SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home "Susan Doesn't Suffer Fools." On the Other Hand, She Says...

THE SPINE OCTOBER 17, 2009

"Susan Doesn't Suffer Fools." On the Other Hand, She Says Many Stupid Things.

BY MARTIN PERETZ

The Susan in question is Susan Rice. And, according to a New York Times article by Neil MacFarquhar, it's Stewart Patrick who gives her the good grades. Rice is U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. So who is Patrick? He is one of those hundreds of I.R. wonks in Washington who moves from fellowship to fellowship, eating up foundation money, and ends up being an expert in what actually amounts to nothing or maybe, just maybe, the same thing: "multilateral cooperation in the management of global issues; U.S. policy toward international institutions, including the United Nations; the challenges posed by fragile, failing, and post-conflict states; and the integration of U.S. defense, development, and diplomatic instruments in U.S. foreign and national security policy; the intersection between security and development, with a particular focus on the relationship between weak states and transnational threats and on the policy challenges of building effective institutions of governance in fragile settings..."

I won't torture you any longer. But rest assured: There's a lot more of the same junk in the bio put out by the Center for American Progress. Still, he has only himself to blame, being the Times source who called Ms. Rice a "multitasking workaholic ... [who] doesn't suffer fools." It isn't that she doesn't suffer fools gladly. She doesn't suffer fools, just plain and simple. How intolerant!

Yet the real problem is Ms. Rice's. No, forget about her passivist role in the Rwanda genocide. And forget also about her covert cooperation, when she was assistant secretary of state for African affairs, with Jesse Jackson in trying to rescue Liberian tyrant Charles Taylor from justice. Let's just look at now. Or, actually, the last nine months.

Even before the president was inaugurated, she was, quite properly, being vetted by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Rice was disappointed that she hadn't been given the big job at State. But the president had bigger fish to fry. So he gave State to Hillary, where she's been eating her heart out ever since. Adlai Stevenson graciously took from JFK the U.N. mission (not, by the way, the U.N. embassy, as Mrs. Clinton erroneously continues to label it) while Dean Rusk, a safe little nothing, got Foggy Bottom. Still, Rice is on the tube quite a bit. There are so many U.N. extravaganzas that she can't help but be. Her key word is "engagement." We'll engage with them ... and with them ... and with them, too.

This is not exactly her fault. Obama also likes to engage. Actually, engaging may be his favorite activity. He's engaged Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, the International Olympic Committee, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Palestinians, Skip Gates and that Cambridge cop ... Only with Skip and Sergeant Crowley did he reach some agreement, though it was lubricated by beer, which wouldn't have worked with the king. (You know which king). With every one of these others, save the professor and the policeman, he has flopped, and the American people are catching on. Oops, I just read that the administration is about to try a liaison with Sudan after not having tried anything real against Sudan. "Save Darfur." That was a fantasy. Another betrayal. What does my respected and intellectually meticulous human rights crusader Samantha Power say about this? She sure had something to say about Susan Rice and Rwanda. The truth is that I am afraid to ask, although Ms. Rice would not be afraid to answer. The Obama crowd possesses the conceit that they are so thoroughly humane that even what looks like their cruelty is a virtue. Is this another concession to each and every one of the Arab states which have been not just cosseting Khartoum but actively backing it? I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

The alibi of "engagement" has nowhere been more strongly mobilized than with the administration's decision to become a member of the U.N. Human Rights Council (UNHRC). Our engagement would improve everything. Read for the words "engage" or "engagement" as the solution to our isolation at the United Nations and the UNHRC.

Well, the last few months have been a test case. Even before any sessions on the Goldstone Commission had been convened and without a minute's work being done, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, a South African woman named Navi Pillay, had already condemned Israel as guilty. I kid you not. While the commission's labors were so poisonously jaundiced against Israel, it at least did point to a few human rights violations committed by Hamas. But, when the resulting resolution came before the Council, there was not a single mention of Hamas. This was a substantial test of American engagement and what it could or could not accomplish. The truth is that it accomplished nothing. So the motion that came up indicted only Israel ... and Hamas was held culpable for nothing.

Perhaps ashamed, Ambassador Rice has not commented on the exposure of her engagement certainties. Let's be candid: These are not only stupid, but wicked. Not a one of them has worked, and I suspect that she never really thought they would.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 84 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

84 comments

First, I voted for the guy, and I need to keep reminding myself where we'd be if McCain had won as I read about the stuff Marty describes. Has anyone since George Washington come into that job with unfettered ability to place only he most honest, talented people to work in every important appointed position? If Marty did not think that Susan Rice was not going to have have some post within an Obama administration where she would be in a position to piss him off every five minutes, he was and is a fool. Onward with being generous, the President is on the verge of committing his country, much of it unwillingly, to a war in which kids now in fourth grade will see combat. I am going to assume he is going to make as many allies, or defuse as many enemies, pests and nuisances about which he can do nothing anyway, in the interests of keeping them from helping those who are and will be killing our soldiers as they try to do what no one since Alexander the Great has done— convince Afghan tribesmen they can't win. The president is too bright to think that George Mitchell is going to bring anything else home from the Middle East other than frequent flier miles. That too is to buy some peace from some small faction their while he takes care of business he thinks he can take care of. Israelis do well to be cynical about the Administration's new affiliations. If there is anything to be learned about this Administration's foreign policy strategy, it is that in almost all things, it displays a sign on its backside that says "Kick me." We'll see what happens when someone actually really does kick, be it the compatriots of Mr. Zazi of New York & Denver, Kadaffi's plane hijackers, or the Great Leader's missile handlers. Until then, they can be satisfied they buy a few years' peace every time they effectively defend themselves against those who shoot rockets from the rooftops and front yards of their mothers, aunts, and daughters. They know that for the foreseeable future the problem they and the United States and its allies (is Italy still and ally?) face is one that can only be managed, and not solved.

- Shane Fergessen

October 17, 2009 at 3:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In the past I've accused Marty of "pimping" the Darfur genocide because 95% of the times he wrote about it, he used it to attack Sudan's Arab enablers or highlight the immoral hypocricy of Israel's critics -- two points I agree with. This column is another illustration: on the day after President Obama abandoned yet another campaign promise and announced an appeasement policy on Darfur ( http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/17/world/africa/17sudan.html?_r=1&em ), one in which by all accounts Susan Rice fought hard to oppose, he picks this moment to attack her -- because the UN Human Rights Commission has its sights trained on Israel (as usual). Marty, Susan Rice doesn't make our foreign policy. Hillary Clinton doesn't make our foreign policy. We know you literally hate both of these individuals, but the responsibility resides in the man you championed -- address your poison pen there. Meanwhile, for the first time this year the words "Obama is an appeaser" have meaning.

- Lymon1

October 17, 2009 at 3:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's what I mean: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jul/31/two-obama-aides-clash-over-policy-for-sudan/print/ and http://www.enoughproject.org/blogs/gration-news Yet Marty implies it was RICE responsible for the policy change he links to. Here's a thought: why doesn't Marty overcome his fear of asking the almighty Samantha Power and Cass Sunstein why they sold themselves out for status as Obama advisors and stayed mum during this debate. The so called "genocide chick" didn't have a word to say. So Marty work on your question-asking-courage instead of spending your time deceiving people about Susan Rice.

- Lymon1

October 17, 2009 at 4:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

". . . it at least did point to a few human rights violations committed by Hamas" I'd give them a little more credit. The following is taken directly from the report, as part of a wider description of Hamas rocket attacks from Gaza: 108. The Mission has determined that the rockets and, to a lesser extent, mortars, fired by the Palestinian armed groups are incapable of being directed towards specific military objectives and were fired into areas where civilian populations are based. The Mission has further determined that these attacks constitute indiscriminate attacks upon the civilian population of southern Israel and that where there is no intended military target and the rockets and mortars are launched into a civilian population, they constitute a deliberate attack against a civilian population. These acts would constitute war crimes and may amount to crimes against humanity. Given the seeming inability of the Palestinian armed groups to direct the rockets and mortars towards specific targets and given the fact that the attacks have caused very little damage to Israeli military assets, the Mission finds that there is significant evidence to suggest that one of the primary purposes of the rocket and mortar attacks is to spread terror amongst the Israeli civilian population, a violation of international law. And "deliberate" in the sentence about attacks deliberately targeting civilians is emphasized in the orginal formatting, so I think it's somewhat stronger than just pointing.

- ironyroad

October 17, 2009 at 4:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Lymon1: "We know you literally hate both of these individuals . . ." And let's not forget Mary Robinson!

- ironyroad

October 17, 2009 at 5:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"They know that for the foreseeable future the problem they and the United States and its allies (is Italy still and ally?) face is one that can only be managed, and not solved." Tell me though who the hell can possibly solve it? Lymon, the same question can be asked of you. The American people simply have no stomach for a war in the Sudan, nothing short of war will stop it. You are talking about a bunch of Arab mercenaries on horseback raping and pillaging remote herdsmen villages, short of war I don't see a solution. What you call appeasement is simply what Americans want. And you know damn sure Isolation won't work, not with the Chinese parked there with billions of dollars. I admire your sympathy, but lets face it, getting on a high horse about it means jackshit, pretending McCain, or Clinton, or Huckabee, or any other potential President would do a damn thing is just wrong. The US simply can't be the world's policeman, as much as you and I would like them to be. Would I love us to bomb the shit out of Khartoum, sure. Would it do any good? Almost certainly not.

- blackton

October 17, 2009 at 5:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, let's not forget the lost honour of Mary Robinson, the dainty human rights saint with her impeccable credentials and her self-effacing and sanctimonious smile, unfairly sullied by the touch of that pugilistic thug such as Peretz. "...for many in the human rights community, they hear Durban, Mary Robinson, Human Rights, UN, and their knees go wobbly; for others of us, we hear Durban – and all associated with it – and our stomachs get queasy. What motivated me from the start was a fear that Durban was being sanitized, that as Mary Robinson collects doctorates from North American universities, her leadership at Durban is being listed on her resume as a plus -- when it was anything but, and the conference itself was not a plus. " http://www.giltroy.com/zionismandisrael/stoptryingtosanitizedurban.htm

- noga1

October 17, 2009 at 6:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Or, perhaps: "Fools don't suffer Susan." On the other hand, they say many stupid things about her. See how it works? These fusilades of self righteous indignation are virtually interchangable in the minds of The True Believers. Now, personally, I don't know if Ms. Rice thinks of herself as one of those. But I have almost no doubt whatsoever that Marty does. Unless, of course, I'm wrong. So, I'm not one of them, am I? Let's face it, for some in The Spine, being Ambassador to the U.N. under Obama is like being a member of Hamas. So, Susan doesn't really stand a chance with them, does she? Well, does she? george

- iambiguous

October 17, 2009 at 6:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Jack I answered your post on Wood's intro.

- basman

October 17, 2009 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"...Perhaps ashamed, Ambassador Rice has not commented on the exposure of her engagement certainties. Let's be candid: These are not only stupid, but wicked. Not a one of them has worked, and I suspect that she never really thought they would." I don't know. Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

- malahat

October 17, 2009 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another not so subtle antisemitic post by the unambiguous and ignorant autodidact George Walton.

- jacksondyer

October 17, 2009 at 8:53pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the other hand, this appears to be malice that can't be explained by stupidity. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121643.html

- malahat

October 17, 2009 at 9:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Getting back to what matters, to Marty’s wordy and meandering but important post on reactions to Goldstone’s report: “Well, the last few months have been a test case. Even before any sessions on the Goldstone Commission had been convened and without a minute's work being done, the U.N. high commissioner for human rights, a South African woman named Navi Pillay, had already condemned Israel as guilty. I kid you not.” Navi Pillay is not the only member of the commission that had prejudged Israel guilty. In any case, I wouldn’t expect fairness from a South African representative when their deputy foreign minister recently accused the Jews of controlling the economy of the world. She later changed it to the Zionists after a complaint was filed against her in South Africa by the Jewish community there: ““The control of America, just like the control of most Western countries, is in the hands of Jewish money and if Jewish money controls their country then you cannot expect anything else.” These words were spoken by South Africa’s Deputy Foreign Minister, Fatima Hajaig, at a Palestinian solidarity rally organized by the Cosatu trade union federation in the town of Lenasia on January 14th. Jewish leaders in South Africa have now lodged a complaint of hate speech against her. Wendy Kahn of the South African Jewish Board of Deputies correctly declared: “Deputy Minister Fatima Hajaig had crossed all limits.”” http://blog.z-word.com/2009/01/south-african-deputy-foreign-minister-jewish-money-controls-america/ Then there is a British member of the commission who: “Prof. Christin Chinkin, Prof. of Law at the London School of Economics, published an open letter in the "The Times" on January 11, 2009, stating: "Israel's bombardment of Gaza is not self-defence-it's a war crime…The rocket attacks on Israel by Hamas deplorable as they are, do not, in terms of scale and effect amount to an armed attack entitling Israel to rely on self-defence… Israel's actions amount to aggression, not self-defence." This letter was published one day before the UN Council on Human Rights decided to appoint a commission (Resolution S-9/1).” In reaction, “50 British and Canadian lawyers signed an open letter, with the UN Watching Group,against the nomination of Prof. C.Chinkin to the commission, stating that her nomination "compromise the integrity of this inquiry and its report". Even “Judge Goldsone admitted on an interview to the "South African Business Day", in August 2009, that she would be disqualified to be appointed to a formal judicial inquiry.” http://rslissak.com/content/information-members-goldstone-commission-drrslissak Goldstone himself has distanced himself somewhat from the consequences of the report but he had done so in a hypocritical manner saying different things to different audiences. http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/18547/what-about-hamas/ See also this comment: http://rabbibrant.com/2009/10/01/reading-goldstone/

- jacksondyer

October 17, 2009 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." I like this, bl462. Some contemporary thinker, can't remember the name, said that we need a history of the world from the perspective of the stupid decisions and actions taken by officials of various kinds.

- jacksondyer

October 17, 2009 at 9:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks for the links, Jackson. I also think that the fact the UK and France abstained from voting at the UNHRC against Goldstone's travesty hasn't gotten either the attention or the disgust it merits.

- malahat

October 17, 2009 at 10:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity." I like this, bl462. Some contemporary thinker, can't remember the name, said that we need a history of the world from the perspective of the stupid decisions and actions taken by officials of various kinds. " "Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity" is paraphrase of "Hanlon's Razor" A variant is "Cock-up before conspiracy", attributed to Bernard Ingham. Another one attributed to Albert Einstein is that "The only things that are infinite are the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the universe".

- malahat

October 17, 2009 at 10:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

blackton - much as I miss your false dichtomies (really, I do, I wish I had more time for tnr online and hopefully will after some work clears up next year) and misquotes (um, I didn't write the line you quote), um, yes, something short of war could stop it, just like something short of war stopped Saddam Hussein from invading other countries. Unless you called those rinky-dink 1992-2003 engagements "war." But this misses the points of this post. First, Obama's act represents nothing less than rewarding Sudan for their RECENT crimes: they called Obama's tough-talk bluff and in response to the ICC indictment predicted Obama would do nothing if they escalated the misery, so they did, then bartered partial relief in exchange for the reward they just received. It's a bit like if I broke your leg and then put it in a cast and claimed credit for healing you. Regardless, whether you blackton thought that Obama's pre-2009 rhetoric was wrong is all well and bad, but that's not the point of this post, which takes Marty at his word that he finds Obama's policy reversal abhorrent (and yes, a discussion of the merits of Darfur policy requires discussing China's influence there). Second, the main point was hypocrisy. Susan Rice by all reports fought the good fight against this policy change, but Marty implies the opposite (check out those links I posted, then re-read Marty's post and tell me that he hasn't conflated his history on Rwanda with the policy change in Darfur. Marty owes Rice an apology). And does he direct his venom for Rice at Samantha Power? Naw, instead he throws a cya line about how he's to afraid to ask the self-proclaimed "genocide chick" about it (by the way, it was Power who called Hillary Clinton, who reportedly also opposed Gration's policy, "a monster" right? ) and then uses Power to take an extra, vicarious dig at Susan Rice. And as I wrote, the person responsible for this change in policy is not Rice, or Hillary Clinton (who also was against it), or even Obama pal Scott Gration. It's President Obama himself -- funny how when the policy is Israel Marty usually gets that right (though even then I'll admit he sometimes seems to think Hillary Clinton is president...)

- Lymon1

October 17, 2009 at 11:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

“Goldstone Slams Human Rights Council for Ignoring Hamas” http://www.forward.com/articles/116987/ By Jack Khoury and Barak Ravid (Haaretz) “South African jurist Richard Goldstone, who headed a UN investigation commission into the conduct of Israel and the Palestinian group Hamas during Israel’s offensive in Gaza last winter, criticized on Friday the United Nations Human Rights Council’s decision to endorse the report his commission had compiled. The council on Friday endorsed the report which accused both Israel and the Palestinian militant group Hamas of committing war crimes during their December-January conflict in Gaza. Goldstone told the Swiss newspaper Le Temps before the vote that the wording of the resolution was unfortunate because it included only censure of Israel. He voiced hope that the Human Rights Council would alter the wording of the draft. In a special session Friday, 25 of the Human Rights Council’s members voted in favor of the resolution that chastised Israel for failing to cooperate with the UN mission led by Goldstone. Another 6 voted against and 11 abstained. The resolution agreed in Geneva simply calls for the UN General Assembly to consider the Goldstone report and for UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to report back to the Human Rights Council on Israel’s adherence to it. The report calls for the UN Security Council to refer the matter to the International Criminal Court if the Israelis or Palestinians fail to investigate the alleged abuses themselves. The countries that voted against the report included the U.S., Italy, Holland, Hungary, Slovakia and the Ukraine. China, Russia, Egypt, India, Jordan, Pakistan, South Africa, Argentina, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Bolivia, Ghana, Indonesia, Djibouti, Liberia, Qatar, Senegal, Brazil, Mauritius, Nicaragua and Nigeria voted in favor of the report. The abstaining countries included: Bosnia, Burkina-Faso, Cameron, Gabon, Japan, Mexico, Norway, Belgium, South Korea, Slovenia and Uruguay. Madagascar and Kyrgyzstan were not present during the vote. “This resolution goes far beyond even the initial scope of the Goldstone Report into a discussion of elements that should be resolved in the context of permanent status negotiations between the Palestinians and the Israelis,” US envoy to the UN Douglas Griffiths said, when explaining why his country was voting against the document. The US has said the report was unfair towards Israel, something Goldstone repeatedly denied, noting he investigated all sides of the conflict. France called on Friday to delay the UN Human Rights Council vote in Geneva regarding the adoption of the Goldstone Gaza Report by half an hour in a last-minute attempt to lobby allies to reject the report’s findings. The French delegates joined Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent diplomatic attempts to lobby European counterparts, including Holland, Spain and Denmark, to back Israel’s rejection of the report’s findings. Officials from Adalah - the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel - said the French representative in Geneva asked to postpone the vote minutes before the council adjourned for a break. Days before the vote Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu attempted to lobby diplomatic support to back Israel’s objection of the report which accuses Israel of war crimes.”

- jacksondyer

October 17, 2009 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

".. a very deliberate policy by President Obama to diminish the role of human rights and democracy as goals of U.S. foreign policy." (B1462's link) Promotion of democracy and human rights was the stated objective of the neo-cons. The rabid left has constantly re-named this principle as the new "imperialism". Obama is only adhering to his not- Bush image: if President Bush was for democracy and human rights then President Obama is bound to get off that path. He was given the peace Nobel for this type of approach. Making the world safe for tyrants and dictatorships means these days taking the path of peace. Peace at any cost, and as long as you are not really the one to pay the price of your priorities.

- noga1

October 17, 2009 at 11:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Noga: "Promotion of democracy and human rights was the stated objective of the neo-cons. The rabid left has constantly re-named this principle as the new 'imperialism." Yes, but between the "rabid left" and the "neocons" is a lot of territory, and surely one doesn't have to either play footsie with authoritarian regimes with a socialist patina or invade other countries on spurious justifications to come down at some reasonable point. I don't believe in the blind pushing of an individual electoral process -- Hamas, for example, came to power in an election that, as far as I've read, was not corrupt -- or in creating a benchmark out of "rights" that require U.S. force projection to guarantee them. More objectively, I think one can show historically that it takes some time (it can be at least decades, if not a century or so) to develop the kind of society that uses the democratic process as something other than a mere technical stamp of approval on otherwise inherited/oligarchic power structures. It can be a classic mistake to look at something that has transpired in a society over much shorter lengths of time than that society normally thinks in. We don't know what Iraq will be like in ten years. As was noted by a speaker in a discussion of Afghanistan that I read a few months ago: "People have been Afghan citizens for decades; but they have been Muslims for centuries; and they have been Pashtuns for millennia." Empires have come and gone, and the tribal structures of that part of the world have remained intact. Just because Americans tend to see a fast moving and fluid world that we can intervene in and alter for the better, doesn't mean that everyone else looks at it that way too. The values of those seen as occupiers can be rejected simply because the occupiers hold them, but it can also happen that interesting transfers take place (often involving language and culture). But anyone who imagines that we can e.g. guarantee the education of girls in the Afghan hinterland by way of the U.S. military is either a fool or a knave. We can offer something, but the people who live there have to want it themselves.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 12:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony: "...More objectively, I think one can show historically that it takes some time (it can be at least decades, if not a century or so) to develop the kind of society that uses the democratic process as something other than a mere technical stamp of approval on otherwise inherited/oligarchic power structures. It can be a classic mistake to look at something that has transpired in a society over much shorter lengths of time than that society normally thinks in. We don't know what Iraq will be like in ten years..." That's an interesting assertion. Are you only speaking about Afghanistan/Iraq? I can't see how it would universal apply in quite a few other situations, e.g. former East Bloc countries following the fall of communism, post-Versailles European countries, post WW2 Japan, Israel, Italy, W. Germany, Austria, etc.? I agree with your pithy conclusion, though - if they don't want to buy it, you can't sell it.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

typo. that should read "...I can't see how it would universally apply..."

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 1:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

noga: "...if President Bush was for democracy and human rights then President Obama is bound to get off that path...." george: The same delusional attempt to portray the Democrats and Obama or the Republicans and Bush as Good or Evil here. When, of course, in reality they are virtually intechangable with respect to American foreign policy. All they really squabble about are the tactical differences to be used in order to achieve the same strategic end: the Wall Steet agenda in the global economy. Democracy, freedom and human rights?! Where, in China? In the Middle East? In Sudan and Myanmar? Even our so-called "democratic" allies like India are only nominally invested in the task. It is their role in the world marketplace that matters far, far more. The world is a business owned and operated by shopkeepers. Some very, very big and powerful ones however have political and military allies that come together from time to time to define what democracy, freedom and human rights means. And the definitions always seem to conincide with their own political and economic interests. And these are thus perforce said to be in the moral interests of, uh, all mankind? But still the nogas are everywhere. The idealists. The religionists. They maintain the ethical agenda of mankind must be to coincide all this more "materialist" stuff with the true north Right and Wrong. They have principles. They seek only justice in the world. And if this coincides more with "just us" than Them, well, they are God's chosen people, right? And if the Protestant Reformation taught us anything at all it is how religion in the modern world has come up with a thousand and one rationalizations for accommodating capitalism with The Whole Truth so help me God. george walton d/a

- iambiguous

October 18, 2009 at 1:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b1462: "Are you only speaking about Afghanistan/Iraq?" That's a fair question, b, and I'm not sure I have a coherent answer, other than 'no.' But three things occur to me: 1. I know that I always got an uneasy feeling when I heard Germany/Japan analogies advanced in relation to Iraq and Afghanistan. The big difference is that we defeated Germany and Japan in a classic military conclusion to a major conflict. We broke them, to put it simply, and the remnants of both countries signed the unconditional surrender documents (somewhat less unconditional for Japan), and we were in charge. More importantly, we and the Brits were able to connect with exiled democratic parties and leaders deeply rooted in pre-Nazi Germany for the democratic transformation. In contrast, there was no declaration of war against Iraq, for example, and therefore no clear defeat and no transformation commitment (indeed, the original Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld plan was to leave inside of 9-12 months). 2. I don't understand Japan. I haven't been there and I'm not very well versed in the history, but I think the undeniable military defeat of Japan makes it parallel to Germany in the WW2 configuration. But I don't know what forces in Japan the U.S. connected with to enable postwar Japanese democracy. 3. I think it's the case that most Central and Eastern European countries (but not all -- Romania is a weird example here) had some kind of democratic structures in the interwar years and a longer bourgeois civic legacy going back to the 19th century, all of which were potentially to be revitalized in 1945. Most had a set of relatively manageable inter-ethnic relationships born out of the Hapsburg empire, despite traditional hatreds of Jews and Roma, and other ethnic tensions. I'd argue that the post-communist transformation of those nations has had a lot to do with a delayed process from 1945-7, which in turn picked up on an earlier democratic shift around 1918. Nevertheless, the truth is, I think, that the nationalisms of C&E Europe are more ethnically based than in Western Europe or the U.S. or Canada, Australia etc.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 2:09am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The quote I used was taken from B4's link which talked about "President Barack Obama is cutting funding for a well established program that has been working to increase democracy in Iran" http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121643.html Iran, unlike the examples you cite, (Afghanistan and Iraq) does have a history of modernization and democratic institutions. These terms are not alien to their culture or their way of life, before and even after the revolution, to some extent. moreover, the more recent demonstrations have shown that these principles still carry a lot of value and promise for the masses we watched on TV. Denying them this little assistance simply cannot be understood by the simple formula you provide "they don't want to buy it, you can't sell it.". Democratization of Iran is the only slimmest of hopes, or alternative, to war and other punishing measures leveled at Iran. If Obama cuts that brunch, rejects attacking the sites or cannot enforce sanctions, what are we left with? What kind of a vision of Iran do you get from these three rebuttals? Try this: "The Arabs know -- even if they won't say it -- they know that Israelis will only use nuclear weapons if they've been annihilated. But an Iranian nuke's destiny isn't in Israel. They all know that the Israel propaganda thing is just BS. [...] MJT: Here's my read on this: The Iranians continue to threaten Israel while they're building this system, and I suspect they're doing this to calm down Sunni Arabs. The Iranians say "Hey, we're not after you guys, we're after the Jews. Relax." But what they really want to do is dominate Lebanon, Iraq, Bahrain, wherever there are Shias. Eli Khoury: The Gulf and the Levant. They want to dominate the Gulf and the Levant." http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2009/10/in-the-crosshai.php ____________ This is from the blogger Selma who writes from Tehran: "I was thinking that I wanted my children to live… Because I have not. I want them to live a life that is nothing like what I’ve lived… I want them to know how it feels to kiss a lover in the streets and proudly let every passer watch you. I want them to make love without feeling guilty. I want them to love without fear. I want them to wear all the colors of rainbow in one go, and feel safe. I want them to know that the police are out there watching the rapists and criminals, not young girls wearing skinny jeans and laughing a free spirited laugh. I want them to drink…I want them to party…I want them to let the breeze caress their hair… I want them to think of headscarves as occasional accessories, for fun, a fashion statement …not a fascist obligation for everyday…I want them to join face book without the need for anti-proxy software. don’t want them to know how it feels to sleep in a bomb shelter, when you are five. I don’t want them to know what a red alert siren before the bombings sounds like. I don’t want them to watch anti air craft rockets against the dark sky, and remember that every time they see a shooting star when they are 27. I don’t want them to shiver at the sound o thunder storm. I don’t want them to know what revolutionary executions are. I don’t want them to know revolutions never create the idealistic heavens they preach. I don’t want them to be tortured and killed for their vote. I don’t want them to sigh every time they hear “civil liberties”. I don’t want them to cringe at the thought of another 4 years…40 years…who knows… I was thinking that I wanted my children to live…because I have not." http://antiutopia.wordpress.com/2009/10/04/all-quiet-on-the-eastern-front/

- noga1

October 18, 2009 at 8:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Great post, Noga. I think the corollary of "if they don't want to buy it, you can't sell it" is "if the want to buy it, you ought to sell it". Cutting off support for Iranian democracy is a form of malicious and morally bankrupt realpolitik that appeases, legitimizes, and strengthens a hostile, dangerous and illegitimate regime.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

With regard to the "Iran Human Rights Documentation Center," is there an explanation from the Obama administration or from the State Department regarding the cutting of funding for it? Is it an elimination of funding, or merely a reduction in funding? And how can the State Department, rather than Congress, make these kinds of funding decisions?

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 11:46am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurtado: "...Is it an elimination of funding, or merely a reduction in funding?" "...Program directors were shocked when they were told that their yearly request for a grant of $2.7 million in program funding had been rejected." http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1121643.html As for an explanation from the Obama administration, it is always hard to explain the inexplicable and defend the indefensible.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, Thanks for the response.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I meant to add one paragraph but it was late last night, so here it is: 4. The role of the Holocaust is also important but complicated esp. in C&E Europe. While denazification worked largely in West Germany, it was the 1960s before the Germans took any serious steps to hunt down war criminals and genocide technicians (before that, either people protected their own or the lack of coordination between the federal states brought the same result). At some point, likewise, the generational shift brought about a broad rejection of the underlying social assumptions of fascism, which helped solidify democratic culture. At the same time, we wanted West Germans on our side in the Cold War, so we had an interest in not putting the entire nation on trial, so to speak. In C&E Europe, however, that process either didn't happen or there was a skewed version of it under communism. So some of the authoritarian impulse (and Hungary and Romania had been allies of Germany, more than victims) survived and we have seen it re-emerge here and there. Austria is a special case. Broadly, I think that we had/have a kind of double vision for a lot of places like Poland and Hungary -- are they the brave little nations that were imprisoned in the Soviet Bloc for so long, or are they the somewhat hysterical ethnic formations that came out of the Hapsburg empire with a vital tradition of antisemitism and ethnic exclusivity?

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes, Bl462, I read the Haaretz article. But rejecting a request for a particular amount does not necessarily mean that no amount at all was granted. I have served on the board of a legal assistance organization that annually requested and received federal funding. It was often less than that requested, and sometimes was even less than what had been granted the prior year. That was very upsetting to the board. Some of us attributed it to antipathy on the part of some in congress toward any kind of public assistance. But I am sure many in Congress would say it is simply a matter of allocating limited resources among many worthy enterprises. Which goes to the question of whether there is an explanation for eliminating or reducing funding for the IHRDC other than an antipathy toward human rights and democracy. Before one draws the latter conclusion, one ought to at least seek out an explanation from the adminstration.

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 1:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the Iran HRDC funding -- according to the Oct 6 Boston Globe story, the review of applications had been shifted downward from State's Near Eastern desk to USAID. I haven't a clue, however, whether that is of any significance for explaining this unexpected and, to put it very mildly, curious decision. Despite all the assumptions we can make, however, I think it unlikely that the White House signs off on every 2.7 mi subvention to a small monitoring group. But it remains unclear -- at least as of 10/6 -- whether USAID is using altered or just different criteria to adjudge funding applications.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 1:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurtado:"...one ought to at least seek out an explanation from the adminstration." I think the onus is on the Administration to offer an explanation, unless the explanation is that the cut speaks for itself.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bl462: "I think the onus is on the Administration to offer an explanation, unless the explanation is that the cut speaks for itself." Do you know that the administration has NOT offered an explanation? I think the onus is on you to support the contention that the administration is hostile to human rights and democracy, if that is what you are asserting. The cut does not speak for itself. As I have explained to you, there are plausible reasons for cutting funding even for worthwhile endeavors, e.g., limited resources to be allocated among many worthy causes.

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 1:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurtado, Why the hostility? Hey, all I know is what I read. If you can find an explanation, please enlighten me.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 1:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am not sure why you regard my post as hostile Bl462, particularly given the tone of discourse that normally prevails on the Spine. It was not intended to be hostile and I'm sorry if it came across that way. In any event, the following passage from Farah Stockman's October 6, 2009 article in the Boston Globe suggests some reasons for the cut in funding other than hostility toward human rights and democracy: "The job of doling out money to groups seeking to influence Iran has been shifted from the State Department’s Near Eastern Affairs Bureau to a lower-profile division, its US Agency for International Development. USAID spokesman Harry Edwards did not provide an explanation of why funding was denied for the Human Rights Documentation Center, widely seen as the most comprehensive clearing house of documents related to human rights abuses in Iran. He said the government’s funding priorities have not changed. “US government priorities for the region continue to include support for civil society and advocacy, promoting the rule of law and human rights, and increasing access to alternative sources of information,’’ Edwards said. “Applications submitted to USAID are thoroughly reviewed against the evaluations criteria outlined in its solicitations.’’ The State Department has always been tight-lipped about who receives democracy funding for Iran, out of fear that the groups’ associates would be targeted in Iran. It is unclear how many other groups have lost their funding under the Obama administration. Obama officials have argued publicly for a less-confrontational approach than Bush, in the belief that the Bush administration’s vocal support for democracy activists made them targets in Iran and stirred up fears of regime change. The Obama administration has emphasized other forms of assistance, such as aid for software programs that help activists communicate on the Internet anonymously. It also has continued funding for exchange programs. In the coming months, for instance, the administration hopes to bring Iranian lawyers to major cities in the United States, including Boston, to talk with American lawyers about their concept of law." At least part of that reasoning is that the administration favors means of promoting opposition to the Iranian regime that are not as likely to place the dissidents in danger. Another is that the administration still favors a strategy of engagement and therefore favors other means of supporting the opposition. One can certainly argue that those policies are completely wrong-headed, but I do not think it is fair to concude that they represent antipathy toward human rights and democracy.

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Googling the keywords brings an odd absence of enlightenment. Seemingly the Boston Globe was the only regular publication to cover the story, and it was then picked up by Fox, and by a few conservative blogs and a couple of NGO-type places. Other than that, two things can be said: (a) the story seems to die out a week or so ago (temporarily maybe) and (b) the same language keeps repeating itself from reference to reference, so the impression is that there was no new reporting, but just a recycling of the original Globe article. Also, the original USAID call for applications can be read. They had a pool of $20 mil to disburse, so it would be interesting to know whether they spent the whole sum, and if so, what groups obtained funding in lieu of the IHRDC? Searching for "Iran" on the USAID website brings up material on the 2003 earthquake -- not a lot of use -- but USAID funding decisions are not secret, so it shouldn't be too difficult to establish who got what from the $20 mil.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 2:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

On the other hand, reading that part of the article again in dhurt's post, maybe Iran-related funding IS secret.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurtado, Thanks for the info and no hard feelings. But the quote by the USAID official article seems to be highlighted as a non-explanation in the Globe article. "...USAID spokesman Harry Edwards did not provide an explanation of why funding was denied for the Human Rights Documentation Center, widely seen as the most comprehensive clearing house of documents related to human rights abuses in Iran. He said the government’s funding priorities have not changed..." On the other hand, in the Haaretz article, Sen. Lieberman, Muravchik from Johns Hopkins, the unnamed former State Dept official and Rene Redman, the executive director of the IHRDC do all seem to be quoted as interpreting the funding cut as speaking for itself, and is consistent with what seems to me to be the administration's appeasement policy towards the illegitimate Ahmadinejad regime and consistent with its lack of support for the opposition movement in Iran following the stolen election. The explanation that the "Bush administration's vocal support for democracy activists made them targets in Iran and stirred up fears of regime change" seems ludicrous, as well as condescending towards the opposition forces in Iran which didn't seem to have required vocal support from the Obma administration to have been nonetheless brutally repressed, shot, tortured and imprisoned for their efforts after the election.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 2:46pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The other thing is, that aside from the principles involved, in terms of interests, if the long term future of Iran is with the opposition, then the Obama administration is making the same long term mistake in betting on Ahmadinejad regime's longevity and stability as the Carter administration made in betting on the Shah's. If they eventually win, they will long remember.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you start using the word "appeasement," b, it seems to me you have already reached a conclusion on fairly thin grounds. At the moment, negotiations between the U.S. and Iran have only just begun (and essentially no bilateral ones as yet), and nothing much has happened to justify calling it either appeasement or confrontation (in fact, the Qom nuclear site discovery has wrong-footed the Iranians). However, if you regard any engagement with the Iranian regime as "appeasement," then obviously we have radically different starting-points for this issue. In any case, as noted above, the lack of funding for the IHRDC says nothing about what other groups or organizations did receive funding (again there was a much larger sum to disburse). At the moment, while I agree that the implications of the decision are worrying, we have nothing more to go on other than the perfectly understandable protests of a group that has been defunded.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 3:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, Yep, I think I have already reached a conclusion. I'd like to be wrong on it. But, with a history of nothing but rude rebuffs from Ahmadinejad, no talk of or deadline for unilateral US sanctions or multilateral sanctions if UN ones aren't on (we live and hope, but I ain't holding my breath) it sure looks like appeasement to me.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 3:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b, check out this Plank posting from a few days ago -- it's odd that it didn't start a thread but people seem to have migrated over here in recent times. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/15/AR2009101502761.html It would be interesting if we had found some way . . . or if they think we've found some way but they aren't sure.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 4:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Stockman describes Edwards' comments as non-explanatory, but then offers possible explanations for the decision. My point is that, where there are plausible explanations other than antipathy or indifference toward human rights and democracy, it is unfair to assume away the other plausible explanations. Lieberman et al. are not interpreting the decision as "speaking for itself." They are merely interpreting it. Other interpretations are plausible, such as those suggested by Stockman. Now, I suppose "antipathy toward human rights and democracy" is hyperbole for what you are calling "appeasement." Fair enough, but that word I think inhibits dialogue because it evokes making territorial or other substantive concessions merely to avoid a confrontation, ala the appeasement of Hitler. "Engagement" and "negotiation" are more accurate words for the situation with Iran. There can be a legitimate debate about whether that is good policy. But that debate will be more productive, in my view, if we try to avoid inflammatory epithets.

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 4:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, Thanks for the link. That's indeed interesting. I wonder how or if it plays with this WP story. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/16/AR2009101600204.html

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, I read Ignatius's article the other day. But I'm not sure what you are referring to when you say "found some way."

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 4:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, "...There can be a legitimate debate about whether that is good policy. But that debate will be more productive, in my view, if we try to avoid inflammatory epithets." You're absolutely right. When everyone shouts, no one listens. I was trying to use the word "appeasement" in the sense of "avoiding conflict by accession" e.g. avoiding confrontation with with the Ahmadinejad regime on its electoral fraud, in seemingly reducing or eliminating funding to the IHRDC, and on the nuclear file.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 4:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b -- that other article would in some ways suggest the opposite of the Ignatius piece. dhurt -- around a year ago there was a story floating around that, as part of their efforts to pacify the Israelis (who had wanted overflight rights over Iraq), the Bush administration revealed that it had ok'd a highly covert operation to basically sabotage a crucial element of the Iranian nuclear enrichment process. Nobody confirmed or denied it, as one might expect, but it did raise the notion that either we had genuinely managed to do that, or the Iranians were puzzled over some failures in their project and were getting paranoid about the possibility that we might have caused them.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 4:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Interesting Irony. As to any tenstion between Ignatius' article and the other article, I read the former not as saying that Iran does not want nuclear weapons capability, but that it might be much further away from it then we had thought. b -- The problem speaking out against the alleged electoral fraud was that, at least at the time, there was no factual basis for actually concluding that the election was fraudulent. Obama did speak out against the mullahs' response to the protests. I am not sure what more he could have done under the circumstances. The IHRDC funding issue is probably a matter of not wanting to give the Iranian regime ammunition to say the US is actively undermining it, but I don't know. I am somewhat agnostic about whether that is good policy, but if there is any chance at all of bring international pressure to bear on Iran, then it may be good policy. I don't know what the "nculear file" refers to.

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 5:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, The 'nuclear file" is Iran's quest for nuclear weapons. I fear that the lack of talk of or deadline for unilateral US sanctions or multilateral sanctions if UN ones aren't on represent tacit US acceptance of a nuclear Iran.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There really isn't any way for the US to set a deadline for multilateral sanctions, given that the US cannot compel other nations to join in the sanctions. As to unilateral sanctions, how effective would that actually be?

- dhurtado

October 18, 2009 at 5:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Here's a link that discusses possible US unilateral sanctions. They'd hurt. http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48901 Re: multilateral sanctions, they'd hurt more. Ironically, the same story goes on to note "...While the bills' supporters insist they are trying to give Obama more leverage in the upcoming talks with Iran, the administration has itself declined to endorse any of them, suggesting that unilateral sanctions may prove counterproductive both to its "engagement" strategy with Tehran and to lining up international support, even among its European allies, for multilateral sanctions if the negotiations fail to make progress." But I've not seen anything anywhere yet of the Obama administration actually mentioning, much less supporting imposing multilateral sanctions, other than as noted above, using the possibility of them as the rationale for not supporting unilateral US sanctions. Seems rather circular... That's why I fear that the Occam's razor explanation is that the US tacitly accepts a nuclear Iran.

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 5:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So, it seems to me: Unilateral sanctions aren't on because they would spike multilateral sanctions Multilateral sanctions aren't on becuase they would spike UN sanctions. UN sanctions aren't on because China and Russia will never go along with them. Meanwhile, while everyone is worrying, Iran continues to make progress towards building a nuclear bomb. When they actually have one, everyone can stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. Or has that phrase been used somewhere before?

- malahat

October 18, 2009 at 6:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Looking at it from the other side, what does the Iranian leadership want? My guess -- and I'm nowhere near an expert -- is that one could list the following in various sequences: 1. Hold onto power in Iran 2. Become a big regional player similar to India 3. Change the Middle East game by having the capacity to threaten Israel 4. Gain respect and/or obedience by appearing to have nukes You could argue this several ways, but I'd stand by #1 as being fairly likely in that position and, as they aren't stupid, they've worked out that the U.S. bullies and sometimes invades countries it doesn't like but countries with nukes get treated with care and circumspection. Up to last summer, one could have said that a potential deal would be essentially a U.S. undertaking not to try to topple the regime and an Iranian undertaking to shut down any militarization of nuclear power, and diplomatic relations etc might have been in there too. Now, since the citizens' revolt, the regime is threatened in its own country, and we don't know what their game plan is (or maybe we do). But the problem is, do you want to destabilize a country that has an unpredictable government with outside assets (Hizbollah etc) that it can deploy if it's desperate. Or do you want to say, sorry, we might have done a deal but you don't look that permanent to us any more, and we'll see where the chips fall. You can go for number two, but if the regime survives and even strengthens its nuclear plans, you've blown the possibility of a deal that will get these future weapons off the table. If you go for number one, it looks like you don't care jack for the Iranian people but only want a deal on the nuclear issue. I understand the criticism of Obama on this, but can anyone square this circle for me? I don't see it.

- ironyroad

October 18, 2009 at 7:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Meanwhile, while everyone is worrying, Iran continues to make progress towards building a nuclear bomb. When they actually have one, everyone can stop worrying and learn to love the bomb." gw: Aside, perhaps, from the folks in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, who hasn't learned to love one or another nuclear bomb? After all, has it ever really been calculated, say, scientifically which nuclear bombs are on the side of Good and which are on the side of Evil? Or is that still something deemed the purview of the religionists and ideologues? You know, in places like this. george

- iambiguous

October 18, 2009 at 7:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Somali Islamists ask women to shake their breasts" Neil D, October 18th 2009, 11:39 pm How would Susan deal with this? http://www.hurryupharry.org/2009/10/18/somali-islamists-ask-women-to-shake-their-breasts/

- jacksondyer

October 19, 2009 at 1:05am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Recommend to listen the speech of the UK UN representative on the Gaza operation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NX6vyT8RzMo Obama and we, the Democrats should produce Kemps in place of Rices.

- conefor4200

October 19, 2009 at 10:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b -- when you say unilateral sanctions would "hurt," whom do you mean it would hurt? The article you cite discusses measures that would restrict domestic businesses from doing business with Iran. That certainly would hurt those domestic companies and do some harm to the US economy. But would it hurt the Iranian economy? I don't know, but the IPS article does not address that issue. To the contrary, it cites those who suggest that other countries would just fill in the gap left by unilateral US sanctions, and that unilateral sanctions might even backfire in that much of the Iranian people might view the sanctions as an act of hostility toward Iran. I don't know if any of that is true, but it seems at least worthy of consideration. And even if unilateral sanctions would cause some harm to the Iranian economy, is there any reason to think they would materially advance the objective of preventing Iran from continuing to develop nuclear weapons capacity? Is any such reason for such optimism sufficient to overcome the potentially counterproductive consequences that are outlined in the IPS article? With regard to the following: "Unilateral sanctions aren't on because they would spike multilateral sanctions Multilateral sanctions aren't on because they would spike UN sanctions. UN sanctions aren't on because China and Russia will never go along with them." I think you are missing the point that unilateral sanctions would probably be ineffective and might be counterproductive in ways other than, or in addition to, undermining the potentiality of multilateral or UN sanctions. In other words, it seems rational to me to be reluctant to engage in measures that probably would be ineffective and would undermine the possibility of more effective measures.

- dhurtado

October 19, 2009 at 2:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, "...But would it hurt the Iranian economy? I don't know, but the IPS article does not address that issue. " I think it does. The article states that the sanctions are aimed at the Iranian energy sector. "...In just the past few days, the Senate approved a measure, already passed by the House of Representatives, that bans companies that sell Iran gasoline from bidding on contracts for the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR). And the House Thursday approved by an overwhelming 414-6 margin the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act (IRSA) that would permit local and state governments and their pension funds to divest from foreign companies or U.S. subsidiaries with investments of more than 20 million dollars in Iran's energy sector. Finally, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, Rep. Howard Berman, scheduled a vote for Oct. 28 on the long-stalled Iran Petroleum Sanctions Act (IRPSA) bill that would, if passed, impose sanctions on companies that are involved in exporting refined petroleum products to Iran or expanding Tehran's capacity to produce its own refined products...." Iran, though an oil producer, is also highly dependent on foreign imports for gasoline. and technology and support for their oil production, and petrochemical industry. That's their weak spot, both economically and politically. I'm no expert, but it seems to me such sanctions would indeed hurt - they would damage their oil industry, their economy and their budget. As for ""Unilateral sanctions aren't on because they would spike multilateral sanctions Multilateral sanctions aren't on because they would spike UN sanctions. UN sanctions aren't on because China and Russia will never go along with them.", the point I was trying to make is that there's really no credible UN, multilateral or US threat of any sanctions going through. Without any negative consequences or even a credible threat of negative consequences, there's no rational reason for the Iranians to stop what they're doing, which is to acquire nuclear weapons. From your post, I don't know what you think would be more effective measures to use against them. Talk and an "extended hand" haven't done anything to unclench their fist, other than to perhaps raise their middle finger. They are being quite rational. There's a much bigger domestic political cost to the Ahmadinejad regime to give up their strategic gamechanger and the prestige that goes along with it than to continue. Sanctions or the threat of them would give leave them some face to save by backing down against measures that would hurt the Iranian economy and the public on which they can blame the usual suspects, rather than what, in the absence of external pressure would seem to be a face-losing show of weakness.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 5:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

and, as I said above, the Occam's razor explanation to me is that the US has tacitly accepted a nuclear Iran, since neither the US, nor its allies, nor the UN has done or threatened anything credible to prevent it. It al strikes me, as I alluded to, as learning to stop worrying and love the bomb, which was funny in the form of Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, Dr. Strangelove, but is not amusing at all in the real world.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 6:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b -- It goes without saying that the AIM of sanctions is to harm Iran's economy. The issue, in my mind, is the extent to which unilateral sanctions would in fact harm Iran's economy -- where, for example, some other country or countries might step in to provide it with gasoline -- or whether any harm would be sufficient to change Iran's behavior. As to the larger question of tacit acceptance of a nuclear Iran, I think there is instead a recognition that the US cannot succeed in preventing a nuclear Iran through unilateral action. There is no guarantee that there is any solution at all. Even if we were willing to assume the cost and risk of all out war on Iran, there is no guarantee that it would succeed. If there is any chance for success, it must be through international pressure. What would you have Obama do to to induce a stronger multilateral or UN response other than what he is doing?

- dhurtado

October 19, 2009 at 8:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, "The issue, in my mind, is the extent to which unilateral sanctions would in fact harm Iran's economy -- where, for example, some other country or countries might step in to provide it with gasoline -- or whether any harm would be sufficient to change Iran's behavior." I'll let Congress do the cost/benefit analysis over how effective unilateral US sanctions would be, they've got the information, I don't pretend to be an expert. That there is draft legislation before Congress would seem to be an empirical indication that somebody out there thinks unilateral US sanctions would be a net benefit to US interests and a net cost to Iran. "What would you have Obama do to to induce a stronger multilateral or UN response other than what he is doing?" As I said, I'm unaware of the Obama administration actually mentioning, much less supporting imposing multilateral sanctions, other than using the possibility of them as the rationale for not supporting unilateral US sanctions. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Since Obama's approach doesn't appear to be doing anything useful, perhaps actually setting a deadline with concrete consequences would focus the hateful mind of the evil Dr. A and his illegitimate regime, including Obama supporting a unilateral option in the bills before Conress if nothing else works.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 9:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But the illegitimacy doesn't necessarily help matters. Previously, before the stolen elections, one could have argued that a potential deal would be essentially a U.S. undertaking not to try to topple the regime (as staying in power is their main goal) and an Iranian undertaking to shut down any militarization of nuclear power, and diplomatic relations might have been on the cards if negotiations were going well. Now, since the citizenry rose up, the regime is threatened in its own country, and we don't know what their game plan is. There is, however, a very fraught choice for us. The problem is, we might not want to destabilize a country that has an unpredictable government with outside assets (Hizbollah etc) that it can deploy if it's desperate. Or we might want to risk the destabilization and say, sorry, we might have done a deal but you don't look that permanent to us any more, and we'll see where the chips fall. You can opt for the second choice, but if the regime survives and even strengthens its nuclear plans, you've blown the possibility of a deal that will get these future weapons off the table. If you go for number one, it looks like you don't care jack for the Iranian people but only want a deal on the nuclear issue. As I said in an earlier post, I'm not sure what the best option is, and it's not clear to me that Obama has failed to choose it.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2009 at 9:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, I understand your point, but encouraging domestic opposition elements (as Obama pointedly hasn't) to topple this regime seems to me to be in the US near term and long term interests. As I mentioned, if the future belongs with the opposition, they will long remember the US' lack of support. As for their outside assets, I'm not so sure. I'd argue the opposite. Especially if Dr. A-jad is looking tippy, then why if you're Hezbollah do you want to follow a loser's instructions and start a war with the Israelis after 2006? Same for Hamas after 2009. I'd make sure the phone is busy...

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 9:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b -- I am no more expert than you are on this topic. But I am not prepared to abjectly defer to Congress' cost/benefit analysis. I don't think one has to be an expert to conclude that multinational action would be far more likely to succeed than unilateral action. Regarding whether the Obama administration has mentioned multilateral sanctions, one of the primary rationales for "engagement," articulated by at least Hillary Clinton, has been that, in the event it fails, it will lay the groundwork for multinational sanctions, as the world will see that Iran is not amenable to diplomacy. On the occasion of the "revelation" of the nuclear facility at Quom, the administration spoke with Russia and other nations regarding sanctions in the event Iran reneges on its agreement to allow other countries to process its uranium and to allow inspection of the facility at Quom. There apparently was some agreement in that regard from Russia, which has more recently pulled back, saying that it would be counterproductive to threaten sanctions, at least at this point in time. But the reality is that Russia and China have national interests that are inconsistent with agreeing to any meaningful sanctions against Iran.

- dhurtado

October 19, 2009 at 9:57pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, "But the reality is that Russia and China have national interests that are inconsistent with agreeing to any meaningful sanctions against Iran." Couldn't agree more. Re: efficacy of multilateral vs unilateral sanctions, I never said that unilateral action would be more successful than multilateral sanctions. I said that "..perhaps actually setting a deadline with concrete consequences would focus the hateful mind of the evil Dr. A and his illegitimate regime, including Obama supporting a unilateral option in the bills before Congress if nothing else works." Nothing else working would be No UN sanctions, no multilateral sanctions.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 10:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony and b, What does encouraging the domestic opposition actually mean? What if the US helps foment a bloody revolution that fails? Will there be any hope then of quelling Iran's nuclear ambitions? And if a revolution suceeds, what reason do we have to believe a new regime what not also pursue nuclear weapons capability?

- dhurtado

October 19, 2009 at 10:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, In my mind, the US doesn't have to and shouldn't foment a bloody revolution. It shouldn't foment anything. That de-legitimizes the opposition To me, "encouraging the opposition" means that the US should not legitimize Ahmadinejad and enhance his status and power domestically and internationally by treating him deferentially, and by ignoring that the election was stolen and that his regime is illegitimate. As to whether a new regime wouldn't also pursue nuclear weapons capability, at the rate thing are going, that will be moot, as Iran will already have them.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 10:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b -- I understood you to be arguing that Obama should threaten unilateral sanctions without waiting to see if he can induce multilateral or UN sanctions (or if Iran will abide by its most recent agreements). Is that not correct?

- dhurtado

October 19, 2009 at 10:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

No.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I said, "...perhaps actually setting a deadline with concrete consequences would focus the hateful mind of the evil Dr. A and his illegitimate regime, including Obama supporting a unilateral option in the bills before Congress if nothing else works." Nothing else working would be No UN sanctions, no multilateral sanctions." There's an explicit "if" there.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I'm not sure I would characterize Obama's treatment of Ahmadinejad as deferential in the wake of the recently disclosed nuclear facility at Quom. Nor would I characterize it as deferential with regard to the "crackdown" on the protestors of the Iran election. As to the "stolen election," it has not to my knowledge ever been established that the election was actually fraudulent. So in my view, Obama never had any basis for asserting that it was. If Iran will have nuclear weapons by the time any opposition topples the current regime, then the issue of encouraging or not encouraging the opposition is irrelevant.

- dhurtado

October 19, 2009 at 10:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. But I've enjoyed the repartee.

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 10:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It does seem to me, b, that your description of what Obama should be doing (not being deferential or whatnot) is pretty much a description of how the Bush and other administrations have proceeded over the last 30 years, with the result being where we are today. I think there's an important difference between saying -- with some justification -- that Obama's approach hasn't had any better result so far and condeming him for even trying something different, to see what was lurking behind the Iranian rhetoric, and to change the perception of the U.S. as the one blocking all movement. But the new opposition is potentially a game changer, that I agree.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2009 at 10:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony, If you mean by "where we are today" Ahmadinejad's nuclear program, his annihilationist threats against Israel, his Holocaust denial, and his sponsorship of terrorism, I disagree that they could be blamed on or excused by the behavior or actions of past administrations, whether Republican or Democratic. Nor can it be blamed on the Israelis, the British, or CIA satellites beaming endless Britney Spears videos into his brain, or Mossad agents ferried in stealthy CIA black helicopters to replace his antiacids with LSD. On the other hand, I thought you made some excellent observations about Iranian strategic motivations in a previous post above. None of them had anything to do with the approach of past administrations over the last 30 years. 1. Hold onto power in Iran 2. Become a big regional player similar to India 3. Change the Middle East game by having the capacity to threaten Israel 4. Gain respect and/or obedience by appearing to have nukes

- malahat

October 19, 2009 at 11:21pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In terms of motivations, agreed, not to be laid at the doorstep of previous administrations. But it all began a long time before our friend A'jad was on the scene, and our responses were our deal, and the buck can't be passed on. My point was simply that Obama shouldn't be blamed for decades of other presidents' policies, and can't be faulted for trying something new, but can be faulted for not thinking out the ramifications of that new thing. But who predicted the post-election revolt? Not a single person that I read anything by. And, most crucially, almost nobody claims that they are "A'jad's nuclear program." That area is tightly under the control of the theocratic leadership.

- ironyroad

October 19, 2009 at 11:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, "...And, most crucially, almost nobody claims that they are "A'jad's nuclear program." That area is tightly under the control of the theocratic leadership." I should have said "Iran's nuclear program". Iran's been working on them for decades, as I understand it, initiated at the behest of Khomeini. Thanks for the correction. But the idea's the same. Iran's nuclear weapons program can't be blamed on previous administrations, or their policies and responses.

- malahat

October 20, 2009 at 12:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

irony, I also should have said that I agree with your point that Obama can't be faulted for trying "something new", but only for whether the "something new works better than the policies of his predecessors. I've really enjoyed this thread.

- malahat

October 20, 2009 at 12:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

b -- I don't think anyone's point has been that Iran's nuclear weapons program can be blamed on previous administrations -- only that the policies and tactics of prior administrations have not succeeded in stopping it. I think the jury is still out on whether Obama's approach will succeed (and it very well may not). But to the extent Iran's response to Obama's approach has been non-conciliatory, it plays into Obama's strategy, because it gives him ammunition for trying to reach consensus about an international response.

- dhurtado

October 20, 2009 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, Re: the jury still being out on the efficacy of Obama's strategy, I think the difference in how we're looking at it boils down to that I've come to my own conclusion (right or wrong) about the verdict, while I think that you're still giving the Obama strategy the benefit of the doubt (right or wrong). Time will tell. Frankly, I hope I'm wrong and you're right.

- malahat

October 20, 2009 at 11:13am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

dhurt, "...I don't think anyone's point has been that Iran's nuclear weapons program can be blamed on previous administrations --" Agreed.

- malahat

October 20, 2009 at 11:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I would argue, though, that one place to lay the blame for the Iranian nuclear program is Iraq and Saddam Hussein. The cost of the Iran-Iraq war, their vulnerability to Iraqi missiles, and their miserable defeat, all together fueled their sense that most of the world would have been glad to see Iran go down. This was a prime motive for a push for a nuclear capability (which has some strong national support, not just among the extremists).

- ironyroad

October 20, 2009 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That's a very good point, Irony. Hadn't considered the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s and Saddam Insane as an additional and important original strategic rationale for their nuclear program.

- malahat

October 20, 2009 at 3:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Irony's point reinforces the proposition that a revolution in Iran would probably not solve the nuclear problem. My understanding is that the leading opponent of the current regime, Moussavi, supported the development of a nuclear arms capacity. I suppose a revolution might delay the Iranian nuclear arms program, but, from our perspective, it may merely be kicking he can down the road.

- dhurtado

October 20, 2009 at 4:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close