On 2013-01-13, at 11:06 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > Nope, you misread me and the other Hagel boosters I know. > > The actually-implemented Iran policy of the Obama Administration currently > has a key contradiction in it, both because of contradictions within the > Obama Administration, and because of the external political pressures exerted > on the Obama Administration during its first term, including especially > Congressional pressure on the Obama Administration instigated by AIPAC and > the rest of the Israel lobby, acting at the behest of the Netanyahu > government.
MG: I don't know about divisions within the administration - who opposed the current policy? Biden? Clinton? Panetta? - but it's true its hands have been tied to the point where it has been humiliated by pro-Likud Republicans in control of the House. However, I was alluding to the supposed contradictions between Hagel and current administration policy which you and other Hagel boosters are confident he will resolve if he is confirmed as Defence Secretary. > The contradiction is this: on the one hand, there are people in the Obama > Administration who want detente with Iran. On the other hand, the Obama > Administration has not yet, as far as we know, put an offer on the table that > the Iranians could accept. MG: Many offers and counter-offers are put on the table in a negotiation which neither party can accept until they are forced into an eleventh hour agreement to avert impending conflict. The Iranians have hung tough these many years precisely because they know the overstretched US and its allies don't want to get entangled in another war and are instead seeking a diplomatic outcome aimed at containing rather than destroying the Islamic Republic's military and political influence. Of course, there is always the danger one or both sides may miscalculate and trigger a conflict. > Meanwhile, under Obama, U.S. and multilateral sanctions have dramatically > escalated, to the point that Iranians are dying for lack of medicine, partly > because that has been the policy of the Administration, but also > significantly because of Congressional pressure, instigated by AIPAC, acting > at the behest of the Netanyahu government, that pushed the Obama > Administration to sign off on extreme measures that they would not have > signed off on otherwise. MG: Yes, sanctions have been seen as the alternative to war, and they are beginning to bite, although the Iranians are continuing to find ways to work around them. But the latest round of unilateral US sanctions may yet cause the Iranians to soften their position. That is certainly what the Obama administration is counting on. Hagel has previously argued that unilateral sanctions are not effective and are counter-productive to reaching a settlement, but his reservations did not preclude him from co-chairing Obama's Intelligence Advisory Board and participating on the administration's Defence Policy Board, and, as expected, he has lately taken pains to emphasize his agreement with the administration's policy towards Iran. See, for example: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/11/us/in-transition-to-defense-post-hagel-focuses-on-iran.html?_r=0 and http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/01/10/fact-check-hagel-iran/1823651/ > Hagel's nomination is read by friend and foe as a signal that Obama intends > to pursue in his second term the policy that many expected in his first term: > serious diplomatic engagement with Iran towards political agreements that > will address the nuclear dispute and other disputes and lead to a lifting of > sanctions. This is not a small thing, for people who care about such things. > It would mean, among other things, that Iranian civilians would no longer die > for lack of medicine. MG: Obama's election in 2008 was read the same way. I don't think the desire of Obama and the other "realists" for a peaceful settlement of the Iranian nuclear program and other outstanding Mideast issues has changed. It was frustrated, as you noted, by the Republican-controlled House after 2010 and, as I added, by the Iranians taking a strong stand in defence of their nuclear sovereignty. If things change, it will not be because Obama has suddenly discovered a backbone or because Chuck Hagel has become part of the administration. Political change is prompted less by highly-placed individuals than by the underlying changes in the relationship of forces between the contending parties. One possibility is that the Iranians will find the present set of sanctions intolerable and succumb to the demands by the six-country group for further concessions. Obama's re-election also appears to have strengthened his hand against the pro-Israel congressional warhawks and may give the admi! nistration more latitude to reach an agreement. But if such changes occur, they will occur independently of whether Hagel is or is not confirmed as Defence Secretary, so there is little reason for you to get excited one way and neocons the other. > It's certainly true, as far as it goes, that Scowcroft, Pickering, Hagel, > Luers, etc. never stopped being "establishment" in the sense that they were > never dis-invited from establishment cocktail parties. But until now they > have not ruled Iran policy. They don't rule US policy because they are retired and no longer hold office, although unofficially they still exert influence through the media. You've argued that the "realist" school which these former officials represent was out of favour, and that appointing Hagel would bring them "back in from the cold" and "represent a bold new departure in Mideast policy by the administration." The issue is not whether they rule US policy, but a) whether the Obama administration was, in fact, at odds with these pragmatic imperialists and opposed to detente, as the doctrinaire neocons of the Bush administration had been, and b) whether the nomination of Hagel, identified with this school, signified an impending major turn in US foreign policy. I've answered no in both cases, and you've answered yes. > That could change now, if Hagel is confirmed, and is not beaten up too badly > on the way in. In the unlikely event Hegel isn't confirmed, Obama will turn to a lower-profile nominee who shares the views of Hagel and the administration. Even if the Republicans give Hagel a rough time in committee, this will have little effect on the conduct of US foreign policy. If Obama were to instead name John Bolton to his Cabinet, now THAT would signal something worth getting excited about... > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 2013-01-13, at 7:47 AM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > > This liberal and radical doesn't see the import of the distinction you're > > trying to make. Bringing the realists back in from the cold could indeed > > represent a bold new departure in Mideast policy by the administration. The > > realists want to have detente with Iran. That could be a very big deal. > > Your assumption is that the national security/ foreign policy establishment > has to be brought "back in from the cold". Its most prominent members haven't > been out in the cold since they were temporarily displaced by the > aggressively overconfident neocons (Wolfowitz, Perle, Woolsey, Bolton, > Cheney, Abrams, and the rest of the New American Century crowd) during the > first term Bush administration. When the Iraq adventure blew up in their > faces, the old pros were called back to pull the second term Bush > administration's chestnuts out of the fire by crafting a face-saving exit > strategy through the medium of the (bipartisan) Iraq Study Group. The group > was led by James Baker (R) and Lee Hamilton (D), included future Obama > appointees Leon Panetta and William Gates, and was also supported by, among > others, Chuck Hagel. > > You are not as expert as you profess to be if you think that the present > defence and intelligence establishment, the military high command, and the > Obama administration want other than to "have detente with Iran" and that > they haven't been pursuing that objective, to the chagrin of the Netanyahu > government, for the past four years. Hagel does not in any way represent a > departure from that policy. If the US is improbably drawn into war with Iran, > it will be because the military and state apparatus decided for reasons of > its own to change course. You can be certain that Hagel, far from being able > to prevent such a course change, will be justifying the aggression as Defence > Secretary much as Colin Powell, whatever his reservations, did as Secretary > of State during the invasion of Iraq. > > In a nutshell, the problem with the Hagel boosters is that they see a > contradiction between the former Nebraska senator's views and the foreign > policy which the Obama administration has pursued during its first term where > no such contradiction exists. > > > > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 7:52 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On 2013-01-12, at 11:47 AM, Jim Devine wrote: > > > > > it looks to me like Obama chose Hagel so that he could easily get > > > dronemeister/torture fan Brennan in to run the CIA. Hagel gets all the > > > flack. > > > > Perhaps, but I think there may be wider considerations at play - although > > not the kind perceived by some hopeful liberals and radicals, ie. that the > > nomination signals a bold new departure in Mideast policy by the > > administration. > > > > Instead, I think Obama chose Hegel because, like Gates before him, Hegel is > > representative of the previously dominant, but now disaffected, faction of > > the Republican party which broke with doctrinaire conservative Republican > > right over Iraq. They correctly perceived the unilateral use of US ground > > forces under Bush as a reckless adventure, and continue to favour > > multilateral intervention relying on sanctions, the use of air power, and > > the internal subversion of regimes opposed to US imperialism. In this > > sense, far from being a maverick, Hagel's "realist" views place him > > squarely within the bipartisan military and foreign policy establishment > > whose best-known public spokesmen have been the Republican Brent Scowcroft > > and the Democrat Zbigniew Brzezinski. > > > > The administration concurs with this bipartisan military and foreign policy > > consensus.On the domestic front, Obama and the Democrats have also since > > 2008 been trying to peel off discouraged "moderate" Republicans like Hagel, > > Scowcroft, Powell, etc. from the GOP by naming them to the Cabinet and > > moving into their political space. The administration meanwhile takes its > > liberal base for granted because it knows that, while it complains, it has > > nowhere else to go. > > > > Here's Scowcroft on Hagel: > > > > Scowcroft weighs in on the Hagel nomination > > By Josh Rogin > > Foreign Policy > > January 9, 2013 > > > > Republican foreign-policy realists haven't changed their tune over the > > years, but some in the GOP have moved away from the realists, such as > > defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, according to former national > > security advisor Brent Scowcroft. > > > > "We haven't moved; the Republican party has moved," Scowcroft told The > > Cable in an interview. "I have been a lifelong Republican and I hold to > > what I are my own beliefs, which happen to be core Republican beliefs, but > > many in the party have taken a different course." > > > > Scowcroft is one of several senior former GOP officials, including > > Secretary of State Colin Powell, to back the Hagel nomination in the face > > of opposition from half a dozen GOP senators and groups associated with the > > neoconservative and hawkish sides of the Republican foreign policy > > community. Scowcroft said the GOP is rooted in the realist principles he > > still espouses. > > > > "The neocons go clear back to the 1970s. They were Democrats, then became > > sort of Republicans," he said. "I'm who I am. Whether the party wants to > > desert me, that's their privilege." > > > > Hagel's controversial comments from years past, such as when he once > > referred to the "Jewish lobby" or his longstanding opposition to unilateral > > sanctions, shouldn't bar him from serving as defense secretary, according > > to Scowcroft. > > > > "He is first and foremost an American and he takes an American perspective > > on everything he discusses," he said. "I'm frankly surprised [by the > > controversy], because he says what he believes at the time and there is a > > core in what he has said that makes some sense. Would you rather have > > someone who has never said anything?" > > > > Scowcroft joined with several other former officials in both parties to > > sign a letter in support of Hagel las month on the letterhead of the > > "Bipartisan Group," a loose association of former officials that includes > > Hagel. The Cable reported that horse racing gambler Bill Benter paid to > > have that letter advertised in Politico's Playbook newsletter. > > > > But the Bipartisan Group has no further plans to act on behalf of Hagel and > > is not working directly with the Obama administration on the Hagel defense > > effort. > > > > "This is a group that got together to write a letter to the president in > > 2008 about the Palestinian peace process and then got together again to > > write this letter," said Scowcroft. "There's no organization, there's no > > strategy, there's no nothing as far as I am concerned. It was a one-off > > thing. That's the whole story as far as I know." > > > > Scowcroft said it was "strong and brave" of President Barack Obama to > > choose a Republican such as Hagel, but he does not think this necessarily > > means Obama is cementing a foreign policy legacy that tracks with the > > Republican realist view of the world. > > > > "The president on foreign policy is fairly eclectic,' he said. "It's a > > promising move. Whether it represents anything broader than that, I'm not > > prepared to say." > > > > http://thecable.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/01/09/scowcroft_the_gop_left_me_and_hagel?wp_login_redirect=0 > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > > > > > -- > > Robert Naiman > > Policy Director > > Just Foreign Policy > > www.justforeignpolicy.org > > [email protected] > > _______________________________________________ > > pen-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l > > > > -- > Robert Naiman > Policy Director > Just Foreign Policy > www.justforeignpolicy.org > [email protected] > _______________________________________________ > pen-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
