I thought this was a weird exchange. Jackie says Israel uses the threat of military action "to good effect", and Richard replies that "nothing empowers the hardliners" in Iran like the constant military threats. That sounds like a contradiction to me, but spoken with such an air of agreement. The biggest disconnect is that Jackie doesn't sufficiently explain what the "good effect" has been. Does anyone care to fill in the blanks?

We can spin our wheels endlessly in our very sincere efforts to discern what Iran's "intention" is about a secret nuclear program. And we can breathe sighs of relief that the current Supreme Guide is not as messianic and apocalyptic as his predecessor was, or his nation's current president is. And diplomacy is always preferrable, but we have 20C historical examples of diplomacy being used to hide lethal intent. But this diavlog includes not a single word about WHY the world should be so concerned about Iran's policies REGARDLESS of who is in charge, what their nuclear ambitions truly are, or whether diplomacy includes sanctions or not. If our two interlocutors had ever actually read Khomeini's ideo-theology "Holmat-e Islam," or "Valayate-Faghih," or "Kashfol-Asrar," or "Towzihol-Masael," they would be better able to communicate to others why opposing a nuclear Iran is so important. As long as we in the U.S. are so poorly informed about the fundamental ideo-theology which governs and motivates the Iranian government, we'll continue to lag the much more accurate analysis by France and others of where the world is ultimately headed with a nuclear Iran.

The lack of perspective here is astonishing. Citizens of the most hostile, militaristic nation in the world, with the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons, debating Iran’s right to pursue nuclear enrichment in accordance with the NPT and IAEA safeguards. The United States is the number one threat to world security. Let’s have a discussion about that, shall we?

so please enlighten us as to what the truth is. regardless, would it change anything?

yeah, the US is not exactly a state sponsor of terrorism, so.....that kinda doesn't make sense

Given the reluctance of the previous administration, and the current economic crisis which has apparently put investigating the torture memos on the back burner, is there anyone in the US willing to entertain even the thought of having that kind if discussion?? While it would be nice to have it (along with one concerning all other nuclear powers - openly acknowleged or not (ie Israel)), I doubt that conversation will happen, as the US seems to believe in the absolute right of nuclear posession.

An interesting discussion, and thanks for that to Jackie and Richard. I was surprised to hear that France and the UK are more opposed to Iran's nuclear ambitions than the US is. I would have liked to hear why that should be, and if anyone can suggest good references, I'd appreciate it. I was also surprised to hear Jackie sounding more pugnacious? alarmist? (not really as far as those words suggest) than my memories of her previous arms control diavlogs would have led to me to expect. Perhaps she was just playing the foil to Richard's position? I really liked the point that Richard made about the instinct to try to develop a foreign policy stance that has something for the hawks and the doves, so as to promote domestic tranquility, but which leads to a muddled foreign policy. Here's hoping that President Obama stands firm against the hawks on this one.

Quoting bjkeefe: Here's hoping that President Obama stands firm against the hawks on this one.

I'm curious to know what "standing firm (hawkishly?) against the hawks" would translate to in terms of your preferred Iran policy generally and its nuclear program in particular.

Quoting rfrobison: I'm curious to know what "standing firm (hawkishly?) against the hawks" would translate to in terms of your preferred Iran policy generally and its nuclear program in particular.

"Standing firm" is not the same as "hawkishly." That's just stupid. Standing firm against the hawks would mean, to start, dismissing the calls to BOMB IRAN NOW and doing away with idiocy like demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium before any talks can begin. It would also mean passing the word along a back channel to Israel that their saber-rattling won't be welcome.

Quoting bjkeefe: "Standing firm" is not the same as "hawkishly." That's just stupid.

Standing firm against the hawks would mean, to start, dismissing the calls to BOMB IRAN NOW and doing away with idiocy like demanding that Iran stop enriching uranium before any talks can begin. It would also mean passing the word along a back channel to Israel that their saber-rattling won't be welcome.

Sorry, BJ, the "hawkishly" bit was meant as a joke. I don't know of any serious foreign policy type who advocates "bombing Iran now." As for the demand that Iran stop enriching uranium being "idiocy," I'd say trusting a regime that has a documented history of cheating, hiding its nuclear intentions, and acquiring nuclear materials (like polonium) that have NO CONCEIVABLE PURPOSE other than use in a nuclear weapon, is a lot closer to the definition of that word. Fortunately, neither you nor I will be responsible for the consequences of bad choices regarding Iran. But I suspect if Israel feels itself under mortal threat, they are likely to disregard any "back channel" messages from the Obama administration about unwelcome "saber rattling." If people like Mr. Parker have their way, we are much more likely to see just that the kind

Simon's criticism is a fair one - I was trying to explain that Israel can be expected to continue to threaten Iran either subtly or overtly with the aim of keeping Iran uncertain as to its ultimate actions, and thereby attempt to constrain Iran's behavior. My own view however, is that Israel cannot eliminate whatever threat it is that Iran poses as a nuclear state through military action, understands this, and will choose not to strike. Is this clearer?

In the spirit of noticing weird exchanges, I thought there was an odd one over Iran's motivations. I forget the exact time so rough transcript:
Parker: the Supreme Leader hasn't just denied seeking nukes but has even called it un-Islamic.. which would be an odd rhetorical choice if he actually is seeking weapons
Shire: I'm glad you have a sanguine view but..
Parker: no, we don't have a sanguine view, we're pragmatists. [Goes on to talk about the utilitarian calculations of different diplomatic actions] The tone of the first line might not come through in text but I definitely heard him as being skeptical towards claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Assuming he wasn't just trying to differentiate between his personal view and the AFPP's, I wish he had done more to argue why that skepticism isn't overly optimistic. Picking apart what Khamenei's said is IMO more interesting and useful than trying to divine how Iran would react to different American actions, which -surprise surprise- turns out to be the best in every possible circumstance if we follow Parker's recommendations.

Quoting Jackie: ... Israel can be expected to continue to threaten Iran either subtly or overtly with the aim of keeping Iran uncertain as to its ultimate actions, and thereby attempt to constrain Iran's behavior.

That's a logical explanation; thanks for your response. How this uncertainty affects Iran's behavior is unclear. One could argue it may steer the work to be done more covertly and more diligently, and thus increase the likelihood the Iran will succeed in the development of weapons.

Quoting pampl: In the spirit of noticing weird exchanges, I thought there was an odd one over Iran's motivations. I forget the exact time so rough transcript:
Parker: the Supreme Leader hasn't just denied seeking nukes but has even called it un-Islamic.. which would be an odd rhetorical choice if he actually is seeking weapons
Shire: I'm glad you have a sanguine view but..
Parker: no, we don't have a sanguine view, we're pragmatists. [Goes on to talk about the utilitarian calculations of different diplomatic actions]

The tone of the first line might not come through in text but I definitely heard him as being skeptical towards claims of an Iranian nuclear weapons program. Assuming he wasn't just trying to differentiate between his personal view and the AFPP's, I wish he had done more to argue why that skepticism isn't overly optimistic. Picking apart what Khamenei's said is IMO more interesting and useful than trying to divine how Iran would react to different American actions, which -surprise surprise- turns out to be the best in every possible circumstance if we follow Parker's recommendations.

Richard replies: Pampl is right in saying I am skeptical of those who say they know Iran's intentions with regard to weapons. Our own intelligence community has

shire said very little that would be productive to this conversation.

Quoting rfrobison: Sorry, BJ, the "hawkishly" bit was meant as a joke.

Sorry myself, that I did not catch that tone.

I don't know of any serious foreign policy type who advocates "bombing Iran now."

Perhaps not now, but in the last couple of years of the Bush Administration, there were a fair amount of pundits and politicians calling for this. Whether any of them count as "serious foreign policy types" is fair to dispute, but on the other hand, we all too often conduct ourselves on the world stage listening less to the latter than the former.

As for the demand that Iran stop enriching uranium being "idiocy," I'd say trusting a regime that has a documented history of cheating, hiding its nuclear intentions, and acquiring nuclear materials (like polonium) that have NO CONCEIVABLE PURPOSE other than use in a nuclear weapon, is a lot closer to the definition of that word.

I don't know enough about the polonium point to comment on that. In general, I'd say that it is at least plausible to want an enrichment program for the purposes of developing a nuclear power (to generate electricity) capability. I agree that there is good reason to be skeptical of

I am a bit disappointed with both debaters because neither of them seems to know much about Iran. Some facts: (1) Iran DOES HAVE a nuclear reactor in Bushehr, and it has plans for about 18 more. It wants fuel security so that it cannot be blackmailed politically by Russia or whomever sells it fuel. The history of its being under sanctions is what motivates it to be as self-sufficient as possible with respect to fuel. (2) Iran does have a very active stem cell research program. If the West wanted to shut that down, Iran would behave in the same way as in the nuclear case to preserve its dignity. (3) If the current trend holds, within 15 years all of Iran's oil will be consumed domestically and there will be nothing left for export. Given that oil prices are on the rise, it would absurd for Iran to let this happen. It is thus working on alternative sources of energy, including wind and nuclear, to make it possible to export its oil. (One of the debaters did allude to this.) (4) In 2003 Iran offered to implement and ratify the Additional Protocols, which would have allowed

Quoting BenjaminMakdisi: [...] Some facts: [...]

And thanks for them. Welcome. Hope to hear more from you.

do you work for the Iranian gov't?

do you work for the Iranian gov't?

Maybe. But you'd still have to refute his claims. I think Iran does want a nuke or two (not inconsistent with a largely peaceful nuclear energy program) but can certainly be talked down with diplomacy only. No sanctions. No violence. Obama has a golden opportunity. Unfortunately, his presidency coincides with a rightward shift in Israel over the past decade, culminating in the ascendancy of the Netanyahu extremist government. Still, if Israel gives the Golan back to Syria (not unthinkable under Netanyahu), and if Gaza becomes less of a concentration camp, if Obama makes progress with Russia on international disarmament (including Israel in the general framework) there could be some easing of tensions. An international inspections regime that included Israel and Iran would be a diplomacy coup worthy of a dozen Nobel Peace Prizes.

not really. only hard lefties or muslims would even bother to read that. no objective person would give them the benefit of the doubt for any reason at any point.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: not really. only hard lefties or muslims would even bother to read that. no objective person would give them the benefit of the doubt for any reason at any point.

Put another way, you can't refute them so it's better to pretend its not worth refuting. Got it.

not really. there's so many articles coming out every day saying the opposite of what he said there's no point in sifting through it. do you read the news? it there almost every day. finally, who could be dumb enough to take their leaders at their word? (hint, hint

so link to oh, maybe, one of those articles. unless you're just talking outa your ass again...

outta my ass? such language from someone who offers so little r u guys insane or retarded? if you haven't seen these articles you seriously must not read the news. wtf do you think the G8 and most of the western world has been talking about for the last 5 years with respect to this country? why might isreal be planning to BOMB the place soon? you think they're talking about it constantly because they're bored? i'm not even in the minority here, just stating the obvious:
there's too many to choose from -
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=iran+nuclear+one+year this, i happened across today:
http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1016/42/376701.htm seriously, i know we got a lotta naive libs around here but are all of u dumb enough to give iran, of all countries, the benefit of the doubt? the head of the iaea doesn't even know what they're really doing. gee....i wonder what that might mean??....hmmm.

Sometimes the drive-by media forgets to put things in perspective, Dad. (oh dear, did I just say that). For some perspective, visit Cspan.org and watch the following discussion: Middle East Policy Council Discussion on U.S.-Iran Relations
Thursday, April 16, 2009

yeah, you gonna summarize that non-linked, 2hr15 min. discussion?

Actually, every point I made has been reported by the US media and soon forgotten and ignored. Take my point about the unanimous conclusion of 16 U.S. intelligence agencies that Iran does not have a military nuclear track. This was reported on the front-pages of the New York Times and every other major American newspaper. And now everybody talks about as if that finding never existed. Why? Because it is politically expedient to not remember it. No, I'm not paid by Iran. Are you paid by the U.S. government for comments you post on this blog that probably very few people read anyway? B.M. P.S. A note of clarification: I didn't mean to say that Iran's oil deposit will run out in 15 years. Rather, the oil it produces will all be consumed domestically due to the rapid ongoing increase in domestic consumption. (Iran's oil will eventually run out, but that will take longer than 15 years.)

Quoting Thanks, dad!: yeah, you gonna summarize that non-linked, 2hr15 min. discussion?

Nope. You're an adult, I hope. Besides, if you have time to post here and pontificate about Iran then you probably have time to watch a two hour program on Cspan; that is, if you're sincerely interested in getting closer to the truth rather than regurgitating anti-Iran propaganda.

fail. i'm guessing that not only did you not watch this diavlog....that two hour c-span snooze fest was your first time delving into this subject. correct? knee-jerk liberal reaction? added, this is what you were accusing ME of! seriously, what do you think 10-20 of the world's major govt's are negotiating about this for? as if they're not busy enough?

oh, no, it's not politically convenient to forget about the NIE....it's that we soon found out afterward that it's quite possibly wrong. if you're naive enough to cherry pick all that evidence and have no suspicion then i'm really glad you're not in charge of anything. you're actually going on record as saying this matter is "a ok"? .....you didn't actually watch the diavlog, did you?

I wonder, if we diverted all the time and energy used in fretting over a nuclear programme that, at least militarily, we are told we cannot stop, into solving the Israel Palestine issue, wouldn't we undercut Tehran's appeitie for nuclear arms, or is this a red herring? If, as Richard Parker said, you can't bomb knowledge then why not give Tehran a nuke? Their nationalist are saited, their nuclear research funds wither, their security assured, and they have a bomb they don't dare use.

that's assuming israel's actually interested or that it actually could be "solved." would you want your sworn enemy to become economically viable? it's probably true that iran's gonna get a bomb regardless, though. deterrence is all that's left.....unless israel strikes first

Quoting Thanks, dad!: fail. i'm guessing that not only did you not watch this diavlog....?

Your guess is wrong. I watch all two hours of it, with breaks of course. That was over a week ago but what I can tell is the panel assessment of the Iran-US relations bolsters the points Benjamin made which you have to date been unable to refute. Sorry but the ball is still in your court.

i'm talking about watching the diavlog, not the c=span talk. if you had watched it you'd know how skeptical jackie is. the essence of what Ben's saying is that he, apparently, trusts the iranian gov't. you can find endless points of evidence on either side to support either opinion and that's worthless. the crux of the matter is: who do you trust?

no the point is more like "what process has the best chance of working". you want a process to have incentives so that continuing the process makes sense for all parties, whether you have a lot of trust in them or not. what do you think is a reasonable course of action in regards to iran?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: I wonder, if we diverted all the time and energy used in fretting over a nuclear programme that, at least militarily, we are told we cannot stop, into solving the Israel Palestine issue, wouldn't we undercut Tehran's appeitie for nuclear arms, or is this a red herring?

My own sense is that I/P is an excuse for Iran to act the way it does, and not a sincere concern in the minds of their leadership.

If, as Richard Parker said, you can't bomb knowledge then why not give Tehran a nuke? Their nationalist are saited, their nuclear research funds wither, their security assured, and they have a bomb they don't dare use.

Now that is thinking outside the box!

About the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate that stated that Iran does not have a nuclear weapons program, the contributor writes, "we soon found out afterward that it's quite possibly wrong." Who called the finding unreliable? Mostly politicians, pundits, people in think tanks, journalists, bloggers, and op-ed writers. But the 16 intelligence agencies that came to that conclusion unanimously never retracted it. They knew their conclusions would meet a storm of criticism, and that's why they were compelled to take many extra months to re-evaluate and test their conclusions thoroughly before they published it. There's no basis to the claim that the report was discredited. I know many don't like it, deny it, and purposefully pretend that it does not exist. But that has more with political motives than reality.

Quoting Thanks, dad!: i'm talking about watching the diavlog, not the c=span talk. . . .

My bad. But it changes little because I watched most of the diavlog. I know where Jackie's coming from on Iran, and if your point is Jackie doesn't trust Iran then that makes the Cspan discusssion that much more important for you to consider. One of the Cspan panelists made the point that Iran is engaged in what can be called "simulated irrationality"; in other words, it is purposely sending mix signals to keep hawks like Jackie guessing what they may or may not be doing. Trust is a two way street, daddy yo.

trouble is he has no idea if that's true or not. no one but the mullahs and their scientists know. to paraphrase The Joker from the first Batman:"Hubba hubba hubba, money, money money, who do you trust?" do we go with being suspicious with the rest of the western world....or do we go with the people who don't believe the Holocaust happened?

Quoting opposable_crumbs: ....If, as Richard Parker said, you can't bomb knowledge then why not give Tehran a nuke? Their nationalist are saited, their nuclear research funds wither, their security assured, and they have a bomb they don't dare use.

They problem lies with the 12th Imam. A doomsday government with a doomsday weapon doesn't really sound appealing.

Quoting piscivorous: They problem lies with the 12th Imam. A doomsday government with a doomsday weapon doesn't really sound appealing.

I find this amusing. We should let the 12th Imam ideology drive our foreign policy toward Iran because it supposedly indicates they will behave irrationally even though there is no evidence of that whatsoever. When was the last Iran sent its armies or bombs into a neighboring country? On the other hand, the doomsday ideology I would worry about is "never again". We don't have to conjecture about where that ideology has led us.