Beneath the dignity of the Office of the President

[seycyrus]

So presumably you do support talking to one's enemies and so agree with Obama's strategy. That's good!

Not necessarily. There are other steps between A and Z that do not include direct legitimizing of a radical government.

 

[BobG]

International relations are managed through diplomacy. Talking is the cornerstone of diplomacy and war is the final diplomatic solution to be used only when all other avenues of diplomacy are exhausted. To jump from A straight to Z because everything in the middle might not work is hardly an intelligent way (or civilised way for that matter) to resolve a dispute. Unless of course you doubt your negotiating skills to such an extent you feel failure is inevitable. In which case train better negotiators

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

Obviously, there were some talks in order for the Iran-Contra controversy to occur.

There were also some communications between the US-Iran even during Bush's term:

US-Iran post 9/11

US-Iran post Iraq

As the remarks from a spectrum of individuals show, there's a lot of disagreement about both topics. However, when the situations change, the possibility of changing a relationship also change.

There's some real economic benefits to Iran in having better relations with Europe and the US, so it's not unthinkable that Iran would see 9/11 as an opportunity. It's also not unthinkable that the invasion of Iraq changed the scenario as seen from Iran's point of view: first giving them the idea that they didn't want to be next and eventually giving them the idea they had at least a limited time of safety.

I think there probably was an opportunity for Bush to improve US-Iran relationships at some point, but I think it's probably true that any attempts for further negotiation at this time would be pretty disappointing. The US isn't dealing from nearly as strong a position as we were in 2003.

A change in leadership is a change in the scenario and it's certainly worth looking at negotiations with Iran after the President changes, but I wouldn't be expecting a huge breakthrough regardlesss of who's elected.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

It may be worth recalling that there was similarly no talking between the US and China for over 20 years before Nixon visited Mao.

 

[mheslep]

US-Iran post 9/11

US-Iran post Iraq

These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

 

[BobG]

These Frontline pieces would be great if they'd just stick to the well done interviews with the principals, and just drop the oh so ominous narration loaded with non-sequitors and mis-characterizations.

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran. (Personally, if I were going to invade a country after Afghanistan, Pakistan would have been at the top of my list even in spite of them having a nuclear weapon. It would have directly supported a goal of wiping out Al-Qaeda.)

 

[mheslep]

Yeah, I wouldn't give all of the comments equal weight.

Still, a lot changed in a rapid amount of time.

Libya and Pakistan made abrupt changes in their attitudes, although neither made quite as drastic a change as one would have liked and the results in interactions with them have been pretty mixed. Libya was dropped from the state sponsored terrorist list by the US and is a member of the UN Security Council while Pakistan became an ally against the Taliban, but Libya still has a poor human rights record and Pakistan has turned out to be a very weak ally against the Taliban at best.

To be honest, I would have expected some pretty mixed results on Iran if the US had taken the opportunity to improve US-Iran relations.

But why the difference in attitude towards Libya and Pakistan vs the "Axis of Evil"?

Pakistan having a nuclear weapon probably explains their exception, but Libya falls right in there with Iraq and Iran.

Capability. I don't know that the two have the same intentions by Libya lacks the capability. Iran $850B GDP/ 70 M people, Libya $80B GDP / 6 M or 10:1. So its maybe 10x harder for the Libyans to have an entirely indigenous nuclear weapons program, and they can be seriously hurt by sanctions if they continued to flaunt guerilla training camps out in the desert. If I recall the sanctions against Libya in the 90s had largely slowed (stopped?) Libyan terrorist play, while Iran can afford to continue handsomely fund and equip Hezbollah in spite of sanctions and Hussein could still give cash rewards to West Bank suicide bombers even under severe sanctions.

 

[Art]

I don't think jumping "from A straight to Z" is the case in US-Iran relationships. The two have been enemies for nearly 30 years, but the amount of talking between the two countries has varied over the years.

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.

 

[turbo]

I wasn't referring to Iran specifically, more generically challenging the notion that to talk to one's enemies or potential enemies is somehow a sign of weakness / appeasement.

In the case of Iran I still suspect if the military planners and his legal advisers give the green light an attack will be made by Israel with US support before Bush leaves office as I think he believes in his delusional mind he is the only one 'strong' enough to make the decision.

Yes, this is the Frank Sinatra option. Sinatra was a coward, but he gained a reputation for mixing it up, tellingly only in company of an overwhelming entourage. He'd sucker-punch somebody at a club on some pretense, and then his heavies would jump into prevent retaliation and would pound his victim, or at the very least, eject him. Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

 

[seycyrus]

... Israel could very well draw the US into another war with just such a strategy, since we are "blessed" with a neo-con administration that loves the economic leverage that accompanies international conflict.

It's amazing the amount of speculative biased strawmen that you guys throw in virtually every post.

 

[Gokul43201]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech.

Of course there is reason to think long and hard about negotiating with our "enemies". Historically, we have seen both good and poor outcomes from such negotiations, and we must learn from these examples. Likewise, deciding to engage certain groups only militarily or not at all is also foolish, and has also shown to produce mixed results.

The assertion that someone proposing to negotiate with enemies is an appeaser or a traitor is itself the worst kind dirty politicking. Where are all those Republicans who called the Dixie Chicks cowardly traitors for criticizing the President on foreign soil? Where are the Republicans who were outraged by Clinton protesting Vietnam while he was on scholarship in the UK? How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?

The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission). It conveniently ignores the long and continuing history that the US has of supporting and enriching dictators, radicals and extremists. It ignores that fact that Bush hurried into negotiations with Kim Jong Il as soon as he started acting up...and it produced positive results. It ignores the fact the Bush continues to have talks with Abdullah and al-Bashir, among the worst dictators alive today...and there is probably good reason for such engagement.

 

[seycyrus]

Let's also not forget that this thread is based on a strawman the the President threw out in his speech...

...

How cool would it be for Obama to make a speech in Baghdad telling them that some senators think we should have a 100-year occupation in Iraq (which would at least be completely truthful)?.

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

 

[chemisttree]

I'm not sure of the point you are making here. Are you providing another example of a misstated position? If so, you succeeded.

I think we owe it to ourselves on PF to steer away from such obvious intentional misinterpretations of what people have said.

Hear, hear! The misstatement that McCain said we should have a 100 year occupation is the worst, most cynically false thing to come out of the Obama camp so far. Completely untruthful.

 

[mheslep]

...The simple truth about the Bush speech is that it is at the very least downright dishonest. It intentionally conflates diplomacy with appeasement. It turns a hypocritically blinded eye to the fact that both the Sec State and Sec Def have supported negotiations with Iran (as well as the Sec States for Nixon, Reagan and Bush Sr., who sat on the Baker-Hamilton commission)...

Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement. Talk may be, or may not be, appeasement, it depends on the context. It is fair to call the intentions of the '39 US Senator appeasement, based on naiveté. The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

 

[Art]

It's amazing the amount of speculative biased strawmen that you guys throw in virtually every post.

When Bush makes comments such as this to the Knesset

For the sake of peace, the world must not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon.

it is hardly a strawman to speculate on how exactly he intends to achieve his stated aim especially when he also stated he doesn't intend achieving his goal by talking to them. Again he demonstrates just how out of touch with reality he is as his own intelligence service said Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

 

[Art]

The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

lol So give us what we want and then we'll negotiate with you?

How many negotiations have you been involved in that successfully used that strategy??

 

[mheslep]

When Bush makes comments such as this to the Knesset it is hardly a strawman to speculate on how exactly he intends to achieve his stated aim especially when he also stated he doesn't intend achieving his goal by talking to them.

The US communicates to Iran all the time via the UN, through the EU members negotiating nuclear policy and other indirect means including some EU meetings w/ Sec. Rice and the Iranians in the same room. There are no one on one negotiations, certainly not President to President. The US is a strong backer of the UN sanctions imposed on Iran for NPT violations, that being the current 'how' policy.

 

[chemisttree]

lol So give us what we want and then we'll negotiate with you?

How many negotiations have you been involved in that successfully used that strategy??

What would be gained from a negotiation with Iran if, in the end, Iran still retained the right to ignore it as it has the non-proliferation treaty?

 

[turbo]

That's a good one! Saddam, prove that you don't have WMDs and we won't have to attack you. Prove that you didn't procure yellowcake from Niger and we won't have to attack you. Prove that you're not going to use that aluminum tubing for centrifuges and we won't have to attack you. Prove that you don't have mobile biological labs and we won't have to attack you. Flimsy pretexts for starting a war that they had already decided to start. Bush/Cheney "diplomacy" at work.

Edit: this is a response to Art's post. got leap-frogged.

 

[Art]

The US communicates to Iran all the time via the UN, through the EU members negotiating nuclear policy and other indirect means including some EU meetings w/ Sec. Rice and the Iranians in the same room. There are no one on one negotiations, certainly not President to President. The US is a strong backer of the UN sanctions imposed on Iran for NPT violations, that being the current 'how' policy.

You might not be aware of this but the current bout of sanctions are not working so now what??

It's all a little reminiscent of Iraq and it's WMD. It's hard to give up something you don't have.

 

[quadraphonics]

What would be gained from a negotiation with Iran if, in the end, Iran still retained the right to ignore it as it has the non-proliferation treaty?

Even if negotations with Iran go absolutely nowhere (which is unlikely; there are a surprising number of areas in which the interests of Iran and the United States coincide), the fact of having negotiated in good faith is a prerequisite for international support for tougher measures against Iran.

 

[Art]

What would be gained from a negotiation with Iran if, in the end, Iran still retained the right to ignore it as it has the non-proliferation treaty?

That the same treaty Iran is in compliance with but was criticised for not signing the additional protocol? The same one Israel wouldn't sign at all? The same one under which America signed up to scrap all of it's nuclear arsenal??

 

[chemisttree]

Even if negotations with Iran go absolutely nowhere (which is unlikely; there are a surprising number of areas in which the interests of Iran and the United States coincide), the fact of having negotiated in good faith is a prerequisite for international support for tougher measures against Iran.

Interesting... So we should negotiate with Iran so that we can be seen as having negotiated in good faith so we can get tougher on them.
When was the last time we negotiated with Iran in good faith? Should we continue to negotiate and then, at some point, cash in all our good faith chips in exchange for a good old fashioned military strike? What is the exchange rate these days on good faith chips?

 

[mheslep]

lol So give us what we want and then we'll negotiate with you?

How many negotiations have you been involved in that successfully used that strategy??

Its not, , 'give us what we want' . Its more 'put down that gun and we'll talk', and in that sense such a condition is completely common. There are many issues Iran and the US need to discuss: Iranian Shia in Iraq, MEK, Iranian influence/funding of Hezbollah, Afghanistan, UN sanctions, terrorism, esp. AQ, that both the US and Iran have condemmed. All that is on the table if Iran will offer up its nuclear weapons efforts. oh, and

 

[BobG]

Then there must have been another Presidential speech given we have not seen here, because that's not a 'simple truth' that can be drawn from the Israeli speech. Bush did not say don't talk any hostile states, nor does he necessarily equate diplomacy with appeasement. Talk may be, or may not be, appeasement, it depends on the context. It is fair to call the intentions of the '39 US Senator appeasement, based on naiveté. The US position on Iran is clear across State and DoD: US will talk to them one on one about anything if they kill their nuclear program, as I've seen Sec Rice say in the same room with the Iranians.

Are you sure it's fair to call Borah's intentions appeasement?

Here's a Borah quote from 1938, after Hitler was given the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia:

Gad, what a chance Hitler has! If he only moderates his religious and racial intolerance, he would take his place beside Charlemagne. He has taken Europe without firing a shot.

I think it's more fair to say Borah felt Hitler made a tactical error, not that the US should be negotiating with Hitler to stop his aggression.

Borah was old (mid-70's) and nearing the end of his life (in fact, he died about a year later), so he was becoming pretty erratic and unreasonable. He came to deplore Roosevelt for being a near dictator, but admired Hitler, remarking, "There are so many great sides to him."

From: A Lion Among the Liberals

 

[Art]

Its not, , 'give us what we want' . Its more 'put down that gun and we'll talk', and in that sense such a condition is completely common. There are many issues Iran and the US need to discuss: Iranian Shia in Iraq, MEK, Iranian influence/funding of Hezbollah, Afghanistan, UN sanctions, terrorism, esp. AQ, that both the US and Iran have condemmed. All that is on the table if Iran will offer up its nuclear weapons efforts. oh, and

I take it then the answer to my question is none.

 

[mheslep]

You might not be aware of this but the current bout of sanctions are not working so now what??

No so far. What do you suggest?

It's all a little reminiscent of Iraq and it's WMD. It's hard to give up something you don't have.

What do they not have? You might not be aware of this but the Iranians have a rather active enrichment program and have bragged about it.

 

[mheslep]

I take it then the answer to my question is none.

Quite a few, not that it has any bearing.

 

[turbo]

Its not, , 'give us what we want' . Its more 'put down that gun and we'll talk', and in that sense such a condition is completely common.

You are posing the Iran "threat" as if it it is an immediate threat and is somehow actionable based on some sort of urgency. This is not the viewpoint of Gates, Rice, or Petraeus, but of war-mongering neocons who are using Bush and Cheney to drum up support for yet another war. It is beyond unnecessary - it is criminal.

 

[Art]

Quite a few, not that it has any bearing.

Examples please. I've worked in negotiations for years and have never, ever seen that strategy employed much less used successfully and so would love to have some real life examples.

 

[mheslep]

Are you sure it's fair to call Borah's intentions appeasement?

Here's a Borah quote from 1938, after Hitler was given the Sudetenland of Czechoslavakia: I think it's more fair to say Borah felt Hitler made a tactical error, not that the US should be negotiating with Hitler to stop his aggression.

Borah was old (mid-70's) and nearing the end of his life (in fact, he died about a year later), so he was becoming pretty erratic and unreasonable. He came to deplore Roosevelt for being a near dictator, but admired Hitler, remarking, "There are so many great sides to him."

From: A Lion Among the Liberals

I think they should have thrown him in the same cage with Ezra Pound.

 

[mheslep]

Examples please. I've worked in negotiations for years and have never, ever seen that strategy employed much less used successfully and so would love to have some real life examples.

Plenty of the 'put down the gun first' type, none of the 'give me what I want first' strawman you suggest. On projects or conferences I've run:
-Stop yelling / shouting and then we'll hear you out.
-Agreements to non-disclosure of proprietary information before the discussion can even begin.
-Agreement on time schedules, topics of conversation. As a third party chair I've shut down speakers for deliberately indulging in personal, off topic, agendas.

In general I suggest predetermined boundary conditions are required for any successful communication.

 

[seycyrus]

You might not be aware of this but the current bout of sanctions are not working so now what??

Either they are working, and Iran has not been able to develop nuclear weapons, or they are not working and Iran is in the process of creating said weapons.

You claim that they are not working? Certainly a wake up call!

 

[Art]

Plenty of the 'put down the gun first' type, none of the 'give me what I want first' strawman you suggest. On projects or conferences I've run:
-Stop yelling / shouting and then we'll hear you out.
-Agreements to non-disclosure of proprietary information before the discussion can even begin.
-Agreement on time schedules, topics of conversation. As a third party chair I've shut down speakers for deliberately indulging in personal, off topic, agendas.

In general I suggest predetermined boundary conditions are required for any successful communication.

Pre-agreement on the form and agenda for negotiations is somewhat different than one side insisting the other concede the main point to be negotiated before the negotiations begin

 

[Art]

Either they are working, and Iran has not been able to develop nuclear weapons, or they are not working and Iran is in the process of creating said weapons.

You claim that they are not working? Certainly a wake up call!

You're just being silly now.

 

[seycyrus]

When Bush makes comments such as this to the Knesset it is hardly a strawman to speculate on how exactly he intends

First off, Iran has made it's intentions about Israel clear. Allowing Iran to have Nuclear weapons *would* be a threat to world peace.

Secondly, if misapropriated speculation isn't a strawman, then what is?

Again he demonstrates just how out of touch with reality he is as his own intelligence service said Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program.

They said that the one program was stopped. Nothing was said about other programs. Furthermore, Iran has boasted about it's enrichment programs.