Republican #47Traitors changing their tune on Iran letter

By Michael J.W. Stickings

First there was defiance (based in cynicism, ideological righteousness, and warmongering gusto):

Angry Democrats on Tuesday excoriated the open letter sent to Iran's leadership warning about a nuclear agreement with President Obama, but the 47 Republicans who signed it remained defiant and unapologetic, saying the president should have seen their opposition coming.

(Yes, that is a problem. Basically, you -- especially if you're the president -- should always assume that Republicans will try to block everything you do, that what is basically the opposition party will really be the party of obstructionism and disloyalty. It's been like that since the beginning. President Obama knows that. At the same time, I'm not sure you can anticipate that Republican opposition will actually be, or at least border on, treason. Then again, maybe you can, and should.)

Then, facing widespread criticism (you know, because treason), there was lots and lots of backpedaling:

Behind the scenes, Republicans are wondering if sending an open letter to Iran's leaders was the best strategy to keep a bad nuclear deal from being negotiated...

[E]ven among Republicans whose offices have signed the letter, there is some trepidation that the Iran letter injects partisanship into the Iran negotiations, shifting the narrative from the content of the deal to whether Republicans are unfairly trying to undercut the president.

And then there were the excuses, specifically this one:

Republican aides were taken aback by what they thought was a light-hearted attempt to signal to Iran and the public that Congress should have a role in the ongoing nuclear discussions. Two GOP aides separately described their letter as a "cheeky" reminder of the Congressional branch's prerogatives.

"The administration has no sense of humor when it comes to how weakly they have been handling these negotiations," said a top GOP Senate aide.

Ha, so cheeky! Undermining the president of the United States in one of the most important foreign policy matters of our time. Basically trying to sabotage negotiations that could finally resolve the long-standing Iranian nuclear issue. (And I'm not letting anti-deal Democrats off the hook either. Their Republican-lite opposition is similarly counter-productive.)

So... fucking... hilarious.

Actually, these are going on simultaneously. The public message is defiance, but the pathetic excuses are coming out as well, like trial balloons, to try to defuse what has become a disastrous episode for Republicans.

Because, you know, treason. Fucking treason.

Which isn't funny. Not funny at all.

Obama's cautious pragmatism is the best approach for dealing with Syria and ISIS

By Michael J.W. Stickings

There's a lot of talk today, the Friday before a long weekend, about President Obama's remark that "we don't have a strategy yet" regarding ISIS and the deteriorating situation in Syria and Iraq. The remark has identified as a "gaffe" by the press, Republicans jumped all over it (because they'll do or say anything to score political points at the president's expense), and the White House has gone into damage-control mode (because of course).

Now, to be sure, it was an inartful way of explaining the situation. The president was clearly talking about what to do about ISIS, not broadly about the region, but that hardly came across clearly. But it makes sense not to know quite what to do at this point. It's easy to be an armchair militarist like John McCain or Bill Kristol, much harder to the one who has to make the tough decisions, decisions that will result in significant loss of life, particularly when there are no clear answers to a problem that in and of itself is difficult to understand. How far do you go in dealing militarily with ISIS? Do you put troops on the ground? Do you rely solely on airstrikes, or on airstrikes with support for allies on the ground? But, then, who are those allies? ISIS is at war with Bashar al-Assad's Syrian regime, but that regime is hardly an American ally. Does the U.S. really want to get into yet another protracted war in Iraq, one with no clear outcomes? And what would airstrikes against ISIS accomplish anyway, particularly without clear allies on the ground?

And so on, and so on.

At a time like this, as most times, caution is a virtue, and President Obama's cautiousness, which very much defines who he is and how he governs, stands in stark, pragmatic contrast to the "bomb bomb bomb" recklessness of Republicans. Besides, it's not like the president has been soft on America's enemies -- just consider the extra-judicial drone war that he has been waging against various threats throughout the Middle East. Indeed, as Peter Beinart writes at The Atlantic, and I think he's right on this, President Obama is both a hawk and a dove, or neither, or somewhere in between: 

So was Obama more dovish than Clinton or more hawkish? The answer is both. On the one hand, Obama has shown a deep reluctance to use military force to try to solve Middle Eastern problems that don't directly threaten American lives. He's proved more open to a diplomatic compromise over Iran's nuclear program than many on Capitol Hill because he’s more reticent about going to war with Tehran. He's been reluctant to arm Syria's rebels or bomb Basher al-Assad because he doesn't want to get sucked into that country's civil war. After initially giving David Petraeus and company the yellow light to pursue an expanded counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, he's wound down America's ground war against the Taliban. Even on Libya, he proved more reluctant to intervene than the leaders of Britain and France.

On the other hand, he's proven ferocious about using military force to kill suspected terrorists. In Afghanistan and Pakistan, he's basically adopted the policy Joe Biden proposed at the start of his administration: Don't focus on fighting the Taliban on the ground, since they don't really threaten the United States. Just bomb the hell out al-Qaeda from the air. Compared with George W. Bush, he's dramatically expanded drone strikes, even though they're unilateral, legally dubious, and morally disturbing. And, as promised, he sent special forces to kill Osama bin Laden without Pakistan's permission, even though his vice president and secretary of defense feared the risks were too high. When it comes to the Middle East, in other words, Obama is neither a dove nor a hawk. He's a fierce minimalist.

A minimalist. A cautious pragmatist, I'd say. And therein lies his strategy for dealing with the region, with ISIS, and with other such problems facing the United States, and indeed his strategy for dealing with pretty much everything. It's not good enough for Republicans, but, then, nothing he does is ever good enough for Republicans. And it's not really good enough for the media either, because it's not a clear, simplistic strategy, or, rather, not a clear, simplistic worldview. In contrast to the "bomb first, think later, if ever" approach preferred by McCain, Kristol, and their ilk, as well as to the "America as global hegemon" worldview espoused by Kristol and his neocon ilk and embraced by the likes of Dick Cheney, President Obama's approach is really the only approach that makes sense, and that could actually produce positive, lasting results, given the crazy state of the world today, given the challenges the country faces, given the complexities of the problems in places like Iraq and Syria.

No, you don't get that rush of bloodlust that comes with, and underpins, right-wing militarism, and you don't get that sense of purity that comes with pacifism and/or isolationism, nor the perceived, and self-deceiving, moral clarity that comes with any sort of absolutism, but what you do get is a chance of achieving some sort of success in a world where, given the choices available and outcomes likely, success is awfully hard to come by.

Maybe President Obama's "minimalism" won't work in this case, but it's far more preferable than the alternatives, because at least it recognizes that there are no easy solutions and that missteps could lead to catastrophe. As occasionally frustrating as his cautious pragmatism may be, he knows what he's doing, even when the words don't come out as artfully as desired.

Many people just hate Iran

By Frank Moraes

I have a great fondness for Iran. Or maybe it is just that I really like the food at Maykadeh Persian Cuisine in San Francisco. Whatever. But the truth is my impression of Iran is as a modern people who would very much like to throw off the chains of their theocratic overlords and rush as fast as possible to their own variation of modernity. And what I say to all such people is, "Welcome!" And the best way to do that is to include Iran in our world, not exclude it. Our long-running tiff with Iran has been a disaster.

So the fact that we are talking to Iran in some capacities and that we have at least a short-term deal with them is great. So I'm being honest. I'm really not terribly worried about Iran getting a nuclear weapon. I wish they would not. We need to be destroying nuclear weapons not creating them; we certainly don't need more countries with them. And Iran acquiring one would start a Middle East arms race. But fundamentally, I want good relations with Iran—which I think will solve the nuclear issue anyway.

People on the other side of the issue are not being honest. None of this is about a nuclear armed Iran. What these people want is a weak Iran. People in the region have their reasons. If Iran's economy took off, it would be a powerhouse. That would understandably make Israel nervous. And with a strong economy would go much of the power of the theocratic state. And the other despots of the region wouldn't like to see that.

Read more »

In on it

By Mustang Bobby

I have to admit that I’ve never seen Fox and Friends other than the occasional clip that pops up on a site to illustrate just how incredibly gob-smacking that crew can be. Apparently Steve Doocyis the driver of this particular clown car, and he’s echoing the sentiment of Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX) who suspects dark motives behind the Iranian nuclear agreement and its timing.

Fox News host Steve Doocy and the network’s “objective” news anchor Bret Baier agreed on Monday that President Barack Obama’s timing was questionable in announcing a deal with Iran that broke three decades of gridlock on preventing the country from obtaining nuclear weapons.

“Don’t you think it’s a little curious?” Doocy asked Baier during a Monday Fox & Friends segment. “Some of my friends were talking over the weekend, isn’t that curious timing? Out of nowhere, you know, in the midst of Obamacare not unrolling correctly, the president’s poll numbers never been lower then, look, [Secretary of State] John Kerry pulls a rabbit out of his hat and changes the subject.”

“Yes,” Baier agreed after a pause. “I mean, you’re right. It is questionable timing as far as, you know, how much this is sucking up the oxygen in the room and Obamacare was taking a lot of front-page space. However, they had been working on the deal for while and it did come together at this time. I mean, they unrolled it at this point.”

“It’s handy for them,” Doocy concluded.

In the real world, these folks would realize that for that to be true — that the White House arranged the agreement just to take the pressure off Obamacare — the president would have had to get the Grand Ayatollah of Iran to go along with it. They’d also have to have had the French, Chinese, and Russians on board, too.

If the president really had that kind of persuasive power, don’t you think he would have used it on his IT crew to get the website working rather than waste it on a country we’ve basically shunned for more than three decades?

Hate makes people say really stupid shit.

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Ali Ezzatyar talking Iran on Al Jazeera

By Michael J.W. Stickings

As some of you may know, one of our contributors at The Reaction is Ali Ezzatyar, a lawyer who is currently the executive director of the Berkeley Program on Entrepreneurship and Democracy in the Middle East. (Yes, he mostly writes about the Middle East for us. His understanding of the region is, needless to say, extensive. For example, back in June he wrote about Turkey's protests and Erdogan's authoritarianism.)

Here is Ali on Al Jazeera America recently discussing the apparent thawing of relations between the U.S. and Iran, as well as the worsening state of the Iranian economy. Suffice it to say, the guy knows what he's talking about.

An olive twig to Tehran

By Mustang Bobby

It wasn’t exactly a kum-by-yah moment, and there was no pre-planned spontaneous back-room handshake, but President Obama, speaking to the U.N. yesterday, at least offered a glimmer of easing tensions with Iran.

The United States and Iran have been isolated from one another since the Islamic revolution of 1979. This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of U.S. interference in their affairs and of America’s role in overthrowing the Iranian government during the Cold War. On the other hand, Americans see an Iranian government that has declared the United States an enemy and directly or through proxies taken American hostages, killed U.S. troops and civilians, and threatened our ally Israel with destruction.

“I don’t believe this difficult history can be overcome overnight. The suspicions run too deep. But I do believe that if we can resolve the issue of Iran’s nuclear program, that can serve as a major step down a long road toward a different relationship, one based on mutual interests and mutual respect.

It’s a small step and may lead not much further than that, but it sure beats the hell out of “bomb bomb bomb Iran.”

(Cross-posted at Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Well, now this is interesting

By Carl

President Obama made an overture to Iran today at the United Nations:

This mistrust has deep roots. Iranians have long complained of a history of US interference in their affairs, and America's role in overthrowing an Iranian government during the cold war.

This is the first official acknowledgement of CIA involvement in the 1953 coup that overthrew the very popular elected leader of Iran, Mohammad Mosaddegh, who was friendly towards the Soviet Union, and installing an ally in the Shah.

Verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry interesting.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

Russia to protect Syria from "hot heads"

By Carl 

In scanning the news this morning, I found this headline:

Russia says it will help Syria deter "hot heads"

Now whom could they possibly mean, I wonder...

All kidding (on the square) aside, this is a bit troubling, although part of the problem could be in translation (or not). "Hot heads" is a pretty demeaning term, and about the only action apart from McCain's apparently unreported and foolish venture into Syria taken this weekend was taken, or rather not taken, by the European Union when it allowed the arms embargo with Syria to expire, thus allowing weapons manufacturers in the EU to sell openly to the rebels.

Already, there's been some backlash against Russia swiping its paws at the EU.

I've discussed in the past some of the background between Syria and Russia, but let me sum it up quickly: Syria buys Russian arms, maintains the sole Russian naval base in the Mediterranean (at Tartus), has energy development deals with Russia in both oil and natural gas, and is closely allied with Iran, also a major Russian arms customer, and also a big customer for Russian natural gas.

There. Not too painful, right?

Read more »

Jimmy Carter sets the record straight on Argo

By Richard K. Barry

Full disclosure is that I'm a dual citizen of Canada and the U.S. I've lived in Toronto for most of the past 30 years but continue to feel a strong allegiance to the country of my birth. Yes, that's right. I am on the political left, don't even live in the U.S. anymore and dearly love America. That must be confusing for some.

We Canadians are getting a bit of a kick out of the new movie Argo which argues that the rescue of American hostages in Iran in 1980 was nearly entirely the work of the CIA - the American CIA. Any school kid in Canada could probably tell you that it was in fact Ken Taylor, the Canadian ambassador to Iran, and his colleagues who deserve most of the credit.

We've been laughing to ourselves that those crazy Americans will pretty much take credit for any good thing if you give them half a chance.

But don't take our word for it. Jimmy Carter, the U.S. president at the time, has now stated for the record that the movie is a fine bit of fiction.

As he told Piers Morgan on CNN:

Well, let me say first of all, it's a great drama. And I hope it gets the Academy Award for best film because I think it deserves it. The other thing that I would say was that 90 percent of the contributions to the ideas and the consummation of the plan was Canadian. And the movie gives almost full credit to the American CIA. And with that exception, the movie is very good.

Carter then went on to give former Ambassador Taylor much of the credit, as was only right.

On a serious note, the Iranian hostage crisis is fairly recent history and a point of pride for many Canadians, not to mention an example of cooperation between two great allies. Artistic license is one thing, but bullshit is another.

Someone, or some group of people, needs to be ashamed of themselves. But they won't be.

WaPo hit piece on Hagel

By Frank Moraes

(Ed. note: Hagel is also being targeted by Billy Kristol and the neocons, of course, basically because he doesn't gleefully fellate Israel. I'm still not sold on Hagel, and I doubt I ever will be, but this just makes me like him all the more. -- MJWS)

I've had my problems with the idea of Chuck Hagel as the new Defense Secretary. Why is it not possible to have a liberal? Why does Obama continue to try to court the right by having Republicans in his cabinet? But The Washington Post has a different take on this in an editorial, "Chuck Hagel is not the right choice for defense secretary." According to them, Hagel is to the left of Obama, and that's a bad thing.

So what are Hagel's sins? First, they claim that nominating a Republican is only done in the name of bipartisanship. Somehow they don't even consider that maybe Republicans of only a few years ago are now to the left of our current president. That can't be. Obama's choice of Hagel would only be to make nice with the right and so he apparently has to pick someone like Allen West.

The biggest problem for The Washington Post is that Hagel thinks going to war with Iran is a bad idea. "Mr. Obama may be forced to contemplate military action if Iran refuses to negotiate..." But the Post does not know how Hagel would act in that situation. Regardless, he would be pursuing Obama's agenda, not his own.
Read more »

Niall Ferguson says Obama wants war

By Frank Moraes

I have long thought that Niall Ferguson was an idiot, but I think that may be the wrong way to think about him. Ferguson is just evil.

I understand being partisan. I certainly am. But to be only partisan is to be only interested in power. Yesterday, Ferguson has wrote an article over at The Daily Beast called "Niall Ferguson on Obama's Possible Mideast Surprise." His argument is that Obama is down in the polls and that he will try some kind of "October Surprise," or a "Wag the Dog" move.

Let's just step back from this for a moment. In what universe is Obama losing in the polls? In the conservative media bubble, of course! In the real world, the national polls show Romney very slightly ahead of Obama. But more important, the national polls mean absolutely, positively nothing. We elect presidents based upon the electoral college, and in that contest, President Obama is and has been the likely winner for months.

In an attempt to mollify conservatives, their own personal alternative media are providing lots of articles to sooth them so they won't fall into a funk and end up missing the election. Typical of this is Jay Cost at The Weekly Standard who claims that Romney is doing really well with the "independent" voters and this will prove decisive. You know what I think of this kind of wishful thinking: it is more wishful than thinking. But this kind of thinking is all over. Brendan Nyhan at the Columbia Journalism Review writes about this in "The momentum behind a misleading narrative." Basically, Romney gained in the week before and the week after the first debate. And that's it. There is no miracle on the horizon.

But Niall Ferguson thinks there is and he thinks that the Obama campaign thinks the same thing. What will they do? Don't worry: Ferguson has a thought. Obama will tell Israel to bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran. This makes sense from a Republican standpoint: it is just the way they roll; since they will do anything for power, everyone else must act the same way. But with a clear-eyed view of the real world this is nonsense. Would the president really start a war just to win re-election? A democratic president, that is? And if he did, would the people really believe that it wasn't an act of political desperation? After all, why not wait another week and do it after the election? And who, other than wackjob conservatives like Ferguson, wants a war with Iran? It is a ridiculous idea: Obama weighing his choices, "Should I work on getting out the vote or just start a war with Iran? It's such a tough choice!"

Ferguson isn't calling for war explicitly, of course. He is calling for Israeli strikes on Iran's alleged nuclear laboratories. But this is the same as calling for war. This is, in fact, an act of war. And having Israel start it would not make it any less our war.

Hopefully with Newsweek breaking away from The Daily Beast I won't have to read Ferguson again. But I fear I am being far more wishful than even the conservative poll watchers.

(Cross-posted at Frankly Curious.)

The big gaffe: Mitt Romney doesn't know geography

By Michael J.W. Stickings

This wasn't widely discussed last night, but it was a major gaffe, and it's one Romney keeps making:

During the debate [last night], Mitt Romney mentioned that Syria is important because it's Iran's "route to the sea." The thing is, Iran doesn't even border Syria, as you can see our childishly-annotated map above. And Iran already has access to the sea on its southern border.

As confusing as the remark was, though, the Washington Post notes that tonight was hardly the first time Romney has made it, and the Romney campaign explains, "It's generally recognized that Syria offers Iran strategic basing/staging access to the Mediterranean as well as to terrorist proxies in the Levant. This is a large reason why Iran invests so much in Syria." This doesn't change the fact, however, that Iran has a "route to the sea" regardless of Syria. Americans are bad enough at geography already; they don't need a presidential candidate confusing them even more. 

It's actually worse than that. Iran has extensive coastline in the south. What's more, if it wanted to go through Syria, there are a couple of countries in between that don't much care for Iran: Iraq and Turkey.

I'm not saying this was any sort of decisive gaffe, but it reinforced the (truth-based) narrative of Romney as a foreign policy lightweight who's unprepared, unqualified, and unfit for the presidency.

Yes, you should expect better of a presidential candidate, but I'm really not sure you should expect anything else from such an ignorant fool.

Debate-a-pa-loser

By Carl 

If Mitt Romney believed he could credibly pull off being both a statesman and a Teatard, well, I've got some used horses to sell the Army:

Republican Mitt Romney entered Monday night's debate on foreign policy with the goal of presenting himself as a competent, plausible alternative to President Obama as commander in chief.

But Romney appeared to cede many positions to Obama, moving closer to the president on a range of issues and presenting them in a softer way...

"I'm glad that Governor Romney agrees with the steps that we're taking," Obama said at one point. "There have been times, Governor, frankly, during the course of this campaign, where it sounded like you thought that you'd do the same things we did, but you'd say them louder and somehow that would make a difference." 

One of any number of zingers that President Obama got off during the night and this time, he inflicted wounds on his opponent, rather than stand back and let Mitt swallow his own foot.

The foreign policy debates are the most difficult for both the candidates and the audiences.

Yes. Audiences. I'll get back to that in a moment.

Foreign policy requires a deep understanding of issues that concern other nations as well as the interdependent interplay between nations that most of us don't even pay attention to.

Which is why Romney's comments on Iran are deeply troubling:

Syria is Iran's only ally in the Arab world. It's their route to the sea. 

The Strait of Hormuz might have a word with the governor. It's not even like you have to go that far back to know that Iran has a navy, if you just paid a little more attention to the world and a little less attention to outsourcing jobs, Governor. 

Like I said, you the audience might have missed it, but for a presidential candidate to fumble this ball speaks volumes about their competency. And therein lies the nub of Romney's failure to look presidential. 

Now, if someone could botch an easily Googled fact -- and since you know Iran is going to come up, you might want to do that ahead of time -- then how likely is it their "deep intelligence" is accurate?

10,000 centrifuges? Really? And while even 2,000 is perhaps too many, it speaks even more about your paranoia and determination to take this nation to a war footing again.

I understand there's an economic benefit to war: it's saved us in the past from disastrous economic times and while it did nothing during the Bush administration (despite fighting two wars), war has always been coupled with sacrfice at home, particularly on the part of those who have.

For my part, I'd rather skip the war bit and head straight to the sacrifice.

Most people remember the "horses and bayonets" line, which was a classic. To me, what was more important was the way Obama schooled, slapped and then spanked Romney like the petulant unruly student he is.

By the way, the butthurt on the right will point out that the Marines still use bayonets. The army still has horses too, but what Obama said was they have fewer of them because they need fewer of them. Chuck Todd is particularly egregious in pointing this out, but it speaks to the idiocy of having someone stay up past his bedtime.

This was the key exchange in the entire debate. I'm not an expert debater. I've never mass debated. But there are people who have, and there's a school of thought that says Romney might have lost any chance to win the debate and by extension the election in this exchange:

The question was posed to Romney on how he would pay for his proposed $2 trillion increase in military spending, and he flat out didn't answer it. He was busy finishing his previous answer. So by the time it was the president's turn, Obama actually said, "You should have answered the question."

Obama then asserted that the United States spends more on its military than the next 10 countries combined. That's a great attention grabber. By the time Romney finally answered, he simply said we needed a stronger military, and the Navy needs more ships because it has fewer ships than it did in 1916. 

But Obama countered with the most memorable line of the night. "We also have fewer horses and bayonets." Obama's debating point was that the nature of our military has changed. He continued by saying that the U.S. has things like submarines and aircraft carriers that should suffice, and reminded viewers that the nation needed to study what its threats are and put money into things like cybersecurity and space. Obama said that the military neither wants nor has asked for this extra $2 trillion.

This was terrible for Romney for three reasons. First, it was the original area of real disagreement, and Romney couldn't afford to be bested. Second, no matter what he may actually know, Romney looked like a neophyte when it comes to military spending, as though he were repeating old Republican talking points. Viewers could be left unsure whether he knew what century this is.

And finally, it's two freaking trillion dollars! They both talked about the budget deficit and the need to balance the budget, and over three debates, this -- $2 trillion on military spending -- was the biggest difference on offer. Axing Big Bird would net a President Romney next to nothing in savings, but adding $2 trillion to defense sounded excessive, especially if it's true that the U.S. already spends more than the next 10 countries combined. Point Obama.

Sorry for the extended quote, but Graham's point was excellent, which brings me to the nub of this post.

Foreign policy debates always speak to two audiences: the voters and the world. Most nations can safely ignore the town hall and economic debates (China and our trading partners have some vested interest, but...)

Foreign policy lays out a candidate's vision of the world, and its future. If a challenger can be seen as a credible president, it will help nations like China and Russia -- and Iran -- figure out how best to deal with him or her.

You have to speak both diplomacy outwardly but inwardly speak to the American people about strength and security. Obama has an huge advantage. He's a known quantity on the world stage. He can speak more to the American people if he so chooses, knowing that his actions already speak for him. He can even bully Iran a little, given that he's lined up Russia and China, both reluctantly, behind him. 

Romney's strategy for presenting himself to the world was pretty clear: agree with the president where he could. After all, Obama has been a success on the foreign policy front, and to disagree with him is to raise the spectre of a return to the cowboy diplomacy under the Bush administration.

Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine he'd toady up to Obama, which is what I think triggered Obama's snark and condescension. Kudos, Mr. President. You did a nice job as a professor, even using the student's own arguments back against him when he agreed with you.

(Cross-posted to Simply Left Behind.)

The Republican push for war with Iran

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yesterday on Fox News, Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, once John McCain's sidekick and still for some reason considered a serious foreign policy mind by the media, said that with respect to talking to Iran about its nuclear program (with Iran now agreeing to talks), "the time for talking is over."

Okay, but what then? If there shouldn't be any talking, doesn't that mean the only way to stop Iran is war? And that can't just mean a few strategic air strikes. What it must mean is boots on the ground, a long, drawn-out campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear program (and, needless to say, much of Iran with it).

Oh, Graham is too slippery to say that, of course. He talks instead about "demanding transparency and access to their nuclear program," and about "talking to the Israelis" (as if that isn't happening).

But why would Iran just give the U.S. unfettered access? And what exactly should we be discussing with Israel, in Graham's view, if not military action?

This is the point Vice President Biden kept making in his debate with Ryan: You say you disagree with our policies towards Iran and yet you agree with everything we've done. So where's the disagreement? What should we be doing instead?

The implication is clear: war. What else is there?

All this reckless Republican saber-rattling amounts to warmongering -- except Romney and Ryan, like Graham and others, know they can't come clean because war with Iran, and war in general given the Iraq debacle and the ongoing Afghan mission, wars started and grossly mismanaged by a Republican president with Republicans cheerleading at every step, is hugely unpopular with voters.

So they say, like Romney and Ryan in the debates, that Iran is four years closer to a nuclear weapon, when that's a gross oversimplification of Iran's nuclear program*, and so blame Obama for not doing enough apparently to stop Iran. And yet because Obama rebuilt America's alliances he was able to put in place a severe sanctions program that, while not perfect (Iranians suffering when humanitarian aid can't get through, for example), has essentially forced Tehran into talks with the U.S. without putting boots on the ground in Iran.

In that sense, Iran's agreement to sitting down with the U.S. is a clear signal that current U.S. policy is working. Yes, of course, there is every reason to doubt the Iranians' sincerity, but what exactly is the alternative at this point?

Again, Republicans won't say, but it's war.

There's no doubt this will come up in tonight's debate. The president, like the vice president, must not let Romney get away with spewing the same old rhetoric unchallenged.

In case after case, Obama's foreign policy is working, with Republicans begrudgingly agreeing with it. Both Romney and Ryan are talking about the unravelling of that policy and yet offer nothing at all in its place, hoping simply that their reckless jingoism will be enough get them throught the election, with the details coming later.

President Obama must show clearly the alternative Romney, along with Republicans generally, offers. In Iran, as elsewhere, that alternative is war, more war, endless war.
__________

* Think Progress: "Graham is right that Iran continues to enrich uranium, which is in violation of United Nations resolutions calling on the Islamic Republic to suspend enrichment. Iran is currently enriching uranium to up to 20 percent purity. But uranium needs to be enriched to 90 percent purity to be used in a nuclear weapon, and according to U.S. and Israeli intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran's leaders have yet to make the decision to build a nuclear weapon. Moreover, as experts and U.S. officials have said, the international community would know if Iran decides to enrich uranium to bomb-grade purity because its nuclear program is continuously monitored by the IAEA."

New poll: Obama down to 1-point lead in Ohio

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Not good:

President Barack Obama's lead in Ohio is down to a point, a survey from Democratic-leaning Public Policy Polling on Saturday showed.

According to the poll, Obama leads Romney among likely Buckeye State voters 49 percent to 48 percent. That's within the poll's margin of error and a dip from PPP's survey of Ohio last week, which showed the president with a 5-point edge.

The poll was conducted after Tuesday’s debate, and the results suggest the town hall in Hempstead, N.Y. was not a game changer for the president, whose overall lead dropped despite a plurality of Ohio voters declaring him the winner of the debate.

"Our Ohio poll reflects the new reality of this election — every battleground state is looking like a toss up," said Dean Debnam, president of PPP, in the poll's corresponding press release. "Our most recent polls in Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and Wisconsin have all found the candidates within 2 points of each other."

But let's not let this bring us down.

What this says to me is two things:

First, that the third debate, on Monday, will be more significant than it otherwise would have been. Foreign policy rarely moves the needle in terms of public opinion -- even now with Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and now Iran prominently in the news -- but the media will treat it as the tiebreaker after Obama and Romney split the first two and at this point in the race even the tiniest shift could push the election one way or the other. 

Second, that we all need to do our part, because it's that close and get-out-the-vote efforts may turn out to be the deciding factors. Make sure you vote, and get everyone you know to vote. There's just no excuse for apathy. The choice in this election is clear, and every vote counts.

Do you want to go forward towards a brighter future, building on the economic recovery and making sure there is opportunity for all Americans, or do you want to back to the past, to the very policies that created the economic mess in the first place, to the politics of division and exclusion and the rule of the rich at the expense of everyone else?

If it's the brighter future you want, the choice is President Obama.

Mindless bluster: Mitt Romney's failure of a foreign policy speech

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Mitt Romney gave a foreign policy speech at the Virginia Military Institute yesterday and, predicably, it revealed him once more to be not just devoid of actual ideas and policies but dangerously ignorant with respect to international affairs and America's role and responsibilities on the global stage. As the Times wrote:

In a speech he gave at the Virginia Military Institute, Mr. Romney declared that "hope is not a strategy" for dealing with the rise of Islamist governments in the Middle East or an Iran racing toward the capability to build a nuclear weapon, according to excerpts released by his campaign.

The essence of Mr. Romney's argument is that he would take the United States back to an earlier era, one that would result, as his young foreign policy director, Alex Wong, told reporters on Sunday, in "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years."

But beyond his critique of Mr. Obama as failing to project American strength abroad, Mr. Romney has yet to fill in many of the details of how he would conduct policy toward the rest of the world, or to resolve deep ideological rifts within the Republican Party and his own foreign policy team. It is a disparate and politely fractious team of advisers that includes warring tribes of neoconservatives, traditional strong-defense conservatives and a band of self-described "realists" who believe there are limits to the degree the United States can impose its will. 

Consider that line from his advisor: "the restoration of a strategy that served us well for 70 years." What strategy? The U.S. benefitted from the combination of massive economic expansion and the decline of Europe's imperial powers -- and then found itself embroiled in the Cold War. So what? Containment? Military build-up to the point of mutual assured destruction? And even if you think that there was a strategy that worked well for so long, how is what worked then supposed to be the right strategy now? Has nothing changed? Is the world now the same as it was then?

Stupid. Ignorant. Dangerous.

And just what you'd expect from the Romney campaign -- and from Romney himself:

[W]hile the theme Mr. Romney hit the hardest in his speech at V.M.I. — that the Obama era has been one marked by "weakness" and the abandonment of allies — has political appeal, the specific descriptions of what Mr. Romney would do, on issues like drawing red lines for Iran's nuclear program and threatening to cut off military aid to difficult allies like Pakistan or Egypt if they veer away from American interests, sound at times quite close to Mr. Obama's approach.

And the speech appeared to glide past positions Mr. Romney himself took more than a year ago, when he voiced opposition to expanding the intervention in Libya to hunt down Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with what he termed insufficient resources. He called it "mission creep and mission muddle," though within months Mr. Qaddafi was gone. And last spring, Mr. Romney was caught on tape telling donors he believed there was "just no way" a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could work.

Which is to say, Romney was, once more, being dishonest, both about the president's policies and about his own views.

There hasn't been "weakness" at all, rather a mature and nuanced approach to foreign policy, along with a genuine understanding of the issues that shape global politics, that includes both diplomacy and military power, and indeed, far from abandoning America's allies (code for Israel) President Obama has restored America's credibility and standing in the world, a Herculean task given what was handed to him when he took office.

Romney apparently prefers the mindless swagger and bluster personified by George W. Bush, but, then again, it's not clear what he really thinks about anything. He apparently wants the U.S. to act like a global bully, pushing its weight around and subjecting everyone else to its authority, but of course that's both ridiculous and impossible. Otherwise, he changes his positions on anything and everything in accordance with the political winds. His VMI speech was just more of the same, baseless assaults on President Obama while saying what he thinks will win votes and avoiding specifics when it comes to what he would do as president.

And the consensus, outside of partisan Republican and ideologically conservative circles, was that the speech was largely a failure:

New York Times: "Mr. Romney's stated policies in today's speech, just as they have been in the past, are either pretty much like Mr. Obama's or, when there are hints of differences, would pull the United States in wrong and even dangerous directions... Americans deserve an intensive, textured and honest discussion on foreign policy. They did not get it on Monday."

 

Time: "Mitt Romney delivered a 'major' speech on foreign policy on Monday, although that designation of import comes from Romney's own campaign, and hardly seems warranted."

 

National Journal: "For the most part, however, Romney spoke of 'reaffirming' and 'recommitting' to policies that are already in place."

 

Politico: "'There's absolutely nothing in this speech. This is a repackaging of language that has been a staple of Romney's campaign since he threw his hat in the ring,' said James Lindsay of the Council on Foreign Relations. 'If Romney has a foreign policy strategy, he still has not told us what it is. The governor is very fond of saying hope is not a strategy, but that cuts both ways. He didn't answer two key questions: what he would do differently and why we should expect what he would to work.'"

Reuters: ANALYSIS-Romney spares details as he hits Obama on foreign policy

New York Times editorial: In Search of Answers From Mitt Romney

Time: Romney's Not-So-'Major' Foreign Policy Address Casts Obama as Weak
Associated Press: FACT CHECK: A one-sided story on trade, defense

Politico: Experts pan Romney foreign policy speech

National Journal: Romney's Foreign Policies Sound a Lot Like Obama's

CBS: What does Mitt Romney believe on foreign policy?

Los Angeles Times: Madeleine Albright finds Romney's foreign policy speech 'confusing'

Washington Post: Obama campaign dismisses Romney speech as 'chest-pounding rhetoric'
Wall Street Journal: Albright Says Romney Speech Full of 'Platitudes'

Politico: Obama camp blasts Romney foreign policy speech as 'Etch a Sketch' moment

Daily Beast: What Mitt Got Wrong in His Foreign-Policy Speech

Paul Ryan should probably just shut up about foreign policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In addition to saying that the Middle East currently "reminds you of 1979 Tehran," which is ridiculous and indicative of a lack of perspective and historical understanding, Paul Ryan took a page out of Mitt's "No Apology" smear campaign and launched into President Obama's handling of foreign policy, saying that America is failing on the world stage:

We've lost four of our diplomats. And what is the signal that our government is sending the rest of the world? We're being equivocal on our values, we're being slow to speak up for individual rights, for human rights, for democracy. We're seeing countries stifle freedom in Iran, in Russia, and all these other areas. And we're saying we're going to gut our military -- that projects weakness.

Ryan's all over the place here, but let's trudge through the sludge:

First, yes, four diplomats were killed in Libya. That's terrible. But just like Romney, Ryan is trying to use that tragedy, the result of a complex, volatile situation, to score political points. It was shameful then, and it's shameful now.

Second, the message that President Obama sent in response was clear and decisive but also without the sort of ignorant, knee-jerk jingoism that characterizes Republican foreign policy these days. And, contrary to Romney's blatant dishonesty, no one, least of all the president, was apologizing for America.

Third, no one is "being equivocal on our values," and certainly not President Obama. But of course it depends what you mean by "our values." If you think it means pushing everyone around, threatening bloodshed, and demanding, like petulant children, that we get our way, America uber alles, then, fine, Romney and Ryan might well be to your liking. But if you think it means operating with responsibility and maturity in a leadership role in the global community, understanding the nuances and challenges of international crises and that reform takes time, that "our values" can't simply be imposed on everyone else at the end of gun, then you might fine Romney and Ryan to be a dangerously ignorant pair who would threaten peace and stability at every warmongering turn, in stark contrast to Obama and Biden, who both offer the sort of leadership that builds America's standing and credibility in the world, much to the benefit of "our values."

Fourth, the line about individual rights, human rights, and democracy might well have come from Bush's Second Inaugural. It meant nothing then and it means nothing now. Ryan's party has a terrible record on all three, violating individual rights at home (e.g., voter suppression), violating human rights everywhere (e.g., torture), and promoting democracy only when it suits them, which is doesn't now in the Middle East, and so Republicans are freaking out over the (relatively moderate) Muslim Brotherhood and longing for the return of fascist dictators like Mubarak, just like they support such dictators wherever they can serve as American puppets, no matter the brutality they unleash on their own people. Democracy promotion is far more complicated than just calling for it, and, again, Obama and Biden get it, Romney and Ryan obviously don't.

Fifth, yes, it's very troubling what's happening in places like Iran and Russia, but what are you going to do about it? Threatening to bomb Iran only strengthens the Iranian theocratic regime by ramping up anti-Americanism (and anti-Israeliism), and calling Russia America's #1 enemy, a throwback to the dark days of the Cold War, doesn't do anything to warm relations with Putin and encourage reform. The sort of global bullying Romney and Ryan stand for is not just counter-productive but dangerous.

Sixth, cutting some of the fat out of the military isn't the same as gutting it. And while Ryan may think that Obama is projecting weakness, pursuing diplomatic solutions instead of just saber-rattling isn't a sign of weakness but an expression of leadership. And I'm not sure how killing Osama bin Laden and waging a massive drone campaign to take out al Qaeda, Taliban, and other anti-American leadership is weakness. One can criticize that campaign on any number of grounds (international law, human rights, etc.), but the projection of weakness is not one of them.

I've written a number of times recently that the new narrative for Romney is "unqualified, unprepared, and unfit for the presidency." The same applies to Ryan. He's obviously not vice presidential material. Conservatives think he's their wunderkind, but he's just too stupid for the job.

Romney campaign distorts Obama's Israel comments, says Romney would let Israel dictate U.S. policy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Here we go. Another day, another example of Romney trying to score political points, an increasingly desperate effort at this point, by taking something President Obama said out of context and distorting its meaning.

Here's Obama on 60 Minutes, in response to a question about whether he feels any pressure from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to change American policy towards Iran:

When it comes to our national security decisions any pressure that I feel is simply to do what's right for the American people, and I am going to block out any noise that's out there.

The Romney campaign pounced, perhaps hoping to scare up some votes in Florida, issuing the following statement:

Tonight on 60 Minutes, President Obama called Israel's legitimate concern about the impact of an Iran armed with nuclear weapons "noise" and referred to Israel as merely "one of our closest allies in the region."

The statement continued:

This is just the latest evidence of his chronic disregard for the security of our closest ally in the Middle East. Governor Romney's views stand in sharp contrast to the President's. Governor Romney strongly believes that Israel is our most important ally in the Middle East and that support for Israel is essential to extending freedom, peace and democracy throughout the region. As president, Governor Romney will restore and protect the close alliance between our nation and the state of Israel.

But did Obama actually disrespect Israel? Hardly. Here's what he said:

Now I feel an obligation -- not pressure but obligation -- to make sure that we're in close consultation with the Israelis on these issues because it affects them deeply. They're one of our closest allies in the region and we've got an Iranian regime that has said horrible things that directly threaten Israel's existence.

So it all hinges on the "one of our closest allies in the region" line. The Romney campaign is riffing off that to suggest that Obama disrespects Israel and disregards its concerns. Which is ridiculous.

There are certainly other U.S. allies in the region, like Jordan and Turkey, and the president was right to say what he said.

But of course it is de rigueur throughout American politics, but particularly among conservatives, not just to express one's support for Israel but essentially to acquiesce to its demands, to kowtow before it, to shape U.S. policy according to Israeli policy (at least if Israeli policy is Likudnik).

Obama is nothing if not pro-Israel, but of course he's not pro-Israel enough for the hardliners on the right, including in Romney's campaign, including Romney himself.

Romney wants to try to twist Obama's words around for his own benefit, but let's look at it another way:

Where the president wants to make decisions that are in America's best interests, free from outside influence or pressure, Romney wants to sell out American policy to a foreign country -- and if that means going to war with Iran because that country wants it, so be it.

Which is to say, President Obama understands that Israel is a close ally that needs U.S. support but that the U.S. must come first. Romney, meanwhile, seems to think that what matters is what Israel, and specifically the right-wing Israeli government, wants, and that the U.S. must not come before it.

And this was hardly the first time. Last October, for example, he said he would let Israel dictate U.S. policy regarding the Israeli-Palestinian situation.

Why does Mitt Romney continue to insist on making America a pitiful sidekick on the world stage?

Why does he not believe in America, and in American leadership?

Nicholas Kristof on Romney, foreign policy "empty shell"

By Michael J.W. Stickings

In over his head. Way, way, way over his head.

From yesterday's Times:

DIPLOMACY is a minefield, and Mitt Romney spent the last week blowing up his foreign policy credentials to be president. He raised doubts about his capacity to deal with global crises, and we were left hoping that if that 3 a.m. call ever went to him, he'd have set up call forwarding.

A great line. But of course this is serious:

The essential problem is that every time Romney touches foreign policy, he breaks things.

And not just by embarrassing himself in England:

The Republican Party is caught in a civil war on foreign policy, and Romney refuses to pick sides. In contrast to his approach on the economy, he just doesn’t seem to have thought much about global issues. My hunch is that for secretary of state he would pick a steady hand, like Robert Zoellick, but Romney has also surrounded himself with volatile neocons.

With China, Romney seems intent on a trade war. In the Middle East, it appears he’d like to subcontract foreign policy to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

And it gets worse:

Most dangerous of all is Romney's policy on Iran, which can't be dismissed as an offhand misstatement. As my colleagues David E. Sanger and Ashley Parker note, Romney muddles his own position on his nuclear red line for Iran. Plenty of candidates don't write their own foreign policy position papers, but Romney is unusual in that he seems not to have even read his.

According to clarifications from Romney's campaign, he apparently would order a military strike before Iran even acquired a bomb, simply when it was getting close. For anyone who has actually seen a battlefield, that's a blithe, too-light embrace of a path to yet another war. It's emblematic of a candidate who, on foreign policy, appears an empty shell.

I repeat the narrative that has emerged regarding Romney's quest for the presidency:

UNQUALIFIED.

UNPREPARED.

UNFIT.