Commenter Beard sent an email asking my view of the recent flurry of reports that Bush is serious – darn serious – about attacking Iran before he leaves office.
My sense of humor is pretty dark these days, but the picture that came to mind was Bush sitting on the stand on January 20 2009, holding up his hand, and picking up a cell phone and telling the staffer on the other side “Go for it! Bomb the c**p out of them!” and then smiling at his successor. “How do like that,” in the words of not-yet-ex-Senator Craig.
But it’s actually a serious issue, and let me take a moment to lay out my thoughts.
Yeah, there’s a whole lot of public-intellectual chatter about Iran right now. Go see Daniel Drezner’s roundup for a good summary of it all.And we are getting to some critical points in the path toward understanding how serious Iran is about making nukes.
Mohamed ElBaradei just gave an interview to Der Spiegel in which he said:
ElBaradei said there are positive signs that Iran is willing to avoid confrontation over its nuclear development program.
“We should know by November, or December at the latest, whether the Iranians will keep their promises,” he said. “If they don’t, Tehran will have missed a great opportunity — possibly the last one.”
When a UN diplomat talks like that, my ears do prick up a bit. (As a side note, ElBaradei is worried about global warming, human misery, and nuclear proliferation – in that order –
“We pay completely inadequate attention to the important threats, the inhuman living conditions of billions of people, climate change and the potential for nuclear holocaust,” ElBaradei said.
Dude, I’d say you have quite enough to do managing the nuclear holocaust part of the problem…)
My own position on Iran hasn’t changed much in the year or so since I wrote this:
Could we smash the Iranian oil infrastructure, depriving them of cash and Europe and China of fuel? Of course. Child’s play. Could we drop the Iranian electricity grid, possibly slowing the centrifuges to a halt? Sure. Could we destroy the Iranian army, and do a smash-and-grab raid on the suspected weapons development sites? Probably.
Then what?
The point, in my view, of invading Iraq was largely to give pause to the leaders of Iran and Saudi Arabia. See ‘strategic failure’ to discuss how that’s worked out.
Is Iran a problem? A really, really big one? You betcha.
Is it one we need to panic about? Not yet.
On the other hand, if I wanted to negotiate with someone – whether they were based in Tehran, Paris, or Bonn – I’d say that making the consequences of a failed negotiation even more prominent than they might be in reality isn’t necessarily a bad thing. So as a posturing position leading to talking, I can say that I’d probably do much the same things as I’m seeing being done here. Float some trial balloons, create some ambiguity about what I might do.
There are two problems with that posture, however. Serious ones.
The first is that in building visible momentum toward conflict as a negotiating move, you risk being pulled along by events and your own momentum (see “World War One”). I’d rate this risk as high enough to worry about a bit.
The second is that you have to be taken seriously. Waving a wooden gun doesn’t accomplish much. And the reality is that if Bush gave the order to bomb – as I said back in 2006 – he’d immediately be impeached. Absent some facts not in evidence that could be shown to Congress and that would be strong enough to embarrass the wobblers, he doesn’t have and isn’t likely to get the support. If I – the last of the red-hot Iraq apologists – feel that way, imagine how the rest of the U.S. feels.
Bush has shown himself to be surprisingly competent at diplomacy – yeah, sorry about the keyboard – but the gradual progress and lack of hysteria about North Korea, the growing move in Europe to align the major powers more closely with the US, and the gradual chipping away at UN resistance to significant sanctions on Iran seem to show that the White House is – somehow – keeping the pieces in play diplomatically.
But until I see a meaningful opening to talks to Tehran that fails spectacularly, or until Iran oversteps militarily somehow (and they have been pretty canny as well), I just can’t imagine a surprise attack by the US. And I’ve got quite an imagination, to quote Benny Noakes.
The Israelis are another story…for another time. Time to board my flight home, and I’ll leave you all to think a bit more about that.
Interesting thought: By turning up and blocking Iranian infiltrators in Iraq, we are creating a situation where we could block any sort of Iranian traffic to Israel. In this way, if Israel were to bomb Iranian for us, our vigilant presence in Iraq creates a buffer against direct attacks from Iran against Israel. It also makes it harder to smuggle weapons to Hezbollah.
AL writes: “Bush has shown himself to be surprisingly competent at diplomacy – yeah, sorry about the keyboard – but the gradual progress and lack of hysteria about North Korea, the growing move in Europe to align the major powers more closely with the US, and the gradual chipping away at UN resistance to significant sanctions on Iran seem to show that the White House is – somehow – keeping the pieces in play diplomatically.”
This is something I’ve repeatedly pointed out. To date, the Bush administration has had a long series of very laudable foreign policy successes, some of them paradigm shifting in and of themselves, for which they get no credit. Example: cooling off the Pakistan / India cold war and moving India into a pro-US alliance.
Perhaps Iran is still in play diplomatically. I did not thing that North Korea still was and the Bush administration’s progress was a surprise there.
While we obviously wanted a far different Iraq by now, I suspect that Iran did indeed take some of the lessons from Iraq we wanted them to. One of them is that our military would have little difficulty destroying the Iranian military and bringing down their government. The problem with Iran is figuring out what their intentions really are, and what it is that they would fear losing. That is why I’m having difficulty deciding if we can succeed at pressuring Iran to retreat on their nuclear weapons program.
Bush has been, to quote the Dems “a miserable failure” when it comes to North Korea and Iran.
The two are partnered in making nukes, with North Korea providing material and expertise. With the assistance of China which has been at low-level war with us to seize Taiwan.
Iran is our enemy. They have been our enemy since 1979. Everything they do, from killing our soldiers directly in Iraq to blowing up people in South America to blowing up our people in Saudi Arabia or Beirut is an act of war. A deliberate act of war that has been responded to by every President from Carter onwards by … surrender and appeasement.
Heck harboring bin Laden’s pals is an act of war.
Bombing the crap out of Iran would be VERY popular. Ask Clinton how close he came to impeachment on that account. Particularly if the President simply bombed the crap out of Iran to prevent them from nuking us first, and then overtly threatened Pakistan.
Wake up to reality. In the non-state actor (as convenient cut-out for state interests) and tribal societies of the post-Cold War era MAD with the defunct Soviet Union doesn’t cut it for keeping our cities from being nuked.
Only being strong, being seen as strong, and proving the ability to really, really hurt regimes and wealth-power centers matters. Otherwise your nation becomes weak and as Putin noted, the weak get beaten.
Interesting how since Putin launched his wave of assassins, no further Beslans or other atrocities have plagued Russia.
The foreign policy coups by Bush go back to India/Pakistan.
No one can quite remember that there was around four time the number of our troops in Iraq ‘activated and on the front’ between India/Pakistan.
But, AL, would you know if those overtures had been made? Might they be so back door and low-key that the public never knew of them? And why do you think that Iran would even descend to talks with their “Great Satan”? By calling us that, whether over the top rhetoric or not, do they not preclude any negotiations at all? Who negotiates with EVIL? (Yes, in capital letters.) Why should we negotiate with what so many could percieve as great EVIL? (Incarnate in the Mullahs of Tehran.) Negotiations with them, if we do truly think they are EVIL, are very Chamberlainish wouldn’t you think? After all, who would advocate negotiations with Hitler? (Knowing what we now know.)
Just curious.
I’ve said it before the Iranians have nuclear weapons. It is just a question of destructive capablity.
Get over it.
Simply quietly tell them any where anyplace one goes off period your responsible and thousands of years of history go poof.
Thanks, A.L., for pursuing this line of thought. I do worry about the “World War I” scenario when everyone thinks they are posturing for effect, until it’s too late to back down, and then you have an unwanted war with unprecedented loss of lives and property.
And I worry about Cheney, et al, encouraged by opinions like the one expressed by Jim Rockford [#3], acting to close off the options of Bush’s successor. (Jim: if you think that bombing Iran would be VERY popular, you need to start reading things you don’t already agree with.)
And [Robert M, #6], threats like the one you advocate are very easy for a third party to exploit. This is one of the things that makes asymmetric warfare so dangerous. Someone who really hates the Iranians arranges to set off a bomb somewhere, leaving Iranian fingerprints on it, and gets us to smash their enemies for them.
It leaves me somewhat breathless to hear Americans (I think), advocating a pre-emptive attack that would kill many thousands of innocent people, because their country might, sometime in the future, get weapons that might (in some possible future) be used against us. Where have our national values gone?
Simply saying “Bush has shown himself to be surprisingly competent at diplomacy..”, does make it true. With regard to NK, (which is the only possible Bush government diplomatic action even close to successful), don’t count your chickenhawks before they’re hatched. NK has broken every agreement signed the 90’s, and before anyone can claim “mission accomplished” on this round of diplomacy, NK must abide by it’s end of the bargain.
That said, – it is the “What then” issue relating to Iran that warrants our diligent attention. First, taking out Iran’s infrastructure and primary nuke facilities, and massively degrading the Iranian warmaking capability is achievable, – but the time frame of that achievment is and unknown unknown. If the American military can successfully take down Irans major threats and command and control in a few days, then the goals (endng Iran nuclear weapons development programs, and regime change) are far more obtainable. If not, and depending on how long, – the Iranians will have a number of options in terms of response that could prove troubling for US forces, interests, and policies.
Then we have to consider the global response from other shi’a or jihadists mass murder gangs. The question to me is not working to control and eventually arrest Iranian nuclear weapons development – a goal most of the world and particularly most of your fellow Americans on theleft share wholeheatedly. The real question is – will attacking Iran now improve or enhance America’s strategic ends and interests in the ME. A successful strike against Iran, (based on well supported FACTS, not pentagon or Fieth concocted fictions) would certainly redeem the legacy Bush and the…..”neocons’ are so concerned about. A successful mission would also provide future leadership with several less issues of concern, and eliminate, or at least seriously degrade a significantly empowered enemy of America.
If things don’t go well, because of incompetence or wildly inaccurate assessments of the mission, or some gross mismanagement, or some unkown unknown Iranian or shi’a, or jihadist response – then America’s problems, and the resulting terrible costs in blood, treasure, and lost credibility will be compounded on quantum levels.
Attacking Iran is not necessary now. Pressuring Iran, keeping a close eye on Iran, working in various overt and covert ways to achieve America’s goals against the Iranian regime are all necessary and must be forcefully pursued, – but attacking Iran now for political rather than strategic reasons is a recipe for disaster, that could make the horrorshow in Iraq look like a cakewalk.
Forgive the double post, but for clarity, I meant to say: (“Simply saying “Bush has shown himself to be surprisingly competent at diplomacy..”, does NOT make it true.”)
Foresta writes: “Simply saying “Bush has shown himself to be surprisingly competent at diplomacy..”, does make it true. With regard to NK, (which is the only possible Bush government diplomatic action even close to successful) …”
Obviously Foresta is already in the weeds. There are many areas in which the Bush administration has had world-changing accomplishments that Foresta just ignores. The India/Pakistan conflict is one I’ve already mentioned. The immense progress that has been done on the diplomatic front to close down terrorist money-laundering routes is another.
And I’d love to hear Tony’s explanation for why it is that the politics in Europe are far more pro-American then they were 36 months ago…
A.L.
Please provide any support for your claim of “world changing accomplishments” or that the Bush government had anything notable to do with the Paksitani/India dispute in Kashmir. I do not know of any diplomatic effort on the part of anyone in the Bush government that led to the tacit agreement of a teritory that has been an issue of conflict for India and Pakistan since Pakistan’s inception in 1947. Though there is some tepid peace at the moment, the jihadist influence in the region and the territorial issues reman a prickly thorn between the two nations that could erupt again into armed conflict at any moment.
The Bush governments policies toward these two nations are a case study in flipflopflipping. Pakistan who is one majik bullet away from jihadist nukes, does not allow American forces into Pakistan and cut question deals with Taliban warlords in the Peshawar, and yet Musharref, who once was the only state leader to recognize the Taliban is now a Bush government friend in the socalled neverendingwaronterror. Twisted and complex relationship indeed.
India, whose recent nuclear materials agreement with the US tank internally, is suspicious of the Bush government coddling of largely islamist Pakistan next door to, and often conflicting with largely hindu India. Both nations seek to tamp down the jihadists elements in their respective societies, but for different reasons.
The Bush government profits wantonly from selling arms, munitions, and hi-tech warmaking products to both these countries, and therein is the limits of the Bush government socalled diplomacy with these two nations. Twisted and strange relationship indeed.
The point is, and diplomatic efforts on these two fronts are failures.
While I will accept that there has been notable progress made in closing “… down terrorist money-laundering routes”, these are hardly diplomatic arrangements. All these efforts are purely strategic in nature and involve the repective nations intelligence and militaries far more than any diplomatic core. We all have shared interests in defeating and eradicating the malignancy of jihadist islam. The socalled neverendingwaronterror is not the exlusive provinance of the Bush governmet. Other nations facely equally serious security concerns, but approach the matter in more intelligent ways relying heavily on police and intelligence operations and resisting the occupation, colonization, democratization insanities favored by the fascist in the Bush government.
Nor am I aware AL of any indication, or have I seen any evidence proving, or even mentioning “that the politics in Europe are far more pro-American then they were 36 months ago…”.
Again, simply saying something does NOT make it true.
AL, uh with respect, I wouldn’t.
Oops, he sneaked one in. And it is a doozy.
Tony, that is the most bizarre take I’ve seen on the fact that the Bush administration has succeeded in cooling down the India / Pakistan conflict and gained India as an ally. Instead of merely ignoring the issue, now you declare it a failure? Just bizarre.
And this is equally hilarious: “While I will accept that there has been notable progress made in closing ‘… down terrorist money-laundering routes’, these are hardly diplomatic arrangements.” If you don’t think that it takes diplomacy to get other nations’ to shut down lucrative money-laundering systems, then you basically are redefining the word “diplomacy” to mean … well, I don’t know what. A lot of “business as usual” banking changed dramatically over the last 6 years and seemingly you are the only one to miss out on this news. These changes are why a few years ago Palestinian officials kept getting caught with millions in cash in hand – because across Europe and Asia the old money laundering banks and the nations that sheltered them were broken up. And no this wasn’t done with Special Forces teams, it was done with good hard work nation by nation by State Dept and Treasury. The same kind of diplomatic work that led to advances in the North Korean issue as part of the pressure on North Korea was shutting down the banks that laundered their money. Literally world changing.
This is the core of your long rantings, Tony, they just have little congruence with the reality that is the world and current events.
And Tony, if you really believed “Again, simply saying something does NOT make it true”, then your comments would be a single sentence apiece.
Tony, do you have two clues? Who’s the prime minister in France? Who did he defeat? What has he said about Franco-US relations? Ditto Germany.
A.L.
Sorry folks, I forgot that Tony F had also been banned – it’s old home week here at Winds, apparently – and is now rebanned.
Tony, please don’t post here any more; we’ll just delete them. I’ll leave these up as a momento.
A.L.
Look at the facts. First many of the arrangements to close down financial networks are made without the nations knowledge or permission. There is no diplomacy here. Second many nations have rejected the Bush government intrusions and what you seem to want to believe are diplomatic efforts.
Palestine? Are you joking? America shut off funding to Palestine. Where is there in diplomacy involved here. As soon the the people of Palestinie legitimately elected through democratic processes Hamas as the governing authority, – the Bush government effectively cut off, and ended all diplomacy with Palestine. Have you read any news lately? The Palestinian situation is a nightmare, and cataclysmic failure for everyone involved. There is simply NO success in Palestine.
Again, you keep leaping to the end of an unknown unknown story, and the NK part of the deal has yet to be verified. If in due time NK actually does shut down it’s facilities, – then I will grant the Bush government a victory. Until that day, – and that day has NOT arrived yet – there is no success in NK diplomacy.
Also, returning a piddly $25mn to Jong Il personally in exchange for verbal agreements is hardly diplomacy. During the entire NK debacle, Jong Il repeatedly shirked on all previously agreed upon arrangements and detonated some kind of nuclear weapon, (though the actual detonation was a dud). In reality we KNOW now that NK HAS nuclear capabilities which they did not have previously, and that NK is suspect on any agreement. Again what success do you see here. If NK actually dismantles it’s development programs, then the Bush government deserves the proper credit, – but until that day, which HAS NOT YET ARRIVED, – I see no succes, and rather frighteniing failure in diplomatic efforts with NK after six long hard years.
With all due respect instead of attacking me, please provide some substantiation to your claims relating to the “world changing” diplomatic efforts of the Bush government. I do not see any, and nor do I see any legitimate, credible, or meaningful support to buttress these claims.
Just consider it evidence of what incompetent fascists we are, guys. 🙂
Well, let’s see, as a single item, getting Khaddafi to stop his nuke program. That by itself isn’t world changing, but it pretty obviously wasn’t just because Muammar had a sudden case of Kum-Ba-Yah.
Anyone else want to add something to the Stone Soup pot of Things the Bush Administration has Accomplished on the positive side of the foreign affairs ledger? We can see what that side adds up to, maybe.
Without dwelling on the all-important horrorshow fascist machinations, I mean. Those speak for themselves, right?
Robin:
And they’d have a better chance of being substantive. When he went “off message” he actually said an occasional interesting thing. It’s a pity, but not much of a loss.
[Tony, sigh as much as you like. You’re banned, and I halfway wish you weren’t; but you are too tone-deaf to sing here. Have a nice day –somewhere else. –NM]
Amplifying on what Robin said to Tony:
Diplomacy is not just talk. It includes walking away from talk. It includes (as the North Vietnamese so ably demonstrated) walking away over and over, and showing willingness to outsit, and willingness to waste the opponent’s time, and willingness to fight. It includes May Day parades and it includes walking out of Reykjavik.
It includes showing folks they need to consider the possibility they might be next (as Khaddafi probably worried).
It includes economic pressure and the communication of possible economic pressure. It includes being willing to show you need to be worried about, as the XSSR is currently doing by flying nuclear bombers on patrol again.
Working the figure-ground reversal, from a Clausewitzian perspective, diplomacy potentially subsumes everything that is intended as policy and isn’t outright war.
Clausewitz is of course not the last word on the subject.
[Banned. Tony, is this boring you as much as it is me? From now on, I’ll delete out of hand, without further comment. –NM]
Jesus, Captain Kirk, the phasers just made the giant space troll bigger.
“First many of the arrangements to close down financial networks [I have to assume he means money laundering networks] are made without the nations knowledge or permission.”
Oh, that one made me giggle. (A) Like doing so could not be done without high-level international cooperation and (B) if it were possible to do so that would be a bad thing.
(A) is a very fundamental misunderstanding of the world of international banking and (B) is just fundamentally stupid. But again, on point (B) I’m assuming that Tony thinks that terrorist organizations having money is a bad thing…..
And I know he’s banned, but his pseudo-points remain, and I thought they should be properly dissed.
Glen, our shields seem to be down. I need a volunteer to go into the Jeffries tube and straighten this sh*t out. Is your tunic red?
Mark, if Winds were truly moderated, someone who cared enough could elide all the tropes and leave only the rich goodness of such posts, to shine or be lampooned as they stood.
That **** ain’t happening, because the people here with such potential power do not have the time or the inclination.
You’re welcome, as is everyone, to respond to any substantive content here. Even from ghost trolls. Concentrate on substance and it’s ok to even bq relevant parts of such posts.
Just don’t waste time responding to the trolly parts of the posts, because I’ll shoot those responses down too where Tony (or any recent ban-ee) is concerned. Enough is enough.
Although I’m not a fan of Bush’s foreign policy, it’s very hard to judge within your own lifetime. It’s still possible that substantial changes in the ME will start to move forward based on this admin’s groundwork, but it’s starting to look unlikely.
That being said, the Bush administration tends to put a tough face forward, and then negotiate behind the scenes. This is not a bad way to do it, although I think sometimes Bush’s tough face overuses it’s ‘tough’ rhetroic, causing our allies/negociators to recoil.
The north korean situation I read a little differently. I think North Korea decided to build ‘the bomb’ despite the US position (could be declared an admin. failure). However, the NK program was shoddy, and when it failed, they went back to negotations to get bailed out. If the admin predicted these events, then they played their cards right (it not, they’re just lucky).
Still, I think the “Bush Doctrine” appears to have failed in a number of key areas. I support the idea of pushing democracy in the ME, but when elections do not bring a pro-US outcome, we withdraw. While I understand not wanting to support a group like’Hamas’, withdrawing completely doesn’t solve anything either.
Additionally, we still support dictators and tyrants as long as they aid the GWOT. Ethiopia, Sudan & Uzbekistan are all examples of countries that aid the US but are guilty of genocide & human rights violations.
On Iran: I just don’t think bombing would solve more problems than it would create.
#11 from Armed Liberal at 5:29 am on Sep 06, 2007
And I’d love to hear Tony’s explanation for why it is that the politics in Europe are far more pro-American then they were 36 months ago…
A.L.
________________________________
How about the growing stranglehold that Russia has over European energy supplies and the general rise of Russian power. All fueled by high energy prices.
One might say that these foreign policy “successes” were brought upon by our “successful” foreign policy in the Middle East.
Just think, if one is self deluded enough, one might imagine Bush as one of history’s great international statesman.
One might say that these foreign policy “successes” were brought upon by our “successful” foreign policy in the Middle East.
Sure, if one was self deluded enough to believe that Iraq was a major (or minor) supplier of natural gas to Europe…
TOC –
So why aren’t they more pro-Russian? That’d be easy, and given the choices that Selene Royale proposed might have been a coherent policy choice.
But – not what happened.
A.L.
Random observation- this thread is a magnet for scare quotes. And thats even without TF!
The Bush administration has many diplomatic successes for which it has not received credit.
For example, bulgaria and romania were recently accepted into the EU due to Bush’s diplomacy.
And Bush ended the israeli war in lebanon. Except for him they’d still be fighting.
Bush’s diplomacy was responsible for the hamas/fatah unity government which temporarily brought peace to palestine. It didn’t last, but it was a good try.
Similarly, Bush’s diplomacy was responsible for Sinn Fein and the DUP agreeing to a unity government in ireland, just like hamas/fatah.
The government of sudan and the major rebel group in darfur agreed to a peace treaty which fell apart when other rbel groups didn’t sign, but it was a good try! Bush nearly ended the genocide in Darfur.
And Bush agreed to negotiate with syria and iran, after years of refusing to. The possibility of negotiation with syria and iran has arisen, entirely due to Bush’s diplomacy!
In 2003, when Bush presented Saddam with an ultimatum, at one point there was serious danger that Saddam would accept. At the last minute Bush had to add more conditions to make sure Saddam wouldn’t surrender and prevent the invasion. Our successful invasion of iran depended entirely on Bush’s diplomacy.
After the devastation wrought by Katrina, Bush has successfully negotiated to prevent hurricanes Dean and Felix from hitting the USA. Could a Democratic president have done as well?
For some unknown reason Bush doesn’t get full credit for the results of his diplomacy. I can’t imagine why.
A.L., I would argue that the French socialist party’s failure to knock the ruling party out of the palais de l’elysee had very little–and perhaps absolutley nothing–to do with Franco-American relations or US foriegn policy but rather much more–and perhaps everything–to do with French domestic issues. If anything, it represented a vote for the status quo, not a shift.
“And I’d love to hear Tony’s explanation for why it is that the politics in Europe are far more pro-American then they were 36 months ago…”
But is it? The only significant anti-American sentiment in Europe the last 5 years really has been public opposition for the Iraq war, which hasn’t changed at all. Some supportive governments have lost–Italy, Spain, eg– and some non-supportive governments have lost, Germany…but overall there has been no change in public opinion while there has been a slow erosion of european governemnt support for the Iraq effort. I can’t think of a single european government that shifted the other way, i.e., from non-supportive to supportive.
There was also some attendant resentment on the part of european governments and the “international resentment” over the Bush administration’s tendency toward unilateralism and away from internationalism (Kyoto, etc.). And to the extent that the resentment has been toned down is reflective of the Administration’s recognition of its past mistakes and change of course. Is that competence? perhaps. But I think it is another example of high praise as the result of very low expectations. I mean, look at the way you phrased the question: why chose 36 months ago as the base level? Bush does this little dance with the deficit, too. He’s cut the deficit in half from point a, but he’s doubled it when measured from point b. Yes, perhaps relations with Europe have improved since the all-time nadir they reached 36 months ago. I didn’t mean to descend into a bush-bashing here. I started out just wanting to suggest that euopean politics has less to do with US diplomacy than you seemed to imply.
_J. Thomas: Bush’s diplomacy was responsible for the hamas/fatah unity government which temporarily brought peace to palestine. It didn’t last, but it was a good try._
I agree. Until the Bush administration tried to undermine it. They weren’t happy with hamas, so they secretely funded and armed the fatah group to plan a coup. It blew up in their faces about a month ago when Hamas figured out something was going on and started rounding up Fatah ringleaders. Oops.
_The government of sudan and the major rebel group in darfur agreed to a peace treaty which fell apart when other rebel groups didn’t sign, but it was a good try! Bush nearly ended the genocide in Darfur._
Yes, it fell appart because the goverment of Sudan still feels it has the right to kill anyone at will. Since the pro-goverment militias don’t technically work for the goverment, they’re still claiming that they’re innocent of the whole affair. Apparently the Sudanese goverment is feeding us information on Bin Laden, who worked with them once upon a time. So although sanctions are an ok start, it really doesn’t have enough teeth necessary to punish a genocidal nation.
mark –
“But is it? The only significant anti-American sentiment in Europe the last 5 years really has been public opposition for the Iraq war, which hasn’t changed at all.”
Um, you’re kidding, right? Seriously?
A.L.
A.L., I’m willing to stand corrected. If there are other examples of significant anti-American sentiment in European politics, please let me know. Also, please let me know where Bush administration diplomacy has lessened this sentiment in the last 36 months. Or perhaps I misunderstood your original claim.
You seemed to suggest that there has been some sort of improvement in US-European relations in the last 3 years. My view is that US & Europe continue to be about as close knit a group as there can be and have been for over 50 years and that Bush has done nothing to change that relationship beyond the divide over Iraq between the European public and US policy. Is it your opinion that that divide has lessened in the last 3 years? Or that there are other, more significant divides? Or that the realationship between Europe and the US was deteriorating and that Bush has improved it?
Seriously, other than the divide over Iraq, I don’t see that relations between Europe and the US are any different now than they were 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
Actually, my question is what the heck the Russians are thinking in regards to Iran.
I’ve read the analysis that they see the Iranians as useful provocateurs towards the US. But I don’t buy it.
Putin may not give a crap about Russian lives, but he can’t be stupid enough to think Russia is stable enough to hold together if someone nukes Moscow, and the Chechens and Iranians have always been friendly.
Even if Russia manages to hold together after a decapitation strike, it would be under military management, which wouldn’t hold for long. Plus the Russian military and populace know he’s been playing footsie with the Iranians and a loose nuke going Russia’s way would not amuse them.
Sure he could turn the Chechens to powder after the fact, but being able to shoot a mad dog after it rips your throat out doesn’t seem like a reassuring concept to me.
What’s his best case scenario? Iran backs the US out of the middle east? Whereupon we’d be almost compelled to develop alternative energy sources or develop our own, rather large, oil reserves. Or both. Either of which undercuts his economic power which is almost entirely based on oil/natural gas.
For this he runs the risk of loose nukes coming back at him, increasing conventional uprisings all along his southern border even without the nukes, a regional nuclear war involving some combination of Israel, Iran, Pakistan, India, Saudi Arabia, Syria, and/or Egypt?
I’m seeing a lot of risk and not a whole lot of payoff. Doesn’t seem rational. Heck, even the notoriously provincial Chinese seem to be cooling towards Iran, due to increasing unrest in their western provinces.
Maybe he’s hoping a general collapse into anarchy in the middle east will force everyone to buy oil from him?
He seems to be betting the farm that the Europeans will stay spineless couch potatoes forever, a historically rather dangerous bet.
#31 from Treefrog at 4:06 pm on Sep 06, 2007
One might say that these foreign policy “successes” were brought upon by our “successful” foreign policy in the Middle East.
Sure, if one was self deluded enough to believe that Iraq was a major (or minor) supplier of natural gas to Europe…
____________________
the price of Oil is determined by the last barrel sold. the invasion of Iraq and the instability it caused in the market caused the price of oil to rise worldwide. Our ill advised invasion and bungled occupation caused this.
#32 from Armed Liberal at 4:20 pm on Sep 06, 2007
TOC –
So why aren’t they more pro-Russian? That’d be easy, and given the choices that Selene Royale proposed might have been a coherent policy choice.
But – not what happened.
A.L.
Well AL, I think that you would be able to figure that out if you hadn’t just shot off what you call a drive by. Fear of Russian power and fear of instability in the Middle East (caused by an ill advised invasion and occupation) may be the reason.
It is certainly not anything that the Bush administration has done outside of the extremely negative impact of its foreign policy on western Europe.
#39 from Treefrog at 12:56 am on Sep 07, 2007
Actually, my question is what the heck the Russians are thinking in regards to Iran.
I’ve read the analysis that they see the Iranians as useful provocateurs towards the US. But I don’t buy it.
___________________________
Try a thought experiment based on the premise that Putin has a far clearer idea of the situation in the region, especially Iran, based upon Russia’s close commercial ties to Iran.
Then take it a little further and see how skillfully Putin has played his hand geopolitically over the past 7 years in relation to the Neo-Con fiasco we have been been burdened with over the same period. You know, solid Realpolitik as opposed to adolescent dreams of empire.
Then you might also see how well the Bush administration has done in strengthening a pathological theocracy in the Middle East and a gangster state in Russia.
The thought of this administration being remembered for it’s Foreign Policy successes is purely Orwellian.
TOC, there is little “skillful” about Putin’s foreign policy plays. Least of all in Western Europe. Russia’s relations around its periphery is almost uniformly bad. Occam’s Razor is that Putin’s moves with Iran involve more about putting money in his crony’s pockets than any calculation about Russia’s best interests in the world.
Robin Roberts, I don’t know why you criticise Putin’s diplomatic skills.
For example, bulgaria and romania were recently accepted into the EU due to Putin’s diplomacy.
And Putin ended the israeli war in lebanon. Except for him they’d still be fighting.
Putin’s diplomacy was responsible for the hamas/fatah unity government which temporarily brought peace to palestine. It didn’t last, but it was a good try.
Similarly, Putin’s diplomacy was responsible for Sinn Fein and the DUP agreeing to a unity government in ireland, just like hamas/fatah.
The government of sudan and the major rebel group in darfur agreed to a peace treaty which fell apart when other rbel groups didn’t sign, but it was a good try! Putin nearly ended the genocide in Darfur.
And Bush agreed to negotiate with syria and iran, after years of refusing to. The possibility of negotiation with syria and iran has arisen, entirely due to Putin’s diplomacy and its influence on Bush!
In 2003, when Bush presented Saddam with an ultimatum, at one point there was serious danger that Saddam would accept. At the last minute, because of Putin’s diplomacy, Bush added more conditions to make sure Saddam wouldn’t surrender and prevent the invasion. Our successful invasion of iran depended entirely on Putin’s diplomacy.
Similarly, it was due to Putin’s diplomacy that india and pakistan haven’t had a nucclear war. Putin’s diplomacy is all that stands between us and a ten-year war with iraq, and so far he’s prevented the war. Putin’s diplomacy has kept the chinese from cashing in the crushing debt we owe them.
I don’t know why it is that Putin does all this great diplomacy and Bush gets all the credit. But I guess for a real diplomat it’s more important to get the results than to get public credit for them.
J Thomas, satire is best left to professionals.
Robin, no, satire is too important to trust to professionals.
Bush and Condi have been supremely successful in Asia, most of all.
-They have reinforced the relationship between the U.S. and Japanese navies. The U.S-Japan Naval Treaty of 2005 that was negotiated by Rice and Rumsfeld has effectively unified the U.S. Pacific Fleets and the Nihon Kaigun in case of conflict with a large, unnamed third party. This effectively checks the ambitions of that unnamed party in regards to a breakaway province.
-Condi has personally shepherded the nuclear treaty with the Indians through Congress. This will pay huge dividends with the U.S. down the llne.
-Rice and her deputy, the superb Christopher HIll, have apparently set the stage for a general settlement of the Korean War of 1950-1953. That’s what the whole nuclear disagreement was about.
-Rice has reinforced our strategic relationship with Australia and renewed ties with New Zealand to the extent that the Aussies now have responsibility for securing the Straits of Malacca and cover security up through the Carolines.
The Pacific is the critical area of world commerce and trade. Bush’s political opponents have way too much invested in his failure to give him credit for any achievements here, but achieve he and Condi have.
#43 from Robin Roberts at 2:39 am on Sep 07, 2007
TOC, there is little “skillful” about Putin’s foreign policy plays. Least of all in Western Europe. Russia’s relations around its periphery is almost uniformly bad. Occam’s Razor is that Putin’s moves with Iran involve more about putting money in his crony’s pockets than any calculation about Russia’s best interests in the world.
__________________________
This is what I said:
“Then take it a little further and see how skillfully Putin has played his hand geopolitically over the past 7 years in relation to the Neo-Con fiasco we have been been burdened with over the same period. You know, solid Realpolitik as opposed to adolescent dreams of empire.”
__________________________
Here is the comparison. Putin was given a hand that included a collapsed economy and Military machine a mendicant on the world stage. His problems on his periphery are caused by Russia’s resurgence.
Bush was handed the unchallenged economic and military power on earth.
One took that economic and military wreck to the point where it is reasserting itself in both those areas. I mentioned that it was a gangster regime, but Russia is a greater player on the world stage now than it was 7 years ago. The source of its resurgence is the rise in energy prices brought on by an idiotic blunder by the Neo-Cons in the Middle east.
The Bush Administration has squandered diplomatic advantages, near universal sympathy and support after 9/11, treasure and blood on an ill considered War in and Occupation of Iraq and adolescent neo-con dreams of Empire.
This has tied down an expeditionary force thousands of miles away for no seeming purpose. Only a fool would think that it is to bring democracy to Iraq, destroy a non existent nuclear threat, weapons of mass destruction or whatever the current excuse for a colossal blunder that has weakened our friends in the area and strengthened our enemies.
The administration has allied itself with the Kurds, a landlocked people surrounded by enemies and the Shia, in Iraq, an anathema to our tradition Sunni allies in the Middle East. Now that this further compounding of an idiotic occupation that has failed so miserably, we are making a belated play in Anbar for the support of the Sunni. Saudi Arabia has in no uncertain terms said that it will come to the aid of the sunni in Iraq and Turkey has massed troops on the Kurdistan border. Brilliant diplomacy.
Again, congratulating this administration on its diplomacy is Orwellian. A sophisticated Foreign Policy team under Bush one put together a broad coalition and achieved the goals that were necessary in stabilizing the area, keeping energy prices down and keeping Saddam in his cage. This was the policy that the Neo Cons said was laughable.
Innocents abroad. Innocents abroad. Let’s get back to a conservative foreign policy. It works a hell of a lot better.
By the way, for what it is worth, I think this administration will attack Iran with enough force to not only cripple its nuclear program, but destroy its military. They will have to destroy the monster they have created with the Iraq occupation.
Hopefully, they don’t get bitten by the regime change lunacy again.
Here is the comparison. Putin was given a hand that included a collapsed economy and Military machine a mendicant on the world stage. His problems on his periphery are caused by Russia’s resurgence.
Let’s see, he’s scared all of the Eastern European states into jumping as firmly in bed with the EU and NATO as they can get themselves.
His southern border issues with Islamic separatists are caused by Russian resurgence? Right…
His economies a one trick pony, of the once fairly advanced Soviet economy all that’s left is Natural Gas, Oil, some mineral exports and selling updated variants of Soviet Era aircraft.
He’s basically one clever physicist away from third world status. His birth rates so low it makes the Europeans look like bunny rabbits. He’s been reduced to clumsily assassinating random journalists and making crackpot nuclear threats to remind everyone they ought to pay attention to him.
He has no allies, is surrounded by up and coming powers (China east, Poland west, India south) which range from tepidly neutral to hostile, has a military which is a shell of it’s former self and knows it.
Nor was he dealt all of this, before he took over Western investors were all over Russia, and there was talk of grooming Russia to one day join the EU and possibly even Nato someday. Now the investors have all fled and Russia isn’t someone anyone wants to buddy up to.
Actually, Russia is behaving a lot like a middle eastern country recently…
TOC, I’m sorry but Orwellian really does seem like projection in your case. You’ve ignored the points made by myself and others to continue to repeat rhetorical talking points rather than substantive issues.