Uri Avnery on Iran deal

[abaris]

It was reprinted in one of our papers today and I found it a remarkable read. So I thought I'd share.

Iran is one of the oldest powers in the world, with thousands of years of political experience. Once they possessed an empire that spanned the civilized world, including our little country. Their reputation for clever trade practices is unequaled.

They are much too clever to build a nuclear weapon. What for? It would devour huge amounts of money. They know that they would never be able to use it. Same as Israel, with its large stockpile.

http://antiwar.com/blog/2015/07/21/uri-a...-treaty-2/

[Thumpalumpacus]

The biggest problem Westerners seem to have in our relations with Iran is understanding that they are masters of Realpolitik. Mullahs though they are, their religious beliefs do not cloud their diplomatic and political interactions with the world.

[Minimalist]

The biggest problem Westerners seem to have in our relations with Iran is understanding that they are masters of Realpolitik.

Our biggest problem are the fucking idiots masquerading as "lawmakers" in our own congress.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Well, there's that, too.

[Crossless2.0]

The biggest problem Westerners seem to have in our relations with Iran is understanding that they are masters of Realpolitik. Mullahs though they are, their religious beliefs do not cloud their diplomatic and political interactions with the world.

And unfortunately, we -- our "leaders" and the electorate at large -- are piss poor at Realpolitik, which is a strange and potentially dangerous disability for a nation as significant in world affairs as the U.S. I suppose our lack of finesse at playing the game has to do with our toxic 24-hour news cycle where everything is react, react, react!. Regimes like Iran (and China, to take another example) can play the long game because people aren't constantly running for re-election. This shouldn't be construed as me endorsing autocracy. I just wish we could pull it together enough to look down the road in terms of decades rather than election cycles. If we were able to do that, we just might understand what motivates regimes such as Iran -- a rather obvious precondition for any meaningful and fruitful negotiations but a point seemingly lost on many, including members of Congress. Rather than baying like trained dogs every time Netanyahu plays the 'existential threat' card, we might see past the regime's sabre rattling for what it apparently is: a long-term strategy designed to affect the balance of power in the Middle East in favor of the Shia versus the Arab countries. Since I consider the Arabs to be fair-weather friends at best, I think it's wise for us to consider strengthening ties with Iran -- at the very least to leave the door open to continuing a dialogue with them. We may not be able to do much about some of their more troubling behavior in the short to intermediate term. But I guarantee we will be even less effective if our every impulse is to threaten to bomb the shit out of them (or to allow our Israeli proxies to do so) every time they displease us.

Consider the following: if we hadn't orchestrated the overthrow of their regime in the '50s to install the Shah, if we hadn't tacitly encouraged (and actively armed) Hussein to attack them in the '80s before cynically playing both sides against each other in that ghastly war, if we hadn't stabbed the Iraqi Shia in the backs at the conclusion of the Gulf War, and if we had eschewed the endlessly stupid "Axis of evil" rhetoric of the Bush years, we might have been poised -- post-911 -- with a more friendly and pliant Iranian regime bordering Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows? Things in both countries might have turned out quite differently. 

We were attacked by Saudis associated with al-Qaeda, a Sunni movement. ISIS is a Sunni movement. It was Arabs who went to war with our ally Israel. Yet we continue to look under our beds for the Persian bogeyman.

[abaris]

And unfortunately, we -- our "leaders" and the electorate at large -- are piss poor at Realpolitik, which is a strange and potentially dangerous disability for a nation as significant in world affairs as the U.S. I suppose our lack of finesse at playing the game has to do with our toxic 24-hour news cycle where everything is react, react, react!. Regimes like Iran (and China, to take another example) can play the long game because people aren't constantly running for re-election.

Iran is one of the select few Islamic countries that have elections. The problem is rather that the Mullahs must approve of the candidates before they're allowed to run.

As for the US, personally I think, the biggest problem is politics being a commodity with candidates for sale to the highest bidder. That way Eisennhower's dire warning of 1961 became a reality. The military industrial complex is one of the strongest donators. And they certainly aren't interested in anything resembling peace. It's bad for business.

[Crossless2.0]

And unfortunately, we -- our "leaders" and the electorate at large -- are piss poor at Realpolitik, which is a strange and potentially dangerous disability for a nation as significant in world affairs as the U.S. I suppose our lack of finesse at playing the game has to do with our toxic 24-hour news cycle where everything is react, react, react!. Regimes like Iran (and China, to take another example) can play the long game because people aren't constantly running for re-election.

Iran is one of the select few Islamic countries that have elections. The problem is rather that the Mullahs must approve of the candidates before they're allowed to run.

As for the US, personally I think, the biggest problem is politics being a commodity with candidates for sale to the highest bidder. That way Eisennhower's dire warning of 1961 became a reality. The military industrial complex is one of the strongest donators. And they certainly aren't interested in anything resembling peace. It's bad for business.

As regards Iranian elections, you're quite right.  I guess I was thinking of elections in which the candidates weren't figureheads simply doing the bidding of entrenched interests.  You know, elections like in the U.S.

Oh, wait . . . 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Consider the following: if we hadn't orchestrated the overthrow of their regime in the '50s to install the Shah, if we hadn't tacitly encouraged (and actively armed) Hussein to attack them in the '80s before cynically playing both sides against each other in that ghastly war, if we hadn't stabbed the Iraqi Shia in the backs at the conclusion of the Gulf War, and if we had eschewed the endlessly stupid "Axis of evil" rhetoric of the Bush years, we might have been poised -- post-911 -- with a more friendly and pliant Iranian regime bordering Afghanistan and Iraq. Who knows? Things in both countries might have turned out quite differently. 

The US has traditionally been short-sighted in terms of foreign policy because it is one of the few areas in which the President has little Congressional oversight (excepting treaties and ambassadorships, of course); so that Presidents can't steer their own course quite freely. That results in major changes in foreign policy happening every four or eight years.

Institutionalized ADD.

[abaris]

That results in major changes in foreign policy happening every four or eight years.

It's also why our analysts try to develop advance strategies for every possible candidate running. But as things stand now, and will stand for at least the next year, the houses are in fundamental opposition to the president anyway. I think, one of the most damaging results of 2016 may be some president rolling back on the Iran deal. That would virtually destroy any chance for the US to be considered a trustworthy partner for decades.

But I don't think, the rightwing knuckleheads running care that much about being considered trustworthy.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't think the Republicans will win the White House, as matters stand right now.