Unless I am mistaken, Benjamin Netanyahu basically wants Congress to trash any deal with Iran because he had a revelatory vision of an alternate universe where Iran gives up everything and asks for nothing in return. Never mind that no one has the faintest idea what could persuade Iran to join a deal that removes every scrap of dual-use material from their borders. Sanctions have long since passed the point of diminishing returns and war is the exclusive domain of John Bolton-level nuts who think they mastered the universe when they learned how to cheat at Risk. Forcing Iran to surrender every scrap of uranium, give itself wedgies and change its name to Nickelbackistan sounds like a fun plan if you’re tabletop gaming with a generous ref, but the real world alternative to Obama’s deal is not a nuke-free Iran. The only real alternative is the previous status quo plus ratcheting tensions that push Iranian hard-liners inexorably towards a nuclear arsenal. The more war looks like the west’s single and only plan the more Iran will see nukes (correctly) as its only plausible deterrent.
This strategy of spiking a clear improvement for the sake of a perfect yet imaginary alternative, it seems spiteful yet oddly familiar. What was it again? Give me a minute. I am sure it will come to me.
Betty Cracker
“Nickelbackistan” — my god, man! How cruel! Surely there are Geneva Conventions precluding such a horror?
ETA: I agree with every word you wrote. What. Is. The. Alternative?
Schlemazel
It’s really simple. Tell Iran that they give up everything or we nuke them into oblivion. That is the way he want’s it to be. Then we can nuke Iraq and Syria and Egypt if we have to. Its really very very easy and you know everyone else in the world will be okey-dokey with this and there are no moral dilemmas or lasting repercussions from dropping several hundred megatons on nuclear weapons on the Middle East. Easy-peasy
trollhattan
At this point fingers toes and whatever else crossed that Likud are sent packing in the forthcoming election. Surely a large cohort of Israelis are sick and tired of his act and actions?
piratedan
sounds like the GOP and the Likudniks have come up a new foriegn policy that is basically comprised of reelpollytick… after all, it’s worked with the US Media, throw enough money at it and it will parrot whatever you want it to…. yet somehow methinks that foriegn powers are not exactly running under the same protocols that US media does.
Samuel Knight
Bibi has about as much credibility as O’Reilly. He was one of the cheerleaders for the Iraq War, and now wants us to start a war with Iran.
And unfortunately, by choosing to publicly spit on an American President, Bibi has started a break with the US. It’s not going to happen now, but as time passes and fewer Americans are born-again, fewer and fewer will care whether Israel is “right” about its fights in the Middle East. And many will ask: Is it in the US national interests to be tied to one actor in this very dangerous part of the world?
JPL
Why are the repubs in Congress allowing a leader of a foreign nation to dictate our policy? Is this what them mean by American exceptionalism? They outsourced everything else, so why not.
Belafon
There are so many, I can’t figure out exactly which one you’re talking about. Though it’s also getting on into the afternoon and the cries of “when will work end” are starting to overtake other processes.
Belafon
@JPL: Because if they can’t control the president, they’ll find one they agree with.
For all their talk about upholding the constitution, they really will burn it in order to get their way.
KG
I saw somewhere that Bibi said that Iran and ISIS are two sides of the same coin, that they both have regional and world domination on their to do list. Which seems strange because I don’t really remember Iran attempting to invade other countries. Sure, within Iran it’s not a free pluralistic open society, but the Taliban they ain’t.
Also, why doesn’t anyone point out that acquiring nuclear weapons is very much a rational goal for Iran? They have a regional power (Israel) constantly engaged in saber rattling, they have a strained relationship (being generous) with the world’s lone super power, who in the last decade invaded and deposed two countries bordering Iran. One thing we know is that countries with nuclear weapons don’t get invaded because nuclear weapons are the ultimate deterrent. And of course actually using nuclear weapons will turn everyone against you.
Gin & Tonic
Why does Israel get to have nuclear weapons and nobody else in the neighborhood does?
trollhattan
@KG:
Not to mention we presently have the very curious spectacle of Iran in Iraq participating in the fight to take Tikrit back from ISIS, which means they are fighting in tandem, if not in coordination with the American advisers working with the Iraqi Army.
These are odd times and if we need to form odd alliances we don’t need Bibi and his idiot friends throwing rocks in the gears.
kindness
I’d settle for just plain Nickelbackistan. How humiliating.
Temporarily Max McGee (soon enough to be Andy K again)
@KG:
Don’t forget that on Iran’s eastern border is a nuclear-armed state whose overwhelming majority is Sunni.
Linnaeus
@KG:
Because that would suggest that other nations have legitimate security interests and that they’ve observed how other nations, particularly the ones who have nuclear weapons, have pursued their own security interests.
Tim F.
@KG: Iran actually is trying to dominate the middle east, but Persians had worked out the science of soft power before Columbus discovered the new world. They prefer to use violence by proxy, mostly to destabilize unfriendly governments and provide an under the table diplomatic bargaining chip. Sadr’s crew and the people Nouri al-Maliki ran with before we invaded Iraq served exactly the same purpose as Hezbollah. I don’t think Iran has any interest in Persian troops marching around like the ISIS idiots. Their long term plan has more to do with displacing every heavy-hitting counterweight to their influence through other means (thanks dubya!) and then then wearing down the autonomy of all the other nearby governments until the Persian sphere of influence evolves naturally into something like the Warsaw Pact.
catclub
@Belafon:
Paraphrase of A. Lincoln, 1837.
Chris
… but if they do all that, Likudniks and Republicans will still be telling us that we can’t trust them and have to go to war with them anyway because they just must be hiding something. We saw how this worked out in Iraq. Demand unilateral disarmament, then invade anyway.
catclub
@trollhattan: Ask Bibi to choose between Assad and ISIS and he favors ISIS. All he has is rocks for those gears.
smintheus
Good points. Also worth mentioning what Iranians see but Americans never discuss: Israel is a much greater threat to Iran than Iran is to Israel. So by Bibi’s line of argument, shouldn’t the US be taking any measures necessary to disarm Israel of its nuclear weapons?
another Holocene human
@KG: Iran also has to worry about India and Pakistan. Although Iraq did present an object lesson in the hazards of trusting the United States. Nuclear maybe buys a lot of respect it seems.
catclub
@Tim F.:
Turkey is not Persian, also not Arab. Saudi and Egypt will take a while to be worn down – centuries?
I think waiting for this to happen is safer than starting wars to stop it.
Linnaeus
@another Holocene human:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the Iranians found the cases of both Libya and North Korea to be instructive as well.
catclub
@smintheus:
I wonder if he will propose a verifiable disarmament of Israel’s nukes in exchange for Iran not developing nukes? … Oh, we cannot talk about those.
Chris
@KG:
In other words, the 2.0 of the 2002/2003 “the Taliban and al-Qaeda are our enemies, therefore we must invade Iraq” thing.
If I were Iran, I would very much be thinking about saying “screw the peace talks” and making a beeline for nuclear state status. The plain fact is that 1) the Republicans will never be okay with a treaty with Iran no matter how much Iran surrenders. Period. And 2) sooner or later, the Republicans are going to get back into power, and at that point, whatever concessions they’ve gotten from Obama will be off the table immediately.
Turgidson
@Chris:
I think that’s a less-reported but fairly explicit purpose of Bibi’s shenanigans and the GOP’s nonstop haranguing about the Iran talks. It’s a message to Iran that they might as well piss up a rope because any deal they strike will expire in January 2017* when the Kenyan Usurper leaves office.
*since the GOPers couldn’t accept that there was any possibility that Obama could win reelection until the moment Ohio was called on election night, I’m assuming they’re equally certain in their delusion that there’s no way Hillary…excuse me, Hitlery, can possibly win. Even with EmailGhazi (is this Hillary’s Katrina?), I think they’ll be drowning in tears of unfathomable sadness yet again in Nov. 2016.
Calouste
@Tim F.: Considering how much Persia/Iran have been batted around by the Russians, Brits and Americans over the last two centuries, they haven’t been particularly successful at using that soft power. There’s been at least 3 wars, 2 occupations, a coup and a war-by-proxy in that time. There is a reason they want a hard deterrent.
Bobby Thomson
@Linnaeus: also, too, because it would give up the game. The US has never invaded a nuclear state and doesn’t like to lose that opportunity. Ever.
Amir Khalid
@Betty Cracker:
Hey, at least it wasn’t “Creedistan” or “AirSupplyistan”.
If the ayatollahs want to make Iran a regional player, let them. I don’t see how they’d be any worse than the House of Saud, and the US doesn’t have the political influence to stop them anyway. If it plays reasonably fair with them, I reckon it can do some political business with them like with any regional power.
trollhattan
@Turgidson:
“Hitlery” Those crisp pantsuits look best in brown.
D58826
@Turgidson: actually the GOP isn’t waiting till 2017. Turtle is bring up legislation in the Senate that will require Obama get Congressional approval before implementing any agreement with Iran. While the Senate must approve any treaties I’m not sure what the legal status of this agreement with Iran would be. I also suspect that the agreement will require some money to implement it so Congress can veto that as well.
The GOP is totally invested in destroying Obama regardless of the collateral damage to the national interest. Didn’t the GOP sink a treat in 2009? One that was negotiated in part by various Republican presidents but would have been signed by Obama. And that would be a no-no.
Tim F.
@catclub:
True, but I think that Iran mostly has its eye on the area constrained by Turkey, Egypt, Pakistan and Turkmenistan as its likely sphere of influence. With Turkey in NATO and Pakistan in the nuclear club, those are beyond soft or hard influence. Egypt is an interesting case as the last major Arab power and I would be surprised if Iran were not trying to influence events there, though more on a peer level.
Saudi Arabia has a LOT of concern about Iran. Their Sunni monarchy has an awful lot of Shiites whose loyalties are often mixed at best. They are safe from a direct attack across the Gulf, at least as long as they keep pumping out that sweet crude, but Iran does not threaten governments that way. I guarantee Tehran keeps their internal security people up at night.
Turgidson
@D58826:
Good points. I imagine the administration will see if they can fashion an agreement with Iran as an executive order so as not to require approval by the poo-flingers in the Congress. This has been a controversial way for the presidency to bypass congressional votes on foreign agreements a few times in the past. And the head explosions that will result if Obama goes that route will be seen and heard from the moon.
I also think part of the reason it’s being negotiated with the 5+1 is so that an internationally-recognized agreement can be reached and executed even if the dipshits in the US Congress fuck things up stateside.
KG
@D58826: the president can sign a treaty without the senate ratifying it. Happens quite a bit. Typically we still perform our obligations under those treaties even without ratification.
D58826
@KG: True but if it hasn’t been ratified or Obama goes the executive order route then the next GOP president can walk away from it. It will make it harder to convince the Iranians that we will uphold our end of the bargain.
Remember Bush 43 walked away from the ABM treaty and ignored the Geneva conventions. All of which tells the world that America’s word isn’t worth a bucket of warm piss, to borrow a phrase.
boatboy_srq
@Schlemazel: Somebody among the Reichwing should recognize that to Likud in general and Bibi in particular, the US is nothing more than Israel’s sugar daddy and hit man.
boatboy_srq
@Turgidson:
Not so loud. The Reichwing will get the idea that catastrophic lesbian meteorology is a thing.
boatboy_srq
@D58826: Considering that the GOTea has no interest in ratifying treaties negotiated by Shrub now that the IslamoFascoSoshulist is in office, what additional hoops do they think they need? Oh, right, wingnuts and the Phantom Overreaching Presidential Menace. I forgot.
msdc
@Belafon:
The title of the post will give you a hint.
El Caganer
And if the Iran “crisis” didn’t exist, people might start to ask uncomfortable questions about the Palestinians. Not, of course, that that should deter us from our sworn oath to do whatever the Israeli government tells us to do.
Elie
@JPL:
JPL, this is pandering... Underneath many know the deal. They also know that it is NOT a personal thing between Bibi and the President. Israel and the US have divergent interests that will not be at all changed by this speechifying. The US is NOT going to execute a nuclear war against Iran OR station 500K troops on the ground in the ME for their little buddy Israel. Obama is being “the man” and doing the heavy lift of taking their heat, but most of the sane leadership, including Boehner, despite appearances, know the deal. Its kabuki — they have to play it out and pretend that they support Israel to pander to their right wing christianists. But trust me, no matter who is in the white house after Obama leaves, our path with Israel will continue to diverge. This divergence will put a lot of pressure on some of their current policies around settlements, etc. We will see how they handle it, but the US aint doing the ME army of occupation again — no matter what… We can’t afford it given its costs relative to its strategic benefit for us — which is much less than figuring out how to play in the economic battles with China and southeast Asia. This macro policy trend is not going to change no matter who is in the White House. Ideally, Israel should try to come to its senses and figure out what it can do to minimize its own vulnerabilities in the region that does not involve bombing the Palestinians or anyone else again. We will see if they “get it” this next election, but over time, they will have no choice but to “get it”.
Bill Arnold
@KG:
One reason it is not a rational goal for Iran is that it would spark a regional nuclear arms race, both with the Israelis and non-Shia/non-Persians. The Israelis might focus on ballistic missile defense, which is rational so long as opponent arsenals are small, which would not remain true for long.
End result would be a nuclear Israel with imperfect missile defense, Iran and Saudi Arabia with small nuclear arsenals pointed at each other and at Israel, with missile travel times measured in minutes. (Also, Pakistan is a potential wild card.)
The Iranians have long appeared to want a short breakout capability (ability to do the final enrichment and bomb assembly), plus enough uncertainty in whether or not they already have one or more nuclear devices to act as a deterrent.
(Yes, different interpretations are possible.)
Elie
@Elie:
Want to add a link to a very thorough analysis of this situation here.
Matt McIrvin
@Elie: I am concerned that that analysis assumes that the United States under some future administration will not go completely freaking insane. “The US must not do X” by no means implies “the US will not do X.”
Elie
@Matt McIrvin:
Understood that there is some variation.. That said, the US is not likely to go against its own self interest just to support Israel. We have a lot at stake in the economic arena in relation to our competition with China. How much is even a right wing crazy administration going to pay out to its detriment to do a land war in the ME when there is likelihood of more riches elsewhere? Of course there is always crazy, but the trajectory described in the article covers several administration and the direction was pretty clear — diverging interests with Israel over time and decreased cost benefit to sustain new adventures and commitments in the ME
Ruckus
@Elie:
I would agree in anything approaching a sane world. But a not insignificant portion of our political class is anything but sane. They have no understanding of history, of rights of nations, of the cost of war, of military force, need I go on? They want what they want and can be swayed with what amounts to shinny pennies and abstract bullshit. Actually that’s the only thing that does sway them. You can’t even argue with them, for they have no concept of reality.
Chris
@Matt McIrvin:
Yes. Building off of this, I’d like to point out that from the POV of most people outside of America, the U.S. has already gone completely freaking insane at least once in recent history, that being the Bush years.
The fact that a government would be insane enough to destroy an entire country, out of touch enough with the politics of the region and with its own interests to do it to one of the most tightly controlled anti-jihadist regimes in the Middle East, and megalomaniacal and ideologically blind enough to do absolutely no planning for the aftermath (to the point of ordering the previous planning scrapped) and to scrap the entire government while replacing it with absolutely nothing… and then spend the next three years resolutely pretending that nothing was going wrong and not changing strategy until the voters gave their party its worst kick in the ass in a generation…
… is more than just “wrong,” “ill-considered,” or “overreacting.” It’s absolute balls-to-the-wall fucking lunacy on an “invade Russia in the winter” level of crazy. And after over ten years of the results going from bad to worse, an enormous part of the population and the political class still doesn’t have a clue just how badly they screwed the pooch and is largely still applying the same mindset to the world around them.
“Of course, there is always crazy…” Yes. I’d be very wary of underestimating the level of crazy in this country.