House Dems Send Letter on Iran
A group of powerful House Democrats—Steny Hoyer, Howard Berman, Ike Skelton, Silvestre Reyes, Henry Waxman, Gary Ackerman, and Robert Wexler—have sent Barack Obama a letter seeking to draw limits around his proposed policy of engagement with Iran. Specifically, they state that Iran “must verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment program within at most a few months of the initiation of the discussions” and calls for a variety of sanctions ot be leveled if Iran fails to do so.
I think the real meat of this is not so much in the call for an expedited time frame, but in the framing of the goal. It’s one thing to demand that Iran verifiably not build a nuclear weapon. It’s another thing to demand that Iran verifiably not engage in uranium enrichment. Iran is not obliged to eschew enrichment under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and a number of countries around the world in good non-proliferation standing—Japan, Germany, etc.—are in the position of having demonstrated that kind of know-how. But they’re considered non-nuclear weapons states because they don’t have nuclear weapons. Thus, adopting the more aggressive goal as a red line combined with the more aggressive time frame is basically a way of making it more likely that talks break down.
The perspective reflected in this letter is the ideas that the Israeli government and its proxies in the United States have been pushing for some kind. I appreciate that many members of congress wish to be seen as tough on Iran and as friends to Israel, but I hope members will give deeper consideration to the issues in play here. This approach makes Iranian acquisition of a nuclear weapon more likely. It also makes more likely an Israeli preventive military attack on Iran that will do more to diplomatically isolate Israel and the United States than it will to deter Iranian acquisition of military nuclear weapons.
39 Responses to “House Dems Send Letter on Iran”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
March 28th, 2009 at 6:31 pm
Wasn’t Silvestre Reyes the guy who told CQ that al-Qaeda is a predominantly Shiite organization?
One of our great foreign policy thinkers.
March 28th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Obama’s response should be “I said I would meet with them without preconditions. Conditions that are defined beforehand, even if they need not be fulfilled until later, are preconditions: they are just postdated preconditions. We had an election and primary in which this issue was richly debated, and I won.
March 28th, 2009 at 7:19 pm
Re Matthew’s comment “a number of countries around the world in good non-proliferation standing—Japan, Germany, etc.—are in the position of having demonstrated that kind of know-how. But they’re considered non-nuclear weapons states because they don’t have nuclear weapons.”
————–
Er..
March 28th, 2009 at 7:23 pm
Ha, ha!
It seems like a good number of them-there “cockroaches” that Matt was just blogging about earlier are prominent Democrats serving in Congress…
I’m shocked, shocked!
March 28th, 2009 at 7:31 pm
One of these days I’m going to telnet to some random email server and spoof a letter from AIPAC telling them that they need to organize a demonstration the next day at noon on the capitol steps where they dance the horah and sing Hativka and see what happens.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:02 pm
With Respect to Baby Jane:
I’ve written a letter to Imam
Addressed to a Well deep below
I’ve written, ” Dear Imam,you radiate
Uranium Two Thirty Two”
Instead of a threat I send presents,
All Predators, Two Hundred and Two
the postman said, “That’s best GPS can do.”
I’ve written this letter to Imam,
saying, “Start Ducking if I were you”
March 28th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
A stern letter from Congressional Democrats!! I’ll bet Obama’s blood ran cold, after he got a paper cut making the letter into a paper airplane.
March 28th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
цитата…
Specifically, they state that Iran “must verifiably suspend its uranium enrichment program within[...]…
March 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm
Would you invite someone to a “Dutch” Lunch but instead of each paying for their own, you want the guest to pay for both, before the lunch even starts?
This looks like the “dumb” invitation to Hamaz, provided the “renounce forever the use of violence”, what would be the point? Abject surrender?
Do they think our Diplomatic Corps is made up of the dumbest people in the world? It is not even “cleverly disguised”?
Are signers trying to collect from a foreign country?
Please, do what Kennedy did with one of two letters from Russia on the Missile Crises: Throw it away!
March 28th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Apparently we need to start by assuming the most submissive and placatory posture possible before there’s any chance that negotiations might succeed. And Iran is sort of like Japan, or Germany.
On top of which, is a letter like this to be taken at face value? Do we imagine that Wexler, Hoyer, Waxman, et al., send a public letter like this to the White House out of the blue? Without talking to anyone there and at the State Dept first? To try and “box him in” and pressure him? Without prior discussion?
Hand-wringing and credulous. A steely-eyed negotiator, that Yglesias.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
I remember that story. It came just a few days after a similar one, about a Republican Senator, I think, who, after having the “Shiite-Sunni” thing explained to him, replied “Ah. That would explain a lot.”
Ya think?
Get a brain, morans!
March 28th, 2009 at 11:04 pm
birnbaum:
You’re right, I’m sure all the Dem Israel-firsters coordinate their posturing with the White House before proceeding.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:06 pm
I used to believe that conservatives were just posing when they equated diplomacy with abject surrender like this.
Then I watched the Bush administration carry out diplomatic efforts. No, they mean it.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Matt: “It’s one thing to demand that Iran verifiably not build a nuclear weapon. It’s another thing to demand that Iran verifiably not engage in uranium enrichment.”
Matt gets that precisely right (for a change). Well, other than the fact that if you have no nuclear weapons program, it’s hard to prove that you don’t! Duh! Remember Iraq, Matt?
Now the problem for Matt is that this is PRECISELY what Obama has demanded Iran do: NO enrichment on Iranian soil.
Go and look it up, Matt. This has been Obama’s stance all during his campaign and right up until the present moment. I’ve repeated that fact here constantly for months.
I have yet to hear one person here or anywhere else explain HOW Obama is going to achieve this feat with “diplomacy” or “engagement” given that Iran can not and will not give up enrichment.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:29 pm
No offense Larry, but that comment was particularly dumb and inflammatory, even by your own standards.
Iran is in no way comparable to Japan or Germany, circa 1930’s. Not politically, not economically, not militarily, and not by way of an aggressive expansionist foreign policy.
Entering into discussions without demanding as a precondition, complete surrender on all points in dispute, is a sign of sanity, not weakness.
March 28th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
Obama will probably have the boys over for tea, to frankly discuss their proposal. He will listen attentively and thank them for their idea and tell he will give the “One State Solution” considerable thought.
After a round of friendly handshakes in front of the paparazzi he will return to his office and proceed to his file cabinet. He will open the Middle East-Central Asia drawer and pull out the “18 State Solution” folder and get to work.
March 29th, 2009 at 2:43 am
цитаты за сегодня…
A group of powerful House Democrats—Steny Hoyer, Howard Berman, Ike Skelton, Silvestre Reyes, Henry Waxman, Gary Ackerman, and[...]…
March 29th, 2009 at 2:53 am
I see AIPAC thugs didn’t waste any time after January 20th to buy democrats.
One a pro Israeli thug always a pro Israeli thug.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:13 am
Zionism is a disgrace. They are extremely dangerous and must be kicked out of the mainstream politics, back to the lunatic fringe where they rightfully belong. Together with ‘White Power’ and all the rest of it.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:22 am
Can members really give deeper consideration to issues against the intense preferences of well-funded and organised campaign contributors? MY seems to walk a very fine line in some of these policy discussions between a pretty accurate description of current events and a naive or credulous gesture towards a world that doesn’t exist.
March 29th, 2009 at 4:56 am
This is a good letter to send, and it’s a good letter to ignore.
March 29th, 2009 at 7:32 am
This seems like a return to the Bush-Rice philosophy of diplomatic negotiation in which your adversary is required to concede totally to your demands as a precondition of talks.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:14 am
Anybody remember the demand for unconditional surrender in WW 2? That worked out quite well as Germany and Japan haven’t threatened anybody since 1945.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:31 am
Germany hasn’t threatened anybody since 1945 in part because Nazism is banned there.
Banning Zionism (as a political programme) in Israel would be a good idea too.
March 29th, 2009 at 8:58 am
Re abb1
Mr. abb1 apparently is as ignorant of history as he is of most other subjects. The expansionist and militaristic tendencies of Germany long predate the rise of Hitler. The 1866 Austro-Prussian war, the 1871 Franco-Prussian war and WW 1 were, at their root, caused by German expansionist ideology. Germany and Japan have not caused trouble since 1945 because they were totally defeated in WW 2. Had the allies held out for unconditional surrender in WW 1, Hitler might never have risen to power on the premise that the political traitors in Berlin threw away the victory won by German arms on the battlefield (which was, of course, a big lie as German armies were in full retreat in the weeks leading up to the Armistice).
March 29th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Matt is exactly right on this one.
But I have a larger question. Would it be so bad if Iran had a nuclear weapon? All evidence suggests that Iran is not working to build nuclear weaponry, but I increasingly think it would be a welcome balance to U.S./Israel hegemony in the region if Iran WERE a nuclear power. Those that find this comment to be ipso facto insane probably, in my opinion, overestimate Ahmadinejad’s power and popularity within Iran and have never visited the nation, met its people, and seen what a modern, normal country it is. Please realize the following: if you have never traveled to the Middle East and seen Iran, Syria, the West Bank, etc. you almost assuredly have NO FUCKING IDEA what you’re talking about regarding these matters, as the echo chamber of the conversation in the U.S. is that f’ed up. If you really care, buy a ticket, get a Visa, and expand your data set.
newhavendan
March 29th, 2009 at 9:29 am
P.S. At the (very f’ing) least, watch this on youtube:
http://www.ricksteves.com/iran/
March 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
Skeptic,
In respose to your demand, Iran says go fuck yourself and continues to enrich uranium. What are you going to do about it…? The answer is nothing. Is that a sane approach?…making demands that you can’t enforce because it’s “the right thing to do?”
I’ll agree that at this point I don’t see Iran in any kind of mood to stop producing the materials it needs, but that doesn’t mean that there isn’t a chance that we could get these guys to not test a la Israel…while certainly not preferred it’s better than nothing. And maybe that’s toomuch to ask, but you have no other realistic options. Short of invading the country, it is extraordinarily unlikely that you’re going to stop them from being able to produce a weapon of some sort. Israel doesn’t have the capability, the Russians, frankly, don’t have shit, and the US made the decision to waste our time in Iraq. No one is in a position to make demands to Iran when they have everything they need to move forward.
You and your neocon/wilsonian travelers need to wake up and leave this stuff to the adults.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:47 am
Proving again that the Israel Lobby owns the Democrats in Congress.
March 29th, 2009 at 10:54 am
Skeptic,
Re Germany & Japan: either that’s a very clever joke riffing off my comment or I was hopelessly unclear. What I meant was: Yglesias equates Iran under an NPT regime with Germany and Japan — both of which are now stable, democratic, prosperous, peaceful countries and allies of ours on top of that.
In any case the letter isn’t about preconditions on Iran. I agree we should negotiate with them without preconditions. It’s about our own posture: namely, that we understand that the pressure tactic on their side is to drag out negotiations as a stalling tactic while they continue building a bomb.
Finally, contra Yglesias, it’s perfectly reasonable to enter difficult negotiations with a strong set of positions. I mean, what the hell does he think they’re doing? The man reflexively adopts the position that everyone else is entitled to negotiate as hard as possible for what’s in their own interest, while we should immediately start worrying about their “perceptions.” He’d make a terrible lawyer; and he has no understanding of the notion of fiduciary responsibility.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:08 am
The 1866 Austro-Prussian war, the 1871 Franco-Prussian war and WW 1 were, at their root, caused by German expansionist ideology.
World War I, sure, although there’s a lot of other stuff involved in World War I’s outbreak (most notably – Austro-Russian tensions in the Balkans exacerbated by the continuing decline of the Ottoman Empire).
I guess one can make the case for the Franco-Prussian War, although it was kind of the French that started that one (yeah, Bismarck manipulated them into it, but if the French hadn’t been idiots, there wouldn’t have been a war).
The Austro-Prussian War, though, was a German civil war. It may have been caused by Prussian expansionism, but hardly by “German expansionist ideology,” in that the people on both sides were all Germans. At any rate, it seems highly unwise to draw a straight line between Bismarck and Hitler – the short, sharp, limited wars of the 1860s and 1870s are just an incredibly different story from the World Wars.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:22 am
Re John
Mr. Johns’ attempt to distinguish between Prussian expansionism and militarism and German expansionism and militarism is a distinction without a difference.
1. Mr. Johns’ characterization of the Prussian/Austrian war of 1866 as a civil war is somewhat of a stretch. The war was over which side would have dominance in what was then the various semi-independent states that made up what is now Germany.
2. The Franco-Prussian war of 1871 was the culmination of Prussian attempts to unite all of Germany under one flag.
3. The root cause of WW 1 was the Kaisers’ determination to build the High Seas Fleet and challenge British dominance on the seas. Without that construction effort, it is likely that Great Britain would have stayed out of a war between Germany and France (which, in the absence of British support, Franch would have eschewed), just as it stayed out the the Franco-Prussian War.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:30 am
P.S. At the (very f’ing) least, watch this on youtube:
In the old days, say October of last year, Rick Steves would have been put on an official enemies list, now he just has to worry about the think tanks.
Iran is our natural ally in the region. From Eisenhower to the dynamic duo, Kissinger and Nixon, this was understood. The boys just got the policy wrong, is all, eventually reducing the Persian’s options to Mullahs or Savak. Lesser of two evils, there.
But 30 years have passed, and the Revolution’s candle is flickering. I think the administration recognizes this, and will continue to cautiously seek dialogue.
Makes sense to me.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Is Iran building a nuclear bomb, Larry?
There’s no evidence for it.
March 29th, 2009 at 12:33 pm
Are they building a nuclear bomb? Well, no one knows for sure. But I wouldn’t say there’s no evidence of it.
First of all, they’re spending a tremendous amount of money that really they can ill-afford to spend on developing a technology that won’t matter to them over the next couple of decades given that they have a huge domestic supply of oil.
Second, they’re developing IRBMs which are tremendously expensive and not very cost-effective weapons — nuisance or if you prefer terror weapons really — unless they are used to deliver WMD.
Finally, do they have some reason to want to develop nuclear weapons? Yes. First, because they have ambitions to become a dominant regional power in the Middle East. Second, because they fear — and not unjustifiably — that we might work towards regime change in the Islamic Republic, something which I have no doubt was on the Bush/Cheney administration’s agenda.
To the extent we can take the second concern off the table I do believe we’ll be able to move things forward with them. But it’s one thing to renounce the Bush/Cheney administration’s bellicosity and rejection of serious negotiation; it’s another thing entirely to adopt the kind of supplicant position that Yglesias is always espousing. That’s just as dangerous in my view.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:26 pm
Of course they are building a bomb. Who isn’t these days. Their program is somewhere between the early planning stages and manufacture. Doesn’t matter which.
The bomb is coming to a neighborhood near you. Get used to it.
Unless there is dialogue.
Continue to beat the Persians with a stick and they will strive to have the capacity to wipe out Israel in a first strike within 5 years. For prides’ sake.
We are not namby pamby England approaching the Fuhrer hoping for the best. We bestride Iran like a colossus.
A Great Power can afford to try magnanimity. I say shower them with carrots, see what happens.
March 29th, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Remember. One relatively small US Naval vessel floating in the Persian Gulf is always two minutes away from rendering Iran uninhabitable for a thousand years.
This plays on the Persian mind.
Some Iranians seek to have the ability to lob one up seconds before their civilization disappears forever. Its understandable.
March 29th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
larry birnbaum Says:
“First of all, they’re spending a tremendous amount of money that really they can ill-afford to spend on developing a technology that won’t matter to them over the next couple of decades given that they have a huge domestic supply of oil.”
This has been dealt with over and over. Iran’s supply of oil, like everyone else’s, is running out. Their energy needs for their growing population will result in their having to use all their oil for energy within a couple decades, thus preventing them from SELLING that oil to pay for their infrastructure development needs.
Hence, they need nuclear energy. This has been established for decades now. It was established back when the Shah of Iran had a nuclear energy program fully supported by the West.
The argument that they don’t need nuclear energy because they have oil is bogus and well known to be so.
“Second, they’re developing IRBMs which are tremendously expensive and not very cost-effective weapons — nuisance or if you prefer terror weapons really — unless they are used to deliver WMD.”
That is completely false and even if it were not, does nothing to establish whether Iran has a nuclear weapons program. They could just as easily have a chemical weapons program or not WMD program at all. This is not “evidence”.
“Finally, do they have some reason to want to develop nuclear weapons? Yes. First, because they have ambitions to become a dominant regional power in the Middle East. Second, because they fear — and not unjustifiably — that we might work towards regime change in the Islamic Republic, something which I have no doubt was on the Bush/Cheney administration’s agenda.”
This part is correct. Iran is threatened by regime change by Israel and the US. Developing and deploying nuclear weapons would remove that from the table because Israel can not afford to be hit with more than one or two nukes – and if Iran were convinced that Israel or the US were intent on regime change, they might as well conduct a first-strike on Israel to make the Western victory useless.
However, to make than plan work, you have to have more than one nuke (which Iran cannot have for several years yet) and you have to have a delivery system – which Iran does not have and will not have for some years beyond the development of any nuke.
Not to mention that there is ZERO evidence that there is any sort of nuclear weapons program being conducted despite your hypothetical reasons which are not “evidence” in any sense of the word.
Still waiting for someone to explain exactly HOW Obama is going to convince them to give up enrichment.
April 16th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Give please. Could you imagine how horrible things would be if we always told others how we felt? Life would be intolerably bearable.
I am from East and also now teach English, please tell me right I wrote the following sentence: “What a dilemma to buy or not to buy a holiday airline ticket.”
Waiting for a reply
, Marianne.