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.

I just watched CIA Director Michael Hayden’s November 13, 2008 speech before the Atlantic Council.  He said many notable things, including that all the security threats to US trace back to the Pakistan / Afghanistan border – not Iran. He never even mentioned Iran.

He also said Al-Qaeda is losing the hearts and minds of Muslims all across the Middle East.   The Director said that people realize Al-Qaeda’s violent tactics hurt Muslims more than anyone else.

This speech gives great credence to the idea of re-investing in the State Department and pursuing an even-handed approach to the Israel-Palestine peace process.  Offering the region another path to peace and prosperity could make a huge, positive contribution to the GWOT.

Middle Easterners have many legitimate grievances.  The US can greatly improve our political standing by playing a clear, even-handed part in addressing them.  This would simultaneously lessen the tension in the region while weakening Al-Qaeda’s hold on political approaches.

But don’t just take my word for it – listen to General Hayden.

We must include President Bush in this praise as well.  The NY Times reported yesterday that “American officials” (whatever that means) revealed that President Bush deflected an Israeli request for bunker busting missiles and the right to fly over Iraq.  Israel wanted to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities and we said no – finally, a bit of sanity in our foreign policy.

Sec. of Defense Robert Gates figured prominently in the decision by pointing out that

any overt attack on Iran would probably prove ineffective, lead to the expulsion of international inspectors and drive Iran’s nuclear effort further out of view.

Unfortunately, the same “officials” said that the US has invested in covert operations to slow Iran’s nuclear development program. Information on these activities was shared with Israel but is being kept from the public to protect the operations.  How we expect Iran to act responsibly when we work to Israel to sabotage them is a bit unclear.

Perhaps we plan on using these operations as future bargaining chips.  Perhaps we think they may actually work or perhaps they just make us feel as if we are doing something. But we need to understand that our relationship with Iran is about much more than nuclear weapons. Our ultimate success in Iraq and Afghanistan could well hinge on cooperation with Iran.  All our actions should reflect our larger, regional goals. But like many of our foreign policies initiatives, a single issue overrides all concerns.

Stopping the spread of nuclear weapons is a laudable and important goal but it is also a trap because it provides the illusion of a clear cut objective.  But as Henry Kissinger makes clear, we have no problem with our allies having nukes.  Iran has been a friend in the past and could be again. Should we focus on stopping the weapons development or focus on bringing them in to line with other nations? What are Iran’s strategic objectives and how do these weapons play into them?  Is there room for negotiations and comprimise?

The Middle East needs Iran for it is hard to imagine stability without them playing a large role. And where is our confrontation with Iran heading?  What do we hope to achieve and how will slowing down their development program help in the long run? Are we just putting off the problem or do we hope that the regime collapses and saner leadership emerges?  The Revolutionary Guard is the most likely replacement and they will probably be worse. Are we on a path to placing the bomb in their hands?  What will that get us?

Blindly fighting Iran’s nuclear program is not a strategy dealing with the country or the region.

The US must develop a framework for the entire region and pursue coordinated policies to across it.  The most effective way to stop Iran’s nuclear program is to help the Middle East develop a constructive method for growth and change.  There is such a critical lack of leadership that the only model for change that most people believe in Iran’s confrontation of the West.

Sabotaging Iranian facilities will only convince people that Iran is right. Instead we should express a vision for the Middle East (perhaps FDR’s?) that details the goals, roles and responsibilities of every actor, including the US, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Iraq and Iran.  This positive vision would be something to measure progress against and to demonstrate the difference between countries improving the region and those hurting it.

The US will fair much better as the bearer (and funder) of a visionary future then we ever will as saboteurs. We have an opportunity to re-find our selves, to recapture the revolutionary optimism of our founding fathers and help build a better world.  That efforts start with openness and imagination, not covert efforts to mess with others.

Developing nations continue to be the locus of most conflicts around the global and, as the 2007 numbers recently published by the Center for Defense Information make clear, the United States continues to arm the world.

Global arms sales totaled nearly $60 billion in 2007, an increase of 9.2 percent from 2006 values. The United States was again the world’s most dominant arms exporter, making $24.8 billion (41.5 percent) of all global arms agreements.

The developing world accounted for 70.5 percent of new arms transfer agreements in 2007. The United States was the largest arms trading partner with the developing world with new arms agreements in 2007 (28.8 percent of all agreements with the developing world).

And the countries buying the most arms?

• Saudi Arabia – the largest exporter and funder of Sunni Extremists
• India and Pakistan – nuclear armed enemies with numerous disputed regions
• Venezuela  – President Chavez continues to antagonize the US and agitate the region

Other interesting 2007 developments in the arms industry?  Russia continues to push into new markets across Africa, the Middle East and South East Asia.  Not to be outdone, the US is expanding sales to countries traditionally left off the distribution list.

Is there any wonder why resource wars continue to flare up and civil wars drag on for so long? Shouldn’t the simple connection between those selling the weapons and those fighting the wars draw more attention?  Who is the last media professional you heard question how the US can be both a human rights leader and the world’s largest arms dealer?

The arms industry continues to grow with hardly a comment from our free and independent media.  We need to admit that arming the world will make it impossible to stop terrorism.  Our best hope for peace and real prosperity is to invest in the systems that give information to people, instead of firearms to governments.

The Iraqi government assumed jurisdiction over the  Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) today.  The group is listed as a terrorists group by the US State Department and as the Kansas City reports:

The group has strong support among Republicans in Congress, and many neo-conservatives in the U.S. describe them as a democratic alternative to the Iranian theocratic regime.

“It just shows how feckless our list of terrorists is,” said Lawrence Wilkerson, who was former Secretary of State Colin Powell’s chief of staff and is an MEK critic.

“They’re terrorists only when we consider them terrorists. They might be terrorists in everybody else’s books. … It was a strange group of people and the leadership was extremely cruel and extremely vicious.”

Supporting this group for five years has undermined the US’s moral stance against terrorism.  The invasion of Iraq provided us a great opportunity to  increase the credibility of the War On Terrorism. If we broke up the MEK (a group fighting one of our ‘enemies) in an open process that determined the relative guilt and innocence of its members, we could have provided a model for other countries to follow.

Instead we made ourselves look like state sponsors of terrorism and for what?  Kissinger would have used the MEK as a bargaining chip to get Iran to back off its nukes.  But our present leaders didn’t even to that.  They protected these guys for some wild hope a group despised in Iran for fighting with Saddam at the end of the Iraq-Iran War could lead a revolution.

This is another example of fantasy foreign policy and should be roundly criticized.  But it is not too late to round these people up and start a process of trying them in an open fashion that allows all parties fair representation.  This is the best way to protect innocent MEK, punish the terrorists, prove our intentions and improve relations in the region.

Dear President-Elect Obama,

We at TSN! congratulate you on your inclusive and innovative victory. We believe that you have vision and drive to make the country more prosperous, peaceful and egalitarian. We encourage you to strongly pursue those ideals. America’s current challenges present a historic opportunity to build a 21^st century economy and foreign policy agenda. This country remains the most dynamic and diverse on the planet and your victory has reminded the world that America is still capable of inspiring optimism and hope.

But our obstacles are huge and despite recent events many people remain opposed to change. For instance since the end of the Cold War, our foreign policy has too often served the needs of our energy markets. The aggressive War-On-Terror has not changed this and our strategic choices in the Middle East, Africa, Northern Europe and South America remain based on access to oil and gas.

We believe that America can produce all the energy we need from a combination of local and renewable sources. Ten years from today the US should not have to import any oil from the Middle East. This achievement will leave us free to make vastly different foreign policy choices, and provide us with a chance to usher in a new phase of human governance. Setting this goal now will allow us to refashion our policies to begin creating that future today.

Because we can produce our own energy, our Middle East policy can now start from a vision of a stable, peaceful and just Middle East that includes Israel but lacks US warships and soldiers. This simple ideal can form the basis of an international framework against which all actions can be judged. Aggression or hatred from any country can be identified and censored as the world community raises expectations of Middle Eastern governments. Every nation does not need to be democratic but they must treat their people according to international standards and live peacefully with all their neighbors.

Our goal in the region will be to complete our nation building projects, stop buying oil and find someone else to police those waters. Europe and Asia buy more oil from that region yet only the American people pay to keep the shipping lanes secure. This does not serve us, the region or the world. Long term security should be handled by the regional powers, perhaps in a Middle Eastern version of NATO. After all, their need to sell their carbon fuels is greater than our need to buy them, for we can find other fuels sources easier than most of them can transform their educational and economic systems.

A first step in building this future is to imagine different relationships with some of these countries. Of course, we cannot just forget history. But if we want to stop spending our hard earned money to send our children to die protecting corrupt, venial and violent governments, we have to first imagine that the region can build stable governments, diverse economies and once again make positive contributions to the world.

For instance:

• Iran sits between Iraq and Afghanistan and has already played positive and negative roles in both conflicts. Guaranteeing Iran’s security will go a long way towards encouraging Ayatollah Khameni to help us stabilize the region. Iran is power hungry but not suicidal. They want the world community to recognize their influence and in return for the right fawning, they will give up their nukes and stop funding terrorists. And what option do we have? Every military leader asks us not to commit troops to combat unless we have a clear, achievable objective with an identified exit strategy. Do we really want to ignite another long directionless war just to bomb nuclear facilities that are in unknown underground bunkers beneath the range of our weapons?
• Saudi Arabia supplies us with a great deal of oil and helps stabilize global oil markets. But they also provide the majority of radical Islamists funding and propaganda. This country exports more teachers of violence and hatred that any other nation in history. They target poor population and foster hatred and fund tactical abilities in Muslim communities around the globe. Some estimates run as high at 90% of terrorist funding comes from Saudi Arabia. The Sunni insurgents who have killed most of our soldiers in Iraq were funded by Saudi Arabia, yet America can’t criticize our ‘friend’. The Saudi Royal Family is tied to the radical religious forces and to stay in power, the Royal Family must support their wars. We can now be honest about this and acknowledge that their cheap oil is not worth their support of  terrorism.
• Pakistan is the major force destabilizing Afghanistan. The Taliban is their proxy and they promised to stand down while we destroyed the Taliban as long as we did not put the Northern Alliance in power (the Iranian and Russian backed factions). Of course, we beat the Taliban. But the day we failed to stop the Northern Alliance from inhabiting Kabul is the day we started fighting Pakistan. This area is a mess. It will not be easy to fix but we can start by working with Russia and Iran and realize that we are presently sending arms and money to the very country we are fighting.
• Israel is an important ally who we will continue to support but that support does not mean that we must follow the dictates Israelis most hawkish, militaristic citizens. There are many strong Israeli voices for compromise and peace. The United States should draw on the full range of Israeli perspectives to have open and honest discussions about the best way forward. We must work with Israeli visionaries instead of only the militants.

America can remove the target from our back. The military has done an admirable job fighting the enemy and they will continue to play an important role. But only removing the source of anger will complete this job. Our policy choices have been based on oil, rather than security. We have a historic opportunity to step back and think about what will make us truly secure.

We must remove our influence in the Middle East (oil money and military) in a way that leaves behind vibrant, self-determined nations. In other words, we need to complete President Roosevelt’s vision of a post-WWII world. A first step will mean overcoming the naysayers in our own country. Republican Americans are not the problem – many will be on our side – it is big oil and big gun companies and the amount they will spend to keep their faces in the trough.

The oil companies and the Wall Street fat boys they fund will shriek “financial ruin!” The arms companies and the soft politicians they fund will pound “weakness and defeat!” But they are all on the wrong side of history and don’t understand true prosperity or strength.

State craft is the opposite of weakness. Peace requires the courage and conviction of a Martin Luther King, Gandhi, Martin Luther or Jesus himself. No general can compare. When any ‘leader’ claims otherwise, ask to see her tax return – for there the lies will be revealed.

President Obama, you will be able to prevail against the American forces of status quo if you have the vocal support of the people who elected you. If we, the people, have the courage to fight for our convictions, if you have us at your back chanting, praying, voting and investing in our common future – then we can build a new world.

We at TSN! pledge our support.  We will do all we can to have your back.

police made a tee shirt that celebrates their aggressive crack down on the protesters at the Democratic Convention. Of course, the country is one big free speech zone so hard-hearted cops can make any shirt they want.

But the nation should be pissed about being penned into Free Speech Zones. Whenever a bunch of politicians get together (R or D), the American people are granted a separate, removed place to freely voice our opinions.

Should one of us decide to voice a real thought in front of the cameras or in view of the decisions makers, those Americans can expect to be removed from the premises or even arrested.

Our government uses the police that we pay for to actively stifle our dissent. We should jump up and down in anger about this. We should thank the Colorado police for admitting their role in the repression of our collective freedom.

They deserve their freedom of speech, as do we.

Jay Nordlinger wrote an opinion piece in the Post last week gently dismissing Scott McClellan’s criticism of the Bush Administration. Harbinger thinks that the US media was tough on the President and that the President is a steadfast decision maker who treasures vigorous debate.

But the rose-colored opinion I found the most funny was Harbinger’s idea that the war in Iraq was necessary. The reason why? WMD, of course, and the possibility that Saddam would someday build some and then someday after that give them to the very people he hated.

If Nordlinger had the guts to discuss oil, water or the pressing need to get our troops out of the Saudi desert, he might be worth reading. But he completes his Pravda-style reasoning by telling us not to worry – be happy – everything will work out in the end. Someday the Middle East will someday build monuments to President Bush.

Thanks, Mr. American Enterprise. Glad to know that creating the worlds’ largest Al Qaeda University will work out in the end. But should we trust Mr. Nordlinger? How can we tell if history’s “final call” will really see this long dehumanizing struggle as worth it?

Perhaps if we imagine what kind of a monument a Middle Eastern country would build for past US Presidents, we will have a better idea of what type of monument President Bush can expect? And because so many of this country’s armchair freedom fighters advocate war with Iran, I thought it would instructive to have Iran build them.

The monument begins FDR for our success in WWII gave us such great opportunities in the Middle East that in many ways our relationship begins there.

• FDR on the Augusta signing an oil deal with Saudi King Abdul Aziz Ibn Saud while tossing overboard The Right to Self Determination.

• Truman, the businessman making a 50%-50% deal with smiling Saudis Sheiks while mini-Churchill retains his 95% – 5% deal by pressing his foot harder into the neck of angry Iranians.

• Eisenhower pushes Iranian statue of liberty into a pit, (or other image of destroying Iranian democracy) while mini-Churchill cheers him on.

• Kennedy smiles and waves to the Arabs while handing a pistol to Israel behind his back. From his feet begins a river that will flow past all succeeding presidents representing the amount of arms funding given to Israel.

• Blind Joe or See Nothing Johnson stands with his back to the growing river of arms covering both his eyes (or playing with Vietnam) as Israel attacks an American Navy ship, its neighbors and builds nuclear weapons.

• Nixon echoes Kennedy’s statue. He smiles and waves at the Arabs with one hand while pushing a massive pile of missiles, tanks and jets over to Israel with the other. The river of weapons widens fast.

• Carter doesn’t know what to do. He faces the growing river and throws up his hands as the Shaw enters the US, our embassy is stormed and our helicopters crash in the desert.

• A terrified Regan runs screaming from Beirut explosions straight into the waiting arms of Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. Two more rivers of armaments flow out from his feet.

• George Bush I actually defends Kuwait, stops the rivers flowing out of Regan’s feet and strangles Iraq.

• Clinton echoes Carter. He has the smile of Kennedy but throws us his hands as Arafat, Rabin, Rafsanjani, Netanyahu, Saddam Hussein and King Hussein all yell at the same time and point at each other.

• George Bush II – A question mark that we leave open to suggestions for our readers.

Let’s take a moment to remember the meaning of Memorial Day.

Memorial Day is a day of remembering, remembering those lost to the most senseless human act, war. Unfortunately, on this holiday we will only be remembering a small portion of those lost to our wars: our own dead; those who fought for our freedom; those who nobly put their own lives on the line for what they believed to be right whether that belief was misguided or not, or whether they were coerced by poverty, the promise of a paycheck and, perhaps, a job when they finish their duty. We should remember them; however, we should also remember those who they killed, those japs, krauts, charlie’s, towel-heads who were nobly putting their own lives on the line for what they believed to be right–whether that belief was misguided or not, or whether it was coerced.

Perhaps, the candidates should remember this today when they take the stump in a symbolic location, speak of honoring our fighting men and women and surely persuade all those watching that they care about our country more. Yes, they should wax on about our dead, and that home-town Corporal in the audience who lost his left leg but just recently ran a marathon in 3 hours flat, but they should save their best rhetorical flourishes for those our country killed, and persuade all those watching that they care for our world more.

Obama you have taken the flag off your lapel. Bold move. It says, I am a different candidate. I don’t go with the flow. I am a thoughtful man who considers himself a citizen of the world.

Then again it could also say, pins on lapels are soooo not fabulous. Frankly, I agree. Lapel pins look terrible, especially red, white and blue ones those dark-blue suits you candidates are so fond of. Good-looking, fashionable man that you are, maybe you took it off before your Vanity Fair photo shoot with Annie and said, “Hey, I look pretty damn good. I’m free at last from this fashion faux pas. And wait a minute, it’ll also look all symbolic: I’m a citizen of the world. Obama, you are a genius!”

So, let’s step it up a notch and show us you truly are a different candidate, and a vastly different candidate John “Bomb the Arab Plains” McCain. Replace your lapel pin with another take on Memorial Day.

They say just looking at your face, you’re a different candidate. I’m sure you cringe at that one. Better: they say you would be the first American President who is a citizen of the world. Your father is a Kenyan, your mother from Kansas. You spent your youth in the third-world, in the cabals of an outraged black minority, in a loving mid-western family, in college dorms filled with pot smoke and politics. If anyone in this election has the grounding to change the way we think about Memorial Day, to remember the Iraqi dead, the Afghani dead, in the same breath as they remember the dead who chose to fight for our country, Obama it is you. And you’d look good doing it. Genius.

Sure it’d be interesting to see what happens to the polls after that one? I’ll bet a little bit more downward than Hillary Clinton mentioning–god forbid–Robert Kennedy Jr. and assassination in the same sentence.

Then again, we might all be really surprised. And what a wonderful world that would be.

The military is the strongest only political impediment keeping the US from attacking Iran. The President wants to attack. Congress will not stand up and the media has the war the graphics and smart bomb reruns ready to go.

Along with Secretary Gallon, Admiral Fallon was one on the few rational voice in our government. He has long advocated for a different approach to Iran. He knows the military is overstretched and that war make the region much less stable.

And now he is gone. He resigned after Thomas Barnett’s article in Esquire magazine said he was at odds with the President of Iran and China.

The immediate problem is that we are not less safe for a one of few checks on the President’s aggression. The long term question is how healthy is our democracy when the military is strongest voice for peace and the only ones seriously question war with Iran?