JohnnyMack
5/22/2008, 10:22 AM
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1808467,00.html
Straw-Man Diplomacy
Thursday, May. 22, 2008 By JOE KLEIN
On the Friday before the 2004 presidential election, Osama bin Laden released a videotape slamming George W. Bush, which more than a few people took as a tacit endorsement of John Kerry. The CIA saw it differently, though. According to Ron Suskind's fine book, The One Percent Doctrine, Deputy Director John McLaughlin said, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President." It seemed obvious to the top CIA analysts that bin Laden wanted to keep Bush — who had let the terrorists off the hook in Afghanistan and launched the war in Iraq, a great recruiting tool for al-Qaeda — in power.
Which raises the question: Who are the bad guys rooting for in 2008? John McCain would have you believe the answer is clear. Barack Obama wants to meet with the leaders of enemy states, especially Iran, "which would increase their prestige," McCain says, and convey the impression of American weakness. To punctuate the point, McCain persistently barks that Obama wants to meet with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a flagrant anti-Semite but a relatively powerless figurehead. Obama did say during a debate last summer that he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. "He shorthanded the answer," Senator Joe Biden recently said. Ever since, Obama has been creatively fuzzy when asked directly if he would meet with Ahmadinejad — and he has begun to point out that the real leaders of Iran are the clerics led by the Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who controls Iran's foreign policy and its nuclear program. Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations. In his previous, straight-talking incarnation, McCain would have allowed Obama the modifications to his shorthand answer and debated the issue on the merits. Not this year.
When I asked McCain on May 19 why he kept linking Obama to Ahmadinejad, he said that Ahmadinejad represents Iran at the U.N., which is a fair point, and that the "average American" thinks he's the leader of Iran, which he isn't. Indeed, it could be argued that McCain's Ahmadinejad obsession "increases the prestige" of a relatively powerless loudmouth for domestic political gain. Linking Obama to the world's most famous anti-Semite certainly doesn't hurt McCain among Jewish retirees in Florida, a swing state. In any case, don't be surprised if Ahmadinejad pulls a bin Laden and "denounces" McCain just before the election this year.
Why? Because the last thing Iran's leaders want is an American President who doesn't play the role of the Great Satan. They need the mirage of an implacable, saber-rattling foe to distract their population from the utter incompetence of their government. An American President who said, "Let's talk," would lead an awful lot of Iranians to ask their leaders, "Why aren't you talking?" That was certainly the case after the reformer Mohammed Khatami won a surprise landslide election to become the Iranian President in 1997. The Clinton Administration began making quiet diplomatic overtures toward Khatami, and a handshake between Clinton and him was choreographed for the 2000 U.N. General Assembly meeting — but Khatami backed out at the last minute, under pressure from his clerical superiors. In recent Iranian elections, the mullahs have made sure that reformers like Khatami were ineligible to run for the presidency and the Iranian parliament — although there are indications that Khamenei considers Ahmadinejad to be an unnecessarily bellicose embarrassment as well.
This recent history provides sobering lessons for both Obama and McCain. For Obama, it demonstrates just how difficult any attempt to engage Iran's leaders will be. A more prudent course would probably be to ignore Iran at first and try to engage Syria, which has been dropping all sorts of hints that it is ready to talk to both the U.S. and Israel. For McCain, the lesson is the opposite: Why on earth does he want to keep making the same mistake Bush did and play the caricature Great Satan? A more prudent course would be to stow the tough-guy rhetoric, appear more reasonable, while aggressively — militarily — going after the violent jihadis in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.
That doesn't seem to be McCain's way, however. He is all bluster and impatience. If nothing else, his assault on Obama has renewed questions about whether McCain has the temperament to be President. A few years ago, in friendlier times, the Senator and I talked about the Cuban missile crisis. At a crucial moment, John F. Kennedy received two messages from the Soviets — one bellicose, one accommodating. He chose to ignore the bellicose message and very likely saved the world. "You probably would've chosen the wrong message," I teased McCain. "I probably would have," he laughed. He was joking, but given his behavior of late, you've got to wonder.
Thoughts?
Straw-Man Diplomacy
Thursday, May. 22, 2008 By JOE KLEIN
On the Friday before the 2004 presidential election, Osama bin Laden released a videotape slamming George W. Bush, which more than a few people took as a tacit endorsement of John Kerry. The CIA saw it differently, though. According to Ron Suskind's fine book, The One Percent Doctrine, Deputy Director John McLaughlin said, "Bin Laden certainly did a nice favor today for the President." It seemed obvious to the top CIA analysts that bin Laden wanted to keep Bush — who had let the terrorists off the hook in Afghanistan and launched the war in Iraq, a great recruiting tool for al-Qaeda — in power.
Which raises the question: Who are the bad guys rooting for in 2008? John McCain would have you believe the answer is clear. Barack Obama wants to meet with the leaders of enemy states, especially Iran, "which would increase their prestige," McCain says, and convey the impression of American weakness. To punctuate the point, McCain persistently barks that Obama wants to meet with the Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a flagrant anti-Semite but a relatively powerless figurehead. Obama did say during a debate last summer that he would meet with foreign leaders without preconditions. "He shorthanded the answer," Senator Joe Biden recently said. Ever since, Obama has been creatively fuzzy when asked directly if he would meet with Ahmadinejad — and he has begun to point out that the real leaders of Iran are the clerics led by the Supreme Leader Ayatullah Ali Khamenei, who controls Iran's foreign policy and its nuclear program. Obama has also been explicit about the need to start with lower-level talks, a presidential summit coming only if there were progress in those negotiations. In his previous, straight-talking incarnation, McCain would have allowed Obama the modifications to his shorthand answer and debated the issue on the merits. Not this year.
When I asked McCain on May 19 why he kept linking Obama to Ahmadinejad, he said that Ahmadinejad represents Iran at the U.N., which is a fair point, and that the "average American" thinks he's the leader of Iran, which he isn't. Indeed, it could be argued that McCain's Ahmadinejad obsession "increases the prestige" of a relatively powerless loudmouth for domestic political gain. Linking Obama to the world's most famous anti-Semite certainly doesn't hurt McCain among Jewish retirees in Florida, a swing state. In any case, don't be surprised if Ahmadinejad pulls a bin Laden and "denounces" McCain just before the election this year.
Why? Because the last thing Iran's leaders want is an American President who doesn't play the role of the Great Satan. They need the mirage of an implacable, saber-rattling foe to distract their population from the utter incompetence of their government. An American President who said, "Let's talk," would lead an awful lot of Iranians to ask their leaders, "Why aren't you talking?" That was certainly the case after the reformer Mohammed Khatami won a surprise landslide election to become the Iranian President in 1997. The Clinton Administration began making quiet diplomatic overtures toward Khatami, and a handshake between Clinton and him was choreographed for the 2000 U.N. General Assembly meeting — but Khatami backed out at the last minute, under pressure from his clerical superiors. In recent Iranian elections, the mullahs have made sure that reformers like Khatami were ineligible to run for the presidency and the Iranian parliament — although there are indications that Khamenei considers Ahmadinejad to be an unnecessarily bellicose embarrassment as well.
This recent history provides sobering lessons for both Obama and McCain. For Obama, it demonstrates just how difficult any attempt to engage Iran's leaders will be. A more prudent course would probably be to ignore Iran at first and try to engage Syria, which has been dropping all sorts of hints that it is ready to talk to both the U.S. and Israel. For McCain, the lesson is the opposite: Why on earth does he want to keep making the same mistake Bush did and play the caricature Great Satan? A more prudent course would be to stow the tough-guy rhetoric, appear more reasonable, while aggressively — militarily — going after the violent jihadis in Afghanistan, Pakistan and elsewhere.
That doesn't seem to be McCain's way, however. He is all bluster and impatience. If nothing else, his assault on Obama has renewed questions about whether McCain has the temperament to be President. A few years ago, in friendlier times, the Senator and I talked about the Cuban missile crisis. At a crucial moment, John F. Kennedy received two messages from the Soviets — one bellicose, one accommodating. He chose to ignore the bellicose message and very likely saved the world. "You probably would've chosen the wrong message," I teased McCain. "I probably would have," he laughed. He was joking, but given his behavior of late, you've got to wonder.
Thoughts?