During the Cold War the US and Russia had an “Incidents At Sea Agreement” to avoid accidentally stumbling into a war.  The US and Iran Navies patrol the Persian Gulf with not such protection. We have already had a few close calls.

There is no reason to take this risk.  If we could work with the Soviets on these issues, we can work with Iran.  If fact, instituting a similar agreement would be a first step towards improving relations between our countries.

Our forces must have a direct method of communication should an accident occur, a for a naval war in the Gulf could disrupt the flow of oil, weakening an already weak world economy.

Just Foreign Policy is and TSN! encourage you to write your Congressmen and ask them to support John Conyers’ (D-MI) and Geoff Davis’ (R-KY) Resolution 94.

Here is a site to help make it easy.

Big talk happened this week. The US said that they see Iran as an important player in Afghanistan.  Iran said it would take part in the regional conference on Afghanistan and the US pledged to bring more troops to Afghanistan to root our terrorists camps.

The slow dance of Iranian and the US negotiations is underway.  Of course, it has a long way to go with many potential stumbling blocks.  One of which is the amount of ugly noise we will have to stomach from both the American and Iranian right.  At home, the right say talking to Iran is naive and will never work. In Iran, the right crows about trust and demands measurable progress.

Both criticisms are based in valid points of view.  The only guarantee the US can expect is that Iran will act in its own interests. But it is almost impossible to figure how how they see their interests. The outcome of any conversation is far from set.

On the Iranian side, the US has a long history of working against Iran. Both countries are right to demand clear metrics of progress, as this is best way  to build trust in any wary partnership.

The problem is that neither the US right or the Iranian right offer these criticisms to be constructive. They see problems but don’t offer any solutions.  They say we can’t work together but don’t offer ideas for how we can move forward in Afghanistan or improve US – Iranian relations.

All ideas should be considered but loud mouth criticism from the easy chair offer nothing but a bit more noise.

The  tragedy is that these defeatist tomes contain important points but readers have to wade through miles of bile to extract them.  The US needs a vigorous internal opposition and we need to understand the full spectrum of obstacles in Iran.

But right now, we just get anger and hopelessness. Hopefully, both rights can figure out how work towards thier countries future.

National Intelligence Director Blair had his first meeting with the Senate Armed Services Committee, where he was much more reasonable than most of the Senators. Both NID Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency head Lt. Gen. Michael Maples presented clear thinking and rational goals regarding Iran.  The senators were  the ones out for blood.

A welcome change from the last 8 years.

NID Blair said that many Arabic countries want to help prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. But the continuing conflict between Israel and Palestine makes it hard for them “to defend their ties to the US.”

In other words, our one-sided approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict undermines our ability to reach peaceful solutions on other issues. The analysis is not new, but hearing the words from intelligence experts is.

The obvious follow up is ask if the US could use progress with Iran’s nuclear program as a means to opening Israel’s stance towards Palestine? Isn’t keeping nukes out of Iran worth peace with Palestinians?

It is an obvious question and opens a new line of thinking in our foreign policy. Yet in three hours of questioning, not one Senator asked.

The Senators were much more concerned about how much uranium Iran has.  NID Blair said that Iran does not have any highly enriched uranium (bomb grade) and has not yet decided to produce any.  Senator Wicker (R) Mississippi was not happy with this and spent his time having Blair and Maples repeat themselves.  Iran does not have the material to make a bomb and is not trying to make it.

Senator McCain (R) Arizona was particularly whacky. After having his leading question shot down (doesn’t Iran missile programs mean they are developing nuclear weapons? No, those missiles have numerous, valid defensive applications), Senator McCain scolded NID Blair for not knowing the precise number and schedule draw down of troops in Iraq.

NID Blair explained that is not his area of responsibility and he will provide his advice of security implications when the Pentagon asks him. But the Pentagon makes those decisions.  Senator McCain blew right over that straight talk and continued his lecture.  He has to know how the system works, so he was either grandstanding or lost.

Senator Lieberman (I) Connecticut questioned the thinking of NID Blair and heard that the Israeli – Palestine conflict fuels the way people think across the entire region, including Afghanistan and Pakistan.

These two intelligence professionals were handing the Senate a clear way to improve our standing the Middle East.  We need to help solve the Israel-Palestine conflicts and we can use Iranian Nuclear threat to do it.

How many of the Senators followed the lead?  How many Senators were looking for new solutions to our challenges? How many Senators were fighting for change? Zero.

Update - It has been 11 hours and FOX still has not published the comment.  Login was successful and the comment has been re-submitted twice.  FOX let’s me say nothing.

Fox News just published an article say that the Obama administration might invite Iran to an upcoming conference on Afghanistan.  I immediately submitted the following comment:

This is a great idea. Iranians share cultural and linguistic heritage with roughly one third of all Afghanis and Iran is determined to keep the Taliban out of power. They are natural allies in this fight. If everything goes to hell over there, do we want to send our soldiers into Pakistan? Why would we when the Iranians are itching to go? This is a step that we should have taken in 2001 and I am glad to see FOX talking about Iran in contexts other than the nuclear weapons and Mr. I’m-Madder-Than-You’s crazy statements.

They have yet to publish it. In fact, they have never published any of my comments but if should be interested if they do. Let’s see if the keep the bias-clamps on or not.

The last two days form a great example of the deep US media bias against Iran – and by default – in favor of conflict.

CNN, FOX, NBC and the New York Times all reported on Benjamin Netanyahu’s statement that Iran is Israel’s biggest threat and the UN report that Iran has more enriched uranium than we thought.

None of the reports mention that the US removed Israel’s previous most serious threat – Saddam Hussein.  The media presents Iran as a burgeoning menace rather than a decrease in the number of threats.

Netanyahu did not directly address the issue of stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, nor did he mention the US-backed two-state solution.

The new leader of Israel spoke only about a coming conflict, ignoring the present war.  This conflict bias was happily picked up and repeated by the US media.

Iran has under reported the amount of uranium, which is a serious problem.  But we fail to realize that the inspectors found out about it, a very positive sign.  And this uranium is NOT weapons grade.

The material would have to undergo further enrichment if it was to be used as fuel for a bomb and that atomic inspectors had found no signs that Iran was making such preparations.

Obviously, Iran’s nuclear advancement is not great news but the negative, portrayal in the US media is one the catalyst fueling conflict between our countries.

To clarify this bias, here are some of the recent events in Iran the US media has NOT reported:

Radio Free Europe reported:

Iran and Tajikistan are discussing the creation of a Tajik-Afghan-Iranian TV network with Iran providing the equipment, Afghanistan providing the air time, and Tajikistan providing the studios

The Jerusalem Post reported that:

NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer says he can envision Iran playing a role one day in helping to stabilize Afghanistan.

De Hoop Scheffer says a broader regional approach is needed to help put down the insurgency in Afghanistan.

The US media could discuss Iran as a source for help and stability in Afghanistan.  We could discuss how helpful and hurtful Iran has been in Iraq and we should speculate on why Iran wants nuclear weapons.

Instead we pursue a reactionary, irrational argument that Iran is developing nuclear weapons to destroy Israel. That is the extent of the US media’s strategic thinking on the issue.  It is amazing flimsy reasoning yet we rant and rave it all over the air waves.

This is amounts to pro-war bias that spreads across Republicans and Democrats. This is one of the real biases affecting our media and it is time that we change. Don’t let the wind bags spout on.  Write them, call them, shout them down. We don’t need another war. There is much more going on than we are being told and it is time for us to start thinking.

Reuters reported yesterday that Israel is running covert operations inside Iran in an attempt to slow down their nuclear program. Today the Times of London reported that Israel is assassinating scientists as part of this war.

Meanwhile, Radio Free Europe reported that Iran has agreed to stop shelling Iraqi Kurdish areas where US-backed Kurdish militants have been launching offensives into Iran.

Which country is our ally?  The one assassinating scientists or the one trying to create, stable cross-border security relationships?

Add in the consideration that  Iran just opened a new, shorter, safer land route to Afghanistan, isn’t time we re-examined our enmity with this country?

In an NYT article today, David Sanger wonders if the ‘Obama Factor’ is equal to the global economic ‘Meltdown Factor’.  I wonder if the US media is equal to the either?  The country can’t just rely on the President – any President – to solve our problems.

We all need to be involved, including our opinion makers. They should offer us fresh insight into – and directions out of – this mess. To be fair, Mr. Sanger does say that our economic need to borrow money will limit (and has been limiting) our political options.

But his thinking on Iran and Afghanistan follows the prevailing narratives:

• Iran is only about nuclear weapons and can be seen in isolation.
• Afghanistan is primarily about the number of troops.

Honestly, his argument about Afghanistan is more nuanced.  He rightly says that the US now (finally) admits that the border between Afghanistan and Northern Pakistan is meaningless and we are treating them as a single problem.  But of course, Europe prefers to avoid this politically sensitive mess.

Yet the obvious question never gets asked.  Can Iran help in Afghanistan?

Mr. Sanger analyzes problems in neighboring countries without putting them together. Iranians are culturally, linguistically and geographically close to both countries and have abiding interests in the region -  interests that line up well with ours.

Europe doesn’t really matter in Afghanistan.  We don’t want them opposing us and a few extra  troops would be nice. But their presence will never make much difference. They are both too weak and too smart to make a large investment in blowing up rocks so far from home.

Why are we doing it anyway?  The United States could truly expend its global leadership in power, money and political will in those mountains.  Are we really that afraid of a few radicals, when the fight itself could cost us so much?

If our effort collapses, who steps into the power vacuum? If our leadership collapses, who or what fills the void?  We may not be thinking about it, but the rest of the world is. Germany, for one, seems to understand. They work with Iran because they see Iran as a crucial buffer state between the -stans, Russia and ultimately China.

So why are we doing all the fighting in these rocks so far from home? It needs to be done, but do we have to do it all?  We should find real partners, but who?  Europe is not up to it.  India might but that would ignite Pakistan. Russia won’t go near it and China is waiting to for everyone else to kill each other off.

So again, who is close by, has motivation, speaks the language and knows the culture?

Iran.

Why are not at least talking about it?  Especially, when viewed from this angle, we may even want Iran to have the bomb. Iran has offered such partnerships in the past. Why the silence on this end?

Is Israel’s hold over us really that big? Israel has a right to exist and we should continue supporting them but shouldn’t that support provide us more political room, not less?

We are in trouble. There is a lot at stake and we have huge problem to solve, yet the NYT can’t even discuss the possible benefits of a new strategic, political alignment. This is why I wonder if the US media is up to the challenge of the global economic meltdown.

Most of our pros are just collecting paychecks at the moment. They take standard potshots at the guy in charge – and pretend the US will always chug along in charge.

But we may not. And probably will not without some fresh thinking.  It is time for the US media to step up and offer us something new.

The media really doesn’t get America. Far too many journalists persist in thinking that we care about their partisan agendas. We want to solve the huge challenges that we face, yet most of the paid professionals spend their time promoting a preferred team in the next election.

Mona Charen’s post in the National Review yesterday is a case in point. She wrote that the Obama Administration’s diplomatic efforts with Iran will not do anything new.

Her evidence? The fact that the Bush Administration actually made many diplomatic efforts. She ignores that fact the Bush Administration placed such heavy preconditions on the talks that they KNEW the talks would be rejected.

Their efforts amounted to foolish posturing, yet Ms. Charen asks us  to believe that simply because the Bush Administration made them, Obama can’t possibly do anything different.

Her simplistic view offers no analysis of the strengths or weaknesses of either Administration’s approach. No discussion of what we need to accomplish or how to do it. No method for monitoring progress or changing tactics.

I wrote to her suggesting the following  short list of strategic mistakes that I think the Bush Administration made towards Iran. They form some of the standards against which I measure Obama’s actions.

The Bush Administration:

• treated Iraq, Afghanistan and nuclear weapons as separate issues and missed a great opportunity to devise a clear and consistent approach to both the country and the region
• kept the MEK running in Iraq, irritating Iran yet failing to make strategic use of them.
• listened to self-interested Iraqi ex-Pats who said Iran would not be a problem in post-invasion Iraq
• listened to self-interested Iranian ex-Pats who fed our false hopes for ‘regime change from the outside
• ignored Iran and its nuclear program for far too long making it very hard to play catch up.
• took far too long to acknowledge that Iran was both working against us and WITH us in Iraq
• mis-understood the changes taking place in Iran and true nature of its populist, ground up military threat.
• too often fell victim to Iran & Israel’s war of words and in the process extended to much influence to both countries.
• never got near playing Saudi Arabia and Iran off each other. A dangerous game for sure, but one that could remove the target off our back and create great room to maneuver.

Read the rest of this entry »

VP Joe Biden said that he will go speak with Iran.  Of course, he made the requisite bluster about not tolerating nuclear activity, blah blah – what he needs to say to appease American hawks.

But the real question is what he will be willing to discuss.  What ideas will Biden bring and what might the Administration be willing to change in order to make a difference?

I am glad that he is willing to talk but until we know more about what he plans to say – what the Administration imagines is possible with Iran – it is impossible to evaluate the outcome.

But it is a good beginning and worth watching.

The New York Times published an Op-Ed piece by  Under Secretary of State, Stephen Rademaker in which he predicts failure for President Obama’s talks with Iran.  If the Administration enters the talks with the same unimaginative goals and options as Mr. Rademaker, they almost surely will fail.

Mr. Rademaker thinks that nuclear weapons are the only issue that we have to discuss with Iran. And his thinking on the nuclear issue is so conventional, that he plays right into the hands of the Iranian hardliners, who are as unwilling to compromise as the American right.

The reality is that we have a whole list of subjects to discuss;  security in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan being the three most important. Iraqis are presently doing a good job of rolling back Iranian influence, creating an opening for us to talk to Iran about regional goals, responsibilities and metrics to measure. While in that discussion, we could bring up security in the Persian Gulf. One of the biggest threats in those waters is accidental confrontation between our navies.  We should at least be able to institute the same safe guards that we used with the Soviets.

Iran has a large interest in keeping the Taliban from returning to power in Afghanistan and they have great influence in western part of the country. Left on their own, they will likely over play their hand but in concert with us, they could help create a stable and prosperous alternative to the Taliban. And they could provide the military backing to maintain that area region.

It is still not clear to me that Iran really wants to develop the nuclear weapons, but they must love tying us up in knots over it. The largest threat at the moment is Netanyahu and his rabid pronouncements. Unless we distance ourselves from his warlike declarations, we could be dragged in a horrible conflict in which we have little to gain and much to lose.

We also have a huge carrot to offer Iran on the nuclear issue – international inspections for ALL countries including Russia, the US and Israel.  If we want to make a moral stance about non-proliferation, then we should put our money where our mouth us.  We pontificate on the issue all the time. But who in the Middle East believes us when we let Israel do whatever they want yet scream at every one else?

We have very little credibility on the issue right now, but international inspections for all countries could change that in a hurry. We will be real leaders and the world will see exactly who is a responsible world partner and who is not.

We need leaders with vision and guts to confront the  forces of status quo and devise new relationships in the Middle East.  Mr. Rademaker is not such a leader. His stale ideas have no chance of working and little relevance to our present situation.  I am a big fan of revitalizing the State Department but we must do it with people who possess more courage and imagination than Mr. Rademaker displays in this article.