Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiWhat Kissinger Said: "I Do Not Believe That We Can Make Conditions"
Jim Lehrer missed an opportunity last night to help clarify for people watching the debate what is in dispute between Democrats like Barack Obama and Republicans like John McCain about U.S. policy towards Iran. For the record, this is what McCain adviser and former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said about U.S. policy towards Iran, according to the transcript on CNN's website:
"I am in favor of negotiating with Iran.... I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations."
This was at an event with five former U.S. Secretaries of State, three Republicans (Kissinger, Powell, and Baker) and two Democrats (Christopher and Albright.) All five agreed that the U.S. should negotiate with Iran, without preconditions.
What "without preconditions" means in this context is quite straightforward and well-known. The current policy of the Bush Administration has been that the United States will not enter into substantive talks with Iran unless Iran first agrees to suspend the enrichment of uranium. The five former U.S. Secretaries of State agreed that this was a mistake, and that the United States should drop this precondition for the beginning of talks.
Our former Ambassador to the United Nations Thomas Pickering, who has spent much of his adult life being paid by the United States government to be an expert on diplomacy, put it this way in an interview earlier this year:
"Certainly, there's been a lot of suspicion of Iran, I join in being concerned about Iran's nuclear program, I don't dismiss that at all, it's serious. But I think asking for a price to open talks is not a feasible way to get the conversation going, and it was not the posture of the United States when it opened talks with North Korea...my own feeling is that with Iran we should start talks with Iran without preconditions."
It's John McCain's position - the neoconservative position - that is the outlier. And besides electioneering, there's only one plausible, logical explanation for the McCain-neoconservative position: they don't want an agreement between the United States and Iran. What they fear is not that talks would be useless, but that they might be productive.
After all, as everybody knows, if the U.S. seriously pursued talks and the talks failed, it would be a huge propaganda victory for the United States. "See," the United States could say. "We tried."
What the neoconservatives are afraid of is that there might actually be an agreement, and that an agreement would acknowledge and accept Iran's status and interests in the region. Then the neocons would have to give up their fantasies of "regime change" in Iran and "roll back" of Iranian influence.
The neoconservatives are married to the precondition of suspension of enrichment because they believe it is a deal-breaker for the Iranian side. There is an overwhelming consensus of Iranian public opinion that Iran has and must exercise the right to its own nuclear energy program. This consensus includes every political faction with significant influence in the country's politics. So, if your real goal is to prevent any agreement between the United States and Iran, insisting that Iran abandon its nuclear program (which is how Iranians interpret the U.S. demand) as a precondition for talks is an excellent policy.
There is a proposal on the floor that would meet U.S. concerns about the future capacity of Iran to use nuclear technology for a weapons program while satisfying the demand of Iranian public opinion for an Iranian nuclear energy program. That is Ambassador Pickering's proposal for multilateral enrichment in Iran, with full transparency and vigorous inspections. This week in New York Iranian officials restated Iran's willingness to negotiate on such a proposal.
That is what is in dispute. Do we want four more years - or even eight more years - of confrontation with Iran in a McCain-Palin Administration pursuing the neoconservative policies of the early Bush Administration, or do we want to seriously pursue negotiations that could lead to an agreement that would help stabilize the whole Middle East, significantly facilitating U.S. withdrawal from Iraq and promoting stability in Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Ambassador Pickering explains his proposal.
14 Comments so far
Show All"Jim Lehrer missed an opportunity last night to help clarify for people watching the debate what is in dispute between Democrats like Barack Obama and Republicans like John McCain about U.S. policy towards Iran."
What? Jim Lehrer was the moderator, not the person with the answers. He was supposed to spur the debate, not settle it.
Maybe, just maybe, it's up to the American people to dig out the facts and figure it out. But wait, that means a little intellectual rigor and debate of our own. Never mind.
You want to have your GOP cake and eat it too.
Give the people what they want capitalism and mass-consumerism like a crack addiction, but you expect all these hamburger flippers whose low socio-economic status was "written in the stars" to educate themselves on compex issues in spite of the fact that corporate-run media refuse to cover the real news.
Get real buddy. Most Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 911.
McCain's been around so long saying the same thing year after year, so it is clealy up to Obama to get the truth out. If Obama doesn't risk talking truth to power he will fail us all. Then again, when or if the masses of ignorant Americans finally hear Obama speak "the truth", they will not recognize it. Thus, the crux of the matter, win an election or let it all out? If Obama's chances slip hopelessly lower, he should let everybody have it.
Didn't this group of people also say we need to eliminate all nuclear weapons as well? That sure didn't come up at the debate.
Who cares? They both lie about statements Ahmadinejad has made (Wipe Israel off the map!?! When will this lie die?) And, following the lead of the Neo-cons, both of them bizarrely paint Iran as our enemy. Who cares about the subtle differences between them?
"Who cares about the subtle differences between them?"
I care. I care because those "subtle differences" can mean the difference between sane policy and, well...not. I also care because Obama can do nuance, McCain cannot. Apparently, there are others here, there, and everywhere, who don't do nuance.
"I don't do nuance." G.W. Bush
I hear you.. there is a definite element of either: they really don't know what the reality is/ facts on the ground ( and yeah, I know that Ahmanijihad never made those statements- do THEY know that.. ?).. do they think that " we" need some common external enemy? do they think that we are incapable or grasping the truth? Are they dancing to an invisible player ( ya think?:)..
but- there are a few subtleties.. as minor as they may seem.. that may make all the difference in the world. having briefly been a teacher in the public schools.. i can with absolute experience say that change is painfully slow..
so- take the best option given in the moment.. and keep slouching toward bethlehem.. working for grassroots change with third parties and accountability/transparency as well as civic involvement/ education.. ( and that's real education, not multi-media conditioning;)
it can happen.. I believe that...
but then I have bernie sanders and pat leahy in my corner:)
Diplomacy would be a great improvement but we sure don't want to listen to anyone who might have a few bones of their own to chew. Diplomacy would show us that we are not always right about everything. If this administration will not tolerate disagreement with its citizens it will not tolerate disagreement with foreign nations.
agreed on the bottom-up theory.. I argue that on many points. but.. arguing quantum approach.. change the paradigm anywhere in the loop and it will/can/should then express itself at other levels as well.
meaning- if we have leaders that are able and willing to tolerate disagreement, and profess the absolute importance of discussion and the ability to listen- even with those to whom we disagree..
maybe.. just maybe.. it will introduce the possibility to the populace where the idea might grow and bear fruit.
we as a culture are intolerant and we do not work through our differences.. this paradigm hasn't served us, at the personal level, the national level or the global level... are we capable of change....? There are many ways to approach and perceive the world and people around us.. Are we capable of adapting, evolving, and growing? Biologically and anthropologically we are hard-wired to be able to evolve.. we have made it this far. So, the question becomes: will we continue to evolve, or are we a dead end that doesn't have much longer to enjoy our time on the planet.. however that end might come..
this administration is not capable of adapting, flexibility or change.. .. I don't think Mc cain is capable of this. obama- I think there is that possibility..
which is better than a certainty against.
President Palin, drawing upon her vast foreign policy experience, described those who would sit down and talk to Iran as "naïve".
Sound familiar?
Why should the author expect Jim Lehrer to bring up Kissinger when this pathetic debate was sponsored by Exxon ? Besides, both candidates are owned by AIPAC lock stock and barrel.
Our conditions mean nothing to Israel and five former secretaries can't penetrate our Israeli occupied Congress.
Hoa binh
It sounds like Kissinger and both presidential nominee's agree that we should negotiate with Iran...if one actually pays attention. Negotiations at a low level of government are a good way to get an idea of what both sides are trying to achieve. I do not think Mcain or Obama would oppose this type of start to talks.
The point is, McCain said very clearly - twice - that Kissinger never said that the president should negotiate without precondition. Obama asserted - twice - that indeed, that is what Kissinger had said.
McCain is a liar or he is senile...or both. But let's never fear, he will have Sara Palin to back him up.
on talking with world leaders- pre-conditions...
stand up already and fight back. the democrats don't seem to have a good strategy for responding-- they just defend and cringe. STOP taking every attack on the jaw. Instead- ask.. okay.. what is the issue.. and why is this a good or bad thing..? keep going back to the issue and work from there!
here- want a metaphor that the general public can grasp?
When a student misbehaves.. you don't send him to talk to the secretary.. you send him to the principals office! would I talk with world leaders without pre-conditions? Absolutely! these are the ones who need the talking-to more than those who are behaving!
why is the idea of talking to a world leader any different? the republicans make every democratic/ progressive idea sound naive, dangerous and extreme.. bring the idea back to them and make THEM look like they don't get it..
yes talk to world leaders, even the disliked ones. concede the valid points but hold them to what is unjustified.
1- we are the world leader ( justified or not).. we need to lead, not play popularity contests. leading means that we need to step up to the plate, and like our judicial system- EVERYONE deserves their day in court, to be heard. ( another talking point anyone should be able to grasp and relate to).
the alternative is the US as bully and tyrant- where we become that which we oppose. If we want to promote democracy in other countries ( we need to practice it even with those countries- another viable talking point).
hell- who cares if talking to them is about reprimands or honest genuine discussion that needs to happen ( US needs to stop being such a damn bully and tyrant! There is a reason the rest of the world hates us..
Turn these points to your/ our favour please.. or the republicans will be red.. out for blood-red.