Matt Yglesias

32 Responses to “The Hard Line”

1. The Puzzled One Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 8:35 am

   While this is interesting in and of itself, it is not a surprised to anybody who’s informed. Iran can also be an anchor of stability in Iraq. It makes one wonder if there is a price that Iran will accept in exchange to stop meddling in Lebanon/Israel/Palestine. If and when that no small feat is accomplished, Iran can be welcome in the family of nations.
   Yet something makes one think that they’d rather play brinkmanship with everybody else for a long time as it distracts people from looking into their problems in the face, and the subsequent pursuit of more democracy. The Iranian middle class is being bribed into non-opposition, and so far it works.

2. right Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 8:47 am

   Our two countries’ interests are by no means identical, but they’re actually pretty similar in the scheme of things

   Um… except for Iran’s interest in obtaining its own nuclear weapons. That teensy thing aside though…

3. Kilo Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 8:54 am

   “Whatever the merits of Iran’s view of this situation…”

   It’s their neighbour. They’re opposing negotiations with the faction they fought a proxy war against and the reintegration of a regime they opposed.
   You could assume they’re not doing it for giggles.

4. strasmangelo jones Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 9:30 am

   It makes one wonder if there is a price that Iran will accept in exchange to stop meddling in Lebanon/Israel/Palestine.

   Iran, of course, is “meddling,” whereas the United States is merely serving to aid its national interest. Never mind that the “national interest” of the United States apparently extends to everywhere on the planet.

5. strasmangelo jones Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 9:35 am

   except for Iran’s interest in obtaining its own nuclear weapons.

   And what’s wrong with Iran having nuclear weapons, exactly? What makes it the business of the United States if Iran decides to get nuclear weapons for the same reason almost every other country in the world – including the UK, France, India, and Israel – have obtained nuclear weapons, namely, to insulate themselves from the risk of attack from other nations? The only country to use nuclear weapons offensively remains the United States. That didn’t take a crazed mullah or an Islamic terrorist; it took Harry Truman and the lack of any counterbalancing power.

6. The Puzzled One Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 9:51 am

   Jones:
   You seem to bring up the knee-jerk America-bad Chomskyite response. If that’s not a fair description, my apologies.
   Now for a clarification: Iran has been the champion of Lebanon’s long-ignored (some would say long-oppressed) Shi’a population, who has become large enough to command more power than it did under the traditional model. Now, Iran has favored the militant element (Hezbollah) over a more subtle political approach, and this has had the (to me self-evident) consequence of having the Shi’as be the pawns in a proxy battle for Palestine, and not improving their lot in concrete way (other than Hezbollah having more muscle, and being able to funnel oil money to Shi’as in a welfare-queen scheme, which is self-defeating in the long term).
   And forgive me for pointing out that Palestine is none of Iran’s business, especially in the light of the Palestinians having already recognized Israel and etc, which Iran seems not ready to put up with. It can be said (to me it is self-evident) that Arab governments in the past, and now Iran, are using Palestine as a diversion card to dangle in front of their low-information masses whenever these become concerned with trivia that may be more relevant to them such as lack of freedom, lack of infrastructure, unemployment, infant mortality.
   The Hamas takeover of Gaza may be a pride booster, but does not ameliorate life for Gazans. Even Egypt won’t play along.
   (To preempt straw-man attacks, let it be said here that yours truly favors a viable Palestinian state, and not just as a rhetoric device a-la Bush 43; yours truly would like to see the end of all external meddling in Lebanon with all people’s rights being accounted for.)

7. spike Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 9:52 am

   The whole “axis of evil” bullshit was a major lost opportunity to improve our relationship with Iran. It didn’t have to be that way and perhaps in retrospect that will be one thing that stands out over time as a failure of the Bush administration. Iran is way more rational than the U.S. gives them credit for and could have been a useful ally in the war against the Jihadis. Oh well.

8. Jeet Heer Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 10:19 am

   Do the Iranians need columnists who can write rote screeds on the danger of appeasement and the evils of Chamberlain and Munich? Can we send them Charles Krauthammer?

9. James Robertson Says:
   October 20th, 2008 at 10:21 am

   Umm, they align insofar as Iran doesn’t like Sunni based jihad. Iran is just fine with the Shia version (Hamas, Hezbollah).

   At best, we align with Iran in the same way that the Latin Kingdoms in the middle east aligned with the local Arab sultans before Saladin’s time – temporarily, with the risk that the ground will shift out from under us at any moment.

   A cursory study of the history of the region would tell you that. Does that mean that we shouldn’t take advantage of such alignments? No… but it does mean that we should keep our expectations low.

10. Gary Sugar Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 10:35 am

    Our two countries’ interests are by no means identical, but they’re actually pretty similar

    Yes, very similar. Both countries want to control the Iranian oil trade.

11. Peter K. Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 10:55 am

    Iran is probably still upset about that time in the mid-Nineties when the Taliban summarily executed a bunch of Iranian diplomats. Apparently the negotiations weren’t going well.

    I can image the scene was like “THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!” But then the Iranians can’t really complain about treating diplomats poorly.

    Even though I supported getting rid of Saddam, another mortal enemy of Tehran, America should try to engage Iran, which I hope Obama will do if elected. He seems more focused on Al Qaeda and Pakistan/Afghanistan.

12. rmwarnick Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 12:04 pm

    The only way the U.S. and NATO get out of Afghanistan is by making some kind of deal with the Taliban. Having us bogged down in what has already become the third-longest war in American history, fighting Iran’s enemies for them, looks like a good deal for Iran.

13. witless chum Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 12:27 pm

    Anyone considered it might be better for the U.S. that the Iranians get a couple of nukes? Then no U.S. president would be dumb enough to try to go to war with Iran and American wins.

14. Abu- Menachem Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 1:00 pm

    America’s interests and those of the Iranian regime are not similar AT ALL.
    I find that this post hard to fathom, as it comes from someone trained in logic.

    These two countries are both interested in impressing their vastly dissimilar views concerning governance on others. If they sometimes find commonality in opposing
    imposition of a third view, it is a minor matter and unlikely to cause them to undertake any joint action.

15. Limagolf Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 1:15 pm

    “These two countries are both interested in impressing their vastly dissimilar views concerning governance on others.”

    I’m not sure that’s true.

    Iran is desperate to avoid another war that kills millions of its citizens. Few Westeners have any idea about how the Iran-Iraq war is branded into the Iranian psyche. They favour a forward leaning defensive crouch, trying to gain allies where they can, eg. Lebanon, Palestine and not least Iraq.

    But to suggest they want to impress their style of governance on anybody is a little curious. Where have they tried to impose their style of governance? And how?

    /Limagolf

16. Peter K. Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 5:39 pm

    Anyone considered it might be better for the U.S. that the Iranians get a couple of nukes? Then no U.S. president would be dumb enough to try to go to war with Iran and American wins.

    Yeah when every country has a nuke, and some actually use them in a local war, I’ll remember the flippancy of some on the extreme Left. This unserious cynicism really turned me off.

    And of course the Bushies are just as unserious, shredding the nonproliferation treaty, by proliferating to India – a great, democratic country – but still.

    I’ll admit that the main problem is that the nuclear power aren’t serious about nonproliferation, but that won’t cause me to argue every country should have one also.

17. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 8:22 pm

    I’ll repeat the FACTS once again for the morons:

    1) Iran does NOT have a nuclear weapons development and deployment program.

    2) There is ZERO evidence that Iran ever HAD a nuclear weapons development and deployment program.

    3) There is SOME evidence that Iran – like every other country in the world threatened by nuclear weapons from an enemy, i.e., Israel – has or had a nuclear weapons DATABASE or RESEARCH program. That is, the military wanted to know how nukes are made in case the political establishment ever decided Iran needed to have some. With Supreme Leader Khamenei explicitly disavowing nuclear weapons as “un-Islamic”, this is unlikely to occur during his rule.

    4) Iran has no interest in imposing its rule on any other country in the region. Their support for Hamas and Hizballah is entirely the result of Muslim solidarity against Israel’s imposition of its rule on the Palestinians and Israel’s threats – and actual military actions – against the entire Middle East region, acting as the US’s stalking horse and for its own Zionist purposes.

    5) Obama is committed to using “aggressive diplomacy” and sanctions to try to force Iran to cease uranium enrichment – which Iran CANNOT and WILL NOT do. Therefore Obama is going to end up exactly where George Bush is at the moment – either give in and accept Iranian enrichment or start a war. There are no third alternatives IF you assume Iran must cease enrichment.

    However, the proper approach if you follow the letter of the NPT is to offer Iran the following:

    1) Full assistance with its nuclear energy program – as is required of all nuclear-capable NPT signatories.

    2) Guarantees against regime change and military attack by either the US or Israel.

    3) Establish full diplomatic relations.

    4) Haul Israel before the UN and demand that the Middle East become a “nuclear free” zone and demand Israel be totally disarmed of all nuclear weapons. This is the only way to establish that the US is actually sincere in wishing to normalize relations with Iran.

    5) Work with the UN and the international community to cease Israel’s oppression and slow motion genocide of the Palestinians, possibly even to the point of re-evaluating the UN partitioning of 1947 and the establishment of a bi-national state in Palestine.

    6) Require Iran to ratify and abide by the NPT Additional Protocol.

    7) Require Iran to cease supplying arms to Hamas and Hizballah – at least as long as negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians are bearing fruit.

    Require Iran to establish full cooperation in tracking down and arresting any Al Qaeda or other jihadist organizations in or transiting their territory (which Iran has done in the past.)

    This “grand bargain” is the only solution to the Iran “crisis” – which is an entirely manufactured “crisis”. And I see no evidence that Obama, let alone McCain, is even remotely interested in such a bargain. ALL of Obama’s rhetoric and policy prescriptions on the topic of Iran are entirely opposed to this “grand bargain”.

18. Richard Steven Hack Says:
    October 20th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

    I have NO idea how that smilie got in that post…

    I wasn’t aware we could even use standard smilies on this blog! Oooh, now we can experiment!

19. viagra Says:
    March 1st, 2009 at 5:15 am

    viagra
    Great site. Good info

20. viagra Says:
    March 11th, 2009 at 4:24 am

    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

21. zyban Says:
    March 12th, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right

22. tramadol Says:
    March 17th, 2009 at 2:22 am

    Very interesting site. Hope it will always be alive!
    tramadol

23. tramadol Says:
    March 22nd, 2009 at 6:05 am

    tramadol
    I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!

24. cheap viagra Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 5:10 am

    If you have to do it, you might as well do it right viagra

25. Get Your Ex Back Says:
    April 9th, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    Not that I’m impressed a lot, but this is more than I expected for when I found a link on Furl telling that the info is awesome. Thanks.