JTA: The Global News Service of the Jewish People

Iraq, Iran and how the Neocons failed (Part I)

By Ron Kampeas · July 2, 2009

Glenn Kessler has a superb story at the Washington Post on conversations between U.S. interrogators and Saddam Hussein before his death in which the former Iraqi director conveyed -- persuasively -- his reasons for pretending he had big guns: He feared Iran.

It's a tale that explains a lot about why the neoconservatives who morbidly attached themselves to Bush's prosecution launching of the Iraq war are now losing the Iran argument.

Glenn's story is sharp not because of his otherwise proven investigative skills -- the conversations were declassified by the independent National Security Archive (some of my favorite people, and an endless source for  good stories). What Glenn pulls off here is to make the bleeding obvious compelling.

Here's his lede:

Saddam Hussein told an FBI interviewer before he was hanged that he allowed the world to believe he had weapons of mass destruction because he was worried about appearing weak to Iran, according to declassified accounts of the interviews released yesterday. The former Iraqi president also denounced Osama bin Laden as "a zealot" and said he had no dealings with al-Qaeda.

For anyone who has lived in the Middle East or followed it for more than five minutes, these are givens: Saddam, after a blistering eight-year war, wanted to contain Iran. And terrorists he could not control 24-7 were terrorists he did not want around.

The reason Glenn has to make this "duh" revelation compelling is because for eight years we in Washington lived in a bizarro world where the most obvious conclusions were not just ignored, but mocked, actively suppressed and made akin to treason. "The sun rose today" becomes news after years of folks screaming in your ear that it's dark, dark, dark.

The Bush administration and its neoconservatve apostles, apologists and acolytes needed David Kay, a weapons inspector who pulled off the neat trick of fawning toward Bush's Middle East ambitions while debunking their premises to finally discard the idea that Saddam had posed -- in his final years in power -- anything other than a threat to himself.

Saddam was on his way out, thanks principally to the carefully calibrated Clinton-Blair policies of  sanctions and strategic bombing raids of the 1990s. He was taking his painful old -- and at times bloody -- time, but by now he would have been gone, absent thousands of dead young Americans, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and an empowered and apparently crazed Iran. Kay's revelations were clear in 2002 to Hans Blix, the U.N. weapons inspections chief and, in 2003, to journalists such as Dafna Linzer and Charlie Hanley at the AP and Barton Gellman at the Washington Post. Not to mention, the Germans, the French, and just about anyone who bothered to read beyond an executive summary (otherwise known during that administration as "This is what we believe, and damn the facts past page 5!").

The Bush administration had not merely an aversion but a psychotic fear of saying "We wuz wrong." It needed Kay to tell the truth because he was the type who was happy to skedaddle right on over to Larry King right after his press conference and say with a straight face that, of course Bush was fooled, we were all fooled, right? Well, no.

One of the most jawdropping sidebars to this goof-show was this Charles Krauthammer column around the time of the Kay report:

Kay has now offered the most novel and convincing explanation for why U.S. intelligence -- and, for that matter, U.N. inspectors and the intelligence agencies of every country that mattered -- had misjudged what Iraq possessed.

It was a combination of Iraqi bluff, deceit, and corruption far more bizarre than heretofore suspected. Kay discovered that an increasingly erratic Saddam had taken over personal direction of WMD programs. But because there was no real oversight, the scientists would go to Saddam for money, exaggerate or invent their activities, then pocket the funds.

Scientists were bluffing Saddam. Saddam was bluffing the world. The Iraqis were all bluffing each other. Special Republican Guard commanders had no WMDs, but they told investigators that they were sure that other guard units did. It was this internal disinformation that the whole outside world missed.

Whoa! Dictators are control freaks! And they bluff! So do their petrified advisers! Whodathunkit? Why -- it's novel!

Yes. As novel as a Scooby-Doo denouement. "My bluff woulda worked if it hadn't been for those darn neocon kids!"

I raise this because how this happened is important and explains why -- I think -- neoconservatives are losing, and in a major way, the post-Iran election argument, even though they got it less wrong than the liberals.

It is their failure, or their abject inability, to say "I was wrong."

First of all, everyone was wrong about the Iran election.

The neoconservatives and the Netanyahu government and AIPAC were wrong, we now know, to call the election a joke, a proforma exercise precisely because it turned out to be exactly that. (I mention all three elements -- Israel, the neocons and AIPAC -- because they are aligned on this issue, but not necessarily on others.) An AIPAC e-mail blast just before election day used "election" in quotes.

But now we see that Iranians were invested in the election, even in its constrained, Mullah-driven version. We see that Mir-Hossein Moussavi is not a tool of the establishment and is putting himself at considerable risk.

Under these new circumstances, the creeping, and creepy conviction among the pro-Israel-Netanyahu-neocon crowd that an Ahmadinjead victory would be clarifying is appalling. Here's Elliott Abrams in an election day op-ed in the New York Times:

Mr. Ahmadinejad’s defeat would probably be welcomed abroad as a sign that Iran is moving away from his policies, but Iran’s policies aren’t his -- they are dictated by Ayatollah Khamenei and his supporters in the Revolutionary Guard and Basij paramilitary. In fact, a victory by Mr. Ahmadinejad’s main challenger, Mir Hussein Moussavi, is more likely to change Western policy toward Iran than to change Iran’s own conduct. If the delusion that a new president would surely mean new opportunities to negotiate away Iran’s nuclear program strikes Western leaders, solidarity might give way to pre-emptive concessions.

This is perverse. It proposes that we alienate the reformists who are likely one day to assume power -- for whom? A Holocaust denier. At least, when the West (and Israel) backed the Shah against clear signs he was on his way out, it got some compensation  -- intelligence sharing, oil, strategic leverage in the region. Three decades later, now we're making the argument for a man who might be guilty of genocide incitement -- against us.  This is manna for conspiracy theorists.

And worse, three weeks later, the neconservatives are arguing ... pretty much the same. Iran has turned upside down, no one has any real sense of how this will turn out, but Johh Bolton thinks we should bomb the place anyway.

Those who oppose Iran acquiring nuclear weapons are left in the near term with only the option of targeted military force against its weapons facilities. Significantly, the uprising in Iran also makes it more likely that an effective public diplomacy campaign could be waged in the country to explain to Iranians that such an attack is directed against the regime, not against the Iranian people.

This is a  public diplomacy campaign I'd like to see. I'm thinking the likes of Slim Pickens riding in on the misslles screaming "Pardon my bombs!"

With Iran as close as it is to a nuclear device, and with support for such a capability widespread, the most realistic likelihood of neutralizing the threat would seem to be a friendly -- or at least a not-hostile -- regime. I'm not sure how bombing helps.

What makes these missteps extraordinary is that the liberals, the accomodationists, had Iran wronger than the neoconservatives -- and yet have emerged, I think, with the more sympathetic posture after the election.

They had it wronger because they insisted, prior to the election, on wrapping the regime in with its people. Roger Cohen at the New York Times was the poster boy for this approach. His thesis: the Iranian leadership's recalcitrance, its vicious Israel baiting was a tactic, not a strategy:

One way to look at Iran’s scurrilous anti-Israel tirades is as a provocation to focus people on Israel’s bomb, its 41-year occupation of the West Bank, its Hamas denial, its repetitive use of overwhelming force. Iranian language can be vile, but any Middle East peace — and engagement with Tehran — will have to take account of these points.

Here he is a few weeks later, after President Obama's outreach to Iran, explicitly conflating Iranians with their regime:

With his bold message to Iran’s leaders, President Obama achieved four things essential to any rapprochement.

He abandoned regime change as an American goal. He shelved the so-called military option. He buried a carrot-and-sticks approach viewed with contempt by Iranians as fit only for donkeys. And he placed Iran’s nuclear program within “the full range of issues before us.”

We now know how remote the regime was from its people. Ignoring this divide -- this willful assignment of legitimacy to the Ahmadinejad presidency and to its handlers -- is, I would argue, a more profound failure than that of the neoconservatives. The neocons misread Iran's regime; the liberals (and Cohen was emblematic) misread the whole nation.

And yet, three weeks into the regime, the liberals -- Cohen among them -- are actively plumping for Iran's disenfranchised. Juan Cole and Andrew Sullivan, hyperinfluential bloggers who had advocated accommodation, are now running  ongoing coverage of the resistance, even as its importance has evaded an ADHD mainstream media swept away by the death of Michael Jackson and the eroto-monomania of the South Carolina governor.

Meantime, for the neoconservatives, Israel and the pro-Israel establishment, it's Iran business as usual: punishment, through sanctions or through all out war. How long until they find a David Kay who will gently guide them out of the morass?

Liberals are winning the post-election argument because they are able to pronounce "I was wrong."

This is Cohen, after the election:

I’ve argued for engagement with Iran and I still believe in it, although, in the name of the millions defrauded, President Obama’s outreach must now await a decent interval.

I’ve also argued that, although repressive, the Islamic Republic offers significant margins of freedom by regional standards. I erred in underestimating the brutality and cynicism of a regime that understands the uses of ruthlessness.

And a few days later:

I think President Obama, as I wrote from Tehran, erred on the side of caution early on. He misspoke in equating Moussavi with Ahmadinejad in terms of US strategic interests. He should have been more forthright in standing with the Green Wave. Meddling be damned. This was a pivotal and historic moment. Obama should have tossed the strategy papers in the garbage and spoken from the heart.

Liberals have been able to pivot. Neoconservatives have not. Instead, they are defaulting their defining advocacy of democratic interventionism to their political rivals because to embrace it after attaching themselves so morbidly to the inevitability of conflict would be to admit that they were wrong.

I'm not sure why this is; for liberals, it might be written into the DNA of an outlook that makes a cult of self-examination, or it might simply be eight years of being on the wrong end of a presidency that never brooked criticism.

Among neoconservatives, it is more baffling; it is after all a movement that grew out of self-criticism among liberals in the 1960s. I'll look further into this in coming days, examining books on neoconservativism by Ben Wattenberg, Doug Feith, Martin Indyk and David Makovsky and Dennis Ross.

0 Comments | Share This |

Edwards: She just wants to read the bill first

By Eric Fingerhut · July 2, 2009

Reading a bill before you decide how to vote on it -- that seems like a reasonable, even admirable, rule for members of Congress to follow. But Rep. Donna Edwards (D-Md.) is getting some flak from constituents for promising to do just that.

Edwards and some Jewish leaders in her suburban Washington, D.C. district have been battling for months over her positions on Israel and other matters, and Monday Edwards held a town hall meeting to discuss her recent trip to the Jewish state and the West Bank and Gaza. Adam Kredo of the Washington Jewish Week writes that some of Edwards' constituents were surprised when she said she wanted to read the foreign aid bill before she took a position on it:

Fielding questions from members of the audience, the freshman lawmaker was asked if she would vote in favor of a $48.8 billion foreign appropriations bill currently on Congress' docket that includes $2.22 billion in security assistance for Israel.

"I don't know," Edwards responded, eliciting a chorus of remarks from audience members that seemed to signal stunned confusion.

"What?" "What was that?" "What did she say?" murmured several attendees, as they stirred in their seats.

"I said, I don't know," Edwards responded in a louder voice. "Since I haven't seen or looked at the upcoming aid package, the answer is I don't know."

Senter, a former president of the Jewish Community Relations Council of Greater Washington, believes the flummoxed attendees were simply "stunned by" Edwards' answer. "I got the impression that she had no intention of voting for it," she added.

Sheldon Sacks, also from Silver Spring, had the same interpretation of Edwards' rejoinder.

"To me, that was the telling point, that here's someone who is going to vote against" foreign aid to Israel, said the 66-year-old. "My wife and I were both very stunned because we thought it was really out of line."

Edwards clarified her position with a statement to the WJW the next day, which said any misgivings with the legislation had nothing to do with the Israel aid portion of the bill and that she supported foreign assistance to the Jewish state. Some excerpts:

I have concerns about the direction of our nation's foreign policy and I believe that this bill is an opportunity for us to plot a new direction in Afghanistan that focuses on building a sustainable civil society and affects positive change in many areas around the world. ...

As it relates to aid to Israel, I understand the unique and special friendship that exists between our two nations. I also understand that the safety and security of Israelis are dependent on this foreign assistance. As I stated last night, during my visit I experienced the complex security and transportation infrastructure that has been put in place due to clear and present security concerns.  My goal is to move our nation and Israel in a direction where this kind of security apparatus is unnecessary, but until then I support the United States continued assistance to our ally Israel. It is my hope that Israel will use this aid with prudence and ensure that it is used to keep Israel safe and to also implement policies that move them toward a lasting peace through a two-state solution.

That said, I also support providing robust humanitarian and reconstruction aid to Gaza.  I am confident that this aid can be delivered safely into Gaza and distributed by international relief organizations without compromising Israel's security.  However, I share the concerns held by many that this aid must be delivered in a way that is consistent with the safety and security of Israel. ...

Sure, Edwards certainly could have been clearer at the town hall meeting about her position on aid to Israel, but how can you fault a congresswoman for saying she'd like to read legislation before deciding how she'd vote? For the record, during the campaign she said she would vote to support aid to Israel.

(And if Ira Forman was writing this blog post, the National Jewish Democratic Council CEO would want me to point out that just two years ago, 80 percent of the Republican House caucus voted against the foreign aid bill, and thus aid for Israel, because they opposed funds in the bill going toward contraception for groups that fund abortions overseas.)

Perhaps more interesting and important were Edwards' statements during the town hall on what she believes is a wide range of views in the Jewish community on Israel:

Edwards, who has come under fire from those in the Jewish community for her perceived Middle East views, had a few words for those who label themselves "as staunchly pro-Israel."

"What I say to them is, 'I'm pro-Israel, too!' I don't think there is any difference between being pro-Israel and pro-peace in the region."

Homogeneity of opinion within the Jewish community is a myth, Edwards said. "I'm African American, so when people say to me, 'African Americans think so and so,' it is about the most deeply offensive thing I can hear because it's not a monolith. Neither is it a monolith among Jews."

 

2 Comments | Share This |

Regev: Halting natural growth would prejudge final status

By Eric Fingerhut · July 2, 2009

Mark Regev unveiled what sounded like a new argument today on Israeli settlements -- halting natural growth would be "prejudging" final-status talks.

The spokesman for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told a conference call arranged by The Israel Project that, as the prime minister has said, Israel won't build any new settlements or exprorpirate new land to build new settlements. But then he went on to note that the issue of settlements will eventually be determined in "final status" talks, and thus "neither side should be taking any steps" or changing any "realities" to "prejudge" that final outcome.

Thus, Regev said, there must be "provisions to allow normal life to continue" in current settlements, such as building a school or kindergarten if needed. Otherwise, one is "also prejudging final status by saying a community should die."

Regev did add later that "we're actually trying to find common ground" on settlements "so we can move on."

Asked about the prospects of the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier kidnapped by Hamas more than three years ago, Regev said Israel believed it was "counterproductive" to speak publicly about the case, but asked "Where's the outrage?" about Shalit's treatment. He noted that the International Red Cross had never been allowed to visit with Shalit, and yet human rights groups such as Amnesty International have failed to sufficiently publicize that human rights violation.

0 Comments | Share This |

Obama more religious than Bush?

By Eric Fingerhut · July 2, 2009

Many noticed the religiosity of the George W. Bush administration, but Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News and World Report says religion has played an even bigger role in the first six months of the Obama administration:

The conventional wisdom was that George W. Bush was the most faith-based president in recent history, by a long shot. Citing Jesus as his favorite philosopher and Billy Graham as a mentor, Bush won evangelical voters in numbers not previously seen. In office, he launched a controversial office of faith-based initiatives and consulted religious leaders in developing science policy. Bush routinely opened cabinet meetings with prayer and acknowledged conferring with "a higher father" before going to war in Iraq.

How remarkable, then, that religion might be playing an even bigger role in Barack Obama's administration. While Bush invited megapastor Rick Warren to low-key White House functions, Obama had him deliver the invocation at his internationally televised inauguration. Bush encouraged White House prayer groups, but Obama begins public rallies with the recitation of a White House-commissioned prayer. Obama has quickly expanded Bush's faith-based initiatives to include an advisory council of religious leaders weighing in on matters as diverse as abortion and Middle East peace. "This administration has used faith more overtly than any other in its first hundred days," says Barry Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "That includes Bush." But rather than appeal mostly to evangelicals as Bush did, Obama is reaching out to a broad spectrum of believers and nonbelievers.

....He is carving out a bold new role for faith in the White House, which aides say aims to dial down the decades-old culture wars. The project may wind up drawing more religious voters into the Democratic fold. But it also threatens to alienate the Democratic base, which polls show is much less religious than the GOP's. Given the important role that religion and church-based organizing have played in Obama's own biography, though, the president is unlikely to abandon his quest for a middle way for faith in government and politics. "My sense is that these efforts give a fairly accurate portrait of what the president really believes," says John Green, senior fellow at the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. "Some conservative Christians
worry he's a wolf in sheep's clothing. I think that's overblown."

 

0 Comments | Share This |

The Israel option

By Ami Eden · July 2, 2009

Writing in The Washington Post, John Bolton says an Israeli strike is the only "timely option" for derailing the Iranian nuclear program:

With Iran's hard-line mullahs and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps unmistakably back in control, Israel's decision of whether to use military force against Tehran's nuclear weapons program is more urgent than ever.

Iran's nuclear threat was never in doubt during its presidential campaign, but the post-election resistance raised the possibility of some sort of regime change. That prospect seems lost for the near future or for at least as long as it will take Iran to finalize a deliverable nuclear weapons capability.

Accordingly, with no other timely option, the already compelling logic for an Israeli strike is nearly inexorable. Israel is undoubtedly ratcheting forward its decision-making process. President Obama is almost certainly not....

Read the full story.

2 Comments | Share This |

Wexler: Settlement freeze would call Arab world’s ‘bluff’

By Eric Fingerhut · July 2, 2009

Visiting Israel, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)  tells Herb Keinon of the Jerusalem Post that Israel should agree to a short-term settlement freeze -- and that it's a smart move to call the Arab states' bluff:

"A request for a moratorium or freeze in settlement activity that can be mutually agreed upon by the US and Israel in the next several weeks is a tiny, tiny gesture and down payment to make when you look at potentially what is on the other side of the equation," said Wexler.

On other side of the equation, he said, were 22 Arab countries being urged by the US to take significant steps now towards normalization with Israel.

"I want to call their bluff," Wexler said. "I want to see, if Israel makes substantial movement toward a credible peace process, whether they are willing to do it. And if they are not, better that we should find out five or six months into the process, before Israel is actually asked to compromise any significant position."

Wexler says he thinks Israel will agree:

Asked what would happen if Israel were to say no to the moratorium request, Wexler said, "I don't think Israel will say no. I don't see an equation where it is in Israel's interest to say no, so I believe Israel will say yes, under a certain set of qualifications that Israel will agree to. This is one hundred percent in Israel's national security interest."

And the Florida congressman, a close ally of Obama and early supporter during the campaign, says the White House's demands on the Arab world have been significant but not getting enough attention (although the administration hasn't talked publicly about the measures Wexler mentioned):

According to Wexler, the Obama administration was making "equal, if not greater, demands on the Arab world in the context of starting the process and negotiations."

Wexler said that the demands on the Arab world - Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States and the North African Arab states - were quite substantial in terms of steps of normalization. He said what was being discussed were trade offices, direct economic links, cultural and educational exchanges and over-fly rights for Israeli air carriers.

Moreover, he said the US was "open to suggestions from the Israeli side as to all the different indicators of normalization that would be important for Israel and that would create credibility among the Israeli public."

5 Comments | Share This |