On 2013-01-13, at 4:09 PM, Robert Naiman wrote: > > Well, I think the differences between our views at this point may be shades > of gray that may be more semantic and unfalsifiable. I haven't claimed, as > you seem to think I have, that current policy is under control of the > neocons. Current policy is a hybrid of realist policy and neocon policy. The > neocon part has to a significant extent been imposed through AIPAC-related > pressure (using AIPAC as a symbol for a network of forces that include > AIPAC.) The neocon elements have been sufficient so far to obstruct a deal. > Of course there are obstructions on the Iranian side but political activists > in the United States are not responsible for that. I think 1) Hagel's ascent > to Secretary of Defense will be useful in its own right; that is not a one > zero; Gates was also opposed to an attack on Iran; so are a lot of people at > the Pentagon; but Hagel will be a more potent ally than Gates was 2) the > battle over Hagel is a proxy for other battles. I agree with you that if the > Hagel nomin! ation is derailed, it doesn't mean the end of Administration efforts to reach a deal. But it would be a significant setback, in part because the Iranians know what we know, so Obama's ability to defeat the AIPAC forces politically in his second term - as he largely failed to do in his first term - is a marker of whether the Iranians see him as able to deliver on a deal. Obama's defeat by Netanyahu on the settlement freeze wasn't the end of US efforts to promote Israeli-Palestinian peace. But it was a significant setback. > > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Marv Gandall <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 ad! mi! > 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 > > > > -- > 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
