Matt Stoller posted the following from The Jewish Week:
Obama Wants Divestment Issue For His Own
With Jewish campaign money more critical than ever and Jewish votes potentially important in a handful of key states, most of the 2008 presidential candidates are trying to carve out pro-Israel positions they can call their own.
Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) has latched on to the burgeoning effort to increase the economic pressure on Iran through divestment. But Obama's strong effort on behalf of a major divestment bill is being thwarted by an unnamed Republican senator - and Obama forces say the real culprit is the Bush White House.
The controversy involves the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2007, which would require companies with more than $20 million invested in Iran's energy industry to divest those funds. The measure would also make it easier for state and local governments to purge their own portfolios of Iran investments.
Obama Continues the Drumbeat for War with Iran
Matt's comment: "With the neoconservatve elites pushing for war with Iran, moves like this are unbelievably dangerous. If I were an Obama supporter, I'd be quite furious, an I'd give his campaign a piece of my mind."
Matt Yglesias linked to Stoller's piece with the comment:
Stoller's right -- this kind of thing is not endearing me to Barack Obama.
Neither Stoller nor Yglesias actually explained (at least in any detail) their negative take on Obama's initiative. Commentors on both sites argued that Obama, in this case, is actually trying to prevent a war, believing that sanctions should be given a chance first before using the military option. Indeed all the Democratic front runners endorse something along these lines - 'keep the threat of force on the table and try negotiations or sanctions first.
So, what's not to like about this consensus view of the Democrats? Why would Stoller and Yglesias be negative?
Stoller seems to suggest that, given the rising Neo-con calls for exercising the military option, calls for sanctions and so forth just give more impetus for war despite the fact that they are meant to avoid or at least postpone war. But in that case, Obama is hardly unique - the Democrats have lined up behind every piece of anti-Iran legislation that has come down the pike - even going on record that Bush does not even have to ask them prior to any attack.
A sample:
House Dems indicate they are more united on Iran legislation
97 Sheeple In A Big Room
For me, the problem exemplified in Obama's approach to the 'Iranian threat' is that calls for sanctions, tough diplomacy and so forth are just different points on the same continuum with calls for massive air strikes - they are all premised on the idea that Iran poses a grave threat to the US, Europe or Israel.
In my view, the idea that Iran is a threat in the sense of current received opinion is preposterous. Let me outline my reasons for believing this.
Iranian Nuclear program August 2007
From Reuters:
Iran's uranium enrichment programme is operating well below capacity and is far from producing nuclear fuel in significant amounts, according to a confidential U.N. nuclear watchdog report obtained by Reuters.
Iran struck a transparency deal with the International Atomic Energy Agency on August 21 to answer questions about the nature of its programme which Iran says is aimed purely at electricity production.
"The work plan is a significant step forward," said the IAEA safeguards report, but it stressed resolving current issues was not enough to give Iran's nuclear work a clean bill of health.
IAEA says Iran atom work at slow pace
This is confirmed in the NY Times albeit with a misleading headline:
The International Atomic Energy Agency said in its report that Iran was being unusually cooperative and had reached an agreement with the agency to answer questions about an array of suspicious past nuclear activities that have led many nations to suspect it harbors a secret effort to make nuclear arms. The agency added that while Tehran’s uranium enrichment effort is growing, the output is far less than experts had expected.
"This is the first time Iran is ready to discuss all the outstanding issues which triggered the crisis in confidence," Mohamed ElBaradei, the I.A.E.A. director general, said in an interview. "It’s a significant step."
Report Showing Rise in Iran’s Nuclear Activity Exposes Split Between U.S. and U.N.
At a minimum, this shows that the Iranian nuclear program is not a iminent threat to anyone. There is no 'Nuclear holocaust' coming anytime soon.
Iran and Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iran has a great deal of experience with weapons of mass destruction - from the receiving end. In the 1980's, seeking to exploit the perceived disorganization of the Islamic republic Saddam Hussein invaded Iran. According to the entry on Wikipedia:
"Tens of thousands of Iranian civilians and military personnel were killed when Iraq used chemical weapons in its warfare. Iraq was financially backed by Egypt, the Arab countries of the Persian Gulf, the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact states, the United States (beginning in 1983), France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Brazil, and the People's Republic of China (which also sold weapons to Iran). All of these countries provided intelligence, agents for chemical weapons as well as other forms of military assistance to Saddam Hussein [citation needed]. Iran's principal allies during the war were Syria, Libya, and North Korea.
With more than 100,000 Iranian victims[66] of Iraq's chemical weapons during the eight-year war, Iran is the world's second-most afflicted country by weapons of mass destruction— second only to Japan. The total Iranian casualties of the war were estimated to be anywhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000. Almost all relevant international agencies have confirmed that Saddam engaged in chemical warfare to blunt Iranian human wave attacks; these agencies unanimously confirmed that Iran never used chemical weapons during the war."
Secondly, it is the official position of the Iranian government that the development of weapons of mass destruction is forbidden on religious grounds:
Led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the nation's "supreme leader," Iranian clerics have repeatedly declared that Islam forbids the development and use of all weapons of mass destruction.
"The Islamic Republic of Iran, based on its fundamental religious and legal beliefs, would never resort to the use of weapons of mass destruction," Khamenei said recently. "In contrast to the propaganda of our enemies, fundamentally we are against any production of weapons of mass destruction in any form."
Nuclear weapons unholy, Iran says Islam forbids use, clerics proclaim,
Personally, I agree with the Israeli military historian Martin van Creveld.
The world has witnessed how the United States attacked Iraq for, as it turned out, no reason at all. Had the Iranians not tried to build nuclear weapons, they would be crazy.
Sharon on the warpath : Is Israel planning to attack Iran?
A Nuclear Iran
What kind of threat would that pose? And to whom?
Attack the USA?: No country could launch a first strike on the US that did not wish to commit simultaneous collective suicide. There is simply no empirical evidence to impute this kind of irrationality to the Iranians.
Our Vital Interests?: What is said more often is that a nuclear Iran would be a threat to our 'vital interests' in the region. Of course that is true since a nuclear Iran would probably be immune from forcible regime change. In other words, the idea is that an Iran that can defend itself is a threat to our 'vital interests'. If indeed our 'vital interests' require regime change in Tehran, then why not spell out exactly what those interests are?
An Existential Threat to Israel?: It is the view of our 'foreign policy elite' that a nuclear Iran poses an 'existential threat' to the state of Israel. Israel, has one of top five armies in the world and is the beneficiary of high tech military technology from the US taxpayer. It has an advanced and (illegal) nuclear program with the means to deliver a nuclear attack. If a nuclear Iran is an existential threat, to Israel, then the entire concept of deterrence is apparently no longer operative. 9/11 really did change everything! Of course one inference from this premise has been drawn by Bzezinski (via Matt Yglesias)
Zbigniew Brzezinski at the conference says the US and Israel should try to put their demands for Iranian disarmament in the context of support for a regional nuclear-free zone (i.e., Israeli nuclear disarmament). After all, he says, if we're supposed to believe that Israel's nuclear arsenal isn't a sufficient deterrent to ensure Israeli security in the face of Iran's nuclear program, then it obviously isn't a very valuable asset.
:
Of course, no one in Washington or Tel Aviv is interested in a nuclear free zone in the Middle East. On the contrary, a demilitarized ME would prevent deals like this one:
U.S.: No strings attached to new defense package for Israel
And the same package will send significant amounts of military aid to Saudi Arabia and other 'friendly' Arab countries.
Mad dog Ahmadinejad: We often hear that Ahmadinejad is the moral equivalent of Hitler etc., That the president of Iran is not the commander in chief and cannot launch a war without Clerical approval apparently counts for nothing. Nor does the fact that the translation of his statements re: wiping Israel off the map have been continuously revised. The fullest account of the matter can be found here:
Caught Red-Handed: Media Backtracks on Iran's 'Threat'
And yet suddenly, after all this hoopla, at least two of the biggest media titans, the BBC and the Associated Press, appear to be backing away from the incorrect "wiped off the map" quotation they've been drilling into people's minds for so long. It's happening quietly and undemonstratively, but some recent subtle changes in their presentation indicate a tacit acknowledgment of their previous misreporting
The fact of the matter is that the whole Ahmadinejad obsession is a red-herring. We now know that Iran approached the US through Switzerland in 2003.
Iran offered 'to make peace with Israel
This has been confirmed by Flynt Leverett former Administration official confirms "Iran's offer to negotiate a comprehensive "grand bargain" with the United States in the spring of 2003.", in which all the issues were 'on the table', including Israel/Palestine. This was when Khatami was president.
Flynt Leverett Blasts White House National Security Council Censorship of Former White House Officials Critical of Bush Policies
He writes about how this opening was rejected outright:
My understanding is that the White House staffers who have injected themselves into this process are working for Elliott Abrams and Megan O'Sullivan, both politically appointed deputies to President Bush's National Security Adviser, Stephen Hadley.
Their conduct in this matter is despicable and un-American in the profoundest sense of that term. I am also deeply disappointed that former colleagues at the Central Intelligence Agency have proven so supine in the face of tawdry political pressure. Intelligence officers are supposed to act better than that.
Nuclear Terrorism? Finally, it is said that a nuclear Iran would possibly give a weapon to stateless terrorists to carry out a proxy nuclear attack on the US, Europe or Israel. In this regard it is worth reading Charles Pena's piece:
Indeed, if deterring U.S.-imposed regime change is one of the primary incentives for certain countries to pursue nuclear weapons, giving them away to terrorists would be counterproductive and more likely to invite the very action the regime seeks to avert.
Overall, a regime would have to have suicidal tendencies to engage in such risky behavior – yet while individual fanatics may sometimes be willing to commit suicide for a cause, prominent political leaders rarely display that characteristic.
So while the logic of the enemy of my friend is my enemy has popular appeal, the reality is that there are clear and significant disincentives for any regime to simply give away a nuclear weapon to a terrorist group.
Defusing Nuclear Hysteria
I would like to conclude by making it absolutely clear that my belief that the Iranian threat is mainly hype, does not entail that I approve of the internal policies of the Islamic Republic.
UPDATE
Not surprisingly both Stoller and Yglesias answered their critics, and their views are completely different than mine.
Both Matt's believe that both 'a reduction of tensions' and a 'carrots and sticks' approach to the 'problem' are the order of the day. But as Reagan said: "Trust and verify" or whatever. I may have missed some nuance.
Matt Stoller: Read the Update
Matt Yglesias: Obama and Iran, Redux