The New Republic

What I sense you subtly hinting at is that Obama speaks and thinks in blather. Did I deduce correctly? blather? I wish you'd write in broader strokes.

- miceelf

April 13, 2010 at 2:14pm

We get it: You don't like President Obama's foreign policy. Whether you're a prophet or a foolish gadfly like Horace Greeley attacking Lincoln as soft on slavery, only time will tell. So while we wait for events to bear you out, or not, would you please offer some actual policy proposals? Telling us what Obama is doing wrong ("everything") is worse than useless: it's boring. Please - pretty please, with cherries and everything - tell us what policies you would pursue, toward what ends, and how you expect those policies to produce the outcomes you desire. That would be both interesting and useful.

- rhubarbs

April 13, 2010 at 2:32pm

"But answer came there none." I certainly hope you are not holding your breath, rhubarbs.

- roidubouloi

April 13, 2010 at 3:56pm

Obama should call Netanyahu and find out what the Chinese promised Israel on Iran before Peretz jumps to any more conclusions. no time to provide the sources that reported on the senior Israeli military envoys that just visited China to discuss Iran. China then sent their blue-water navy to the Persian Gulf for the first time in almost six hundred years. (The U.S. and Chinese military are not talking since the U.S. announced arms sales to Taiwan.)

- K2K

April 13, 2010 at 4:43pm

Well, for starters Rhub, behind the scenes we should tell Iran if they ever test fire a nuke we will bomb them back to the stone ages (which, for much of Iran, is not very long ago). Second, we should, with all due haste, go on a massive crash course on every kind of energy beyond oil. Nuclear, solar, wind, you name it, huge tax credits and so on. Nothing would scare these mullahs more than sitting on an ocean of rapidly declining in value oil.

- blackton

April 13, 2010 at 4:45pm

Blackton, I would add a successful long range (alll of Europe) missile test. On the other hand, we did not do that to North Korea, and I can imagine the jokes about whether Obama has the spine to do it. I continue to question why Iran wants nuclear power for electricity when their geology is a) so earthquake-prone, and b) likely more conducive to geothermal. No one has ever tried to blow Iran's cover story apart.

- K2K

April 13, 2010 at 5:16pm

Does K2K assume that "China then sent their blue-water navy to the Persian Gulf" in coordination with the Israelis? If so, how is that?

- amidut

April 13, 2010 at 5:52pm

no amidut, just a coincidence that the Chinese navy announcement followed one of the Israeli military visits. I was wrong to infer any linkage. More likely the Saudis asked China to do so. The U.S. cannot do so because our militaries are not currently able to [officially] talk to each other. Maybe China just decided it was time to show up. Definitely a big deal. The Chinese buy from Israel, especially military and water irrigation technologies.

- K2K

April 13, 2010 at 6:17pm

rhubarbs "We get it: You don't like President Obama's foreign policy. Whether you're a prophet or a foolish gadfly like Horace Greeley attacking Lincoln as soft on slavery, only time will tell." But time is what we don't have. Waiting is no substitute for action.

- jdyer

April 13, 2010 at 6:19pm

And any specific action, other than making empty threats and telling various countries how awful they are (that's sure to work!), is just what Peretz never proposes. Because he has not a clue and knows that the moment he gets the least specific he is going to look like a jackass.

- roidubouloi

April 13, 2010 at 10:58pm

"But time is what we don't have. Waiting is no substitute for action." - jdyer And what action would that be? The tough talking neocons, of which Marty approves of very highly, had eight years to deal with Iran. They swaggered, thumped their chests, and made terrifying threats. In other words, they blew hot air at the mullahs, Marty Peretz style. Achievement? Doodly-squat. Obama has only been at it barely a year and Marty is writing idiot derisive commentary daily, nary an alternative policy solution. The same Marty that never once wrote a negative column during the the eight years of neocon blustery. On foreign policy, especially on Iran, Marty's credibility is shot. He knows it too, I think. He's just lashing out in frustration.

- scrubby

April 13, 2010 at 11:36pm

Blackton, I asked specifically about Syria, not Iran, though Marty has also offered no policies on Iran, either. And while I agree that what you propose should be done, neither of your ideas are likely to make any difference with Iran. First, warning of nuclear retaliation. For one thing, any back-door contact with Iran is a form of diplomatic engagement, which Marty condemns in all forms. More importantly, the United States has publicly declared its intention to respond in kind to any nuclear attack for more than 60 years, including a reiteration last week that mentioned Iran by name. If Tehran doesn't already understand that we will nuke them if they nuke us, no additional private warning will matter. Now, back-door communication with regime rivals, including specific warnings of nuclear retaliation, might be a good long-term investment. Here I include not only Green Movement leaders but also A'jad's rivals within the regime as well as leaders of opposing parties who favor the continuation of the clerical regime in its current form. Second, an energy Manhattan Project is a very good idea that cannot possibly affect Iranian behavior in the near term. We could start an energy independence crash program today - actually, we can't, as long as the Republican Party continues to exist - and our demand for petroleum would not decrease - would not even slow its rate of increase - for several years. And even then, world prices would not drop significantly, since falling prices would spur demand increases elsewhere and lead producers to reduce output. So the absolute worst-case scenario for Tehran would be the threat that maybe, but probably not, state revenue would begin to drop 5-10 percent a year, starting six or more years from now. I can imagine many, many things that would scare the Iranian regime more than that. As to an ABM demonstration against an Iranian missile test, what utter nonsense. No existing ABM system in the U.S. arsenal is yet particularly effective. This is a case where the only thing worse than not doing something is doing it and failing. No responsible American president would order an ABM demonstration for the simple reason that failure would demonstrate the limits of our defenses. And our best anti-missile systems are those in use and under development by the Navy, but a naval ABM demonstration against an Iranian test launch would likely require destroying the missile within Iranian airspace. That would be an act of war. And there are no conceivable circumstances in which it would make sense for our first act of war against Iran to be an ABM demonstration. If we must undertake armed aggression against Iran, it must be overwhelming and offensive in nature, not a defensive pinprick. An all-out arial campaign of many weeks that begins with strikes against Iranian air defenses and state command-and-control infrastructure, civilian and military, and that moves on to destroying in situ tactical air and naval resources and hitting as much of the nuclear research and production infrastructure as can be found. Any military action short of that is madness.

- rhubarbs

April 14, 2010 at 7:46am

I agree with rhubarbs that, if we are going to go to war with Iran, which is what any sort of sustained bombing campaign would mean, we would have to be severe to make the point, including degrading Iran's capacity for retaliation. But this merely illustrates why such a bombing campaign will never occur. If it did, oil supplies would be severely disrupted with an immediate effect on world oil prices and a lot of economic damage. Assuming that the end justified those losses, it would be much simpler, with far less collateral damage and potential for disaster, just to blockade Iran's oil exports. You can un-blockade; you can't un-bomb. Plus, this would leave open the possibility of a campaign of destruction if Iran did try to retaliate for the blockade. So, if we had the will to use force to stop Iran's nuclear program, the first step would be an oil blockade. That is going to require a lot of will, not to mention a lot of understanding from the international community because everyone will be feeling the pain. What Obama is doing now is trying to create a firm international consensus amongst the large powers, step by step, in order to give himself room for maneuver. That is by far the ONLY rational thing to do at this time, even though it is not guaranteed to work. For the present, every other alternative is much worse -- specifically including bluster and empty threats, Peretz's favorite tools and not only ineffective but completely counter-productive. This, of course, is what makes Peretz's criticism so uninformed, indeed fatuous. But then, uninformed and fatuous are pretty much all you need to know about Martin Peretz. The rest, as Hillel said, is just commentary.

- roidubouloi

April 14, 2010 at 9:20am

rhub, I said backdoor if Iran test fires, not bombs us. Draw a line in the sand much earlier. As to the blockade, that seems likely to be circumvented and would just rally the Iranian people around Ahmed this at a time when he is hanging by a thread, and hopefully soon a rope. "But time is what we don't have. Waiting is no substitute for action." This is at the heart of the matter. The US does have time, Israel doesn't. This is the central dilemma of our time, how do we (the US) balance out the possibility of hundreds of thousands (if not a million) Israelis being killed against the near certainty of tens of thousands of American soldiers killed and an economic catastrophe. And how does Israel balance that out as well. My own determination, wait until Iran test fires, is an American interest and tolerable for our own security, but absolutely intolerable (nay, even suicidal) for Israel. But if Israel were to pre-emptively strike (or we were) then Iran would not have shown its true intent (which is what a test fire would do) and we could never know if our threat to attack them if they test fire would have been effective. so I have no idea. I dunno, maybe we can arrange for Ahmed and Khatami to have a state visit to Smolensk to visit Katyn and conveniently arrange a plane crash? Oh, wait, that has been done.

- blackton

April 14, 2010 at 10:49am

Blackton, I did not suggest that an oil blockade would be appropriate at this time. It isn't, for many reasons, including the one you cite. However, an oil blockade is certainly what ought to be done before starting to bomb Iran. Hence, until the bomb, bomb advocates are prepared to discuss seriously the implications of a blockade and make the case that it is time to pay that price, the rest of their arguments should be ignored. They only evidence that they have not thought the problem through. And, no, a blockade of Iran's oil exports would not be evaded to any material extent. The mechanics of oil export from Iran render that impossible.

- roidubouloi

April 14, 2010 at 11:21am

roid, you might be right about it not being evaded, but Saddam had an endless supply of trucks going out and Saddam was viewed with much more antipathy by just about everyone. Would Pakistan do anything to adhere to a blockade? I just see an endless supply of oil going through Pakistan to China or up through Russia or Turkmenistan, or what have you. I simply don't trust any of these people. I am not saying no to a blockade, at the least it would send a clear message so I agree with you that that should be done before bombing.

- blackton

April 14, 2010 at 12:15pm

hmmm, what about China forcing Iran to sell all of Iran's oil to China (it is already at 40%), who then becomes the reseller, thus making Iran totally dependent on China? as an alternative to UN sanctions or a blockade. Make Iran's head spin at that twist on the Great Game.

- K2K

April 14, 2010 at 12:17pm

K2K, you have to admit, it is an extraordinarily interesting conundrum, it is a shame it has to be played out for real and is not just an intellectual exercise. oh rhub. sorry, as to Syria, I haven't got a clue. That is the reason I come here, to try to get one.

- blackton

April 14, 2010 at 12:23pm

blackton, and rhub: Syria is in the "When will he ever Learn" thread where I suggested Peretz read this for mind-numbing insight into the Syria-Lebanon-Hezbollah now has Scud missiles (?) conundrum: "Good days ahead for Hezbollah" By Sami Moubayed April 13, 2010 Asia Times where they really get into detail we do not see in Western media. http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/LD13Ak01.html In a different article, in case you thought all was ok in Pakistan, http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LD09Df02.html , it seems the Pakistani parliament has just renamed the Northwest Frontier Province to "Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa - meaning "Khyber side of the land of the Pakhtuns". This has been a long-standing demand of the Pashtuns who dominate the region but it has to date been resisted by the Pakistani establishment as being a part of a conspiracy to break up the country. Non-Pashtuns in the province immediately rioted and called for a general strike. There were reports of violence. " and that was the good news :)

- K2K

April 14, 2010 at 1:28pm

k2k, by the way some people do believe that that crash in Smolensk was arranged. I don't, but 10 years ago I would not have been so sure. Yes, you are right, humor can be a problem.

- blackton

April 14, 2010 at 2:19pm

The evasion, blackton, was mostly because of the inept manner in which the finances were handled so that Hussein had control over the customers and could receive kickbacks. You cannot transport enough crude oil by truck to make a big difference. It takes pipelines and oil tankers.

- roidubouloi

April 14, 2010 at 2:50pm

blackton: I confess that my first thought was that it was arranged until I read about the age of the plane and fog. must be all the NCIS, The Unit, and The West Wing re-runs I use for background noise since I stopped using NPR. the endless health care coverage had to be ignored due to my own experience with the U.S. 'system'.

- K2K

April 14, 2010 at 2:50pm

blackton, and by the way I doubt we actually disagree very much here, if one believes that Tehran is likely to launch a preemptive nuclear attack on Israel if it develops an a-bomb arsenal, then waiting until Iran tests an a-bomb makes no sense. At the point of a test detonation, Iran would already have an arsenal of at least several bombs. Besides, Iran could then threaten nuclear retaliation and thereby deter any foreign attack. An American president would have to be suicidally insane to order a conventional attack on a nuclear-armed state, and he'd have to be evil to order a nuclear attack in retaliation to any mere test detonation. This is why most assume that Israel's "red line" for triggering military action against Iran is very much on this side of an Iranian test detonation. If one believes an Iranian a-bomb will necessarily be used against Israel, then Israel must be prepared to gamble its existence on preventing Iran from getting the bomb. If one believes that military action can wait until after an Iranian test-detonation, then one does not actually believe that the Iranian nuclear threat warrants preemptive military action at all. Besides, Iran probably does not intend its nuclear arsenal for actual preemptive use against Israel. Most likely, Iran intends its nuclear arsenal for two purposes: deterring foreign aggression, and bolstering its bid for regional hegemony. Both of those objectives can be achieved equally well by the perception that Iran could build an a-bomb as by the fact that Iran has an a-bomb. So we would gain nothing by deterring Iran from testing a nuclear warhead; Iran can achieve the non-suicidal strategic benefits of going nuclear even if it never builds an a-bomb, as long as it convinces the world that it has in hand the material and expertise to assemble an a-bomb. So if we wish to deny Iran from achieving those benefits, then we must be prepared to take military action long before Iran has a working a-bomb to test. (Since only an invasion can actually guarantee prevention, rather than merely delaying Iran's nuclear timetable, any serious advocate of prevention ought to be advocating for the immediate massive expansion of the armed forces, by at least 2 million new recruits by 2012, along with a huge investments in rapid troop transport and forward-basing infrastructure, and the taxes to pay for all of it. Probably also a draft. That no one, not even the Krautiest of the Krauthammer Brigade, advocate for any of the preparations that would make invasion even remotely possible is evidence that the president's domestic critics know they're just blowing smoke.)

- rhubarbs

April 14, 2010 at 5:54pm

no big arguments rhub, except I would try to go with selective assassination first before an invasion. As I said, I dunno the answer, and it gets all circular after a while. Wait to bomb than it becomes too late, don't wait to bomb than it might have been too early with way too high a cost.

- blackton

April 14, 2010 at 6:50pm

for everyone's reading pleasure on this subject, Bret Stephens at foreignaffairs.com on "Trading Sanctions for Settlements: Obama Needs a new Mideast Policy". TNR's spam filter will not allow the link, it is at RealClearWorld this morning.

- K2K

April 15, 2010 at 8:02am

I agree, blackton, and I notice that Iran's nuclear scientists have been experiencing fatal accidents and defecting in disproportionate numbers relative to all Iranians. So presumably someone is on the ball. Mainly, I'm just skeptical of our ability to determine outcomes in this case. I tend to worry that because the military action we could undertake is not likely to achieve our goals, therefore we need to plan on the assumption that whatever our fallback is will have to come to pass. That probably means containment and deterrence, though planning for deterrence should not prevent us from working toward prevention now. But if one does not believe that military action is likely to succeed, then one will have a hard time approving of military action. I would in all honesty rather Iran develop an a-bomb in the absence of an American attack than Iran develop an a-bomb after an American attack. I'm much more afraid of the consequences of demonstrating the limits of American power than of demonstrating the limits of American determination. Implicit in Marty's rants on the subject is the belief that America can determine all outcomes. In other words, our power is infinite if only we have the will to use it. That's a dangerous, and ultimately conspiratorial, way of thinking, which is why I'm so interested in learning what alternative policy Marty would prefer. Does he really, as seems implicit in his commentary, believe that the president has some magic wand he can wave to make the Iranian nuclear program disappear? Or does he understand that our power to determine outcomes that depend on others' actions is limited, but Marty sees ways to leverage what power we do have to greater effect? This is why I want to know what outcome Marty wishes to achieve, what policies he would implement to achieve it, and how he believes those policies would produce that outcome.

- rhubarbs

April 15, 2010 at 9:18am

hey K2K, I found this very amusing email this morning: It was brought to our attention by another TNR subscriber that in a recent post and thread, you used profane language in several of your comments. We very much appreciate your subscription and your contributions to the discussions on tnr.com, but we have to ask you to please refrain from using profanity and issuing personal attacks generally in your comments. We encourage smart, constructive and spirited ideas and opinions – we just want our community to use appropriate language. Thank you, Mike Rancilio Publisher/Chief Operating Officer The New Republic and TNR.com This is so funny. Yes, I am now sent to my room without dinner. I honestly can't imagine what the person who complained was thinking, that I would now be banned? I admitted then I shouldn't get in pissing matches (oops, is piss a bad word?) but if anyone thinks I am going to be afraid to express my opinion they are nuts. And yes, if someone labels me a bigot (without cause) I will tell them to go to hell regardless of any policy.

- blackton

April 15, 2010 at 11:09am

blackton, I would assume that TNR.R complained, which is totally unfair, and we should all send that thread to whoever is now trying to be tnr.com's moderator. But, we have to defend you, because this type of moderator will only keep track of complaints, without evidence, enabling personal vendettas from those who are the ones under 'attack'. This is actually a big issue on blogs, which is why tnr.com should have someone actually reading these blog comments. alas, I actually have to leave my 'bunker' soon, and drive to New York, so can not take action at the moment or maybe for 48 hours. post this on the blogpost where it happened (No American Troops?)

- K2K

April 15, 2010 at 1:05pm

Good thing that I never read emails from The New Republic. My email filter sends them to the junk box, which I never ever peek into. I guess that email would teach you to desist from your drunken sailor language, blackie.

- scrubby

April 15, 2010 at 1:29pm

K2K, I ain't sweating it since it has pretty much zero repercussions in my actual life. Have a good trip. I hate NY during the week, such a hassle. hey scrubby, can you imagine if every cuss word or flame war was reported around here? I noticed you said Doodly-squat above, the horror. It would be no fun unless we all busted on each other now and again. I don't think it has anything to do with language, just that some people don't like to be forcefully disagreed with. If I say something stupid I have no problem with being called out on it. The good thing about the vast majority of the posters here is we don't take it personally. And really, why would anyone? I have no problem with your labeling Marty's post as idiotic derisive commentary because it is what you believe, to tone it down would be to remove it of its essential honesty. But it is not just the honesty, it is the engagement. At the end of the day the quality of the posters here is far better than in most other blogs. I never comment at places like the Daily Beast because there is no real engagement, people just yell past each other.

- blackton

April 15, 2010 at 2:33pm

Speaking of the Daily Beast, blackie, you won't believe who I found in their talkback aisle: our very own chan himself. Over there, based on the comment he wrote about the President, he seemed to have tacked very hard Right. His post had a very sour and viscous tone to it, kinda teabag-ish. Shocked the hell out of me. I know he was right wing here, but he also had a respectable quality. Nothing like his Daily Beast persona. He got beat up pretty badly over there, though.

- scrubby

April 15, 2010 at 9:47pm

hi. still intend to defend your honor to the moderator, blackton, would not want you blocked from tnr. yes, this is a rare place "where intellects collide". am still visualizing that slogan. roller derby of brains? just watched part of Jim Webb's "Rules of Engagement", ultimate visual example of the use of human shields. I wonder what Senator Webb thinks of what is going on between Obama and Israel.

- K2K

April 15, 2010 at 10:33pm

typo alert!!! I meant "vicious", "not viscous". chan couldn't have written a sticky post.

- scrubby

April 16, 2010 at 12:01am

The complaint shows bad judgment, at the very least. Blackton, I hope you did not take it to heart. A rap across the knuckles can hurt even when undeserved.

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 1:21pm

Or perhaps I should say, especially when it is undeserved.

- noga1

April 17, 2010 at 1:54pm

"Now what?" SecDef Gates just changed the conversation again, via an anonymous leak of Gates' memo about military strategy re: Iran in the Sunday April 18 NYT. May Peretz emerge from his cone of silence by Monday.

- K2K

April 17, 2010 at 11:23pm

Oh, what a surprise! There is no military strategy for dealing with Iranian nuclearization? But surely Bush and Cheney must have left one in a file for Obama. How can this be? The image of Peretz in his "cone of silence" is so apt. Maybe he will call us on his shoe phone on Monday and explain just what set of violent tactics will bring Iran to heel without a conflagration. Or maybe the Seer will tell us what other set of non-violent tactics will solve this problem. Not very likely, is it? He has not a clue about what to do, only an irritable bowel that he insists upon sharing with the world -- when he is not in his cone of silence, that is.

- roidubouloi

April 18, 2010 at 9:49am

"SecDef Gates just changed the conversation again," "All in all, it was a productive day for Robert Gates. Among his other discoveries: 1. Roses are red and violets are blue. 2. Pentagon building is called this way since it has 5 sides. 3. We sure like to know what them Russkies are doing in Guatemala. Or is it Kamchatka? And the day is not over yet. Update:Gates found the strategy. "I've looked in the wrong drawer", he explains. " http://simplyjews.blogspot.com/2010/04/robert-gates-us-lacks-strategy-on-iran.html

- noga1

April 23, 2010 at 9:38pm