If You Ignore the Differences, They're the Same

Fred Hiatt calls out a friend of mine in the WaPo's lead editorial, and I expect he'll have something to say about it. But let me just note this:

In essence, Mr. Obama promises an improved version of the Bush administration's three-year-old strategy of offering, in conjunction with European allies and Russia, economic and political favors to Iran in exchange for an end to its nuclear program and threatening it with sanctions if it refuses.

All this proves is that if you describe policy ideas at a sufficient level of abstraction, then everything is identical. But the difference here is pretty clear. Obama would like to work, in good faith, for a diplomatic agreement that would achieve America's key security goal (verifiable Iranian disarmament) in exchange for us offering some kind of concessions to Iran. Bush and McCain, by contrast, come from a school of thought which regards it as essentially impossible to reach stable agreements with "bad guy" regimes.

Thus, their diplomatic approach to Iran amounts to repeatedly shaking their fists at Iran and demanding that they capitulate, followed by stern proclamations about how "unacceptable" a nuclear-armed Iran would be. It's not clear if the Bush-McCain policy is going to lead to war (as a literal read of their rhetoric would suggest) or to Iran possessing nuclear weapons (if they flinch from launching a war) but what it's not going to do is produce a diplomatic agreement to achieve verifiable nuclear disarmament in Iran. Obama, by contrast, wants to pursue good-faith negotiations aimed at achieving that goal. That's the difference and it's a huge difference -- to brush it all away because both candidates agendas involve "Europe," "Russia," and "Iran" is silly, especially given that both McCain and Obama say they believe they're disagreeing it ought to take compelling evidence before anyone concludes otherwise.

[The less said about Hiatt's concluding pitch for endless war in Iraq, the better]

Comments

From the linked editorial: Yet, when Mr. Obama opened his general election campaign this week with a major speech on Middle East policy, the substantive strategy he outlined was, in many respects, not very much different from that of the Bush administration -- or that of Republican Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).

Hiatt's point -- that both Obama and McCain are equally hawkish -- is his way of saying that if you as a voter are inclined to vote for Obama, then a vote for McCain will be just as good.

The theme fits perfectly with McCain adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin's assertion that Obama -- not McCain -- would manifest the dreaded third Bush term.

Posted by Clive A. | June 7, 2008 11:23 AM

There is less at stake in this November's election than in any general election since 1976.

And as with 1976, there is an excellent case to be made that Democrats and progressives would be much better off with a loss than with a win.

Of course, given Matthew's consistent jihad to see the progressive cause weakened so he can vote for Republicans like Mitt Romney and Mike Bloomberg, it's not too surprising to see him asserting stakes in this November's election that simply aren't there.

Posted by Petey | June 7, 2008 11:27 AM

Come on Matt, Bush and Obama both have 2 arms and 2 legs. They're totally the same.

Posted by mbuchel | June 7, 2008 11:38 AM

And as with 1976, there is an excellent case to be made that Democrats and progressives would be much better off with a loss than with a win.

I remember some chucklewits making that same argument back in 2000, once it was becoming obvious that the economy was heading into recession.

You forgot to mention either trustfunds or scumbaginess in you post.

Posted by daveNYC | June 7, 2008 11:47 AM

And as with 1976, there is an excellent case to be made that Democrats and progressives would be much better off with a loss than with a win.

And again, there's a tell about where Petey's sympathies lie: with the Southern conservatives.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | June 7, 2008 11:50 AM

Presumably it's better to be breathless, as Mr. Hiatt characterizes the American Prospect, than mindless, as most observers would characterize his editorials.

Posted by Gene O'Grady | June 7, 2008 11:51 AM

"I remember some chucklewits making that same argument back in 2000, once it was becoming obvious that the economy was heading into recession."

I thought (and continue to think) that 2000 was a highly consequential general election, which is why I referenced 1976 rather than 2000 as a similar situation to 2008.

Seriously, does anyone really think the left wouldn't have been off with a loss in '76 rather than a win? Usually, you win by winning. But there are always exceptions that prove the rule.

Posted by Petey | June 7, 2008 11:56 AM

Depends on how you think Ford would have dealt with the Panama Canal handover and the Iranian hostage situation. Some of Carter's choices weren't the best, but things could have been much worse.

Posted by daveNYC | June 7, 2008 12:30 PM

Before Spack gets to it, it's worth noting that by dint of being able to breathe through his nose, Fred Hiatt wasn't breathless when he deep-throated Bush's war policy. Yes, Fred Hiatt chugs neocon cock.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 7, 2008 12:35 PM

"...produce a diplomatic agreement to achieve verifiable nuclear disarmament in Iran."

Matt, you can't "disarm" if you're not "armed" to begin with. The War Party has produced no evidence of any Iranian program to build a nuclear weapon. (See the 2007 Iran NIE.) The establishment's ignoring of the NIE illustrates the cynic's rule that commissions and reports are actually produced to validate decisions already made and not to produce information to help our leaders make informed decisions. Those commissions and reports that make honest conclusions are simply ignored. The Iran NIE is being ignored for just that reason.

I might also add that Iran is a party to an agreement to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. It's called the Non-proliferation treaty. Israel, which posesses a nuclear arsenal, has refused to sign the treaty.

Posted by Bob Weber | June 7, 2008 1:16 PM

There is less at stake in this November's election than in any general election since 1976.

Without going into the merits here, I'll just note that this message of substantive non-contrast that we're getting from Hiatt and now Petey originates with the McCain campaign. McCain has copied Obama's slogan and his graphic design. He's offering himself as a more experienced, more bipartisan, and more risk-averse (!) version of Obama. A better man with the same agenda:

"Both Senator Obama and I promise we will end Washington's stagnant, unproductive partisanship. But one of us has a record of working to do that and one of us doesn't. Americans have seen me put aside partisan and personal interests to move this country forward. They haven't seen Senator Obama do the same."

It's preposterous, but that message does seem to be finding resonance with the usual suspects, even in supposedly progressive places.

Posted by southpaw | June 7, 2008 1:21 PM

I love the tactic. Instead of just trying to generate some seperation between himself and Bush, he's laying out a complete line of BS about how he's just like Obama. Big lie for the win.

Posted by daveNYC | June 7, 2008 1:35 PM

Just to make sure we're all on the same page, the dispute between the US and Iran is as follows:

Iran wants, and as a sovereign nation has a right that is expressly not removed by the NPT, to enrich uranium. A nation that enriches uranium has the theoretical ability to produce nuclear weapons at some point in the future using the same technology. This theoretical ability in itself has strategic value and there is no way to read the NPT as requiring signatories to give up this theoretical ability.

The United States wants Iran to give up this theoretical ability, but all of the leverage that the US could trade for Iran's giving up this ability it wants to save to pressure Iran to changing other policies, meaning the policies of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and generally working against what Iran would consider a defeat for Islam, which would be accepting a Jewish state and that Muslim refugees cannot return to the war zone from which they were expelled because of their religion/ethnicity.

So as long as the US wants Iran to give up enrichment for free - or nearly for free, the current offer is spare airplane parts and "talks" with no committed outcome - Iran will not give up enrichment.

Rice is actually right that the problem is not that Iran doesn't know what the US is willing to offer, everyone knows what the US is willing to offer - airplane parts and talks. The problem is that Iran does not accept the offer and the US is not willing to offer more.

If "talks" is a shorthand for offering more than what everyone knows is on the table then that has the real cost of removing leverage that was put in place to punish Iran for supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and generally opposing Zionism. Bush is certainly not willing to pay that cost. Is Obama? During the campaign he seems to be saying no, but he isn't as hemmed into that position as McCain.

The choice is between putting more on the table than is there already, or watching Iran gain the theoretical ability to create a weapon, which will in itself have some, not overwhelming but real, long-term strategic implications in itself.

Europe's recent clarification of the offer is interesting, since I'm here. They are not disclosing the new terms and the terms have not leaked yet. Also, there is a delay in actually presenting the terms to Iran. Solana could have gone last month but is waiting for something, and it is not clear what. The best guess is that there are negotiations that Europe at least thinks may actually lead to an acceptable arrangement.

Indications are though, that negotiations are going on now. I can't see how this would be plausible unless Europe is indicating that it can commit to domestic Iranian enrichment. Without that there would be nothing to talk about and Iran would have taken delivery of and rejected the offer by now.

I read the most recent uptick in threatening language from the US and Israel as designed to increase pressure on Iran during these negotiations. If the US thought it could attack Iran, it would have been acting a lot differently for the past couple of years. But the US apparently still thinks there is a benefit to threatening to attack even if the Iranians aren't afraid of the threats.

So as has already been pointed out, Iran has no nuclear arms to disarm, verifiably or not. Iran insists on being theoretically "nuclear capable" and I doubt giving that up is up for discussion. I've read Iran would need 1500 pounds of low enriched uranium make enough highly enriched for a bomb and has 500 pounds so far. I'd guess Europe is proposing a schedule by which Iran slows its stockpiling of low enriched uranium, but details will emerge sooner or later.

The US' fundamental disagreement with Iran, as with essentially all of the Muslims in the region, including Sadr and the Shiites of Lebanon, is over the acceptability of Israel as an ethnically Jewish state which requires denying a right to return to Palestinian refugees.

As long as the US' primary regional objective is ensuring the viablity and security of Israel's ethnic composition, there really is not much the US can do with Iran that it is not doing now. It can't offer to end or even lessen sanctions while Iran is still supporting Hamas for example. Given that objective, Bush has actually pursued a reasonable foreign policy - as Olmert reminded us when he publicly thanked Bush for the invasion and occupation of Iraq which are bringing stability to the region.

Obama and McCain are no longer pointing to specific policy differences in the Middle East because unless one commits to a different primary objective, there really reasonably can be no specific policy differences.

Posted by Arnold Evans | June 7, 2008 2:40 PM

Spack's response is up.

Posted by southpaw | June 7, 2008 2:53 PM

"Depends on how you think Ford would have dealt with the Panama Canal handover and the Iranian hostage situation. Some of Carter's choices weren't the best, but things could have been much worse."

Democrats lost 50 House seats and 15 Senate seats in the '78 and '80 elections.

Despite having a very favorable Congress for progressive action during his first two years, Carter's only legislative accomplishments were in rightward leaning deregulation that paved the ground for Reagan's shift to the right.

And Carter singlehandedly devastated the Democratic brand for more than a decade, again paving the ground for Reagan's shift to the right.

Frankly, I fail to see how things could have been anywhere near as bad for the left if Ford had won, let alone actually worse for the left.

-----

Again, usually you really do win by winning. 1976 is the only post-Watergate Presidential election where the left would've been better off with the Democrats losing. But 2008 has a bizarre number of parallels with 1976 - a moderate Republican running against a politically weak Democrat who stands against progressive causes for a term during which economic times are likely to be hard.

Given the lack of policy at stake between Obama and McCain, and given the likely negative political fallout from an Obama win, I think there is a real likelihood that this is one of those rare years where the left would win by the Democratic candidate losing.

Posted by Petey | June 7, 2008 3:17 PM

Matt: "It's not clear if the Bush-McCain policy is going to lead to war (as a literal read of their rhetoric would suggest)..."

Oh, yeah?

Daniel Pipes just said in an interview that if Obama wins in November, Bush will attack Iran in November. If McCain wins, Bush will "punt" and let McCain take the blame for the Iran war.

Also, Matt is wrong yet again. Obama's policy on Iran really isn't significantly different from either Bush or McCain except in how long he will dither with "diplomacy" (read: aggressive sanctions) because it begins with the exact same wrong premises. Whether it begins with the same Cheney greed for Iranian oil is another matter.

But as long as Obama thinks "Iran is a threat" and as long as Obama thinks "I will do anything to save Israel", Obama is going to end up at war with Iran just like Bush or Cheney.

He'll simply take a little longer to get there. McCain will bomb Iran in the first six months of his administration. Clinton would have done it in the first year. Obama may take a year or more to get to it.

But he will get to it.

Because he thinks Iran is a "threat" - just like Matt does, but Matt doesn't have the balls to say so like Obama. So Matt mutters about "verifiable nuclear disarmament" like he's some kind of Ronald Reagan ("trust but verify") bullshitter.

There is ZERO evidence that Iran has or ever did have a nuclear weapons program. If Matt or Obama had any clue, they would know this. The degree of ignorance and disingenuousness on the part of these clowns is pathetic.

BTW, Arnold Evans will be publicly recognizing that I was right here when Bush attacks Iran. I will be publicly recognizing he was right if Iran is not attacked by the time Obama or McCain is sworn in.

However, if McCain or Obama is sworn in, I will continue to say that Iran IS going to be attacked at some point. And with McCain, I'll be right by the end of next year. Obama, who knows?

And based on the existing rhetoric in the last couple days, it's still not clear if the Israelis are willing to take the blame for starting the war. They just had one of their ministers who's a candidate for Olmert's post state unequivocally that Israel WILL attack Iran if enrichment is not stopped.

It looks like the war is being held up to see if Olmert will be dumped by Israel, thus allowing one of the more right wing Israeli hawks to get in and start the war. This is Cheney's dream - to get Israel to start it, thus covering his and Bush's asses.

Timing is all important here. If they start the war too soon, it could jeopardize the November elections. If they start it too late, McCain may not get his "war bounce" in time. They need to start it carefully - maybe just a couple air strikes on so-called "insurgent camps" in Iran - just enough to get a poll bounce for McCain, but not enough to cause Iran to launch all-out retaliation which might be bad.

This is why Pipes is saying Bush will wait - but I think Pipes is wrong. Bush and Cheney know that the Republicans need that war bounce before the elections. OTOH, Bush and Cheney's primary goal is to insure that the war starts no matter what, so as to tie the hands of the incoming administration, no matter who it is, and insure that the war and oil profiteering continue no matter what happens in Iraq under a new administration.

So it could go either way - either just before or just after the elections.

And if Israel decides to launch it, they will do it on their own timetable. But they are likely to consider the impact on the elections as well - they don't want Obama in office if they can help it.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 5:01 PM

And Matt yet again demonstrates that he doesn't know what the current US policy on Iran is. I'd think this would be embarrassing for a foreign policy expert. Failing to recognize the difference between the fevered imagination of Sy Hersh and the actual facts in the world would ordinarily be a disqualification for that self-aggrandizing label, but Matt has no shame.

Posted by Thomas | June 7, 2008 5:15 PM

You know that guy who defeated my idol John Edwards?

There is still time to get 'im, and make him pay!

All we have to do, is strategically vote for John McCain, that would be the very best thing that could happen to the liberal movement and the Democratic party!

There is no difference anyway between McCain and that guy anyway - but if that guy loses, the field will be clear for Edwards to win in 2012.

My idol Edwards thinks there's a difference. Clinton thinks there's a difference, but they don't feel the emotions that are boiling in the bottom of my heart about that guy.

Uggh, the amount I hate that man, I just want to spit at the monitor.

Posted by Either Arnold Evans or Petey | June 7, 2008 5:20 PM

"All we have to do, is strategically vote for John McCain"

I wouldn't vote for McCain. I don't think I could physically pull the lever. I'll either vote for Nader or Obama.

But I do think there's a pretty strong case to be made that the left would be better off with a McCain victory this November, as laid out upthread.

"they don't feel the emotions that are boiling in the bottom of my heart about that guy."

My emotional feelings about Obama are in the same place as my emotional feelings about John Kerry in 2004 - somewhere between neutral and favorable.

I tend not to dislike elected Democratic politicians, even ones like Obama who are pursuing courses that are disastrous to the left. I instead tend to dislike those forces in the Party that put them in a place where they can do damage, especially ones like Matthew who are willing to lie through their bared teeth to do so.

"You know that guy who defeated my idol John Edwards? There is still time to get 'im, and make him pay!"

I think Clinton killed Edwards, not Obama. She was the one who stole away the rural vote in Iowa that Edwards was counting on, not Obama. Not to mention the Edwards 'love child' tabloid sleaze stories in 2007 that the Clinton machine was directly responsible for.

If I were basing my politics on the type of grudges that seem to animate you, I would've become an Obama supporter the day that Edwards dropped out.

Posted by Petey | June 7, 2008 6:47 PM

And as with 1976, there is an excellent case to be made that Democrats and progressives would be much better off with a loss than with a win.

Yeah, the progressive benefits of (to take two examples of the countless policy differences between the center-left Dmeocrat and right-wing Republican running) 4 more years of massive deficits with no new progressive programs and Antonin Scalia as the median vote on the Supreme Court for at least a decade are immense!

Posted by Scott Lemieux | June 7, 2008 7:01 PM

Petey makes people laugh, you gotta admit!

"My emotional feelings about Obama are in the same place as my emotional feelings about John Kerry in 2004 - somewhere between neutral and favorable."

Yeah, right.

It's only Matt that you want to kill. We know.

Despite my dislike for Matt's shameless lack of balls and pathetic ignorance of the world, I don't hate him. I just want him to answer my two questions on Iran.

But I've given up expecting anything but bullshit from him from here out.

Loser.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 7, 2008 7:41 PM

wow, dick, calling the owner of the blog a "loser" does not a good guest make.

and there's got to be some joke tied up in your last name, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Posted by mencken | June 8, 2008 12:11 AM

The joke is that I'm in IT and I used to get kicked off BBS systems back in the '80's because the sysops thought it was a phony name by some hacker kid.

The other joke is that "Dick Hack" makes me sound like a Lorena Bobbitt survivor.

Happy now?

Meanwhile, Matt is a loser, at least as a "wannabe pundit". And anybody who takes his posts on Iran, Afghanistan or Pakistan seriously is a loser, too, by definition.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | June 8, 2008 6:26 AM

"wow, dick, calling the owner of the blog a "loser" does not a good guest make."

I have no opinion on whether or not Matt is a "loser" or not. What I do know is as follows:

He's a fucking scumbag who is willing to lie through his bared teeth to advance his career on the backs of folks without a big trust-fund like his.

He's a slimy Marty Peretz wannabe.

He's not someone any good Democrat should piss on if he were on fire.

Posted by Petey | June 8, 2008 6:46 AM

In conjunction with Kevin Garnett, I have been named an NBA all-star 11 times.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | June 8, 2008 11:55 AM