Discussion for article #235817
Though the participants know the emails with be published (edited only to prune out missing words or particularly strained grammar)
Just wanted to point that out, will now go back and read the whole exchange…(sorry Josh, had to do it!)
Shorter Frum: There is nothing to learn from Iraq because just by thinking about it we are repeating the mistakes of those who learned the “lessons of Munich.” Which of course means we are avoiding learning lessons because we learned the lesson that learning lessons can be catastrophic. Best to let perfection be the enemy of the good.
Those arguing that we need to keep the pressure of sanctions seem to ignore the fact that the sanctions now have a sell-by date. After which, other countries will drop them unless the Iranians do something stupid.
Finally, I love the argument that reaching an agreement gives us a false sense of security. The alternative, of course, is absolutely no sense of security and an increased probability that Iran builds a bomb in the near future.
24 Likes
Great stuff @Josh_M. I really like this new concept and look forward to more like these.
12 Likes
Strongly on Josh’s side here, but I want to say I enjoy this debating format a lot and hope to see more of it in the future.
10 Likes
One thing that makes me shake my head is that in all the noise coming out of Netanyahu no mention is made that Israel has the bomb - built sneakily. Somehow that is NOT an issue. People here are so afraid of criticising Israel. Well, the Iranians when going for the bomb made one argument among themselves: “we will be taken seriously”. We are dealing with a country that was an established middle eastern power years ago: when there was no United States and no Israel. It might be worth our to have someone give us an account the West and its activities in the Middle East as seen from Teheran. Might be useful to get an Iranian guest to “talk” to us. And don’t look for the usual gasbags in the Washington “think” tanks. Start with the overthrow of the first elected Prime Minister Mossedagh, look at our antics with the Shah. That is where you will find the simmering anger against the US taking root. One will also be surprised at the number of pro-American voices that can be found in Teheran. And look, too, at the Sunni - Shiite divide. That is a far more important issue concerning stability in that part of the world than the Israel-Arab divide. Of course, from Jerusalem most Israelis may not share that view. But over a hundred million people are involved in the confrontation. That should give us pause. A final point: there will be no unrestricted access: Iran will not wear that. They too have their limits.
7 Likes
I enjoyed this and hope to see more of these discussions.
Maybe after June 30, a David Frum-Steve Clemons matchup?
2 Likes
Don’t forget the influence of Saudi Arabia, who is actually most threatened (economically) by Iran. We kiss their behinds at every opportunity, no matter the manifestations of their backward, militaristic theocracy.
7 Likes
Great format. What a pleasant way to get two opposing viewpoints with the putting of words to “paper” allowing the “debaters” the luxury of review and edit. Always a more rational way to have a conversation than those one sees on the absurd talking heads TV shows.
As to the meat of this discussion, Josh and Frum (one first name, one last name, perhaps my biases are showing through) present the Iran conversation as most right - left conversation tends to go: optimism vs. pessimism. I’ll take optimism any time. I, like Josh, tend to think that the Iranians aren’t the irrational players that those on the right often portray. And who knows what positive changes can occur over 15 or 20 years in Iran. Imagine a generation of Iranian’s coming of age for whom “the great satan” moniker for the US is relegated to the trash heap of history. I’d be happy to settle for a good deal in lieu of the perfect deal. It’s time bellicosity wasn’t our only calling card.
13 Likes
Agree with others in that this new format is great, and a welcome addition to TPM’s offerings. Hope to see it continue and expand in the future.
I also agree with what others have stated upthread about some crucial dynamics that are part of the realpolitik which are missing in Frum’s formulations. Not only our less than honest dealings with Iran going back to the Eisenhower administration onward which touch on the rhetorical question of ‘who are the honest actors here?’, to say nothing about how it smacks of a very paranoid and flawed premise that even a nuclear-armed Iran is inherently an existential threat to Israel (much less the United States)… on to the more and very real “sell by” date problem that dv01 mentions. That problem being the fact that effective sanctions will have an end whether we choose to end it or not via this framework/deal deal. That is totally absent from Mr. Frum’s calculus and rebuttals which, to my mind, are fatal to almost all of his arguments about our ability to get a better deal down the road if we walk away from this framework deal.
If out of maximalist caprice, or I would argue hawkish demagoguery, we walk away from this framework there is a highly likely outcome that China and/or Russia will end sanctions for their own self interests. In that case what we all agree brought Iran to the table to actually negotiate, effective sanctions, go out the window.
I would add that the attempts to introduce ballistic missiles into the argument smack of lame attempts to throw sand into the gears and into the eyes of the readers. This deal was never about, and never will be about, ballistic missiles. This is about stoping development of a nuclear device(s), not about missile delivery systems. Major demerits on Frum for trying to play that bogus card.
So on balance I see no real substance to back up Frum’s overarching position, even though some of his concerns are valid as far was what Mephistopheles minutia are in a final deal which still remain to be seen. In particular, about what level and breadth of snap inspection access IAEA inspectors would have? That is the crucial fulcrum in my opinion upon which to assess whether this deal is a good one or not.
9 Likes
So if I understand David Frum’s argument clearly, no deal is preferable to a deal that is not perfect, in which we get our entire wish list and Iran gets none of theirs?
This is the world of the authoritarian, who believes that progress only occurs when we control everything, and anything less is weakness and capitulation. Unfortunately, this is not what is considered to be diplomacy, and it certainly does not describe the real world. This is the fantasia of the neocon.
If nothing else, we could require that our allies comply with the same rules that we wish to impose on our perceived enemies. That would be progress.
14 Likes
From Frum’s last response:
The administration has told members of Congress that Iran may receive an immediate cash infusion of between $30 billion and $50 billion for signing the deal.
So I start thinking, that is pretty generous, and it’s a hefty chunk of our money. Then I investigate further, and find out it is actually Iran’s money, which we have frozen in accounts:
So technically, David Frum did not lie in his statement. But he did attempt to deceive. Goddamn conservative.
9 Likes
It’s what they do best.
Excellent. Love this format. I’m looking forward to more of it. Frum’s argument didn’t change my mind one bit. I’m with Josh on this.
1 Like
It’s clear from that exchange that Josh’s pro-agreement argument is based on rational thinking while Frum’s anti-agreement argument amounts to nothing more than fear-mongering and paranoia-driven anti-Obama, anti-Iran rhetoric.
2 Likes
Sure, there are over $100 billion in Iranian funds that were frozen. It’s their money.
President Obama confirmed to the New York Times’ Thomas Friedman that the inspections agreed under the deal will not be go anywhere/anytime inspections.
Ok, I went ahead and clicked on Frum’s link to the Friedman piece in the New York Times, because that just didn’t sound right, and sure enough, Frum is lying.
From the Freidman piece:
For instance, if we suspect that Iran is cheating, is harboring a covert nuclear program outside of the declared nuclear facilities covered in this deal — say, at a military base in southeastern Iran — do we have the right to insist on that facility being examined by international inspectors?
“In the first instance, what we have agreed to is that we will be able to inspect and verify what’s happening along the entire nuclear chain from the uranium mines all the way through to the final facilities like Natanz,” the president said. “What that means is that we’re not just going to have a bunch of folks posted at two or three or five sites. We are going to be able to see what they’re doing across the board, and in fact, if they now wanted to initiate a covert program that was designed to produce a nuclear weapon, they’d have to create a whole different supply chain. That’s point number one. Point number two, we’re actually going to be setting up a procurement committee that examines what they’re importing, what they’re bringing in that they might claim as dual-use, to determine whether or not what they’re using is something that would be appropriate for a peaceful nuclear program versus a weapons program. And number three, what we’re going to be doing is setting up a mechanism whereby, yes, I.A.E.A. [International Atomic Energy Agency] inspectors can go anyplace.”
Anywhere in Iran? I asked.
“That we suspect,” the president answered. “Obviously, a request will have to be made. Iran could object, but what we have done is to try to design a mechanism whereby once those objections are heard, that it is not a final veto that Iran has, but in fact some sort of international mechanism will be in place that makes a fair assessment as to whether there should be an inspection, and if they determine it should be, that’s the tiebreaker, not Iran saying, ‘No, you can’t come here.’ So over all, what we’re seeing is not just the additional protocols that I.A.E.A. has imposed on countries that are suspected of in the past having had problematic nuclear programs, we’re going even beyond that, and Iran will be subject to the kinds of inspections and verification mechanisms that have never been put in place before.”
(emphasis mine)
Really bad move to try and bullshit us and outright lie Mr. Frum.
11 Likes
Add my endorsement of this format to the others.
Frum did raise one point that gave me pause. His description of Obama’s negotiating style when dealing with Iran reminded me of his tactics when trying to find compromise with Republicans in domestic matters. Of course I’m hopeful he has learned that lesson and applies it on both fronts.
This is narcissistic to a surreal degree. This is not the US and Iran - it is the P5+1negotiating with Iran. Of the P5, France has, at least by news reports, been on the hard line. Why I do not fully understand, I would like to see a qualified discussion / explanation of its position. Russia has a certain sensitivity to having nuclear powers on its border. None of the other five has an interest in a Middle East nuclear arms race occurring, and they are rather closer to the situation than we are.
Leaving aside JM’s arguments on excessive activism, I think there is an argument beyond that of "if we walk away, the other powers will drop sanctions. Let’s expand it to: if the other powers involved feel the putative agreement is satisfactory, why does DF disagree about the utility of the putative agreement? Are their views so pro-Iranian? I would argue that the other five have rather more direct national security interests here than we do, and they are not shy people.
7 Likes
I will never understand the undying hostility of our political class to Iran. We overthrew their democratically elected government, stuck them under a brutal dictatorship (the Shah) for a couple of generations, then act surprised that when they finally liberated themselves from that regime, they don’t like us.
Iran is a big power in its immediate area, but just an impoverished middle class power in world affairs, if that. We’re the world dominating military super power. Why are we so obsessed with this gnat?
5 Likes