Have we already lost Iran?

[TomClash]

Outstanding article in its factual critique and path to a solution.


Have We Already Lost Iran?
By FLYNT LEVERETT and HILLARY MANN LEVERETT
Published: May 23, 2009
Washington

PRESIDENT OBAMA’S Iran policy has, in all likelihood, already failed. On its present course, the White House’s approach will not stop Tehran’s development of a nuclear fuel program — or, as Iran’s successful test of a medium-range, solid-fuel missile last week underscored, military capacities of other sorts. It will also not provide an alternative to continued antagonism between the United States and Iran — a posture that for 30 years has proved increasingly damaging to the interests of the United States and its allies in the Middle East.

This judgment may seem both premature and overly severe. We do not make it happily. We voted for Barack Obama in 2008, and we still want him to succeed in reversing the deterioration in America’s strategic position. But we also believe that successful diplomacy with Iran is essential to that end. Unless President Obama and his national security team take a fundamentally different approach to Tehran, they will not achieve a breakthrough.

This is a genuine shame, for President Obama had the potential to do so much better for America’s position in the Middle East. In his greeting to “the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran” on the Persian New Year in March, Mr. Obama included language meant to assuage Iranian skepticism about America’s willingness to end efforts to topple the regime and pursue comprehensive diplomacy.

Iranian diplomats have told us that the president’s professed willingness to deal with Iran on the “basis of mutual interest” in an atmosphere of “mutual respect” was particularly well received in Tehran. They say that the quick response of the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — which included the unprecedented statement that “should you change, our behavior will change, too” — was a sincere signal of Iran’s openness to substantive diplomatic proposals from the new American administration.

. . .

Even more disturbing is President Obama’s willingness to have Dennis Ross become the point person for Iran policy at the State Department. Mr. Ross has long been an advocate of what he describes as an “engagement with pressure” strategy toward Tehran, meaning that the United States should project a willingness to negotiate with Iran largely to elicit broader regional and international support for intensifying economic pressure on the Islamic Republic.

. . .

To fix our Iran policy, the president would have to commit not to use force to change the borders or the form of government of the Islamic Republic. He would also have to accept that Iran will continue enriching uranium, and that the only realistic potential resolution to the nuclear issue would leave Iran in effect like Japan — a nation with an increasingly sophisticated nuclear fuel-cycle program that is carefully safeguarded to manage proliferation risks. Additionally, the president would have to accept that Iran’s relationships with Hamas and Hezbollah will continue, and be willing to work with Tehran to integrate these groups into lasting settlements of the Middle East’s core political conflicts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/24/opinion/24leverett.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=global

[spanone]

1. no

[suchadeal]

2. Iran was never "ours" to lose.

It's a sovereign nation with a history that stretches back into antiquity. It has as much right to develop whatever its leaders
feel is necessary in order to defend the country as any other nation. And, given that the U.S. has already proven its willingness
to use nuclear weapons, Iran would be negligent to assume that the U.S. would never carry out its threats against it.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Geez!!! Four months in and President Obama has already "lost" Iran too

Ummmm.........o.k. :eyes:

His Presidency is turning into one HUGH failure!!!!

:sarcasm:


But what about this part of the article:

"Iranian diplomats have told us that the president’s professed willingness to deal with Iran on the “basis of mutual interest” in an atmosphere of “mutual respect” was particularly well received in Tehran. They say that the quick response of the nation’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — which included the unprecedented statement that “should you change, our behavior will change, too” — was a sincere signal of Iran’s openness to substantive diplomatic proposals from the new American administration."

Does THAT sound like a failure to anybody else???
:wtf:

[Buzz Clik]

4. This shit is endless.

Why is this posted at DU without comment?

[TomClash]

5. 4 post thus far and it is patently obvious

not one person has read the article because all 4 seem to react only to the title.

[stray cat]

6. Iran was never ours in any way shape or form since the Shaw

[TankLV]

8. Shawshank? Show?

What's a "shaw"?

[TankLV]

7. Good god, IT'S STILL WHERE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN!!!

You can even fly there...

It's never been "lost"...

geesh...

[bemildred]

9. Fascinating.

:thumbsup:

[Captain Hilts]

10. No. Iranians don't hate the US. nt

[leveymg]

11. Dennis Ross is our emissary to Israel on Iran, not the "point person in Iran".

He's there because he makes the extremists in Jerusalem comfortable, and keeping the extremists in Tehran on edge is still part of the strategy. He's currently playing the part of the "bad cop" in this ongoing game.

In conversations with Mr. Ross before Mr. Obama’s election, we asked him if he really believed that engage-with-pressure would bring concessions from Iran. He forthrightly acknowledged that this was unlikely. Why, then, was he advocating a diplomatic course that, in his judgment, would probably fail? Because, he told us, if Iran continued to expand its nuclear fuel program, at some point in the next couple of years President Bush’s successor would need to order military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Citing past “diplomacy” would be necessary for that president to claim any military action was legitimate.

Iranian officials are fully aware of Mr. Ross’s views — and are increasingly suspicious that he is determined that the Obama administration make, as one senior Iranian diplomat said to us, “an offer we can’t accept,” simply to gain international support for coercive action.

[bemildred]

13. That is one of the points that caused me to question the OP at first.

The whole thing about who Mr Ross is and the role he plays as a "threat" to Iran annoyed me at first, partly because it does not coincide with my views as to the purposes of his appointment at the time. But it really does not matter much. If you read through to the end, it becomes clear that the point of the OP is that if the opening to Iran is not real, if it is merely a cover for the same old dishonest and manipulative policies, than it will continue to fail as those policies have failed in the past. The government in Tehran, whether we like it or not, is neither weak nor confused, and policies that rely on such delusions for success will fail. If the US government does not manage to speak with a single voice in foreign policy, that foreign policy will continue to fail. And Mr Ross' role in the OP as an example of the old dishonest, manipulative policies is then clear and does not depend on his exact position in the org-chart.

[leveymg]

21. Negotiating w/Iran requires keeping Israel on a leash - Ross is holding the strap

It's not unusual that a negotiating team be split up into apparent good cop/bad cop sections, particularly those that deal with multiple parties. Provided that there is overall guidance and discipline, a smart negotiating tactic is to load up the team with representatives that seem to hold several views on different issues, so that they can work closely with all the other parties at the table.

[bemildred]

27. That might or might not be so, but it has nothing to do with my point about the OP.

The OP was making a particular argument, and that argument does not hinge on what Mr Ross' particular role in the strategy to deal with Iran is, it hinges on the matter of whether the strategy is up front and honest, or not. And you appear to be agreeing with the OP that that it is not. "Good cop, bad cop" is not an honest negotiating position.

FWIW, I am not out to get Mr Ross, or President Obama for choosing Mr Ross, I'm just saying the OP's argument deserves to be understood on it's merits. Treating Iran like it is a stupid and weak will fail because it is neither.

[TomClash]

28. I wish you were right

I don't see Dennis Ross as such a team player. He certainly stuck the knife in Bob Malley.

[TomClash]

14. So then who is the "point person" on Iran?

Ross has excessive influence on Iran.

[leveymg]

23. My guess, Obama has the Bridge and Mitchell holds the wheel

Ross is looking at one of several sonar screens and may have a limited idea where the ship is ultimately headed.

Obama seems to be heavily involved in the decisions on this.

[TomClash]

26. If you are guessing . . .

. . . how do you know the Leveretts are wrong?

In fact, they are right - it is that odious failed AIPAC servant, Dennis Ross. My candidate would have been Ray Takeyh, but AIPAC would never allow that.

[Hippo_Tron]

34. I really hope Obama consults with Ray Takeyh at some point

He seems to know more about Iran than anybody else in this country.

[TomClash]

36. You are right - he does

There are others who are also quite knowledgeable, many are Iranian-Americans. AIPAC doesn't want any of these people - they want war.

[upi402]

12. Lost it when we installed the Shah and he did his dirty deeds n/t

[Lydia Leftcoast]

15. Why SHOULDN'T Iran have nuclear weapons?

After all, the U.S. has invaded and is occupying its neighbors on either side and has bases in Uzbekistan to its north. Then there are the U.S. ships cruising in the Persian Gulf.

The Iranians probably sees themselves as being squeezed on all sides, and the nukes (if they're indeed developing them) are simply their "don't tread on me" trump card.

Geeze, people, do you really believe everything you read in a New York Times opinion piece or what the talking heads on CNN tell you? Do a little background reading, for heaven's sake.

[leftstreet]

29. +1

:thumbsup:

[NoPasaran]

30. Gee, I remember when "progressives" thought nuclear proliferation was a bad idea

Now they seem to applaud every Third World looney who dreams of his very own mushroom cloud.

Who's next? Hugo Chavez? Dennis Kucinich?

[bemildred]

31. Progressives think nukes should be done away with, proliferation is not really the issue.

When the "Great Powers" agree to do away with nukes, then you will get some interest from progressives in the lesser beings who don't want to go along.

[kentuck]

16. You can't lose what you ain't never had. (Muddy Waters)

When was it ours to lose?

[pup_ajax]

17. Assuming we ever "had" Iran ...

we lost them when the Shah was run out of town back in the '70s.

[NeedleCast]

18. Don't Worry, I found it!

It's between Iraq and Afghanistan. Everyone can relax now.

[mecherosegarden]

19. LOL. That is funny!

Sorry, Couldn't help it


:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[anonymous171]

22. .

:spray:

[Overseas]

20. If anyone "lost Iran" it was Bush-- by destroying Iran's greatest enemy, Iraq

So let's just cut the crap about Obama losing Iran !! Total claptrap !!

If anyone "lost" Iran, it was the President who ordered the destruction of its greatest enemy in the region. That would be George W. Bush and President Cheney. Whoever commanded the invasion and occupation of Iraq to commence is the one who "lost" Iran.

If our country was really afraid of Iran, why on earth would we have destroyed Iran's strongest enemy in the region?

When we complained about the tyrant Sadaam back in the 80's, we were told the US needed him because Iraq kept Iran in check.

When we left Baghdad without deposing Sadaam after Gulf War I, it was because we needed Sadaam to keep Iran in check.

SO if those same people were willing to conduct a war of choice against Iraq, they must have decided Iran was no longer a threat. Surely they wouldn't have gone in to smash the whole country if they still thought Iran was still a danger.

They must have proceeded with the war initiated on false pretenses because Iran no longer posed a threat to us. They didn't need Iraq to "keep Iran in check" anymore.

Furthermore, if those Bush officials who later spoke out about how dangerous Iran is were really concerned about the treat to our country posed by its potential to produce WMD, surely they wouldn't have smashed an entire covert operation designed to keep an eye on nuclear weapon potential in the middle east, by outing Valerie Plame just to punish her husband for challenging Cheney's false intelligence on Iraq. Any American who was truly concerned about the threat of Iranian nuclear potential would surely never have destroyed a valuable covert intelligence operation like Brewster Jennings.

[malletgirl02]

25. Iran

Great analysis. I don't know about you but I see some scary parellels to the start of Vietnam. Truman was afraid of "losing" Vietnam like China was "lost" and as a result he got the country into Vietnam. I hope Obama doesn't fall for it.

[Mike 03]

24. It depends on the sincerity and skill of our dual approaches.

It will take time to mend how incompetent Bush's dealing was with Iran, and his administration's ignorance as to how the citizens of that country live and what they believe.

Both nations will have to cast aside pride and ego for this to work, but I believe it will because the people of Iran are not that different from the people of any other nation, including ours.

It is going to be a dance, and there will be great moments and hesitations, and backings-off, as we try to get this right.

We must.

I trust Obama to get this right, but it requires skillful means. He knows that.

[eridani]

32. We have to have the whole area under our bootheels because why? n/t

[Hippo_Tron]

33. How do they know that Obama hasn't accepted Iran's enrichment of uranium?

Sure, publicly he hasn't. But with all of this tough talk could be more about keeping Netanyahu appeased than anything else.

Personally if I were the POTUS I would tell Khamenei privately that he is free to enrich all of the uranium he wants. But if he ever uses it for offensive purposes, we will turn his country into glass. It is entirely possible that Obama has done something similar or is planning to do that.

To me that seems the best option, since most of this is about political posturing more than anything. Both sides are less worried about the concessions they may have to make and more about the political ramifications of those concessions.

[KG]

35. america 'lost' iran 50 years ago when the CIA enginnered the overthrow of the elected pres mosadek

and installed the shah.