Cheney's a War Vice-President. Needs one in the bank on the off chance that peace breaks out in Iraq.

Of course Cheney & Bushco don't want to TALK to Iran. They want an excuse to invade. It's all about oil.

No wonder Venezuela is aiming to become a nation of warriors. The Nigerians had better watch out.

It breaks my heart that the US has become the big bully on the block. Thanks, Dick Cheney. Thanks George Bush.

Halliburton can't make obscene profits in peacetime.

The fact that Iran now has a "wingnut" as president is unfortunate, the offer probably no longer has "support from all major players in Iran's power structure."

What is even more unfortunate is that we did not begin public talks before the Iranian presidential elections. Maybe one of the reform candidates (who eventually were allowed to run) could have won.

Another missed opportunity resulting from either bad policy or a lack of policy that could result in "the military option."

Sounds like Cheney thought he could get a better deal down the road. He was believing his own PR about how things were going to go in Iraq. Now it's Iran that's holding all the cards.

Apparently the 'Domino Theory' requires that each domino be pushed over individually...

I've grown real tired of these 'neocon-wet-dreams-as-foreign-policy' decisions...Freakin' definition of insanity; doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Real tired.

It would be great if they were serious, but they're not. They're unserious. Deadly unserious,

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Cheney_has_tapped_Iranian_expatriate_arms_0420.html

The Department of Defense and Vice President Dick Cheney have retained the services of Iran-Contra arms dealer and discredited intelligence asset Manucher Ghorbanifar as their “man on the ground,” in order to report on any interaction and attempts at negotiations between Iranian officials and US ambassador to Iraq, Zelmay Khalilzad, current and former intelligence officials say.

Could there be worse news?

Wasn't Cheney the guy, as head of Halliburton, that complained about the Clinton sanctions against Iran? Historians one day are going to need to address how it is that Cheney went completely insane, seemingly overnight.

One real hallmark of this administration has always been george bush's inability (or unwillingness) to decide on a policy and tell everybody else to shut the hell up or get out. Instead, he lets all the different interest groups and power players keep running around and no one knows what our policy is. The most instransigent figure-- and the least scrupulous-- wins when that happens. I usually spell that C-h-e-n-e-y.

bush could tell Cheney and the veepshop to butt out and stick to twisting arms in Congress. He ought to. He ought to sit down with Rice and find some wise heads to actually develop a coherent policy. But it's a sure bet he won't. That would be too much like being in charge.

Kevin -
This is a very interesting start, i hope you'll follow it up with more research and a full-fledged article.

Kevin,

Don't forget - President Bush also criticized the legitimacy of the Iranian elections in the week leading up to the election last June. Most now agree that Bush's criticism helped Mahmoud Ahmadinejad get elected by stoking nationalist passions in Iran. In fact, most people agreed that was the case the day after the election.

Put it all together, and it paints a pretty damning picture of an Administration pushing for conflict with Iran at all costs.

I think it was Churchill -- the real one, not the Action Figure in Chief imitation -- who said "Jaw, jaw is better than war, war."

With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran.

Well, since Cheney is the de facto head of the government there's no chance of that happening. Who's going to stop Cheney? George "The Decider" Bush? Don't make me laugh....

This should be one more nail in the coffin of the idea that the Cheney Cabal was ever actually serious about the "Bush Doctrine" of transforming the Middle East toward democracy.

What the sequence that Kevin highlights tells me is that, in fact, the invasion of Iraq COULD ACTUALLY HAVE SERVED ITS AFTER-THE-FACT BUSH-STATED PURPOSE: it seems to have spurred the Iranians into concession/negotiation mode via a combination of fear and opportunism. If the administration had entered into negotiations with the Iranians, not only could they have defused the Iranian situation, but they could potentially have gone a long way toward settling down Iraq and the region in general. Such a Kissingeresque move (and I do mean that in the positive sense, as loathesome as Dr. K is) would have made me actually rethink my opposition to the whole Iraq adventure.

But, of course, we're stuck with ... The. Most. Incompetent. Administration. Ev. Er.

That reminds me that when Cheney shot what's-his- name in the face the Swiss ambassador was there with whom, apparently, Cheney is quite chummy. Everywhere you look Cheney pops up.

But Clinton . . . !

And what's the Democrats' plan?

And you're not serious about national security!

Sorry, just wanted to get all that crap out of the way before the trolls (or Joe Klein) could get to them.

Everywhere you look Cheney pops up.

I just got back from taking a pee, and yup, there he was, right there in the urinal. Uncanny!

From Knight Ridder on June 18, 2005. The article talks about the Iranian reaction to President Bush's comments about the election, made last June, just three days before polls closed. Is there any question George Bush helped get Mahmoud Ahmadinejad elected?

----------

Many voters expressed outrage at what they viewed as outside interference in an election that not only will determine whether the Islamic republic moves ahead with political, social and economic reforms, but also will influence Iranian negotiations with the West over its nuclear program.

Iran's conservative-run TV news networks fed on that anger, embellishing Bush's statement Thursday that criticized the Iranian election as undemocratic and telling viewers the American president had called on voters to stay home.

"It made us want to come more," said Mahboubeh Askari, 33, a homemaker who voted for Ahmadinejad at the Somayeh school. "It's a matter of national pride."

"Tell George Bush that he is not the master of our destiny," shouted Mohammed Ali Tavakoli, 61, who voted for Rafsanjani in Shush.

Speaking of Iran's new "wingnut" president, I just read a really interesting article at informationclearinghouse which dissects his recent speeches in which he supposedly says Israel should be wiped off the map and other incendiary things. It really does appear he's been misquoted in the Western press, no doubt to feed the neocons' fires. Recommended reading. The article is translated from German. Writers are Anneliese Fikentscher and Andreas Neumann. (Sorry, I don't know how to do a link and anyway I don't know if that's appropriate behavior at this site.) In any event, this sort of demonizing propaganda, together with exaggerating threats and ducking opportunities for diplomacy such as described in this PA post, show a familiar pattern and practice that should disgust and outrage us all.

This is just inexcusable. Iran has been on our shit-list awhile - Richard Clarke's book mentions that Clinton requested invasion strategies also - but if they're willing to talk we could at least hear what they have to say.

I never liked Reagan or the elder Bush, but at least they could do diplomacy. The current administration's foreign policy seems to be based upon ignoring or humiliating countries that don't give us what we want.

[They] rebuked the Swiss ambassador for having passed on the offer.

It says it all. They're insane.

Its hard not to view this response with extreme cynism. What is reprimanding the Swiss supposed to accomplish in this scenario? Can someone come up with a legitimate rationale for such an obtuse action?

But what domestic political advantage would the Bush administration get out of quiet back channel diplomacy? Who cares about what's best for America's long term interests or solving important and complex issues when you have pressing domestic political capitol to build at home. Having Iran in the evil axis to rail against does the administration a lot more political help.

craigie on April 20, 2006 at 3:14 PM:

I just got back from taking a pee, and yup, there he was, right there in the urinal.

You named your thingy 'Cheney?' Or just 'Dick'?

They're in so deep they can't see any point in not going in even deeper and hoping history will exonerate them, a thousand years from now.

What it's really about is to so screw things up that any future action can never clear it up or get us back to a point where it might be as if they never happened, that all future action will depend from the crap they've blessed us with, so they define the future.

Perhaps they'll get their reward in heaven.

Kevin wrote: With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran.

I see that Stefan has already made this point, but who exactly do you think is going to "quit letting" Cheney do anything? Cheney is the real president. Cheney is calling the shots in this administration. Bush is just a spokesmodel.

Erika Hamerquist wrote:

Sorry, I don't know how to do a link and anyway I don't know if that's appropriate behavior at this site

Not to speak for anyone else, but if you could copy-and-paste a the URL, I'd be interested in seeing what you are talking about...As for appropriate behavior, I just made an attempt at a dick-Cheney joke, so draw your own conclusions...

You named your thingy 'Cheney?' Or just 'Dick'?

Don't be silly. The little deodorant cakey thing is named "Cheney"

With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran.

That's your suggestion? Do you have any tips on how I might solve world hunger and make myself millions?

First, get a million dollars...

I think that Bush and Ahmadinejad should be given clubs and locked in a large cage. In fact this would make an ideal summer reality show. We could also pair Cheney against Khatami, Pat Robertson against one of the Iranian nutcase clerics. My guess is that it would be popular viewing for both the Iranian and American public. I'd want Douglass Feith and John Bolten to get a chance to fight as well. Oh, and by the way, when the fights were finished I'd throw away the key.

Owenz writes, Don't forget - President Bush also criticized the legitimacy of the Iranian elections in the week leading up to the election last June. Most now agree that Bush's criticism helped Mahmoud Ahmadinejad get elected by stoking nationalist passions in Iran. In fact, most people agreed that was the case the day after the election.

Perhaps. Remember that Ahmadinejad's opponent was Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, former president and also a member of the inner circle and considered a 'moderate' only in comparison to Ahmadinejad. Rafsanjani is also on the record as thinking that using nukes to destroy Israel is something that should be done post haste, and was an original member of the 'Death to America' crowd.

Ahmadinejad strikes me as unstable, but Rafsanjani is no prize. This was a 'damned if we do, damned if we don't' situation for the U.S.

if you could copy-and-paste a the URL, I'd be interested in seeing what you are talking about

The trolls have to wait a long time to get there talking points today I wonder what's up.The straw pile must be replenished.Oh I hear Rove may be in legal trouble?? Fitzmas!!!!

If the Democrats want to convince average Americans that they have a coherent vision on foreign policy and national security, Iran is a good place to start. We know the Republican vision -- Iran is part of the Axis of Evil (and given the history of the Mad Mullahs, it's easy to understand why -- just do a body count since the time the Shah fell). The Republican vision is that Iran won't get nukes, somehow, leaving the 'somehow' on the fuzzy side.

So if Kevin Drum wants the Dems to do well in 2006 and beyond, how about laying out a plan by which Iran is convinced, without bombing and without war, to give up its aspirations for nuclear weapons? How about telling us how you'll work to get the Iranians to cooperate a little in vital areas, and what you'd give in return?

The election is coming: it's rare that you beat something with nothing. The Dems have nothing right now. Let's hear a plan.

The Clintonite deadenders at the State Department leak one more story to smear the Bush administration, and that's news?

Wake me up when something new comes up.

Don't be silly. The little deodorant cakey thing is named "Cheney."

Really? I've never had penis envy until this very moment.

I think there is some confusion. Yes, the fax came from the Swiss... but it came via the same italian embassy that brought us the Niger forgeries.

I found the document, and I can see why they didn't find it credible. Check it out

But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?

No wonder why somebody might think that's a good idea.

Don't forget that in the run-up to the Afghanistan invasion, US and Iranian military representatives met to discuss overflight issues and repatriation of US personnel who may stray into Iran during the fighting. Iran also halted the transit of fighters and arms through Iran into Afghanistan and detained Taliban and Al Qaeda fighters who fled into Iran.

I have long maintained that the Bush Administration missed a major opportunity for an opening with Iran, at a time when Iran was trending toward more pragmatic policies.

Steve White: Please don't attempt to defend the Bush Administration by claiming that Rafsanjani is Ahmenidijad (sp?) lite. He is an utter pragmatist.

If the Democrats want to convince average Americans that they have a coherent vision on foreign policy and national security, Iran is a good place to start.

Frankly, I'd settle for the Republicans offering a coherent vision on foreign policy and national security -- other, that is, than "heee heee heee, me smash good!"

Frequency will nail it.

The election is coming: it's rare that you beat something with nothing.

Hey, it worked for the Republicans in 2004....

I see the wingnut talking point this week is that, since you can't depend on the GOP to come up with any credible ideas, it's up to the Democrats to conceive a national security strategy and that they can't be considered "serious" (read: bloodthirsty) until they do so.

Last week, of course, the story was that the Democrats should stop coming up with their own strategy because it was emboldening our enemies, and should instead silently defer to Bush.

Ah, I love the return of warm weather when you can hear the flip-flop, flip-flop of Republican feet....

Just as Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush wanted revenge on Saddam for Kuwait which made the invasion of Iraq inevitable, so they want revenge on the Iranian leadership for the overthrow of the Shah, the GOP's very own personal tyrant.

Puerile vengence drives these folks.

Always has, always will.

And national security and national interest will just have to take a back seat to the GOP's personal agendas.

That's deep in the 'character' of Shrub, Dickless, and Dumsfeld.

The Clintoni--

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz...

craigie on April 20, 2006 at 3:29 PM:

The little deodorant cakey thing is named "Cheney"

Heh...I'd love know where to purchase a urinal cake with Dubya's or Cheney's picture onnit...

Oh, and thanks for the linky, jayarbee.

"Congress has passed legislation outlawing Iran forever. Bombing begins in five minutes."

Fits with RawStory report that Cheney is contracting with Ghorbanifar to spike a diplomatic solution.

Cheney spooking around with an discredited arms dealer again? What's he trying to do? -- get indited by Fitz for racketeering in arms and military supply sales? ssssheessssh!

"It really does appear he's been misquoted in the Western press, no doubt to feed the neocons' fires."

Who is doing the translations from Farsi? It's not MEMRI, is it? For a while they seemed to have a monopoly on these services.

Politicians often talk tough for domestic consumption while negotiating through the backdoor. JFK and his macho facing down of the commies, for ex., while actually negotiating to get rid of our missiles in Turkey.

Leaders often have more in common with other leaders than they do with their own people. In the same business, so to speak. Like Bush and Vicente Fox plotting against the American people on invasion.

"That may well be the Bush administration's strategy, but ordinary horse sense suggests it shouldn't be anyone else's."

If only an ordinary horse were running this administration!

Didn't Saddam also try to send some messages through back channels, only to be blown off by the Bushistas? I remember having read that somewhere.

IIRC, at that time the Iranians stated publicly that they were interested in making the Middle East a nuclear free zone. The reason the administration refused to talk with them is that the idea was to put Israel's nuclear arsenal on the table. In all of this viewing with alarm, let us not forget that Israel possesses 100-200 nuclear weapons, now -- it's not just a program to develop them some day. There is obviously no reason why Iran would agree that they have no right to nuclear weapons when Israel gets to have them without a peep from anyone.

Who knows if the Iranians were sincere but why not call their bluff?

How do we get the Iranians to "cooperate a little in vital areas," Steve White?

Um, how about simply talking to them, in secret deliberations if the Bushies are too embarrassed to do it in the light of day.

From the Ahmadinejad's speech as printed in the article cited above,

"We cannot compromise over the issue of Palestine. Is it possible to create a new front in the heart of an old front. This would be a defeat and whoever accepts the legitimacy of this regime [Israel] has in fact, signed the defeat of the Islamic world. Our dear Imam targeted the heart of the world oppressor in his struggle, meaning the occupying regime. I have no doubt that the new wave that has started in Palestine, and we witness it in the Islamic world too, will eliminate this disgraceful stain from the Islamic world."

It doesn't appear to me that he's been misquoted in the Western press.

"So if Kevin Drum wants the Dems to do well in 2006 and beyond, how about laying out a plan by which Iran is convinced, without bombing and without war, to give up its aspirations for nuclear weapons? How about telling us how you'll work to get the Iranians to cooperate a little in vital areas, and what you'd give in return?"

First off, the part about convincing the Iranians about nuclear aspirations comes in the form of radioactive waste. Good luck storing it. Secondly, the issue of engineering, which the Soviets...er, Russians are still working out. Nasty thing, Nuclear plants, has to be run just so, or else. And the "or else" is never a good option, ever.
Lastly, switching to a solar process to supplement, with US dollars to subsidize, their growing energy needs.
I figure that monetarily, based on the war in Iraq would be equivalent to the war in Iran, subsidizing would be far cheaper for us than actually starting the engines on the bombers.

I know, the Republicans are having colon fits right now, but lets be realistic guys, fuel consumption on a bomber is far more expensive that fitting a neighborhood with solar power.

Third, their already willingness to rein in their terrorist dogs, which is surprising since it's taken the place of their military. Of course, if they're willing to put their support of terrorist groups on the table, then it is in our best interests to convince them that those terrorist groups, are of right now, a liability rather than an asset to their future.
Next, Iran's military will never be what it once was namely because for Iran, a standing army would suck down their gnp which leaves them open to our willingness to sign treaties, obviously with caveats, somewhat like a contract, that each side upholds the particulars.
In this case, Iran reins in their proxies, and plants them in their own country, never allowing them to leave, and we promise to loosen import controls for their goods. And for their abandonment of their nuclear program we subsidize the construction of natural gas power stations, with solar supplements.
But the final bargin would be that they can worry about their side of the border, and we'll not worry about it for them.

Of course, I know this is all crap, because for the Republicans, since there is no oil involved, there can be no discussion with Iran.
And as one poster has shown, "the Dick" Cheney, vis-a-vis haliburton, would never stand for such a deal unless Iran surrenders all oil to Haliburton...I'm sorry, I meant the US.

Solid Reporting.

http:www.e-merges.com

What is the problem?

Iran can sell oil on the world market. They can buy all of what they need. Why is relations with the U.S. so important to them, why do they need negotiations about that.

Their messing with Hamas and the belt bombers as been a minor nuisance, not much more.

They meddle in Iraq, but so what, they are neighbors and Iran will always meddle in Iraq.

The problem with kevin's analysis is that negotiations are un-necessary for Iran in a free market world while having such a large oil inventory, they do not need us. Their problems are internal.

As far as the bomb goes, no one wants Iran to have a bomb, India, the Arabs, even Frenchmen. It is up to those countries to decide how much they fear the Iranian bomb. They can lay the problem on our hands, but whether they push us toward military, or economic action, these other countries pay the price.

TPM and WashMonthly are the best

http://www.e-Merges.com

From the Leverett article linked:

Nuclear diplomacy with Iran, never an easy proposition, has been made harder not only by poor policy choices in Washington, but also by trends in Iranian politics. Mr. Ahmadinejad's electoral victory last year against former President Ali Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani suggests that a significant number of Iranians linked Mr. Rafsanjani's call for rapprochement with the West with his corrupt past and rejected both in favor of Mr. Ahmadinejad's populist nationalism.

In other words, it may have been the former Iranian administration's perceived willingness to make a deal that lost the election for them. Had negotiations been opened, the election results may well have been the same.

Iran has been telling the U.N. and Europe to go jump in the lake for a long time now. What makes anyone think they would have made a deal with the U.S.?

Look, you go to ruin with the President and Vice President you got, not with the President and Vice President you want.

unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war

Give the man a cigar!

I'm seeing a studio tomorrow to pitch an idea for a monster movie. There's this giant lizardy thing, wearing a turban, and it stomps around on Los Angeles, crushing everything, while it shouts "I am the decider!" in a big booming voice.

At the end, they kill it by drafting it into the armed forces. It runs away, and is never seen again, except for cameo appearances in children't books and at corporate bankruptcy proceedings.

Repeat after me: "Its all about the oil" "Its all about the oil" "Its all about the oil"......

Matt,
The real-world situation for Iran is that they have to shed the "pariah" image, and they do that by making nice-nice with the US.
Also, we have a lot of their money.
Also, we have frozen a lot of their money, whether here, or in other countries.
Lastly, Iran wants to get into the world trade. Yes they got the oil, but for them, it's like having a American Express Card in an establishment that only accepts Visa or Mastercard.

Also, reality.
The last thing the mullah's of Iran want is the "equivalency" comparison. These are very smart, and very savvy people, and right now they know that everytime a westerner looks at them, they don't see a muslim "Iranian." They know that we see "Osama bin Laden." Not a good image to have, and rightly so, hence the willingness to negoiate, but why the US?
Our paranoia.
We are paranoid with fear, also combine with our paranoid fear is our possession of the greatest military this planet has ever seen.
And with it, we went in and sacked Iran's neighboring nutcase by "aligning" ourselves with the rebel faction with airpower.
And then we went high-order in the scared sh*tless category, and in three weeks sacked their other neighbor who happened to have the largest military in the Arab world in three weeks.

For the mullahs of Iran, there is much to be gained from chatting it up with the scared sh*tless teenager who also happens to be the only one armed to the teeth. I think the police have a term for it, "Talking the person down." Calming him, and letting him know everything is okay. Lets talk and sort it out. Nobody needs to get hurt.
I believe the Mullahs are trying to do that.

Since I've been banned from Josh Marshall's TPM for calling Ivo Daalder a moron and an idiot, perhaps I can comment here.

The reality seems to be this:

The issue in the ME is who is going to influence the ME in the 21st Century - Persia or the US through their surrogate Israel.

The Iranians have decided that allowing the US to control the ME is not acceptable. It should not be acceptable to us either, since the US has no business controlling any place but the US.

So the Iranians - who, having been around for centuries longer than the US has existed, and who thus think in longer time frames than "four-year-shelf-life" US politicians - have decided to use the age-old strategy that the Vietnamese recently and successfully used against the West.

In other words, stand up, absorb the US airstrikes, use provocations to entice the US to invade the Khuzestan oil province (a tempting target for the neocons because that is where the oil is and it's right across the border from Iraq) - then commit the full might of their military to a ten-year-long guerrilla war against the US occupation.

The US will be forced to commit a million troops (twice that of Vietnam) or more at a cost of perhaps $20-30 billion a month or more (the current Iraq war is only requiring 130,000 troops but is costing nearly $10 billion per month) to attempt to control an insurgency by half a million Iranian troops and one to six million Iranian militia.

The inevitable result will be that Iran will lose its energy program, and its economy will be devastated by brutal US bombing and sanctions, and hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iranians will die.

And in the process, the US taxpayer will pay $20/gallon for gas at the pump, see their jobs evaporate as the economy evaporates under the oil price shock, see their children drafted and sent to Iraq and Iran to die by IED, see car bombs going off all over the US, and see what few civil liberties they have left disappear in an attempt to stop the car bombings. We can expect tens of thousands of US military deaths and scores of thousands of US casualties per year for the next ten years - or more.

But in the end, the US will be bled dry militarily and economically and geopolitically. The US will withdraw. And the Iranians will rebuild and carry on.

The American Empire is about to be crushed. The right wingnuts just don't realize it, but it's all over but the propaganda and the dying.

And once Iran comes back, they will have nuclear weapons. So Israel will no longer be able to threaten them with regime change. And then the rest of the Muslim world will spend their oil dollars to achieve conventional military parity with Israel. Then Israel will be pressured to resolve the Palestinian issue in a manner favorable to the Palestinians - that is, a one-state solution. And then the Arabs and Palestinians will out-breed the Jewish citizens of Israel. And then Israel will no longer be a threat to the rest of the ME - without firing a shot from Iran to Israel (other than the missiles that may be fired early in the Iran war.)

Problem solved - by the wisdowm and courage (or the scheming and greed, take your pick - it doesn't matter, the end result is the same) of the Persians.

Since the US can't solve the ME problems because of bad faith and greed, we have to rely on the Persians. Only question now is are they up to it.

As for the attempts to negotiate, well, of course, the Persians know that it would be better to do this without having to endure a ten-year war. But clearly these days, they hold little hope for that. But as has been noted with Osama, the religion of Islam REQUIRES them to offer a negotiated out to their enemies before going to war.

They have done so. The neocons and the Israelis rejected it.

Now they wait for Bush's next move - so they can finish it.

One of the big disappointments to me about the Clinton administration, for all its intelligence and efforts at negotiations (Israel-Palestine, Northern Ireland), is that it failed to take advantage of the Westernization of Tehran. Khameini could've been the Iranian Gorbachev, but the boys and girls who were smart enough missed the opportunity, and now we have the boys and girls who aren't smart enough in the first place.

Yes....if only Jimmah was still in the White House, he'd know what to do. Maybe something like sending John Kerry to Paris to negotiate our surrender.

After watching this same group of clowns deliberately piss away multiple early opportunities to 1) knock off Zarqawi and his little training camp in no-fly-zone Kurdish Iraq, 2) use the full might of the US military to capture Bin Laden and bring him to justice when we had him trapped in a cave at Tora Bora, 3) allow Hans Blix time to document the non-existence of Saddam's WMD, or 4) listen to any of the skeptics in our own intelligence services--after watching all of this unfold, IS ANYONE REALLY SUPRISED???

I mean, the one thing all of the above have in common is that their successful pursuit would have fatally undermined the case for invading Iraq in the eyes of the American public.

Achieve #1, and Saddam is no longer "supporting terrorists and maintaining ties to Al Qaeda". Do #2, and, hey, we nailed the guy who did 9/11; case closed. #3, and you lose the one "marketing strategy" Paul Wolfowitz tells us everyone in charge could agree on. #4...aw geez, do I need to go on?

They want perpetual war, period. Our fundie whack-jobs and theirs need each other, like Fred and Ginger.

Looking at the Republican's behavior since Bush came in, it's actually all about contracts and money.

The contracts part is the billions of dollars that have flowed through corporations to run the war and reconstruction and the millions that has flowed through officials war chests to pay for election campaigns and graft. Bush delivered to business. Add to this the uncertainty that has driven up the price of gas and we have a lot of new rich people. Bush delivered again.

Now we have a huge national debt, much more graft and ethical problems and the regular folks who are raising families and earn an honest living are just hanging in there.

We have a summer coming of record energy prices, a president we don't trust, an endless war where our sons and daughters are still dying and being maimed, an economy that looks good on the outside but rotten on the inside where middle Americans are loosing jobs and getting few wage increases. Health care is way expensive and the quality is uneven and pensions are going away. These are tough times. It will be a cold day in hell before I believe another Republican voice about anything.

I didn't vote for Bush because I'm from Texas and knew better but even I didn't know how awful it would get!

RSH,
I'm not sure Iran's fragile economy and infrastructure can absorb the bombing campaign, unless it's all part of their urban renewal policy.
"B'ah, Akmed, we don't have to tear it down and replace it, we start a war with the US, they'll bomb it, and afterwards they'll replace it for us!"
Also, I think that the Iranian mullahs are not gamblers. Willing to take risks, yes, unbelievably stupid, no.
Also, I think the nuclear issue is one that is clearly understandable. Once again, they have a small military, and a large one costs a lot of money which what they don't have. They've got the oil, but not the cash. Whereas, they see a nuclear weapon as the ability to achieve military parity with any other country, US included, in which they can use the "bomb" as a way to deter attack.
And why not, history supports this strategy.
I also don't think Iran is seeking to be a player in the ME, but I have no proof of that, so I will not be able to defend that thought. Just a gut feeling from my readings, which are subject to change.
But what does concern Iran right now is not just the US support of Israel, which has been going on for near 40 years plus. But rather having witness the US go ape-sh*t on her neighbors, for 1: Support of Terrorism, and 2: The suspicion of possessing nuclear technology.
If I was the supreme leader of Iran's theology, I wouldn't need no tea leaves, or the Koran to tell me, "Need to calm the dragon."

I got tired of having my comments scrubbed at TPM myself, usually for daring to say that Ivo Daalder and people like him were fools and cowards. So I feel you, Richard Steven Hack, on that point.

OTOH, I'm not sure I see how your framework is really supported by the evidence. I'm intrigued by the picture you paint, but I'm not sure if I buy it. Do you have your own site on which I can read about your ideas in more depth?

APS

Richard Steven Hack: "So the Iranians - who, having been around for centuries longer than the US has existed, and who thus think in longer time frames than "four-year-shelf-life" US politicians - have decided to use the age-old strategy that the Vietnamese recently and successfully used against the West."

"In other words, stand up, absorb the US airstrikes, use provocations to entice the US to invade the Khuzestan oil province (a tempting target for the neocons because that is where the oil is and it's right across the border from Iraq) - then commit the full might of their military to a ten-year-long guerrilla war against the US occupation."

Your scenario is thoroughly depressing. And it sounds exactly right to me.

It's the oldest ploy in the book: Do what is necessary to encourage your enemy to self-destruct: I have had one judo lesson in my life and that is what they taught me. How many Star Treks had the same premise? How many Hollywood action films?

Why is it so unclear to those morons in the Bushco bubble?

Yes, it is scary. The possibility of bombing Iran increases with each plunge downward of Bush's favorable poll ratings. Our "decider" buffoon of our cmmander in chief has shown his contempt for citizen concerns, exemplified by his criminal neglect to secure the borders. There is no bi lateral diplomacy with the most dangerous regimes on the planet. The Lugars, Robertsons, Spectors, and all the rest of the senate and house republican chairman of committees, have made a sham of the checks and balance form of our government. They have thrown away their most important governmental role playing attribute. Party above country! Thus they have failed miserably to reign in this messianic maniac running the country.

It is fairly obvious IF . .that's a big "IF" ... the Iranians are attempting to secure nuclear weapons AFTER BEING REFUSED any diplomatic overtures by our murderous administration - DE JA VOUS IRAQ! - can ANY one blame them?

Bush/Cheney's "pre-emptive" behavior also acts as "role models" for other nations who feel threatened. They have NO reason NOT to feel threatened. The American public feels threatened by our White House.

Iranians have more reasons to feel threatened than any nation.

Iran has been attacked over and over again by "foreign powers" for thousands of years for their wealth and natural resources. Witnessing their neighbor, Iraq, being attacked they would be "dumb as posts" for not attempting diplomatic remedies to avoid the "same" and/or be dumb as posts for not preparing to DEFEND THEMSELVES.

It is obvious Bush/Cheney have no intentions of ever using diplomacy, they never did in their own nation with their own citizens, they will never do so in foreign affairs.

The "coalition of the willing" were forced to be willing with use of extortion and blatant threats.

Someone needs to take them out of OUR misery!

Americans have a choice. Either like the President so his approval rating is greater than 60%, or prepare for nuking of Iran and it repurcussions.

The least they can do is to apologize to Cheney for keeping his approval numbers so low.

Although it is true there are reports (I do not speak Farsi and do not trust the MSM to provide honest translations) the Iranian President uses rhetoric that does make him appear to be a wingut, Ahmadinejad has not acted out any wingnut behavior. Iran has not invaded another country on false pretenses of national security. Iran is rationally pursuing nuclear weapons as a deterrent to US and Israeli nuclear annihilation. Iran has discussed its national and strategic security with many other state actors of the world. Unlike our wingnut president, Iran's president seems pretty rational.

"The real-world situation for Iran is that they have to shed the "pariah" image, and they do that by making nice-nice with the US.
Also, we have a lot of their money.
Also, we have frozen a lot of their money, whether here, or in other countries. "

Let us counter these point by point.
Iran can shed their "pariah" image with Europe. Making nice with the U.S. won't work because we have differences with their support for Hamas and Hezbollah. Europe is a much easier target for them.

The money. It is $2 billion from one side and $17 billion from the other. Large, but modest by national standards.

The only issue we really have is the bomb, Iran and the U.S. would be perfectly happy to let everything else continue. If Iran is getting the bomb just to heckle the U.S., then we might have cause to take action, for that is a preparation for war.

However, the Iranian bomb serves other purposes, parity with India and Pakistan, defense against the Arabs, and the thrill of being the second country on the block to have the bomb. Hence, the U.S. must insist that these countries get involved in whatever action is required to stop the bomb.

To the extent that Iran makes war noises to the U.S., we should defend. To the extant that Iran is doing multi-lateral policy with the bomb then we have to get the other countries on board.

Israel, on the other hand, is perfectly and internationally justified, within their means, to attack Iran with whatever means they can muster, for the Iranians have all but declared that the bomb is intended to destroy Israel.

Should we support Israel? We can simply loan or sell them whatever equipment they need, I see no problem with that.

In this regard, was Plame's outing only about embarassing Wilson?

Although it is true there are reports (I do not speak Farsi and do not trust the MSM to provide honest translations) the Iranian President uses rhetoric that does make him appear to be a wingut, Ahmadinejad has not acted out any wingnut behavior.

Hmmmm...excellent article in The New Republic 14 April of this year. Subscription required.
http://www.tnr.com/user/nregi.mhtml?i=20060424&s=kuntzel042406

During the Iran-Iraq War, the Ayatollah Khomeini imported 500,000 small plastic keys from Taiwan...Khomeini sent Iranian children, some as young as twelve years old...marched in formation across minefields toward the enemy...the Taiwanese keys would be hung around each child's neck...to open the gates to paradise for them.

"Before entering the minefields, the children [now] wrap themselves in blankets and they roll on the ground, so that their body parts stay together after the explosion of the mines and one can carry them to the graves."

These children who rolled to their deaths were part of the Basiji, a mass movement created by Khomeini in 1979 and militarized after the war started in order to supplement his beleaguered army...."The young men cleared the mines with their own bodies," one veteran of the Iran-Iraq War recalled in 2002 to the German newspaper Frankfurter Allgemeine. "It was sometimes like a race. Even without the commander's orders, everyone wanted to be first."

The sacrifice of the Basiji was ghastly. And yet, today, it is a source not of national shame, but of growing pride. Since the end of hostilities against Iraq in 1988, the Basiji have grown both in numbers and influence. They have been deployed, above all, as a vice squad to enforce religious law in Iran, and their elite "special units" have been used as shock troops against anti-government forces....

Ahmadinejad revels in his alliance with the Basiji. He regularly appears in public wearing a black-and-white Basij scarf, and, in his speeches, he routinely praises "Basij culture" and "Basij power," with which he says "Iran today makes its presence felt on the international and diplomatic stage."...

According to Shia tradition, legitimate Islamic rule can only be established following the reappearance of the Twelfth Imam. Until that time, the Shia have only to wait, to keep their peace with illegitimate rule, and to remember the Prophet's grandson, Hussein, in sorrow. Khomeini, however, had no intention of waiting. He vested the myth with an entirely new sense: The Twelfth Imam will only emerge when the believers have vanquished evil. To speed up the Mahdi's return, Muslims had to shake off their torpor and fight...

A politics pursued in alliance with a supernatural force is necessarily unpredictable.Why should an Iranian president engage in pragmatic politics when his assumption is that, in three or four years, the savior will appear? If the messiah is coming, why compromise? That is why, up to now, Ahmadinejad has pursued confrontational policies with evident pleasure...

...The history of the Basiji shows that we must expect monstrosities from the current Iranian regime. Already, what began in the early '80s with the clearing of minefields by human detonators has spread throughout the Middle East, as suicide bombing has become the terrorist tactic of choice. The motivational shows in the desert--with hired actors in the role of the hidden imam--have evolved into a showdown between a zealous Iranian president and the Western world. And the Basiji who once upon a time wandered the desert armed only with a walking stick is today working as a chemist in a uranium enrichment facility.

We have met the enemy, and we are he, and he is Dick Cheney.

That was long ago. Long before the Iranian election. Long before Bush goaded the the Iranian version of his base, ultra nationalistic religious fundamentalists, into sweeping Ahmadinejad into the presidency.

That isn't to say diplomacy isn't still possible but it's going to be a lot harder. If Bush could pull a diplomatic agreement out of his hat with Iran it would save his ass if for no other reason than gas would drop $1 a gallon. I'm sure God will tell him what to do.

Really what this Bush WH failure to seize on an opportunity really reflects is its own arrogance.

Let's remember the context.

At the time of the Iranian offer, it really DID look good, temporarily, for the Bush Doctrine. It really DID seem that the American military could seize and control any country it chose, with relatively minimal fuss. The early phase of the war was a brilliant success for our military, and a well deserved one. It demonstrated that our military is capable beyond our wildest imaginings of success when that success is defined purely as the elimination of a typical standing army and the removal of a regime from power. While people don't often acknowledge this aspect of the war of Iraq, I think that it should play a crucial role in determining what kind of foreign policy we should implement. If the only goal of our war against Iraq had been to eliminate an ACTUAL threat to us via WMD, it would have been a great success.

Where our military failed is when the goal was redefined as "spreading democracy", and nation building. There is nothing in our military's capabilities that really addresses that kind of goal; I doubt that we are generally in a position to support what such a military venture would involve in most circumstances.

The Iranians no doubt responded to the pretty amazing success of our military in the early phase of the war, seeking compromise.

The Bush WH, drunk in its arrogance, stupid with its own triumphalism, would not deign to engage the Iranians at this juncture. They were absolutely sure that what started so well could only end better. They were incapable utterly of entertaining the possibility that things might deteriorate in Iraq.

But deteriorate they did. And then the Iranians realized that it wasn't the US that held them by their nether parts, but quite the other way round. Then, the negotiating power in this bargain turned entirely in their favor. They saw the US military as weak, because it was so spectacularly failing at controlling Iraq.

THAT is why they have chosen to reject their initial offer, and instead to go quite the opposite direction, and to assert their own rights to nuclear power. Likewise, the early concessions made by other Arabic countries to democracy have been largely abandoned; we have no perceived strength.

And we have the arrogance of the Bush WH, its inherent sense of infallibility, to blame for this.

The Bush WH combined, in an evil mixture, the character flaw of arrogance with contempt for experience and rationality.

God only knows what it will take to recover the global reputation the US once enjoyed both for fearsome power and goodwill. Bush has undermined them both from his unique set of personal limitations.

"I just read a really interesting article at informationclearinghouse which dissects his recent speeches in which he supposedly says Israel should be wiped off the map and other incendiary things. It really does appear he's been misquoted in the Western press, no doubt to feed the neocons' fires."

The ratching of the war drum is even more obvious than this.

For example: just wait for the next Yahoo headline in which some wingnut Iranian is quoted as saying something completely insane like: We will cut off America's hand.

Then click on the article and read the story.

You will discover that whomever is writing the headlines for Yahoo is deliberately giving them a hyper-aggressive war spin.

It makes one wonder if neocon operatives haven't embedded themselves into every newsroom and corporate media boardroom in America.

In other words... to bring back an old saying that got a lot of play the first year of Bush's Iraq mess:

We're fucked. Big corporate media wants another war. The enormous short term profits make these goons salivate.

Is The New Republic a right wing rag?

With that as background, here's my suggestion: quit letting Cheney's crackpots run foreign policy and talk to Iran. ... If the talks fail, then they fail. But what possible reason can there be to refuse to even discuss things with Iran — unless you're trying to leave no alternative to war?

Yes, we should be talking to Iran. The question is: In what forum, and about what? Public negotiations involve putting a country's prestige on the line. Given the current posturing by both the US and Iran, it's questionable that open direct discussions between Iran and the US would go very far, and may simply increase tensions.

That leaves back-channels and the UN. The problem with back-channels is, as in the past, that the US and Iranian governments are not monoliths, and such discussions are at risk from the left hand not knowing--or actively working against--the right hand.

On our side, the administration needs to get its ducks in a row--including Cheney et. al.--before undertaking such discussions. Otherwise we're likely to end up with a replay of the past, with some progress followed by failure caused by something out of left field that increases ill will. A good start for the administration would be toning down the rhetoric, and as Kevin suggests, bringing Cheney et. al. to heel.

Moreover, we need to be realistic about what can be achieved given the unilateral sticks and carrots available to the US. We have a few carrots, but their value to Iran is debateable, and many of them seem to be of the "les-stick" variety. On the positive side, recognition of Iran as a legitimate regime is one possible carrot. However, it's doubtful this administration could swallow that. And there's always the possibility that the administration could offer something constructive for the Israel-Palestine issue, but that's probably even farther fetched for this administration.

US unilateral sanctions (e.g., the ILSA) have already been in effect for a decade, and while they may have been painful for Iran, they obviously haven't been painful enough. It's questionable whether fully implementing the ILSA (e.g., the secondary sanctions), or any sanctions regime unilaterally imposed by the US, would have much additional effect.

Any rational assessment of Iran's nuclear program suggests we are beyond the point of being able to keep Iran from getting nukes if they really want them; military action at this point, short of invasion or regime change, would be punitive at best, and the risk of blowback is enormous.

That leaves multi-lateral efforts--primarily sticks in the form of sanctions. For those to work, Russia and China have to be on board; the EU seems to be on board, although its unclear if they're willing to pay the price when it comes to implementation. We have failed to get Russia and China on board for a variety of different reasons.

In short, for substantive progress, the US is going to have to: (1) put some of its prestige on the table to engage Iran; (2) put money or US inflience on the table, to bring the rest of the world on board if multi-lateral sanctions are needed; (3) tone down the rhetoric, especially the Pax-Americana-PNAC-freedom-is-on-the-march babble; and (4) at least pay (more) lip-service to a broader solution to the Palestinian issue.

Red State Mike,

Don't you know the New Republic's just a nest of Jews? They faked it all! ALL! OIL! JEWS! Etc.

Richard Steven Hack,

So your theory is that the government of Iran plans to kill off "hundreds of thousands if not millions of Iranians" and get their whole country flattened, in order to... to avoid... to avoid the risk of a war that they might lose. Is that right? It's... um... an interesting theory.

"Israel will no longer be able to threaten them with regime change"?

The Israeli attitude about these knuckleheads is "why don't they leave us the hell alone?" Iran's been funding people who massacre Israeli citizens for years. Has Israel demonstrated any interest in escalating things with Iran? No. When you're that size, and you've got the troubles they've got, you don't look for ways to create new problems. The leadership of Iran is sane enough to realize that Israel isn't looking for a fight with them. They may regard that as a sign weakness and therefore an invitation to attack. It's not so far-fetched; that's a common mindset in that part of the world.

"Since the US can't solve the ME problems because of bad faith and greed, we have to rely on the Persians. Only question now is are they up to it."

This is your idea of "solving the problems of the Middle East"? Ooooo-kayyyy...

"...the rest of the Muslim world will spend their oil dollars to achieve conventional military parity with Israel."

They've had the oil dollars for decades, in case you hadn't noticed. They haven't achieved conventional military parity with Israel yet. The study of why Arab armies are such a mess is an interesting one. They're not helpless victims; they're massively incompetent aggressors -- more often against each other than against Israel, even. And that's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that there are a lot of Jews living nearby.

"...as has been noted with Osama, the religion of Islam REQUIRES them to offer a negotiated out to their enemies before going to war."

And everybody who has a religion obeys absolutely every tenet of it every minute of every day. Riiight. And you're an expert on Islam, too. Golly!

"...the Iranians [have] been around for centuries longer than the US has existed..."

This will probably come as a profound shock to you, but the white people in the United States didn't spring out of the ground in 1776. They came from other places, and they had a history there, too. In fact, just about everybody has a history leading back quite a long ways.

The rest of your predictions drift farther into fantasy than I can be bothered to follow.

PTate in MN,

"I have had one judo lesson in my life and that is what they taught me. How many Star Treks had the same premise? How many Hollywood action films?"

One ENTIRE judo lesson? You stayed for the WHOLE LESSON? Wow! That's amazing! And you've watched Star Trek too, and you've even been to the MOVIES!

Boy, we sure could save a lot of money on West Point if we just gave prospective cadets one judo lesson and a TV!

If that was a deliberate parody of dorm-room military experts planning grand strategy over their bongs, it was magnificent. If not, it was still magnificent, but in a different way.

It is fairly obvious IF . .that's a big "IF" ... the Iranians are attempting to secure nuclear weapons AFTER BEING REFUSED any diplomatic overtures by our murderous administration - DE JA VOUS IRAQ! - can ANY one blame them?

Iran was pursuing nuclear weapons before Bush was even elected.

It's too bad nobody over here noticed this sooner--while Khatami was still in office (not that it would have mattered). The Financial Times covered this story on March 17, 2004 (see "US split over Iranian bid to renew relations")

To the extent that Iran makes war noises to the U.S., we should defend.

It is the US who is making war 'noises' to Iran, which are really threats. Iran is trying to open dialogue, you mendacious mass murdering scumbag.

koreyel,

"It makes one wonder if neocon operatives haven't embedded themselves into every newsroom and corporate media boardroom in America."

Thanks. I laughed out loud.

But what scares me is I really can't tell which of the comments here are parody, and which are genuine. More than half are too insane to be real.

I'm having to face up to the possibility that there are no actual lefties here, just righties laughing themselves hoarse. It's a mighty weird possibility. But that's okay. Weird is good.

Is The New Republic a right wing rag?

It didn't used to be, but these days, pretty much. It may as well call itself The New Republican.

"Americans have a choice. Either like the President so his approval rating is greater than 60%, or prepare for nuking of Iran and it repurcussions."

Sorry, nut. Higher ratings would only make them think people want the coming war, while lower ratings make them need to have a war.

That's why I don't understand all this talk about how low poll numbers make bush weak. It would make normal human beings feel like they're in a weaker position and make them look for wider support, but bush is not normal. He and Cheney will use to the hilt whatever powers they think they have until the stroke of noon on January 20, 2009.

It didn't used to be, but these days, pretty much. It may as well call itself The New Republican.

Out of curiousity, did you gander the article? I know it's tough reading with those purple-coated digits up the wazoo.

Oh my god, it just keeps getting better! Now, The Reverend Hostile puts on his best cartoon-death-metal-vocalist voice and growls,

"Iran is trying to open dialogue, you mendacious mass murdering scumbag."

"Trying to open dialogue"?! Have you paid any attention at all to a single word that anybody in the Iranian government has said for the last six months? Have you not noticed the way they play such deliberately insulting (humiliating, by ME standards) games with the Europeans, who are trying very hard to open dialogue and getting nothing but sand in the face for it? They have a golden opportunity to make nice with a whole herd of our allies, who are desperate to make it happen. They are using that opportunity to piss on our allies' heads, and on that of the UN.

Can any of you people even make an attempt to explain recent Iranian diplomatic behavior in terms of your theory that the gov't of Iran is a bunch of nice guys just trying to do what's best for everybody?

Stefan - Every time I've looked at The New Republic for the last couple years now, they've been hostile to the administration. Yes, there was a time when they gingerly agreed with the admin. on a good number of things, and it's possible they still do, from time to time; I don't read it regularly. But they're way too hostile way too often to be anything like "The New Republican".

You're out of date.

Captain Carbohydrate
Can any of you people even make an attempt to explain recent Iranian diplomatic behavior in terms of your theory that the gov't of Iran is a bunch of nice guys just trying to do what's best for everybody?

You've obviously never enjoyed the pleasure of a delightfully warm (98.6 degrees) Persian golden shower. Your cultural ignorance is showing. It's how they show respect, by blessing us with their (nonfluoridated! democratic plot!) bodily fluids. Like a christenting. At least that's what they tell you. They say something else in Farsi to each other and laugh a lot.

>Is The New Republic a right wing rag?

When it comes to Middle Easterners that aren't Israeli, they are world-class pants-pee'ers on a par with LGF. Just a bit more polished.

In any case, I don't get the point of your post. They were attacked by Iraq and initally were getting the shit kicked out of them. It doesn't excuse what they did, but hey I can't even explain let alone excuse religious wackology, can you?

Is The New Republic a right wing rag?

Yes, when it comes to Israeli hegemony.

When TNR printed articles slandering Hannah Arendt because of her writings about the Holocaust and the Eichmann trial, I had my suspicions. When TNR printed articles rationalizing Israel's attack on the USS Liberty, I became aware of its intentions. When TNR printed rabid anti-Palestinian articles by Martin Peretz, I stopped reading it.

RSM, that Iraq/Iran war your TNR article referenced was started by Saddam at the request, funding and arming of the US of A. As a matter of fact, Rumsfeld delivered satellite photos to Saddam, pinpointing the area to drop the chemical weapons, which the US helped Saddam obtain.

TNR is not really a conservative or liberal rag, it is really a Stalinist tool, calculating every article's impact on Americans' impression of Israel.

Sorry Captain C,
I've never been a lefty, and it is unlikely I will ever be a lefty.
Though I do have concerns that my wife is amused at my Leftist descent from my previous Righteous height.

Matt,
Um, okay, I'm going to go with...sure, why not. Lets bomb Iran into the stone age, and then seek to build another grand and glorious idol to Bush and Cheney's godhood. You know, just like the one we're building in Iraq.