Reactions to the nuclear deal in Israel and Iran

http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/20/424702931/parrying-doubts-in-two-capitals-leaders-sell-the-iran-nuclear-deal
http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/07/17/423484372/on-cutting-off-an-interview-subject

As expected, Bibi blew a gasket over the deal and is going all-out with his verbal attacks to potentially sway the US Congress and public (Iran is basically the 4th Reich, etc.). He took his tired Chicken Little routine to NPR (also ABC and others), and forgot that it was an interview vs. a stump speech (2nd link). The host was worried about keeping time, so he had to cut off the PM according to the show schedule. Some pro-Israel Americans felt that was disrespectful to the leader of Israel (because of course that person is special, and commands even more respect than our own president).

However, and unexpected consequence occurred in Iran. If Bibi and Israel are staunchly against something, of course that encourages Persians to think that it's a good thing. There are some hardliners and critics of the deal in Iran, but now it makes it a lot harder for them to make credible arguments that happen to align with the views of Tel Aviv. Of course Bibi is naturally focused on the US audience rather than the Iranian reaction, but it's an interesting example of multiparty cause-and-effect in geopolitics.

Views in Israel are apparently mixed, and some in the security services do not agree that the deal is bad. Also they want their leaders to remember that the nuclear deal is not the only item at play here - their relationship with the US is valuable and is it worth it to strain it further? You can tell that Obama, Kerry, and some other gov't officials are visibly irritated with Israel's reaction compared to most of the rest of the world. Instead, why not partner more with the 5+1 to make sure Iran lives up to its commitments and the deal succeeds? But like the game theory Iran-Israel-US post, our priorities are not aligned, so it might not work out.

It's possible that the extra money in Iran's coffers will exacerbate the other problems that Israel has with Iran (supporting Hamas, Hizbullah, etc.). Maybe it's justified for the US to extend the olive branch and offer enhanced cooperation/support for antiterrorism, and/or temporarily look the other way if Israel gets a little tougher on Palestine and settlements. It's like bribing a kid with a toy for him to eat his vegetables. The veggies are good for him in the long term, but he doesn't see it that way, so you have to offer a side concession?

---

I listened to the interview and Bibi was ranting.  He had talking points that he wanted to get out and the interviewer attempted multiple times to interject with a next question before doing a "rude" cutoff.  If Bibi was talking with him instead of at him that would have been easy to notice.

---

If Bibi wanted to make an uninterrupted persuasive speech, then he could have paid for TV/radio commercial time, or gone to FNC. If he agrees to an interview on NPR, he should expect to be treated like an interviewee. Listening to it again, I actually didn't think he was ranting much and there were no moments of disrespect. Green let Bibi talk a lot in the 1st half of the segment, which was maybe his bad since it led to the need to cut Bibi off later. Bibi said thank you to Green at the end, he didn't protest. Some NPR callers were maybe a little sensitive.

The NPR ombudsman seemed to be OK with Green's conduct too:

Greene was respectful to Netanyahu, apologizing for interrupting. The last question was an important one—asking Netanyahu whether he could "at some point get behind this deal"—and Greene would likely have been criticized had he not asked it. The need to cut him off was regrettable, but with the interview already eating into local station time, it was necessary. Those are the perils of live radio and the constrictions of NPR's clock, which values local news.

Hollow criticism by the right of the Iran nuclear deal

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/iran-deal-obama-sees-validation-diplomatic-gamble/

And the FNC version: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/07/14/iran-nuclear-deal-much-worse-than-experts-predicted.html

As Obama said to the conservatives, "What is their alternative?" I'm sure some of them would publicly or privately call for war, or at least stronger sanctions (I'll get to why that won't work in a bit). Maybe others like Trump think that Obama's team are amateur negotiators compared to the Iranians, and only he could outsmart them to a better deal (he did ghost-write "The Art of the Deal" after all!).

The goal is not to turn Iran into a model nation and have them cease all their questionable/negative activities - that's not going to happen for decades (no matter what leverage or violence we apply). The goal and scope were always limited: to stop or ideally reverse Iran's progress towards bomb capability (i.e. right now they could possibly get a working bomb in 3 months if they go all-out; let's make some changes so that time frame gets a lot longer), and enable the int'l community to detect whether they are cheating. To address some criticisms:

• Why take our foot off the gas with sanctions, they are crippling the Iranian economy and keeping them subdued?
• The goal of the int'l sanctions was always to force Iran to the bargaining table, not to stop the bomb or make the country suffer (which is what is happening - as usual the people are hurting more than the regime).
• If the talks fell apart with no deal, faith in the sanctions would dissolve (they did not accomplish their stated goal), and most nations would pull out except the US (because sanctions hurt other nations too besides Iran - especially energy-thirsty China).
• Since the GOP doesn't understand trade and economics, they think unilateral US sanctions are great - but actually they don't do anything but create missed opportunities for us. Iran will get what they need from the hundreds of other nations. Since we have a strong role in the global fin. system - maybe we could cause some havoc there, but again - it's not going to stop Iran from getting a bomb.

• Could Iran use the sanctions relief to invest in better weapons tech and more clandestine development activities?
• Maybe, but they take on a huge risk by doing so, and the chance of success is low. If they can build a new high-tech production facility without inspectors, spies, regulators, and satellites noticing - well that is kind of our fault then.
• It's possible that they will use their increased wealth to boost their unfavorable activities in the region (supporting terrorism, meddling in Iraq, propping up Assad, etc.). But frankly those pains are secondary compared to a nuclear Iran and a certain attack by Israel. 

• Did Obama's team just negotiate poorly, and a better deal was possible?
• I'd like to hear how the GOP would have achieved a better outcome:
• Vast majority of centrifuges idled (not sure if destroyed, or idled)
• Vast majority of their fissile material confiscated
• Fairly good access by int'l inspectors
• Hard caps on enrichment far below weapons-grade
• No one died
• Iran's carrot was to greatly set back their bomb production, and the 5+1's carrot was lifting economic sanctions. It was a fair swap, like a prisoner exchange.
• In the GOP dreamworld, I am sure that they would hope to get 99% of what they want, while Iran settles for 1% of what they want. But unless you have hypnotism powers or a gun to their head, how do you get them to just fold and agree to your demands? A deal has to be mutually beneficial, and even if you are worried about benefiting your enemy, you accept a deal where the net gain to you is larger than no deal at all. And as I stated above, no deal was a bad situation.
• What else did critics want, a full regime change, recognition and peace with Israel, and renouncing of terrorism? If they want those things, then they'll have to pay for it (or at least build some relationship/trust first). So far, all they have given Iran is hate.
• They think Obama is weak and America shouldn't concede anything, we should just tell the world what's up and then they obey gratefully. Well the rest of the world isn't in awe of US "authority" like the GOP is, esp. after the War on Terror.  

• The Fox op-ed claims that Iran will exchange its partially enriched uranium for "raw" uranium that they can enrich in the future. There is no evidence that this will happen or the int'l community will accept this. And if you exchange the same mass of partially enriched U with 0% raw U, that will always make you further from a bomb. Fox needs to learn some math.
• Fox brought up more canards. The deal permits Iran to have some research centrifuges which could potentially improve enrichment. But there are so few of them that it can't make up for all the normal centrifuges that they have shuttered. So again, they are reaching for reasons to complain.
• I don't know much about the ballistic missile part of the deal. Maybe Fox is on to something there, but Iran's missiles can already reach Israel, Riyadh, and maybe Berlin. What does it matter if they can reach London too? They can't hit the US in the foreseeable future.
• Critics keep saying that this deal "paves the way" for Iran to get a bomb (a Bibi-ism). I just don't see any facts that support that claim. It's not a perfect deal, but no deal in the history of the world has been. If Iran can do all the sneaky things that critics claim to make a bomb, then they can do that without a deal too (and faster). Again, their argument is as well built as Bush's plan for post-war Iraq.
• And the GOP are some to talk: they haven't brokered a meaningful and legit int'l deal since Nixon went to China. And if Nixon tried something similar today, he would get skewered by the right. 
• But all of this might not matter if Congress has a veto-proof majority to scuttle the deal anyway! 

---

It still seems early for a lot of criticism, NPR interviewee didn't know how they were eliminating currently low enriched uranium as of a couple days ago.  So I imagine new info will keep coming.

The big concern that most have is that this does pave the way to a bomb, it is just a long way.  Over the next decade or so they get increased centrifuge numbers, more low enriched uranium stockpile allowed, etc.  The presumption is at some point between now and then Iran will have money and start to cheat.  And they will cheat for some amount of time before they get caught.  And at that time will the community bring back all the sanctions?  Will Iran have enough cash to not be limited?  So now instead of poor with a bomb they are rich with a bomb and more time and money spent on delivery of the bomb.

Personally I think that isn't right and the real alternative they are arguing is hold the line until they have to be bombed.  

I also think money and access to world markets will bring about a lot of westernization to Iran.  The web, foreign investors, generic trade, all tends to make the regular people richer which leads to a desire for personal freedoms.  Same thing happening in China right now.  Iran is much younger and better educated, on average, compared to China I believe.  

Also, no chance for Congress to block it anyways.  Obama vetoes anything he doesn't like.

---

Yeah I agree that the criticism seems premature - like they're predicting a divorce during the wedding reception. They could be right, but it would be just a lucky guess at this point.

I see what you mean about "paving the way" semantics. No deal would have also paved the way, and faster as you said. At least this deal "freezes" the problem for a decade (if all goes according to plan, which rarely happens), which is hopefully enough time to broker the next deal (maybe a better deal). Kicking the can down the road is not ideal, but better than tripping over the can now.

The deal does not guarantee cover for Iran to cheat with no consequences. As you said, it's possible but difficult that they will continue to develop (under the nose of inspectors) with their new cash. But if/when that is discovered (likely before an operational bomb), the 5+1 will retaliate and take measures to severely curtail any additional progress. For example, if they are 30% to a bomb now, and later they cheat to get to 50%, then other nations will make sure it is very, very hard for them to progress any further (potentially through military means). So in a sense, it doesn't even matter that they got to 50%, because they were found out and punished. Just as long as they don't get to 90%+. I wonder if the deal has conditions though if cheating is detected - what will explicitly happen to Iran?

Of course the alternative is them developing their bomb in secret, where we are shut out and have no idea what % of the way they are at, unless we have great espionage. Remember North Korea - one day they just detonated a test device, and that's how we found out they had bombs. Obviously we don't want to repeat that, and Israel would never allow it to get that far anyway (with severe global consequences).

Also agreed on the benefits of commerce to open up Iran and make it a better global citizen. Transparency rarely is bad thing, unless you're a bad guy. Obviously with North Korea we've seen that pariah status doesn't help a nation change, hurts pro-Western reformers, and only solidifies the tyrants' grip on power. I guess that's partly why the Chinese Communist Party tries to limit external influences through their firewall and repressive policies. But as Iran opens up and their younger generation gets more power (and hopefully their secular leaders will continue to be "moderate" like Rouhani), there could be positive social changes (that hopefully lead to better foreign policy).

Obama could veto Congress' blockage, but not if they have a 2/3 majority.  

---

A good (but depressing) interview about Pakistan and Afghanistan

http://www.worldaffairs.org/events/event/1422#.VQgPGmaEr9k

I didn't listen to the whole thing, but the guest had a lot of no-BS, compelling comments about the dire situation in that region. She also stressed the economic and foreign policy angles of the conflict (often ignored by the MSM), such as:

• How do we expect the current Afghan gov't to survive when the US set it up in such a bloated model that it can only afford to pay 25% of its staff (and a regime that can't pay its people will surely collapse)? To make matters worse, global donors are reneging on their aid promises (understandably). Plus there's the lingering handicap of exceptional corruption.
• Why are we not asking China and India to get more involved in Afghanistan, as they have huge interests at stake and could serve as a check against Pakistan and Islamists? Instead we support/enable Pakistan, whose interests are pretty much diametrically opposed to ours?
• The Afghan national police and army are basically warlords and militias in uniform. When NATO leaves and things start to devolve, those fighters will pretty much fragment and return to the pre-2001 invasion state.

Netanyahu's Congressional address on the Iran nuclear deal

http://hereandnow.wbur.org/2015/03/03/congress-netanyahu-speech

I don't want to get into the weeds about how poorly argued and substantiated his speech was (the guests in the interview above do that, but just to give you a sense, Bibi said that Iran is competing with ISIS for global domination). But I don't fault him for trying. Like in game theory, it's all about the payoffs and priorities of each player. And with the same set of facts, rational and smart people can come to wildly different conclusions. From their point of view, they're totally right based on their goals.

Re: Israel-Iran, obviously the priority of a conservative Zionist regime is the preservation of the Jewish State at all costs, and keeping pressure on their enemies in perpetuity. No other cost consideration comes close (some IDF soldiers killed - better than getting nuked, angering the Arab world - they can live with that, upsetting the US and UN - they don't really need us anymore, and there are still enough diehard pro-Israel folks here to almost guarantee indefinite US support). So they will do anything to prevent a nuclear Iran or anyone making concessions to Iran or other enemies (which includes breaking protocol to address Congress).

US presidents and Israeli PMs disagree on stuff, and it can cost the PM his job if the Israeli public perceives that the PM is endangering the US-Israeli special relationship. That contributed to Bibi's ouster the first time around, as he butted heads with Clinton one too many times. But currently, I think the Israeli public is so fearful of a nuclear Iran that US relations are a distant concern (or they take it for granted, hence the persistence on expanding West Bank settlements). Even liberal press in Israel support Bibi's view (but not necessarily his methods) that the US should not give an inch to Iran.

Even if Iran's leadership is more moderate now, and with the proposed controls it's highly unlikely that they can develop and test weapons covertly, Israel can't even tolerate a 0.1% chance. So they will bomb if they need to, which will trigger a regional war of course - which I bet they think they can win (might be right, but what about the consequences to other parties?). Or they will try to derail the current negotiations, which in their opinion won't curb the nuclear development, but will ease sanctions and enable Iran to get stronger. They're in the mindset that Israel's enemies are insane genocidal religious fanatics who can't be trusted under any circumstance. So there's no point to negotiate - you know, the typical justification between enemies.

The irony is that the hardliners in Tel Aviv and Tehran want the same thing - no detente, no talks, and just cold/hot war (it reminds me of the plot of Star Trek 6). The talks were kicked off by the moderate/reformist regime of Rouhani (secret overtures to the Obama admin.), but he is on a short leash and has rivals. The nuclear program is one of their few trump cards, and it's by far their best card. He banked his political survival on this, so the hawks want his efforts to fail so they can assume power again - and fight the infidels their way. That is not a great outcome for anyone, especially the Iranian people.

Apart from the hawks, I'm not really sure what Iran's priorities and goals are. I know they want to get their economy going, and the people want to be part of the global scene (and they want better relations with the US and West). I guess the gov't still wants to keep tight control and develop a nuclear program for their prestige/leverage. But I don't know what their official stance is on foreign policy. Are they truly imperialistic as Israel claims? I think the problem with diagnosing aggression is that it's often rooted in fear/defense. Very few regimes just want to conquer and kill everyone (ISIS may be an exception, but they're not a state with leaders who are held accountable to anyone). We ostensibly invaded Iraq to make the world safer. It's possible that Iran supports Hizbullah and other Shia militias because they fear the Sunni and Western enemies all around them, not because they want to dominate the region. And even if Iran wants to become the most prominent power in the Mideast, the goal could be regime preservation in the face of potential aggression against them, not necessarily continued global expansion. But to Iran's enemies, of course they want to assume the worst motives. I wonder what the Iranians think the US and Israel want.

For the US, obviously we have an interest in the strength and survival of Israel (and the defeat of Islamist groups), but we also want to broker a 2-state solution and have Arab/Persian-Israeli peace. Or at least the absence of war, which would be disruptive to energy markets and global stability. Yes, some factions in the US want war in the Holy Land to bring about Armageddon, but I am not sure how prevalent and influential they are. We don't want Iran to nuke anyone, but we have a little more faith in their restraint than Israel does (esp. with the right incentives and threats in place). So the payoff we get from taking a chance on negotiation is maybe worth it to avoid isolation and escalation to war (which seems inevitable as long as hardliners are in power in Israel and Iran). So where does that leave us?

(#s are guesses for demo purposes)

ISRAEL

Negotiate -3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) 5

Fight Now 1

IRAN MODERATES (currently in power)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -3

Fight Now -5

US (5+1 nations)

Negotiate 3

Don't Negotiate (keep status quo) -1

Fight Now -5

I am not sure how officially involved Israel is in the talks, but their goal is probably to change the 5+1's payoffs so that Negotiate becomes the least favored option (hence the references to Hitler and whatnot). Bibi actually said we should "make a better deal" (better for Israel of course), but that means he wants us to be more of a hard-ass. Though we know Iran won't just cave (this is their best card to play as I said, and they expect top dollar); they may walk away if our demands are too extreme. That would sink Rouhani and the reformers, and lead to the hardline war-is-likely outcome that some parties want.

Israeli and Palestinian motivations for war and peace

As usual with Israel and the west bank, is there a good guy here?  From Israel's standpoint there doesn't seem to be a path to a "free" Palestine that doesn't threaten Israelis.  On the other hand this is an overwhelming force advantage for Israel that is killing civilians in large numbers.  

So while I agree perception of support can be tough in either case we are stuck with bad options and diplomatic dead ends.  

----

I am curious - how would a free Palestinian state actually threaten Israel more than the status quo (and the facts suggest that Jews are very safe in Israel today, just as most Americans are very safe from Jihadists)? That is of course contingent on Hamas being marginalized/under control and Fatah mostly running things, but even if a Pal. state was run by Hamas, they are not exactly ISIS. What could they do to Israel that they are not already doing now (i.e. what do they have to lose to give peace a chance)?

The settlements (populated by some of the most extremist elements of Jewish society) are provocative to Palestinians and frankly unsustainable for Israel. You get rid of them, and IMO the Palestinians have one less reason to fight. Same thing with the checkpoints, embargo, night raids, etc. I think Israel has the most to fear from the hardcore Zionists if they broker a peace accord. The zealots would try to overthrow the gov't (like our Tea Party on crack), feeling betrayed because all the land was promised to them by a 3K year old book (remember how some Zionists revolted when Sharon - who is far from a peacenik - had the IDF remove the settlers from Gaza?) Out of respect, I accept the Zionists' rights to their beliefs - but then they have to accept the costs that such beliefs impose. So to reiterate, I think the Israeli government's lack of interest in peace is not really driven by the Palestinian "threat", but a fear of the domestic repercussions. And maybe after such a long track record, I think it's fair to say that racism/bad blood/hubris are also a factor - the Israelis in power don't want to give the Palestinians (who they see as beneath them) the "victory" of peace and a self-governed homeland of their own. They may prefer to fight forever (and punish the Palestinians forever), because they know they can't lose and no one will stand in their way (apart from maybe a suicidal, nuclear Iran in a very unlikely scenario).

I think this is the 5th invasion of Gaza in 12 years. I don't think their objectives are purely security driven either. It's punitive and frankly mean/sadistic depending on your point of view. There's no strategic need to attack ambulances, hospitals, and international monitors/press. But that is what they do. Like what Efrati said about the Territories - some of what the IDF does is just to show everyone who's running things. That is not righteous, that is not defensive... it's bullying. And it's not just punishment for the Gazans choosing Hamas (as if they really had a choice), because the IDF is operating harshly (but obviously less harshly) in the W Bank too. IMO, all of it is punishment for the Palestinians refusing to fade away quietly into the night. They simply won't just die off or go away, and let the Jews enjoy their purely Jewish homeland. So the IDF and Israeli gov't are going to make their lives hell in perpetuity. Clearly it could be worse; it's not like the IDF is employing Boko Haram or North Korea tactics every day. The IDF/Israeli gov't have some decency/limits/respect for laws of course, but I feel that their disturbing actions/policies are permeated by this undercurrent of bigotry/bullying/resentment/what have you.

Maybe what I've said in this email is pretty controversial and offensive. I am sorry for that, but this is my assessment of the situation. I have to emphasize that my criticisms are focused on the Israeli military/gov't (run mostly by extremists) and the sectors of society that enable/profit from the Occupation/violence. I know that many Israelis are rational people who would love to give peace a chance. But like the Keret article, they may be under a lot of social/ethnic pressure to just toe the line and go along with what the Jewish State declares. And for the record, plenty of Israeli civilians and IDF reservists, active, or retired soldiers have spoken out against these tactics and/or refused to participate (sometime under physical threat from hawkish Jews).

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/7/24/amidst_brutal_operation_in_our_name
https://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=795070259362236467#editor/target=post;postID=6027526199283616770;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=78;src=postname
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/sep/25/israel
http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-07-24/anti-war-voices-israel-face-threats-and-violence

----

Clearly Israel isn't the categorical good guy.  Sort of my point.  But before Gaza or Palestine becomes independent, is there any other Islamic state (or ethnically middle eaten state) that either doesn't or hasn't wanted to destroy Israel?  Are there democracies anywhere near as free or open as Israel?  Compare Palestinian acceptance in Jerusalem to Jewish acceptance in Tehran or Dubai or Baghdad or pick a place.  

While you might argue it can't be worse and perhaps that is true the position of power Israel has over Palestine could never be accepted over a sovereign country.  And whether or not that is moral from the Israeli state's perspective it is better for security.  Unless you believe a free Palestine won't elect Hamas or be an enemy to Israel.

----

Well, Israel and Egypt have had a long-standing peace (mostly brokered and paid for by the US). Turkey is a big military trading partner with Israel. And I am fairly sure that Pakistan, Indonesia, and others don't want war with Israel any time soon. In fact, the 30K minority of Jews still living in Iran are generally not mistreated (it is the most Jew-friendly nation in the region outside of Israel, despite the stupid things that Ahmadinejad has said in the past). So in the Iranian case, it seems Persians justifiably dislike the actions/policies of the Israeli gov't, and do not wish harm on all Jews (dispelling another Israeli myth). I believe that is the case for many Arab-Muslim countries. A lot of countries don't like each other in the world, but they generally know how to coexist or at least refrain from violence. The other Arab-Muslim states have not attacked Israel for decades, if ever.

I think Israeli propaganda often exaggerates the hatred and "mortal dangers" they are under, when they are often the aggressor and clear economic-military power in the region (with strong US backing). Part of that may be intended to elicit Western sympathy, due to the emotional associations with past persecutions. Jews have not been treated well for most of history, but those bygone events do not really characterize the Jewish situation in 2014 (other peoples today are suffering much worse ethnic persecution with less ability to defend themselves - such as the south Sudanese, Syrian Sunnis, etc.).

Just because many of Israel's neighbors have a comparatively worse record on freedom, good governance, and tolerance - I'm not sure if that absolves Israel of its failings in those areas. Keep in mind that Israel doesn't really have a free press vis-a-vis Palestinian matters, Israeli Arabs are institutionally discriminated against, Jewish fundamentalists sometime terrorize moderates and non-Jews, and the Israeli gov't is responsible for more war crimes and civilian deaths than most of its neighbors (except for Saddam's Iraq and Syria recently). A growing % of Israelis openly chant "kill all Arabs" just like the converse (i.e. there is mutual hate and no side is "innocent").

I believe that an independent Palestine will not be a greater threat to Israel than the status quo of Palestinian abject poverty and armed resistance to occupation. Most peoples in the world do not want to live under a religious fundamentalist regime. Palestinians and Arabs might like/support groups like Hamas-Hezbollah because they are the only ones with the audacity to fight back against Israeli oppression (propaganda from their side glorifying the struggle and making them look like heroic martyrs). But in the absence of war/occupation, their status/raison-d'etre fades away, and they are exposed as horrible rulers that few people endorse (people generally prefer dancing and booze over burkhas and beards). So that is why I think it is highly unlikely that Hamas would come to lead an independent Palestine, much less rally the country to fight Israel state-to-state (which would be a sure victory for Israel).


Again, I think Israel's fear-mongering over the 2-state solution (or giving any concessions to Palestinians) is a propaganda play. Their reasoning is basically: why give Palestinians more rights/land/etc. when their only goal is the destruction of Israel? They assume (or want us to believe) that Palestinian violence is driven by unrelenting anti-Semitism and suicidal intolerance, when in fact it is mainly resistance to Israeli brutality/injustice. Hate obviously plays a role, but rarely in history have the oppressed not expressed hatred against their oppressors. And that may be one of the Palestinians' key strategic flaws - they didn't have the courage/discipline to stick to nonviolent resistance a la Mandela/Gandhi. But maybe they figured that approach would likely fail due to Western support/bias for Israel?

What to do about ISIS, Iraq, and Syria?

I thought this was a pretty good article about the Iraq crisis and what to do next: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/monkey-cage/wp/2014/06/17/getting-rid-of-maliki-wont-solve-iraqs-crisis/

----

I came across this article with a sort of summary of ISIS that i found interesting.  the writer's point is that Iraq was inevitably going to be a 3-state division.  Sunni, Shia, Kurds.  Baghdad has no chance of falling, Kurdish north has little chance of invasion, and ISIS was simply the first group to be able to tap the opportunity.   

----

Yeah I agree - the media and hawks always make any sort of new threat into super-villains (esp. if they're Muslim). Apparently ISIS or affiliates paid key commanders of the Iraqi Forces to defect/desert, and that encouraged the regular troops to flee as well. It's not on YT due to copyright, but Maher had a great monologue from his June 6 show about the 5 Taliban we traded for Bergdahl. Morons like McCain made those 5 out to be like the Legion of Doom or something, when really they are just marginal "terrorists" who have been out of the game for 12 years. Hardly an imminent threat to the US. But as your link said, hype hype hype. Plus, this offensive is not totally driven by ISIS. They are relatively small, but have the tacit or overt support of the Sunni tribes and paramilitaries in the area. Rolling into a vacated city is different than holding it vs. a modern gov't backed military.

I am not sure about our role in diffusing the civil/sectarian conflict in the Levant now. Rand Paul types advocate that we stay out, and just let the sects "have at it" like the Christians did in the 16th Century. It's their land and their problems that we are not qualified to solve for them. Short-sighted cynics would even say that it's great for Sunni and Shia militants to kill each other (but what about the innocents?). Maybe all this is a normal progression of major religions, and eventually they will mature into relatively peaceful coexistence.

Personally, I don't think that is feasible given America's tradition of global leadership and official stance on human rights (plus other nations' expectations of our leadership). Unfortunately there is no better alternative to broker a deal (Iran, Saudi, EU, China, Russia). However, the Syrian civil war is in its 4th year with over 200K dead and not much "concern" by western powers - which has caused us to lose more cred on the Arab Street. If we intervene in the region, it is going to be costly for us. But we should act when the long-term costs of inaction are worse (economic, reputation, safety of our local allies, etc.). The problem is it's really hard to estimate the costs of inaction. Maybe that is for the best, because once we commit, it can't be undone - as we've seen in Afghanistan and Iraq. Ideally, if we can somehow cut off support from rich Gulf Sunnis, Iran, and the inflow of foreign fighters, the Syria-Iraq conflicts may naturally simmer down without us having to put boots on the ground. If we can use our military resources to keep humanitarian corridors open, aid reaching the needy, and massacre prevention - it could buy some time for reasonable leaders to make a deal. But all of this is pie-in-the-sky and fraught with risks too.

You probably noticed that I said nothing about leadership change and nation building. We can't do that stuff competently so we shouldn't even try.

"What we left behind" when we pulled out of Iraq

http://www.npr.org/2014/04/29/307980657/exploring-what-we-left-behind-in-iraq
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2014/04/28/140428fa_fact_filkins?currentPage=all

This is a Dexter Filkins interview (few journalists have spent more time in Iraq). I know Obama campaigned on and promised to extricate us from the Iraq fiasco, and in 2011 no one in the US had the stomach to stay any longer (even if we were able to sign a security agreement with the Iraqi gov't). We were supposed to refocus on Afghanistan-Pakistan and Al Qaeda. But every decision has tradeoffs, and unfortunately here are the costs of leaving Iraq in the manner that we did.

The PM the Bushies tapped and currently remains in power, Nouri al-Maliki, is quite anti-American and sectarian (the CIA vetted that pick about as well as McCain did with Palin). Our presence there kept his Shia government from outright oppressing the Sunnis. So now he has free reign, and sectarian bloodshed has risen to the tune of 1,000 civilian deaths per month (at the height of their civil war, it was 2,000/month). He has also not only tolerated, but more or less absorbed into his regime, Shia militias responsible for hundreds of US deaths.

There likely can't be peace and progress with Maliki and his party in power, who are backed by Iran. So without our presence in the mix, the gov't has no incentive to stop marginalizing the Sunnis, and therefore the Sunnis have no incentive to stop fighting back with car bombs and such. Remember how we set up the Baghdad gov't to be a fairly representative mix of Sunni, Shia, and Kurd? Well that is out the window also, as Maliki has removed hundreds of Sunnis from their offices. His gov't has also removed billions of petro-dollars from the state to offshore personal accounts.

So maybe Iraq would be less dysfunctional now with different leaders in charge, but unfortunately their selection pool is pretty thin. They have no one who resembles a Mandela or Gandhi, much less a marginally competent non-ideologue. And so the show goes on. It seems that everything we sacrificed there (our national rep, thousands dead, decades of huge costs on the VA to name a few) was pretty much wasted, and the only positives we got out of it are Saddam was deposed, and we learned a lot of hard lessons on Mideast politics and counter-insurgency that we can hopefully apply to our benefit. Now we have basically no credibility or influence in Iraq and the greater Gulf, and Iran has a lot of influence, as we've seen in Syria. Iran doesn't seem to mind, but inter- and intranational social-sectarian tensions are at an alarming level, which could lead to even bigger problems and regional conflicts.

As a war critic, I don't know whether I would have advocated a long-term US presence in Iraq, but it wouldn't have been unjustifiable - after all we've had tens of thousands of Americans in Germany and the USSR is long gone. It's easy to see it now, but we could have mitigated/prevented a lot of these problems if we stayed - as the "adult supervision" and outside intermediary between the factions (of course we could have caused other problems too). The Obama admin. proposed to Maliki to keep a 5-10K residual force in Baghdad, mostly for training and advising. Maliki may have been OK with that (knowing we would be focused on Sunni insurgents), but he said Parliament wouldn't agree to immunity to local prosecution (a condition that US forces enjoy most everywhere they are stationed). Also some speculate that his Iranian handlers were against it too.

-----

since Iran had their revolution and deposed the shah, the country's been pretty stable.  They picked their own govt without American 'advisors'.  As I was told, when the shah was in power, you had social freedoms but free speech was not tolerated at all.  Now the social freedoms are minimal with regards to dress, but you can say whatever you want.  Political dissent is not discouraged.  There is a high literacy rate.  I'm not saying Iran is perfect, but it's their own government, not an american puppet government.

Regarding Iraq, we went in there and totally f'd up that country. We took a country, granted, that had it's problems, and turned it into a living nightmare with DU bombings, checkpoints and no normal life for anyone.  How do you propose the Iraqis feel about us?  Do you really think they would be 'grateful' to have us, any of us there?  The only thing we should be sending there is food, seeds(non-GMO, of course) and building materials.  They're an educated population.  They can rebuild and choose their own government.  

American advisors mold the country to benefit corporate interest and nothing else.  We assure their govt. is beholden to us, not its people.  I'm sure there are plenty of Gandhis or Mandelas in Iraq, but we call in a drone if anyone appears the least bit charismatic or uppity. 

------

Well, the Islamic Republic is not that democratic, with fanatical religious police, torturing secret police, and pseudo-elections where the popular vote winner still has to be approved by the Ayatollah. In that sense, I am amazed that they elected a reformer (Mousavi) currently. But hey, we thought we were getting a reformer in Obama too. Iranians must not be that happy with their gov't when they rose up en masse against Ahmadinejad's questionable re-election (green revolution). And of course gov't forces cracked down on them violently with possibly 72 deaths. Much worse than Kent State or Zuccotti Park.

I agree that our adventurism and pathetic attempt at nation-building in Iraq under Bush was an abject failure. For an ostensibly civilized superpower that "learned lessons" from Vietnam, we messed up about as badly as you can imagine. I assume Iraqi sentiment is fairly un-American, but I believe that many people would rather have us "in the picture" if it keeps the sectarian tensions under control. Sadly without us, things got more chaotic (bombings and killings are more frequent now vs. the months prior to our exit). I am not advocating a permanent meddling presence where we conduct daily raids and dictate policy to Baghdad. I would prefer more of a Bosnia-style peacekeeping force (preferably int'l, though understandably no one wants to join us) to prevent civil war and ethnic cleansing. And hopefully we could help broker agreements between the factions, call out corruption, and assist in development (forgive my naivete, but I believe we still have it in us to do things right). For all of America's faults, I would trust us in that role more than Russia, Iran, China, Saudi, etc.

Lastly, I think the most promising Iraqi leaders have fled long ago, and may prefer a better life in the First World vs. returning to a hornet's nest of problems and corruption. 

How the Dulles brothers made Kissinger and Cheney look like peaceniks

http://www.npr.org/2013/10/16/234752747/meet-the-brothers-who-shaped-u-s-policy-inside-and-out

We don't hear much about these two (apart from the DC airport name), but their beliefs and actions literally shaped the Cold War, US global ambitions, and we are still dealing with the negative repercussions today.

Ike appointed John F. Dulles as his Sec. State and Allen Dulles as the CIA head. They were both corporate lawyers who represented, among others, United Fruit and the financiers of the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. Enough said. Ike basically gave them carte blanche authority to make enemies and "intervene" in any foreign country they saw fit, and they didn't hesitate: Guatemala, Iran, Congo, Cuba, Indonesia, and Vietnam ... basically our greatest hits. They were especially adamant about Iran, because under no circumstances could they tolerate a leader nationalizing oil reserves for the people, and renegotiating terms on foreign companies. Imagine the shockwaves to big business, and what message that would send to other countries.

Unlike Kennedy's "team of rivals" model, it was very dangerous for Ike to appoint two like-minded, corporate shill, biological brothers into the complementary (and sometime necessarily adversarial) positions of State and CIA. One side shapes foreign policy and strategy, and the other carries it out covertly. Or one side tries to make peace, while the other sows the seeds of war. It's playing with fire. Now they were basically one org, without any sanity checks or devil's advocate to say, "What happens after we overthrow Lumumba? (answer: civil war and genocide for decades)," or "Maybe we can't win in Vietnam."  I guess the Dulles' and their Cold War were enough to make General Ike warn the nation about the military-industrial complex upon his retirement.

The Dulleses believed that the US, its market economy, and its multinational corporations were exceptional and entitled to dominate the globe (because we were the good guys). Anyone who opposed these interests (regardless of the reason, like the crazy notions of self determination and liberty) were automatically evil monsters. It's OK for George Washington, but not for Third World leaders (esp. when they are sitting on natural resources). Clearly enemy #1 was communism, and by extension populist nationalism, because it went against the model of private capital might makes right, and neo-colonialism/imperialism. Any attempt to regulate or take power/profit away from US companies was as much of a threat to US security as nuclear missiles.

Apart from the direct and indirect violence & collateral damage (5M total deaths at least), militancy/extremism, and harm to our global reputation in most of the world, here is the Dulles' biggest legacy and curse on humanity: a pervasive culture of rejecting peace talks and the undermining of democracy.

After Stalin died, the USSR wanted to improve relations with the West. It was a great opportunity, but Dulles was the only major foreign leader to reject this overture (and pressured our allies to do the same), because he thought the Russians were too evil to talk to, and preferred that our conflict continue. Later, both sides' nuclear brinksmanship almost ended the world. During the North-South Vietnam diplomatic talks after the French withdrawal, most European powers felt that the party was over and they should learn to live with Ho Chi Minh. Dulles was the only one who felt that Ho could be beaten militarily if we stuck it out, and he persuaded Ike and Kennedy. We know how that turned out. But you can see this US hubris and misguided thinking carrying over to our negotiations (or lack theoreof) with Cuba, Iran, and North Korea over the years. We have certain beliefs about other people, and our stubbornness ends up prolonging/worsening conflicts and missing out on opportunities.

Why was the US so successful in overthrowing the democratic regimes in Iran, Guatemala, and Congo in the '50s? The author argues that it was because those societies (and their idealistic, civilian, center-left leaders - a.k.a. died-in-the-wool commies) were fairly open and democratic, thereby allowing foreign agitators access to covertly undermine the gov't and eventually launch a coup d'etat (with a pro-US dictator waiting in the wings). Later revolutionaries learned from those cases, and ruled more like repressive tyrants in order to defend against a possible US overthrow. Cuba, North Vietnam, the Islamic Republic of Iran, North Korea, etc. all became more paranoid and less democratic after the Dulles' time. It could just be coincidence, but at least in the case of Cuba, Che and Castro were quoted that they would not repeat the mistakes of Arbenz in Guatemala. They would repress and spy on their own people to make sure the CIA wasn't gaining a foothold.

So even though the US portrayed itself as the global example and defender of democracy, in fact its foreign policy under the Dulleses was terribly undemocratic, and motivated many others around the world to choose brutality over democracy too (tragically, during a time of global change that we will never get back, when we really could have forged tremendous social progress and peace). And the human race may never fully recover from the legacies of those dark times. To me, that is a much greater failure, security threat, and shame on the US than letting a few undeveloped countries elect a socialist leader, or try to nationalize their resources.  

Snowden, Syria, and Obama

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/government_programs/july-dec13/surveillance_09-06.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/06/us/nsa-foils-much-internet-encryption.html?hp&_r=0

Snowden leaked that the NSA gave companies court orders to fork over their security keys so that they could access confidential financial and personal info. The made the companies sign gag orders so they couldn't complain, and we are talking about the major players like MSFT and GOOG (in fact Google is now suing the gov't for the right to tell the public about how they were forced to give access to user info). Also, the NSA just blatantly cracked other firms' encryption. Ironically the US Gov't has recently complained about China doing that to our companies. The NSA hasn't denied anything, and said that the disclosure has hurt national security. As we discussed before in the original Snowden story, maybe this invasive action is tolerable when there is a court-issued warrant (from a real court with real oversight, not some shadowy FISA BS), but they can't just arbitrarily cast a dragnet on everyone.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec13/shieldsbrooks_09-06.html

Was it a mistake for Obama to involve Congress in the Syria decision? Apart from the hard core hawks like McCain, many in the GOP have incentive to make Obama look ineffective on Syria. House leaders "support" Obama's plan, but won't round up votes for him. Congressional Dems now feel pressured to go to bat for the president, and if the Syria op goes bad, it may cost them in the midterms. The majority of Americans are apathetic or against military escalation in Syria, as are the majority of the world's people (or so it seems after the G20 summit). So it's unlikely that Obama will even be able to assemble a coalition at home and abroad to match the support for the Iraq invasion, as sad as that is (Saddam: imaginary WMDs, Assad: real WMDs and he used them). So now will Obama "go it alone" (+France), which is the type of unilateral action that he denounced when the Bushies did it. Or when is it OK to go it alone if you know you're right? Well, if you are right, it shouldn't be too hard to persuade/bribe/intimidate others into tacit approval or full support. And for all of Obama's big talk and int'l adoration, his administration has actually been pretty horrible on diplomacy. Talk is cheap now that Assad has deployed WMD. The trick is you talk to him BEFOREHAND, when better options still existed, stakes were lower, and emotions were cooler. But we tend to dither until problems get out of hand. Maybe that is also a side effect of Iraq's failed pre-emptive war strategy and resultant anti-Americanism, now we are skeptical/hesitant to swiftly engage anyone, even if it's not militarily.

I have mixed feelings about a military strike, unless we want to do it purely as formality to show that there are *some* consequences to using WMD (just lob some missiles at easy targets and that's it, no escalation plans, no what-ifs). But like Iraq, right now we don't really have an exit strategy, or any strategy, or even agreed-upon objectives (regime change, reduce Assad's ability to use WMD again, protect civilians? Not necessarily mutually exclusive). That's why it's so frustrating to see big Dems like Pelosi rubber-stamping this. Another problem is Iran has called for terror groups to strike at US targets and affiliates if we do anything to Syria, so we have to weigh the risk-benefits (and sorry Syrian victims, unfortunately your lives are less valuable to us).

Russia has moved some warships into the Eastern Med. I also don't understand that... why does Russia care so much what happens to Assad? I know he is a big trading partner and buys a lot of weapons from them (and is serving as a distraction for the US to prevent our "hegemony" in the Mideast), but is it worth losing face if Assad ends up going madman and doing something worse? According to Putin, it's not just him and China though, as India, Brazil, Argentina, and Italy have also opposed military action.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/08/29/world/meast/syria-iran-china-russia-supporters/index.html

But as usual, Syria is really a proxy battleground and the underlying issues are much bigger. Syria's people are unfortunately a test case to evaluate what are the int'l norms for violating sovereignty for humanitarian, political, or security reasons. Supposedly we're going to have to face similar issues with Iran as it gets closer to a functional bomb, and as the people demand more freedom from the theocracy and may revolt. What the interested parties do vis-a-vis Syria is signaling to the other parties on what will happen should Iran go down a similar path. Unfortunately the US is not sending out great signals at the moment: dithering on justification and appropriate response to WMD usage and other atrocities. Plus all this pre-warning and debate is giving Assad plenty of time to prepare and hide or shield his military assets, as well as giving Iran's proxies preparation for potential retaliations. The trick was to diffuse Syria way before we ever got to this point, but that ship has sailed long ago. You think Kennedy and Khruschev could have resolved the CMC if troops had already killed each other?

FUBAR....

--------

I was listening to someone on NPR about the Russian perspective and it was really interesting.  Aside from the fact that Russia has a fair amount of Russian interests at stake in Syria, they view the crisis much more on the side of Assad than they do the rebels because of their past with Chechnya.  A sub-unit of their country, Islamic terrorism, etc.  So for the ruskies this looks a lot more like a conflict they are familiar with and don't want to see the "terrorists" win.

I'm not sure why Obama is giving this to the congress.  I think, as a rule, it should.  But in his own speech at the G20 he said that these types of conflicts don't poll well.  If Rwanda were today it wouldn't poll well.  So given that he knows it is generally unpopular, why put it to a vote?  Just so posterity can be SURE that his action was against the will of the people?  

Also an onion article, I paraphrase:  "Obama debating to either proceed with missile strikes, or to strike with missiles".  It doesn't seem like there are any alternatives being considered, perhaps rightly so, but it doesn't help the idea that the congress is controlling this mess.  If they vote 'no' then what happens?

The fact that Snowden is not considered a whistle blower is ridiculous.  I don't see how anyone can, with a straight face, say that we the people don't have a right to this kind of information.  The fact that there are secret courts, massive spying networks, privacy tools currently available have been backdoor'ed or defeated entirely, is insane.  And the response is "why doesn't he let a court decide if he is really a whistle blower?"  As if history is full of examples of prosecuted whistle blowers who had nothing bad happen to them.  Get real.

--------

Thx, M.

I 100% agree with you on Snowden. The "official" definition of whistleblower is BS, modified by the people who stand to lose from whistleblowers. And as you said, the whole "give yourself up and you will get your chance to be heard" has probably never worked out. This NSA garbage is blatant abuse of power, and the only difference with Nixon is that the NSA hasn't been caught obstructing justice yet (because they have courts that exist to protect them, unlike Nixon). Another side effect of the terror-industrial complex. But I think the bigger tragedy is that democratically minded, progressive, and smart leaders like Obama and Feinstein are not only failing to hold the NSA accountable, but actively defending them. There was a scene from this season of Sorkin's "The Newsroom", ironically about investigating a wild claim that the US used WMD on Pakistani "terrorists". The producer was frustrated that his peers couldn't fathom this president's capacity for criminality because they liked and admired him so damn much. To me, THAT is Obama's greatest sin (not the fact that he is a Kenyan born Muslim).

Ya I can understand that Russian perspective, and China may have it too regarding their internal dissidents. But unless they really consider unarmed women and kids as "terrorists" who deserve to be gassed (assuming the evidence is solid and not the BS that Colin Powell presented to the UN), I think they are kind of full of it. Remember when Russia invaded Georgia, because Georgia was trying to put down a rebellion in South Ossetia that was trying to unify with Russia? So in that crude analogy, Georgia = Syria, Ossetian rebels = Al-Qaeda linked Syrian rebels, and Russia = the US ("peacekeepers"). So it was OK for Russia to invade then, but they oppose the US+France doing it now? There are plenty of reasons to protest Obama's plan, but Russia doesn't really have the cred to say anything.

A friend sent this interesting read on Syria (below). It is basically saying that the worst thing Obama can do is pledge a "limited" response to Assad's war crime (my bad, as that was what I suggested with some ceremonial Tomahawk strikes). That way Assad knows exactly what the cost of using WMD is, and he can make the rational choice as to when it will be worth it to use them. Uncertainty breeds fear and caution (and sometime clarity), and that is what we want to attack him with. It was no accident that Saddam and Osama looked pretty sickly and pathetic when we found them. Hiding for your life and never knowing when SEALs are going to bust down your door takes a helluva toll on a person. It might even motivate them to capitulate. So the author is saying that we shouldn't reveal our hand. We should build up massively on Syria's borders, run some major military exercises and flex our muscles, and that will scare the crap out of Assad. Maybe Obama should lose the cool veneer and act a bit unstable for the cameras. Dictators fear cowboys like Bush more than vulcans like Obama. Idiots and bullies think that violence solves problems. Clever leaders know that there are many other levers of persuasion.

And what about cyber warfare? We crashed Iran's centrifuges and we spy on our own innocent civilians. Why can't we shut down Assad's military IT and wipe our his finances? Heck we could make his warplanes fire on each other instead of strafing towns.

Syria and Byzantine Strategy

September 4, 2013 | 0900 GMT

Stratfor

In March 1984, I was reporting from the Hawizeh Marshes in southern Iraq near the Iranian border. The Iran-Iraq War was in its fourth year, and the Iranians had just launched a massive infantry attack, which the Iraqis repelled with poison gas. I beheld hundreds of young, dead Iranian soldiers, piled up and floating in the marshes, like dolls without a scar on any of them. An Iraqi officer poked one of the bodies with his walking stick and told me, "This is what happens to the enemies of Saddam [Hussein]." Of course, the Iranians were hostile troops invading Iraqi territory; not civilians. But Saddam got around to killing women and children, too, with chemical weapons. In March 1988, he gassed roughly 5,000 Kurds to death. As a British reporter with me in the Hawizeh Marshes had quipped, "You could fit the human rights of Iraq on the head of a pin, and still have room for the human rights of Iran."
The reaction of the Reagan administration to the gassing to death of thousands of Kurdish civilians by Saddam was to keep supporting him through the end of his war with Iran. The United States was then in the midst of a Cold War with the Soviet Union, and as late as mid-1989 it wouldn't be apparent that this twilight struggle would end so suddenly and so victoriously. Thus, with hundreds of thousands of American servicemen occupied in Europe and northeast Asia, using Saddam's Iraq as a proxy against Ayatollah Khomeini's Iran made perfect sense.
The United States has values, but as a great power it also has interests. Ronald Reagan may have spoken the rousing language of universal freedom, but his grand strategy was all of a piece. And that meant picking and choosing his burdens wisely. As a result, Saddam's genocide against the Kurds, featuring chemical weapons, was overlooked.
In fact, the 1980-1988 Iran-Iraq War, coterminous with the life of the Reagan administration, was a boon to it. By tying down two large and radical states in the heart of the Middle East, the war severely reduced the trouble that each on its own would certainly have caused the region for almost a decade. This gave Reagan an added measure of leeway in order to keep his focus on Europe and the Soviets -- and on hurting the Soviets in Afghanistan. To wit, only two years after the Iran-Iraq War ended, Saddam invaded Kuwait. Peace between Iran and Iraq was arguably no blessing to the United States and the West.
Likewise, it might be argued that the Syrian civil war, now well into its second year, has carried strategic benefits to the West. The analyst Edward N. Luttwak, writing recently in The New York Times, has pointed out that continued fighting in Syria is preferable to either of the two sides winning outright. If President Bashar al Assad's forces were to win, then the Iranians and the Russians would enjoy a much stronger position in the Levant than before the war. If the rebels were to win, it is entirely possible that Sunni jihadists, with ties to transnational terrorism, will have a staging post by the Mediterranean similar to what they had in Taliban-controlled Afghanistan until 2001, and also similar to what they currently have in Libya. So rather than entertain either of those two possibilities, it is better that the war continue.
Of course, all of this is quite cold-blooded. The Iran-Iraq War took the lives of over a million people. The Syrian civil war has so far claimed reportedly 110,000 lives. Even the celebrated realist of the mid-20th century, Hans Morgenthau of the University of Chicago, proclaimed the existence of a universal moral conscience, which sees war as a "natural catastrophe." And it is this very conscience that ultimately limits war's occurrence. That is what makes foreign policy so hard. If it were simply a matter of pursuing a state's naked interests, then there would be few contradictions between desires and actions. If it were simply a matter of defending human rights, there would similarly be fewer hard choices. But foreign policy is both. And because voters will only sustain losses to a nation's treasure when serious interests are threatened, interests often take precedence over values. Thus, awful compromises are countenanced.
Making this worse is the element of uncertainty. The more numerous the classified briefings a leader receives about a complex and dangerous foreign place, the more he may realize how little the intelligence community actually knows. This is not a criticism of the intelligence community, but an acknowledgment of complexity, especially when it concerns a profusion of armed and secretive groups, and an array of hard-to-quantify cultural factors. What option do I pursue? And even if I make the correct choice, how sure can I be of the consequences? And even if I can be sure of the consequences -- which is doubtful -- is it worth diverting me from other necessary matters, both foreign and domestic, for perhaps weeks or even months?
Luttwak himself offers partial relief to such enigmas through a meticulous and erudite study of one of the greatest survival strategies in history. In The Grand Strategy of the Byzantine Empire (2009), he demonstrates the properties by which Byzantium, despite a threatened geographic position, survived for a thousand years after the fall of Rome. This Byzantine strategy, in its own prodigiously varied and often unconscious way, mirrored Morgenthau's realism, laced as it is with humanism.
The Byzantines, Luttwak writes, relied continuously on every method of deterrence. "They routinely paid off their enemies….using all possible tools of persuasion to recruit allies, fragment hostile alliances, subvert unfriendly rulers…" He goes on: "For the Romans…as for most great powers until modern days, military force was the primary tool of statecraft, with persuasion a secondary complement. For the Byzantine Empire it was mostly the other way around. Indeed, the shift of emphasis from force to diplomacy is one way of differentiating Rome from Byzantium…" In other words, "Avoid war by every possible means in all possible circumstances, but always act as if it might start at any time [his italics]." The Byzantines bribed, connived, dissembled and so forth, and as a consequence survived for centuries on end and fought less wars than they would have otherwise.
The lesson: be devious rather than bloody. President Barack Obama's mistake is not his hesitancy about entering the Syrian mess; but announcing to the Syrians that his military strike, if it occurs, will be "narrow" and "limited." Never tell your adversary what you're not going to do! Let your adversary stay awake all night, worrying about the extent of a military strike! Unless Obama is being deliberately deceptive about his war aims, then some of the public statements from the administration have been naïve in the extreme.
A Byzantine strategy, refitted to the postmodern age, would maintain the requisite military force in the eastern Mediterranean, combined with only vague presidential statements about the degree to which such force might or might not be used. It would feature robust, secret and ongoing diplomacy with the Russians and the Iranians, aware always of their interests both regionally and globally, and always open to deals and horse-trades with them. The goal would be to engineer a stalemate-of-sorts in Syria rather than necessarily remove al Assad. Reducing the intensity of fighting would thus constitute a morality in and of itself, even as it would keep either side from winning outright. For if the regime suddenly crumbled, violence might only escalate, and al Qaeda might even find a sanctuary close to Israel and Jordan.
Such a strategy might satisfy relatively few of the cognoscenti. Though, the American public -- which has a more profound, albeit badly articulated sense of national survival -- will surely tolerate it. The Congressional debate that preceded the Iraq War did not save President George W. Bush from obloquy when that war went badly. The lack of such a debate would not hurt Obama were he to successfully execute the methods described in Luttwak's book.

How CNN, social media, and Iranian politics ruined 2 Nedas... and no one in cyberspace cares

http://www.onthemedia.org/2013/jun/07/my-stolen-face/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009%E2%80%932010_Iranian_election_protests

Iran is about to go to the polls again, and this time Ahmadinejad definitely can't win (unless they change the laws like Putin). But if you remember back in 2009, Ahmad. was declared the winner despite suspicious polling conditions. That sparked the "Green Revolution" where reform-minded Iranians (many students and young people) risked their lives to take to the streets and demand a fair election. The gov't cracked down on them, and dozens died. The most famous protester death was of Neda Agha-Soltan (below, graphic video), who became a symbol of resistance, and maybe even a hero martyr. She bears the inglorious title of most viewed death on YouTube. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=76W-0GVjNEc&bpctr=1371270949

Social media was often an asset during the Arab Spring (and Persian Green Revolution), but in this case it went wrong. After Neda's death, interested parties went online and found the Facebook page of a Neda Soltani (an English lit student in Iran with a similar sounding name, who had not participated in the protests and was very much alive). They mistakenly identified her as the victim, disseminated her photo, and soon it was on major media outlets like CNN. She and her family were getting sympathy messages and vows that her death would inspire regime change. There was no journalistic process or due diligence - they just ran with the narrative. And wrong info goes viral just as quickly as correct info.

Of course Neda #2 tried to set the record straight by posting FB updates and contacting CNN that they were displaying the wrong photo (CNN continued to show the erroneous photo and never issued an apology). Eventually this story got to the leaders of the Islamic Republic and the Iranian Opposition, and both lashed out at Neda #2. The regime claimed that she was a phony and agitator who faked her death to hurt the gov't, and the opposition called her a "whore" for daring to tell them they messed up, thereby threatening the perfect Neda Jean D'Arc martyr story that they were using as a rallying cry. People believe what they want to believe, and get mad when you show them evidence to the contrary. And somewhere in all this mess, an actual Neda #1 was dead, with grieving loved ones seeing the wrong girl's face displayed on protest signs and TV shows 24-7.

So Neda #2 was getting it on both sides, and even received death threats. The gov'ts claims against her could have resulted in prison/torture/death, so she decided to leave her life and flee abroad as an exile. She currently lives in Europe, and has become a political activist because of her ordeal.

Like the NSA scandal, I think examples like this (albeit rare) demonstrate that technology advances faster than we simpleton humans can learn to use it responsibly. Just because we are enabled to do a thing doesn't mean we should. In general, social media is probably low-harm, low-risk, and may even do great good here and there. Same with secret spying I suppose. But how many destroyed lives do we just "tolerate" in order to enjoy unfettered, unaccountable use of these technological wonders? Tech moves at blazing speed because a lot of money is at stake (same with traditional media and breaking the big story). For the record, CNN was wrong about which Lanza shot up the school and the Supreme Court verdict on Obamacare too.

But what voice of restraint will help us take a deep breath and apply the brakes when needed? Who is fact-checking? There just isn't enough time, and once the snowball starts rolling and getting bigger, it's really hard to counter. So what can be done? Who gets punished when their irresponsible social media use results in innocents harmed? Especially since cyberspace is "borderless", what set of norms and policies can we all agree to? I'm not saying we should abandon these tools just because we haven't worked out the rules yet. But clearly we are driving without a license here. And it's not just Neda, think of the kids who have suffered depression and even killed themselves from online bullying, not to mention all the affairs/divorces, sexual predators, scams, propaganda/hate speech, fraud, hacking, you name it. I don't mean to be an anti-tech luddite here, and I freely admit I dislike FB/Twitter and have/will never use them (because I don't see a need in my life). But like with drugs and food, we have to (in theory) rigorously test their safety BEFORE we put them in our bodies. Somehow we accept a priori that tech is infallible and altruistic, and approach it more recklessly/trustingly. We are also more dismissive when consequences like Neda are exposed (again, because it conflicts with our preconceived beliefs), partly because blame is more diffuse and opaque than with drugs or food. The titans of tech like Biz Stone, Jobs, and Zuck really believe that their products are saving the world, like penicillin and the printing press before them. But even medicine can kill if misused. Let's try to be a little more grounded and conscientious, and maybe future Nedas can be avoided.

The dangerous sectarian nature of the Syrian civil war

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/hezbollah-launching-offensive-profoundly-change-164121898.html

I haven't brought up Syria before because I am not well versed in the details, and frankly it's just depressing. But some recent turn of events have made things even more complicated and impactful.

- The civil war is about 2 years old, almost 100K Syrians (and some famous Western journalists) have died, and about 20% of the population is internally or externally displaced.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Syrian_civil_war

- Israel has bombed a supposed weapons shipment to Hezbollah near the border. They may have also bombed a weapons facility in Damascus last month. We are used to thinking that Jihadi groups are also anti-government because most dictators in the Muslim World are kind of secular. But in Hezbollah's case ("The Party of God" formed to oppose the first Israeli invasion of Lebanon), they are explicit allies of Iran (a Shia theocracy and Shia majority nation) and Syria (neither of those). But Hezbollah is Shia and they support Assad against the rebels who are majority Sunni. So things are taking a nasty sectarian turn.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/05/world/meast/syria-violence/

- The regime or the rebels may have used chemical weapons in combat, which would violate the "red line" established by Obama as a trigger for escalation. But it's doubtful. However, America's #1 concern there is probably the containment of those WMDs. Even if Assad is toppled, who will control and distribute his stockpile?

http://www.npr.org/2012/12/05/166580524/chemical-weapons-and-the-syrian-civil-war

- We know that Iran and Russia (and China sort-of) support Assad's regime because they are strategic/trade allies, and Assad as seen as a counter to Israel and US "domination" of the region. So they have blocked stronger EU-led actions against Assad in the UN, and continue to ship high tech weapons to Damascus in spite of global condemnation.

- The EU embargo on weapons trade with Syria just expired, so the UK and France are considering arming the rebels (but which rebels is a big question). The UN has opposed this, and the US doesn't want to go down that route for obvious reasons, but has likely provided advisers and non-lethal resources to some rebels. We are trying to prop up non-Jihadi, pro-Western rebels, because unfortunately some of the most powerful and effective rebel groups like Jabhat al-Nusra are Sunni extremists who have recently allied themselves with Al Qaeda (and therefore got on the global terror list and cut off from Western aid). So clearly we don't want to arm them and help them win, but we also want Assad to fall. Of course rebel groups are fighting each other too, as we saw in Libya. The West is caught in a terrible spot: Assad is a jerk and supported by orgs and nations we don't get along with. He is slaughtering his people, but he is also keeping Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood out of power there. It's like Egypt but compounded by WMD containment fears.


http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/opinion/bergen-al-qaeda-syria/

- As if that wasn't bad enough, the top link from Yahoo describes how Hezbollah is now actively sending in fighters to Syria to defend Assad, a noteworthy escalation (Muslim fighters flocking to Syria, like Afghanistan and Iraq before). This may help Assad cling to power but turn the populace against Islamic groups, though most of them have already picked sides. The Shia Alawites are the ruling minority; wealthier, urban, and aligned with Assad. So Iran, some of Iraq, and Hezbollah obviously support that side, and Saudi, Israel, and Al Qaeda oppose them (interesting "allies" indeed). Al Qaeda leaders have also urged other Muslims to go to Syria and topple Assad. The poorer, oppressed majority are Sunnis, who want Assad out either because they are pro-reform or hate Shia/Alawites or follow Salafi-Jihadi fundamentalist Sunni Islam like Al Qaeda. As we've seen in Iraq, both sides may think of the other as heretics, and both have a history of ethnic cleansing (BTW the Syria conflict is also inflaming sectarian tension in fragile Iraq now too). So Assad and the Shia see this as an existential struggle, because they fear that if the Sunnis take over, they will be slaughtered.

- So who should the West back and arm? It's a confusing mess. Some have said we should intervene on a humanitarian basis and protect civilians. Enforce a no-fly zone maybe. A few problems with that (that completely escape folks like McCain): Syria's air defenses are much better than Libya's or Serbia's. Syria has WMDs and delivery systems for them, unlike Libya or Serbia. Syria is next door to our allies in Iraq and Israel, unlike Libya or Serbia. You get the picture. I am not sure what the "right thing to do" is, but if we intervene militarily, it's going to be ugly with a lot of consequences. What I also fear is an escalating multi-nation sectarian war. We know that various groups are financially and militarily backing or opposing the various Syrian forces. And those backers don't like each other: Iran, Saudi, Israel, the EU, Russia, China, US, and NGOs connected to Jihadi terrorism. This proxy war may eventually evolve into an overt war. And if that happens, Iraq will look tame in comparison.

"We can live with a nuclear Iran"

Economist Daniel Kahneman's Nobel-winning cumulative prospect theory (or my crude interpretation of it): humans irrationally tend to overly fear unlikely events and "worst-case" losses, and will take unreasonable measures to avoid them




http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/magazine/marchapril_2012/features/we_can_live_with_a_nuclear_ira035772.php

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/envoy/daily-show-jon-stewart-takes-iran-war-drums-210908399.html



Isn't it funny that we only freak out about Iran's nuclear program during election years (McCain's "bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran" and now the 3 GOP stooges talking tough)? The difference now is that Obama and others have convinced the UN to issue the toughest round of sanctions ever against Iran, but they are only a few months old. Yes Iran has made progress on its program since 2008 (though still years away from a functional bomb, and a primitive one at that), but their regime is weakened economically and due to heavier internal protests against their legitimacy. We and our proxies have also whacked some Iranian scientists and corrupted their computer systems, setting their program back a while.



During the recent AIPAC conference, Israeli leader Netanyahu was a broken record: "Imagine an Iranian ICBM heading towards a US city." Well Iran doesn't have ICBMs, and won't for several years at least. If they're lucky, their crappy rockets may reach London. "We are you and you are us... To Iran, the US is the 'great Satan' and Israel is the 'little Satan'... This is a regime that has vowed to wipe Israel off the map." If we are you and you are us, then why do you keep building illegal settlements when our leaders tell you not to? Why do you keep taking our money and giving us nothing in return but diplomatic headaches?



Yes, it's true that Iranian bluster has threatened to destroy Israel, and maybe America too. They clearly aren't friendly. But the Soviet Union (the 2nd strongest military empire the world has ever seen, with tens of thousands of nuclear weapons on hair-trigger alert) threatened to bury the West too, and did they ever come close? Did they ever even try? The same stereotypes and accusations were levied against them for decades: the Soviets are irrational, bloodthirsty, fanatical, can't be reasoned with, hate what we stand for, and hell-bent on world war. But in the end they chose to holster their nukes EVERY SINGLE TIME, even when war seemed inevitable in Cuba and as their regime collapsed (supposedly when they had nothing to lose). And some would argue that the Soviets have more of a penchant for suicidal behavior than the Iranians, considering Stalin's purges and whatnot. So is Iran somehow worse than the Evil Empire, despite being much smaller, poorer, and weaker? Yes they are a theocracy with too much centralized, abusive power, and have done some "crazy" things in the past. But in general, their regime has a rational track record (i.e. they are not suicidal). Launching a tiny nuke against Israel (with no guarantee of it "wiping them off the map") would be suicide. Finito. Why would a regime whose only petty desire is to retain power (by hook or by crook) suddenly decide to self-destruct? That is, unless they were prodded and provoked by warmongering opponents.



The hawks' rhetoric is illogical, and I doubt that they even believe it 100%. If Iran is truly the crazy monster than the Israelis and GOP portray, then it would be irrational for us to NOT attack them. If it's only a matter of time, and a total certainty, that they nuclearlize their "global terrorism", then why have we sat on our hands all these years? What are we waiting for!?! Shouldn't we take them out like we did to Saddam and Qaddafi? Our leaders should be FIRED for being so negligent, even hardliners Bush and Netanyahu! So I guess the truth of the matter is that Iran is not such a threat. Former CIA veteran Paul Pillar thinks so in his recent article, and so do the current and former heads of Mossad (the Israeli spy agency entrusted with protecting their tiny nation against all threats before they materialize). All nuclear nations use their warheads primarly as deterrent and bargaining leverage, and only the US has launched them against others in malice. But that was to ostensibly END a war (and signal to the Soviets that East Asia was ours), not start one.



Say that all of what I said is wrong, and we have no choice but to pre-emptively strike. Iranian air defenses are strong, so we would either absorb heavy losses, or need to resort to cruise missiles and even tactical nukes. But those weapons may not be effective against facilities buried under a lot of rock. So how do we penetrate - a ground invasion? We've seen how fanatically Iranians defended their homeland against Iraq, and we know America now has a lower tolerance to sacrifice our sons and daughters overseas vs. a non-imminent danger. And all that would definitely trigger Jihad 3.0 and oil to spike to at least $150/barrel (which would in turn cause fragile recovering markets to plunge into another global recession). Our attack would paradoxically lead to the bloodshed and misery that we supposedly want to prevent by striking Iran! So if it is unfeasible to stop Iran from getting nukes by force, what choice do we have but to "talk and talk" as Gingrich mocked? Talking does not automatically mean appeasement and defeat. But all that macho, ideological crap doesn't matter if we have no other choice. If you don't have a good hand to play, why go all-in with your cash? We can either fight a bloody war with no guarantee of success, nuke Iran pre-emptively to global outcry and Muslim rage, or talk (with the caveat of a remote risk that Iran will betray us and nuke Israel later). Which one of those is least painful? Yes the situation stinks and everyone wishes that Iran would just be more peaceful and give up their nukes. But a lot of people around the world wish that the US and Israel would do the same, and we refuse almost every time.

Obama's "world without nuclear weapons"

He wants a world without nuclear weapons? Then with a stroke of a pen he could reduce the world's nuclear arsenal by 20%. The US has 2,600 active warheads, plus another 6,800 inactive and/or obsolete. There are roughly 24,000 nukes on the planet now. Why not decommission 4,800 of our inactive weapons as a gesture of good faith and much-needed trust-building? It makes no sense to hold onto them. Even if Russia doesn't reciprocate, it's not like we're defenseless. We just got rid of the nukes that are basically billion-dollar paperweights, collecting dust somewhere in Livermore or Wyoming. Otherwise he is just spouting off the same empty talk.

Obama: "Iran is breaking rules that all* nations must follow."
* Except Israel and the Security Council Big 5

Obama wants a world where no new players develop nuclear weapons. The "responsible" nations can keep their bloated and obscene stockpiles. Yes Iran is skirting the rules and misbehaving on the nuclear issue. We would to the exact same in their shoes. Ideally we should work with other nations to persuade/pressure them to open up for inspections and negotiations. Of course they will stall, play games, and be difficult, just like North Korea. But of all people, General Khadafi raised a good point at the recent UN meeting (Libya is a temporary member of the Security Council now). If Iran has to open up its nuclear activities, shouldn't Israel be held to the same standards? Ambiguity surrounds Israel's nuclear capabilities, although a 1968 CIA report concluded that Israel had developed nukes (and produced as many as 100-200 warheads, which is 10X more than India and Pakistan's arsenals), we only concretely know of Israel's program because an employee at a facility, Mordechai Vanunu, went public with photos in the 1980s. After that, he was captured by Mossad and is currently rotting in solitary confinement, labeled by Tel Aviv as a traitor. Since Israel never signed the NPT (why wouldn't they if they are such a peace-loving nation?), they are not required to disclose any nuclear activities. But officially their government has declared, "Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Middle East".

So we have no proof that Iran is weaponizing nuclear material, but we want to further sanction them out of suspicion. We have caught Israel in a bold-faced lie about its nuclear weapons, and we tolerate it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090925/ap_on_go_pr_wh/g20_summit_obama_iran
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3340639.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_states_with_nuclear_weapons

To better understand the Iran situation (no BS version)

One of the better discussions I've heard about Iran from Karim Sadjadpour of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on "Fresh Air":

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105802915

Certainly some of the recent events in Iran have been disappointing and even abominable to our sensibilities in this country, but we should remember a few things. Like Cuba, the US traditional establishment of the last 30 years has had a fetish for hating anything Iranian. Cuba was the Mob's cash cow that they let get away to the Reds, and Iran was the oil cow they lost to the Muslims. Ironically, Iran is probably the nation-state most culturally compatible with Western values and democracy in the region, yet due to internal decisions and external pressures, they have embraced (or been forced down a path of) revolutionary Islamic philosophy instead. Well maybe not the young people - who comprise over half of the population - but the gray beards clinging to power at least. It was obviously not a foregone conclusion that Iran would become a theocracy, nuclear wanna-be, and financier of terror groups, but probably more of the blame lies with Western imperialists than radical clerics.

Was there blatant fraud in this election and tyrannical government violence against protesters post-election? Surely. Their regime is populated by a bunch of thugs and barbarians, right? They subjugate women and repress civil rights. I have no love for their government (that seems to either be comprised of hard-line fossils like Khamenei or corrupt egomaniacs like Rafsanjani), but let's have a little perspective. The candidate who nets the most votes may not necessarily win an election in this country. In 2000, it is pretty clear that there were significant voting irregularities in Florida. Maybe not enough to change the result, but it was more or less swept under the rug by 5 old men in robes. Protests ensued in many US cities, and in some cases the participants were beaten down and jailed (I am not sure if there were any deaths). Hanging chads, glitches in the electronic voting machines, ineligible voters voting, and vice versa. It even happens here, in the "greatest democracy" of history. And let's not forget the influence of money in our elections. Remember the big protests over the WTO meeting in Seattle, or Bush's Republican Convention in NYC? Government thugs beat up citizens and deprived them of their rights, in our backyard. Probably people died. I wonder if other nations like Iran were condemning us then?

So let's show some humility before chastising Iran for some of the same faults we commit, albeit to a less extreme degree. But even that is debatable, since fraud and tyranny in the US has far more global impact than the same in Iran. And for the hard-liners who criticize Obama for being too "timid" on the issue: what do you expect him to do? Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb, bomb Iran? We already have harsh sanctions on them. We have no strings to pull over there - they're not Palau. And if we "take a side", back Mousavi, and demand a re-vote, we would play right into the tyrants' hands. All of a sudden their accusations of US tampering and foreign coup seem more plausible, and they can justify a more serious crackdown. Blood will be gushing in the streets - GUSHING.

If we do support the protesters and reformers, then maybe it's best that we keep our big mouths shut and let them decide their own destiny, at least for now. Although most Iranians don't hate America, they're not exactly eager to embrace us either. They know we lust after their resources, will always side with Israel, wish to deprive them of their NPT-approved development of civilian nuclear power, and have over 150,000 troops in their front and back yards. The spectre of Bush is still present, and even Obama said that all options are still on the table (in regards to preventing their nuclear ambitions). In the past, we helped overthrow an elected leader (Mossadeq) who dared to want to nationalize their oil (ahem, I mean Shell and BP's oil), we bankrolled the dictator Shah who abused many Iranians, we mostly took Saddam's side in the brutal Iran-Iraq War where over a million died, and we shot down an Iranian passenger plane (and never apologized for it). So we're not exactly in the best position to send a message.