of what the country will look like under his administration. But he can't remember the past. Case in point: he brings up Hamas in relation to Obama; he ridicules diplomacy with Iran. But 3 years ago McCain said it was ok to talk to Hamas. Read the Washington Post article

They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.

Huffington post even has the video.

McCain 1.0 is so reasonable as compared to McCain 2.0. The two of them can have a substantive debate.

Posted by BluePearl | May 16, 2008 7:56 AM

Here's a question: To negotiate, there has to be something on offer. So - what can the US offer Iran that they would find of value?

Well, Reagan had some success offering them missiles...

Posted by ajay | May 16, 2008 8:05 AM

Just wondering, where did this last batch of stupid come from?

Seriously, a country that hasn't invaded anyone in over a thousand years is depicted as crazed warmongering freaks when the US can't seem to take a shit without threatening to drop bombs on some foreign country. And why should Iran be suspicious of the US? We sold them weapons, then we sold Iraq weapons, and had Iraq start an 8 year war with them, killing at least 2 million, and then we attacked Iraq and turned it into Somalia++ and now we want to attack Iran?

Who is the crazed warmongering asshole here?

And who in the hell could possibly support someone who thought it was a good idea to intentionally leak the golf thing, and then lie about it, And then GODWIN OUT in a speech in Israel?

That makes mister "APPEASEMENT APPEASEMENT" look smart because he at the VERY least didn't mispronounciate his words.

Posted by bago | May 16, 2008 8:26 AM

Simple answers to simple Questions (props to atrios)

What is appeasement?

American Heritage Dictionary:
"Most commonly, appeasement is used for the policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles."

Posted by jkubie | May 16, 2008 8:27 AM

"I myself talk to many people and none of them have ended up giving me a sizable chunk of any European nation."

Really, my Cid, that's odd. Why, just last week I ran into Tony Blair at my local Starbucks and I walked out of there with a double mocha frap (no whip), Scotland, Wales, the Falkland Isles, and two thirds of Manchester. Then there was the time I won Mecca and Medina in a game of blackjack with Saddam and the House of Saud--but I had to sell them back when I learned how much the property taxes would cost...but you mentioned European nations, so I guess that wouldn't count anyway.

Posted by Client #11 | May 16, 2008 8:52 AM

Not knowing Khatami from Khamenei rather undermines the credibility of any of this pontificator's pontifications.

Posted by gordonminor | May 16, 2008 9:03 AM

What, in other words, are we afraid of?
Peace.

Politicians are afraid of the appearance of weakness. AIPAC is afraid of the appearance of diminished threat in the Middle East.

If we make peace with the Iranians and exit Iraq, that will leave us with basically only the elusive small band of Al Qaeda scattered in Afghanistan and Pakistan. That's an insufficient boogeyman for those seeking to keep the US in a state of fear and beligerence.

Posted by Bragan | May 16, 2008 9:11 AM

Matt,

Imagine Obama speaking to the Knesset:

Israelis should know that most Americans were stalwarts against Hitler.

--
'When George Bush's grandfather was having his Nazi loot seized by the US government, my Grandpa from Kansas was joining Patton's Army so he could defeat Hitler ...'
---

Would the press treat such an outrageous performance with the same respect they treat the less justified, more disgusting, Bush attack?

This is part of the "prestige" debate, because McCain's "prestige" comment, like Bush's Israeli smear, are both products of our declinist politics.

Posted by Comment | May 16, 2008 9:41 AM

Every Day is Munichween.

Posted by Northern Observer | May 16, 2008 9:52 AM

"If we make peace with the Iranians and exit Iraq, that will leave us with basically only the elusive small band of Al Qaeda scattered in Afghanistan and Pakistan."

How would you propose making peace with Iran? What makes you think Iran wants peace? What have they done recently that suggests they do? What is the point of negotiating with someone who hates you and you cannot trust?

Posted by DTangfield | May 16, 2008 10:31 AM

How would you propose making peace with Iran?

Shouldn't we at least go to war with them first?

No peace treaties on the first date.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | May 16, 2008 10:55 AM

What I have never understood about those who want to attack Iran is that it makes it EASIER PR-wise to attack them if we talk to them first. Think about it -- President McCain meets with them, makes demands that the stop their nuclear program and stop making threats against Israel -- Iran continues to do both, we attack, and then a solemn President McCain makes a speech saying "We offered peace to them, all that had to do is stop threatening Israel and stop enriching uranium. We met with them 3 times, and they refused. It is a shame that it got this far..."

Posted by Blue Moon | May 16, 2008 11:13 AM

Blue Moon,

That is a good point. I think that is what will happen if we do meet with them. Our ambassadors have already met, and of course Iran hasn't changed their policies. I don't know why the president meeting with the holocaust-denier would be any more likely to change anything. If people in support of this policy had your clear-sightedness, then it would be one thing. But so many people seem to think that all we have to do is send Obama over there and magically Achmadinejad will see the light.

Posted by DTangfield | May 16, 2008 11:41 AM

Straw man, false choice, slippery slope - it's rhetorical fallacy day!

Posted by dob | May 16, 2008 12:18 PM

Great point Matthew..seems to me what's really going on is that the GOP long ago painted itself into a tight corner on this issue.

If Obama *did* negotiate with Iran, for instance, and made an advantageous deal, the GOP would look even more intellectually bankrupt than it does already. So, they swing the xenophobia-terror club and hope it hits something.

There's a reason why these people were marginalized for so long. They're flat-out crazy. We got complacent, and the Norquists and Addingtons and other assorted geeks were able to crawl out from under their rocks and wreck havoc.

We have to put them back. They're feckless 4-year-olds who will just do what they do...the grownups need to take charge and put them back where they belong.

Posted by LL | May 16, 2008 2:01 PM

"Seriously, a country that hasn't invaded anyone in over a thousand years is depicted as crazed warmongering freaks when the US can't seem to take a shit without threatening to drop bombs on some foreign country. And why should Iran be suspicious of the US? We sold them weapons, then we sold Iraq weapons, and had Iraq start an 8 year war with them, killing at least 2 million, and then we attacked Iraq and turned it into Somalia++ and now we want to attack Iran?

Who is the crazed warmongering asshole here?

And who in the hell could possibly support someone who thought it was a good idea to intentionally leak the golf thing, and then lie about it, And then GODWIN OUT in a speech in Israel?

That makes mister "APPEASEMENT APPEASEMENT" look smart because he at the VERY least didn't mispronounciate his words.

Posted by bago | May 16, 2008 8:26 AM

Bago wins the thread. Hands down.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | May 16, 2008 8:48 PM

Re: Seriously, a country that hasn't invaded anyone in over a thousand years is depicted as crazed warmongering freaks when the US can't seem to take a shit without threatening to drop bombs on some foreign country.

A quibble or two:
Modern Iran has only existed as a political unit for about 500 years. And it did try to conquyer Afghanistan in the 1700s, while also trying to dive the turks out of Mesopotamia in a long series of brutal, bloody wars for generations.

Posted by JonF | May 17, 2008 7:31 AM