Why Won't More Democrats Back Direct Talks With Iran?

[Tom Rinaldo]

I've heard Bush's lame excuse, but what about the Democrats? The fact that Iran has given mixed singles about whether they would agree to talks with the U.S. to me is irrelevant. They can change their position at any time and so can we. Right now the U.S. position is that we will not engage in any direct talks with Iran, yet Bush is more than willing to amp up the drum beat for war with Iran. Are Democrats really OK with this policy? Drifting toward armed conflict with Iran while ruling out even offering Iran direct negotiations on whatever issues may be in play?

[wake.up.america]

1. Not the macho thing to do.

[Douglas Carpenter]

24. exactly, it sounds wussy

Just because it is sane, rational and might prevent the deaths of millions is no excuse.

[MADem]

2. Because their crazyass figurehead of a President makes scathing

and hateful remarks about Israel. The urging of direct talks, absent any retraction of those comments, at this juncture would be the political kiss of death for any Democrat.

There are under-the-table direct talks, as well as third-party outreaches, happening with the real powers (the ayatullahs) in that country, though at lower levels.

Of course, when your foreign policy is as iffy as ours has been, you're likely not to see any profound breakthroughs. The best that can be hoped for is a status quo standoff of some sort. The Russians are working to craft a solution that will please the UN and not leave the Monkeycrew too miffed...

Time will tell.

[Tom Rinaldo]

3. Yeah I see the danger but

We are talking about real war and real death and real ongoing geopolitical consequences that can last a generation or more if this thing spins out of control with Iran.

I don't buy it, I think this is another example of that shadow fear of being seen as "soft on national security matters" that keeps Democrats as enablers of a foreign policy that ultimately lessons our national security. I think this is another case of lack of leadership when it really counts. This is the same type of fear of "kiss of death" thinking that led to so many Democrats voting for the IWR, which led to war with Iraq.

Waiting for a position to be easily understood by the public is too late to take it when the stakes are high. I think a united Democratic Party, or even a reasonably united Democratic Party can make the case that you try dialog before you try war. It really is that basic.

[MADem]

5. Keep in mind, though, that Russia and Iran are neighbors

Is it RUSSIAN CAVIAR, or IRANIAN CAVIAR?? Which is better? (How you answered depended on your conversation partner--it all tastes like salty fish eggs, to me!) They go back a LONG way. Even in the days of the Shah, you could buy a Moskva car in downtown Teheran (which was about as well built as a Peykhan, and that isn't saying much). They were all over Bushir, too, doing this project and that...and spying like mad, as well.

Our best hope for staying out of war is the work that Pootie Poot's boys are doing on behalf of the UN, and to some degree us. I mean, really, do we WANT Condi's warmongering crew doing the negotiating? She'd probably throw a shoe at them!!

Public, low-level talks can only make sense when they are sanctioned by a REASONABLE administration. We don't have that. We're better off doing this shit under the radar. And if it all goes wobbly, well, the blame will land squarely where it belongs.

[Tom Rinaldo]

8. It wouldn't hurt for Democrats to box Bush in though

We aren't in power and Bush won't do what we say anyway, but we are still talking to the public. If someone is making the case that war is always a last resort and we have not tried direct diplomacy with Iran, it casts any overt movement toward war now as being an extreme move, and less palatable.

I think diplomacy can be attempted first on a regional basis on another front regarding Iraq and it's neighbors, with Arab League participation along with Iraq, Iran and the U.S. There are regional issues that need to be dealt with as regional issues, and as long as the U.S. has large numbers of troops in Iraq, we are a regional player.

[MADem]

13. Ah, but see, the Monkey, while continuing to pursue off-channel

communications, would spin up the Rove machine and paint us all as a bunch of traitors who demand with great glee that he consort with the enemy. It's how they do things.

Far better for us to urge for continued UN negotiations--that pisses the right off anyway, and doesn't make us look "unpatriotic." It's also a position that Israel favors. Russia, our proxy in some regards vis a vis this issue, can get behind it too--it gives them great face at the Security Council table.

He wants to be a tough cowboy, let him. Our best bet at this juncture is to pursue international solutions through the UN, and let him run his own crappy state department into the ground.

[Tom Rinaldo]

19. We have an honorable disagreement

We always get run over the worst by Rove's machine when we are trying our best to stay out of the way of it.

There are any number of ways we can spin our own message. Pushing the UN approach is fine to a point, but we need to be clear where we disagree with Bush, not hide off in the wings waiting for him to fall on his face. I think this is a lesson Iraq should have taught us. It is hard to step in front of a moving steam roller after it has gained momentum.

[MADem]

21. Point taken, but I still think the road is through the UN

...simply because he'd muck it up if he did it on his own. My trepidation is twofold: the smear aspect from the Rove crew is only a part of it. But if we shove or hector him into negotiations, and Condi smacks an ayatullah over the head with a Ferragamo, it could be the start of an Archduke Ferdinand scenario.

And the Russkies, owing to their proximity, really do have a dog in this fight, and they've been far better at keeping ties on an even keel than just about anyone else in the region. Finally, the more players involved, the harder it is for them to lie and spin as to what really took place!

[Tom Rinaldo]

23. gotta run to a meeting, talk to you more later... n/t

[Tom Rinaldo]

34. I'm not saying Russia and others don't have a critical role to play

I'm saying that Democrats have a critical role to play also, and that is to let the air out of this rush toward war and continuing demonization of Iran. I actually agree that the Russians will need to do a lot of the heavy lifting but they are more likely to succeed if we Democrats actually speak out. Here's why.

The last time we went down this road set a precedent. Bush got to set the entire tone of debate regarding Iraq and Saddam Hussein, and Democrats to a large extent fell in line with Bush's rhetoric. We went 90% of the way down that road with Bush; yes we too hate Saddam, yes we too think he is a threat to the world, yes we too think the only thing he understands is force, yes we too think he is a mad man capable of doing almost anything. So then, when we got to the last 10% and we said, "whoa let's not get too hasty about actually taking out the bastard", no one was listening anymore. The public was like, "Hell, we know he's gotta go, might as well get it over with now".

But worse than that, the entire Middle East saw what happens when Bush sets his mind to demonizing someone as a prelude to going after them. Bush will find a way to go after them whether or not the facts actually warrant it, so why bother cooperating? The only faint check left on Bush is American public opinion. Bush now believes that his raising up the Iranian security threat to Red Alert level will cause the nation to rally behind him, and prevent people from turning out the Republicans from power in November. We have to reverse that equation. We have to create conditions where the public shows increasing concern over Bush's itchy trigger finger. Republicans need to believe that becoming ever more the party of war will turn people ever more away from them. But none of them will get that message if leading Democrats continue to play this by Bush's script, and refuse to challenge the assumption that the Iranian's are too crazy to talk to.

[MADem]

39. Now, I agree that Democrats could and should speak out

...but I don't think they should be telling Condi and Crew to get to the table for direct one-on-ones. I think they should be pushing Bush to use ALL means at his disposal, to include the UN and working with allies. A general "diplomacy first" umbrella will do nicely, I think.

There will be no sincerity in any direct high levelnegotiations between this administration and Iran. There's too much hubris already at that level. And what's to prevent BushCo from doing a little demonizing in that context? The old, "Well, WE tried, and THEY were mean to us!"

It's way harder to pull that kind of nonsense with witnesses... It's like Israel and Palestine, needing a go-between. They don't trust us, and Bush has decided that we can't trust them. We need a credible 'translator of intent' to make anything happen positively in that regard.

[Tom Rinaldo]

41. Well there is a middle ground where we sit at a table with others present

I mentioned that in the context of regional talks earlier. But right now the United States is not willing to officially sit at any table with Iran regarding the issues that are pushing conflict. That sends a message to the world and it sends a message to the American public, and I think it is the wrong message to be sending.

[MADem]

42. Well, if we start out using the Russkies as a go-between, that day may

yet come. But I can't see anyone twisting the Monkey's arm and forcing him to eat his peas, frankly, right out of the gate. He's unpopular now, a few more points in the toilet aren't going to move him one way or another. He says he doesn't pay attention to polls (the percentages likely confuse him, or his staff lies to him) so public opinion isn't likely to sway him.

Now, if the Democrats could work with the halfway reasonable members of the GOP and get some critical mass going, they could shut down Congress and fail to forward anything he wants to his desk for signature. That's an angle worth pursuing on a parallel track, along with the UN effort. But if we try to go it alone, without some serious backing, he'll make it a devisive issue--I can hear him making snarky comments like "Well, heh, heh, dip-low-mah-see, heh, heh, ya see, well, that's MAH job...an' the Democrats have no bidniz tellin' me how to do MAH job, heh, heh...that's whah AH am the Prezdint, ya see, heheh..." The snarkiness will know no bounds.

The way to do it, perhaps, is a la Murtha--send out a lone "scout" to float the idea, one with impeccable credentials. Wait for the incoming fire, sort it out, come up with salient and forceful smackdown responses, and then send everyone out like bees from the hive, to spread the word.

[Donna Zen]

76. It is time to stop out-sourcing our diplomacy

I wouldn't trust Pooti to walk my dog. Once this reaches the UN our direct ability to influence the outcome will be lost, and just imagine how effective Bolton will be. Russia is currently selling Iran billions in weapons. I agree that the Condi's crew is a piece of crap, but the question posed is why aren't the Dems shouting about the lack of real diplomatic efforts. It would be great if anyone in the WHouse would listen, but even if that possibility is slim to none, it should be done. We need an opposition to this endless war, not flunkies yammering "me too...I want to get tuff with Iran!"

We need to open up the "I told you so moment." As far as the regime calling us whimps, well, Reagan knew to talk to our enemies--even enemies with nukes aimed at Washington. Furthermore, it is the correct thing to do unless we want to see our country go down the drain a little faster. Do it as part of a call for transparent regional dialogue.

[Tom Rinaldo]

77. More and more the Bush Foreign Policy caricature is

"We don't need no stinkin' diplomacy!" It almost boils down to "We know what's right here and we know what needs to happen next. Let us know if you come to your senses before we initiate military action against you to force compliance to our specifications. And we will not address any of your concerns until you have satisfied us on ours". This stand off with Iran is huge, but even so it represents something larger. Bush has already redefined our understanding of "preventive war". Now he has redefined our understanding of diplomacy. It essentially is redefined by Bush as "Issuing fair warning". If Democrats fall in line with that standard we have redefined what America is, both to the world and to ourselves.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. And I know that what you say is going on, is in fact going on

And those are the right things to be happening. But public diplomacy has a role also. It would send a constructive political signal to the World if the United States indicated a genuine desire to enter into productive talks with Iran, even if that were qualified in some way by saying that the United States would like to hear a similar willingness to have open and frank talks toward resolving issues of contention and improving relations expressed by the Iranian side first also. And the initial direct talks can be conducted at a low level, thereby minimizing expectations.

[MADem]

7. See my thoughts on that at post five

With a NORMAL administration, you have a point. But public diplomacy carried out by a bunch of incompetent buffoons (who don't realize that Pakistan is not a leader of the Arab world, because they aren't Arabs, for example) is a road to hell. And as I said, low level, career diplomat discussions are taking place...without any official imprimatur. Hell, even the Israelis are still talking to those guys. They simply don't do it with any sort of portfolio.

[endarkenment]

62. He should get along fine with our crazyass figurehead

of a president then, the one who makes hateful remarks about Iran. Direct talks would be between diplomatic teams, not crazyass figurehead presidunces.

[BootinUp]

6. easy.

There are darn few people that have the intelligence and diplomatic skills to do it/direct it and be successful.

[Tom Rinaldo]

9. I know, you and MADem sadly have a good point

What we can do though is shift the field of public political discussion, so that war mongering comments sound every bit as jarring as they actually should sound to the American public. Those comments are a prelude toward war, and if they go unchallenged then public support for war with Iran prior to any direct negotiations with Iran will grow, and we know where that slippery slope can lead. I understand that saber rattling has a role in diplomacy, but diplomacy has a role of it's own also that should never be whisked off the table completely without objection. It sends a wrong message to this administration and the world to have the Democrats all sign off with "yeah, crazy regime, you just can't talk to them".

[BootinUp]

27. We have to do what we can

We just have to pick better leaders. I hope Americans have learned something from the last go-round. And yes we can try to move the discussion in our own smaller discussions online or offline. The bottom line is countries should never go to war without expending a certain amount of effort in diplomacy first. And with Bush in charge we all know that doesn't happen unless their friends money is on the line.

[FrenchieCat]

10. I agree that most Democrats are not dealing with the Iran issue very well,

and in fact...there is very little difference between how most in the two parties are proposing that Iran be dealt with...which is scary in itself......

Bush will so easily use the Iran issue to rally support behind him and in extension behind the Republicans when he announces some kind of action in the very nearby future (before the elections)....and Democrats will be sitting there waging their heads in agreement.

So many voters will unfortunately have to agree when it is said (adnauseum) that the Democrats don't have an alternative plan that isn't as drastic as the Republicans'.

Democrats should be pushing for "diplomatic talks"....but most aren't.

In fact, I think only one Democrat of any stature has suggested this as a step:

"We need to talk about this. We need to talk about Osama bin Laden. We need to talk about what would have happened if Democrats had been in charge. We would have gone after Osama bin Laden. We would not have spent $200 billion on invading Iraq. We would be talking to Iran, and we would have talked to North Korea. This administration has refused to talk to Iran. They've outsourced our diplomacy to Europe. And I beg the administration: please talk to Iran before it is too late.

We can't shy away from national security. We can't concede it to the Republicans. We have to point out that they have failed at every step of the way. We can't be afraid of it. So let's talk national security--because it should be a strength for us. It's not a weakness."-Wes Clark
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/2/5/14345/52746

But then, no one in the Democratic party (let alone this administration) is going to listen to General Clark's suggestions....again!

They all know so much better! :sarcasm:

[radio4progressives]

11. Thank you for raising this issue, Deja Vu..

but we knew this was coming, and again they remain silent..

[Tom Rinaldo]

31. It is way too Deja Vu for my taste

Yeah there are some valid concerns with Iran, and from their perspective they have some valid concerns with the U.S., but this is the point in the script where controlling the rhetoric and seeking realistic alternatives to armed conflict is most called for. It is exactly the fact that military action has become conceivable to many that should force all involved to redouble efforts to avoid it. If Democrats stand for anything they should stand for that.

The silence of leading Democrats is complicit with Bush's world view which is increasingly a militaristic one. If we don't even dare to propose direct talks with a potential adversary out of fear of being seen as weak, we are validating Bush's position that there is nothing to be gained by talking. That is the same view that led Bush to cut off UN Security Council negotiations and launch the invasion of Iraq.

Once a potential adversary in labeled as too crazy to talk with it is only a matter of time before an act of war will follow, because, as the story goes, how can we afford to leave a crazy adversary in power in today's day and age? That is exactly how the case to take out Saddam Hussein was developed, until finally most Americans believed it.

[mikeanike]

12. bad idea

I think the only thing less popular than Bush right now is Iran. If the dems tried to pull that stunt they could kiss the 06 elections goodbye!

[Tom Rinaldo]

15. That is EXACTLY what we said about Saddam prior to the 2002 vote

And we got creamed in that vote anyway because we were being shadow Democrats and who needs a shadow when you have the real thing in Bush.

[FrenchieCat]

18. Shouldn't that be Osama?

Funny how we forget and buy the hype!

[Minnesota Libra]

14. You seem to forget - the head of Iran is one of the same people .........

......who assisted in the Iran Hostage Crisis. Here's a main link, read up on it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=American+hostages+in+Iran&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

[Tom Rinaldo]

16. I'm not forgetting anything

He is not the Supreme leader in Iran anyway. I am talking about the signals we are sending and the way in which we are predetermining the drift of events toward war through them. Bush wasn't friendly toward the prior Iranian President either. The United States projects an attitude of favoring regime change and that propels the Iranian regime to help tie us down in Iraq, and develop nukes while they can, because we didn't attack North Korea which already has them.

[Minnesota Libra]

20. Iraq wasn't a threat to us but Iran could be and so........

......talks for whatever reason would do no good. Iraq and Iran are two different countries, so the stragedy we didn't use toward Iraq wouldn't necessarily work toward Iran. Plus Iran has already threatened the UN if the UN even attepts any sanctions at all. That all adds up to forget it, it won't work.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. The difficulty is Bush's hostility toward Iran

It leaves them little choice but to develop nukes and threaten that they will make the streets of Iraq run red with our soldiers blood. If we don't do something on our end, and I mean all of us not just Bush's Administration, to change that channel it is easy to see where this plot line leads.

[Minnesota Libra]

25. Well, then why don't you go deal with them, if you come........

.....back we will know you were successful. :sarcasm: I don't know what the answer to Iran is but even trying to find that answer could be foolhardy.

[Tom Rinaldo]

29. Ah but I think not trying to find that answer is foolhardy n/t

[FrenchieCat]

17. I heard that had been dispproved......

and I guess that the hostage crisis had something to do with our installing the Shah.....

I don't think we want to justify ourselves without looking at our history.

For those who say Diplomacy is not required.....meet Bush!

[MADem]

36. It ain't the same guy...the hostage who ID'd him was wrong, and off

by eight to ten inches in height...he just looked like one of the guys.

[endarkenment]

63. A: untrue. B: so what? nt.

[dogman]

26. Maybe it's easier to apologize later.

Democrats might back them, but would Democratic politicians back them. Which way is the windsock blowing? Maybe that's why we keep hearing about a lack of leadership on the part of the Dems. When the war starts we can hear the Dems asked what their plan was and how come they didn't stand up sooner.

[judy from nj]

28. Jack Murtha recommends diplomacy

"Nobody wants Iran to get nukes, but once again we threaten Iran with violence. I know this was part of PNAC's agenda, but when is Cheney going to learn that shooting people in the face doesn't always achieve great results. Including them in the "axis of evil" speech pretty much told Iran how we feel about them."

Crooks and Liars has up the clip from Hardball. He sounded just like Wes Clark.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/07.html#a7432

[Tom Rinaldo]

33. I just watched Murtha on this.

He is speaking out against a military strike on Iran, god bless him, and he does call for diplomacy, though he did not advocate for direct U.S. talks with Iran.

[sandnsea]

30. Well Kerry has been for years

But we can just file that with the rest of the work the man does that DU doesn't pay attention to.

[Tom Rinaldo]

32. Don't file it away

Folks reading this thread at least will note it. Do you have any recent statements by Kerry to share regarding talking with Iran? Any since the current President in Iran took office?

[sandnsea]

37. He still supports the same policy

He was the one who supported giving Iran the fuel materials for nuclear energy in the first place. He continues to support sensible policies to deal with nuclear energy and nonproliferation matters. I can't think of a time that Kerry did not support face to face diplomacy.

http://www.nysun.com/article/26606

[IndianaGreen]

35. It is easier to suck up to AIPAC, and get contributions

than it is to fight for peace.

[Tom Rinaldo]

40. It scares me to think that may be true

but that may be part of it. Without trying to launch a major side discussion here, let's just say that I recognize that Israel has legitimate serious security issues vis a vis Iran. When all is said and done though, a choice must always be faced. Will legitimate security be more enhanced by seeking peaceful resolutions to areas of conflict, or by seeking military solutions to areas of conflict? Sometimes the case gets made that neither approach can fully be ruled out, but under the Bush Administration it's obvious which approach is respected and which isn't. Every nation has it's hawks and doves and even some honest brokers in between. But Democrats should at the very least always stand for a policy that says force should only only only be used as a last resort. That shouldn't even be controversial. If Democrats won't at least make the case that direct negotiations should be attempted before an act of war is taken, who will?

[The Magistrate]

38. One Problem, Mr. Rinaldo

Is that not too many people expect talks with Iran on the subject will be fruitful, or constitute anything more than a delaying tactic on the part of the mullahs' government....

[1932]

43. ...and it 's not clear what's going to be said. Advocating a conversation

isn't really saying much. Advocating a position is what matters.

Justifying an attack or invasion because of a failed conversation is no more legitimate than an invasion based on nothing if the conversation was about nothing.

[Tom Rinaldo]

46. As I have tried to develop my point in other posts

not challenging the position that meaningful talks with Iran are impossible, is tantamount to complicity in setting the stage for military conflict with Iran. That is the default setting in my opinion. It is a red herring to point out that Bush could use failed negotiations as an excuse for use of force, if his Plan A all along is to use the impossibility of negotiating with Iran as his excuse for use of force. Bush has done everything in his power to give Iran the message that nothing that the current Iranian government realistically will do can satisfy him. I actually think that is the truth of the matter, but even if it isn't Iran has no reason to believe it isn't

It is Iraq all over again. Bush was gunning for Hussein no matter what he did or didn't do. Democrats did too little to counter the war hysteria, so the public increasingly swung around behind Bush's framing of the issue, until Democrats really did start feeling some heat from some constituents to draw a harder line on Iraq, and the die then was cast.

The propaganda Bush is selling is that the Iranian regime is composed of mad men who he can not negotiate with. If we let him sell that message to the public unchallenged, the next step is war, because obviously mad men can't be trusted with nukes. And this is exactly the line that right wing media has started to take; "We can't negotiate with those out of control terrorists in Iran."

[1932]

48. I'm not sure that the debate is between two camps, one being

there should be dialogue and the other being there shouldn't be dialogue.

Actually, there is no public debate on this issue at all, as far as I can tell. However, there should be one that aligns itself according to what position people think our government should take viz Iran.

Having a dialogue with Iran isn't a magic cure. And I think there's actually a danger to thinking that dialogue is the panacea. If your goal all along is to invade and take control of the oil, dialogue that fails can be used as justification for agression, even if that dialogue was set up to fail.

That's why it's more important to ask our political leaders about their positions rather than about their desire to have dialogue. Like I suggested above, saying that you want to have a dialogue isn't a policy position. In fact, it's a very ambivalent position to take since it allows you to avoid arguing a policy position.

[Tom Rinaldo]

51. Having a dialog with Iran is not a magic cure

But I believe the set up for war script currently being followed is a declaration that Iran is run by mad men who can not be talked with. That is the sure path to war in my opinion, surer than a scenario that envisions future negotiations that are manipulated to fail. Mad men can not be trusted with nukes, hence any military action that must be taken against them to stop them from having nukes is justified. We have been down this road before. Bush is hoping to skip the sham negotiations step completely this time. If he had his druthers he would have skipped going to the U.N. regarding Iraq also. It is a policy position to say that the use of force is not justified unless all other options have been exhausted, and negotiations are an option.

Of course there also should be a larger public debate about what position our government should take regarding Iran. These are not mutually exclusive propositions. But I am concerned that by allowing the Right to continually proclaim, unopposed, that the mad men in Iran can not be reasoned with, that we are enabling a coming war.

[1932]

52. Like I said, I don't perceive a "let's talk" vs "let's not talk" divide.

And when I hear people say "we need a dialogue," my response is, "well, what do you want to say? what do you want to get out of a discussion?"

And although I doubt many Americans are even hearing the "let's talk" argument, I suspect that many of them who do are having the same reaction I have to that statement.

[Tom Rinaldo]

55. Negotiations with Iraq and it's Islamic neighbors, about Regional security

issues might be a good starting point, with Iran obviously included. A hell of a lot of "shuttle diplomacy" by numerous regional States, entities, and factions is already ongoing regarding that. I agree that there need not be a divide as you state. "What needs to be said?" is a highly relevant question. My focus on this thread though is to challenge on it's face the assertion that there is nothing of value, under the circumstances, that can be said directly to the Iranians, or that they can say to us ,without a total regime change in Iran first.

[Tom Rinaldo]

44. Again though, each choice we make sends a message

Which people do you refer to? "Knowledgeable observers"? The American electorate? As I wrote above, the message sent last time with Iraq was "Don't try to cooperate to resolve conflicts with America, we will find a way to attack you no matter what you do." With that subtext it is true that negotiations would not be fruitful. There are those who argue persuasively that Bush will not engage in any negotiations that hold out any real hope of becoming fruitful. and I see merit to that argument. But that is not the most relevant factor in my view.

We can not allow ourselves to fall in line with a philosophy of international relations that holds that only force or the threat of it serves a useful purpose, simply because we know our current government will give no real credence to the use of any other means of pursuing its ends. And a refusal to challenge the premise that the United States has nothing potentially to gain by sitting at any negotiating table with Iran is for all practical purposes silent consent with that premise that talking would be fruitless. Democrats can not afford to validate the Bush doctrine of leading with force that took us into Iraq, is leading us to attack Iran, and will necessitate further armed conflicts as a spiral of hate intensifies.

I believe that real negotiations, that involved more than simply asking the Iranians to listen to our demands and react to them in accordance with our wishes, could make progress. Iran would need assurances of it's own, and the first indicator to Iran that an American assurance to that government that conflict can be avoided will be the attitude of the American government toward full ranging discussions with Iran. To believe otherwise, in my opinion, is to accept the virtual certainty of approaching military conflict with Iran, initiated either by the United States or Israel in response to the belief, true or not and I tend to think it is true, that Iran is developing a nuclear weapons program.

[FrenchieCat]

45. Face it Tom, Diplomacy is dead....even here on DU for the most part....

Somehow, just like the hype on Saddam, Iran is fast becoming the new Boogieman.....and even Democrats here are falling in line.

It's not about kissing Iran's ass, it's about resolving differences.....even if it means doing a bit of compromising. Whatever happened to reasonability and the art of Diplomacy? Whatever gives us a chance to act civilized (yes, us), should be used.

Is discussion and the chance of averting war no longer in fashion? :shrug:

[The Magistrate]

47. My Comment, Sir

Was not meant to indicate opposition to talks with Iran, only my coinviction any such would indeed be fruitless. Most negotiations are, after all.

In a situation like this, where neither side has any reason to trust the honesty, let alone the good will, of the other, it is hard to see anything ocuring but the playing out of a charade. There are no compatibilities, not even any overlaps of real mutual interest. The Iranian leadership wants the apparent immunity from Great Power attack, and the stature and prestige, nuclear weapons confer, and it may well want to use them in some adventure against Israel. The United States does not, and would not under any conceivable elected administration, want the Iran leadership to have either of the first two certain items, and is committed to preventing the more speculative possibility. Things so incompatible as this are not really in reach of negotiated settlement: there is nothing equivalent to the first two things the Iranian leadership can be offered instead, and nothing that could be given by the Iranian leadership to the United States that could sufficiently salve the latter's acquiesence in their success.

[Tom Rinaldo]

49. A very bleak but very honest appraisal

We in fact face grave perils, not in the short term from a retaliatory Iran after air strikes are conducted against their nuclear facilities, but from the longer term playing out of the angry repercussions such a move would set off. For that reason Sir, I must argue for sanity even if it is unlikely that sanity can prevail. And where I am present to make that argument is here in the United States, so here is where I must make it.

There is a way out of this box, but as you note it depends on developing a minimal degree of trust that each party in this dispute sees how a negotiated change of course from each side is in the best interest of both nations. Perceived mutual self interest is the only ground to build on when good will and trust is lacking. Perhaps the best we can do is slow down the rush toward war with Iran by resisting joining into the demonizing chorus regarding that nation. That might slow Bush's effort to generate enough fear and hatred of Iran that the public will once again line up in support of his policy. Obviously Bush sees value in generating that one sided view of Iran or he and Cheney would not now be so hard at work generating just that. Perhaps Bush can be slowed beyond Novembers election, if Democrats do not do a replay of 2002, where they lined up behind Bush in trying to sound tough about Iraq. And perhaps the Democrats can secure majorities in both houses in November that can change the power dynamics in Washington.

What I will not do however is accept the likely outcome that you persuasively outline without mounting some resistance, and I think the first line of resistance is to challenge the propaganda that Iran is run by people too crazy to negotiate with.

[The Magistrate]

53. Such Are My Un-Happy Speciality, Sir

It has been well said that people who are not chronically depressed just are not paying enough attention....

The nearest thing to a guarantee against war with Iran anytime soon is the incapacity of the U.S. military to press it well at present. The troop strength to invade Iran and hold Iraq does not exist, and cannoot be wuickly conjured up. Certainly a bombing campaign could be conducted, but to do so would produce a rising of Shia militants in Iraq that would make the present circumstance seem like a training exercise by comparison, and make maintaining occupation a very dubious proposition. This leaves aside, of course, the likely fcat that a bombinmg campaign itself could not succeed, at least if success were defined as destroying Iranian capabilities to continue work on nuclear projects.

Your closing point, Sir, does move me to some small quarrel, though. It seems to me a questionable assertion that it is a mere propaganda Iran is run by people too crazy to negotiate with. Crazy is a word with slippery definition, and doubtless the Iranian leadership is not clinically insane. But they are devoted fundamentalists, with world-views very different from any conventional Western diplomatic norms. They are adherents to a sect that places a particular value on martyrdom, and that would place them in the broadest class of persons with a profound self-destructive streak. The actions of such people often seem quite irrational to those who lack that item, and persons so imbued are especially difficult to deter from courses that promise harm to them. They are also people who feel their actions directed by and blessed by an all-powerful diety, who can be counted on to ensure their success, and that is another serious difficulty in making them see reason, even reason in most cold-blooded realpolitik sense. At present, of course, matters of discourse would be complicated by the fact that our own regime is peopled by persons afflcited with the same belief in divine favor, and perhaps as well harboring some degree of self-destructive urges.

[Tom Rinaldo]

56. And regarding your closing remark here

If in fact the qualities that you describe are present in sufficient numbers in the relevent people at a sufficient level of intensity, than it would appear that armed conflict at some point in the not that distant future is virtually unavoidable. I suggest that we not simply accept that as certain and therefor proceed as if the results were preordained.

[The Magistrate]

57. By All Means, Sir

An armed conflict would be both futile and foolish, and this ought to be pointed out, if only for the record. But the prospects are not good, if leadership on either side, let alone both, are in fact in dead earnest over what are apparently their positions in the matter.

[Douglas Carpenter]

50. May I point out Sir, that Iran is surrounded on all sides by hostile

military forces of a power which has not concealed its commitment to the demise of the current Iranian State. A conciliatory approach by the previous Iranian President was unceremoniously rebuffed.

Most journalist and people I know personally who have visited Iran do report that Iran is simply not in the revolutionary fervor that it was in several years ago. Yet every move toward moderation, conciliation and possible reconciliation has been met with slap in the face. How has the American public reacted toward foreign belligerence when it has occurred? Has this strengthened the reactionary or progressive influences when it has occurred?

It is the nature of ANY state, good or bad, right or wrong; to seek its own survival. What would America or any of our own allies do if they were in the same position?

It would be surprising if Iran or any other state in a similar position would not seek to maximize its own deterrence.

Remembering that the Soviets did respond to a pledge in October 1962 when the U.S. made a pledge not to invade Cuba; I don't think it implausible that Iran might very well respond positively to a similar nonaggression pledge. Especially if the U.S. was to make the degree of conciliation that most of our European allies had made a number of years ago.

And consider the alternative. The U.S. would no doubt militarily prevail in the short run. But the consequences in particular for Iraq, Lebanon, Bahrain and Eastern Saudi Arabia are nothing to overlook. The consequences of military action are just so severe that it would be foolhardy not to try to prevent it.

[The Magistrate]

54. The Question, Sir

Is not whether they have some abstract right to do any of this: all states have the right to do whatever they can get away with, or in other words, what some more powerful state or combination of states do not prevent them from doing. Whether their desires are reasonable or not from their own point of view is the least important item of the present tension; what is important is that a very powerful state, and indeed a fairly sizeable combination of states, is set against their gaining those desires, because it is not in the interests of any of the former that they gain them.

It is certainly true that the last elected government leader of Iran made some attempts at reconciliation with the West, and in my view Ay. Khetami was sincere in these attempts, and a pretty good fellow for a fundamentalist mullah. But it is also true that he did not possess the power to make good on such overtures, because of the actual construction of Iran's ruling apparatus, in which the elected government is little more than a facade, and real power is held by religious councils and militias. Even the fact that large portions of the Iranian populace, particularly the urban populace, takes a very jaundiced view of the reigning mullahs, is not an important counterweight to this, for they have no real means of political expression, and are far short of the pitch of distaste required for open rebellion against the sort of power that can be brought to bear by armed supporters of the religious regime.

[endarkenment]

64. Small but important point of disagreement

"for they have no real means of political expression". Sorry but they do have a real means of political expression. Iran is a theocratic republic, and within the theocratic norms that this imposes on their repubic, Iranians vote freely for the candidates of their choice, and they do have choices. In fact the moderates were recently voted out of office mostly as a reaction to our invasion of Iraq and our threatening noises against Iran. And just to pre-empt the obvious objection that such an arrangement is not 'really democratic', from a 10,000 foot viewpoint I see little difference between the sham democracy of Iran and our own perverted sham democracy. They get to choose between two flavors of the official orthodoxy and so do we.

At least the theocracy is official, de jure, in Iran, rather than the de facto christian-capitalist theocracy that secretly runs our system. They know who their rulers are.

[The Magistrate]

66. They Have No Real Means Of Political Expression, Sir

Because the offices filled by election are not those that actually wield power. The arrangement is not too different from high school votes for student council; no matter who is elected, the principal continues to direct the school, as he or she sees fit. In such a circumstance, it hardly matters whether the election is fair and free or rigged to the formality of a Kabuki dance; it is not an effective political expression of the people's will.

[Tom Rinaldo]

67. Except that it matters enough to the ruling interests

that they still try to directly steer the outcome of elections by screening out a high percentage of potential candidates from running for office. If the elections were of absolutely no difference to them, they would likely only screen out the most overtly anti regime candidates, but they attempt to go further. Elected political office holders do not have the same degree of power in Iran as they do in the United States (where they are not all powerful either). However those positions provide a platform for counter point debates about the future course of Iran in the world. In a way being a high elected official there is more akin to having the influence that owning a newspaper here confers.

But in reality I read a fair amount about the effects of Khatami's Presidency in Iran. It dramatically raised expectations for reforms that he could not deliver within that political system which led to mass disillusionment, but that was a reflection of those high expectations. The social climate inside Iran loosened under Khatami and has tightened now with the new President. The office may not have the power that it theoretically is vested with, but it does in a manner provide some expression of people's will, with a concrete aftermath to elections perceivable.

[The Magistrate]

69. Everyone Likes A Cheering Result, Sir

People who control a system will seldom allow it to produce a result that puts them in a bad light, even if it could not directly harm them.

Certainly there is some indirect power to such popular expression , but the reaction of the ruling clique to the indication of unpopularity has not been a change in policy to mollify such discontent, but rather a determined effort to thwart and quash its expression.

It is certainly true that outside events over the last couple of years have played to the interests of the hard-liners in Iran. There is nothing like pressure from hostile foreigners to rouse patriotism and cement solidarity in a country. We have an unfortunate recent example in our country for reference in that regard.

[Tom Rinaldo]

73. A best case scenario might be something like Poland

where the Solidarity Free Union movement developed a counter balancing center of power to the Soviet client State, obviously weaker than it at first, but without being successfully crushed. Something of that sort might have happened with a reformist Iranian elected government becoming the vehicle for social change had the U.S. not played right into Iranian hard liner hands by refusing to seize on virtually any opening to improve relations with Iran.

[endarkenment]

74. They didn't want a reformed Iran.

That did not fit into their game plan.

[The Magistrate]

75. There Is A Good Deal To That View, Mr. Rinaldo

How much the U.S. could have done to foster it, though, is open to question. Some people very eager for such developments advised that the best thing the U.S. could do to foster them was to stay completely out of the matter, as even a hint of U.S. support for the reformers might well have torpedoed them at the outset.

But we are probably in agreement that a great opportunity was lost by not engaging Ay. Khetami in his overtures. A speech of his was broadcast here, and it impressed me very favorably and memorably. He struck me as a man making a real effort to communicate and understand, who could be relied on for honest dealing.

[endarkenment]

70. Not entirely true and not that different from our own system.

The complaint that they have no real choices is odd, given that we really don't have much in the way of choice either. We have two institutionalized political parties that offer different flavors of the same nonsense, the same christian-capitalist norm. Our political system precludes any real choice. Our Ayatollahs work behind the scenes, theirs work out in the open. Their media is under explicit tight control by the theocracy, ours is simply owned and operated by the same cabal that secretly (and perhaps somewhat unconsciously) runs the system. Their leaders do what they are told, and exercise power only within the limited parameters of what is acceptable to their theocracy, and so do ours. I find the disparaging of the Iranian republic on the basis of lack of choice and lack of real power to be more than a little hypocritical given the realities of our own system, given the appalling recent history of our republic. I suggest again that one steps back a bit and views these two systems from a distance, and then decide if in fact they are really so different.

[The Magistrate]

71. As You Wish, Sir

But little is gained by pressing this strained identification; the foundation of it insufficient to bear the weight you are attempting to rear upon it.

A system which formally sets up a Guardian Council of unelected clergy that can set aside any act of the government it deems cntrary to religious doctrine, or its own policy so cloaked, is a thing different in kind from a constitutional Republic on represntative and electoral lines.

Your statement that the system in the United States precludes real choice proceeds from two misapprehensions: firstly, that because you yourself do not like the available choices, they are not real, and secondly, that your discontent with the available choices is widespread among the populace. Both are dubious propositions, to put it mildly.

The largest bloc of people who do not engage themselves in politics do so because, in their view, the thing is well enough managed, and in good enough hands, that they do not need to bother their heads over it. Whether or not this view is an accurate one is immaterial, what is important about it is that lack of active participation in most cases amounts not to a rejection of the system, but an endorsment of it.

[endarkenment]

72. My last word on this.

"discontent with the available choices is widespread among the populace" - when asked why they don't vote the non-voting citizenry's chief reason is that 'it makes no difference, they are all the same, there is no choice'.

Our perception of choice is contrary to the reality we live in.

We don't have an overt theocracy (yet) but our political leaders are implicitly required to publicly demonstrate their christian faith and our 'opposition party' annointed pundits proclaim that we Democrats need to embrace christianity with the same false fervor as the ruling party.

Our perception of freedom is contrary to the reality we live in.

[FrenchieCat]

58. I just don't understand the attitude of many about Iran to the degree

in where they are considered as crazy, uncooperative, lunitical radicals, revolutionary, not worth negotiating with, etc., etc.

Did Iran attack us yesterday and I missed it?

I could have sworn, to a large degree, Bush brought this upon ourselves.....

Again, Cheney and Bush's propaganda on what Iran is
vs.
Cheney and Bush's actions driving Iran to what it might be
are being confused, IMO. :shrug:

If DUers have this attitude, I don't even want to imagine how our elected Democrats are going to play this one for the elections! Hawk meet Hawk, I guess!

At this point, I think I will just pray.

[Tom Rinaldo]

61. A lot of folks here will change their attitude and become more active

regarding the need for diplomacy, once it is virtually certain that the next war can't be stopped.

[endarkenment]

65. The brainwashing is massive and extensive. nt.

[watrwefitinfor]

59. Simple question, simple answer.

Why Won't More Democrats Back Direct Talks With Iran?

For the same reason they voted to support Bush on Iraq in '02:
There's an election coming up.

Wat

[Tom Rinaldo]

60. Similar script, same results, even worse consequences

A lot of the people who are being silent now will be making anti Iran war speeches after the public sees how bad the repercussions of that conflict become.

[Sensitivity]

68. Sared of the "terrorist" Bogey man