On Iran, Hawk And Hawkier
By Cernig Friday Sep 26, 2008 3:00pmLast night, John McCain and Barack Obama put Iran firmly back in the "Axis of Evil" as far as future US policy is concerned - although at least Obama would talk to the Iranians before bombing them.
Download | play 
Download | play
I find myself at odds with most opinion about last night's Presidential foreign policy debate. I didn't think Barack Obama showed himself well, but maybe that's because I'm used to seeing Republicans play freely with the facts while I expect more from Obama. Yet both seems to equally prefer a constructed narrative on Iran over the opinions of experts.
McCain's contention that "the Iranians continue on the path to the acquisition of a nuclear weapon as we speak tonight" Obama agreed wholeheartedly with, saying that "have gone from zero centrifuges to 4,000 centrifuges to develop a nuclear weapon". Both thereby ignored a recent International Atomic Energy Agency report that said they've found no smoking gun for a current Iranian weapons program, that any program that did exist was cancelled years ago and in any case was only in its earliest stages, and that no nuclear material can be diverted to weapons production without the Agency knowing about it. They also ignored the most recent National Intelligence Estimate on Iran, which said exactly the same things.
Then there was McCain's claim that "the Iranians are putting the most lethal IEDs into Iraq". Obama should have challenged that. The last time the US military tried to trot out "proof" for this claim, it was so laughably inadequate that even Bob Gates and then Chair of the Joint Chiefs General Pace refused to embrace it. Since then, repeated promises to provide new proof have failed to materialize.
And finally, McCain made a possibly-Freudian slip when he labeled the Revolutionary Guards as the Republican Guards (after all, who knows theo-crazies like Republicans?) and said that they trained "special forces' in Iraq who were killing US soldiers. Obama backed him up 100%, saying "I believe the Republican Guard of Iran is a terrorist organization". It's the first regular military force ever to be so designated.
Again, there's a long way to go to prove that's actually the case - a lot of the 'evidence' is based upon interrogations, and we know how 'enhanced interrogation' gets such marvellously reliable evidence - and even casualty figures attributed to those groups have been dubious to say the least too. That the IRGC is actively involved in training Iraqi militias is probably the most reliable of the narratives both agreed to on Iran - but neither said outright that the bulk of those militias belong to Maliki's allies, the ISCI and Badr factions of pro-Iranian Shiites.
Obama at least got that part right:
ironically, the single thing that has strengthened Iran over the last several years has been the war in Iraq. Iraq was Iran's mortal enemy. That was cleared away. And what we've seen over the last several years is Iran's influence grow.
But it still worries me that, after all the kerfuffle about whether or not he would talk to Iran "without preconditions", the end results of any talks not going America's way would be an eventual attack. No question about it.
Senator McCain is absolutely right, we cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran. It would be a game changer. Not only would it threaten Israel, a country that is our stalwart ally, but it would also create an environment in which you could set off an arms race in this Middle East.
Back to my first misgiving: what nuclear weapons? But isn't it also true that if an Iranian bomb would trigger a regional arms race then the already real and actual Israeli bomb must have already triggered one too? Yet Israel's nuclear weapons weren't mentioned at all, by either candidate. Every other nation in the regions says its a problem that must be addressed, but somehow it never is.
John McCain came out ahead on points as the most belligerent saber-rattler on the stage last night, but it was close.
A massive thank you goes to the industrious Heather, who works hard in the backroom bringing us all video clips.
Login or Register to post comments.
Neither candidate have a clue. America is finished!
Where is Ralph Nader or Ron Paul to call these guys out on their National Defense mythology they are both espousing!?
There both have literally the same platforms. More spending with what money?
Heh..
I too was disturbed by the lack of differences when it comes to Iran and the approach overall in the middle east.
Did someone get to Obama?
It must be political suicide to stray from the line we've been hearing, or we'd be hearing something different. My feeling is that since the powers that be have strings they can pull in both parties, we'll never hear significant differences between the two parties where foreign policy is concerned.
I really hope Obama proves me wrong, once elected.
I think Obama has to tread much more carefully on Iran than McCain. Having lived in a Muslim country everyone is watching him closely, especially evangelical Christians and the Jewish vote. Look at how Dean was excoriated for even talking about dealing with Israel with an even hand.
But having live in a Muslim he's a lot less likely to demonize them than is popular these days. I would expect once in office he'll be a lot more driven by facts than rhetoric.
McCain Debate Performance a 'Classic': Treats Obama Like ‘Invisible Man’
Josh @ 1:
I get email from Nader several times a day. He's all over it. He just isn't given the same exposure. Nader is calling them on ALL OF THEIR SHIT, day and night.
If he says anything else, he'll be painted as a pussy. Not willing to defend the country. This is a smart play on his part.He also says he wants to converse with ALL nations. And by that he means preconditions must be met first. Anyone who says otherwise is full of Crappola.
More like *real* suicide to stray from the AIPAC line.
I console myself with he HAS to say this crap - now. I still have "hope" that once he's in office he can back it down a couple of notches.
I’m REALLY glad that the polls show Obama won the debate because I thought he was weak. This was Obama’s opportunity to lay down track and shape the course of future debates – which will provide him opportunities to reiterate his major points made in the first debate…the one debate that will have the greatest number of viewers. There were too many instances, last night, when I found myself screaming at my tv, shouting for Obama to slam McCain with facts that, for whatever reasons, Obama omitted. For instance, there was no mention of how many times McCain voted against raising the minimum wage – 19 times. Nor was there mention of McCain’s votes against the popular SCHIP (State Children’s Health Insurance Program). These are blue-collar/mom issues that, with Wall Street executives pulling down gazillions, are presently BIG Main Street concerns.
And, I can’t believe that Obama has picked up McCain’s Russian-invaded-Georgia meme! Even Colin Powell – the one and only Black guy that all America loves – has recently said that Russia was provoked by Georgia’s incursion into South Ossetia. Colin Powell! Just invoking Powell’s name would have given Obama a HUGE dose of cred and spiked McCain’s continued Russian/Georgian lie. And why, when McCain was bandying Gen. Petraeus’ name around, didn’t Obama use Petraeus’ own quote that “victory” will not be had in Iraq, because it’s not that kind of war? Huh? Can anyone PLEEEEZE tell me why this nugget was left out of the debate? Please. Someone. Tell. Me. OY!
Anyhoo, as I said, I’m glad that the polls show Obama won, because Obama’s preamble stuttering, teeny-ball-of-spit-on-his-bottom-lip-moment, too frequent soft-knuckled responses, and the omission of the aforementioned facts made me hope that for the next debate he’ll borrow Hillary’s balls!
P.S. In response to a diary, I previously posted this at DailyKos.
mudshark @ 6:
Huh?
He means preconditions must be met first? That's the exact opposite of what I understood his position to be...
Corporate Candidates A and B.
1 - get the votes of the Corporations
2 - shut out any meaningful opposition - ie Nader McKinney Kucinich Gravel Paul Barr etc etc
3 - hold a National 'Election'
4 - rig the results if you don't like them
5 - plunder for four more years
Different Anonymous @ 7:
Yeah, that's kind of what I'm hoping the reason is..
I really hope we can ditch these AIPAC clowns once and for all, and soon...
Dims and Pukes ALWAYS have nearly-identical foreign policy positions.
That is because both parties are creatures of the global hegemonists.
On that tune, they're both either hawk--or kestrel...
(groans, loudly)
I thought it sucked too. Even Colin Powell is saying the MSM line about Russia being unprovoked is dangerous bullshit. We are thinking of taking our savings and leaving. it is the only way to avoid paying for their recklessness.
Every since WWII this country has experienced ongoing propaganda to vilify the enemies of the Corporations that control the country.
Just in case they need to send in the Marines.
I don't know whether Obama is "playing it smart" by appearing to buy into these hawkish positions on Iran (and Afghanistan) or whether he's actually convinced that Iran IS pursuing nuclear weapons (and more troops will make a difference in Afghanistan).
Either way it is troubling.
I hope that once elected and actually dealing with reality on a day-to-day basis, Obama's positions will change to reflect that reality.
I'm certain McCain's wouldn't.
DonsBlog @ 3:
Precisely. The other choice is Palin/McCain. Under no circumstances is that preferable to Obama/Biden, even if Obama has to defer to the popular, if grossly inaccurate framing of the issues to win, as the other choice is that he doesn't win.
I noticed that too, Cernig. I'm not reassured. All of the rhetoric was right wing fantasy. Especially about Russia. Maybe Obama's just playing along so the neocons can't pounce. Probably. That crap about who sucks Henry Kissinger's dick the best was over the top, though. Used to be he was just Tricky Dick's friend. My, how the facts have mellowed with age.
Why Didn't Obama Demand McCartman Release His Medical Records?
Fucking disturbing. Why I was never excited about anyone running. I mean the best guy the 'Good' guys can find continues with the same inflammatory "Let's make War REAL!" rhetoric.
This kind of TALK is totally fucked up and drags us further down, and signals the rest of the world we really don't want to change, or we have no ideas on how to do it -- we'll just keep doing the Same Old Shit and hope some bullshit changes just enough to flip everything into perfection! thus allowing us to have our cake and eat it too.
We can't STAND suffering for ourselves, but have no compunction as to our involvement in sticking it on others -- so that we may luxuriate.
This is not a road I want to continue to travel.
this is an interesting inerview on fresh air. it's the translator for when ahmadinejad was at the united nations
his name is hooman majd,he's a writter based in NYC.
what we are told about iran and what their president
says can be two different things.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95029424
Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 9:
Yeah. By preconditions, I believe him to mean that a certain criteria should be met in a diplomatic format. Low level first, and build from there. I do not believe he means that he will meet with anyone with out prior conditions or low level meetings first.
Of Course this will vary with regards to countries like the UK and other allies. As for countries like Iran, Syria and the like(NK) there would be lower lever meetings to build on. That's a no brainer to me. What he means, is to reinstate Diplomacy. And to go through diplomatic channels.
Remember when we did that?
I just read that the UN security council demands iran stop uranium enrichment program.
So...
I guess it's time to attack iran then?
It certainly would take the focus off mcsame's tanking campaign.
Alice X - (Click Here for Nader Debate What If) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 14:
Surprise! A standing Army brigade is coming back to Consumerville. "Crowd control". They're going to protect us. Passports anyone?
Yes the arms race is already under way. But you cant really admit that because then you admit Israel has nukes which is a big NO NO
Obamas rhetoric I hope is mostly posturing to Israel and AIPAC and an effort not to be seen as "weak". Hopefully Obama knows better, but he cant risk telling the truth on national television
MountainMan23 @ 15:
What are you talking about?
Everyone in the world acknowledges Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons, including Iran.
mudshark @ 21:
Ok, fair enough.
But the Bush administration said they didn't even want to go that far....but they did, didn't they? I read reports that meetings were held in secret between lower level officials.
In that case, there's very little difference between the two. One would CLAIM not to meet without preconditions, while doing so anyway behind the scenes. The other would simply be more up front about how these talks are conducted.
Yeah?
I still think a lot of you are being naive: why did Obama agree with McCain on this issue? Because doing so takes it right out of McCain's hands. McCain wants to show that he's tougher and more experienced on foreign policy than is Obama. If Obama had said anything else, the election narrative would have refocused from the ghastly domestic situation to the story McCain prefers - tough soldier schools inexperienced upstart.
Don't get me wrong, I don't think Obama is a stealth progressive who will turn into every Leftist's dream candidate after inauguration day. But I'm also aware that he's smart, and he's a pragmatist, and that snatching one of McCain's biggest foreign policy bludgeons out of his hands before he has a chance to use it is a step that will keep the focus on the domestic issues that will get Obama elected.
I understand that progressives are so used to disappointment that we're totally cynical at this point. But I don't think it serves anyone to be second-guessing Obama's strategy without taking into account that he doesn't have to win you or I over, he has to win over the vast swath of Middle America that is nervous about him.
Nada @ 22:
I think McCain needs some sort of International crisis to win. Hes screwed if this election remains focused on the economy. Iran is the obvious choice. I think another bogus provocation like the Iranian speedboats of terror, is in the works
Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 26:
And by preconditions, I'm referring to something else, like compliance to some external demands that need not be met, legally.
With all due respect:
try winning the US Presidency without the support of AIPAC.
Just try it.
And as we all know, there will be no support from the USA's most powerful lobby (bar none) of there is not condemnation of Israel's enemies.
That's just a fact.
Obama has to please the Hawks until he gets into office, then he can dial it down.
The republican guard of Iran is a terrorist organization? Oh puh-lease.
The zionist in Obama really came out last night.
Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 26:
Ok, One said he wouldn't negotiate. And look how that turned out. Then he negotiated,and almost accomplished something,until he broke his word.(NK). Bush didn't conduct relations with any of these countries until it became obvious that it was politically the best thing to do..
Obama on the other hand has a functioning plan. And he's willing . I see a big difference between the two.
I completely agree with you Cernig. But I am still 100% behind Barack Obama in this race. I'm hoping he's saying that b.s. to get elected and then can run the show as he needs to when in office. Great post too.
All the intelligence from the Bush era needs to be reevaluated.
The narrative on Georgia and Russia needs to be overlooked as well.
I hope for all of our sake that he is pandering to the hawks, and will in fact dial it down when/if he gets elected.
From what I saw last night, Obama is pretty much 100% on track with Bush's current foreign policy, and to me that is very alarming.
I am really disappointed in Obama... I thought he was against militarism, permanant war and unchecked US aggression.
A year ago he seemed more anti war. Now he just kind of agrees with everything that the war mongering republicans are saying. I thought we would have a clearer choice between the bloodthirsty, vengeful and reckless right and the peace loving, lets all get along, yes we can left.
McCain wants to confront everyone and fight wars everywhere... but Obama is not that much different. It looks like the neocons are going to get their permanent bases in Iraq even under obama... and we are going to be in position to attack anyone at any time.
sigh... I guess there is no hope for the deescalation of tensions on this planet... nobody wants to give peace a chance.
mudshark @ 33:
Ok, I understand what you were saying now.
I agree with you.
I concur with the above comments. My disappointment is in my very slow acceptance (confirmed last night) that Obama is not, and most likely will never be, progressive.
Jose @ 25:
How the hell did I end up on Mars?!
I'm hoping that Obama is just treading lightly and avoiding a neocon onslaught.
I fear the same-old same-old.
Oh well, if it is the same-old, by the 2012 election the SCOTUS should be stable = no additional fascists.
Then I go back to voting Socialist.( void where prohibited)
chuck @ 30:
funny, it wasnt aipac that just bankrupted a nation
i think you overestimate the power of aipac
and please, look at israel's security since bush has come to power
under clinton's policies, israel was thriving and not one arab or muslim nation was directly threatening their existance....bush changed all that
tell you one thing...allowing the evangelicals another 4 years of influence will cause the middle east to explode
Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 29:
That's what the GOP want you to see.
The US doesn't comply to external demands. At least not out in the open. Reagan did. Iran hostages. Other than that, I can't think of any others.
As for Obama doing that. That's not my take on it..
mudshark @ 41:
I was referring to Iran complying with external demands (cease all uranium enrichment activities for example - they have the right to do so under the nuclear non proliferation treaty, and so why should they comply?).
Anyway, once again I think we're basically agreeing, just talking about different things :)
Gary @ 32:
funny....most jews dont trust him
guess he must be doing something right
and i wish you idiots would stop throwing around the term "zionist" to anyone who supports the state of israel and its right to exist
maybe it has been our closest ally in the mideast for over 50 years....ever think about that?
They are playing the hurry up song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcZSh1diQRQ
Shelly in North CA @ 38:
As a fully paid up bitter, paranoid holdout, I have never understood how a progressive movement could be built by a campaign that leveraged misogyny. In fact, it can't.
obama is a triliateral commision guy. mccain has become a neocon hawk. at the heart of either of these doctrines is the fundamental belief that USA must maintain its hegemonic dominance in the world and an unconditional special relationship with isreal. . . they just have different ways of going about the business of imperialism.
we cant vote on wether the USA will be imperialist or not . . . but at this point trilateralism seems a far cry better than the recklessness of neocons.
Let's recap:
Obama thinks Russia is a problem.
Obama states that America can't allow Iran to use nuclear power.
Obama believes Pakistan must be dealt with.
Obama believes the war in Afghanistan is necessary.
Is he not just like Bush?
Folks, it's not about Progressive versus Conservative anymore. At this point it's about the Rule of Law and the survival of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. If McCain gets into office, America is done as a federalist republic democracy. If Obama gets elected, we MIGHT just see the restoration of the Rule of Law, the end of Signing Statements, the restoration of an impartial judiciary, and possibly the end of American unilateralism. If McCain gets into office, we might just see President Palin and the end of the First Amendment.
Nobody espousing peace, love, veganism, and hemp clothing is going to take the White House. Like it or not, Obama is the best you're going to get. Stop projecting your fantasies onto him and look at him as the last chance for Constitutional American Democracy. That's the best we're going to get, and we'll be lucky if THAT isn't stolen from us, so quit whining like a bunch of rich kids at Christmas who didn't get their BB gun, and be happy we have anyone of Obama's qualifications running for office at all.
for obama to do a complete opposite regarding iran
after yrs. of ongoing propaganda....not an easy stance
to take during a time of war(s). the spin from the powerful right/BUSH would paint obama as weak
therefore instill fear in the vulnerable public. i'm
personally not sure but i do wonder if iran has some
reasons for concern when u.s. troops are on their
borders and probably within their country.
Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 42:
In my opinion, Iran should have the right to develop Nuclear Energy if they want to. Their a sovereign country. If they want to have nukes, that's their right. The condition would have to be,If you use them on anyone, be prepared to suffer the same consequences. I myself am against Nuclear weapons and energy. But to me it's like choice(abortion). We don't have the right to impose our will on anyone. As for Israel, they can take care of themselves. They don't need us to back them up. Maybe that will make them think twice about attacking anyone.
I'm sure that there are a lot of things that have to be said to be elected. Obama has to appear to bend to the right to be elected. When he does get facts from the intelligence agencies he can revise his approach to stop the invasions. Right now, he has to play up to the MSM and the false reports of threats from Iran.
I can understand concern but, I can't understand the whining. We told Graham that we are not a nation of whiners and some are out there trying to prove us wrong.
Imperialism trumps party politics, until America deals with that it will continue to be disappointed by its parties.
I don't understand - Nader is on the ballot in 45 states. Why is he not allowed to debate?!
What a bullshit Democracy this is...
Albatross @ 27:
Exactly! Remember... he has to get elected first so if he doesn't mean everything he says.... Ooooops.... did I spill the beans? Didn't everyone know that sometimes politicians stretch the truth to get elected? Right now, that's all I want him to do: get elected. It's something he does better than anyone (ask Hillary). I trust him (for now).
Jordan @ 31:
I don't think so. As soon as he gets into office, he is thinking about re-election, so he has to keep pandering to the same lobbies he needed to get elected in the first place. No-one dares piss off AIPAC till they don't have to worry about re-election. Then you get the big push for a peace deal, right at the end of the second Presidential term, when there really isn't time to finish the deal. Think Camp David for Clinton, or Annapolis for Bush II. It's an insane way for the most powerful nation on earth to deal with one of its most pressing - if not the most pressing - foreign policy issues, but it's the way we do it.
Like telling the truth and dealing in facts. Ah, my fevered DFH fantasies...
Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 43:
Zionism is an international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine (Hebrew: Eretz Yisra'el, “the Land of Israel”), and continues primarily as support for the modern state of Israel.
Although its origins are earlier, the movement was formally established by the Austro-Hungarian journalist Theodor Herzl in the late 19th century. The movement seeks to encourage Jewish migration to the Promised Land and was eventually successful in establishing Israel in 1948, as the world's first and only modern Jewish State. Described as a "diaspora nationalism," its proponents regard it as a national liberation movement whose aim is the self-determination of the Jewish people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionism
AIPAC is famous for putting out large amounts of money to defeat politicians they don't like, no matter where in the nation the politician is campaigning.
But yes, it's the Second Comer Christian's that are really radical about Israeli policy. They're the ones that stopped the roadmap.
BTW, the Iranian National Guard is on the official terrorist list. A bill was voted through about a year ago. Amazing how such a small country can give a superpower such a hard time. I wonder how the new boogeyman will be?
Uncle Joe Mccarthy @ 40:
Harry Nads @ 47:
way to mistate much of what obama said last nite
and let me ask you a question....what would you have us do in afghanistan?
bush screwed the pooch there...it cannot return to taliban rule
we need to really finish the job and then assist them in rebuilding their infrastructure and creating a real government...not some puppet of the oil companies
While I agree with your claims about the IEDs and the centrifuges, I think Obama's statements following the Republican Party line on these matters is a brilliant strategy. I even suspect that he doesn't really believe what he's saying.
Its just that if you try to make an issue of the Republican lies about various threat, the Republicans use those lies to paint you as weak. In fact that's the main reason for those lies. It isn't to scare people about Iran as much as it is to ignite denials from the Democrats, which can them be used to scare people about Democrats. Because after all, the public mostly has no clue about centrifuges and IEDs.
By going along or even repeating those lies, Obama is effectively neutralizing the most effective Rovian dirty trick that the Republicans ever had. And he is not going to lose much of the Democratic base. On the other hand, if he allows any whiff of a myth that he is weak, he will lose many of the precious undecideds.
RickB @ 52:
this should be repeated over and over.
I think that most on the left are misanalyzing the debate. Obama was not talking to the "kick the snort out of McCain" liberals - he was appealing to middle of the road America. So he had a balancing act - look strong and presidential without disparaging McCain. He had also to appeal to the women vote, and by and large based on past debates they dislike what leftist pundits were calling for - "a brawl". Why else do you think the polls show he won?
lambert strether @ 45:
Albatross @ 48:
exactly........the world of compromise is NOT easy to
accept. obama is campaigning against a very powerful
force BUSH and company. this is strategy by obama.
his intentions is to bring back the constitution,legislative branch,checks and balances and the middleclass. i could be wrong and i understand the confusion. there has been perpetual politicization going on for 8 yrs. there's a lot for obama to overcome.
obama realizes nothing will get done on capitol hill
if we continue the division....he also understands he
will NOT get elected if he doesn't play some populace
politics.
Eric Hussein in Ottawa @ 2:
He's got to sound tough to get elected. It does him (and US) no good if he's reasonable and fails to get the votes. With McCain, you know he's a war hawk.
When a candidate shows that much contempt for citizens of other countries, I kind of wonder if they really have the best interests of our own citizens in mind.
Shelly in North CA @ 64:
Specifics please re: "campaign that leveraged misogyny."
Obama won Period. Nobody is just perfect. It is VERY hard to please everyone in this world. John McShame didn't even look Obama in the eye. So I take it you think McShame won the debate Cernig. "You can't please everybody all the time but you can Please somebody most of it". Look I wanted Hillary Clinton as the next President of the United States. That is not happening so I am doing the next best thing and Voting Obama to be the next President of the United States. I don't care about this Axis crap. That is a Republican talking point anyway. Vote McShame get another Bush term. Vote Obama get Change America needs. It's as simple as that. And another thing Cernig. If you don't like Obama STAY HOME....
To all those who think Obama is going to take off his Clark Kent suit and reveal himself as Superman at the inauguration, forget it. The McCain-Obama programs are exactly the same - no single payer health care, more war, more military spending, more bail-outs for the rich. And why shouldn't they be? They're both bought and paid for by the permanent administration. You might as well be voting for the high school president thinking he'll take control of the school system.
this is an interesting graphic showing the chronology
of the iranian nuclear program
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/635130b4-4911-11dd-9a5f-000077b07658.html?ncli...
mudshark @ 50:
I agree with you there too.
Frankly, I think the hyped up danger of Iran using nuclear weapons on Israel is just that - hype.
The odds of the entire political and military leadership of Iran being suicidal is pretty small, I would wager. They know damn well that any such action would result in their own annihilation.
I agree, Israel should fend for itself, like any other nation. If it really does come under attack, fine, we can step in. But I really believe that is extremely unlikely.
You know what I find really bizarre? The US is allegedly super concerned about missiles from Iran raining down on its neighbors. And yet, where do they place the missile shield? Eastern Europe. WTF?
Why don't they put that missile shield where they claim it's neede