I hope that this is true, that Iran has halted it's plans to develope nuclear program.

So - now Wallis trusts Intel? These same depts. gave info to the Pres and Congress about Iraq didn't they? If they were 'wrong' about Iraq like some have said - why trust them now about Iran?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: moderatelad | December 4, 2007 3:58 PM

I was waiting for this post on Beliefnet after the news broke yesterday. I doubt that even something as convincing as this report will appease the neo-conservatives who frequent this blog who re hell-bent on war.

As for Bush's policy working, I am more than willing to give him credit for this if he will admit to failure in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 4, 2007 4:42 PM

Bush's diplomacy? What diplomacy?! Calling them part of an "Axis of Evil?" I haven't seen any evidence of Bush initiating diplomacy with Iran.

Posted by: I and I | December 4, 2007 5:04 PM

Prayers for the truth to be revealed are being answered.

It's clear the intelligence community, after being scapegoated for giving false information supporting war
previously, where intelligence was politically shopped, cherry-picked, edited and even manufactured to justify what the recipients of it already wanted to do, wasn't about to get sandbagged like that again.

The intelligence agency managers decided to assert themselves and only tell "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" and let the political chips fall where they might. Last time, caving to demands with the threat of job insecurity if what was desired was not forthcoming ended up instead in blowback with careers ruined.

Congress is no longer ruled by Republican pushovers for the administration and any further intelligence "failures" would be sure to mean being hauled in front of committees by subpoena under oath, an unpleasant career prospect to say the least.

The administration had little choice but to back down in face of this assertion of independence. They've hid behind "intelligence failure" amidst all the gory investigative reports that point to them. The intelligence failure, if any, was the spinelessness of the intelligence managers in being willing to defend their staffs' work and compromising the truth thereby.
If they hadn't revealed the contents of the report, it would have leaked out painfully and they would have been the targets of accusations of trying to repress uncomfortable truths.

It is also true that should we have come to war, there was no way that some consciences within the intelligence community wanted to be responsible for so serious a consequence to lives and the future of the nation by acquiescing in intelligence work that was less than representative of the best they are capable of.

Posted by: Roger Moore | December 4, 2007 5:48 PM

Bush calls Iran part of an "axis of evil", then Iran halts its nuclear program. Tough talk often works, as when the Berlin Wall came down. I don't see what's wrong with continuing the tough rhetoric as a deterrent to actual war. It certainly beats the alternative.

Posted by: Cads | December 4, 2007 6:15 PM

That's really funny - not even comparable. Gorbachev was already heavy into perestroika and glasnost and liberalization when Reagan called upon him to go even further during a visit to West Berlin. His statement was quite concessionary to Gorbachev, to whom he spoke rhetorically, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" In Reagan's diaries that have recently been released, we read that he was completely open to Gorbachev's overtures to end the cold war and expressed his willingness to be sincere in meeting him halfway, even to sharing anti-nuclear ballistic missile technology with him that would give both countries security. Reagan even referred to Gorbabchev in his presence as the ending of the "evil empire" being due to the efforts of "this wonderful man." All that conceded to a national leader whose country wasn't just developing them, but had 30,000 nuclear warheads deployed.

Posted by: Enver Hoxha | December 4, 2007 6:25 PM

I am studying political science here in Hamilton New Zealand. I was quite surprised by the announcement that the Iranian position re: nuclear weapons don't exist or aren't in production.

We should look at this two ways: one, that the independent Intelligence Estimate is fair and accurate in its analysis. I stress the word independent because it was set up the 9/11 debacle. Not before. It collects from a number of intel groups state side and private sector.
Second, this could also be a very good spin for the White House to deal decisively a problem by starting a backlash intended to draw out real time intel somehow I know this sounds conspircacy but Machiavelli still alive and well.

The history of the last eight years of the Bush Admin. has been one of deceit and playing deception for its intended neo-conservative adgenda. Also compound that - with the Open Door policy of 1905, which is in still in effect -there are some very wealthy players who want more commerical interests abroad for American business. Oil is just one game.

Lastly,we must ask ourselves -why is there such a rush to stamp on Iran? what's the real reason. Study the history of Iran and US foreign policy and you will get your answer. I have done an extensive survey into American foreign policy and it's heavy reading -but the patterns show themselves over and over in the same way.

My kind regards to you all from here in New Zealand

Posted by: Quentin Todd | December 4, 2007 7:14 PM

I'm not about to accept the post hoc ergo proper hoc notion that Iran halted their nuclear program because of Washington's tough talk. It would take much more than a mere chronological association to convince me. The Iranian leadership marches to their own drummer--as many of the neo-cons who post here regularly have continually reminded us--and I doubt whether the Bushies' hard line influenced them all that much. I would have to see hard evidence to believe it.

And it seems pathetic, indeed almost silly, that Bush himself is now using this report as justification for continuing the hard line. He gets figuratively hit on the head with a 2 X 4 and he still talks the tough talk. Amazing! Reality just doesn't seem to make much of a difference to him--he knows what's right no matter what the evidence says.

That being said, I am hopeful that perhaps this dose of reality will sink in somewhere within the Beltway. Perhaps Washington's drumbeat for an attack on Iran will be a bit more muffled. At least, attacking Iran is likely now to get far less support from Congress and the military than before. We can at least be thankful for that.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 8:16 PM

Okay, maybe my comments about Bush's reaction were a bit on the 'bashing' side this time, but I see precious little evidence that he's willing to soften his hard line even in the face of evidence that he was wrong.

Bush--and you--are both right that the threat isn't over. Yes, the suspension of the nuclear program does give us time--time that in my estimation would best be used to test the diplomatic waters and see what we can learn about Iran's MO first hand. That's what Baker-Hamilton recommended, and from what I see that would give us the best chance of making sure they don't restart the nuke development. But I don't think the current administration will attempt that, and that's quite unfortunate.

The timing is interesting, but it's still only timing--it's not evidence of a connection. I don't know that anyone could come up with another 'theory' for why they suspended their nuclear program, because we know so little about what makes the Iranian leadership operate. (Another reason why we need to sit at the table with them.)

I'm not ruling out a military response. At least I wouldn't rule one out if we were engaged in real, serious, and honest diplomacy with Iran. A military response can never be ruled out when engaging in diplomacy with an adversary or a potential one. But like "I and I" remarked (5:04 PM), I've seen little evidence of genuine diplomacy here. And refusing to rule out a military option in a diplomatic engagement is a far cry from the kind of irresponsible sabre-rattling and threatening that we've been hearing from the Administration. Rev Wallis is right--it has been reckless, on many levels.

Posted by: Don | December 4, 2007 9:48 PM

"I'm not about to accept the post hoc ergo proper hoc notion that Iran halted their nuclear program because of Washington's tough talk. It would take much more than a mere chronological association to convince me. "

Of course. Do you have an alternative explanation?

"The Iranian leadership marches to their own drummer--as many of the neo-cons who post here regularly have continually reminded us"

Where has anyone said that Iran marches to their own drummer? Iran has been seeking to be a major "player" in the middle east for decades. Power is very important to Iranian leadership. You don't get to be a player by winding up like Iraq.

"And it seems pathetic, indeed almost silly, that Bush himself is now using this report as justification for continuing the hard line."

Why is it silly? The report suggests that Iran want nuclear weapons within eight years? Does that bother you at all?

"Reality just doesn't seem to make much of a difference to him--he knows what's right no matter what the evidence says."

Given your first paragraph, this is a peculiar thing to say.

"At least, attacking Iran is likely now to get far less support from Congress and the military than before. We can at least be thankful for that."

Not thankful that Iran's nuclear program is apparently not as far along as we thought (maybe, we are sort of sure, probably), but thankful that it is now politically difficult to attack Iran. Interesting.

Nonetheless, Wallis' position of taking the military option off the table is untenable.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 4, 2007 10:00 PM

Just maybe the Iranians feared Bush and put their nuclear program on hold till he was gone to see if a Democrat was elected to the presidency next year. Then, incentive diplomacy will begin, but not fearing a military attack, their nuclear program will amazingly be resurrected!

Posted by: Cads | December 5, 2007 1:02 AM

Just maybe the Iranians feared Bush and put their nuclear program on hold till he was gone to see if a Democrat was elected to the presidency next year.

Maybe they did; maybe they didn't. I don't think pointing out the logical flaw in the post hoc assertion requires finding an alternative explanation. If we want to know the real reasons why they suspended the program, we need to start talking to them.

And the fact remains that Bush has apparently been wrong about the Iranians' development of a nuclear capability for four years, and he refuses to admit it.

I don't understand the reticence to engage the Iranians diplomatically. In 2001, they offered their help in rooting out the Taliban from Afghanistan. While we have very different outlooks on many things, by talking to them, we could discover where our interests converge. A majority of the Iranian people were born after the Islamic Revolution there and have no recollection of the Shah. Further, from the reports I have heard, many are pro-Western and are quite tired of the imposition of religiously-based restrictions on their lives.

And finally, the Soviet Union posed a far bigger threat than Iran, yet we continued engaging them in diplomacy throughout the Cold War.

It simply doesn't make sense to refuse to talk to them, but to pound the war drums instead.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 5, 2007 8:31 AM

Up to now we've been operating under the assumption that the report is accurate. Before we go any further, let's at least consider the possibility that the report is, in fact a crock.

After all the NIE was prepared by the same set of intelligence agencies that were convinced that Saddam Hussein had a substantial number of WMDs. Now, I know you think that the Hussein WMD conclusion was all the result of political pressure from the administration. Let's assume that's true: what that means is that our intelligence agencies are vulnerable to political pressures.

If that is the case, those same politically vulnerable agencies would know that Bush is a lame duck, his ability to affect them is waning and that the next President is likely to be a Democrat.

So it's at least conceivable that an intelligence community that fudged intel to suit Bush when he was at his strongest might fudge intel the other way when the Democrats are waxing and Bush's power is waning.

Now of course you will counter that in fact the anticipated arrival of a Democratic administration put no pressure on anyone other than to tell the truth -- you won't put it that bluntly of course but that's what it'll all boil down to. To which my response is: your faith in your own rectitude is touching.

The bottom line is I'm inclined to take the NIE seriously, but it should never be confused with The Infallible Word of God.

On a related note, James Martin asks if the report changes our position at all. I can't speak for Kevin but for me the answer is yes: I'm more inclined to give diplomacy more time. And in fact the administration has been working all sorts of diplomatic angles with the UN, the EU, Russia and China. I'm not sure where anyone gets the idea that the US hasn't been doing diplomacy.

What Bush hasn't done, and shouldn't do, is renounce military strikes in the event Iran continues its nuclear weapons program. You seem to think that we're not doing diplomacy as long as military action is an option. You need to read your von Clausewitz: "war is the continuation of politics through other means."

The point isn't that war is good, rather, it is that diplomacy is nowhere near as pure as you seem to want it to be.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 5, 2007 9:02 AM

JamesMartin wrote:

So we can't know anything from the Republican administration. Nice. Sounds like a good rationale for war to me...NOT

Huh? I think I just said that I was more willing to give diplomacy time. I certainly didn't say this report was a rationale for war.

As for whether or not we can "know anything from the Republican administration", well, political pressure is a fact of life. We can recognize it and account for it, or we can go on naively believing anything that comes from our government.

Well it is kind of hard to believe in the bona fides of a diplomacy that basically called the Iranians lying sacks of _ _ _ _

The Iranians have called the US that and more. Diplomacy is preferable to war, but that doesn't mean its always nice.

You need to read your infallible word of God where it says to love your enemies.

Yes, and naturally that means we shouldn't raise any objections if our enemies develop nuclear weapons.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 5, 2007 10:21 AM

Those posting to this thread might be interested in reading Thomas Friedman's column in today's New York Times titled "Intercepting Iran's Take on America."

Some teasers:

"As you’ll recall, in the wake of 9/11, we were extremely concerned that the U.S. would develop a covert program to end its addiction to oil, which would be the greatest threat to Iranian national security ... We were wrong."

"U.S. politicians seem determined to appeal either to the most nativist extremes in their respective parties — or to tell voters that something Americans call “the tooth fairy” will make their energy, budget, educational and Social Security deficits painlessly disappear ... Who needs nukes when you have this kind of America?"

Loving our enemies means being willing to put ourselves in their shoes and trying to imagine what they might be thinking about us.

Posted by: Another nonymous | December 5, 2007 10:48 AM

I would hope that diplomacy would work - historically it has not with Iran.

Yes - they stopped part of their program in 2003, but they kept the enrichment program going.

In this day and age with N. Korea developing the missle and Iran enriching the material. Don't you think they could put their programs together for their mutual benefit?

Maybe the 'axis of evil' is working better than Nancy and Harry are willing to admit?

I am not a dooms day type of person. (I've read the book - in the end - we win so bring it on) I also know that I am not the brightest bulb on the tree. (that will be carved on my headstone when the time comes) But if I can put this senario together - don't you think they might have thought about it already - hmmmm?

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 5, 2007 10:59 AM

I would hope that diplomacy would work - historically it has not with Iran.

It hasn't worked because it hasn't been tried. We cut off all diplomatic ties to Iran in 1979, remember? (We cut off trade ties, too, which is why you can't find the red pistachio nuts anymore.)

Show me when and where we tried to engage the Iranians in any kind of diplomacy since?

D

Posted by: Don | December 5, 2007 11:11 AM

"It's a logical fallacy because the argument for a connection is based on a chronological association."

No, it's based on a chronological association that has no other expalantion. If there were many other option that made equal sense, then it would be a fallacy. But there are not, so it isn't.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 5, 2007 12:22 PM

Kevin:
No, it's based on a chronological association that has no other expalantion.

Utter nonsense. I'm sure anyone who had studied Iran could come up with loads of other possible explanations. I haven't, but even I can suggest that (i) maybe it was the result of European diplomacy rather than US aggressive posturing, (ii) maybe it was the result of changes in the power balance within the Iranian establishment. I'm not saying that either of these is necessarily true, but it is self-deluding nonsense to think that Bush's wild west stance is the only explanation.

Mark

Posted by: Mark | December 5, 2007 12:49 PM

"Utter nonsense. I'm sure anyone who had studied Iran could come up with loads of other possible explanations."

And if I were to arbitrarily pick my explaanation, then I would be guilty of fallacy. But I am not doing so.

"I haven't, but even I can suggest that (i) maybe it was the result of European diplomacy rather than US aggressive posturing"

How so? What did Europe do prior to 2003 that would have cause Iran to halt it's program?

"(ii) maybe it was the result of changes in the power balance within the Iranian establishment."

What changes in the power balance happened prior to 2003.

Will you concede that it is possible that the war with Iraq was a deterrent to Iran's nuclear program?

" it is self-deluding nonsense to think that Bush's wild west stance is the only explanation."

Didn't say it was the only explanation.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 5, 2007 2:29 PM

Try looking at it this way: For a small country like Iran to develop nuclear weapons would be extremely expensive. OTOH, they can actually make money by feeding our dependence on their oil. Given the choice, which "weapon" would you choose? And what's the most effective way to "fight" back?

Posted by: Another nonymous | December 5, 2007 2:57 PM

The current admin. in Iran is comprised of many of the students that took over the Embassy back in the day.

You got evidence of that?? This is the first time I've heard of something like that.

And even if true, haven't former enemies got together before this and made relations work?

I am not sure if you can trust what the Iranian Gov't would have to say.

And I'm almost positive that the Iranians would say the same of us. So where does that get us?

You haven't made the case that we shouldn't be talking with them. In fact, you've given several pretty good reasons why we should. Mutual mistrust is one of them.

Later,

Posted by: Don | December 5, 2007 3:32 PM

"Yes, and naturally that means we shouldn't raise any objections if our enemies develop nuclear weapons."

wolverine/kevin, do you even know WHY iran is our enemy? i mean, from a historical perspective? because it wasn't always so.

hint: it has nothing to do with islamic fascism.

now, with every threat, we bury the forces of change and democracy in iran even deeper. with each declaration of the "evils" of tehran, we give the hard-liners more power. the people of iran largely want democracy. the kicker is they're not willing to give up their nationalism to do it. our continued hawkishness just fuels popular support for the regime.

at the beginning of the iraq war, the iranian moderates (who still had quite a bit of power at the time) reached out to us, most likely with the blessing of the mullahs. we said, in effect 'screw you', ensuring their rapid exit and the rise of mahmoud and other hardliners. yeah, that's some good diplomacy, guys. very wise indeed.

Posted by: mingus | December 5, 2007 4:30 PM

Carl,

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has what amounts to dictatorial power in Iran. Ahmadinejad is nothing but his puppet. There is no secular government except in name only.

However, I do agree that what is said here is purely speculative, so I think I'll just sit back from now on to see if the Shiite hits the fan. However, I do hope the USA doesn't just offer carrots with no possibility of the stick being applied.

Posted by: Cads | December 5, 2007 5:03 PM

However, I do hope the USA doesn't just offer carrots with no possibility of the stick being applied.

As I said before, we can't talk about taking or not taking a military option off the table in the absence of serious diplomacy. They go hand in hand. Give us some serious high-level talks between US and Iranian officials and then we can start talking about how and when to apply the threat of military action. Until then, we won't have been using the "stick" as effectively as we could.

Because of the lack of serious diplomacy, all the threats of military action we have heard have been belligerent fearmongering and warmongering on the part of the US administration. All these threats have done is inflame and increase hostility. They're not a solution. Diplomacy might possibly put us on the road to one. It's worth a try at any rate.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 5, 2007 5:19 PM

"Bush not a very intelegent person" - Hberciunas
Hey H, watch out who you're calling unintelligent!

Don, nice post. I'm willing to attempt some diplomacy, but with who (or is it whom)? The secular part of the government has no real power, so unless you're talking to a high ranking ayatollah, you're probably wasting your time. There's a reason the official name of the country is the Islamic Republic of Iran and it's not because of its secularism.

Just one more thing - Doesn't anyone else find it odd that the country with the third largest amount of proven oil reserves is so intent on developing enriched uranium for its peaceful nuclear power plant program?

Posted by: Cads | December 5, 2007 5:46 PM

Notorious neocon David Frum has put together a five-point plan in the wake of the NIE that I thought made sense, so I'm summarizing it here.

(The full article is at David Frum's Diary on a certain conservative magazine's website. Unfortunately the geniuses at Beliefnet cannot tell the difference between a link to a respected conservative publication and a Viagra ad, or else I'd provide the link myself.)

Anyway, here are Frum's suggestions:

1. A pledge that as long as the Iranian nuclear program is frozen there will be no US strikes within Iranian territory. (Yes, we're backing down on the military option. Does this surprise you?)

2. Specific guidelines for Iranian behaviour needed for normalized relations, including "a total end to terrorism and support for terrorist groups like Hezbollah and an end to subversive activities inside Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Kurdish territories."

3. Increased broadcasting into Iran. Frum recommends that we minimize pro-US propaganda in favor of presenting a range of opinions (other than radical Islamist I suspect -- Lord knows the Iranian people get more then enough of that) and programs that will appeal to the interests of the Iranian public. "US-supported broadcasters should serve as models of what a free Iranian society might look like...Oh, and there should be a heavy commitment to music and comedy as well. Especially comedy."

4. Promote human rights within Iran, with the idea of establishing that the US is a friend to the majority of Iranians who grow weary of a repressive regime, and a potential friend of a more responsible, humane future government of Iran.

5. Propose the re-establishment of bilateral relations between Iran and the US. Frum believes the Iranian government will reject this offer, further illustrating that they are the intransigent, radical party here.

Just thought I'd throw that out there and see what the folks here thought.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 5, 2007 8:09 PM

"The secular part of the government has no real power"

and this is a direct result of our repeated threats. prior to the 'axis of evil' talk, the moderate, secular, pro-western forces actually had some power and, the evidence shows, even some pull with the ayatollahs.

(i'm trying this again after losing some posts, so forgive me if i repeat myself)

power lies with the people - in the 90s and 00s, the ayatollahs knew the people, the youth in particular, were itching for democracy, and the reformers had made a lot of progress on that end.

the end of the modern reform movement and the rise of ahmadinejad and the hardliners in iran can be linked, quite literally, to two events:

1. bush's 'axis of evil' comment
2. our non-response to the overtures of the moderate, pro-democracy iranian forces at the start of the iraq war (when we essentially said, 'you're next')

there is a historical mistrust of the iranian people to america - they like what we say, but they don't always see us doing what we say (and they actually have some pretty good historical reasons not to trust us). when we call them all, effectively, 'evil', what do we expect but a hardened stance.

we haven't learned from history. the best way to take the wind out of the iranian regime's sails is to get the people on our side. talk of world war three is not the way to do that. it's not strategically in our best interest to ratchet up the war talk.

Posted by: mingus | December 5, 2007 8:26 PM

I am glad to hear this news regarding Iran and want to just say that beyond diplomacy efforts, it's also the raising of the consciousness of our planet that helps to create peace and prevent war. I am joining with hundreds across the country tonight as we pray for peace across the planet - and am glad to be a part of a movement like this one that values honest discussion, education about events in our world, and challenging ourselves to boldly face the problems of the world. PRAYER works. Blessings of peace to all in this night.
Sister Andrea
www.SophiaPeaceTemple.com

Posted by: Sister Andrea Cohen | December 5, 2007 8:33 PM

David Frum is the brilliant mind responsible for inventing the 'Axis of Evil'.

Posted by: justintime | December 5, 2007 9:50 PM

"particularly points 3 and 4 — I think we desperately need to do some self-examination and clean up our own act before we go preaching to the rest of the world."

Given the sanity of most of your comments, I wouldn't put you in with the "America doesn't have free speech or human rights" crowd. I suppose you would cite Guantanamo as an example of our human rights track record, but wouldn't you agree that we are light years ahead of Iran.

As for freedom of the press, we have virtually absolute freedom, and can even publish whatever we choose, whether Rupert Murdoch exists or not. I have no qualms asking other countries loosen their grip on the free press.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2007 1:15 AM

David Frum? Few of us in Canada shed any tears when he went south. Maybe he's another one of the Canadians Kevin S. finds amusing.

Posted by: canucklehead | December 6, 2007 1:18 AM

Just one more thing - Doesn't anyone else find it odd that the country with the third largest amount of proven oil reserves is so intent on developing enriched uranium for its peaceful nuclear power plant program? Cads

Not necessarily. They may be developing a non-fossil fuel energy source so that they can sell the more expensive stuff to countries who fail to develop alternative fuels- it would be a good idea given our country's failure to develop alternative fuels, which has only been made worse by this administration.

Posted by: JamesMartin | December 6, 2007 4:23 AM

It is strongly suspected that Ahmadinejad himself was among them. You really haven't heard that?

Suspicions aren't evidence of fact. And no, I hadn't heard that. And even if it's true that Ahmadinejad was one of the "students" that stormed the US embassy back in 1978, keep in mind that he's just a figurehead. I don't think talking to him would do much good. See below.

I'm willing to attempt some diplomacy, but with who (or is it whom)? The secular part of the government has no real power, so unless you're talking to a high ranking ayatollah, you're probably wasting your time.

I think a summit meeting between the US president and Khatami is in order. Does that answer your question? And even if that's not possible, surely there are diplomats within the US diplomatic corps who know who we should be talking to.

Another nonymous: Your analysis of David Frum's points is dead on. I wish it weren't true as well, but that's the state of things.

The Friedman column was published in our local paper this morning. I'm going downstairs to read it as soon as I'm finished here.

Peace,

Posted by: Don | December 6, 2007 6:47 AM

"If nuclear weapons are so horrible"

The argument is not that nuclear weapons are horrible (though there is a case to be made that they are), the argument is they are particularly dangerous in the hands of certain nations.

Contrary to the unfounded assertions of some on this board, the leadership of Iran is made of different stuff than the leadership of our country. If the argument for relenting on the issue of a nuclear Iran boils down to "Bush is just as bad as Ahmadinejad", then let's present that case to the American people for evaluation.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2007 8:42 AM

In response to "I and I" and several other bloggers, I feel as a social studies teacher that people are displaying an unfamiliarity with the means of diplomacy. Diplomacy does not mean only discussing peaceful solutions. "Saber-rattling" is an essential component of diplomacy and has been for centuries. Using saber-rattling does not always mean that the governments doing it truly want war. In fact, they most often want peace. However, they have to gauge their opponent--What will that government respond to? What message will induce them to change their behavior? It is naive to assume that a government, whose near-dictatorial leader has openly stated he would advocate wiping another country off the map, would respond to niceities. Bush did not threaten World War III, he said that the actions of Iran are a threat that could lead us to World War III. Not the best language, but it gets the point across--this is a really dangerous country we are dealing with, so wake up world and take Iran seriously. The good news is that our government has now discovered Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. Of course, that doesn't change they fact that Iran is still a dangerous country that needs to be taken seriously.

Posted by: M | December 6, 2007 9:02 AM

"Of course, that doesn't change they fact that Iran is still a dangerous country that needs to be taken seriously."

and this is exactly why the "saber-rattling" is so stupid strategically. as a social studies teacher, surely you know that historically, every time we've stepped up the aggressive talk, the iranian people have moved closer to the hardliners and away from the moderates.

the iranian people largely want democracy. but give them a break if they're a little suspect when we talk about freedom one day and call them the 'axis of evil' the next. it's simply not enough to say that we differentiate between the leadership and the people - they're just as nationalistic (probably even more so) than we are. they certainly have good reason historically to be suspect of our motives. every time we talk about 'axis of evil' and 'world war three', we undercut our standing with the iranian people and boost the standing of the hardliners.

Posted by: mingus | December 6, 2007 9:14 AM

Another Nonymous wrote:

Frankly, I don't think a country in which a lot of people get their news from Fox News or The Daily Show is in much of a position to show the rest of the world what a free, democratic press should look like (a point Thomas Friedman made very effectively in the NYT column that I alluded to earlier).

To the extent that Fox News is a problem, it's not a free speech problem, it's a "they don't agree with you" problem.

A free society will have publications that all of us don't agree with. You've probably noticed that I don't agree with a lot of things at Sojo. I might make snarky comments and even butt heads with their tech people from time to time. But I wouldn't say that Sojo isn't part of a free press. But then again, I don't expect that in a free society everyone is share my outlook.

Wolverine

Posted by: Wolverine | December 6, 2007 9:55 AM

Posted by: Wolverine | December 6, 2007 9:55 AM

"A free society will have publications that all of us don't agree with. You've probably noticed that I don't agree with a lot of things at Sojo. I might make snarky comments and even butt heads with their tech people from time to time. But I wouldn't say that Sojo isn't part of a free press. But then again, I don't expect that in a free society everyone is share my outlook."

Nor do I; my point was that "news" has degenerated into entertainment and/or propaganda. It's not that we don't have freedom of the press, it's that we're not using it very well.

Posted by: Another nonymous | December 6, 2007 10:34 AM

"and you sir are hardly an exception."

I don't begin my posts with a litany of insults, followed by a lecture that makes no effort to deal with the arguments in any substantive way.

"the iranian people largely want democracy. but give them a break if they're a little suspect when we talk about freedom one day and call them the 'axis of evil' the next."

You are conflating the people with the people's leadership. The people who want democracy are fully aware of the shortcomings of their leadership, just as the people of North Korea (another member of the axis) are aware that there is a disconnect between their wants and their leadership.

If the people are more nationalistic than we are, and therefore identify with their leadership, there is not that much we can do. When we negotiate with Iranian leaders, we are considered to be negotiating with Iran. That's the semantic setup, here.

"i would encourage everyone to study history and ask WHY iran is our enemy (it wasn't always so). it's not because they're just by nature intolerant, irrational people."

Nobody here has said this. Regardless of the reasons to explain our enemy status (and they are not as clear cut as you imply) the leadership of Iran is, empirically, intolerant and irrational. Further, they have declared themselves enemies of Israel, for reasons that are certainly intolerant and irrational.

More than this, the government is acting on that intolerance by supporting a terrorist organization (Hezbollah) that is actively attacking Israel. As such, it is unacceptable for them to have a nuclear bomb, now or in 2010.

"hmm... since when is the news supposed to 'agree' with anyone? maybe that's the problem."

I agree with you. And in an ideal world, the press would be free of bias of any kind. But no news outlet is, or ever really has been, free of such bias.

Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2007 10:57 AM

and the evidence shows, quite clearly, that the rise of mahmoud and others and the death of the modern iranian pro-democracy movement (very popular, and even with the implicit support of the ayatollahs not 10 years ago) is directly linked to our declarations of 'evil' and our utter refusal to work with even the moderates in the regime...

I know, I'm always asking for evidence. I'm certainly inclined to think you're right, but could you point to some of the evidence?

thanks!

D

Posted by: Don | December 6, 2007 12:43 PM

"i'd suggest that you re-read some of your posts, then, because you certainly have a tendency toward insults and lecturing."

Regardless, I deal with the arguments posted here.

"the ayatollahs - intolerant, yes. irrational? no way. you don't hold that kind of power by being irrational."

I don't think they will continue to hold the kind of power they have for very long.

"This blog is set up to be a dialog of faith and politics. You appear intent on discussing politics without any grounding in faith."

What am I supposed to say? That Jesus is called us into this war? That's bananas. I don't think scripture called us to fight WW2 either. Romans provides a scriptural basis for nations to go to war. Therefore, I am scripturally permitted to support a war effort, but that isn't to say that I must.

Incidentally, there is no mention of scripture in Wallis' post either. How would he use scripture to defend the NIE?

Posted by: kevin s. | December 6, 2007 3:01 PM

Posted by: steve | December 6, 2007 1:24 PM

I guess I have to repeat my challenge.

Allow me some time to put my words together so that I do not miss-speak. But - I do find it interesting that many on the left diminish the role of faith or Christianity in gov't dealings. But for some reason now faith has to be imposed on gov't when dealing with foreign policy.

If we had followed Wallis' ideals when Saddam had invaded Kuait - he would still be there and maybe heading for Saudi Arabia, Iran and beyond. We should have never gone to war then with the paradygm thata Wallis has set forth. We should have never gone to war with Germany as they did not attack us. Wallis and Co. are suspect of our actions with Japan. So - I believe Wallis would never go to war to free anyone from opression. (I know - the US is the great opressor in the world and is evil to the core - at least when there is a Rep. in the White House)

I will put together my thoughts on the 'millitary option'. You tell me why we should not have gone to war with Germany in WWII, or Japan for that matter. (maybe we should have divided the US down the Mississippi and given the east to Germany and the west to Japan and then no one would have died in WWII and the great Evil of the US would not exsist.)

Blessings -
.

Posted by: Moderatelad | December 6, 2007 4:33 PM

'"Does God differentiate between the United States and Iran??"

'I don't really know, but I think it's quite likely that does at some point.

'One is a free society with a functioning democracy, a free press, and freedom of religion.

'The other is a theocratic dictatorship where Islam is imposed by force and other religions are repressed.'

I hesitate, as a mere Brit, to tangle with Wolverine. But I think I would want to rephrase Letjusticerolldown's question and take serious issue with Wolverine's answer. If the question is put as "Does God differentiate between the people of the United States and the people of Iran??" the Christian answer, whatever theological tradition you come from, has to be "No. God loves the people of the USA just as much as he loves the people of Iran - including both sets of rulers."

During my travels in Iran thiry-odd years ago (when the Shah's rule was starting to crumble and SAVAK, his appalling secret police, were hauling in all sorts of moderate Shi'ite Muslims and turning them into radicalised supporters of Ayatollah Khomeini), it was my privilege to meet leaders of some of the very different Christian communities (Armenian, Assyrian and Anglican[=Episopalian]) in that country, all of whom were, as I suspect their successors still are, adamant that their faith as Christians was not inconsistent with their citizenship as good Iranians.

That the actions and policies of the "Christian" west have made such people deeply suspect in the eyes of their Muslim compatriots is a crime for which I fear we shall have to answer at the day of judgement - as we shall for the sufferings of the Christian communities in Iraq. In both countries the Christian presence predates Islam by at least five centuries. Will it be our distinction to have brought about and presided over their final obliteration?

Posted by: Tony Dickinson | December 6, 2007 4:47 PM

P
What do you consider a legalistic, formulaic response (and maybe we can leave out saying there is a "right" that only wants that and a "left" that does not)?

President Carter attempted to place human rights as the top ideal in governance of foreign affairs. I don't think that was a formula--but I am not sure what you are saying.

Posted by: letjusticerolldown | December 7, 2007 10:27 AM