James Taranto highlights remarks made by President Obama about his deal with Iran:
Obama: Let me answer the question that you asked. It does not give me pause that Mr. Assad or others in Tehran may be trying to spin the deal in a way that they think is favorable to what their constituencies want to hear. That’s what politicians do.
which Mr. Taranto correctly characterizes as an example of hasty generalization:
Of course it is true that politicians frequently “spin†and pander to their constituents. That’s part of democracy. But it’s bizarre and unsettling for Obama to wave away the triumphalist remarks of Bashar Assad or Ayatollah Ali Khameini as if they were democratic politicians trying to attract votes. Dictators don’t need votes.
He goes on to list other fallacies in the president’s comments: argumentum ad populum, appeal to authority, and his favorite device, the false dichotomy. In President Obama’s defense these are errors that are incredibly common among American politicians. And they’re among the reasons our foreign policy is so bad. We persist in thinking that every country is exactly like us, that everybody wants the same things we do, and that their leaders are motivated by the same things ours are.
I don’t think he’s being entirely fair to the president here:
The answer to the question “Why now?†seems obvious: With his presidency nearing an end, Obama was determined to strike a deal, any deal, to cement his legacy. “He’s like some old guy with a bucket list, checking off boxes and basking in the consternation that trails him,†writes Yahoo! News’s Matt Bai—who, incredibly, seems to view that at least somewhat approvingly…
The Iran deal is no item from a bucket list. Like the “Afghan surge” and healthcare reform, face to face negotiations with our enemies were components of Barack Obama’s earliest stump speeches in his first presidential campaign. A presidential “bucket list” doesn’t bother me so much as that the items lack any coherence or thematic unity. With Mr. Obama does not, apparently, do strategy. It is all tactics.
My interpretation of that has been that his policy preferences are a grab-bag of progressive policies going back nearly a century. Back then they may have had coherence but, well, things have changed. More regulation made a good deal of sense in a rapidly growing country that had practically no regulation. That doesn’t describe the U. S. now. We now have good reason to believe that “jar jar is better than war war” neither may be better still, and that detente does not always work in our favor.
Back in those halcyon days of six or seven years ago I had hoped that President Obama had the capacity to learn from his experiences. I no longer believe that to be the case.
A nuclear deal with Iran is a progressive policy? Is this a concession that conservatives have not been interested in having such a deal? Probably true. I don’t remember any proposals coming from any conservatives. Conservatives have changed so much since Reagan. Maybe that isn’t true either. If memory serves, Reagan took a lot of flak from conservatives for the deal with the Russians.
Steve
People of all stripes and ideologies would be more united in being delighted with this Iranian deal if the original U.S. terms and conditions had stayed affixed to the “deal,” rather than being scrubbed in order to get the deal done. Nobody in their right mind wants a war. However, “people pleasing” a country such as Iran, IMO, is not going to avoid conflict and consternation, if not a horrendous confrontation, down the road — after this President has left office.
I think an honest, great leader, one who is truly looking out for his country’s well being, much like a parent who loves their children and wants only the best for them, tends to view matters in the long term rather than a knee-jerk moment in time to make them momentarily happy.
What was scrubbed? I notice that you, like most conservatives have a difficult time describing the particulars with which you disagree. DO you really think we should not monitor all of the uranium Iran mines? Is that wrong? Do you think it is a bad idea that we will monitor all of their production sites every day? What exactly is wrong with it?
I don’t know where your information gathering comes from Steve. However, what I’ve heard is that inspections have become more convoluted and diluted, having delays up to 24 days, and with inspections only conducted by nations in good standing with Iran — which doesn’t include anyone from the U.S. This is what I mean by being “scrubbed” — much of the oversight effectiveness basically neutralized.
Also, once sanctions are lifted, the “snap-back” antidote that Obama is espousing, should they not keep their end of the bargain (count on it), is ridiculous. It will never happen, at least with all the cooperating partners now involved with sanctions. It will be a lost opportunity, if one tends to think they had any deterrence value — which many of you don’t.
Lastly, the administration is going forward with this “deal” to the UN before Congress has any hand in it’s approval. Where are the other powers governing this country having their input? It’s another unilateral move by the President which will effect us all — no matter how the public approves or rejects it. I don’t care what letter is after the POTUS’s party’s name (D or R), this kind of in-your-face transaction doesn’t sit well with me.
” We persist in thinking that every country is exactly like us, that everybody wants the same things we do, and that their leaders are motivated by the same things ours are.”
Now, now. The last time Iran had anything like a western-style government was 1953, and we and the Brits cooperated to depose the Prime Minister of the day, Mohammed Mosaddegh, on behalf of the Palevi dynasty and British oil companies. There hasn’t been a day since that we’ve treated Iran as being “just like us” — and if American negotiators are so stupid as to forget this elementary fact, I’m sure their Iranian counterparts are more than willing to correct their ignorance.
Bear in mind, I’m happy to entertain the thought that Barak Obama and many of his appointees are profoundly misguided and often very stupid individuals. But I don’t think they’re guilty of precisely the sort of stupidity you see in their behavior.
That said … let me go a bit farther, as someone who worked with Iranian-born engineers in the 1970s and went to school with a number of Iraqis … We NEVER should have made the Iraqis into enemies. They didn’t want to be our enemies, at least those I knew. Yeah, it was damned annoying when a batch of student radical stormed the US embassy in Teheran and took several hundred Americans hostage, but y’know, by 1979 Americans ought to have remembered that student radicals can get out of hand on occasion. And at the level of Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan and Congress and the State Department, there ought to have been a wee tiny small little iota of understanding that after 25 years or so of living in a police state the people of Iran might have had a bit of justification for their displeasure with the country that helped weld that police state into place. And maybe even — too much to ask for in a Christian nation, I know, but once can always dream — Jimmy or Ronny or Tip O’Neill or Teddy Kennedy or Strom Thurmond or other well respected statesman might actually have said a few words to American citizens, mentioning Mosaddegh and SAVAK and trying to explain just why the Iranians were so pissed. Letting it all go down as “frigging ragheads” who hated us for obscure religious reasons may have made many ordinary Americans feel very pleased with themselves, but it was never honest. It was an ugly stupid intentionally vicious policy which has benefited no one in the whole wide world for thirty five years now. And if there is a God in Heaven who recognizes and punishes deliberate evil, I sincerely hope he was recording the deeds of America’s “leaders” at that time and will eventually render condign judgment.
My 2 cents.
Uh, no. What actually happened is that a putsch was conducted by Iranian military officers and that was supported by the U. S. and Britain. They didn’t need our help but no doubt appreciated it. Neither us nor the UK had forces or even agents in Iran capable of overthrowing Mossadegh. My point is not that we were uninvolved but that we were at the most a minor player. In descending order of importance the Iranian military, the Brits, us. Why do you think Khomeini executed all those military officers?
Additionally, the Mossadegh government was already collapsing when the putsch took place. It was not a choice between a liberal democratic government and the Shah. It was a choice between the Tudeh and the Shah.
I’m afraid you’re repeating the Soviet disinformation mixed with the present Iranian regime’s creation myth with a dash of Kermit Roosevelt’s resume-padding.