I was kind of surprised at Lake's comment at the end. Where does a center-right view diverge from Miller's? Would it be more willing to assign blame to specific (Palestinian) actors than Miller, who just blames the circumstances?

Very interesting--send this one to Team Obama!

Quoting pampl: I was kind of surprised at Lake's comment at the end. Where does a center-right view diverge from Miller's? Would it be more willing to assign blame to specific (Palestinian) actors than Miller, who just blames the circumstances?

Why? Does it surprise you that well-informed people can be objective, instead of partisan hacks?

What a breath of fresh air to hear a diplomat speak, someone who actually knows something about international relations. His opening comments about being an impartial broker even if one prefers one side over the other should be inscribed in stone.

Quoting Francoamerican: Why? Does it surprise you that well-informed people can be objective, instead of partisan hacks?

A little bit, but mostly I was surprised by (what I took to be) Lake's implication that there's a big difference between the center-right opinion and Miller's.

Good job on the interview, Eli. I will definitely check out Aaron David's website, if only to hear who says "fuck" the most (Didn't Dick Cheney already win the foul language award when he went ballistic on Sen. Leahy?) Anyway, AD provided a lot of insight into the process, and wise advice to get the Syrian deal done first. The Gaza bloodbath, however, was a major setback to peace in the region, as can be judged by the Turkish PM's emotional meltdown in a meeting with Israeli President (and former PM) Peres last week. Turkey was brokering the Syrian talks. So much for that. I am glad AD did not take Eli's bait to demonize Arafat. Other than that lapse, though, Eli asked a lot of smart tough questions.

One of the 5 lawyers spoken about here, the American Evangelical Christian community, was the focus of a book by one of our diavloggers, Gershom Gorenberg. I can't remember it's title but I found it informative and liked it. John

I thought the opening statement by Mr. Miller that an honest broker needs to be true to the process, as opposed to the two sides, was very well put and something that resonates as truth to anyone who hears it. But there were many things that left me with more questions or plain disagreement. He says that Hamas cannot be negotiated with because it is not the de facto leader of the Palestinians. Well that's true, and Isreal and U.S. helped to make it that way. This then clearly shows that before anything can be done, the first thing is to get a unified Palestinian voice that can speak for its people and have its decisions respected. But this isn't even on the list of the musts that Mr. Miller says must be done for peace. I'm confused by that disconnect. It makes me think that his thought process is similar to those who continue to get us in this mess: that we should negotiate with Syria or use whatever other means and make back room deals to impose the will of the Isrealis on what

Also, I haven't read the book so I'll put a disclaimer on the following, but I found Mr. Miller's self-blame for 2000 Camp David way too grandeur and misplaced.

I am just happy to see the myth of the "great deal" offered by Ehud Barak being somewhat put to rest. That farcical spin has been an ongoing insult to Palestinians for 8 years. All politicians have egos, but the constellation of Barak, Clinton and Arafat -- all elbowing each other for a Place in History -- was perhaps doomed to failure. I'd like to see a deal come to fruition without superstars. Having said that, Obama does have an awful lot of goodwill at the moment. Let's hope he doesn't squander it. The resurrection of Netanyahu would be a grotesque disaster. Livni, who has a chance at PM, could surprise us. As for Hamas, yes, they need to be a part of all talks. But again, post- Israeli -murder-spree in Gaza, things are a lot more difficult.

Only half way through, but really enjoying this one so far. ADM, thanks for this: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/175...4:47&out=15:02 I'ts refreshing to know that our diplomats don't necesarrily buy into the emotional memes projected by most people in regards to the I/P situation.

Quoting AemJeff: I get that - sometimes I do seem to take the long away around the barn to try and make a simple point. I'd appreciate some clarity on Bob's curious appeal, too; and I'm totally on-board with your gadfly approach to getting a response.

Well, you have given me pause with the reference to an insect that would typically be found in a horse stable (as long as I'm associated with the right end of the horse)... But it was in the last Ann Althouse DV that she also was characterized as a gadfly. Not necessarily company that I want to be compared to. Yet, here is an excerpt from her take on video blogging - which speaks to Bob's concerns: "I must say, I can barely stand to watch any political talking heads TV shows, even on network TV and cable TV. I just have no patience waiting for people to say something that I could read in 1/10 the time. I've clicked over to PJTV a few times, but after less than a minute, I always leave. Why am I looking at these folks? Put it in writing! Yes, I know I do Bloggingheads, but that's an active conversation for me. Do you watch Bloggingheads? At least with Bloggingheads, I can

Mr. Miller describes "five lawyers" as influences pushing US Middle East policy. Whether one finds that significantly different than Walt and Mearsheimer's "Israel Lobby" is I suppose a subject that can generate the usual heat that rises whenever things involving Isreal and US policy come up. What I found interesting however is that he seems to feel that lobbying and the uses of money/pressure to drive policy in a direction favored by, and presumably to the perceived advantage of some group is fine. I take this to represent his general take on the lobbying/influence issue and not necessarily limited to Middle East policy. I gathered Mr. Miller's solution to the question of solving problems and setting the best policies for the US as a whole is not to address the influences of money, power, and pressure on government policy. Rather he thinks we just need better leaders who can and will overcome pressures to move in poor or unwise directions, or in manners not to the best long term interests of all. This attitude may be colored by the role he has played during negotiations in which it was not his

Quoting graz: Well, you have given me pause with the reference to an insect that would typically be found in a horse stable (as long as I'm associated with the right end of the horse)... But it was in the last Ann Althouse DV that she also was characterized as a gadfly. Not necessarily company that I want to be compared to. Yet, here is an excerpt from her take on video blogging - which speaks to Bob's concerns:

"I must say, I can barely stand to watch any political talking heads TV shows, even on network TV and cable TV. I just have no patience waiting for people to say something that I could read in 1/10 the time. I've clicked over to PJTV a few times, but after less than a minute, I always leave. Why am I looking at these folks? Put it in writing! Yes, I know I do Bloggingheads, but that's an active conversation for me. Do you watch Bloggingheads? At least with Bloggingheads, I can make whatever little embeddable clips I want to use to set up a discussion in writing.
"
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2009/01...prise-has.html

Apologies for derailing the thread a bit.

I caught that item on her blog. She's characteristically confused. Use Occam's Razor, Ann! The simple explanation for an aversion to PJTV has

Miller suggests that it will take years of direct negotiation with Iran and countless terms with which to negotiate. He says that we shouldn't negotiate with them on our knees but directly.
Here's the thing though and one inherent an insurmountable flaw in this strategy. It takes a lot longer to negotiate Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions than it would for Iran to complete its nuclear arsenal. And there is no carrot that could be offered to Iran bigger and more worthwile to its own interest than to complete its nuclear bomb/program that I can think of.
So what is there to negotiate, and how is Miller supposing we don't negotiate on our knees and still achieve results. What do we have to offer, other than force that would be more worthwile to Iranians than their nuclear program?
If for example we want Iran to stop enriching uranium and enter into negotiations what's to stop Iran from winding down the clock and stringing us along until its done with its enrichment? And how does that not have us on our

This was good. Kudos to Eli for bringing this here.
(First time I've thanked a neo-con for anything, but I mean it.)

another new person. thanks, bob. perfect example of a great, new expert guest. great interview eli.

If for example we want Iran to stop enriching uranium and enter into negotiations what's to stop Iran from winding down the clock and stringing us along until its done with its enrichment? ?

What we can offer Iran, the rest of the world and posterity is serious nuclear disarmament. Compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty, a few steps back from the Bush doctrine (Nuclear Policy Review of 2001), and inducing the other rogue nations to get with the program. Chief among rogues -- arguably -- is Israel, with its undeclared and uninspected 200 or so nuclear weapons. Pakistan and India are other rogues who are outside the Nonprolif. agreement, but at least their nukes are "on the table," so to speak. (India also got a big nuclear boost from the Bushies.) Bottom line: You don't want Iran to get nukes? We need to get moving on the road to Zero nukes worldwide.

Quoting jr565: It takes a lot longer to negotiate Iran giving up its nuclear ambitions than it would for Iran to complete its nuclear arsenal. And there is no carrot that could be offered to Iran bigger and more worthwile to its own interest than to complete its nuclear bomb/program that I can think of.

I have to admit to having been amazed for a while at the notion that somehow, someway, there is a way for anyone to keep Iran from going nuclear. The nuclear genie has been out of the bottle for a while now and there's no way to put it back. If North Korea and Pakistan can develop nuclear technology, then certainly Iran can, despite the new dilligence on trading technology and world movement. Iran is not Yemen. Iran is not Zimbabwe. Despite Ahmadinejad, Iran is basically a rational and perfectly functional nation with ancient roots in governance and learned behavior. I can understand the real fear that Isreal must have at the notion of Iran developing nuclear weapons but at this point I really don't think there's much we can do. So either we treat

Whoops. I meant to add that as well. Eli was a great interviewer on this one. Although I would love to see Heather Hurlburt, Jackie Shire get into the details of diplomacy with Aaron, or Bob Wright to do a grand scheme policy approach discussion.

Quoting AemJeff: I'll remember next time - do not conflate stolen metaphors between Althouse and graz.

A new record for specificity in rules to live by.

Quoting Wonderment: I am glad AD did not take Eli's bait to demonize Arafat.

Second that. I also agree with you that apart from that moment, this was a very smart diavlog.

Quoting cragger: [...] A bit like simply embracing monarchy or dictatorship and then hoping for wiser and more benevolent rulers. I think humanity has made better progress by trying to improve the systems by which we rule ourselves. We can improve the systems a whole lot easier and faster than we can improve people.

I'm not sure if I fully agree with this as it applies to ADM's views, but as a general principle, it's very well said. One lesson I have never forgotten from a high school American history class is that the real genius of the authors of the US Constitution was that they started by discarding the assumption that one can always trust in human nature, especially regarding those in power.

more like this one please - I'd love to see more diavlogs pairing each one of these guys with others (e.g. Wright) - discussing the same material from different angles.

true. Put yourself in Iran's shoes, with America and Israel having Nukes, It would be idiotic for them not to get nukes. Its just about impossible for me to see any conceivable situation where it would be in their best interest not to pursue those weapons.

Quoting popcorn_karate: true. Put yourself in Iran's shoes, with America and Israel having Nukes, It would be idiotic for them not to get nukes.

Its just about impossible for me to see any conceivable situation where it would be in their best interest not to pursue those weapons.

Did you ever read Weapons and Hope by Freeman Dyson? He makes a compelling case in that book that having a few nuclear weapons decreases a nation's security, rather than enhancing it. The book is somewhat old, and so reflects thinking guided principally by a Cold War mentality, but I still think there's something to this argument.

wonderment wrote:

What we can offer Iran, the rest of the world and posterity is serious nuclear disarmament. Compliance with the Nonproliferation Treaty, a few steps back from the Bush doctrine (Nuclear Policy Review of 2001), and inducing the other rogue nations to get with the program. Chief among rogues -- arguably -- is Israel, with its undeclared and uninspected 200 or so nuclear weapons.
Pakistan and India are other rogues who are outside the Nonprolif. agreement, but at least their nukes are "on the table," so to speak. (India also got a big nuclear boost from the Bushies.)
Bottom line: You don't want Iran to get nukes? We need to get moving on the road to Zero nukes worldwide.

Except what you're arguing for is more nuclear proliferation and violating the Nuclear proliferation act. And MAD with all countries using nukes to check the other, not fewer nukes. If you say there is no reason for Iran to not get nukes because we have nukes, then there is no reason for us to not build more nukes ourselves because now Iran has nukes.If there rest of the world is going nuclear why on

If you want nuclear proliferation, you shouldn't couch the argument as anuclear disarmament one

You have completely misrepresented what I said: I favor abolition of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. That means Iran never gets any. The way to dissuade Iran is by complying with our agreements (which we have not done). Russia is also non-compliant, but the real rogue states are India, Pakistan, Israel and (perhaps) North Korea. We allowed Israel's rogue nuke program to flourish for decades with a wink and a nod. Now Israel threatens Iran with a preemptive strike, and allegedly already asked Bush to greenlight one with an Iraq flyover (he said no). Viewing Iran as the Bad Crazy Guy with the old Axis of Evil mentality is a huge mistake. We all need to talk seriously about nuclear weapons. We've been amazingly lucky so far, and if we don't disarm the luck will run out.

Wonderment wrote:

You have completely misrepresented what I said: I favor abolition of all nuclear weapons by the year 2020. That means Iran never gets any. The way to dissuade Iran is by complying with our agreements (which we have not done). Russia is also non-compliant, but the real rogue states are India, Pakistan, Israel and (perhaps) North Korea.

Sorry if I misrepresented you. (not sure I did, but if I did I apologize). But I would argue again, that you can't get there from here. Us complying with our agreements in no way guarantees that others comply with our agreements and the desire for others to get nukes is not predicated on the US honoring or not honoring our agreements. In fact were we to honor our agreements that would embolden many to ramp up production as having more nukes while we cut down on our own is in fact advantageous to them. You seem to think that us honoring our agreements would lead to the immediate reaction of others of similarly drawing down their own. It sounds like the standard lefty foreign policy argument about how we are responsible for all world events and

Quoting jr565: In fact were we to honor our agreements that would embolden many to ramp up production as having more nukes while we cut down on our own is in fact advantageous to them.

I wonder if you are aware of just how many nuclear weapons the US possesses. The idea that we could ever be put at a disadvantage by our decommissioning some of our stockpile seems thoroughly unbelievable. On the contrary, if we were to decrease our supply, it seems far more likely that we'd enhance our security, because we'd be removing one of the primary arguments other nations use to support their own interest in acquiring nukes -- that since the US is not complying with the spirit of arms reduction and non-proliferation treaties, why should they?

Quoting bjkeefe: I wonder if you are aware of just how many nuclear weapons the US possesses. The idea that we could ever be put at a disadvantage by our decommissioning some of our stockpile seems thoroughly unbelievable. On the contrary, if we were to decrease our supply, it seems far more likely that we'd enhance our security, because we'd be removing one of the primary arguments other nations use to support their own interest in acquiring nukes -- that since the US is not complying with the spirit of arms reduction and non-proliferation treaties, why should they?

But the underlying game-theoretical problem is valid. Whatever approach we take with regard to our own stockpile, regional issues have at least as much to do with potential adversaries' view of their own interests. And among the assumptions jr565 is responding to is that we would zero our stockpile within about a decade. How that affects the perceived interests of Iran, or any other player, isn't clear. The assumption that our honoring such a goal would be a guarantee that everybody else would do likewise seems unlikely to be a major influence on policy.

Quoting AemJeff: And among the assumptions jr565 is responding to is that we would zero our stockpile within about a decade.

If I missed that, I'm sorry. That's a dream, but given the state of the world, I would never argue for the US reducing its nuclear stockpile to zero. I am just saying that we could maintain an indisputable deterrent with far fewer weapons, and that by making reductions towards that goal, we would not only not put ourselves at a disadvantage, we would likely make things better for everybody.

Quoting bjkeefe: If I missed that, I'm sorry. That's a dream, but given the state of the world, I would never argue for the US reducing its nuclear stockpile to zero. I am just saying that we could maintain an indisputable deterrent with far fewer weapons, and that by making reductions towards that goal, we would not only not put ourselves at a disadvantage, we would likely make things better for everybody.

I agree with this entirely. jr was responding to Wonderment's stated goal of abolition by 2020.

bjkeefe wrote:

If I missed that, I'm sorry. That's a dream, but given the state of the world, I would never argue for the US reducing its nuclear stockpile to zero. I am just saying that we could maintain an indisputable deterrent with far fewer weapons, and that by making reductions towards that goal, we would not only not put ourselves at a disadvantage, we would likely make things better for everybody.

The flaw in this though is that we'd need to keep enough nukes to maintain a deterrant. so if you're arguing that us drawing down weapons would cause others to similarly draw down then we would need to draw down enough so that our stockpile was not viewed as a threatt. Otherwise countries would always have the need to respond to our deterrant with weapons of their own (if you're agreeing that the only reason countries are trying to get nukes is in response to us). There's no magic number of nukes we could take out of commission that would simultaneously maintain our dettrance factor and at the same time cause people to decide that

Wall Street Journal, January 2008 By GEORGE P. SHULTZ, WILLIAM J. PERRY, HENRY A. KISSINGER and SAM NUNN

The accelerating spread of nuclear weapons, nuclear know-how and nuclear material has brought us to a nuclear tipping point. We face a very real possibility that the deadliest weapons ever invented could fall into dangerous hands.

The steps we are taking now to address these threats are not adequate to the danger. With nuclear weapons more widely available, deterrence is decreasingly effective and increasingly hazardous....
...
We have also been encouraged by additional indications of general support for this project from other former U.S. officials with extensive experience as secretaries of state and defense and national security advisors. These include: Madeleine Albright, Richard V. Allen, James A. Baker III, Samuel R. Berger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Frank Carlucci, Warren Christopher, William Cohen, Lawrence Eagleburger, Melvin Laird, Anthony Lake, Robert McFarlane, Robert McNamara and Colin Powell.

Inspired by this reaction, in October 2007, we convened veterans of the past six administrations, along with a number of other experts on nuclear issues, for a conference at Stanford University's Hoover Institution. There was general agreement about the importance of the vision of a world free of nuclear weapons as a guide to our thinking about nuclear policies, and about the importance of

Quoting jr565: bjkeefe wrote:

The flaw in this though is that we'd need to keep enough nukes to maintain a deterrant. so if you're arguing that us drawing down weapons would cause others to similarly draw down then we would need to draw down enough so that our stockpile was not viewed as a threatt. Otherwise countries would always have the need to respond to our deterrant with weapons of their own (if you're agreeing that the only reason countries are trying to get nukes is in response to us). There's no magic number of nukes we could take out of commission that would simultaneously maintain our dettrance factor and at the same time cause people to decide that they no longer need weapons themselves since they're still worried about our threat.

No, I am not arguing this. I am saying that it's more a matter of posturing -- no one in his right mind thinks that his country could start up a nuclear program that would act as a deterrent to the US's nuclear capability. What instead seems to be happening now

Quoting jr565: bjkeefe wrote:

The flaw in this though is that we'd need to keep enough nukes to maintain a deterrant. so if you're arguing that us drawing down weapons would cause others to similarly draw down then we would need to draw down enough so that our stockpile was not viewed as a threatt. Otherwise countries would always have the need to respond to our deterrant with weapons of their own (if you're agreeing that the only reason countries are trying to get nukes is in response to us). There's no magic number of nukes we could take out of commission that would simultaneously maintain our dettrance factor and at the same time cause people to decide that they no longer need weapons themselves since they're still worried about our threat.
And if we withdrew all of our weapons somehow that doesn't mean that therefore others who previously viewed our weapons as a threat or a deterrant to their acquiring more weapons will renege on acquiring weapons. Because if there is no deterrant on our end it

Quoting AemJeff: I think the argument is that if we were to draw down our arsenal, we weaken one of the rhetorical planks on which others can argue for building up theirs. It's necessary but not sufficient step in the direction of controlling proliferation.

Right.

There's very little to argue against, there. But abolition by 2020? We can wish. You seem to be arguing for the assumption of good faith on the part of our adversaries. I think a degree of realpolitik will be required to temper that assumption.

I think the argument is that if we were to draw down our arsenal, we weaken one of the rhetorical planks on which others can argue for building up theirs. It's necessary but not sufficient step in the direction of controlling proliferation.

While this is potentially true in absolute terms, it wont work in reality. Because what percentage of our arsenal would we have to draw down for others to think they no longer need a weapon to defend themselves? (and again, this is arguing the position that the only reason they want a weapon is as a defensive argument).
considering we would still maintain enough weapons to act as a deterrant it would also by necessity be enough weapons for those making the case that they need to defend themselves against us. Say we have 1000 nukes (I know we have more but lets use a nice easy number) and reduce our stockpiles by 50% so have 500 that's still more than enough nukes for those trying to get nukes to view us as a threat.
In other words, so long as we have enough nukes

Quoting jr565: While this is potentially true in absolute terms, it wont work in reality. Because what percentage of our arsenal would we have to draw down for others to think they no longer need a weapon to defend themselves? (and again, this is arguing the position that the only reason they want a weapon is as a defensive argument).
considering we would still maintain enough weapons to act as a deterrant it would also by necessity be enough weapons for those making the case that they need to defend themselves against us. Say we have 1000 nukes (I know we have more but lets use a nice easy number) and reduce our stockpiles by 50% so have 500 that's still more than enough nukes for those trying to get nukes to view us as a threat.
In other words, so long as we have enough nukes to act as a deterrant there is a justification for those saying they need to get nukes because they view our nukes as a threat. We'd have to drop our nukes enough so that they didn't view them as

"wouldn't it be nice if Jordan's Hussein should regain control of Mecca?" I agree. A Hashemite Mecca is better for mostly everybody than a Saudi Mecca, and Hussein is the heir of the Sharif. If the Western powers are going to be getting wrapped up in this stuff and if there is something non-counterproductive they can do to encourage this development, then encouraging it is a wise policy. Perhaps it would also be a positive development if Hussein or one of his relatives proceeded to claim the title of Caliph, as the Sharif briefly did.