Over a Candle

Some people in Washington (read: Republicans) are complaining that Obama has been too quiet on the unrest in Iran. They want him to come out forcefully against the election and the crackdown on the protesters.

I’m pretty sure this is more evidence that the Republicans would like Obama to fail. Speaking out about Iran is perhaps the surest way for the U.S. to undermine democratic change in Iran, so naturally the Republicans want to do that.

It’s as though they can’t get it through their head that some people, in other parts of the world, not only don’t care what we think, but actively do the opposite of what we “demand,” simply because we demand it.

1979 was not that long ago. I remember the Iran-hostage crisis, and the revolution that led to it. Iran, its people, do not care to be lectured to by the U.S. We overthrew their government to install one of our own choosing. If we want to drive Iranians away from working for changes, all we have to do is endorse those changes.

I know that Republicans believe that if the U.S. screams enough, and rattles its saber enough, the rest of the world will fall in line. But it’s really time they got in the real world. Iran will change, if it does, without us, not because of us. The best thing we can do is stay out of their way.

Obama should not cave to the pressure of those Republicans who cannot accept that their vision of international relations has been soundly rejected, by the U.S. citizenry and by the world. Rather than dictating to Iran, he needs to let the citizens of Iran work out their own destiny.

Bush’s press conference this morning made two things abundantly clear.

First, Bush is willing to engage in hypotheticals to continue down his dystopian road. He repeatedly suggested that, in spite of the recent NIE, Iran had a military nuclear program at one point, and they might have one again in the future. But that is not a basis for a foreign policy. Lots of things MIGHT happen. What are their likelihood? If we worry about every possible threat, we will destroy ourselves. We must focus on the real, existing threats, rather than what MIGHT happen some point in the future.

Second, Bush thinks in absolutes. This is not a surprise. But it underscores the dangers of his approach to foreign policy. What he was suggesting today was that the only resolution to the Iran situation is a regime change. The NIE suggests that their nuclear program is not, as it stands, a military one. Yet he is still complaining that they haven’t verified it is ended. If our own intelligence says it has ended, what more evidence does he need? His claim that Iran shouldn’t have the knowledge to create such weapons is absurd on its face. Do we kill all their scientists and destroy the internet? How do we eliminate the KNOWLEDGE of creating such weapons from a country? If anything is going to lead us into some apocalyptic World War III, it is this black and white thinking that Bush is so prone to. (I should say, though, that he is only prone to it when it suits him. It’s okay, for instance, for India to have a weapons program, even though it is in direct violation of treaties.)

None of this is new. But it underscores the basic underlying problem with the Bush presidency: He is out of touch with reality. As long as that is true, he remains one of the greatest threats this country faces.

Is there any reason to ever listen to the Bush when it starts making apocalyptic predictions?

US: Iran halted weapons program in 2003:

WASHINGTON – A new U.S. intelligence report concludes that Iran’s nuclear weapons development program has been halted since the fall of 2003 because of international pressure – a stark contrast to the conclusions U.S. spy agencies drew just two years ago.

The only good thing I see coming out of this, is that maybe it will put the damper on all the saber rattling aimed at Iran.

Bush wants to see dangers lurking around ever corner. It blinds him to reality. And it has led us into an immoral disaster in Iraq.

Thankfully, it seems, we might avoid that fate in Iran. At least for now.

Here’s a bit of Bush’s comments on a possible military strike in Iran…

Bush defends World War Three comments on Iran:

Asked whether there was a point when the United States would decide military action was the only possible option for dealing with Iran, Bush said: ‘I would never say that.’

‘I would say that we would always try to try diplomacy first,’ he said. ‘In other words, I – I’ve committed our troops into harm’s way twice, and it’s not a pleasant experience because I understand the consequences firsthand.’

One wonders… What consequences has he experienced firsthand? Has been in combat? Has he lost a son or daughter in combat? What exactly is his firsthand experience?

Is it the experience of claiming to be in favor of diplomacy but treating military action as the first option, rather than the last? Is it the experience of engaging in optional war? Is it the experience of allowing countries like India and Pakistan to violate the Non-Proliferation treaty? Is it his experience of “go-it-alone” politics that has made us less safe as a result?

Can anyone still listen to this man and believe anything he says?

Today marks the 28th anniversary of the takeover of the U.S. embassy in Tehran. As a result it also marks the birth of my political awareness.

The hostage crisis in Iran was the first world event I have any real memory of. I remember watching as days turned into weeks turned into months. I remember the white numbers in the corner of the screen ticking up, counting off the number of days the crisis had gone on for. I remember helicopters crashing in the desert in a failed attempt to rescue the hostages. I remember following closely Reagan’s election victory over Carter.

And this morning I was struck by the circular nature of things, how all things are interwoven. Because of those events, this country supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran. Donald Rumsfeld went and shook Hussein’s hand. And the U.S. sold Iraq weapons of mass destruction that were then used both on Iran and on the Kurdish population. Because of the U.S.’s warm relations and apparent implications, Hussein believed he could invade Kuwait without interference from the U.S. The result of that relationship under Reagan, formed in part because of the hostage crisis in Iran, has led us today to another war in Iraq. And we’re still rattling our saber at Iran.

The more things change, the more they stay the same, I guess…

More cognitive dissonance from the Bush’s State Department again. (It’s not the U.S. State department. This is Bush’s view of the world.)

U.S. imposes new sanctions on Iran’s military:

‘Today, Secretary Paulson and I are announcing several new steps to increase the costs to Iran of its irresponsible behavior,’ said Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who made the announcement alongside Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

But Rice said the United States was committed to a diplomatic solution and urged Tehran to accept an offer made by major powers last year to give up sensitive nuclear work in exchange for incentives, including direct talks with Washington.

I wonder several things after hearing this story:

*How is that revision of the definition of “terrorism” coming along, Secretary Rice? I mean, as it stands, your department’s definition does not allow governmental entities to be terrorist organizations.

*How is that agreement allowing India to break the rules on nuclear development coming? Oh yeah, and how is Pakistan? Doing well are they? Do they like their nuclear bombs that we let them have?

And finally…

*Who is increasing costs to the Bush Administration for its irresponsible behavior? Certainly not the Democrats. And certainly not the American people.

I’m still busy grading, but I wanted to share with you all my favorite news story of the day.

Iran labels CIA ‘terrorist organization’:

TEHRAN, Iran – Iran’s parliament voted Saturday to designate the CIA and the U.S. Army as ‘terrorist organizations,’ a largely symbolic response to a U.S. Senate resolution seeking a similar designation for Iran’s Revolutionary Guards.

The parliament said the Army and the CIA were terrorists because of the atomic bombing of Japan; the use of depleted uranium munitions in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq; support of the killings of Palestinians by Israel; the bombing and killing Iraqi civilians and the torture of imprisoned terror suspects.

Why is this my favorite news story of the day? Because I’ve been trying to point this out for some time now. If we start labeling other organizations of other governments as terroristic, then we’re going to have trouble explaining the difference between them and us.

What definition of terrorism could the Senate use to defend their resolution, but that wouldn’t also apply to the CIA? I covered some of the problems with some of the definitions used by the U.S. government in a previous post. (A post on the very next day continues illustrating the issue.)

I would be very curious to see how the U.S. government will attempt to draw a distinction that allows them to continue the characterization of the Revolutionary Guard and reject the characterization of the CIA.

A brief (I promise) follow up to yesterday’s long rant on defining terrorism. I heard about this story last night, but have had trouble finding too much news reporting on it. MPR, carrying an AP story, seems to have a good bit of detail…

MPR: Senate approves amendment aimed to ease plight of Hmong:

Under provisions of the USA Patriot Act and the Real ID Act, the Hmong who fought alongside Americans in the ‘secret war’ against communists in the 1960s and 1970s in Laos are considered ‘terrorists.’ That disqualifies them for asylum or green cards.

Late Thursday night, the Senate approved an amendment by Sens. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., that says the Hmong and other groups that had been ensnared by the anti-terrorism laws, such as the Montagnards from Vietnam, are not to be considered terrorists. Many Montagnards were also U.S. allies during the Vietnam War.

So by the definition employed in U.S. law, the Hmong are terrorists. But because they were our allies, we don’t like the designation. By fiat, then, we are going to say they aren’t terrorists, even though they meet the definition. Because, of course, if they are terrorists, then so are we. The CIA provided material support for the Hmong. And if Iran is guilty of terrorism for supporting Hezbollah, then the U.S. is guilty of government for supporting the Hmong in Laos.

We have a definition of terrorism (which is too long to bother going into here – look up the Real ID act for more information). But since it includes people we are uncomfortable including, we have to arbitrarily exempt some from the definition. Which makes the word even less useful.

In another version of my life, I am working on a paper about difficulties giving a coherent definition of ‘terrorism.’ This is NOT a rehash of that paper. But today, Iran was fined by a U.S. court for the 1983 bombing in Beirut by Hezbollah. The news reports call the 1983 attack the biggest terrorist attack against the U.S. outside of 9/11. As a result, it seems to me important to point out the problem with calling the Beirut attack an instance of terrorism. But the post started to get long, so I wanted to give this quick summary right up front.

If you’re still with me, please, continue…

Read the rest of this entry »