Op Ed Leveraged Talking to Iran

CosmicRocker · 05-17-2008, 07:29 AM

The New Cold War

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
Published: May 14, 2008
The next American president will inherit many foreign policy challenges, but surely one of the biggest will be the cold war.
Yes, the next president is going to be a cold-war president — but this cold war is with Iran.

That is the real umbrella story in the Middle East today — the struggle for influence across the region, with America and its Sunni Arab allies (and Israel) versus Iran, Syria and their non-state allies, Hamas and Hezbollah.
As the May 11 editorial in the Iranian daily Kayhan put it, “In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the U.S.”

For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided.
Any other questions?

The outrage of the week is the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah attempt to take over Lebanon. Hezbollah thugs pushed into Sunni neighborhoods in West Beirut, focusing particular attention on crushing progressive news outlets like Future TV, so Hezbollah’s propaganda machine could dominate the airwaves.
The Shiite militia Hezbollah emerged supposedly to protect Lebanon from Israel. Having done that,
it has now turned around and sold Lebanon to Syria and Iran.

All of this is part of what Ehud Yaari, one of Israel’s best Middle East watchers, calls “Pax Iranica.”
In his April 28 column in The Jerusalem Report, Mr. Yaari pointed out the web of influence that Iran has built around the Middle East — from the sway it has over Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, to its ability to manipulate virtually all the Shiite militias in Iraq,
to its building up of Hezbollah into a force — with 40,000 rockets — that can control Lebanon and threaten Israel should it think of striking Tehran, to its ability to strengthen Hamas in Gaza and block any U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace.

“Simply put,” noted Mr. Yaari, “Tehran has created a situation in which anyone who wants to attack its atomic facilities will have to take into account that this will lead to bitter fighting” on the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Persian Gulf fronts.
That is a sophisticated strategy of deterrence.

The Bush team, by contrast, in eight years has managed to put America in the unique position in the Middle East where it is “not liked, not feared and not respected,” writes Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast negotiator under both Republican and Democratic administrations, in his provocative new book on the peace process, titled “The Much Too Promised Land.”

“We stumbled for eight years under Bill Clinton over how to make peace in the Middle East, and then we stumbled for eight years under George Bush over how to make war there,” said Mr. Miller, and the result is “an America that is trapped in a region which it cannot fix and it cannot abandon.”

Look at the last few months, he said: President Bush went to the Middle East in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went in February, Vice President Dick Cheney went in March, the secretary of state went again in April, and the president is there again this week. After all that, oil prices are as high as ever and peace prospects as low as ever.
As Mr. Miller puts it, America right now “cannot defeat, co-opt or contain” any of the key players in the region.

The big debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is over whether or not we should talk to Iran. Obama is in favor; Clinton has been against. Alas, the right question for the next president isn’t whether we talk or don’t talk.
It’s whether we have leverage or don’t have leverage.

When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore.
That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran.

The only weaker party is the Sunni Arab world, which is either so drunk on oil it thinks it can buy its way out of any Iranian challenge or is so divided it can’t make a fist to protect its own interests — or both.

We’re not going to war with Iran, nor should we. But it is sad to see America and its Arab friends so weak they can’t prevent one of the last corners of decency, pluralism and openness in the Arab world from being snuffed out by Iran and Syria.
The only thing that gives me succor is the knowledge that anyone who has ever tried to dominate Lebanon alone — Maronites, Palestinians, Syrians, Israelis — has triggered a backlash and failed.

“Lebanon is not a place anyone can control without a consensus, without bringing everybody in,” said the Lebanese columnist Michael Young.
“Lebanon has been a graveyard for people with grand projects.” In the Middle East, he added, your enemies always seem to “find a way of joining together and suddenly making things very difficult for you.”

CosmicRocker · 05-17-2008, 07:32 AM

so talking is not the issue wheter it's with or without preconditions.

It's about leveraging yourself so when you DO talk, you have something
to use for "leverage" or an incentive for the other side.

Friedman always cuts right thru to it.

EvilMonkey · 05-17-2008, 09:01 AM

No it's not, it's about sticking our fist out to the world and saying we are power hungry. That we will not talk to anyone without stipulation for any reason what so ever.

Look, there are people in other parts of the world that "aren't America" <-- important to note. Bad shit happens in other parts of the world and believe it or not, as arrogant as we are, we only have so much say. The republican stance has always been one of give us something or fuck you and that is why the world pretty much hates us right now.

Just like those who believe Bush is keeping us safe from terrorists even though he's created the largest uprising of them in history. Like it or not, strict preconditions is exactly the type of behavior that sparks the ire at us.

I love the fact that Obama will not have this attitude and he gets it, those who want change also get it. Status quo = the same old fuck you attitude we have towards anyone else who doesn't believe in our way of life.

CosmicRocker · 05-17-2008, 09:29 AM

this goes beyond campaign talk of talking/not talking
conditions no preconditions.

If you read it carefully, Friedman is showing that Iran IS seeking dominance over the whole region.
He gave the examples.I hope you agree with his points. they are not deniable.

So yes, let's DO talk ! But let's get us something we can use as a carrot or stick.
Like any negotiations, you need to have something to offer.
and something to take away, leverage.

I was posting this, because Friedman is NOT old school, and is very savvy on the region.
We could offer recognition, and not medddling in their affairs,
but they would have to back off with the destabilzation antics.

The problem is Bush has put us so much in the hole, we are neither respected or feared.

DRS112 · 05-17-2008, 10:27 AM

Yeah....a cold war with a country that doesn't even have nukes

DRS112 · 05-17-2008, 10:44 AM

I did like "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" though....

The_Heretic · 05-17-2008, 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

Yeah....a cold war with a country that doesn't even have nukes

Youshould read Robert Fisk's The Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of The Middle East. He document's how Iran got blamed for everything whether they did it or not. More than half of the shit they were accused was pattently false, bad as they've been.

CosmicRocker · 05-17-2008, 11:17 AM

It's not a question of nukes or not.
Be aware the last intel report, said we think they have stopped -
but anything could happen. Nothing is set in concrete.

This was more about Iranian hegemony over the region thru Hezbollah, and Hamas.

Hezbollah routinely shoots rockets into Isreal.
Hezbollah was in a running gunbattle in W. Beirut this week, and the Lebanese army was powerless to stop them.
read the article in full please.

Friedman is idely recognized as an expert on the region.
He is NOT a neo-con.

If you wanna dis. Freidman, and ignore Iranian hegemony...
well all I can say is, Obama hopefully is more aware of the region, then some appear to be here.

DRS112 · 05-17-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Heretic

Youshould read Robert Fisk's The Great War For Civilisation: The Conquest of The Middle East. He document's how Iran got blamed for everything whether they did it or not. More than half of the shit they were accused was pattently false, bad as they've been.

I've got it here....just never finished....it's a HUGE book.

The_Heretic · 05-17-2008, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DRS112

I've got it here....just never finished....it's a HUGE book.

And depressing as all hell. It's hard to read on realizing the only good guys are the innocent dead.

05-17-2008, 07:29 AM	#1 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,549 My Mood: Thanks: 121 Thanked 91 Times in 73 Posts	Leveraged Talking to Iran The New Cold War By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: May 14, 2008 The next American president will inherit many foreign policy challenges, but surely one of the biggest will be the cold war. Yes, the next president is going to be a cold-war president — but this cold war is with Iran. That is the real umbrella story in the Middle East today — the struggle for influence across the region, with America and its Sunni Arab allies (and Israel) versus Iran, Syria and their non-state allies, Hamas and Hezbollah. As the May 11 editorial in the Iranian daily Kayhan put it, “In the power struggle in the Middle East, there are only two sides: Iran and the U.S.” For now, Team America is losing on just about every front. How come? The short answer is that Iran is smart and ruthless, America is dumb and weak, and the Sunni Arab world is feckless and divided. Any other questions? The outrage of the week is the Iranian-Syrian-Hezbollah attempt to take over Lebanon. Hezbollah thugs pushed into Sunni neighborhoods in West Beirut, focusing particular attention on crushing progressive news outlets like Future TV, so Hezbollah’s propaganda machine could dominate the airwaves. The Shiite militia Hezbollah emerged supposedly to protect Lebanon from Israel. Having done that, it has now turned around and sold Lebanon to Syria and Iran. All of this is part of what Ehud Yaari, one of Israel’s best Middle East watchers, calls “Pax Iranica.” In his April 28 column in The Jerusalem Report, Mr. Yaari pointed out the web of influence that Iran has built around the Middle East — from the sway it has over Iraq’s prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, to its ability to manipulate virtually all the Shiite militias in Iraq, to its building up of Hezbollah into a force — with 40,000 rockets — that can control Lebanon and threaten Israel should it think of striking Tehran, to its ability to strengthen Hamas in Gaza and block any U.S.-sponsored Israeli-Palestinian peace. “Simply put,” noted Mr. Yaari, “Tehran has created a situation in which anyone who wants to attack its atomic facilities will have to take into account that this will lead to bitter fighting” on the Lebanese, Palestinian, Iraqi and Persian Gulf fronts. That is a sophisticated strategy of deterrence. The Bush team, by contrast, in eight years has managed to put America in the unique position in the Middle East where it is “not liked, not feared and not respected,” writes Aaron David Miller, a former Mideast negotiator under both Republican and Democratic administrations, in his provocative new book on the peace process, titled “The Much Too Promised Land.” “We stumbled for eight years under Bill Clinton over how to make peace in the Middle East, and then we stumbled for eight years under George Bush over how to make war there,” said Mr. Miller, and the result is “an America that is trapped in a region which it cannot fix and it cannot abandon.” Look at the last few months, he said: President Bush went to the Middle East in January, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice went in February, Vice President Dick Cheney went in March, the secretary of state went again in April, and the president is there again this week. After all that, oil prices are as high as ever and peace prospects as low as ever. As Mr. Miller puts it, America right now “cannot defeat, co-opt or contain” any of the key players in the region. The big debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is over whether or not we should talk to Iran. Obama is in favor; Clinton has been against. Alas, the right question for the next president isn’t whether we talk or don’t talk. It’s whether we have leverage or don’t have leverage. When you have leverage, talk. When you don’t have leverage, get some — by creating economic, diplomatic or military incentives and pressures that the other side finds too tempting or frightening to ignore. That is where the Bush team has been so incompetent vis-à-vis Iran. The only weaker party is the Sunni Arab world, which is either so drunk on oil it thinks it can buy its way out of any Iranian challenge or is so divided it can’t make a fist to protect its own interests — or both. We’re not going to war with Iran, nor should we. But it is sad to see America and its Arab friends so weak they can’t prevent one of the last corners of decency, pluralism and openness in the Arab world from being snuffed out by Iran and Syria. The only thing that gives me succor is the knowledge that anyone who has ever tried to dominate Lebanon alone — Maronites, Palestinians, Syrians, Israelis — has triggered a backlash and failed. “Lebanon is not a place anyone can control without a consensus, without bringing everybody in,” said the Lebanese columnist Michael Young. “Lebanon has been a graveyard for people with grand projects.” In the Middle East, he added, your enemies always seem to “find a way of joining together and suddenly making things very difficult for you.” __________________ If I live to see the seven wonders I'll make a path to the rainbow's end I'll never live to match the beauty again The rainbow's end ( "7 Wonders" - Tango in the Night)
	Top

05-17-2008, 07:32 AM	#2 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,549 My Mood: Thanks: 121 Thanked 91 Times in 73 Posts	so talking is not the issue wheter it's with or without preconditions. It's about leveraging yourself so when you DO talk, you have something to use for "leverage" or an incentive for the other side. Friedman always cuts right thru to it. __________________ If I live to see the seven wonders I'll make a path to the rainbow's end I'll never live to match the beauty again The rainbow's end ( "7 Wonders" - Tango in the Night)
	Top

05-17-2008, 09:01 AM	#3 (permalink)
EvilMonkey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Oregon Posts: 5,922 Blog Entries: 1 Thanks: 62 Thanked 400 Times in 242 Posts	No it's not, it's about sticking our fist out to the world and saying we are power hungry. That we will not talk to anyone without stipulation for any reason what so ever. Look, there are people in other parts of the world that "aren't America" <-- important to note. Bad shit happens in other parts of the world and believe it or not, as arrogant as we are, we only have so much say. The republican stance has always been one of give us something or fuck you and that is why the world pretty much hates us right now. Just like those who believe Bush is keeping us safe from terrorists even though he's created the largest uprising of them in history. Like it or not, strict preconditions is exactly the type of behavior that sparks the ire at us. I love the fact that Obama will not have this attitude and he gets it, those who want change also get it. Status quo = the same old fuck you attitude we have towards anyone else who doesn't believe in our way of life.
	Top

05-17-2008, 09:29 AM	#4 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,549 My Mood: Thanks: 121 Thanked 91 Times in 73 Posts	this goes beyond campaign talk of talking/not talking conditions no preconditions. If you read it carefully, Friedman is showing that Iran IS seeking dominance over the whole region. He gave the examples.I hope you agree with his points. they are not deniable. So yes, let's DO talk ! But let's get us something we can use as a carrot or stick. Like any negotiations, you need to have something to offer. and something to take away, leverage. I was posting this, because Friedman is NOT old school, and is very savvy on the region. We could offer recognition, and not medddling in their affairs, but they would have to back off with the destabilzation antics. The problem is Bush has put us so much in the hole, we are neither respected or feared. __________________ If I live to see the seven wonders I'll make a path to the rainbow's end I'll never live to match the beauty again The rainbow's end ( "7 Wonders" - Tango in the Night)
	Top

05-17-2008, 10:27 AM	#5 (permalink)
DRS112 Administrator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,164 My Mood: Thanks: 67 Thanked 108 Times in 80 Posts	Yeah....a cold war with a country that doesn't even have nukes
	Top

05-17-2008, 10:44 AM	#6 (permalink)
DRS112 Administrator Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 6,164 My Mood: Thanks: 67 Thanked 108 Times in 80 Posts	I did like "The Lexus and the Olive Tree" though....
	Top

05-17-2008, 11:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
CosmicRocker Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: lost in a lost world Posts: 7,549 My Mood: Thanks: 121 Thanked 91 Times in 73 Posts	It's not a question of nukes or not. Be aware the last intel report, said we think they have stopped - but anything could happen. Nothing is set in concrete. This was more about Iranian hegemony over the region thru Hezbollah, and Hamas. Hezbollah routinely shoots rockets into Isreal. Hezbollah was in a running gunbattle in W. Beirut this week, and the Lebanese army was powerless to stop them. read the article in full please. Friedman is idely recognized as an expert on the region. He is NOT a neo-con. If you wanna dis. Freidman, and ignore Iranian hegemony... well all I can say is, Obama hopefully is more aware of the region, then some appear to be here. __________________ If I live to see the seven wonders I'll make a path to the rainbow's end I'll never live to match the beauty again The rainbow's end ( "7 Wonders" - Tango in the Night)
	Top

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode