A point often forgotten: the culture of Islam is a close connection, indeed a strong link, between the supreme cleric and the secular leader(s); perhaps like once and prominent in our Eurocentric culture, Pope/King. It may take decades or centuries for this to change in the Middle East; meanwhile some religious conservatives in our country would like to chain our governmental system to themselves. Perhaps the answer, or dream, would be for the links to be broken, but respect for sectarian and secular camps to respect each other.
3
Thanks for the bite of red meat Mr. Brooks! Always delicious. So the Ayatollah thinks the US is evil. Yes, that is so different than saying Iran is part of the "Axis of Evil". Outrageous I say, outrageous...
28
Khamenei is speaking to the Republicans in Congress who signed that letter. I wonder if he'll get invited to speak to Congress in the coming months.
24
This column strikes me as extremely confused. First, it seems to assume that the accord-in-progress aims to settle all tensions/differences with Iran, which is clearly not the case. Of course Iran will try to advance its nonnuclear interests/ambitions regardless of the accord. To the extent that these threaten us or our allies, we/they will have to come up with ways of counteracting Iran's actions, again independent of the accord. Second, it seems to assume that the final accord will be "subtle" and impossible to verify. If that's the best that we can persuade the Iranians to consider in the talks that remain, then I hope and assume that there will be no accord at all, a position that I think is much more consistent than Mr. Brooks' with all of the statements made by those involved in crafting the accord framework.
7
I'd be interested to know why it's perfectly rational for our right wing to jump up and down, scream and holler about Iran and they should trust us, but boy howdy, let their right wing jump up and down, scream and holler about Iran, and see? Can't trust those people.
I guess, too, we're the only country allowed to have a loud political debate.
Of course the point is, trust but verify, words with which perhaps some may be familiar.
And of course, the point is, so what's the plan, Stan? OK, we throw out the deal. They restart the program full speed, because why not? And we just tell Russia and China to hang in there with more sanctions? Or we bomb the sites...seems pretty clear we can't get at all of them, but we bomb. then what? the Iranians just say, "Golly, that Great Satan...what a character, eh?"
What's Plan B?
I guess, too, we're the only country allowed to have a loud political debate.
Of course the point is, trust but verify, words with which perhaps some may be familiar.
And of course, the point is, so what's the plan, Stan? OK, we throw out the deal. They restart the program full speed, because why not? And we just tell Russia and China to hang in there with more sanctions? Or we bomb the sites...seems pretty clear we can't get at all of them, but we bomb. then what? the Iranians just say, "Golly, that Great Satan...what a character, eh?"
What's Plan B?
31
Khamenei won't be in charge long if the religious council decides he's part of the past and not the future. If the deal falls through at least the Iranian people will know that we tried to make peace. It will once more be in their hands to change their fate. No, I think politics enters even the world of religious fanatics who realize that their supporters are aging and the youth grow impatient. As we saw in the USSR, eventually, a 10% elite ruling class will give way to a people who have had enough.
3
Brooks jumps the shark! Sovereignty is now apocalyptic! The Wizard of Oz made less distraction from real points.
What a fantastical, disoriented, nonsense evaluation of Iran. Could the NSA please tell us how many hours Brooks spends on the phone with Netanyahu? (Make themselves useful.)
What a fantastical, disoriented, nonsense evaluation of Iran. Could the NSA please tell us how many hours Brooks spends on the phone with Netanyahu? (Make themselves useful.)
13
Brooks may represent his party's philosophy using thoughtful language, but the end result is always a preference for war rather than negotiated peace. Americans have seen the results of this approach over the past decade, and it is frankly horrible for everybody but the war profiteers and military contractors. Thinking Americans are happy to have a President that is willing to risk his reputation on a peaceful approach rather than the GOP's standard operating procedure: Bomb first; ask questions later.
15
The Iranian Revolution was against the tyrant Shah of Iran. The Shah was an American puppet installed in power by an American and British coup against a democratic Iranian government at the behest of British Petroleum. America has made war on the Iran ever since.
For 60+ years Iran has been treated like an enemy by America. And all that Iranians have done in response is to call America names and wish for it's death. Along with some covert Iranian surrogate responses to regional American military war efforts. Thankfully there is no Iranian Benjamin Netanyahu nor George W. Bush.
Much like the American Revolution, which left out women, natives and slaves the Iranian Revolution has not ended nor achieved perfection.
In addition to pursuing the P 5 + 1 nuclear deal with Iran, America should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran, end it's war on Iran, ask Israel to renounce it's nuclear weapons and push it's Islamist Arab and Zionist Jewish allies on civil and human rights.
For 60+ years Iran has been treated like an enemy by America. And all that Iranians have done in response is to call America names and wish for it's death. Along with some covert Iranian surrogate responses to regional American military war efforts. Thankfully there is no Iranian Benjamin Netanyahu nor George W. Bush.
Much like the American Revolution, which left out women, natives and slaves the Iranian Revolution has not ended nor achieved perfection.
In addition to pursuing the P 5 + 1 nuclear deal with Iran, America should reestablish diplomatic relations with Iran, end it's war on Iran, ask Israel to renounce it's nuclear weapons and push it's Islamist Arab and Zionist Jewish allies on civil and human rights.
11
David Brooks asks the following question:
"Beyond all the talk of centrifuges and enrichment capacities, President Obama’s deal with Iran is really a giant gamble on the nature of the Iranian regime. The core question is: Are the men who control that country more like Lenin or are they more like Gorbachev?"
I think that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is more like Benjamin Netanyahu!!! Both men want to have their cake and eat it, too!
They deserve one another. The world deserves neither.
"Beyond all the talk of centrifuges and enrichment capacities, President Obama’s deal with Iran is really a giant gamble on the nature of the Iranian regime. The core question is: Are the men who control that country more like Lenin or are they more like Gorbachev?"
I think that the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is more like Benjamin Netanyahu!!! Both men want to have their cake and eat it, too!
They deserve one another. The world deserves neither.
11
According to Mr. Brooks: "Khamenei himself dismissed America’s “devilish” intentions. When a radical religious leader uses a word like “devilish,” he’s not using it the way it’s used in a chocolate-cake commercial. He means he thinks the United States is the embodiment of evil."
As a gay man who grew up in Middle East I find the Iranian regime, which executed teenage boys for "sodomy," despicable. Prominent members of their ruling class have admitted to a virulent hatred of Israel and denied or trivialized Holocaust. Add to this mix their support of terrorism and oppression of minorities and it becomes clear that this is a cruel and malevolent regime. However, I find Brooks's argument regarding how Khamenei's vision of United States as "embodiment evil" proves that there can be no deal with the Iranian regime hypocritical. Does he remember the catch phrases "Evil Empire" and "Axis of Evil?" These were coined by Reagan and Bush to describe Soviet Union, North Korea, Iraq, and, yes, Iran! The claim that all hope for achieving any kind of agreement between two hostile countries evaporates the moment when one country's leader calls the other country evil is not only false but dangerous. If Gorbachev had believed this argument he may not have pushed for the reforms that ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We should neither use nor exploit primitive emotions such as fear in making strategic decisions involving extremely high stakes at the national level.
As a gay man who grew up in Middle East I find the Iranian regime, which executed teenage boys for "sodomy," despicable. Prominent members of their ruling class have admitted to a virulent hatred of Israel and denied or trivialized Holocaust. Add to this mix their support of terrorism and oppression of minorities and it becomes clear that this is a cruel and malevolent regime. However, I find Brooks's argument regarding how Khamenei's vision of United States as "embodiment evil" proves that there can be no deal with the Iranian regime hypocritical. Does he remember the catch phrases "Evil Empire" and "Axis of Evil?" These were coined by Reagan and Bush to describe Soviet Union, North Korea, Iraq, and, yes, Iran! The claim that all hope for achieving any kind of agreement between two hostile countries evaporates the moment when one country's leader calls the other country evil is not only false but dangerous. If Gorbachev had believed this argument he may not have pushed for the reforms that ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. We should neither use nor exploit primitive emotions such as fear in making strategic decisions involving extremely high stakes at the national level.
14
Mr. Brook's son serves in which nation's armed forces? How come that's not printed as a disclaimer in the article? It would seem to be relevant.
Time for a blogger ethics panel!
Time for a blogger ethics panel!
10
First, you of all people Mr. Brooks, should know about posturing. How else can the Imams approach a deal with the United States? They have to make their case to the radicals--whom they have convinced of the evil of the US--that they are fighting for a complete surrender. There is no other way to gain support for a deal. Second, why should the Iranians trust us? Face it, we are not trustworthy, especially in matters involving the Middle East. And especially in light of the Republicans hijacking the President's right to conduct foreign policy, What would you have the Iranians do?
And what would you have us do, Mr. Brooks? Continue the status quo, where Iran has nothing to lose from an all-out war? If this deal is inked, they will have much more to lose from a war, and will be more likely to participate in arms control and treaties backed by the international community. Remember that just a generation ago, Iran was a mostly secular society, albeit led by an American puppet.
Maybe we should try to bomb them into submission? Acting as Israel's surrogate. And mire ourselves in yet another un-winable war, making it even more unlikely that stability will ever come to the Middle East. In the process, forfeiting a potential ally (they can't be any worse than Pakistan) who could act as a counterweight to the overwhelming, inordinate influence of the Israelis and Saudis on our foreign policy.
You don't have any new ideas or good ideas, so let the President do his job.
And what would you have us do, Mr. Brooks? Continue the status quo, where Iran has nothing to lose from an all-out war? If this deal is inked, they will have much more to lose from a war, and will be more likely to participate in arms control and treaties backed by the international community. Remember that just a generation ago, Iran was a mostly secular society, albeit led by an American puppet.
Maybe we should try to bomb them into submission? Acting as Israel's surrogate. And mire ourselves in yet another un-winable war, making it even more unlikely that stability will ever come to the Middle East. In the process, forfeiting a potential ally (they can't be any worse than Pakistan) who could act as a counterweight to the overwhelming, inordinate influence of the Israelis and Saudis on our foreign policy.
You don't have any new ideas or good ideas, so let the President do his job.
13
Just a few random thoughts; No one is advocating going to war. Israel is not a scapegoat for everyone to vent their frustrations on. Treaties are meaningless. Iran wants to be an empire again.
1
Of course the Iranian revolution still lives. So does the American Revolution. There are still those in this country fighting the American Civil War -- not a few of them serve in Congress. The Russian Revolution still lives. The Chinese Revolution still lives. Radical movements (yes, at the time the Am.Rev. was very radical) do not die -- they grow, transform, revise, sometimes wither, sometimes flourish. The French still search and strive for "liberte, egalite, fraternite." We still search and strive for "a more perfect union." Why woudn't the Iranians continue to search and strive on their own path?
11
Revolutionaries can enter into, and comply with, agreements when it suits their purposes. Lenin entered into a deal with Hitler and adhered to it. It was Hitler that violated the deal.
2
You cannot do a deal with someone who fundamentally wants you to give up all and get no return. Eventually Iran will have to be confronted militarily. The other choice is to let them become a nuclear power in the middle east. I don't see that as an acceptable outcome, so my belief is eventually their infrastructure will have to be degraded. There ability to acquire the weapon must be stopped one way or the other. I am not in favor of a military option but doing nothing is out of the question.
4
This is baseless fearmongering and concern-trolling. Whatever bluster or rhetoric an Ayatollah might speak in regard to the United States, the majority of Iranians seem to be both young (born after the 1979 revolution) and if not pro-western, at least curious about western culture, and open to a dialogue and exchange.
This op-ed is nothing more than an attempt to scuttle a once in a generation opportunity for openness between our two countries. It is absolutely shameful that right-wing, warmongering interests are so keen on scuttling and sabotaging our President's work.
The only solution seen by Republicans, and internationally by the Israelis, is to either sanction Iran (doesn't work) or bomb them and start another war, which would be catastrophic lunacy. We've seen over the past decade how absurdly wrong and reckless the "slam dunk" mentality of the Republicans has been. Give Iran a chance. Let our President do his work. Be patriots for once.
This op-ed is nothing more than an attempt to scuttle a once in a generation opportunity for openness between our two countries. It is absolutely shameful that right-wing, warmongering interests are so keen on scuttling and sabotaging our President's work.
The only solution seen by Republicans, and internationally by the Israelis, is to either sanction Iran (doesn't work) or bomb them and start another war, which would be catastrophic lunacy. We've seen over the past decade how absurdly wrong and reckless the "slam dunk" mentality of the Republicans has been. Give Iran a chance. Let our President do his work. Be patriots for once.
13
"But we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East."
You know what record is even worse than that? Our track record of bombing countries to turn them into democracies.
You know what record is even worse than that? Our track record of bombing countries to turn them into democracies.
11
It seems to me that lot of the commentators in these letters have a better grasp of this situation, a more intelligent and nuanced position on the issue and a deeper understanding of the history of this area of the world and our relation to it. I don't know if Mr. Brooks reads the comment section, but he may profit from the exercise.
11
Lets look at it from their side.
!970's we assinated their president, installed the Shah, developed many prisons and helped jail 30,000 Iranian dissidents.W then took over their oil supplies and made billions. Oh yes, we drove out Khamenei and then the CIA murdered his son;
We then helped Sadam with his fight against the Iranians.
We then proceeded to unjustly invade Iraq and create a huge mess in the middle east right on Irans border(imaging Iran starting a war with Mexico?)
We then support a country ,Israel that is an illegal state due to its stealing of the associated Arab lands and occupation. Oh yes, they have a dangerous military,supplied by us, and they are allowed to have nuclear weapons no questions asked (they are our "good guys"). Their leader is a semi dictator who threatens Iran in every speech. He is obviously trying to get us to go to war with his perceived enemy. Our congress continually make threats to "Bomb Iran".
No folks, they are very suspicious of our intentions and do not see us as a trustworthy partner.
!970's we assinated their president, installed the Shah, developed many prisons and helped jail 30,000 Iranian dissidents.W then took over their oil supplies and made billions. Oh yes, we drove out Khamenei and then the CIA murdered his son;
We then helped Sadam with his fight against the Iranians.
We then proceeded to unjustly invade Iraq and create a huge mess in the middle east right on Irans border(imaging Iran starting a war with Mexico?)
We then support a country ,Israel that is an illegal state due to its stealing of the associated Arab lands and occupation. Oh yes, they have a dangerous military,supplied by us, and they are allowed to have nuclear weapons no questions asked (they are our "good guys"). Their leader is a semi dictator who threatens Iran in every speech. He is obviously trying to get us to go to war with his perceived enemy. Our congress continually make threats to "Bomb Iran".
No folks, they are very suspicious of our intentions and do not see us as a trustworthy partner.
4
Aw did the Ayatollah hurt your feelings David? Why is any of this relevant?? We don't need them to change their ideology, we don't need them to like us. We just need to slow down their nuclear program. That's all this is. No one seriously thinks we can trust them. Of course they will try and cheat. Bottom line it's still better than leaving their nuclear program unchecked.
That said, we can't rollover on ridiculous demands like lifting all sanctions on day one. But let's please stick to the facts and leave out the emotion.
That said, we can't rollover on ridiculous demands like lifting all sanctions on day one. But let's please stick to the facts and leave out the emotion.
7
It was the US meddling in Iran's affairs that has resulted in their animosity toward us. By advocating overthrow of a democratically elected Government and installing the Shah to rule Iran, we are responsible for the current state of affairs Iran. Now is the opportunity to begin righting that wrong. More power to the President in his attempts to improve relations with Iran.
7
All of the coalition nations (plus Israel) have nuclear weapons, Iran does not. That is the "elephant in the room" that we try to and must put aside in this negotiation. Iran of course have no such precondition. Ideology aside, this would account for the lack of "congruence of interests". That aside (because we do of course live in an ideological world) we appear to be betting on the Iranian people as an agent of change, that they want that, and not "Death To America". Iran appears to be betting that the sanctions are going to fall apart of their own accord. Given that the hard liners in the US and Iran make the odds of deal coming to fruition very slim, and that Russia and China appear to be more disinterested observers than coalition partners, Iran's bet would appear to be well placed.
2
A wonderful new book by Jonathan Sarna and Benjamin Shapell called "Lincoln and the Jews" contains some surprising information about Lincoln's high regard for the Jewish people and serves as a timely reminder that several recent Presidents since World War II -- including Truman, Clinton, Bush and Obama -- have been great supporters of theirs.
Now, sadly, President Obama intends to throw all of this magnificent legacy away in exhange for "a mess of pottage" (Genesis 25: Verses 29 to 34).
Now, sadly, President Obama intends to throw all of this magnificent legacy away in exhange for "a mess of pottage" (Genesis 25: Verses 29 to 34).
2
There is no deal here. With this speech, it's a one way ticket to disaster.
1
Mr. Brooks, it dawns on me that, though astute, you are just an observer. I think I have more faith in President Obama than you do.
6
Gee I can't say I blame him! I haven't noticed any Iranian troops on the streets in our country.
3
According to David Brooks, “Khamenei communicated a smug and self-righteous sense of superiority toward the West throughout his remarks.” How dare he? Who does he think he is? Doesn’t he know that a smug and self-righteous sense of superiority is an American birthright only? The nerve of him! Why, if I didn’t know any better, I’d say Khamenei was trying to emulate our current crop of Republican uber-patriots by attempting to placate his conservative base.
10
Mr. Brooks, I understand from one of your earlier columns that your son is serving (or has served) in the Israeli military and that you are proud of his service there. But I do not consider that a sufficient reason to swallow the Netanyahu position hook, line, and sinker.
2
Dear Mr. Brooks
The core question is: What alternative do Republicans offer?
The core question is: What alternative do Republicans offer?
47
They still consider us an enemy, we still consider them an enemy.
you dont negotiate for peace with friends, can you imagine why?
As all right wingers you afford "trust but verify" for reagan, but not a dem.
So all this having been said, what is your party's solution? War?
the gop has no solutions aside from those that have already failed.
Here's an idea - do something hard - think of how a problem can be solved. Attacking those doing their best to solver a problem is easy
you dont negotiate for peace with friends, can you imagine why?
As all right wingers you afford "trust but verify" for reagan, but not a dem.
So all this having been said, what is your party's solution? War?
the gop has no solutions aside from those that have already failed.
Here's an idea - do something hard - think of how a problem can be solved. Attacking those doing their best to solver a problem is easy
3
This isn't about trusting Khamenei or not. It's about whether we can verify that Iran is keeping up to its promises or not. The agreement is about verifying. The bigger question is whether Iran can trust the US. Look at what ex-ambassador John Bolton wrote in the NYTimes. The US is maybe one Koch-financed election from unleashing all hell on Iran. But significant elements in Iran are willing to try peace. Is there a critical mass in the US that also wants to give peace a chance?
3
I am surprised that Mr. Brooks isn't following the advice of the right wing's patron Saint, Ronnie Reagan: "Trust, but Verify." From everything I have read about the terms of the agreement, there are ample provision for international verification of whether the Iranians are keeping their side of the deal. If the don't there is still plenty of time to follow the advice of our brave war hawks to "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran."
2
As might be expected from a conservative pundit the vision is a negative one. Let's give the process a chance before we assume the worst. If it does not we are not in any worse position than we are at the moment. We have learned so far to live with the fact that both the Pakistanis and the Israelis have nuclear weapons.
To my knowledge Mr. Brooks has never been to Iran let alone in recent times. I tend to listen to the interpretation of the climate in Iran and the hopes of its people, especially its younger well educated population, from those that have been there in recent times such as his co-journalist Roger Cohen. They see reason to be hopeful, rather than advocate for a perpetual state of preparing for war. Khamenei is 76 years old and is not immortal, things and regimes change.
To my knowledge Mr. Brooks has never been to Iran let alone in recent times. I tend to listen to the interpretation of the climate in Iran and the hopes of its people, especially its younger well educated population, from those that have been there in recent times such as his co-journalist Roger Cohen. They see reason to be hopeful, rather than advocate for a perpetual state of preparing for war. Khamenei is 76 years old and is not immortal, things and regimes change.
2
This country's biggest foreign policy challenges in the foreseeable future will come from China. China has now announced it is building a new "silk road" with modern transportation media. Who is between China and the West? Iran, as it has been for millennia. We need a deal with Iran that takes them out of an enemy, pariah entity and moves them into something we can do business with. You may be sure that the Chinese have no problem making deals with Iran, depute China's infidel status. We need to do the same or let China simply steamroller over our interests in the East and Mideast.
1
"If President Obama is right and Iran is on the verge of change, the deal is a home run". Out of context and shabby editorializing. Obama has made it clear that he does NOT trust the Iranians, and that any potential improvement in Iran is NOT a driver, but just a potential outcome.
No option is off the table. No promise to not take military action has been made, and yet the right is bellowing that we have provided a free path fro Iran to develop a bomb. If inspections are either blocked or surface an infraction of the agreement... we still have all the options we have now. Plus, we will know MORE about what they are up to because of the inspections. However, NOT trying for a diplomatic deal - and adding more sanctions and/or bombing - plays into the hands of the ultra conservative hard liners in Iran. And of course Khamenei is throwing out bombast. He has the same issues with the hard right as we do... the Republican bombast machine. And, yes, he is negotiating. That is the one thing David got right.
No option is off the table. No promise to not take military action has been made, and yet the right is bellowing that we have provided a free path fro Iran to develop a bomb. If inspections are either blocked or surface an infraction of the agreement... we still have all the options we have now. Plus, we will know MORE about what they are up to because of the inspections. However, NOT trying for a diplomatic deal - and adding more sanctions and/or bombing - plays into the hands of the ultra conservative hard liners in Iran. And of course Khamenei is throwing out bombast. He has the same issues with the hard right as we do... the Republican bombast machine. And, yes, he is negotiating. That is the one thing David got right.
3
Mr. Brooks wants more war, not peace. If we are to make a just peace, as Israel seems incapable of understanding, we need to compromise and negotiate instead of trying to beat the opponent into submission.
History is full of examples of nations that conquered a nation and lost the occupation. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan................
Quit warmongering for Israel, Mr. Brooks.
History is full of examples of nations that conquered a nation and lost the occupation. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan................
Quit warmongering for Israel, Mr. Brooks.
4
Iran's rulers are aging and not necessarily representative of the younger generations. But nothing will unite the people of Iran behind their government more than a war brought against them by the United States. Are we to lose the opportunity to normalize relations with Iran for two more generations because our Republican politicians never saw a war they wouldn't wage? You might think they would learn from our recent grievous mistakes in the Middle East, but Mr Brooks' column shows that not to be the case.
5
We are not the only nation involved with negotiating a nuclear treaty with Iran. Yet not a mention of them in this column. What is the alternative? Bombing the country? Do the other nations negotiating the treaty not even get a say in this? Are we to be the arrogant "deciders" for the whole world yet again? For once give reason and diplomacy a chance to work before unleashing the tired dogs of war afresh to wreak more havoc on and further destabilize the Middle East.
3
Good article from a writer too-often inclined to a, "on the one hand, on the other hand" type of analysis. (Brooks, had he chosen a different career, would have made a great diplomat or lawyer). But here he tells it like it is. George Orwell could have written this. Well done.
The better you understand physics, the surer you will get that nature has no personality at all, and your soul, the accumulated experience of your life, will die with your brain.
It's amazing to me that so many readers are opposed to Mr. Brooks' column today. What shred of evidence do you have that Iran will be honest in its dealings with the US?
Thanks David for today's column.
Thanks David for today's column.
2
All of this has nothing to do with us - the U.S. Iran is on a collision course with itself as the old revolutionist anti- west, anti-modernity, theocratic driven ruling crowd finds itself slammed up against the wall by the wants, needs and visions of the 75% of Iranians who are under the age of 35 who want to move from darkness to light. Eventually, if not now, the ruling revolutionaries are going to suffer the worst fate of all - irrelevancy with their own people.
Yes Mr. Brooks, all words here are correct, but you've omitted the advanced age of the "royal" leader, and the changes in Iran's social and political stage which are predictable. Khameini won't live another 10 years.
1
You make the Iranians sound violent and hate-fuelled, David. Yes, the chanting is scary. But I'm referring to almost-president John McCain's 2007 hilarious "Bomb Iran" sung to a Beach Boys riff.
No doubt the 1953 incident when we re-structured Iran's government was scary. Ditto the "Shock and Awe" which was such a popular TV program stateside in the 2000s but had the unfortunate impact of destabilizing the region. You cite Kissinger, but not Cheney who is also opposed to peace. Both are considered widely to be war criminals.
David, you often have a beam in your eye.
No doubt the 1953 incident when we re-structured Iran's government was scary. Ditto the "Shock and Awe" which was such a popular TV program stateside in the 2000s but had the unfortunate impact of destabilizing the region. You cite Kissinger, but not Cheney who is also opposed to peace. Both are considered widely to be war criminals.
David, you often have a beam in your eye.
7
Which of the bad alternatives does Brooks support? Continued sanctions which have not stopped progress towards the bomb? Aerial bombardment that wont stop progress towards the bomb? A ground invasion? That might work but how many Americans are going to sign up for that?
Seems to me that a negotiated agreement - even if it's not perfect and requires trusting bad guys is the best of a bunch of really bad options.
Seems to me that a negotiated agreement - even if it's not perfect and requires trusting bad guys is the best of a bunch of really bad options.
On April 3, Brooks was teaching us how to be courageous. Today he's back to peddling fear.
3
"First, we learned that Iran’s supreme leader still regards the United States as his enemy. The audience chanted “Death to America” during his speech, and Khamenei himself dismissed America’s “devilish” intentions"
President Bush gave a speech about the axes of evil. John McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Bolton screens we should bomb them. Jerry Falwell said we should "blow them all away in the name of the Lord". Does anyone listen to the rhetoric on our side?
What is the solution, just blow the whole thing up?
President Bush gave a speech about the axes of evil. John McCain sings "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Bolton screens we should bomb them. Jerry Falwell said we should "blow them all away in the name of the Lord". Does anyone listen to the rhetoric on our side?
What is the solution, just blow the whole thing up?
4
Unfortunately, the fat and happy Mullahs of Iran have no interest in moderating. Why should they, the sanctions have made them rich.
I guess that we will have to continue the sanctions regime, and continue to try to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. I don't see any other options. The Supreme Leader has told us that we are not worthy of him, and that agreements with the US should not be honored. And he did it in front of crowds chanting 'Death to America'. He knows that we are watching, yet he called us 'liars' in public. His contempt for Obama is astonishing. I was hoping that there would be a deal, there isn't.
I guess that we will have to continue the sanctions regime, and continue to try to sabotage the Iranian nuclear program. I don't see any other options. The Supreme Leader has told us that we are not worthy of him, and that agreements with the US should not be honored. And he did it in front of crowds chanting 'Death to America'. He knows that we are watching, yet he called us 'liars' in public. His contempt for Obama is astonishing. I was hoping that there would be a deal, there isn't.
1
A wonderful new book by Jonathan Sarna and Benjamin Shapell called "Lincoln and the Jews" contains some surprising information about Lincoln's high regard for the Jewish people and serves as a timely reminder that several recent Presidents since World War II -- including Truman, Clinton, Bush and Obama -- have been great supporters of theirs.
Now, sadly, President Obama intends to throw all of this magnificent legacy away in exhange for "a mess of potttage" (Genesis 25: Verses 29 to 34).
Now, sadly, President Obama intends to throw all of this magnificent legacy away in exhange for "a mess of potttage" (Genesis 25: Verses 29 to 34).
Sounds like a comment the native Americans could have used against the US. Its worth a chance to try and build better relations with Iran, many of their citizens, especially the young want to be closer to the west. Lets try an agreement and at least see, before we, as Tom Cotton suggested, bomb Iran into submission. To not at least try is to pay homage to the war hawks and the industrial defense complex, for they are the ones that profit with impunity off of war and suffering.
2
Clearly.
Based on reading the top few “Readers’ Picks”, it’s clear that most Times’ readers (1) think their own country is no more trustworthy Iran’s leaders, (2) are certain that Republicans are much, much less trustworthy than Iran’s leaders, and that (3) since none of the comments address the highly disturbing and obvious facts that Iran is clearly refusing comprehensive inspections and is clearly bent on producing nuclear weapons, clearly -- these commenters have no concerns whatsoever about that very distinct just-around-the-corner possibility.
Based on reading the top few “Readers’ Picks”, it’s clear that most Times’ readers (1) think their own country is no more trustworthy Iran’s leaders, (2) are certain that Republicans are much, much less trustworthy than Iran’s leaders, and that (3) since none of the comments address the highly disturbing and obvious facts that Iran is clearly refusing comprehensive inspections and is clearly bent on producing nuclear weapons, clearly -- these commenters have no concerns whatsoever about that very distinct just-around-the-corner possibility.
3
I was initially for this agreement, now I am not. I have no trust whatsoever in Iran's theocrat. I think we should make the sanctions as crippling as possible. Continue our military aid to Israel at its current level, and call Israel's bluff and tell the country that whatever unilateral action it wants to take, we will not stand in the way. However, I believe we should dispel Netanyahu of ANY allusions he may have as his ultimate desire, which is to make the US fight Israel's war. Israel is the country in imminent danger, not us. We need to be very very clear to Israel that if it takes military action against Iran, it will be Israel's action ALONE. The United States will have no part in Israel's aggression or defense, and our financial aid will not increase beyond its current level, no matter what. Moreover, in the interest of peace in the Mideast, we should abstain from any UN resolution setting a timetable and boundaries for a Palestinian State, even if such resolution would be enforced by UN peacekeepers from other countries. Netanyahu's desire for us to fight his foreign country's battle's for it are a dead end, and we need to also broadcast that to the world, so the world has no allusions where the nuclear bomb came from if Israel nukes Iran.
Beyond that, I think we need to get out of all other disputes in the Midease entirely. Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other for centuries, and we cannot be expected to forever pay for Bush's horrible blunder.
Beyond that, I think we need to get out of all other disputes in the Midease entirely. Sunnis and Shiites have hated each other for centuries, and we cannot be expected to forever pay for Bush's horrible blunder.
2
Where did David Brooks study Farsi?
5
Mr Brooks, we know all of this. Persistently describing the problem - and pointing to possible future problems - is not a solution. But the question remains: If not this agreement, then what? And it's not as if the accord (which hasn't been negotiated yet, by the way) precludes reinstating the sanctions, possibly with a vengeance. In other words, going back to square one. Which is where we are now. So what do you suggest? Anyone can see the problem; what's the solution?
4
Negotiation with an adversary adheres to the old saying: "no risk - no reward". Try negotiaiton first and war second not the Republican Party way: war first and war second. As a nation Americans are finally getting weary of being in constant state of war. It is seriously distracting us from our internal issues of infrastucture decay and social decay on many fronts.
4
The negotiations are still in progress right? This is a high stakes 6 demension chess game, many moves left to be made not a game of slap jack.
2
Brooks conveniently forgets the basic principle of leaders making statements for INTERNAL public consumption and then employs them as "evidence" that negotiations with Iran are futile and thus the GOP/ Bibi approach of war is the best option.
Brooks is a gifted sophist and always uses his talents to serve the privileged but in this instance he also does so on behalf of war. Shameful.
Brooks is a gifted sophist and always uses his talents to serve the privileged but in this instance he also does so on behalf of war. Shameful.
11
"Khamenei communicated a smug and self-righteous sense of superiority"
What goes around, comes around
What goes around, comes around
7
And your approach to this immovable object is what exactly? You reason Iran hasn't changed and won't change (which, by the way would be a first in human history). You say they will force their will on the Middle East and the results will be dire. Then it follows, doesn't it, we ought to destroy them if we can right now. What's behind door two. Do you have a door two? I'm an old man who has been listening to hopeless world views like yours since I was a child. These distortions inevitably lead to violence, murder on a mass scale. Each successive villain is too intractable, too dangerous, is always somehow "different" than all previous threats, and must now be extracted from the living, there's simply no other way. This is the prescription of arms makers. Well, I voted for a change to that zombie march of hopelessness and bloodshed and I'm pleased to see a fresh approach. I don't give a hoot about the nature of the Iran revolution. Let's talk with Iran. And talk and talk and talk. Our weapons will not become inoperable while we jaw. As for predicting the future, you're right, we suck. And that is the best support I can think of for talk, talk, talk.
8
Once again, a cop-out from a pundit who opposes the deal. If you don't like the deal, propose an alternative. Status quo? Attack Iran?
7
Or.... the religious leader could be trying to prepare his followers to accept the bitter medicine of international oversight od their nuclear program.. Perhaps he's ready to accept that his dream of an Islamic world has limitations?
I don't know, but I doubt that there is any existential threat to the west in trying a different tack than the one we've been on, which has been unsuccessful. Mr. Brooks has been wrong so often that it's very hard to take him seriously any more.
Only people with very short memories can possibly do so.
I don't know, but I doubt that there is any existential threat to the west in trying a different tack than the one we've been on, which has been unsuccessful. Mr. Brooks has been wrong so often that it's very hard to take him seriously any more.
Only people with very short memories can possibly do so.
9
I have one question: Did Brooks support the war in Iraq in 2003? If so his thoughts and speculation are worthless, or rather, they are worth the lives of the over 4000 Americans who died in that war.
8
We do have a choice with Iran. We can continue to ban their banks from the international system. We can also work to continue and enhance all the sanctions under our control. A regime that threatens to wipe countries off the face of the map can not be allowed ANY nuclear enrichment. They must also answer all questions about past nuclear activities.
Further, we should insist on their dismantling of their Ballistic missile program. They have no need for intercontinental ballistic missiles unless they aim to threaten us.
If the sanctions do not bring them around to these essential concessions we have other options. We can actively encourage and support the opposition in Iran with weapons and intelligence. We can also explore encouraging the Kurds and the Azeris to claim their independence from Iran. We can do the same for the Khuzistani Arabs. All options should be on the table to stop this rouge regime from stirring up the middle east and brutally oppressing their own population.
Further, we should insist on their dismantling of their Ballistic missile program. They have no need for intercontinental ballistic missiles unless they aim to threaten us.
If the sanctions do not bring them around to these essential concessions we have other options. We can actively encourage and support the opposition in Iran with weapons and intelligence. We can also explore encouraging the Kurds and the Azeris to claim their independence from Iran. We can do the same for the Khuzistani Arabs. All options should be on the table to stop this rouge regime from stirring up the middle east and brutally oppressing their own population.
This article follows the Brooks standard off-tackle play: set up a polemic and then tell me why one side, almost always the progressive one, is wrong.
It can be a helpful way to illustrate things unless it's just too simple. In this case, it's just too simple.
Here's a better metaphor: Obama is trying to play poker with the Ayatollah while Republicans and Bibi look over his shoulder and yell what his cards are.
It can be a helpful way to illustrate things unless it's just too simple. In this case, it's just too simple.
Here's a better metaphor: Obama is trying to play poker with the Ayatollah while Republicans and Bibi look over his shoulder and yell what his cards are.
13
If a country invaded Mexico and Canada, and many of its leaders and pundits were openly calling for them to bomb the US as well, do you think you would consider that country to be a threat? If someone calls you the embodiment of evil, is it better to provide evidence that supports the accusation or refutes it? Dropping bombs on people when a negotiated settlement is even a faint possibility is evil. Let's not be evil.
8
Khamenei = Netanyahu and the Republican War Hawks
6
Whom is this nonsense for, exactly? Really: what's Brooks's audience?Charles Krauthammer? Jeffrey Goldberg? ("Nice piece, David." "Thanks. Liked yours too!")
("Khamenei communicated a smug and self-righteous sense of superiority toward the West throughout his remarks." No, that would be Netanyahu. "He haughtily repeated his demand that the West permanently end all sanctions on the very day the deal is signed." Adding "haughtily" doesn't make the demand any less unrealistic. "He insisted that no inspectors could visit Iranian military facilities." Until Israel allowed inspectors in theirs?)
A completely totally 100 percent nothing column. This is what we get to read in the Times today?
No wonder ninety-five percent of Times readers don't read the op-eds. Good for them!
("Khamenei communicated a smug and self-righteous sense of superiority toward the West throughout his remarks." No, that would be Netanyahu. "He haughtily repeated his demand that the West permanently end all sanctions on the very day the deal is signed." Adding "haughtily" doesn't make the demand any less unrealistic. "He insisted that no inspectors could visit Iranian military facilities." Until Israel allowed inspectors in theirs?)
A completely totally 100 percent nothing column. This is what we get to read in the Times today?
No wonder ninety-five percent of Times readers don't read the op-eds. Good for them!
10
Of course the Iranians won't live up to the terms of any deal, and Obama knows it as well as anyone. He just wants to be known for having made a deal. The United States has gone back on many a deal: Ask any Native American.
David Brooks, you won't find evidence if you don't know where to look. There's more to Iran than public bluster quoted out of context.
6
An Iranian columnist might make many of the same comments about the United States government. A number of prominent GOP congressional leaders, former government leaders like John Bolton, and a wide swath of talk radio hosts have not only spoken and written about Iran in strikingly similar ways,. but forty seven Senators sent a letter pretty much saying don't trust us as a country; if the next President is so inclined (read one of us) we'll call the whole thing off.
As so many have pointed out, there are not any good and viable options on the table. Sanctions may have weakened Iran's economy, just as they did Cuba's, but they hardly altered the nature of either government per se. The world changes, like the price of oil, and governments and politics change with them, ours included (think China, e.g.). It's pretty easy to look in your own review mirror and ascribe cause - sanctions - and effect - changes in government relations - but it is seldom if ever that simple (think same sex marriage and drug laws).
As so many have pointed out, there are not any good and viable options on the table. Sanctions may have weakened Iran's economy, just as they did Cuba's, but they hardly altered the nature of either government per se. The world changes, like the price of oil, and governments and politics change with them, ours included (think China, e.g.). It's pretty easy to look in your own review mirror and ascribe cause - sanctions - and effect - changes in government relations - but it is seldom if ever that simple (think same sex marriage and drug laws).
3
Iran can't be trusted, but we can?
We overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and installed a tyrant.
We supplied arms and intelligence to Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran in 1980.
Ten years later, Saddam invaded Kuwait - with a wink and a nod from our ambassador in Baghdad. We then invaded Iraq in retaliation .
Thirteen years after that we invaded Iraq again, overthrew Saddam, and saw the man hanged.
Now peace and stability and democracy rule in the region .... oh hang on ...
If you were Iran, would you trust us?
We overthrew a democratically elected Iranian government in 1953 and installed a tyrant.
We supplied arms and intelligence to Saddam Hussein when he invaded Iran in 1980.
Ten years later, Saddam invaded Kuwait - with a wink and a nod from our ambassador in Baghdad. We then invaded Iraq in retaliation .
Thirteen years after that we invaded Iraq again, overthrew Saddam, and saw the man hanged.
Now peace and stability and democracy rule in the region .... oh hang on ...
If you were Iran, would you trust us?
9
Khamenei's response is not too surprising. He IS the extreme right wing, and we know how much they hate compromise.
4
Death to Ayatollah Ali Khamenei! There, that'll teach him.
2
I want a good agreement,too. But we must not forget the slogan of the Iranian revolution;
God is Great!
Death to America!
Death to Israel!
God curse the Jews!
Victory to Islam!
God is Great!
Death to America!
Death to Israel!
God curse the Jews!
Victory to Islam!
1
David Brooks is an eminently smart person. So why doesn't he understand that we cannot force an "end to Iran's nuclear program" for a monumental reason: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Iran was one of the original signatories to the NPT decades ago. The United States and 200+ other nations signed the treaty. Only Israel, Pakistan, India and North Korea are non-signatories.
The NPT grants all non-nuclear-weapons States the "inalienable right" to peaceful nuclear development. It also requires the nuclear weapons states like the United States to protect this right.
Nineteen other nations besides Iran enrich uranium. Several, including Argentina, Brazil and Japan have at one time or another openly planned to manufacture nuclear weapons. No one is calling for an "end" to their nuclear programs.
Additionally there is no evidence anywhere that Iran had, has or will have a nuclear weapons program. All statements to the contrary are based on conjecture that has nothing to do with the actual nuclear development in Iran which is identical to that of the other 19 uranium enriching states.
So Brooks is expressing disappointment for a development that never could have happened because of the NPT.
If the United States were to force Iran into relinquishing its treaty rights, the NPT would be rendered meaningless, not just for Iran but for the world.
How about pressuring Israel, India and Pakistan to sign the NPT (N. Korea withdrew). That would make much more sense.
The NPT grants all non-nuclear-weapons States the "inalienable right" to peaceful nuclear development. It also requires the nuclear weapons states like the United States to protect this right.
Nineteen other nations besides Iran enrich uranium. Several, including Argentina, Brazil and Japan have at one time or another openly planned to manufacture nuclear weapons. No one is calling for an "end" to their nuclear programs.
Additionally there is no evidence anywhere that Iran had, has or will have a nuclear weapons program. All statements to the contrary are based on conjecture that has nothing to do with the actual nuclear development in Iran which is identical to that of the other 19 uranium enriching states.
So Brooks is expressing disappointment for a development that never could have happened because of the NPT.
If the United States were to force Iran into relinquishing its treaty rights, the NPT would be rendered meaningless, not just for Iran but for the world.
How about pressuring Israel, India and Pakistan to sign the NPT (N. Korea withdrew). That would make much more sense.
76
Does Khamenei control Iran's nuclear policy? Frankly, his rhetoric does sound familiar. It sounds like the rhetoric of the Republican party, the party who publicly attempted to poison the well of negotiations by calling into question the true motivations of the other party.
The parallels are scary and provide an usual degree of insight in to the motivations of people who view the world primarily though the narrative of religious fervor, hubris, and fear rather than reason, humility and good will.
The parallels are scary and provide an usual degree of insight in to the motivations of people who view the world primarily though the narrative of religious fervor, hubris, and fear rather than reason, humility and good will.
3
Mr. Brooks, what's the alternative?
3
First place, the negotiators do not include the Supreme Whatsis. The negotiators include not only the US, but Russia, China, Germany, France, Britain, etc. So, it's not only our deal, though of course, it is mostly our deal. The Supreme Whatsis has to approve of the agreement or it wouldn't get done, so you might say that his bluster is just bluster. It's to try to save face.
Second, I didn't realize that all these parties were negotiating for Iran to change, even a scintilla's worth. Hmmm ... Iran needn't change. It just must stop its slouch toward a weapon. There is no way any of the Middle Eastern states, including Israel, will ever change. They don't call 'em hardliners for nothing.
And if you don't stop sounding so much like Krauthammer, I'm going to have to give up reading your column.
Second, I didn't realize that all these parties were negotiating for Iran to change, even a scintilla's worth. Hmmm ... Iran needn't change. It just must stop its slouch toward a weapon. There is no way any of the Middle Eastern states, including Israel, will ever change. They don't call 'em hardliners for nothing.
And if you don't stop sounding so much like Krauthammer, I'm going to have to give up reading your column.
3
Khameinei's bravado stems from his faith-based belief in doing gods' work, as one designed by divine power, and with a mission to avoid contamination by the West and, if possible, to 'desinfect' its cleanliness from the impurities of others, including its cousins, the sunnis. It is a make-believe system; so, based on fiction; its clash with reality is to be expected. And therein lies the conflict, as religious values of a given faith cannot be discussed, they are dogma, hence, intolerant of others. Still, a persistent effort to deal with Iran diplomatically, seems our best alternative. For now, anyway.
Maybe it wouldn't hurt to hold your fire until there is an actual agreement. Just a thought.
4
A negotiated deal on Iran's nuclear development only looks bad when you fail to examine the alternatives; more sanctions and more hardship for the average Iranian or military action and the unknown but definitely horrible consequences of war.
While Americans, including David Brooks have good reasons to mistrust Iran, the Iranians also have good reasons to mistrust the United States. Our mutual histories are not pleasant. The agreement, while not satisfying all the demands of both countries, seem to open a path to less mistrust and hostility and more trust and accountability. How on earth can that be a bad deal?
If it fails and we go back to square one, only the reputation of some political leaders in both countries are damaged. Nothing else changes. Sanctions and angry rhetoric from both sides can resume immediately.
If it succeeds we might just neutralize at least one hot spot on the planet. It seems like a no-brainer for both countries. The devil of sanctions and military force always lurk in the background. Verification of compliance with an international treaty and greater interaction between two former enemies might just be possible. Why blow up that opportunity? Brooks, Graham, Menendez, Kissinger, Cheney and the rest of the naysayers are dead wrong.
President Obama is right. Do the deal!
While Americans, including David Brooks have good reasons to mistrust Iran, the Iranians also have good reasons to mistrust the United States. Our mutual histories are not pleasant. The agreement, while not satisfying all the demands of both countries, seem to open a path to less mistrust and hostility and more trust and accountability. How on earth can that be a bad deal?
If it fails and we go back to square one, only the reputation of some political leaders in both countries are damaged. Nothing else changes. Sanctions and angry rhetoric from both sides can resume immediately.
If it succeeds we might just neutralize at least one hot spot on the planet. It seems like a no-brainer for both countries. The devil of sanctions and military force always lurk in the background. Verification of compliance with an international treaty and greater interaction between two former enemies might just be possible. Why blow up that opportunity? Brooks, Graham, Menendez, Kissinger, Cheney and the rest of the naysayers are dead wrong.
President Obama is right. Do the deal!
51
There are people in Iran who want this to fail & there are people in the United States who want this to fail. Isn't it interesting that they are all conservatives. Oh & the people in Israel & Saudi Arabia who want not even a hint of the ending of hostilities between Iran & the United States, they are conservatives too. Just noticing how much they have in common is interesting in itself. Different religions, different political systems, same rigid mind set.
2
The Supreme Leader is a religious zealot who appeals to a hard right base. His speech is similar to zealots on our side who want to bomb Iran and see it as the embodiment of evil. Just like there are ways to negotiate around the apocalyptic views of some of the leaders in our country, there are ways to negotiate around this leader. If the sane leadership under Khamenei is not able to tame his chest pounding and fear mongering--more like a good cop/bad cop tactic to get us to concede more on the deal--I have no doubt that Obama and Kerry will walk away, tighten sanctions, and stare them down. But, because our team sees what the rationale leaders of Iran really want, this speech will be taken with a grain of salt.
2
"The audience chanted “Death to America” during his speech, and Khamenei himself dismissed America’s 'devilish' intentions."
We're right to be skeptical of Iran's leadership, but this isn't "evidence" of anything.
For one thing, I would like to know more about the composition of this audience. And as for calling your opponent evil, how do you say "IOKIYAR" in Farsi?
We're right to be skeptical of Iran's leadership, but this isn't "evidence" of anything.
For one thing, I would like to know more about the composition of this audience. And as for calling your opponent evil, how do you say "IOKIYAR" in Farsi?
1
If the Bush war in Iraq didn't happen we wouldn't have the Shiites control the government of Iraq and we wouldn't be in the mess we have in the middle east. Now that that's done we have to live with what we have and negotiate with our enemies over there. When the Iranians get some trade back and see what they have been missing it will make it harder for them to do something wrong and risk further trade sanctions by the west.
2
Does the U.S. want war or does it want to negotiate a comprehensive agreement that leads to stability and peace? Hearing the many voices in the U.S., Iran might well ask this question. Given our internal divisions, the answer would be both. We have factions who would begin bombing tomorrow, and those who diligently work for peace. Why, David, would you suppose that Iran is any different? The question is: who will prevail in each of our nations? It is my hope that the voices of reason will prevail in both countries. Give peace a chance!
2
Thank you for pointing out that this is, at some level, a play for the future of Iran, and not just a negotiation over a particular issue. We need Iran to rejoin the community of nations, especially now that we have destroyed Iraq and the entire region is degenerating into chaos. Those who think we are playing a bad hand should be mindful of whose hand, exactly, Obama is forced to play. We don't have good options in the ME right now. I still support the deal though I acknowledge its limitations.
What I find strange about David Brooks' article is that there is no mention of China, Russia, Britain, France. This is a rhetorical strategy of right-wing opponents of this deal: pretending it's just a showdown between Iran and the US, each the devil in the other's eye. That is myopic and naive. This is bigger than US.
What I find strange about David Brooks' article is that there is no mention of China, Russia, Britain, France. This is a rhetorical strategy of right-wing opponents of this deal: pretending it's just a showdown between Iran and the US, each the devil in the other's eye. That is myopic and naive. This is bigger than US.
2
David Brooks makes a point: "Republican and Democratic administrations have continually anticipated turning points in the Middle East: Republicans after interventions, Democrats after negotiations."
Now tally the costs to the U.S. in lives and treasure through interventions in the Middle East favored by Republican administrations vs. negotiations favored by Democratic administrations.
Even a rough jot on a cocktail napkin would make the imprudence of the Republican way would damningly clear.
Now tally the costs to the U.S. in lives and treasure through interventions in the Middle East favored by Republican administrations vs. negotiations favored by Democratic administrations.
Even a rough jot on a cocktail napkin would make the imprudence of the Republican way would damningly clear.
3
I'm not sure who frightens me more - Mr. Brooks or Kahmenei. What I do know is that religion and politics don't make strange bedfellows, but rather disasterous results. I'm not in favor of the Iranian deal, however if many Americans don't trust our own government, why should Kahmenei?
3
Each of the Supreme Leader's comments is a deal breaker. If, indeed. this turns out to be Iran's policy, then there will be no deal, and you and the macho Republican party hawks can lead us down the path of another costly, endless, and fruitless Middle East war. If, on the other hand, Khamenei is merely following the time-honored Middle East practice of making inflammatory speeches for local consumption only, there may yet remain a chance to get a verifiable deal that will buy us some time. Which outcome, exactly, are you rooting for?
1
It sure would be nice to know who to believe. It sounds like keeping the sanctions in place while negotiations are ongoing is the right way to run this, but if the Supreme Leader says no, what else are our options?
Between the Ayatollah and the Republican Congress and the Adelson millions, diplomacy is hard to achieve.
Whatever comes of this, we need to be on our toes and not too optimistic .
Past history doesn't lend itself to optimism but rather the practice of great care.
Between the Ayatollah and the Republican Congress and the Adelson millions, diplomacy is hard to achieve.
Whatever comes of this, we need to be on our toes and not too optimistic .
Past history doesn't lend itself to optimism but rather the practice of great care.
Mr . Brooks habitually saves his most provocative columns for Fridays. So, here we go again. Let's disregard Me. Khamenei's remarks and focus on our own options.
1. Let Iran have the bomb - unacceptable.
2. Apply stringent sanctions - didn't work before, still won't work.
3. Negotiate - might work, and the 10 year span that's been negotiated is a bet that Iran would develop a preference to become part of the rest of the developed world over that time. Probably a good bet.
4. Military strike - assuming that many of the nuclear facilities are hardened, conventional weapons won't suffice and nukes are required to demolish them. Collateral damage will probably be significant - a million or more dead in the near term, perhaps?
I'll take door number 3, Monty.
1. Let Iran have the bomb - unacceptable.
2. Apply stringent sanctions - didn't work before, still won't work.
3. Negotiate - might work, and the 10 year span that's been negotiated is a bet that Iran would develop a preference to become part of the rest of the developed world over that time. Probably a good bet.
4. Military strike - assuming that many of the nuclear facilities are hardened, conventional weapons won't suffice and nukes are required to demolish them. Collateral damage will probably be significant - a million or more dead in the near term, perhaps?
I'll take door number 3, Monty.
4
I guess Mr. Brooks in your book the only other option is to send a few nuclear weapons to where we think their nuclear plants are. In the process kill a few hundred thousand Iranians and have things go from bad to worse.
6
Mr. Brooks doesn't address: what's the alternative?
We've been sanctioning Iran for decades. How's that working out? Did it work out with North Korea? Cuba? Hmmm.
And Iran is a larger country, with far more people, than Iraq or Afghanistan. Are we going to invade? And for how many decades do we intend to send our young people to occupy this country? And then what?
Just bombing their facilities isn't going to work. They'll rebuild deeper and deeper underground. Or in the middle of civilian areas. Or both.
It's easy to criticize. If you're going to do that—why don't you come up with a better plan?
We've been sanctioning Iran for decades. How's that working out? Did it work out with North Korea? Cuba? Hmmm.
And Iran is a larger country, with far more people, than Iraq or Afghanistan. Are we going to invade? And for how many decades do we intend to send our young people to occupy this country? And then what?
Just bombing their facilities isn't going to work. They'll rebuild deeper and deeper underground. Or in the middle of civilian areas. Or both.
It's easy to criticize. If you're going to do that—why don't you come up with a better plan?
3
Mr Brooks-the author- says that Iran's leader "haughtily" wants all sanctions to be lifted as if sanctions are good things recommended for health!!
So what, you want Iran to give in to every American demand and have the sanctions in place too?!As if iran is one of America's dictator clients in the M.E. to do whatsoever the U.S. wants.
Sure Iran wouldn't let inspection of its military sites In the face of daily American and Israeli military threats.
Sure Iran wouldn't let cameras to be installed in the nuclear sites as it was the means to identify its nuclear scientists an later led to assassination of Iran's top five nuclear scientists.
Sure Iran wouldn't change its foreign policy as it has supported the right side of conflicts including Iraqi and Syrian governments against saudi-backed ISIS terrorists.
So what, you want Iran to give in to every American demand and have the sanctions in place too?!As if iran is one of America's dictator clients in the M.E. to do whatsoever the U.S. wants.
Sure Iran wouldn't let inspection of its military sites In the face of daily American and Israeli military threats.
Sure Iran wouldn't let cameras to be installed in the nuclear sites as it was the means to identify its nuclear scientists an later led to assassination of Iran's top five nuclear scientists.
Sure Iran wouldn't change its foreign policy as it has supported the right side of conflicts including Iraqi and Syrian governments against saudi-backed ISIS terrorists.
3
I am baffled by the continued failure of critics of the deal to propose their alternative. What is it, if not war? Of course it's war. And is the reason the critics, like David Brooks, won't say it is because they know that not everyone has a short memory and not everyone has forgotten that it was the U.S. that brought instability into the region by attacking Iraq, and not everyone thinks that this time-- yes, this time!-- it will actually result in peace and security for all instead of continued mayhem, massive death and destruction, and instability.
And why did the U.S. attack Iraq? Because the Bush administration believed that Saddam Hussein would stop at nothing to advance his "apocalyptic interests". And this is why the U.S. has resumed arms shipments and military support to the government of Egypt, which is far less democratic and more abusive of human rights right now than Iran. The war party seems to have a massive blind spot for the consequences of their own ill conceived strategies that have yet to show the slightest benefit to the U.S. or the region.
David, have you ever asked yourself why, if you were an Iranian, would you have the crazy idea that the U.S. might attack you? Why, indeed.
And why did the U.S. attack Iraq? Because the Bush administration believed that Saddam Hussein would stop at nothing to advance his "apocalyptic interests". And this is why the U.S. has resumed arms shipments and military support to the government of Egypt, which is far less democratic and more abusive of human rights right now than Iran. The war party seems to have a massive blind spot for the consequences of their own ill conceived strategies that have yet to show the slightest benefit to the U.S. or the region.
David, have you ever asked yourself why, if you were an Iranian, would you have the crazy idea that the U.S. might attack you? Why, indeed.
5
It's always important to remember, even as pundits like Mr. Brooks would like us to forget, that even the Evil Khamenei needs to speak to his base. His posturing with regard to the the US is entirely understandable in the Iranian political context and is aimed at that audience. Just as the irresponsible politicians in this country who are calling for bombing Iran would probably be both surprised and dismayed if suddenly Obama woke up and decided they were right and ordered the bombing to begin.
3
The difference is when we did treaties in the past with our enemies, e.g., the USSR, to try to control the spread of nuclear weapons, they stopped hating us and we could be confident they would stop causing trouble in other countries. Right, David? How dare those Iranians act like an independent nation with their own agenda!!!
We are not taking any great risk. As someone on the Right recently noted, we have so much firepower we could take Iran out in an afternoon if it came down to a nuclear confrontation.
We are not taking any great risk. As someone on the Right recently noted, we have so much firepower we could take Iran out in an afternoon if it came down to a nuclear confrontation.
1
I grew up listening to our fathers talk about how the TV/movie versions of WWII were a joke and how bad WWII really was. They wanted nothing to do with war it after experiencing it and they wanted us kids to never have to experience war.
That said, if there was a real threat in the future they hoped the "miracle" of a Nuclear Bomb made it so us kids would never have to go to war en-mass.
At some future date we will in fact have a war with Iran and their world view. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial. My fellow liberal minded friends have their heads stuck in the sand. They are condemning their grandchildren a much larger struggle in exchange for their convictions that all we have to do is be nice to Iran and everything will be just fine.
I propose that we do the following:
1. Unilaterally, Lift all sanctions and offer full diplomatic relations.
2. Tell the Iranians that they must stop all funding of terrorist activities period.
3. Tell the Iranians that they cannot do anything that even smells like they are building the infrastructure or materials for a Nuclear Bomb. They can do what they want for Nuclear power.
4. In the event that we get intelligence to OUR satisfaction that they are doing either #2 or #3 that we will consider that an existential threat to the United States.
5. If #4 happens, we will without warning launch a full strategic Nuclear Strike to remove the existential threat once and for all time.
The policy is Absolute Assured Destruction.
That said, if there was a real threat in the future they hoped the "miracle" of a Nuclear Bomb made it so us kids would never have to go to war en-mass.
At some future date we will in fact have a war with Iran and their world view. Anyone who thinks otherwise is in denial. My fellow liberal minded friends have their heads stuck in the sand. They are condemning their grandchildren a much larger struggle in exchange for their convictions that all we have to do is be nice to Iran and everything will be just fine.
I propose that we do the following:
1. Unilaterally, Lift all sanctions and offer full diplomatic relations.
2. Tell the Iranians that they must stop all funding of terrorist activities period.
3. Tell the Iranians that they cannot do anything that even smells like they are building the infrastructure or materials for a Nuclear Bomb. They can do what they want for Nuclear power.
4. In the event that we get intelligence to OUR satisfaction that they are doing either #2 or #3 that we will consider that an existential threat to the United States.
5. If #4 happens, we will without warning launch a full strategic Nuclear Strike to remove the existential threat once and for all time.
The policy is Absolute Assured Destruction.
Mr. Brooks, from his perch of omnipotence high in his ivory tower, knows the mind now of Ayatollah Khamaini. Lately he has shown us the inner workings of a lot of different minds; liberals, conservatives, philosophers, politicians, now Iranian ayatollahs.
Inflamed rhetoric seems to be the job description of the religious fundamentalist, no matter where the religion comes from.
I would say all sides to this agreement, we have quite a few different countries sitting around that table, have some proving to do to one another.
I would say that America has even more explaining to do that the rest.
We have meddled a lot with their country the last century.
Inflamed rhetoric seems to be the job description of the religious fundamentalist, no matter where the religion comes from.
I would say all sides to this agreement, we have quite a few different countries sitting around that table, have some proving to do to one another.
I would say that America has even more explaining to do that the rest.
We have meddled a lot with their country the last century.
2
Israel and Saudi Arabia want the US to vaporize Iran in a massive nuclear first-strike. Seems a bit excessive.
I finally understand! Yes, Vietnam was a righteous war; and George Bush and Dick Cheney were absolutely right about invading Iraq; and John McCain would have single-handedly beaten back terrorism across the globe; and, of course, President Obama has been wrong about almost everything.
3
The deal is a facade for both sides to save face. Both are claiming their own versions so that when the other inevitably "violates" the terms of the agreement, each can claim no responsibility; poor leadership all around. Cynically, let's just have the war that both sides want to settle this among a host of other disputes between the nations; nuclear weapons, state sponsored terrorism, proxy governments, oil prices, free elections, etc. Diplomacy has not and will not work against this regime especially without the threat of violence. This whole episode is merely part of the whole never-ending series.
At least Mr. Brooks has fairly clearly and thoughtfully stated the neocon view of the negotiations which, in a larger degree than expected, has usefully drawn out nuances in the opposition. What troubles me most about Republican belligerence, and the shirt-tailing of a significant number of Democrats, is the failure to even begin to imagine or even desire ways to break the mad cycle of violence in the world and the resulting untold suffering of innocent people. This way of comporting ourselves almost always lays blame for the violence on the other side and thereby justifies its helplessness to do anything but enjoin the dance of death. Our loss of imagination on behalf of suffering humanity is further eroding our legacy as the humane leader of the world, and, for that, we have no one to blame but ourselves.
2
I agree with every word except "pseudo-nuclear-arms race". There will be nothing pseudo about it. The Saudis, with their unlimited wealth, can buy nukes from their destitute friend Pakistan faster than Khamenei can call their new 89-year-old leader an "inexperienced youngster".
Yesterday's Times described Iran as coming to the US, hat in hand, because 6 years of sanctions had left them bankrupt. Please let this deal fail and give sanctions + historic low oil-prices a chance to work.
Yesterday's Times described Iran as coming to the US, hat in hand, because 6 years of sanctions had left them bankrupt. Please let this deal fail and give sanctions + historic low oil-prices a chance to work.
1
I learned long ago that there are many large parts of Canada and the USA where I dare not voice my political or religious beliefs. Iran should be an example to people like David Brooks who believes that the USA is New York, Chicago, LA, Dallas and other urban enclaves.
Iran has always been a society of many urban enclaves which supported a large diversity of beliefs and opinions and many seats of learning.
We let the oil giants tell us we could not let a democratic socialist government govern in 1953 and we sent in the CIA to destroy their nascent democracy and we have reaped the whirlwind. The Yahoos have taken over and a society that influenced Goethe and Emerson,gave us one of the world's finest cuisines and inspired much of our music and philosophy is now in the hands of Yahoos.
As I watch the Scott Walkers, Sam Brownbecks and James Imhofes cater to the needs of those isolated from and living in fear of today's heterogeneous urban societies I shutter.
I know rural Kansas, Oklahoma, Alberta and Wisconsin. The people are kind, loving and decent but the world is not homogeneous and even China's cities are as diverse as our own.
The people of Kansas are as bright as the people of New York what they aren't is skilled in dealing with diversity of thought aspirations and cultures.
As we look at the possibilities of putting our own Ayatollahs in charge maybe some of our sane conservatives can point to Iran and explain that maybe that is not where we want to go.
Iran has always been a society of many urban enclaves which supported a large diversity of beliefs and opinions and many seats of learning.
We let the oil giants tell us we could not let a democratic socialist government govern in 1953 and we sent in the CIA to destroy their nascent democracy and we have reaped the whirlwind. The Yahoos have taken over and a society that influenced Goethe and Emerson,gave us one of the world's finest cuisines and inspired much of our music and philosophy is now in the hands of Yahoos.
As I watch the Scott Walkers, Sam Brownbecks and James Imhofes cater to the needs of those isolated from and living in fear of today's heterogeneous urban societies I shutter.
I know rural Kansas, Oklahoma, Alberta and Wisconsin. The people are kind, loving and decent but the world is not homogeneous and even China's cities are as diverse as our own.
The people of Kansas are as bright as the people of New York what they aren't is skilled in dealing with diversity of thought aspirations and cultures.
As we look at the possibilities of putting our own Ayatollahs in charge maybe some of our sane conservatives can point to Iran and explain that maybe that is not where we want to go.
8
Khamenei's words are just that words. He must feed his own lions as Obama must feed his. The only real test is if we successfully construct an agreement and implement it. If Iran fails to live up to its side of the bargain then there is always time to reimpose even stricter sanctions or if the far right gets its way to initiate a new war with Tehran.
2
The following out to be stated and reiterated: Being a Jew, the son of a people of 4,000 years that has been hunted and haunted for much of this period by evil people and evil forces, I can't but take the words of the leadership of Iran - religious, political and military - seriously. And, I must assume that since the call for the annihilation of the State of Israel and the "cleansing" of my people's homeland of its Jews has been sounding for decades, backed by actions promoting this outcome, that the Islamists of Iran actually mean it, and intend to carry out their intention once they have the means to do so and the opportunity presents itself.
The means could well be the atomic bomb, and the opportunity to do so could well be when naive souls in the west assume that we, Jews, just imagine things and must not worry. Obama's handling of foreign affairs, sadly, radiates precisely that kind of opportunity.
I, therefore, don't trust that Mr. Obama will "have Israel's back" if it is attacked. No one has had the Jewish people's back throughout history when the chips have been down. Only Jewish hope and perseverance has enabled us, members of the Jewish people, to survive despite all odds. Therefore, I call upon America to reject the naivete radiating from Mr. Obama's approach to the Islamist warlords of Iran.
The means could well be the atomic bomb, and the opportunity to do so could well be when naive souls in the west assume that we, Jews, just imagine things and must not worry. Obama's handling of foreign affairs, sadly, radiates precisely that kind of opportunity.
I, therefore, don't trust that Mr. Obama will "have Israel's back" if it is attacked. No one has had the Jewish people's back throughout history when the chips have been down. Only Jewish hope and perseverance has enabled us, members of the Jewish people, to survive despite all odds. Therefore, I call upon America to reject the naivete radiating from Mr. Obama's approach to the Islamist warlords of Iran.
3
Mr. Brooks is an important public intellectual and normally writes very thoughtful pieces. This is not one of them due to his suffering from Iran Derangement Syndrome (IDS).
How about this? Iran is correct in classifying the USA as the great devil. For the last 70 years since the end of WWII, we have blundered again and again. The USA has done three good things in that period of time: recognized Israel, prevented Israel, Britain, and France from invading Egypt, and secured peace between Egypt and Israel. What else have we done in the Middle East? We have engaged in a process of genocide, killing or causing to be killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. We are currently killing or causing to be killed hundreds of Muslims each day with no end in sight. The list of our acts of malice towards Iran is too long and is well known to all. Why wouldn't the Supreme Leader call us the devil? Would you trust us?
How about this? Iran is correct in classifying the USA as the great devil. For the last 70 years since the end of WWII, we have blundered again and again. The USA has done three good things in that period of time: recognized Israel, prevented Israel, Britain, and France from invading Egypt, and secured peace between Egypt and Israel. What else have we done in the Middle East? We have engaged in a process of genocide, killing or causing to be killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims. We are currently killing or causing to be killed hundreds of Muslims each day with no end in sight. The list of our acts of malice towards Iran is too long and is well known to all. Why wouldn't the Supreme Leader call us the devil? Would you trust us?
2
Nixon negotiated with Mao, for God's sake. (Kissinger must really be demented to forget that.) Kennedy negotiated with Khrushchev. These were enemies who represented revolutionary regimes more formidable than the one we got in our economic crosshairs at the moment. We are also dealing with a regime that was established as a reaction to the pain caused to the Iranian citizens after our intelligence services took down their democratically elected president for the sake of western oil corporations, when we had the so called Shah installed. They're not going to forget a little thing like that. And yet the response of the Iranian people has been nothing but enthusiastic to this glimmer of hope that they might leave behind their restrictive lifestyle and rejoin the modern world. I'm not sure what serious observer fails to respect the potential positive aspects when negotiations break out on the even of armed conflict. If the major powers had made the effort 100 years ago, the "great" war could have been averted, and the conditions that allowed the eventual rise of Hitler avoided.
1
The Supreme Leader's rhetoric reminds me of Pres. Bush's 'axis of evil' talk, not to mention some of the comments coming from currently declared presidential candidates. To ascribe any importance to such bluster is naive. Politicians say lots of things more for the consumption of their constituents that have no relevance the their actual intentions.
Khamenei could just be placating conservatives in his own country to give Rouhani and his team the room they need to make a deal. Even if that's not his intention, it appears to be the effect.
Khamenei could just be placating conservatives in his own country to give Rouhani and his team the room they need to make a deal. Even if that's not his intention, it appears to be the effect.
43
Here we are at A Profiles in Courage moment in our short history.
We know 47 Senators are on record sending a premature letter stating their position to the Ayatollah Khamenei. The man you say we should never trust. But that did not stop the 47 Senators from writting this letter.
We know that the GOP Congressional leadership inflamed the negotiations at the 12th hour by inviting and allowing the Israeli Prime Minister to tell the World on the Floor of the House of Representatives, often referred to as the people's House, that our President is capitulating thus weakening our position during the negotiations.
We know the Jewish Lobby is a powerful voice and fundraiser for Democrats particularly those Democrats that need their vote in New York. This powerful group, if splintered will gain favor with the GOP Hawks who believe any negotiation to be a poke in the eye. Interestingly, there is no downside for the GOP should the Jewish Fundraisers switch allegiance to the 47 Senators -- only political upside.
We know Chuck Schumer wants desperately to leapfrog Dick Durbin and become the next Majority Leader, if and when the Democrats take control of the Senate. Oh, did I mention, Mr Schumer needs The Jewish hardline fundraisers --- Schumer is capitulating big time.
We are at a Profile in Courage moment. And a moment in time when the United States Senate can once again be that great deliberative body by voting for this tough negotiated agreement.
Place peace above your politics.
We know 47 Senators are on record sending a premature letter stating their position to the Ayatollah Khamenei. The man you say we should never trust. But that did not stop the 47 Senators from writting this letter.
We know that the GOP Congressional leadership inflamed the negotiations at the 12th hour by inviting and allowing the Israeli Prime Minister to tell the World on the Floor of the House of Representatives, often referred to as the people's House, that our President is capitulating thus weakening our position during the negotiations.
We know the Jewish Lobby is a powerful voice and fundraiser for Democrats particularly those Democrats that need their vote in New York. This powerful group, if splintered will gain favor with the GOP Hawks who believe any negotiation to be a poke in the eye. Interestingly, there is no downside for the GOP should the Jewish Fundraisers switch allegiance to the 47 Senators -- only political upside.
We know Chuck Schumer wants desperately to leapfrog Dick Durbin and become the next Majority Leader, if and when the Democrats take control of the Senate. Oh, did I mention, Mr Schumer needs The Jewish hardline fundraisers --- Schumer is capitulating big time.
We are at a Profile in Courage moment. And a moment in time when the United States Senate can once again be that great deliberative body by voting for this tough negotiated agreement.
Place peace above your politics.
7
Your column fails to reflect understanding of the subtle nuances of diplomacy. It is too much based on black and white literal thinking not relevant to this topic. Jon Lindgren
2
"...we learned that the ayatollah is demanding total trust from us while offering maximum contempt in return."
Well, Israel, who is supposed to be our staunch ally, does the same but Mr. Brooks is OK with that.
Well, Israel, who is supposed to be our staunch ally, does the same but Mr. Brooks is OK with that.
6
When did Mr. Social Sciences become a master on Iranian negotiations?
Sorry Mr. Brooks, yet again, I disagree with your Friday column.
Maybe you should stick to social sciences.
Sorry Mr. Brooks, yet again, I disagree with your Friday column.
Maybe you should stick to social sciences.
2
Mr. Brooks - What exactly is YOUR plan for US relations with Iran? So easy for you to justify doing nothing, changing nothing. Now step up to the big leagues and tell us how you would proceed with this difficult relationship.
7
Does anyone see a correlation between Khamenei's comments and the earlier letter from the 47 GOP senators to Iran? There are extremist ideologues on both sides of this negotiation. This is all the more reason to keep moving toward an agreement.
10
David Brooks sure loves his either-or scenarios.
If the Iranians can't be trusted, then how can you trust the words of the leader cited here? I don't mean to be glib. I mean to say that the Leadership of Iran has to come across as hard line. They have to play to their base. And to their enemies (or so they think).
All of this seems very behind-closed-doors to me. Unless you're in it up to your eyeballs, you have no idea what's actually taking place in the back channels where the real business is being done.
If the Iranians can't be trusted, then how can you trust the words of the leader cited here? I don't mean to be glib. I mean to say that the Leadership of Iran has to come across as hard line. They have to play to their base. And to their enemies (or so they think).
All of this seems very behind-closed-doors to me. Unless you're in it up to your eyeballs, you have no idea what's actually taking place in the back channels where the real business is being done.
4
Amazing! Years of good faith efforts for a workable deal, and neither side has even of modicum of shared understanding of the supposedly agreed outcome. Seems Khamenei has been playing hardball cat and mouse with the 5+1 all along.
Messy indeed, dicy even, but for now no more dangerous than the status quo, which by the way is dangerous enough. Supposedly Iran is now considerably less than a year away from a bomb, and we know little of what they have been secretly doing while the possibility of an agreement was being dangled like a golden carrot.
Full inspection access and absolute verifiability are absolutely essential. Anything less is a brazen sham. Removing all sanctions from the get go would be unconscionably naive.
Without any further equivocations, take the ongoing negotiation process down to the June deadline, if it unravels and, or looks the least bit like a dodge, end the quibbling and summarily walk away with the certain knowledge that it was all a ruse from the get go.
Put every offending Iranian nuclear facility on a target list and start surgically taking them down in methodical succession starting with the most dangerous.
Next up we should find a way to effectively deal with North Korea’s belligerent nuclear insanity. We are already dead certain that there will be no successful negotiations there.
Messy indeed, dicy even, but for now no more dangerous than the status quo, which by the way is dangerous enough. Supposedly Iran is now considerably less than a year away from a bomb, and we know little of what they have been secretly doing while the possibility of an agreement was being dangled like a golden carrot.
Full inspection access and absolute verifiability are absolutely essential. Anything less is a brazen sham. Removing all sanctions from the get go would be unconscionably naive.
Without any further equivocations, take the ongoing negotiation process down to the June deadline, if it unravels and, or looks the least bit like a dodge, end the quibbling and summarily walk away with the certain knowledge that it was all a ruse from the get go.
Put every offending Iranian nuclear facility on a target list and start surgically taking them down in methodical succession starting with the most dangerous.
Next up we should find a way to effectively deal with North Korea’s belligerent nuclear insanity. We are already dead certain that there will be no successful negotiations there.
3
"... we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East."
Mr Brooks, just because you fell hook, line and sinker for the Bush/Cheney acid trip of democratic republics springing up in the aftermath of a short, glorious war in Iraq, doesn't mean everybody's wrong. It just means that you were.
Mr Brooks, just because you fell hook, line and sinker for the Bush/Cheney acid trip of democratic republics springing up in the aftermath of a short, glorious war in Iraq, doesn't mean everybody's wrong. It just means that you were.
7
What's with this fixation on Ayatollah Khamenei? Doesn't Brooks recognize irrelevant bad cop bluster when he hears it? The Iran deal to come - and it will come - signifies the end of the Iranian revolution, not it's continuation. Khamenei needs to stick his finger in the eye of present negotiations, while knowing he will not scuttle them, so as to assure the hardliners of their continued relevance. Didn't the Republicans do the very same thing a few weeks ago, by writing to Khamenei and letting him know that any signed nuclear agreement is not worth the paper its printed on? So it goes. With this one, as with several other major issues of our day, Obama is riding the crest of history, while the naysayers are struggling just to stay afloat. This includes David Brooks.
9
You're right Brooks, war is the only anser. We should just trust Israel because they look out for us so carefully. Iran does follow international laws, Israel doesn't but Israel is the one to trust. Israel frequently invades other countries, Iran doesn't so obviously we should trust Israel.When we ask Isdrael to stop settlement expansions, they immedieately expand them.
David, I trust Iran to keep committments far more than I do Israel. Israel has become a right wing government and they don't respect human rights.
David, I trust Iran to keep committments far more than I do Israel. Israel has become a right wing government and they don't respect human rights.
12
Dear Mr. Brooks,
You are is a clear vision, in a sea of Blind Liberal Faith.The Iranian nuclear deal reminds me of the story of the Scorpion & the frog.The Scorpion asked the frog to take him across the river on his back, the frog replied, how do I know if I did that you wont sting & kill me.The Scorpion said if I did that i would drown, so the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river, halfway across the river the Scorpion stung the frog, with his dying breath the frog asked the Scorpion why he did that, to which the Scorpion replied,I am a Scorpion & that's what we do.Obviously, as Mr. Brooks pointed out so clearly, Iran is still a Scorpion.Should Iran develop Nuclear weapons, North Korea would look like Choir Boys, compared to the fanatical Iranian Mullahs.
You are is a clear vision, in a sea of Blind Liberal Faith.The Iranian nuclear deal reminds me of the story of the Scorpion & the frog.The Scorpion asked the frog to take him across the river on his back, the frog replied, how do I know if I did that you wont sting & kill me.The Scorpion said if I did that i would drown, so the frog agreed to take the scorpion across the river, halfway across the river the Scorpion stung the frog, with his dying breath the frog asked the Scorpion why he did that, to which the Scorpion replied,I am a Scorpion & that's what we do.Obviously, as Mr. Brooks pointed out so clearly, Iran is still a Scorpion.Should Iran develop Nuclear weapons, North Korea would look like Choir Boys, compared to the fanatical Iranian Mullahs.
3
"We have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East." This is from one of the most vocal cheerleaders of the Iraq war! Does Mr. Brooks have no shame?
To call this column "cherry picking" would be too kind. One speech from one man. On the basis of what Mr. Brooks extrapolates from that speech we should presumably bomb Iran instead - there being no other realistic alternative - because that's a much more "predictable" endeavor. If this were submitted as a college essay it would flunk. I wish the Times imposed at least some standard of intellectual honesty for its columnists.
To call this column "cherry picking" would be too kind. One speech from one man. On the basis of what Mr. Brooks extrapolates from that speech we should presumably bomb Iran instead - there being no other realistic alternative - because that's a much more "predictable" endeavor. If this were submitted as a college essay it would flunk. I wish the Times imposed at least some standard of intellectual honesty for its columnists.
11
It is likely that the "revolution" will come within Iran itself. Khamenei can spew his venom against America, but the agreement is between China, Russia, Germany, France, England and America. Anyone of these countries can nix the deal with Iran. And Iran can nix the deal. It is not in Iran's "economic" interest to build nuclear weapons. Iran will one day turns its back on the "controlling authority" in Iran. Most of the young in Iran want to be part of the international community. The ruling Khamenei is scared of the future. This too will change. But when, is the question.
5
Mr. Brooks, who do you think is more likely to undermine the agreement - Ayatollah Ali Khamenei or our Congress?
You based your article on your statement, "We got a big piece of evidence on those questions on Thursday. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered his first big response"
I think you should have much more evidence of Congress trying to undermine negotiations and could have quoted many conservative members of Congress saying they do not support the agreement after it was presented.
You based your article on your statement, "We got a big piece of evidence on those questions on Thursday. Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, delivered his first big response"
I think you should have much more evidence of Congress trying to undermine negotiations and could have quoted many conservative members of Congress saying they do not support the agreement after it was presented.
10
Well after this article we have learned 3 more things: 1. That there werent 5 other negotiators at the table,including Russia,China,Germany,EU &France-that the US were the only ones capable of making a rational decision 2.That all these other major world powers cowered before Iran and capitulated without gaining anything! 3. That "dripped with lack of enthusiasm" "dismissed as devilish" "haughtily repeated" and "suggested maximum contempt" are all cold hard evidence that the entire country is bloodthirsty for western scalps 4. That all the international commentators who hailed democratically elected Prime minister&his policies since his election as being progressive were wrong 5.That "entirely consistent with recent Iranian behaviour" means the deal wasnt progressive and they wanted only more isolation,repression and war& thats why they were dancing in the street.Thanks Mr Brooks for your enlightenment.
8
David as usual cherry picks his facts. Anyone who knows the Farsi language knows that crowd rhetoric is not the same as diplomatic speech nor actual conduct of its leaders. An Israeli member of the Knesset called for concentration camps in Gaza. Does that mean it's official state policy?
Iran has agreed to dismantle a major part of its peaceful civilian nuclear program, to submit to the most intrusive inspects of any treaty country, to redesign a reactor, to eliminate two-thirds of its centrifuges, to get rid of much of its enriched uranium, and to limit nuclear research. This of course is on top of the fact that there is no evidence that Iran has violated or intends to violate the NPT treaty.
So what are David's facts that lead to such a high level of suspicion? The US originally insisted upon an end to Iran’s nuclear program, a suspension of its enrichment of uranium, but conceded those points to keep Iran at the table. Any negotiator knows that you open with more than you expect to get. The US basically said surrender your sovereign rights under the NPT and submit to our will. Is there any surprise that any nation would say no to such a demand?
The most extreme inspections is not requiring "total trust." If being "self righteous and superior" were reasons for mistrust it's a wonder we even still talk to Bibi. In the end David doesn't like the deal because he doesn't like Iran and feels that we can and should dictate what nations of the world can and cannot do.
Iran has agreed to dismantle a major part of its peaceful civilian nuclear program, to submit to the most intrusive inspects of any treaty country, to redesign a reactor, to eliminate two-thirds of its centrifuges, to get rid of much of its enriched uranium, and to limit nuclear research. This of course is on top of the fact that there is no evidence that Iran has violated or intends to violate the NPT treaty.
So what are David's facts that lead to such a high level of suspicion? The US originally insisted upon an end to Iran’s nuclear program, a suspension of its enrichment of uranium, but conceded those points to keep Iran at the table. Any negotiator knows that you open with more than you expect to get. The US basically said surrender your sovereign rights under the NPT and submit to our will. Is there any surprise that any nation would say no to such a demand?
The most extreme inspections is not requiring "total trust." If being "self righteous and superior" were reasons for mistrust it's a wonder we even still talk to Bibi. In the end David doesn't like the deal because he doesn't like Iran and feels that we can and should dictate what nations of the world can and cannot do.
7
You might be correct, which certainly means that nothing as meaningless as "sanctions" could possibly sway these religious fanatics. Which, of course, means one thing, which is that military attack is the only solution. I am sure after we bomb them for a few days/weeks/months, they will capitulate. Thanks for clearing everything up, David....
4
This is why nothing constructive ever gets done. Does Mr. Brooks not understand that his equivalent exists in the Iranian press, and is making just as strong as case that Iran would be crazy to enter an agreement with a country that cannot be trusted, that invades Iran's neighbors, who elects leaders who justify war by inventions of threats that don't exist? How are chants of Death to America any different than US Senators and other public officials calling for the US to bomb Iran immediately?
To achieve meaningful changes in the way things are done, which even Mr. Brooks would have to agree are disastrous, at some point you have to get by the rhetoric and the saber rattling and sit down and talk like grownups.
How do you expect this to work? Do you think the conservatives in the Iranian government are going to be any more likely than the conservatives in the US government to grow up, to suddenly laud an adversary, whose hate of has propelled their political careers?
Your column is a call to war -- as the only alternative possible. Shame on you.
To achieve meaningful changes in the way things are done, which even Mr. Brooks would have to agree are disastrous, at some point you have to get by the rhetoric and the saber rattling and sit down and talk like grownups.
How do you expect this to work? Do you think the conservatives in the Iranian government are going to be any more likely than the conservatives in the US government to grow up, to suddenly laud an adversary, whose hate of has propelled their political careers?
Your column is a call to war -- as the only alternative possible. Shame on you.
8
Let's see:
The regime in Pakistan was complicit in sheltering Osama Bin Laden but we have treaties with it.
The regime in Saudi Arabia has indirectly financed jihad including the 9/11 mass murders and we have treaties with it.
The regime in Israel has spied on us repeatedly over the years and has both directly and indirectly tried to influence our political process and we have treaties with it.
We have and have had in the past treaties with all sorts of butchers, thieves and maniacs in the last century, fewer honored than breached, but we can't have a treaty with Iran?
The regime in Pakistan was complicit in sheltering Osama Bin Laden but we have treaties with it.
The regime in Saudi Arabia has indirectly financed jihad including the 9/11 mass murders and we have treaties with it.
The regime in Israel has spied on us repeatedly over the years and has both directly and indirectly tried to influence our political process and we have treaties with it.
We have and have had in the past treaties with all sorts of butchers, thieves and maniacs in the last century, fewer honored than breached, but we can't have a treaty with Iran?
8
Then David, it's all war all the time isolationism, which seems to be the Republican philosophy. Certainly Kerry, a Vietnam vet as am I, know that the options are continual war in the Middle East. It's true that Khamenei is no Gorbachev, but the people of Iran want out of this mess and join the rest of the world. You're title may be correct, but there could be another revolution in Iran, and this time it will be for freedom.
4
"Negotiating an arms treaty with Brezhnev and Gorbachev was one thing. But with this guy?"
In case you don't remember, our "Supreme Leader" Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire". Yet, Reagan *did* negotiate with the Russians. Perhaps the Iranian Supreme Leader is taking a cue from Reagan. Not necessarily a bad thing, name calling notwithstanding.
In case you don't remember, our "Supreme Leader" Ronald Reagan called the Soviet Union the "evil empire". Yet, Reagan *did* negotiate with the Russians. Perhaps the Iranian Supreme Leader is taking a cue from Reagan. Not necessarily a bad thing, name calling notwithstanding.
7
Certainly the "revolution" will continue and it will continue without the threat of a nuclear weapon for a period of time. But like all revolutions it will evolve and don't confuse the internal revolution, Iran's foreign policy and it religious zealotry. It's a complicated place and this deal will only limit one element of it the rest will continue being very messy and complex. The US invading places certainly made it all the more a mess.
4
Mr. Brooks, when should the bombing begin?
Have the neocons printed the "Mission Accomplished" signs?
Got any kids/grandkids in the military?
Have the neocons printed the "Mission Accomplished" signs?
Got any kids/grandkids in the military?
9
Let's just keep sanctions in place until we have conclusive proof that Iran has dismantled it's nuclear infrastructure. Leave it up to Iran to meet our conditions. If they want to live under a sanctions regime for the next few decades, let them. Cuba did so.
2
It is true that in the past America made many wrong bates in the Middle East and in the world and consequences were devastating to American people and its economy. This does not mean, we should become risk avers. America has to take a calculated risk on Iran to prevent future war. If there is war in Iran, many American friends may not be on American side - Europe, Asia,.....the only friend that America can get is Isreail. Second, can America defeat Iran in a war - there is a question mark on this point. Our performance in Iraq and Afganisthan wars do not give us confidence on this outcome. Third, after war with Iran, what America will do with Iran - occupy and rule it. The Iraqi experiment of occupation administration shows what type of mess we can create and the long term damage in that process. Let us take a risk - even if the chance of success is 50%, still it is better than definite war. Though on my estimate this success probability may be close to 90%. This is the way business school make their decisions. There is never gurantee of future outcome from today's action - that is the reality of life.
1
Mr. Brooks provides a well-thought-out summary of the dangers of negotiating a deal with an implacable foe of the U.S. and Israel. Unfortunately, like so many critics of the deal currently being negotiated, he provides neither an alternative, nor any mention of the possible consequences of military action. He correctly states that the U.S. government, regardless of which party was in power, has failed to predict the consequences of its actions. He doesn't explicitly mention the failure of our military intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. One can hope that, since no option seems likely to lead to success, perhaps we can just continue the status quo, or even increase sanctions. Unfortunately "staying the course" may very well result in both the collapse of sanctions due to the withdrawal of Russia, China, or the EU countries, or simply advance Iran's bomb development and leave us yet again with the very same options that Mr. Brooks decries.
48
What you call a "well thought-out summary" is in fact a carefully crafted piece of propaganda that never gets t real issues at hand, at all, and instead builds a scarier bogeyman. It galls me how these propagandists control even their critics.
So, based on Mr. Brooks analysis, with support from Henry Kissinger, an expert on "negotiated peace" deals, we would be left with two options: 1) increase sanctions until the people of Iran revolt against their government; or 2) the Israel/Cotton option, bomb them back to the stone age. Both options sound entirely more reasonable than what the President is suggesting, right, Mr. Brooks. I should add, was't the "revolution living" in China when Nixon and Kissinger made their turn to the East?
3
What's particularly remarkable is that so many people who commented on this essay either did not read it, or read it with blinders. What about the leader of Iran saying "Death to America" don't you get? If Obama and Kerry said, immediately after touting this agreement, "Oh, and yes, one more thing, Death to Iran!" or encouraged a sycophantic audience to chant it, what would we as Americans think -- that he was joking?
Obama creates the false choice of war or surrender.
The path on which Obama is leading us will lead to war, just as leadership by weaklings has in the past. One does not negotiate from a position of weakness. When war does come, I will wholly support the conscription of your sons and daughters.
Obama creates the false choice of war or surrender.
The path on which Obama is leading us will lead to war, just as leadership by weaklings has in the past. One does not negotiate from a position of weakness. When war does come, I will wholly support the conscription of your sons and daughters.
What I learned from the Ayotollah speech is something different - that America and Israel are no longer Iran's main enemies. Saudi Arabia and all sunni muslims are the new most important enemies for Iran. If we are smart we should get a nuclear deal out of the Iranians just for that reason alone.
5
why should iran trust the US. it staged a coup to overthrow a democratically elected leader in the 1950's, backed saddam husein in an 8 year war against iran, using chemical weapons, backed hosni Mubarak until it didn't, then worked with an elected president morsi until he was overthrown by a coup which the US accepted. did nothing when the Saudi's invaded Bahrain to crush a popular uprising, talked Kaddafi into giving up his nuclear program, sending the 3 blind mice-Lieberman, McCain and graham to pal around with him, then backed a revolution to overthrow him in which he was killed. should I go on?
7
Enough with the past! If we keep looking for faults and slights we will all go blind.
Mr. Brooks opines that 'Khamenei communicated a smug an self righteous sense of superiority to the West.'
The actual utterly self righteous sense of superiority sense of 'the West' was contained in a letter penned to 'The Leaders of Iran', signed by 47 US Senators, at a time that the highly complex and vulnerable negotiations in Lausanne were still ongoing.
The reply from Iran to this kindergarten style text showed that the big, bad mullahs of Iran obviously know more about the Constitution of the US than members of the greatest deliberating body in the world.
The actual utterly self righteous sense of superiority sense of 'the West' was contained in a letter penned to 'The Leaders of Iran', signed by 47 US Senators, at a time that the highly complex and vulnerable negotiations in Lausanne were still ongoing.
The reply from Iran to this kindergarten style text showed that the big, bad mullahs of Iran obviously know more about the Constitution of the US than members of the greatest deliberating body in the world.
9
This piece could have been written by Bibi Netanyahu.
7
he certainly has a fine amenuensis in brooks.
As a non-interventionist, I tire of being treated like I'm stupid.
Obviously there are challenges with trusting Iran. Obviously they are trying to gain a nuclear bomb. Obviously diplomacy has risks. We non-interventionists get it. We really do.
What our counterparts fail to understand is that diplomacy is our best shot, even if you take every word in David Brooks' column today as infallible truth.
Let's simplify
Our options are:
1) diplomacy
2) the status quo (which everybody agrees isn't working, and which is allowing Iran to march toward a nuclear bomb)
3) War.
So the question isn't "Is Diplomacy Risky"
The question is "Is Diplomacy more risky than War or the Status Quo"
We've decided the status quo must change. Thus it leaves War or Diplomacy.
Brooks argues against Diplomacy. Well then, that leaves War.
We've seen how well war works in Iraq and Afghanistan. War in Iran will make those two wars look like a piece of cake.
Anybody who pretends we can just bomb Iran and get out unscathed hasn't been paying attention. "Shock and Awe" will not work. Iran will just bury it's nuclear weapons program underneath our bombing ability.
Thus it will take ground forces.
From where will we get the troops?
From where will we get the money?
Most importantly, from where will we get the will.
American will for this War will crumble the second American Troops start coming home in body bags and gas hits $10/gallon.
War really isn't an option, leaving diplomacy
Obviously there are challenges with trusting Iran. Obviously they are trying to gain a nuclear bomb. Obviously diplomacy has risks. We non-interventionists get it. We really do.
What our counterparts fail to understand is that diplomacy is our best shot, even if you take every word in David Brooks' column today as infallible truth.
Let's simplify
Our options are:
1) diplomacy
2) the status quo (which everybody agrees isn't working, and which is allowing Iran to march toward a nuclear bomb)
3) War.
So the question isn't "Is Diplomacy Risky"
The question is "Is Diplomacy more risky than War or the Status Quo"
We've decided the status quo must change. Thus it leaves War or Diplomacy.
Brooks argues against Diplomacy. Well then, that leaves War.
We've seen how well war works in Iraq and Afghanistan. War in Iran will make those two wars look like a piece of cake.
Anybody who pretends we can just bomb Iran and get out unscathed hasn't been paying attention. "Shock and Awe" will not work. Iran will just bury it's nuclear weapons program underneath our bombing ability.
Thus it will take ground forces.
From where will we get the troops?
From where will we get the money?
Most importantly, from where will we get the will.
American will for this War will crumble the second American Troops start coming home in body bags and gas hits $10/gallon.
War really isn't an option, leaving diplomacy
9
You've left out economic sanctions, that could have been maintained, eased, or made more stringent. You've also failed to distinguish between firmer or softer diplomacy, diplomacy from a position of strength, weakness or parity. And these are significant omissions, rendering your argument more of a rant.
Oil prices are dictated by US production not the Middle East. In case you did not notice we had a fracking revolution in the past seven years. Also, targeted military intervention can and would be conducted primarily from the air, not on the ground. Iran has done nothing to change fundamentally and cannot be trusted to act peacefully.
It is of course a sign of pure evil and irresponsibility for a government official to give a speech characterizing another country as evil.
If anyone in the US or Israeli governments for example gave a speech calling Iran evil, I'm certain that David Brooks would condemn this also as a sure sign of an irresponsible, dangerous government that cannot be trusted, certainly not with nuclear weapons.
If anyone in the US or Israeli governments for example gave a speech calling Iran evil, I'm certain that David Brooks would condemn this also as a sure sign of an irresponsible, dangerous government that cannot be trusted, certainly not with nuclear weapons.
7
Like the "Axix of Evil" speech GW gave in 2002?
Reagan called the Soviet Union an evil empire, I don't know if Brooks got on his high horse about that. These guys are playing to their respective audiences, like politicians everywhere. Try peace first, America hasn't won a war since WWII and it didn't win by itself (Grenada and Kuwait hardly count.)
Mr Brooks:
Have you really no sense of negotiation? Can you really be so uniformed about Iran and the desire of the vast majority of its people to rejoin the world order? Have you ever even been to Iran? I was as a working news producer in 1998, and the desire to do so even then was palpable. The biggest selling Iranian Publication then featured a huge cover photo of Leonardo De Caprio from the Titanic movie on the cover. Our news team was allowed free movement and free access to any citizen for an interview without a single minder tagging along. Mr. Brooks, can you really be so naïve in 2015?
Have you really no sense of negotiation? Can you really be so uniformed about Iran and the desire of the vast majority of its people to rejoin the world order? Have you ever even been to Iran? I was as a working news producer in 1998, and the desire to do so even then was palpable. The biggest selling Iranian Publication then featured a huge cover photo of Leonardo De Caprio from the Titanic movie on the cover. Our news team was allowed free movement and free access to any citizen for an interview without a single minder tagging along. Mr. Brooks, can you really be so naïve in 2015?
6
As with so many things in our world, the story is long - too long for a newspaper piece, although the story and the comments capture the essence pretty well. Suffice to say, the West and to some degree what is today Russia have long meddled in the Middle East - imperialism at its best. That meddling, however, has precluded the people of the Middle East from sorting out their own affairs. Naturally, there are those, generally those who do not profit from the relationship who resent the meddling and develop animus against the meddlers and their neighbors who profit from the meddling. Unfortunately, the region has been precluded from sorting out its own affairs for so long that now newer and more powerful weapons are available. That availability has generated tremendous anxiety among those who would meddle. However, their response is to pursue the status quo (the true definition of conservatism) of bombing, invasion and military intervention. This rubric dates back to the Industrial Revolution and before as the west began asserting it power around the world and against the "semi-civilized" peoples (read generally as those who don't look like Anglos and tend to be of a skin color other than white). The real trick in the Middle East will be to stifle the now centuries old modus operandi of meddling and imposing our will and to negotiate in good faith while allowing the Middle East to sort out its own business.
1
So David, are you saving all your bright ideas about the proper course of action for another column?
5
The leaders of Iran do NOT represent the thoughts and wishes of the people at this point. Oh, well, this is David Brooks, whose glass is always half full, made of scratched plastic, and half full of swamp water.
2
Regrettably, we are not negotiating with the people of Iran, we are negotiating with the leadership. The leadership and the people are distinct in the case of Iran. Since it is the leadership that determines foreign policy and continues to operate out of a fervid wish to cast the region into a theocratic state we should take them at their word and operate consistently.
Mr. Brooks has consistently showed that his support lies totally with Israel and he cannot accept that Iran, unlike Israel wants peace. With all the Israeli and Republican rhetoric flying around supporting a war no one wants, is it any reason that Ayatollah Khamenei is playing his cards close to his chest. Iran is changing albeit slowly while Israeli is regressing on its limits of free speech.
I would suggest to Mr, Brooks that he review the history of Persia/Iran since the fall of the Ottoman Empire where the UK/US sought to take over all the country’s oil in the 1920s, the CIA ouster of Prime Minister Mossedq in 1953 when he wanted to nationalise Iran’s oil only to be replaced with America's puppet Shah. It is any wonder why Iran distrusts America so much.
It's sad to see such a one sided Opinion where the writer clearly shows his lack of neutrality or fairness.
I would suggest to Mr, Brooks that he review the history of Persia/Iran since the fall of the Ottoman Empire where the UK/US sought to take over all the country’s oil in the 1920s, the CIA ouster of Prime Minister Mossedq in 1953 when he wanted to nationalise Iran’s oil only to be replaced with America's puppet Shah. It is any wonder why Iran distrusts America so much.
It's sad to see such a one sided Opinion where the writer clearly shows his lack of neutrality or fairness.
10
There is a difference in reality. Much of the instability in North Africa and the ME is a direct result of US military and CIA intervention under both the Bush and Obama administration.
We funded and supported the removal of Assad from Syria and what followed is a refugee shame on the entire world. We took out the stable governments that provided some security in both Iraq and Libya. We used the Saudi backed dictatorship in Yemen to terrorize the opposition with bombing raids.
Iran will get nukes regardless of the deal we strike because we simply don't have the will or the resources after 14 years of failure to prevent it and it's in our and the other nations economic and geo-political interest to get a deal.
As far as trusting the US see the events in the Ukraine. Why would anyone trust us to live up to a deal?
The differences in reality that both sides see has nothing to do with reality. The entire point of this exercise is to see if we can actually live together in the future despite the fact that both sides reality is very different.
We funded and supported the removal of Assad from Syria and what followed is a refugee shame on the entire world. We took out the stable governments that provided some security in both Iraq and Libya. We used the Saudi backed dictatorship in Yemen to terrorize the opposition with bombing raids.
Iran will get nukes regardless of the deal we strike because we simply don't have the will or the resources after 14 years of failure to prevent it and it's in our and the other nations economic and geo-political interest to get a deal.
As far as trusting the US see the events in the Ukraine. Why would anyone trust us to live up to a deal?
The differences in reality that both sides see has nothing to do with reality. The entire point of this exercise is to see if we can actually live together in the future despite the fact that both sides reality is very different.
1
We negotiated with Russia at the height of the Cold War, so why not Iran? The sanctions regime has failed. The present path gives Iran a nuclear device in the foreseeable future. What would Mr. brooks have us do? Conservatives always seem to wind up with the military option as the only viable choice. That would seem to be the unwritten conclusion of this essay.
8
Khamenei is emboldened because he sees the Republicans weakening the president's hand. I half expect, if this deal fails for Boehnor to invite Khamenei to address the GOP caucus to thank him for helping to scuttle the president's work.
6
What is clear is that the deal "framework" is viewed by the Iranians as a starting point for further negotiations, not the end point that many readers expect. Iran has 4 major organized constituencies within its formal structure - the President, the Supreme Leader, the Council of Experts and the Parliament. What we have done, and it is a significant accomplishment, is arrived at a framework with the President but we are a long way from a treaty.
There is no deal without the support of the Supreme Leader and Council of Experts. What will evolve between now and June is anyone's guess but I don't doubt that the final conditions of the deal will require the agreement of the Supreme Leader. If he holds firm that the deal includes the lifting of all sanctions upon signature and that military sites are excluded, we may need to walk away.
There is no deal without the support of the Supreme Leader and Council of Experts. What will evolve between now and June is anyone's guess but I don't doubt that the final conditions of the deal will require the agreement of the Supreme Leader. If he holds firm that the deal includes the lifting of all sanctions upon signature and that military sites are excluded, we may need to walk away.
29
We have a Council Of Experts as well, we call ours the GOP. The necessity of appeasing all these experts would appear to make it odds-on that what will evolve between now and June will likely be nothing. From there it will depend on the potency of the sanctions, which in turn will depend on how strong our coalition is, in particular whether Russia and China are actual coalition partners or, as it appears, disinterested observers.
Brooks' framing of this issue is wrong.
The core question isn't about the type of people we're dealing with in Iran. It is rather a question of the U.S. President and unfortunately those idiots in Congress defying this nation's military-industrial complex.
Of course the Iranians will curse us. Lots of countries do, including some of our closest allies.
We need time to improve our covert monitoring of Iran and to pursue diplomatic means to undermine Iranian hardliners.
Another problem with this column is the unwritten assumption that the U.S. will do nothing while Iran seeks ideological hegemony across the Mideast.
This column is little more than misdirection and, like the adolescent rantings of Kissinger and Schulz, it appears to be in service to the military-industrial complex.
We've had enough of that.
The core question isn't about the type of people we're dealing with in Iran. It is rather a question of the U.S. President and unfortunately those idiots in Congress defying this nation's military-industrial complex.
Of course the Iranians will curse us. Lots of countries do, including some of our closest allies.
We need time to improve our covert monitoring of Iran and to pursue diplomatic means to undermine Iranian hardliners.
Another problem with this column is the unwritten assumption that the U.S. will do nothing while Iran seeks ideological hegemony across the Mideast.
This column is little more than misdirection and, like the adolescent rantings of Kissinger and Schulz, it appears to be in service to the military-industrial complex.
We've had enough of that.
3
The view is pretty good from the cheap seats, David. You give your views that the regime is not to be trusted, but you offer no substance in return and you were not party to the negotiations. So, Mr. Brooks, just what would you suggest other than the negotiations? Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran might not be our best bet either given the previous administration's attempts at nation-building in the region. Besides which, that would only serve to incite Iran to building a weapon sooner.
Clearly, sir, you do not support the administration on this. Since this is the case, do tell us, what would you suggest we do?
Clearly, sir, you do not support the administration on this. Since this is the case, do tell us, what would you suggest we do?
4
"The core question is: Are the men who control that country more like Lenin or are they more like Gorbachev?"
It is worse than that:
Are they like Stalin?
Yes, they are.
It is worse than that:
Are they like Stalin?
Yes, they are.
David is a very kind traditional Republican, but still a Republican: we love him, but we know that traditional Republican philosophy -- fear of change.
What is there to fear, but fear itself? (I know, how profound).
But there is a lot of truth in the Roosevelt statement. Iran cannot win a nuclear war against its neighbors without considering the direction of wind.
And it is the wind of their leaders that is the true folly in their recent rhetoric. Posturing the Public is real rain dance in Iran: feeding egos is part of deals.
And we're going to hear a lot of that from Republicans in coming months. Let's not forget that "The Dooms-day" Congregation is Republican. That's why they are fierce conservatives:).
What is there to fear, but fear itself? (I know, how profound).
But there is a lot of truth in the Roosevelt statement. Iran cannot win a nuclear war against its neighbors without considering the direction of wind.
And it is the wind of their leaders that is the true folly in their recent rhetoric. Posturing the Public is real rain dance in Iran: feeding egos is part of deals.
And we're going to hear a lot of that from Republicans in coming months. Let's not forget that "The Dooms-day" Congregation is Republican. That's why they are fierce conservatives:).
2
Iran cannot win a war against its neighbors but say it takes out most of Israel with a first strike. What good is it that it may lose millions of people in a retaliatory strike? It is a much bigger place than Israel and with a much larger population base... It is no answer to say Israel has the bomb too because it has never threatened to destroy Iran. The reverse is not the case and it might be pointed out Israel shares no border with Iran which is fairly remote in distance as well. The detestation of Israel by the current Iran regime is ideological.
For the most part, this column almost completely ignores the actual Iranian nuclear program. instead, we get a series of demands on matters unrelated to the key issues. Where have we heard that before? From Netanyahu, whether inventing new reasons to block any accord either with Palestinians or Iran.
9
I have used David's words for years to educate my HS students but these days there is too often a sense of worry or fear that subsumes his frequent wisdom. Sorry if this seems ad hominem; Brook's thought has been a rare for refuge in our current cultural storms, a rabbi if you please, but now his coherence seems frayed.
1
It terrifies me that a man whose training for leading these world-altering negotiations is only law school, community organizing and a year of absenteeism in the Senate. Sure he has advisors, but history suggests they are props. And yes, he has been president for years but his record on foreign policy brings me no comfort. We need a professional diplomat in office. Looking at the field of contenders, I see none.
Right.
Far better to have a B movie actor and union leader (Screen Actors Guild) negotiate the SALT treaties.
And yet, there he is, patron saint of the GOP...
Far better to have a B movie actor and union leader (Screen Actors Guild) negotiate the SALT treaties.
And yet, there he is, patron saint of the GOP...
That was 6 years ago...if it ever was; now, Obama's the best we and the world have.
The deal will live and die by the verification regime that is implemented, as we all know. Sanctions should not be lifted until that verification regime is in place, is extensive and shown to be working by a diverse cadre of nuclear non-proliferation experts. Despite Iran's "revolutionary" intentions, it's hard for me to see how bombing Iran, the likely result of the deal's failure, can be a better alternative. Enhancing the power of the moderates in Iran is our last, best chance from having a full-fledged nuclear arms race in the region.
47
Not enlightening; angry and facile.
7
Keep negotiations going....and if takes a generation to accomplish...
well David Brooks....it will take a generation...most likely....to ...
wake up the fundamentalists in the Islamic State mindset...but then
that is what....to lead out of darkness...i.e. educare is all about..
Lux et Veritas...David Brooks....takes a long, long time..
well David Brooks....it will take a generation...most likely....to ...
wake up the fundamentalists in the Islamic State mindset...but then
that is what....to lead out of darkness...i.e. educare is all about..
Lux et Veritas...David Brooks....takes a long, long time..
1
Our record includes just how well (!) we supported the controversial Shah; it's as if our Founders were attempting to cut a deal with buds of England after 1776.
Furthermore, since thousands of common Iranians publically protested against the current regime, one wonders just how the common citizen there reacts to our government's efforts to "isolate" Iran.
Suggestion: our government should encourage "student exchanges"; those of us with Iranian classmates (in my case: in the 60s), appreciated meeting such outstanding people.
A continuation of hostility simply makes no sense.
Furthermore, since thousands of common Iranians publically protested against the current regime, one wonders just how the common citizen there reacts to our government's efforts to "isolate" Iran.
Suggestion: our government should encourage "student exchanges"; those of us with Iranian classmates (in my case: in the 60s), appreciated meeting such outstanding people.
A continuation of hostility simply makes no sense.
3
I wish David had written about better alternatives, from his viewpoint.
Speaking in broad terms, I see three courses of action for the West:
1. Negotiate inspections and engage Iran.
2. Continue sanctions and hope for the best.
3. War. And hope for...?
No great options but shouldn't we try negotiating and engaging Iran before going off on another military misadventure?
Speaking in broad terms, I see three courses of action for the West:
1. Negotiate inspections and engage Iran.
2. Continue sanctions and hope for the best.
3. War. And hope for...?
No great options but shouldn't we try negotiating and engaging Iran before going off on another military misadventure?
85
Wait a minute. The Iranians were supposed to be "dancing in the streets" after the announcement. If Khamenei's speech was supposed to put the people back in their place, and make up with the conservatives (yet another definition of "conservative") what does that mean regarding the exuberance and likely hopes for the younger (not conservative) Iranians, who likely want a better, thriving Iran. Sure Mr. Brooks and Mr. Netanyahu want to keep Iran in its awful place, but I bet that the Iranian people don't. If the Mullahs walk from this agreement, it might be a historic turning point of a different sort. We still win; but time will tell.
2
The neo-cons were so dreadfully wrong about the Iraq War. Why should anyone take anything they say about Iran seriously? W himself said it best, "Fool me once.........shame on.... you?.........you can't fool me again."
4
Congratulations. After a long article predicting the future in the middle east, David Brooks says, "But we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East. " Assuming he includes himself in "we", it is an invitation to ignore what he has just written.
7
If what our negotiators have told us is true, that Iran faces a regimen of intrusive, evasive proof inspections that would be an early indication of cheating, then I fully support the deal with Iran. Brooks may believe Kissinger that there is no "confluence of interests between the U.S. and Iran" but the sanctions have brought Iran to the bargaining table and our right-wing critics say they want to increase the sanctions. The "confluence" is quite apparent: they want economic relief and we want an ironclad nuclear deal. If the Iranians "hate" America, they probably can point to the Republican conservative preference for military action over diplomacy which has been our "history" for decades. We threaten those who oppose us rather than try to find viable peaceful agreements. And don't get me started on what our military posture costs us.
4
Consider the costs of the Iraq disaster:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBR...
$2 Trillion +
176,000 to 189,000 killed
Some multiplier of the number killed being how many maimed, wounded, etc, and then there's the cost to their families and communities.
"The United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system...
Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud..."
The above costs of the Iraq disaster don't include the opportunity costs of what America would have done positively, constructively, with its people, resources, and good will with INTELLIGENT as opposed to STUPID leadership.
Brooks at his post at the NYT is selling us on an even worse disaster. Why? It boils down to that he favors Netanyahu, Likud Israel with Likud Israel's aggressions and ambitions.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/03/14/us-iraq-war-anniversary-idUSBR...
$2 Trillion +
176,000 to 189,000 killed
Some multiplier of the number killed being how many maimed, wounded, etc, and then there's the cost to their families and communities.
"The United States gained little from the war while Iraq was traumatized by it. The war reinvigorated radical Islamist militants in the region, set back women's rights, and weakened an already precarious healthcare system...
Meanwhile, the $212 billion reconstruction effort was largely a failure with most of that money spent on security or lost to waste and fraud..."
The above costs of the Iraq disaster don't include the opportunity costs of what America would have done positively, constructively, with its people, resources, and good will with INTELLIGENT as opposed to STUPID leadership.
Brooks at his post at the NYT is selling us on an even worse disaster. Why? It boils down to that he favors Netanyahu, Likud Israel with Likud Israel's aggressions and ambitions.
9
How long ago was George W. Bush using that same word - "evil" - to describe Iran? Does Brooks want to go back to that kind frat-boy belligerence masquerading as foreign policy?
This region has a long, long history. So it wasn't all that long ago, to them at least, that we deposed a democratically-elected leader there and installed a puppet, because oil. They certainly have their reasons to mistrust us.
Brooks suggests Obama administration does not have their eyes wide open on this issue. I think he's spent too much time watching what passes for statesmanship on the GOP side.
This region has a long, long history. So it wasn't all that long ago, to them at least, that we deposed a democratically-elected leader there and installed a puppet, because oil. They certainly have their reasons to mistrust us.
Brooks suggests Obama administration does not have their eyes wide open on this issue. I think he's spent too much time watching what passes for statesmanship on the GOP side.
134
"Negotiating an arms treaty with Brezhnev and Gorbachev was one thing. But with this guy? Good luck with that."
Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Tecumseh, Pontiac, Black Elk and others surely had similar sentiments in negotiating with various American presidents. Their people, the aboriginal people of North America, are called "merciless Indian savages" in our Declaration of Independence, OUR revolutionary document, aren't they?
It isn't as if we haven't uttered a few epithets or broken a few treaties ourselves. Our somewhat stable nation state was built in that way. Along with an atomic weapon or two...
Sitting Bull, Crazy Horse, Tecumseh, Pontiac, Black Elk and others surely had similar sentiments in negotiating with various American presidents. Their people, the aboriginal people of North America, are called "merciless Indian savages" in our Declaration of Independence, OUR revolutionary document, aren't they?
It isn't as if we haven't uttered a few epithets or broken a few treaties ourselves. Our somewhat stable nation state was built in that way. Along with an atomic weapon or two...
10
"But we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East"
And which part of We are You Mr. Brooks ? Your own previous analysis of the Middle East was, shall we say, rosy about the Iraq adventure in masterminding the middle east, and insultingly dismissive of those who warned against it.
Thus your opinion here is suspect, although you apparently have become fluent in Farsi since you can understand that Khameini's speech, was haughty, and "dripped with a lack of enthusiasm". Good ear, indeed !
Nah, I don't think so. It is the same old Mr. Brooks, whose uninformed willingness to put partisan interest before national interest continues to this day.
And which part of We are You Mr. Brooks ? Your own previous analysis of the Middle East was, shall we say, rosy about the Iraq adventure in masterminding the middle east, and insultingly dismissive of those who warned against it.
Thus your opinion here is suspect, although you apparently have become fluent in Farsi since you can understand that Khameini's speech, was haughty, and "dripped with a lack of enthusiasm". Good ear, indeed !
Nah, I don't think so. It is the same old Mr. Brooks, whose uninformed willingness to put partisan interest before national interest continues to this day.
14
Very true. You can't negotiate just for the sake
of negotiating. You Need To Keep Sanctions , Add More Sanctions If The Other Party Doesn't Want or Even Try To Take IN consideration The Options that they Are offered.
of negotiating. You Need To Keep Sanctions , Add More Sanctions If The Other Party Doesn't Want or Even Try To Take IN consideration The Options that they Are offered.
the deal isn't much of a gamble for us. we maintain grotesquely superior capabilities to iran, as does israel. the gamble is bucking our negotiating partners, and our congress creating the impression that it takes its marching orders from netanyahu rather than allowing america's duly elected president to run our foreign policy. not sticking to a maximalst initial bargaining position is expected; putting stock in the pro-forma denunciations of the ayatollahs is silly. both betray the naivte the right accuses obama of possessing.
8
Brooks himself says in this column that we have a terrible record predicting the future in the Middle East. So why does he so confidently predict the future conduct of Iran if a deal is reached?
9
"we"are those other folks guys like Brooks really know the inside stuff. Just look at the predictions in Iraq and Afghanistan and all those other wild and crazy guesses.
A shockingly uninformed, off-base and trite analysis; which is to say, classic Brooks.
6
Again another attack on Obama with no solution offered. The Soviets hated us just as much as the Iranians yet you say Brezhnev somehow shared our values? Brezhnev and Gorbachev were in power when Soviet Union was crumbling and they needed to negotiate in good faith for they own sake. And Gorbachev ended the Soviet Union. That's not a fair comparison to the mullahs in Iran. Stalin would be a better and more honest comparison. Both are mad dogs in their hearts but we made deals with Stalin. And we should try to make a deal with Iranian. David you know there are millions of people in Iran. Iran is not just the mullahs just as the United States is not Ted Cruz. Obviously the, Iranian leadership will continue to cause havoc in the world just as the Soviets did and as Putin wants to do all over again. But Obama at least is trying. Don't you get that trying is something you have to do even with regimes like this, otherwise what is the message we send the Iranian people if we discard them like you are suggesting. Someday the mullahs revolution will recede sowould you rather have the Iranians see Americans as a bunch of yahoos like Tom Cotton or as a people who tried to improve relations but failed?
8
I appreciate your skepticism (as well as Henry Kissinger and George Shultz's) over the still-not-finalized agreement with Iran. But the State Department's spokeswoman Marie Harf was correct to ask what, exactly, is the alternative (impliedly other than military intervention in the near future).
You offer none. (Neither did Kissinger and Shultz.) And that, it seems to me, is rather telling.
The notion that we can simply keep turning the financial screws on Iran does not strike me as any realistic means to prevent its building a bomb in the short term. And if you really thought so, you would not have dedicated your entire column on a critique of the developing deal but would instead have made a few criticisms but then strongly advocated such greater sanctions.
I am led to the conclusion that what you really want to see is boots on the ground ASAP.
We readers of the New York Times read it because we can count on it to give us among the very best of insights and perspectives on current affairs. And that includes expecting its Op-Ed columnists to put forth their honest, best considered views.
I question whether you are being as straightforward with us as you (and Kissinger and Shultz) can and should be on this matter.
You offer none. (Neither did Kissinger and Shultz.) And that, it seems to me, is rather telling.
The notion that we can simply keep turning the financial screws on Iran does not strike me as any realistic means to prevent its building a bomb in the short term. And if you really thought so, you would not have dedicated your entire column on a critique of the developing deal but would instead have made a few criticisms but then strongly advocated such greater sanctions.
I am led to the conclusion that what you really want to see is boots on the ground ASAP.
We readers of the New York Times read it because we can count on it to give us among the very best of insights and perspectives on current affairs. And that includes expecting its Op-Ed columnists to put forth their honest, best considered views.
I question whether you are being as straightforward with us as you (and Kissinger and Shultz) can and should be on this matter.
10
"interventions"??
Is THAT what we're calling war these days?
Is THAT what we're calling war these days?
8
Brooks, you have written many weak columns, but this one may top the list. The ability of Iran to export its revolution is self-limited by the fact that they are Shiite, and thus, by definition, have little appeal to the large majority of Muslims, who are Sunnis. Where do they have real influence? Iraq, which is majority Shiite and where poorly-thought-out US actions (supported by Brooks et al.) removed the check to Iranian influence. Syria, or really the part Assad controls, and the Shiite regions of Lebanon. And Yemen. In few of these places is the word "control" really in the dictionary. Of course there are a large number of radical Sunni groups, but if Iran disappeared tomorrow, none of these would even pause in their quests.
I'm not convinced that a nuclear agreement will lead to the fall of the Ayatollahs. But, neither will sanctions, at least not if the case of Cuba, much closer to the US than Iran, and yet still with a Castro in charge 50 years later is instructive. We need to follow the wise policies adopted to counter the Soviet Union and Communist China-containment and patience. To those who say the Iranian regime is too ideological and evil for those to work, I say-Stalin and Mao were 2 of the 3 great mass murderers of the 20th century and total ideologues, yet it worked with them. Nothing Khameini has done or could do even comes close.
I'm not convinced that a nuclear agreement will lead to the fall of the Ayatollahs. But, neither will sanctions, at least not if the case of Cuba, much closer to the US than Iran, and yet still with a Castro in charge 50 years later is instructive. We need to follow the wise policies adopted to counter the Soviet Union and Communist China-containment and patience. To those who say the Iranian regime is too ideological and evil for those to work, I say-Stalin and Mao were 2 of the 3 great mass murderers of the 20th century and total ideologues, yet it worked with them. Nothing Khameini has done or could do even comes close.
12
Mr. Brooks makes some valid points here - if this position by Khameini holds (rather than being "bluster or tactical positioning" as Brooks acknowledges it may be), then we will not be able to reach an agreement in our interests at this time, and sanctions should be maintained and even increased.
However, the issue he identifies as "the core question" is half-true: "Are the men who control [Iran] more like Lenin or more like Gorbachev?" The rest of the issue hinges on whether, and for how much longer, the true believers are in control. A recent survey in The Economist suggested that younger Iranians are ready to cast them off (and that only a military strike on Iran could unify the country behind the conservatives). The "either Lenin's or Gorbachev's USSR" analogy may be off base; present day Iran may be closer to late Brezhnev, or even Chernenko………..
However, the issue he identifies as "the core question" is half-true: "Are the men who control [Iran] more like Lenin or more like Gorbachev?" The rest of the issue hinges on whether, and for how much longer, the true believers are in control. A recent survey in The Economist suggested that younger Iranians are ready to cast them off (and that only a military strike on Iran could unify the country behind the conservatives). The "either Lenin's or Gorbachev's USSR" analogy may be off base; present day Iran may be closer to late Brezhnev, or even Chernenko………..
The columnist conflates the Ayatollah with the Iranian government, never even mentioning the reformist Iranian president or the majority of Iranians whose attitudes seem very different. The Ayatollah will not be around forever, or even last the ten years of the treaty.
But who cares? The columnist lives!
But who cares? The columnist lives!
3
Who knows what the Iran deal will bring - if a deal is indeed struck in June.
I do find the strident myopia by Brooks to be astounding, though.
A column much like Brooks's could be written by an Iranian in an Iranian newspaper. "American hard-liners continue to decry Iran as an evil regime." "The American Congress is continues to characterize Iran as an apocalyptic, suicidal regime." And the charge by an American columnist that Iran is destabilizing the region - who outside the United States doesn't wouldn't find such a charge laughable coming from an American?
I do find the strident myopia by Brooks to be astounding, though.
A column much like Brooks's could be written by an Iranian in an Iranian newspaper. "American hard-liners continue to decry Iran as an evil regime." "The American Congress is continues to characterize Iran as an apocalyptic, suicidal regime." And the charge by an American columnist that Iran is destabilizing the region - who outside the United States doesn't wouldn't find such a charge laughable coming from an American?
3
David,
You have missed one more choice for Iran. It does not have to be like Lenin or Gorbachev. It can be like Stalin. With all his aggressive talk, Stalin really meant something when he said: "I know how much I can chew." And nobody can say that he did not. He wanted the USSR to be the power in the region surrounded by friendly and loyal states. He got it.
The issues you bring up are not really central to the situation. I do not think Iran will ever drop a bomb on the United States: not because it likes us, but because it does not need to. Iran wants to control the region, not the world that is breaking up into regions anyway. We lose our footing in the region for two reasons: One of our allies in the region--Saudi Arabia--will most likely fall to Iran. Our other ally--Israel-- . . . well, it's a separate story altogether. We are betraying Israel by dealing with the state that is committed to Israel's destruction. By all scenarios we lose any power or influence in the region and hence our bases, which is just as well. It will be a new world. The good thing is that it will no longer be Pax Americana. The bad thing is that with regional powers such as China, Iran, or Russia, and the Europeans scrambling to solve their problems, we are most likely to stand alone in the world increasingly dominated by authoritarian regimes--the worst nightmare in which democracy may find itself, unless it also ceases to be a democracy.
You have missed one more choice for Iran. It does not have to be like Lenin or Gorbachev. It can be like Stalin. With all his aggressive talk, Stalin really meant something when he said: "I know how much I can chew." And nobody can say that he did not. He wanted the USSR to be the power in the region surrounded by friendly and loyal states. He got it.
The issues you bring up are not really central to the situation. I do not think Iran will ever drop a bomb on the United States: not because it likes us, but because it does not need to. Iran wants to control the region, not the world that is breaking up into regions anyway. We lose our footing in the region for two reasons: One of our allies in the region--Saudi Arabia--will most likely fall to Iran. Our other ally--Israel-- . . . well, it's a separate story altogether. We are betraying Israel by dealing with the state that is committed to Israel's destruction. By all scenarios we lose any power or influence in the region and hence our bases, which is just as well. It will be a new world. The good thing is that it will no longer be Pax Americana. The bad thing is that with regional powers such as China, Iran, or Russia, and the Europeans scrambling to solve their problems, we are most likely to stand alone in the world increasingly dominated by authoritarian regimes--the worst nightmare in which democracy may find itself, unless it also ceases to be a democracy.
1
I'm not surprised by Brooks's position. Almost everything Brooks mentions could very well be attributed to our positioning by many of our elected officials. To suggest a synchronicity between troops on the ground and attempts at negotiating an agreement baffles. In my experience with negotiations as an attorney and union rep, towards the end, most parties tend to bluster and push back; not pretty, but not a reason to abandon negotiating. After all, our country has hardly ever been successful with troops on the ground, yet we just keep going! Michael R.
6
I sure hope that BHO and Dems read this editorial. When Netanyahu, the NYT and many Arab leaders are on the same page, it should mean something. Our horrible missteps in Iraq have prejudiced us from considering longer term regime change (which it seems the educated and reasonable populous of Iran want as well). If we pulverize the nuke facilities and keep Iran on the global bad guys list, then there is a greater chance that there will be regime change and no bomb in 10 years as opposed to this ever weakening suckers deal that BHO is plugging.
1
"When Netanyahu, the NYT and many Arab leaders are on the same page, it should mean something."...To an observer who is even remotely engaged, it means the Netanyahu and the Arab leaders think that their personal cause would be best served if Iran and the U.S. were to remain mortal enemies. This isn't about what best serves Netanyahu and the Arab leaders, it is about what is best for the United States; and even though Netanyahu and the Arab leaders would be enthralled if the U.S. went to unilateral war with Iran, that is definitely not in our best interest.
1
I do not think 'revolutionary' ethos is the big obstacle. After all, Khamenei and the Red Guards are making very un-revolutionary levels on profit on the black market by keeping Iran economically crippled.
When Khamenei calls the US "devilish", as when Chavez called Bush the devil, this is really the secularization of a religious discourse. It shows that in some important way the Iranians have a less and not more religious view of the world than do many occidentals. That is to say, the devil for them is not some horned, fantasy creature, but rather that-state-which-kills-and-makes-war-and-invades (the US). By contrast, it is only by maintaining religious (fantasy) conceptions of such ideas as "democracy" and "liberty" that the US could invade Iraq in their name. Can democracy be brought to life by bayonets and bombs? In fact, what Brooks does not like about Khamenei is that he is "uppity."
1
Mr. Brooks, sanction is not working. Yes. It is working to the extend of depressing Iranian economy and create political pressure. It is NOT working in terms of slowing Iran from building a nuclear bomb. If our main goal is to prevent a nuclear armed Iran, there are only two options: 1. Try diplomacy and slow down enrichment as the President has done. 2. Use American military might to destroy as many centrifuge as we can. Are you advocating for war or you have a great third option up your sleeves that no one has thought of earlier?
6
Obama is the type of President who will agree to anything just so he can say he got something done. Kerrey too. He did it with healthcare and now he wants to do it again with Iran's nuclear program.
2
That's a funny comment because we also have people like John Boehner and Mitch McConnell and their acolytes who never agree to ANYTHING yet still want to assert that they got something done.
Mr. Brooks offers no solutions and makes a subtle case for war. The Republican Elite's panacea for all problems middle east.
Finding faults with your adversary is not a solution. Thereby Mr. Brooks is part of the problem.
Finding faults with your adversary is not a solution. Thereby Mr. Brooks is part of the problem.
10
I don't think it is necessarily true that he makes a subtle case for war, but even if that is so and yet the deal as presently framed is a chimera, what progress has the deal made towards a "solution"? How can Brooks be part of any problem if Iran is still truly intent on regional hegemony backed by the ultimate WMD? He is pointing out what the problem is and to view him as part of it is to blame the messenger, in my opinion.
Honestly NYT readers, do you really trust an Iranian leadership that supports Hamas, Hezbollah and now the Houthis? You're willing to get in bed with that type of leadership?
3
No; and, so tell us what you think Iran will do if their is no agreement? Better think hard before you trash negotiations.
Of course we don't trust them. We don't trust the Chinese leaders either (I hope), but this is irrelevant to deal-making. If a deal doesn't work out, we then move on. Foreign policy is based on pragmatism, not trust.
Brooks contradicts himself. If Iran intends to subvert the agreement from the beginning, then Khamenei should be enthusiastically in favor of it, since it gets rid of those bothersome sanctions while still (according to Brooks) allowing Iran to advance toward nuclear weaponry. And yet Khamenei threatens to torpedo the deal by demanding an immediate end to sanctions.
6
Right on, David!! But wait...they didn't really mean death to America, they really want this so-called treaty more than we do, Khamenei really didn't mean anything he said. It was all an act. He's really a closet democrat who loves America. He really wants inspections and a halt to nuclear weapons.
And he wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize because he's jealous of Obama who has accomplished so much to win his.
Is it possible that K. meant every word he said?
And he wants to win the Nobel Peace Prize because he's jealous of Obama who has accomplished so much to win his.
Is it possible that K. meant every word he said?
2
The Iranians are not choir-boys. We know that. They are highly unlikely to love us. We knew that too. They will keep up the propaganda. Of course they will. Get away from the nonsense about thinking that this is some sort of Hallmark moment where, through a veil of joyous tears, two estranged parties will remember their common ties and embrace. It's complete nonsense. The only question is whether the Iranians will keep their word--not whether they need to send out dog-whistle sounds "to the base." If they will, terrific, and maybe we take a step back from confrontation. If they won't then other measures are indicated. The window dressing is meaningless.
11
One would think that after the total disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan, anything spoken or written by diehard neocons like Kissinger, Shultz and their acolytes like Brooks about the Middle East would be ignored or totally discredited. Apparently not!
16
Why does everyone here assume the only alternative to this treaty is bombing?
The sanctions are working. We know they are working because the Iranians have stayed at the negotiating table. We know they are working because the Supreme Leader says they must be lifted the day the agreement is signed.
So...why not crank the sanctions up? Indeed, go so far as to exclude them from the international banking system. After the economy implodes, we can wait for internally driven regime change or see if they are willing to agree to an outcome that is better than this.
The current form of the agreement seems to allow an improved economy and a bomb in ten years (or sooner if verification procedures are weak as the Iranians are pushing for). Is that really the best outcome we can achieve? And do we really have to bomb them to get something different? Me thinks not.
The sanctions are working. We know they are working because the Iranians have stayed at the negotiating table. We know they are working because the Supreme Leader says they must be lifted the day the agreement is signed.
So...why not crank the sanctions up? Indeed, go so far as to exclude them from the international banking system. After the economy implodes, we can wait for internally driven regime change or see if they are willing to agree to an outcome that is better than this.
The current form of the agreement seems to allow an improved economy and a bomb in ten years (or sooner if verification procedures are weak as the Iranians are pushing for). Is that really the best outcome we can achieve? And do we really have to bomb them to get something different? Me thinks not.
2
"Why does everyone here assume the only alternative to this treaty is bombing?
The sanctions are working."....Because the only reason the sanctions are working is that they have support of our co-negotiators Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. If we unilaterally choose to walkaway from an agreement as Brooks and the Republicans suggest, the sanctions without Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China will no longer be effective. So everyone is waiting to hear your idea of how something different will work?
The sanctions are working."....Because the only reason the sanctions are working is that they have support of our co-negotiators Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China. If we unilaterally choose to walkaway from an agreement as Brooks and the Republicans suggest, the sanctions without Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China will no longer be effective. So everyone is waiting to hear your idea of how something different will work?
You are assuming that the Europeans, whose support we need to make the sanctions fully effective, will keep playing our game if we don't do this agreement. There is a good chance that the Europeans will conclude that it is in their best interest to cut a separate deal with the Iranians.
If the point of the sanctions was, in part, to discourage the Iranians from completing the nuclear cycle and developing the Bomb, then it hasn't worked. I think that's the point many of us are making. That's not to say we should lift sanctions, for they have accomplished many essential things, including, as you indicate, keeping Iran at the negotiating table. But the success of Iran's nuclear program indicates the limits of sanctions and the disingenuous arguments of those whose only alternative to this deal is Sanctions and More Sanctions.
Yet another demurral regarding these negotiations that fails to provide, or even suggest, an alternative.
Further, the suspicions regarding Iran's mullahs, while justified, is mirrored by the history of the U.S. in Iran from 1953 through the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's.
Further, the suspicions regarding Iran's mullahs, while justified, is mirrored by the history of the U.S. in Iran from 1953 through the Iran-Iraq War of the 1980's.
9
The United States and Great Britain backed a coup in Iran in 1953 in which a democratically elected government was replaced by a military dictatorship. The Shah's government was overthrown in 1979. The current leaders of Iran have a right -- indeed, an obligation -- to be wary of our motives.
Lenin and Gorbachev were a couple of communists from eastern Europe. That analogy doesn't work well with the Iranians.
"We have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East." No, that's not true, either. You, David, have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East, but millions of other people marched in streets all over the world in the Spring of 2003 because we knew that George W. Bush's plan to invade Iraq was a crime and a mistake.
Here's what your colleague Paul Krugman wrote on March 18, 2003:
"Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.
What frightens me is the aftermath -- and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq -- in the world at large, and here at home."
Lenin and Gorbachev were a couple of communists from eastern Europe. That analogy doesn't work well with the Iranians.
"We have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East." No, that's not true, either. You, David, have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East, but millions of other people marched in streets all over the world in the Spring of 2003 because we knew that George W. Bush's plan to invade Iraq was a crime and a mistake.
Here's what your colleague Paul Krugman wrote on March 18, 2003:
"Of course we'll win on the battlefield, probably with ease. I'm not a military expert, but I can do the numbers: the most recent U.S. military budget was $400 billion, while Iraq spent only $1.4 billion.
What frightens me is the aftermath -- and I'm not just talking about the problems of postwar occupation. I'm worried about what will happen beyond Iraq -- in the world at large, and here at home."
19
Mike -well said
but we all know reality, history, science, math, etc, do not effect the tihnking on the right.
but we all know reality, history, science, math, etc, do not effect the tihnking on the right.
"we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East"
Yes we do, but this is no argument for not trying to make a deal. Either there will be a deal which Iran may or may not honor and, if the latter, Iran will end up as a nuclear power; or there will be no deal and Iran will certainly end up as a nuclear power.
Not only is this a no-brainer, but also a deal changes the atmosphere between Iran and the West, and allows time for changes within Iran itself. Don't forget, the Iranian people took to the streets after 9/11 in solidarity with the US and, within their confined democratic process, have since elected more moderate leaders. And, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not immortal – any more than Saddam Hussein would have been, had nature been allowed to take its course instead of than the arrogant invasion of Iraq. That’s the poster child for a “terrible record”.
Yes we do, but this is no argument for not trying to make a deal. Either there will be a deal which Iran may or may not honor and, if the latter, Iran will end up as a nuclear power; or there will be no deal and Iran will certainly end up as a nuclear power.
Not only is this a no-brainer, but also a deal changes the atmosphere between Iran and the West, and allows time for changes within Iran itself. Don't forget, the Iranian people took to the streets after 9/11 in solidarity with the US and, within their confined democratic process, have since elected more moderate leaders. And, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is not immortal – any more than Saddam Hussein would have been, had nature been allowed to take its course instead of than the arrogant invasion of Iraq. That’s the poster child for a “terrible record”.
12
Never listen too much to what anybody says, but watch everything they do. Actions indeed speak louder than words. There are truths and probably "lies" on both sides of the negotiating table because people are pretty much all alike.
I wouldn't expect the level of trust to be too high after 40+ years of conflict ( which, if we are to be honest with ourselves, was instigated by the US when we installed the Shah in Iran, long before the Revolution against him.)
Nevertheless, the US, not Iran, is in the position of power . Iran's bluster is face saving, so Khanenei's response should be understood, especially as he communicates to his people a lack of fear and a sense of honor.
Unless his internal judgment is truly misguided and he refuses to proceed, the US can afford to listen to the bluster but watch for his actual actions. He is no more or less trustworthy than say, Netanyahu , who also has his own agenda.
Let's keep in mind that this situation was one if the US'S making so many years ago. It won't be fixed overnight, be we have an obligation to ourselves and the rest of the world to lead by example. Let's give Iran some time to go through their face saving gyrations, and wait a while to watch their actions as they proceed.
We'll know soon enough if the carrot vs stick approach, adopted by the international community, will prove to be effective or not.
I wouldn't expect the level of trust to be too high after 40+ years of conflict ( which, if we are to be honest with ourselves, was instigated by the US when we installed the Shah in Iran, long before the Revolution against him.)
Nevertheless, the US, not Iran, is in the position of power . Iran's bluster is face saving, so Khanenei's response should be understood, especially as he communicates to his people a lack of fear and a sense of honor.
Unless his internal judgment is truly misguided and he refuses to proceed, the US can afford to listen to the bluster but watch for his actual actions. He is no more or less trustworthy than say, Netanyahu , who also has his own agenda.
Let's keep in mind that this situation was one if the US'S making so many years ago. It won't be fixed overnight, be we have an obligation to ourselves and the rest of the world to lead by example. Let's give Iran some time to go through their face saving gyrations, and wait a while to watch their actions as they proceed.
We'll know soon enough if the carrot vs stick approach, adopted by the international community, will prove to be effective or not.
11
There is something missing in David's thought processes. Iran wishes to export it's world view to it's near abroad. The USA wishes to export its world view to all abroad. "
Can “devilish” intentions be equated with Axis of Evil?
Does The Revolution Live'' in both cases or is it a case of my side good; your side bad?
Peace is made between enemies, not friends.
Can “devilish” intentions be equated with Axis of Evil?
Does The Revolution Live'' in both cases or is it a case of my side good; your side bad?
Peace is made between enemies, not friends.
11
Khamenei is hedging his bets- he won't wholeheartedly back an agreement until he knows the ramifications. That is sensible and understandable. Do the Iranians think we are evil? I doubt it. They are statements- propaganda. And don't many of our leaders accuse Iran of being evil? Weren't they part ofthe 'Axis of Evil'? Iran doesn't routinely threatent to bomb our country. The 'death of America' slogan is just that- a slogan. And no matter how much Iran threatens, or acutally, 'destabilizes' the region I doubt they disruptions will be greater than the ones we (the US) are responsible for. No war with Iran. No more dead Americans in the Mid-East. The US should totally withdraw from the region.
11
No, the Iraq war was a giant gamble. This is a calculated risk and our best alternative. Read or re-read Roger Cohen's NYTimes Op-ed of April 8 for a more balanced perspective: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/07/opinion/roger-cohen-iran-united-states...
8
I too would prefer a deal. But what if Iran continues to insist that 1) all sanctions must be lifted immediately, and 2) that we cannot inspect locations that may be used to continue their development of nuclear weapons? If we sign a deal on those terms we would be very foolish, and I don't believe the Obama administration will sign such an agreement.
3
This essay could have been written by lots of right wingers in the 1950s or 1960s. All it would take would be to substitute Soviet Union for Iran and Krushchev for Khamenei, Everything else is the same - the fear and paranoia, the mistrust, the allegedly foolish actions by our negotiators, and the idea that we never can make good deals with bad guys. The other similarity with our earlier nuclear age, was that despite the horrendous risks, there were lots of very conservative people who preferred war to negotiation; there still are.
13
Many have said it better below in great comments on this article. I'll make it plain. David, please just give it up. You have very little to add to the argument than a bunch of Fox talking points. You can put Dick Cheney in for The Ayatollah and you would have the view many in the world had of America back then. Didn't make us all 100% bad. It is hard to believe someone so educated can really just wish and hope his party's stance is somehow the correct one.
11
So David, what is your solution? War?
9
This one sided column pays close attention to the words spoken by Khamenei as if there was solid truth to them, something that is entirely unknown. But listen to the words both recently spoken by Netanyahu and those spoken in the past. I paraphrase the most recent - "If this deal is agreed to, Israel will bomb Iran's nuclear facilities." Further, listen to the words spoken by Scott Walker, potentially the next President. Again I paraphrase - "I will cancel and revoke the agreement on day one of my presidency." Wow. If I were Mr. Brooks, I would wonder which "words" are truly threatening to a nuclear free Iran.
11
Iran in lying! No, it's the US who's lying! No, it's the Iran! No, the US! Oh boy, this from the usually reflective David Brooks, no less.
Who in his right mind ever expected rhetoric any different than spit nails from the good Ayatollah? Both sides are putting their characteristic spins on this delicate ballet. Should adults be shocked, dismayed or side-tracked as a result? Of course not. Should negotiators now turn tail and abandon the hard work of years because of a few unfriendly words from a known curmudgeon? Are you kidding?
Mr. Brooks uncharacteristically ignores two important factors here. First, the critical mass of Iranian youth that dearly desires re-incorporation into the global community and represents a growing force for change in Iranian politics. Second, the absence of any viable alternative promising anything but the grimly predictable catastrophe of premature disengagement
Avoid the easy trap of rejection, David. You're so much better than this.
Who in his right mind ever expected rhetoric any different than spit nails from the good Ayatollah? Both sides are putting their characteristic spins on this delicate ballet. Should adults be shocked, dismayed or side-tracked as a result? Of course not. Should negotiators now turn tail and abandon the hard work of years because of a few unfriendly words from a known curmudgeon? Are you kidding?
Mr. Brooks uncharacteristically ignores two important factors here. First, the critical mass of Iranian youth that dearly desires re-incorporation into the global community and represents a growing force for change in Iranian politics. Second, the absence of any viable alternative promising anything but the grimly predictable catastrophe of premature disengagement
Avoid the easy trap of rejection, David. You're so much better than this.
11
"You're so much better than this."
Sorry, but, what evidence do you base this on?
Sorry, but, what evidence do you base this on?
Once more, a narrow parish-pump view of politics. There is no gamble for America in doing a deal with Iran. To gamble is to risk losing something of value. There may be a personal gamble for Obama, whose judgment may be tarnished by the affair, but I doubt that he cares a lot about that. As for America, we are still the most heavily armed nation in the world. We give none of that up in the agreement being discussed. All options remain on the table.
The Fox chorus chants « Chamberlain » but know nothing of that history. It’s as if Bill O’ et al. want to teach that Chamberlain gave Hitler the OK to invade Poland, as if Hitler shivered in his boots for fear of the UK. The UK was impotent then. Hitler no more needed Chamberlain’s approval than W needed Democratic votes to invade Iraq.
Chamberlain was guilty of being too hopeful, or maybe of playing for time, but he declared war on Hitler when the Nazi refused to evacuate Poland. And oh yes, the USA waited two more years before deciding that Hitler wasn’t a nice man.
The Fox chorus chants « Chamberlain » but know nothing of that history. It’s as if Bill O’ et al. want to teach that Chamberlain gave Hitler the OK to invade Poland, as if Hitler shivered in his boots for fear of the UK. The UK was impotent then. Hitler no more needed Chamberlain’s approval than W needed Democratic votes to invade Iraq.
Chamberlain was guilty of being too hopeful, or maybe of playing for time, but he declared war on Hitler when the Nazi refused to evacuate Poland. And oh yes, the USA waited two more years before deciding that Hitler wasn’t a nice man.
10
It's hardly surprising that reliable anti-Obama water carrier David Brooks has joined the GOP's just-say-no, don't-even-try school of US-Iran diplomacy. If President Obama's bold Iran initiative succeeds, Brooks allows, it would be a "home run" but as the odds are very long it's a non-starter. Nonsense. If Iran doesn't comply with the agreement, we go back to the crippling sanctions and the current standoff. I like the possibility of a home run. Even a line-drive single beats the hawk alternative of turning Iran into middle-east Grand Canyon. Good luck with that, David.
11
All David is saying...
is give War a chance.
is give War a chance.
15
Brooks and those that oppose the negotiated deal with Iran continue to refer to it as an agreement between Iran and the U.S., repeatedly neglecting to mention Britain, France, Germany, Russia, and China, even though the latter have been partners in the negotiations and are essential to making sanctions against Iran effective. And just like his naysaying predecessors he fails to offer any viable alternative short of a unilateral war. It is true that the agreement is not perfect. It is true that Iran might choose to violate the agreement. But it is also true that Iran has made many concessions and that such an agreement with Iran might open the door for more diplomatic contact and further positive interaction. To any sensible person who will pause and reflect, the absence of any reasonable alternative is so stark that one can only imagine and be mind boggled at the blind opposition to anything and everything Obama does or proposes. I don't care who you are or what your complaint against the President, it is time to wake-up and put the good of the country first.
17
One could match Mr Brook's points with the objections of US politicians, beginning with the Senators who tried to undermine Obama's diplomacy with a letter.
Many of the criticisms of Iran's treatment of its citizens, particularly women, apply equally to Saudi Arabia.
Obama/Kerry should bargain hard, and not back track on what has been agreed.
Remember, the US is not alone in wanting a treaty and if we step down a lesser one might be agreed, or none at all.
Many of the criticisms of Iran's treatment of its citizens, particularly women, apply equally to Saudi Arabia.
Obama/Kerry should bargain hard, and not back track on what has been agreed.
Remember, the US is not alone in wanting a treaty and if we step down a lesser one might be agreed, or none at all.
15
the #1 funder of anti western terror is saudi arabia.
we sell them weapons.
we sell them weapons.
What is the choice? Can't make your argument without considering choices. Morrie
11
The GOP has settled into such a deeply negative and reactive mind set that they almost seem out of the habit of suggesting reasonable alternatives for all of the things they oppose.
We get it, the answer is NO. Once again. OK, but to what would you answer Yes? Just sanctions and more sanctions? These have manifestly failed to prevent Iran being on the threshold of the bomb. So what do we do?
We get it, the answer is NO. Once again. OK, but to what would you answer Yes? Just sanctions and more sanctions? These have manifestly failed to prevent Iran being on the threshold of the bomb. So what do we do?
Gee David. The Supreme leader still considers America his enemy. Looking at our record in just his neck of the woods and our history of relations with Iran he would have to be pretty stupid not to believe that. I don't think he is stupid. This is not about a love fest, it is a practical agreement between sane competent adults. I truly believe Iran is close to fitting that description. I am not so sure about us.
And, so what if Iran built a bomb. They would never use it first and might even be wise enough not to use it second. It might even be a factor for stability in a difficult part of our world. I acknowledge most American hawks and "serious thinkers" will not agree. I suggest you reflect on how helpful their past efforts have been.
And, so what if Iran built a bomb. They would never use it first and might even be wise enough not to use it second. It might even be a factor for stability in a difficult part of our world. I acknowledge most American hawks and "serious thinkers" will not agree. I suggest you reflect on how helpful their past efforts have been.
18
In 2015, the world can no longer keep knowledge of nuclear weapons from the public domain.
An arms race with Saudis next is predictable if Iran cannot be persuaded to forgo nuclear armament.
President Obama and most any student of world affairs can see the future is in TRADE, in cooperation and competition between the worlds peoples, until the investment in peace is bigger than the risks of making war.
Why doesn't Mr. Brooks get it?
Fear should not be allowed to destroy the idea that peace can suceed, and that it is best for everyone. EVERYONE.
An arms race with Saudis next is predictable if Iran cannot be persuaded to forgo nuclear armament.
President Obama and most any student of world affairs can see the future is in TRADE, in cooperation and competition between the worlds peoples, until the investment in peace is bigger than the risks of making war.
Why doesn't Mr. Brooks get it?
Fear should not be allowed to destroy the idea that peace can suceed, and that it is best for everyone. EVERYONE.
1
What you call an "intervention," I call an invasion based on a lie.
That invasion of Iraq, along with the killing of millions of civilians, looting of national treasure -- cavalierly dismissed by Rumsfeld -- Abu Ghraib, droning of civilians, torturing and secret renditions, mean that people on the opposite side might find it difficult to trust us.
Khamenei sounds a lot like Tom Cotton and the 46 Republican Senators who signed that letter recently vowing to nuke, if you will, any potential deal with the Iranians.
That's the Republican strategy, as McCain once famously put it in his Presidential, campaign, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" (sung to the Beach Boys tune, Barbara Ann).
By the way, David, did you ever apologize for being so wrong about invading Iraq? Just asking because those kind of things ruin ones credibility, something that is lost on the Dick Cheneys and David Brooks of the world.
That invasion of Iraq, along with the killing of millions of civilians, looting of national treasure -- cavalierly dismissed by Rumsfeld -- Abu Ghraib, droning of civilians, torturing and secret renditions, mean that people on the opposite side might find it difficult to trust us.
Khamenei sounds a lot like Tom Cotton and the 46 Republican Senators who signed that letter recently vowing to nuke, if you will, any potential deal with the Iranians.
That's the Republican strategy, as McCain once famously put it in his Presidential, campaign, "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb bomb Iran" (sung to the Beach Boys tune, Barbara Ann).
By the way, David, did you ever apologize for being so wrong about invading Iraq? Just asking because those kind of things ruin ones credibility, something that is lost on the Dick Cheneys and David Brooks of the world.
22
"[D]id you ever apologize for being so wrong about invading Iraq?" So wrong? Please try to imagine Iraq with its former leader still in power. Now imagine what would happen when Iran gets a nuclear weapon. In all probability Iraqi intelligence on this issue would be far more advanced and detailed than ours has been. Iraq would have matched Iran step by step in producing a bomb, and both are insane enough to use it against the other; once unleashed, who could say where the slalughter would end. If you don't believe that then you have never been to that part of the world.
" We envision a region of stable nation-states."
You crack me up. If that is truly what the neo-cons want they are really, really bad at it. Iran is a stable state. It might not be ideal but it is stable.The US has left chaos everywhere it has gone in the middle east since 2003.
You crack me up. If that is truly what the neo-cons want they are really, really bad at it. Iran is a stable state. It might not be ideal but it is stable.The US has left chaos everywhere it has gone in the middle east since 2003.
16
To Michael Chaplan--don't play those Jedi mind games with me. What we really have is a firm possibility of a definite whatever with Iran. There, does that sound better? Anyhow Iran is once again upping the ante in this game of liars poker by demanding that sanctions end immediately or else they won't sign anything. This is Iran's real strategy--just keep making all sorts of demands that even a weakened America won't agree to or else!!! Well, it beats taking hostages.
1
" If President Obama is right and Iran is on the verge of change, the deal is a home run. but we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East."
Iran is a very complicated place and ferment for change starts with its people and goes through media and a growing number of political figures with considerable power wanting Iran to rejoin the community of nations. Despite the rhetoric of the ayatollah, the vast majority of Iranians will demand change.
But even if you don't think Iran's ayatollahs will allow change, what is your alternative, David? " Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" as leaders of your party want to do with Prime Minister Netanyahu as their cheerleader?
Iran is a very complicated place and ferment for change starts with its people and goes through media and a growing number of political figures with considerable power wanting Iran to rejoin the community of nations. Despite the rhetoric of the ayatollah, the vast majority of Iranians will demand change.
But even if you don't think Iran's ayatollahs will allow change, what is your alternative, David? " Bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" as leaders of your party want to do with Prime Minister Netanyahu as their cheerleader?
10
Thank you! What is the alternative? It is deeply irresponsible for the minority party to just oppose oppose oppose without suggesting reasonable alternatives. Above partisanship, the minority party has an important role to play in a mature democracy. The GOP has too often abdicated that role, in part to cover over the major differences among views within their own party. They are not playing their part well.
"Throughout the speech, his words dripped with a lack of enthusiasm for the whole enterprise." David, didn't know that you spoke Farsi. This is about as much of a one sided article that I've ever read and more in line from Fox. Does Iran have reason to fear the USA and call us the devil, the history suggests? yes! Should we expect a more positive reaction from the Iranian government than Congress? At least Khamenei and his government hasn't sent Congress an open letter denouncing the plan. You expect better behavior from the Iranians than you do Congress and their's no basis for it. As for the collision with the Sunni's and the Saudi's; you forget your history of western & Israeli oppression abetting Saudi Arabia's attempt to retain its leadership role. And what great allies the Saudi's have been with their funding of their own particular brand of fundamentalism and terror. We need to come to terms with the reality that Iran is and will continue to be a major regional force in the future, and the USA needs to develop a productive dialogue. The military option is simply not viable; the resulting destabilization of the region will spawn dire, unforseen consequences with the only certainty being that they outcome would be in our favor.
21
Last week, David was cautiously optimistic, now he has been blown away by Khamenei's speech. I think David is not thinking about the speech in the context of world politics. Also, he ignores supportive responses to the Iran Deal from France, Germany, etc., and frankly, David, if Merkel likes what she sees, it doesn't matter to me what you think.
Again, David Brooks shows his ability to read minds. He poses the 'core question' - "Are the men who control [Iran] more like Lenin or...Gorbachev?" and then resolves the question by parsing quotes from the current leaders.
He either forgets or chooses to ignore one simple fact: the leaders of all the parties involved - USA, Russia, China, Germany, etc. and Iran are adept at making public statements to suit their own ends with the people of the nation that they lead - after all, that's how they got their positions - and then signing or not signing an agreement with all parties signing on to one document, one set of conditions.
The danger of negotiating is simply that negotiations MIGHT NOT lead to an agreement. The danger of not negotiating is that there WILL NOT BE an agreement.
In other words, Hobson's choice: either do nothing and accept the worst, or do something with the hope of avoiding the worst.
Without an agreement, there is nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. With an agreement, there is something that might prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.
Either way, the likelihood of Iran developing enough weaponry to threaten us, the Russians, Germans or Chinese - or all of us - is vanishingly small.
He either forgets or chooses to ignore one simple fact: the leaders of all the parties involved - USA, Russia, China, Germany, etc. and Iran are adept at making public statements to suit their own ends with the people of the nation that they lead - after all, that's how they got their positions - and then signing or not signing an agreement with all parties signing on to one document, one set of conditions.
The danger of negotiating is simply that negotiations MIGHT NOT lead to an agreement. The danger of not negotiating is that there WILL NOT BE an agreement.
In other words, Hobson's choice: either do nothing and accept the worst, or do something with the hope of avoiding the worst.
Without an agreement, there is nothing to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. With an agreement, there is something that might prevent Iran developing nuclear weapons.
Either way, the likelihood of Iran developing enough weaponry to threaten us, the Russians, Germans or Chinese - or all of us - is vanishingly small.
16
I'm sorry, Mr. Brooks, this article is far too disingenuous, and I personally believe you actually know better.
The negotiations did not include the Ayatollah, who has remained uncharacteristically silent on negotiations until after a deal was reached. To claim his views represent the government or the negotiators, and especially to claim that the U.S. had to "give away" so many points because of the attitudes expressed in his speech, is misleading at least and outright dishonest at worst.
In my experience, you try to be fair and honest to all concerned. Here, your relationship to the neoconservative movement have caused a momentary lapse in what are usually laudable standards.
The negotiations did not include the Ayatollah, who has remained uncharacteristically silent on negotiations until after a deal was reached. To claim his views represent the government or the negotiators, and especially to claim that the U.S. had to "give away" so many points because of the attitudes expressed in his speech, is misleading at least and outright dishonest at worst.
In my experience, you try to be fair and honest to all concerned. Here, your relationship to the neoconservative movement have caused a momentary lapse in what are usually laudable standards.
8
We'll have to wait another few hours to hear what #DavidBrooksNPR has to say.
Khamenei worse than the Evil Empire? I would be worried about your credibility Mr Brooks, not the Iranians'.
10
The question of whether Iran can be trusted is a red-herring. No one in the Obama administration -- least of all the President -- thinks Iran can be trusted. That's precisely why the proposed framework includes onerous inspection requirements, which are the lynchpin of the deal. Trust but verity as President Reagan said. If there is insufficient verification, there will be no deal. I'm not sure what point David Brooks is making in this article; it appears to me that he is attacking a strawman.
11
i think it distorts reality to say that the Ayatollah's outlook is the same as Iran's attitude. Yes, he has power, but, like any country, there are many conflicting points of view. No one in their right mind would say that President Obama's view represents attitudes here in the US.
Khamenei's point of view may prevent the framework from moving to the kind of agreement that would encourage peace and stability. He holds the levers of power and is willing to use them. But, what about the people in Iran who would prefer something different? They were the ones who were so excited about the framework.
It's nonsense to see Iran as a monolith while acknowledging the varieties of opinion here in the US. I suspect that the voices that dissent from the framework reinforce the ideas among Khamenei's pious followers that the US is to be feared and distrusted. If the framework fails to result in a workable agreement, those dissenting voices will bear some responsibility.
Khamenei's point of view may prevent the framework from moving to the kind of agreement that would encourage peace and stability. He holds the levers of power and is willing to use them. But, what about the people in Iran who would prefer something different? They were the ones who were so excited about the framework.
It's nonsense to see Iran as a monolith while acknowledging the varieties of opinion here in the US. I suspect that the voices that dissent from the framework reinforce the ideas among Khamenei's pious followers that the US is to be feared and distrusted. If the framework fails to result in a workable agreement, those dissenting voices will bear some responsibility.
72
Well actually I'm in my right mind and I'd say Obama's view represents attitudes in the US--just not all of them. Is that what you meant to say?
98% of child-bearing Catholics have used some form of birth control other than natural family planning, too.
He seriously quotes Henry Kissinger? Kissinger should NEVER be turned to for his opinion on foreign policy, he should be shunned by decent society.
7
The US senator from Arizona, our war hero/monger ,John, bottom-of-his- military-class McCain wants us to bomb Iran and declares so every chance he gets. Remember his "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" set to the Beach Boys "song Barbara Ann"?
Is it any wonder Iran isn't toatally trusting of the US?????
Is it any wonder Iran isn't toatally trusting of the US?????
8
For the record, there really was a recording of the Beach Boys Barbara Ann with the lyrics bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran. Came out around 1980, I think. Its only parallel would be a song that came out about 15 years earlier, "They're Coming to Take Me Way." (Ah-ha-ho-ho.)
Khamenei is essentially the Ted Cruz of Iran. The people who love him really love him, but I don't think that's everybody, or even the majority.
The interesting thing is that Khamenei may be destablilizing his own power if he destabilizes this deal. Obama is wise to watch and see how this plays out. I'm not sure the "Supreme Leader" is as supreme as he once was.
The interesting thing is that Khamenei may be destablilizing his own power if he destabilizes this deal. Obama is wise to watch and see how this plays out. I'm not sure the "Supreme Leader" is as supreme as he once was.
10
Mr. Brooks, everything you mentioned about the Ayatollah Ali Khamenei could also be said about the content and tone of utterances by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with one BIG exception. The Ayatollah has the final say over the "deal" negotiated by his own President Rouhani and the "P5+1" nations led by Secretary of State John Kerry, and he did NOT reject it. Instead, he tried to balance the competing forces in Iran, which to me is a much more modern state under the veneer of its revolutionary rhetoric than medieval Saudi Arabia, by pushing hard for the immediate lifting of economic sanctions which Iran desperately needs removed and which is probably the only way top keep their own hard-line opposition from killing the deal. As we learned 50 years ago during the Cuban Missile Crisis the best pathway to peace is to take most benign interpretation of statements and act on them. We must never forget the important lessons of history for the alternative may be Armageddon.
14
There is no good answer to this one. Because Khamenei sounds a lot like Khomenei (remember him?) in more ways than simply assonance of surname. And as Maya Angelou said (yes, she really did say it), 'when someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time'. You need not have supported the invasion of Iraq (I sure didn't) nor have any use for GW Bush (I don't) to concede he was right in saying there are some people who really do hate our freedoms. That we can choose which deity to worship, or none at all - that here women can wear shorts, drive cars, and (gasp) vote - is an abomination to their absolutist ideology.
Some on the left don't get this. Some dogs just bark. Some dogs have been mistreated. When you approach them, they can be won over. And some dogs are rabid, and however kind you are to them, they will bite you. Radical Islam is a rabid dog.
As for what to do, I don't have a good answer. Laissez faire and status quo is like leaving a wound to fester. No way am I for war - that way madness lies. But you can't negotiate with someone whose motto boils down to 'ecrasez l'infame'. Sanctions are a flimsy rod to beat Iran, considering that the Saudi oligarchy can prop up the regime with the loose change they scrape out from under the seat cushions of their limos, so only the common people will suffer. Sanctions worked in South Africa, but not in Iraq, and I doubt they will do much more than inconvenience Khamenei and let him style himself a martyr.
Some on the left don't get this. Some dogs just bark. Some dogs have been mistreated. When you approach them, they can be won over. And some dogs are rabid, and however kind you are to them, they will bite you. Radical Islam is a rabid dog.
As for what to do, I don't have a good answer. Laissez faire and status quo is like leaving a wound to fester. No way am I for war - that way madness lies. But you can't negotiate with someone whose motto boils down to 'ecrasez l'infame'. Sanctions are a flimsy rod to beat Iran, considering that the Saudi oligarchy can prop up the regime with the loose change they scrape out from under the seat cushions of their limos, so only the common people will suffer. Sanctions worked in South Africa, but not in Iraq, and I doubt they will do much more than inconvenience Khamenei and let him style himself a martyr.
2
Frankly, one is left in reliance on faith whenever one trusts somebody who claims to know what God thinks about human concerns.
I don't think isolating Iran will help debunk the absurd belief in martyrdom in the region.
I don't think isolating Iran will help debunk the absurd belief in martyrdom in the region.
5
Interestingly, at least 4 out of the 5 of David's anti-agreement contentions work the other way around for the pundit. #2 is the only point where there is a difference in perception; David believes Khameni's seeming disdain for negotiation is pure and true and not a lie like everything else David hears from the leader. As for the others:
1. Clearly David still regards Iran as the enemy as much as he thinks Iran does us.
3. This article is maximum contempt at its maximumest even calling on the "brilliance" of Kissinger and Schultz to emphasize the point.
4. Again, Brooks thinks Iran is lying through its teeth, so what is so cheeky about Iran's making the same accusation about us?
5. As to Iran's continuing desire to rule the Middle East, I'm sure they are aware of the NYT article by John Bolton urging immediate bombing of their country and the more recent suggestion by Khameni's pen pal, Sen. Tom Cotton, that the deal should be punctuated with a little country-wide bombing of our negotiating partner. So, who wants power in the Middle East?
At least they live there.
1. Clearly David still regards Iran as the enemy as much as he thinks Iran does us.
3. This article is maximum contempt at its maximumest even calling on the "brilliance" of Kissinger and Schultz to emphasize the point.
4. Again, Brooks thinks Iran is lying through its teeth, so what is so cheeky about Iran's making the same accusation about us?
5. As to Iran's continuing desire to rule the Middle East, I'm sure they are aware of the NYT article by John Bolton urging immediate bombing of their country and the more recent suggestion by Khameni's pen pal, Sen. Tom Cotton, that the deal should be punctuated with a little country-wide bombing of our negotiating partner. So, who wants power in the Middle East?
At least they live there.
12
Remind me, did David rant about the trustworthiness of Bibi recently? After all, he did some very interesting tap-dancing during his political campaign. Will the real BIbi please stand up? Frankly, he is no more trustworthy than anyone else in that region.
While Bush and Cheney were in power, North Korea got The Bomb. In the run-up to the 2008 election I kept reading from Republican pundits that if McCain/Palin lost, Bush and Cheney had two and a half months to bomb, bomb Iran and would surely do so. They didn't stop North Korea or Iran, but did invade the one country of the Axis of Evil which didn't and wouldn't get nukes. Bombing would set Iran back four years. Their program is too well protected. If Bush and Cheney demurred from trying to stop them, nobody will. Bush even denied Israel's request for bunker buster bombs. I wish Iran wouldn't get the those weapons either and maybe in the future we'll regret not invading Iran, but it looks as if an agreement is better than doing nothing. The sanctions depend on China and Russia and won't last forever.
5
You end your volume with "But we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East.". You need to include yourself in that collective we. You mistake theater for substance. Does Iran oppose America? Of course it does. Do we expect the memory of the CIA and the Shah to fade this quickly. Lets demonstrate our strength and find ways to work together with Iran. With familiarity may come understanding and eventually trust. The agreement is the only valid first step. It is not a desperate attempt at a legacy. It is the realistic position of a statesman. Let's all back the president and give it a chance.
16
This piece is almost pointless. It was argued backed when that Nixon or Reagan wanted the SALT deals more that Brezhnev or Gorbachov. We spoke about how the Soviets still viewed us as enemies, and they really were as they were supplying arms to communist insurgents in countries in our hemisphere. We also thought the Soviet people were against us. The the Wall fell and our way was embraced. David, did you see the reports and images of the Iranian people's reaction to the framework agreement? Iran seems more desperate for change they us. You know too much to be duped by Khamenei's rhetoric targeted for internal hardliners.
8
and as obama pointed out, unlike iran, the ussr not only said they wanted to destroy us, they had the ability to do so.
1
We can all thank George Bush for this dilemma.
Thanks George.
Thanks George.
12
Sir! Are you kidding me?
"Beyond all of the talk of lifting sanctions and a new era of openness, President Rouhani's deal is really a giant gamble on the nature of the American government, with the question being whom is he dealing with, President Obama, or a band of radical warmongers, led by Dick Cheney and the neocons, with Senator Tom Cotton acting as their message boy?"
There are a lot of questions about this deal but you have to be fair and look at it from the other side.
If I were the Iranians the letter from Cotton would have kicked my enrichment program into Maximum Overdrive.
"Beyond all of the talk of lifting sanctions and a new era of openness, President Rouhani's deal is really a giant gamble on the nature of the American government, with the question being whom is he dealing with, President Obama, or a band of radical warmongers, led by Dick Cheney and the neocons, with Senator Tom Cotton acting as their message boy?"
There are a lot of questions about this deal but you have to be fair and look at it from the other side.
If I were the Iranians the letter from Cotton would have kicked my enrichment program into Maximum Overdrive.
14
This reads like Mr. Brooks has learned only things that Mr. Brooks already believes. It could be the Ayatollah is pressing the boundaries of negotiation. The next several months are crucial. We can wait for a few more months, right?
3
These comments make me sad. The column is about Iran and the ayatollah, yet many of the commenters line up squarely to whack the Netanyahu pinata. Khamanei said pretty clearly that Iran will not accept the terms of the agreement. Excoriate David Brooks for reporting that? The red queen's on her head.
6
When Khamenei buys half the US Congress, then expect people to "whack that pinata." Meanwhile how about you stop denying the AIPAC tail wagging that has been hijacking American foreign policy for decades?
1
The treaty may not work, but we do have evidence that sanctions rarely work. Evidence #1 is North Korea. Bush continued sanctions against North Korea but it did not slow them down one bit. Today they have many nuclear weapons. One of the main reasons sanctions don't work is that to be effective all nations must participate. In the case of Israel it is highly doubtful that all nations will support a regime that has given up on peace but has settled for a never ending low simmering war.
And then there is the issue of the cost involved with the other alternative, which is to wage war against Iran. If right wingers feel so strongly in their support for Israel they should raise the money from donations just like they did for that Indiana pizzeria. The Koch Brothers could get the fund raising off to a good start. Pass the plate for Money to Bomb Iran (and cover the after effects).
And then there is the issue of the cost involved with the other alternative, which is to wage war against Iran. If right wingers feel so strongly in their support for Israel they should raise the money from donations just like they did for that Indiana pizzeria. The Koch Brothers could get the fund raising off to a good start. Pass the plate for Money to Bomb Iran (and cover the after effects).
You see, Mr. Netanyahu is a Jew, one who has dared to call a spade spade based on factual information, rational analysis and many years of experience and expertise in the field. This doesn't sit well with those whose view of us, Jews, is such that we must bow down to that which is dished to us. Therefore, the spewing of demonizing of the freely elected prime minster of the liberal-democratic and sovereign nation-state of the Jewish people, the modern State of Israel.
Some deal is better than no deal. Thats how treaties it go in the Middle East. Got to them some credit, we the United States, don't have the best track record in that region. Recall weapons of mass destruction. So, when a Iranian leader speaks publicly about not trusting America they have good reason to do so because its the truth.
7
Tom - whose side are you on?
Can you name a single reason why America ought to trust Iran? Note, incidentally, none of America's allies in the region, Arab and Jews alike, trust Iran!
The framework agreement is, at the least, the scintilla of evidence Mr. Brooks demands. He should look to the moat in his own eye.
4
Extreme rhetoric allows Khamenei to save face/claim consistency while Rouhani does the actual negotiating. Then Khamenei will claim credit later.
11
"Republicans after interventions"? Is that the best you could do in describing the single most destabilizing Mideast event in most of our lifetimes? The Bush invasion and occupation of Iraq, despite mountains of evidence that chaos would result, was an unmitigated catastrophe for both the mideast and America by any measure. Now it becomes an aside; an "intervention"....It's too bad Mr. Brooks didn't apply this kind of analysis to what created the mess in the first place....in 2003.
23
Is it just me or does Brooks seem to be gloating that his views on negotiating with Iran will fail? Did he come to his conclusions with a predisposition of disdain towards the negotiations? I think yes.
What we learn here is Brooks did not want negotiations with Iran from the start. He, like his Republican Party, wants another war; after all, they don't have skin in the game; there is no draft that will send a loved one to die in the Middle East.
Perhaps the lack of mandatory military service is the very reason Republicans have been able to drag our country into endless wars; if every citizen had to serve, there would be more people who view war as a last, not first, resort.
What we learn here is Brooks did not want negotiations with Iran from the start. He, like his Republican Party, wants another war; after all, they don't have skin in the game; there is no draft that will send a loved one to die in the Middle East.
Perhaps the lack of mandatory military service is the very reason Republicans have been able to drag our country into endless wars; if every citizen had to serve, there would be more people who view war as a last, not first, resort.
16
All David is saying....
Is give war a chance.
Is give war a chance.
30
So Mr. Brooks, what realistic alternative do you propose? A military assault on Iran? Or.. [insert crickets chirping]? Seems to me intellectual honesty requires you to do SOMEthing more than throw darts at the Obama administration's attempt to resolve the issue. But then, that's not the way of America's right-wing these days, is it?
17
I'm tired of people demanding opponents of this deal propose a realistic alternative. Obama set a standard the he, himself, has not lived up to in the announcement of a framework that the ayatollah says is a lie. It is Obama and his erstwhile supporters that are changing the status quo without even support from their own party in Congress. It is Obama that has not made the case for trusting a regime that has never proven to be trustworthy. It is Obama that claims to have an alternative plan but cannot sell it to either the ayatollah or his own people. We don't need an alternative. We need to stay the course and do whatever it takes to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and further destabilizing the region.
The realistic alternative is to ramp up the sanctions. Ok Supreme Leader, nukes together with Fourth World status--and Saudi and Egyptian nukes status? Yes, sir, that's a "great deal"! Jump on it!
Mr. Brooks' argument is basically that President Obama is happy about the Iran nuclear framework and the Ayatollah Khamenei is not; therefore the framework is a bad deal for America.
Not only does that logic not make sense -- would you feel better about the deal if Khamenei was ecstatic? -- it's irrelevant to evaluating whether or not it is in America's interest to do the deal.
Deciding whether the deal is in America's interest requires that we weigh the following three options: (1) We take the deal that is on the table; (2) We reject the deal and Iran makes continued progress to building a bomb under the existing sanctions; (3) We go to war with Iran, after which Iran goes ahead and builds a bomb anyway.
Option (2) is clearly unacceptable, and therefore if you reject option (1) the only other choice is option (3). Iran hawks may grumble, but unless they're willing to send their own kids to die in Iran they're going to have to come around to the view that it is in America's interest to go with the agreement that is on the table. Provided, of course, that a final agreement can indeed be reached.
Not only does that logic not make sense -- would you feel better about the deal if Khamenei was ecstatic? -- it's irrelevant to evaluating whether or not it is in America's interest to do the deal.
Deciding whether the deal is in America's interest requires that we weigh the following three options: (1) We take the deal that is on the table; (2) We reject the deal and Iran makes continued progress to building a bomb under the existing sanctions; (3) We go to war with Iran, after which Iran goes ahead and builds a bomb anyway.
Option (2) is clearly unacceptable, and therefore if you reject option (1) the only other choice is option (3). Iran hawks may grumble, but unless they're willing to send their own kids to die in Iran they're going to have to come around to the view that it is in America's interest to go with the agreement that is on the table. Provided, of course, that a final agreement can indeed be reached.
8
The Iranian people seemed happy with the deal.
If we really wanted to, we could crush Iran within a matter of days, if we threw all of our military power at it. The Iranians know this. Negotiating with them - instead of war - has no downside for us.
Even if you assume that Iran does get a bomb - does anyone really think they're going to poke the hornet's nest with it? Any attack on Israel would result in the end of Iran, and say what you want about that country's leadership, they don't appear to be ready to kill themselves and their entire culture to prove a point.
And as far as Iran controlling the middle east - clearly the United States is the only country worthy of ineptly controlling the middle east, and we want to keep it that way.
Even if you assume that Iran does get a bomb - does anyone really think they're going to poke the hornet's nest with it? Any attack on Israel would result in the end of Iran, and say what you want about that country's leadership, they don't appear to be ready to kill themselves and their entire culture to prove a point.
And as far as Iran controlling the middle east - clearly the United States is the only country worthy of ineptly controlling the middle east, and we want to keep it that way.
11
This deal is not about Khamenei; he is a figure from the past, who, admittedly, still holds significant power. He does not represent the Iran of tomorrow. All one has to do is look at the potential of Iranian youth and its thriving class of young professionals. We are doing this deal with them in mind. We can't make Khamenei or his odious ideology disappear overnight, as much as some Republican hawks might fantasize about it. We can begin to lay the groundwork for a more constructive relationship with Iran.
If Iran's next top leader turns out worse for the region and the world than the present one, this deal will still make it more difficult for him to achieve his grandiose ambitions without causing enormous economic suffering for his people. It is a fallacy to say that sanctions could not be restored, that our negotiating partners and allies would not stand firm against Iranian intransigence and efforts to produce its first nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting now to try to spare his successors from even harder choices down the road.
If Iran's next top leader turns out worse for the region and the world than the present one, this deal will still make it more difficult for him to achieve his grandiose ambitions without causing enormous economic suffering for his people. It is a fallacy to say that sanctions could not be restored, that our negotiating partners and allies would not stand firm against Iranian intransigence and efforts to produce its first nuclear weapons. President Obama is acting now to try to spare his successors from even harder choices down the road.
128
Brooks is too smart to fantasize about making odious ideology disappear overnight. He doesn't have to - he just has to make that a possibility in the minds of his followers.
Khamenei is not "a figure from the past." He is probably the powerful official in Iran, and we have no idea how much longer he will be in power. (One might as well call Obama a figure from the past, since his term in office will end in January 2017.) His views are relevant to assessing the merits of this deal. If he doesn't want a constructive relationship with us, it's highly unlikely we can have one with Iran.
As for sanctions, it is no fallacy to say that once they are canceled, it will be very difficult to reinstate them. This suggests we should not lift them until we have got what we want from them.
Reading your comment, you almost seem to object to Brooks' attempt to offer political analysis of the Iranian government. Why? Isn't Brooks asking reasonable questions about Iran's intentions and whether they are congruent with our goals? His article cites what Iranian leaders have said (that they can't stand us), as well as what other regional leaders think about Iran (that it's out to dominate them). Agree or disagree as you wish, but there is no way this article deserves to be dismissed. The concerns its presents are reasonable and are grounded in evidence.
As for sanctions, it is no fallacy to say that once they are canceled, it will be very difficult to reinstate them. This suggests we should not lift them until we have got what we want from them.
Reading your comment, you almost seem to object to Brooks' attempt to offer political analysis of the Iranian government. Why? Isn't Brooks asking reasonable questions about Iran's intentions and whether they are congruent with our goals? His article cites what Iranian leaders have said (that they can't stand us), as well as what other regional leaders think about Iran (that it's out to dominate them). Agree or disagree as you wish, but there is no way this article deserves to be dismissed. The concerns its presents are reasonable and are grounded in evidence.
1
President Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran should not be viewed as being about “the nature of the Iranian regime.” Nor should it be viewed as whether the men who control Iran are “more like Lenin" or "more like Gorbachev.” These irrelevancies seem designed to distract us from the merits of President Obama’s commendable diplomatic effort of preventing Iran, by peaceful means, from acquiring nuclear weapons.
If successful, President Obama’s diplomatic initiative could lead to a more peaceful Middle East that may ultimately be free of all nuclear weapons.
The issue before us therefore is not whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “still regards the United States as his enemy.” We know that he does. We should also know why he does.
The issue, however, is whether it is more prudent to negotiate with an enemy that admittedly “thinks the United States is the embodiment of evil,” or to continue on a confrontational path with such an enemy that may inevitably lead to a costly and destructive war.
David Brooks appears to promote the latter, which is what Benjamin Netanyahu has been relentlessly promoting, a confrontational environment that will inexorably lead to a war with Iran.
Yet a war with Iran is not in America’s national interest. It will be costly in lives and in treasure and should be opposed by all Americans.
President Obama’s peaceful quest for a negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran is by far the more prudent alternative.
If successful, President Obama’s diplomatic initiative could lead to a more peaceful Middle East that may ultimately be free of all nuclear weapons.
The issue before us therefore is not whether Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, “still regards the United States as his enemy.” We know that he does. We should also know why he does.
The issue, however, is whether it is more prudent to negotiate with an enemy that admittedly “thinks the United States is the embodiment of evil,” or to continue on a confrontational path with such an enemy that may inevitably lead to a costly and destructive war.
David Brooks appears to promote the latter, which is what Benjamin Netanyahu has been relentlessly promoting, a confrontational environment that will inexorably lead to a war with Iran.
Yet a war with Iran is not in America’s national interest. It will be costly in lives and in treasure and should be opposed by all Americans.
President Obama’s peaceful quest for a negotiated nuclear agreement with Iran is by far the more prudent alternative.
13
There are people in the United States that feel the same way about Iran, Death to Iran, death to Muslims, death to giving the Nuclear deal a chance and offer the same rhetoric that you are alleging to Iran. And many of those are in public office.
The people in Iran who are shouting death to the US are in the minority.
Please give the deal a chance to work.
The people in Iran who are shouting death to the US are in the minority.
Please give the deal a chance to work.
11
"The people in Iran who are shouting death to the US are in the minority.
Please give the deal a chance to work."
Those people shouting Death to America are in charge of Iran. The Ayatollah, unlike Ted Cruz, can scuttle the deal all by himself.
Please give the deal a chance to work."
Those people shouting Death to America are in charge of Iran. The Ayatollah, unlike Ted Cruz, can scuttle the deal all by himself.
Unfortunately, the people in Iran shouting "Death to the US" happen to be the ones in charge.
So the difference between Khamenei and the rhetoric, bluster and actions of Cheney, Rumsfeld etc against Iraq is what?
13
For once I have to agree with David. Iran is not interested in nuclear power, their goal is clearly to create weapons to use as bargaining chips or perhaps on the battlefield. At best this agreement will delay the point at which they will either have nuclear weapons or the United States will have to start bombing them. But David doesn't mention this problem, he just wants to point out that we're headed for a bad deal. My niece and nephew are both officers in the Marines, and I really don't want to see them leading troops on the streets of Tehran.
1
It seems to me that Mr. Brooks has absolutely no idea about Iran today but still sticks to the image of the revolution in 1979.
Time to move on.
In 1953, the CIA led a coup against a democratically elected Iranian government and installed a puppet regime that bled Iranian income from its oil sales.
The Iranians did not forget this criminal act the US performed against their country.
The US strongly supports Saudi Arabia despite all the facts that the kingdom supports more terrorism than any other country in the region, even against the US.
That too is a good reason for Iran no to trust the US.
The same goes for US interventions in Iraq, which was totally illegal, in Afghanistan, which was a total disaster, and Libya, which too was a total disaster.
Those botched attacks created an unstable region with hard core Islamic terrorists such as the IS and Al Quaeda.
All good reasons for Iranians to hate the US.
Israel has nuclear weapons, like Pakistan and like Saudi Arabia, as soon as it needs them.
None of these countries are sanctioned by the US and none of them are NPT countries.
Why should Iran trust the US to stick to an agreement when even today there is a US policy for regime change, remember 1953, in Iran?
Fact is that despite all these issues, Iranians today, and that includes their leaders would gladly become the best US ally in the region immediately if the US would accept them at face value and treat them like a sovereign nation and not another US backyard.
Time to move on.
In 1953, the CIA led a coup against a democratically elected Iranian government and installed a puppet regime that bled Iranian income from its oil sales.
The Iranians did not forget this criminal act the US performed against their country.
The US strongly supports Saudi Arabia despite all the facts that the kingdom supports more terrorism than any other country in the region, even against the US.
That too is a good reason for Iran no to trust the US.
The same goes for US interventions in Iraq, which was totally illegal, in Afghanistan, which was a total disaster, and Libya, which too was a total disaster.
Those botched attacks created an unstable region with hard core Islamic terrorists such as the IS and Al Quaeda.
All good reasons for Iranians to hate the US.
Israel has nuclear weapons, like Pakistan and like Saudi Arabia, as soon as it needs them.
None of these countries are sanctioned by the US and none of them are NPT countries.
Why should Iran trust the US to stick to an agreement when even today there is a US policy for regime change, remember 1953, in Iran?
Fact is that despite all these issues, Iranians today, and that includes their leaders would gladly become the best US ally in the region immediately if the US would accept them at face value and treat them like a sovereign nation and not another US backyard.
8
"...but we have a terrible record of predicting the future in the Middle East." This, Mr. Brooks wrote after writing a string of dire predictions. I guess the irony or inconsistency is lost on him. Why should we operate as if all bad things he predicts will occur, like facts, when even according to him, this predictions are at best highly uncertain? Is Iran sinister? Yes. Will they always be? Probably. Does it mean the only recourse is to continue the Bush doctrine of pre-emptive bomb strikes, because that has worked out so well?
13
And we'll never know how much that idiotic letter that 47 GOP senators signed and sent has to do with Khamenei's remarks on the subject. Those senators took an oath to uphold the US constitution. They betrayed that oath when they signed and sent that letter. President Obama and the Democrats should be pointing out that their interference may have a lot to do with the Irani leadership's attitude towards this agreement. They don't know if the United States will live up to its end of the bargain thanks to the GOP. Why don't you write about that?
19
Do you really think the letter from the Senate influenced the Islamic Republic of Iran? The world's leading state sponsor of terrorism that is now destabilizing the Middle East with its proxy wars? No, that evil theocracy has stated before that it wants Israel wiped off the map and screams "Death to America" is pretty set in its ways. I know candidate Obama naively said that Iran is "just a small country," but most realistic people know better.
Those 47 Senators and some others take their orders from Netanyahu/Likud.
Well, it's a pretty safe bet that they're not much like Gorbachev.
Just listen to the arguments between their hard-liners and "moderates", who are berserkers anywhere BUT Iran. Even the comments issued by moderates, including Rouhani, interpreting what Iran actually DID agree to, makes it clear that these folks regard it as their right to deploy nuclear weapons, then to use them to impose their view of Life, the Universe and Everything first on the entire region then on the world itself. It's not a gamble but a given.
Our president tells us that we had no choice but to negotiate away very effective sanctions, because Iran, by hook or by crook, was eventually going to have a bomb, and we may as well delay it as much as we can. What he really means is that he's unwilling as president to underwrite the military investments or take the actions required to assure that Iran WON'T do this, because his priorities for that funding are European and not American -- social safety nets, free health care, perhaps even subsidies for industries and jobs destroyed by his ultimately pyrrhic efforts at near-unilateral environmental regulation. Well, such priorities are fine for Europe, that has depended on us to defend them. They don't work for an America that has nobody to back US up.
But expecting that Iran's leadership will morph into an open, responsible partner if given the opportunity isn't a gamble. It's a very bad bet with overwhelming odds that the region and the world will lose.
Just listen to the arguments between their hard-liners and "moderates", who are berserkers anywhere BUT Iran. Even the comments issued by moderates, including Rouhani, interpreting what Iran actually DID agree to, makes it clear that these folks regard it as their right to deploy nuclear weapons, then to use them to impose their view of Life, the Universe and Everything first on the entire region then on the world itself. It's not a gamble but a given.
Our president tells us that we had no choice but to negotiate away very effective sanctions, because Iran, by hook or by crook, was eventually going to have a bomb, and we may as well delay it as much as we can. What he really means is that he's unwilling as president to underwrite the military investments or take the actions required to assure that Iran WON'T do this, because his priorities for that funding are European and not American -- social safety nets, free health care, perhaps even subsidies for industries and jobs destroyed by his ultimately pyrrhic efforts at near-unilateral environmental regulation. Well, such priorities are fine for Europe, that has depended on us to defend them. They don't work for an America that has nobody to back US up.
But expecting that Iran's leadership will morph into an open, responsible partner if given the opportunity isn't a gamble. It's a very bad bet with overwhelming odds that the region and the world will lose.
1
Brooks et al, leave your insecurities behind. The US still has a mighty military, no matter how many speeches the Ayatollah give. The Ayatollah cannot "sanction" the West on equal footing. Who has the negotiation power?
7
"Only a fool would enter into an agreement with the Iranian regime. They are completely untrustworthy and we can't believe anything they say--except all these awful things Khamenei said in this speech."
Well reasoned, Mr. Brooks.
Well reasoned, Mr. Brooks.
7
Of course, it has been proven that American neocons and Netanyahu cannot be trusted.
I think the point is that a lot of Iranian officials say a lot of things, some more emollient, some highly inflammatory. Brooks says we should not ignore the more inflammatory comments, especially when they are made by the most powerful figure in Iran. Do you disagree?
1
Mr. Brooks, the sky is not falling. Have you taken the time to watch your colleague Thomas Friedman and President Obama discuss the framework of a nuclear agreement with Iran? The Supreme Ruler is really desperate for a deal; it's not surprising that you can't see through the bluster. Iranians suffered under a CIA-installed corrupted Shah. Israel doesn't want these negotiations to succeed but they chose not to sit at the table. You may not be able to appreciate the demonization of President Obama by the Right as witnessed by the 47 signatures on the impudent note to Iran's negotiators. It was both an appalling insult to them and to our president, one which you have yet to condemn. Conservative Chicken Littles like yourself guard the sanctity of the Constitution as if you all fashioned the document and everyone else but the anointed understands and appreciates it. President Obama is within his constitutional rights to explore a nuclear agreement with a foreign government. Your glowing praise for former SecStates Kissinger and Schultz reflect a worn-out need to have America perpetually carry Israel's water over there without spilling a drop. The Supreme Ruler of Iran is far from the ideal negotiating partner, but he's what we (and the other participants in these talks) have. We just might hit "a home run." But we won't strike out.
18
A quick one while the boss is away. When one bases their argument on an op ed in the WSJ(of all places)written by Henry Kissinger and George Schultz, it makes a rational person stop and think, who does this guy really work for? Henry Kissinger, noted liar and war criminal, George Schultz, purveyor of policy to expand the interests of his employer, Bechtel and WSJ, the rag of the neocon movement. Brooks throws out his laundry list of negatives (looks like the play book of John Bolton), but yet ignores the fact it is the Sunni sect that is causing most of the problems in the Middle East. Face it Dave, if SA wasn't a gas station you would never stop their on your way from here to there.
17
Mr. Brooks, I mostly disagree with your opinions, but this one is particularly one-sided. You speak of the supreme leader and base you assessment of an entire country on one speech. You make no mention of the thousands of Iranians cheering and celebrating the framework. This opinion piece is a perfect example of why our country is very polarized.
24
Sam,
If Iran was a Democracy the people would have a voice, but the Mullahs control Iran & we have to go by what he says.
If Iran was a Democracy the people would have a voice, but the Mullahs control Iran & we have to go by what he says.
1
The deal is a practical gamble to keep dialogue open and sway Iranian youth. I can't see how this beginning framework got approved without the support of the grand Pooh-Bah who now rants so ferociously against the West. Their code speak is nothing more than similar taunts launched by the pro-war crowd who want to obliterate the Middle East and keep the military industrial complex alive and growing.
We've tried war, over and over, and look what we got. The case for war--particularly preemptive war, a sordid shift in US policy that will forever be the deadly legacy of Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons--simply isn't compelling here. the President is trying to forge a new path--and I simply hope he can.
We've tried war, over and over, and look what we got. The case for war--particularly preemptive war, a sordid shift in US policy that will forever be the deadly legacy of Bush, Cheney and the neo-cons--simply isn't compelling here. the President is trying to forge a new path--and I simply hope he can.
21
Dear Christine,
If you lived in Israel or Saudi Arabia would you gamble on Obama's deal ?
If you lived in Israel or Saudi Arabia would you gamble on Obama's deal ?
1
Let's see here Mr. Brooks: Axis of Evil. Remember that? Nice way to describe Iran. The rhetoric, Mr. Brooks flows in both directions.
"Iran will begin subtly subverting any agreement. It will continue to work on its advanced nuclear technology even during the agreement. It will inevitably use nuclear weaponry, or even the threat of eventual nuclear weaponry, to advance its apocalyptic interests. " Mr. Brooks, this is pure speculation on your part and it is all based on ignorance or, even worse, some misguided attempt to advance war and war profiteering. Do you really think Iran would use a nuclear weapon even if it had one? Do you really think Iran does not understand the consequences of such action? Israel wouldn't bother to ask the U.S. It would nuke Iran into radioactive dust. Whatever Iran is, a great and rich history and culture, united and cohesive as a people, it is not stupid Mr. Brooks. You, Schumer, and the GOP need to pull your heads out of the sand and take a look at the facts on the ground, not the "facts" as Netanyahu imagines them to be.
"Iran will begin subtly subverting any agreement. It will continue to work on its advanced nuclear technology even during the agreement. It will inevitably use nuclear weaponry, or even the threat of eventual nuclear weaponry, to advance its apocalyptic interests. " Mr. Brooks, this is pure speculation on your part and it is all based on ignorance or, even worse, some misguided attempt to advance war and war profiteering. Do you really think Iran would use a nuclear weapon even if it had one? Do you really think Iran does not understand the consequences of such action? Israel wouldn't bother to ask the U.S. It would nuke Iran into radioactive dust. Whatever Iran is, a great and rich history and culture, united and cohesive as a people, it is not stupid Mr. Brooks. You, Schumer, and the GOP need to pull your heads out of the sand and take a look at the facts on the ground, not the "facts" as Netanyahu imagines them to be.
22
Engage in another war in the Middle East?
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
"I'm sorry, Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that."
20
Your comparison of Iran to Soviet Union was an apt one. You did neglect to point out that we managed to co-exist with a nuclear armed Soviet Union for 40 years or so. During that time we never executed a pre-emptive attack intended to eliminate their nuclear capability. Using economic sanctions to prevent nuclear weapons development doesn't work as illustrated by North Korea. So what does Mr. Brooks propose, continuing the economic sanctions that don't work, or a military attack?
9
Glenn,
The difference between the Soviet Union & Iran. The Soviets were led by scheming tyrants, who finally realized they were fighting a losing battle. The Iranians are Led by by scheming Religious Tyrants who believe God is on their side.
The difference between the Soviet Union & Iran. The Soviets were led by scheming tyrants, who finally realized they were fighting a losing battle. The Iranians are Led by by scheming Religious Tyrants who believe God is on their side.
1
I seem to remember this great country of ours referring to some of its geopolitical foes as members of an "axis of evil." I believe Iran may have been included in that formulation. Is Iran's referring to the U.S. as devils so different?
Leaders of countries the world over are fond of drawing rhetorical lines in the sand to gin up national support for their policies. One way they accomplish this is by occasionally vilifying their enemies in grandiose terms.
Leaders of countries the world over are fond of drawing rhetorical lines in the sand to gin up national support for their policies. One way they accomplish this is by occasionally vilifying their enemies in grandiose terms.
16
Exactly, they hate us. What shocker. Guess what we hate them. I am so tired of these gingoistic, American exceptionalism clowns. We do dirty deeds too!
Hi Red,
Your Analogy is way off the mark. With Germany & Japan we were in a battle of survival. With Iran we are sitting across a table trying to work out a peaceful deal, & the Mullahs are still calling us names.Where are all you Iran supporters coming from?
Your Analogy is way off the mark. With Germany & Japan we were in a battle of survival. With Iran we are sitting across a table trying to work out a peaceful deal, & the Mullahs are still calling us names.Where are all you Iran supporters coming from?
1
I find the NYT's comments feature powerful tool for the public to benefit immediately from supporting and apposing views of issues and commentary. David Brooks typically takes the middle-right ground on political subjects, he also brings to us topics that are non-political, educational, artistic, and certainly thought provoking.
Davids comments here lay things out pretty clearly and he seems to favor our Presidents hard work to find a deal. A deal supported by our world leaders. A deal that still has a bit of a hard road still to go.
Let's not beat up Mr. Brooks for putting together a pretty clear and concise summation of a very complex problem.
Thank you Mr. Brooks for your thoughts and willingness to taking the abuse put upon you by some. Keep up the good work, work that I do not always agree with, but worthy of my reading.
Davids comments here lay things out pretty clearly and he seems to favor our Presidents hard work to find a deal. A deal supported by our world leaders. A deal that still has a bit of a hard road still to go.
Let's not beat up Mr. Brooks for putting together a pretty clear and concise summation of a very complex problem.
Thank you Mr. Brooks for your thoughts and willingness to taking the abuse put upon you by some. Keep up the good work, work that I do not always agree with, but worthy of my reading.
4
Khamenei is an anachronism in his own country. He may overthrow himself if Iran walks away from this proposal.
Maintaining the sanctions will only be possible if Iran walks away from this proposal. If America walks away other nations may lift the sanctions.
There are wild cards in Yemen and Syria that may unveil new opportunities and perils before the deadline.
We must be wise, and ignore our chicken hawks and those who have an agenda to harm the President at any cost, like Netanyahu, McCain, Graham, Cheney.
Maintaining the sanctions will only be possible if Iran walks away from this proposal. If America walks away other nations may lift the sanctions.
There are wild cards in Yemen and Syria that may unveil new opportunities and perils before the deadline.
We must be wise, and ignore our chicken hawks and those who have an agenda to harm the President at any cost, like Netanyahu, McCain, Graham, Cheney.
18
It would probably be best if the arguments about Iran did not involve facile comparisons with the Soviet Union, which have little relevance. We are here reading opinions by the moderately informed -- no new information, just gut reaction. We also see a belief in great man theory of history -- everything is reduced to lone humans moving history down the road. Let's have some in-depth information/analysis, such as: what are the sanctions actually doing (not simply repeating that they are hurting the Iranians -- but some details), how are political decisions being made in Iran, etc. I read recently that the US is only now claiming to have perfected bunker-busting bombs that are likely able to destroy deeply hidden nuclear operations. This suggests that until recently we did not have the capacity -- which the pundits assumed we had. And we do not know if this now is still a bluff. We need more information and informed discussion, not random ideas based on "common sense." I'm as scared as the rest. So what should be done?
3
We all know where Khameni stands, Obama is gambling on the Iranian people. As to the retorics of Khameni that is nothing less than the letter addressed to him by 47 US republican senators, both have the same goal: kill the deal
,
,
19
The thrust of your column, I guess, is that you don't trust Iran although you take several paragraphs to get us there.
You go on to say, "Republican and Democratic administrations have continually anticipated turning points in the Middle East: Republicans after interventions, Democrats after negotiations. But the dawns never come."
I, for one, would rather take my chances of a dawn after negotiations than the dusk after interventions.
You go on to say, "Republican and Democratic administrations have continually anticipated turning points in the Middle East: Republicans after interventions, Democrats after negotiations. But the dawns never come."
I, for one, would rather take my chances of a dawn after negotiations than the dusk after interventions.
21
I don't care what the old Ayatollah ranted on about as much as I did seeing hundreds of young people dancing in the streets. The Ayatollah and his crowd, just like David Brooks and his crowd, aren't going to live forever. A younger, brighter generation that wants peace, that lives for peace, is coming up. They are the ones this deal is for, not the Ayatollah, not the backward clerics, not the dismal freak-outers in the US Congress, and certainly not Dick Cheney and Henry Kissinger.
32
The adage "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer" unfortunately does not apply here. Negotiating with Iran places us in the belly of the beast and only those who are wildly optimistic see this as our opportunity to tame a monster. Those who argue that Netanyahu's sole mission is to scrap any dealings with Iran regardless of the terms and conditions of this agreement should step back and look at the wretched history of Iran's quest for domination in the Middle East and annihilation of not only Israel but of any other nation not in sync with Iranian ideology and theology.
1
Then what?
Hmmmm. Israel and Iran -which one has actually invaded and occupied territory it captured in war.
You should inform yourself better before you make statements like "look at the wretched history of Iran's quest for domination in the Middle East and annihilation of not only Israel but of any other nation not in sync with Iranian ideology and theology."
It was the US and Britain that overthrew the Iranian nationalist, Mossadegh, to maintain control of Iranian oil in 1953. It was Iraq that invaded Iran in 1980. And it was the US that invaded Iraq--again to try to reassert US influence in the MIddle East and gain control over the oil resources there. And it is Netanyahu who continues to flaunt any real negotiations to achieve a two state solution that would go a long way to bringing peace to the region.
It was the US and Britain that overthrew the Iranian nationalist, Mossadegh, to maintain control of Iranian oil in 1953. It was Iraq that invaded Iran in 1980. And it was the US that invaded Iraq--again to try to reassert US influence in the MIddle East and gain control over the oil resources there. And it is Netanyahu who continues to flaunt any real negotiations to achieve a two state solution that would go a long way to bringing peace to the region.
1
Mr. Brooks column shows the dangers of fundamentalism -- religious and political. Fundamentalism leads to intractability and long-term Manichean struggles where it becomes more important to demonstrate "who's right" instead of conflict resolution.
Mr. Obama is not as weak as the right wants us to believe. Years of sanctions have taken their toll. Further, if Iran breaks out of the agreement and pursues a nuclear weapon, then they clearly identify themselves as an aggressor and a solid case can be made for direct military action.
Iran has other worries now, too, like a newly assertive Saudi Arabia...
Mr. Obama is not as weak as the right wants us to believe. Years of sanctions have taken their toll. Further, if Iran breaks out of the agreement and pursues a nuclear weapon, then they clearly identify themselves as an aggressor and a solid case can be made for direct military action.
Iran has other worries now, too, like a newly assertive Saudi Arabia...
12
"First, we learned that Iran's supreme leader still regards the United States as his enemy."
Shocking, considering we continue hearing U.S. politicians and pundits argue we should bomb Iran. Is there any Iranian suggesting it should bomb the U.S.?
Shocking, considering how the U.S. helped orchestrate a coup of Iran in '53, deposing a democratically elected leader because he did not want to give sufficient oil profits to Britain.
Shocking, considering how we support Saudi Arabia--an enemy of Iran.
Shocking, considering how we tell Iran it cannot develop nuclear weapons, while providing complete cover to Israel who has untold nuclear weapons, does not agree to inspections by the IAEA, and is not part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treating.
Shocking, considering the many in the U.S. want regime change in Iran so that a puppet Shah can be reinstalled.
Shocking . . .
Shocking, considering we continue hearing U.S. politicians and pundits argue we should bomb Iran. Is there any Iranian suggesting it should bomb the U.S.?
Shocking, considering how the U.S. helped orchestrate a coup of Iran in '53, deposing a democratically elected leader because he did not want to give sufficient oil profits to Britain.
Shocking, considering how we support Saudi Arabia--an enemy of Iran.
Shocking, considering how we tell Iran it cannot develop nuclear weapons, while providing complete cover to Israel who has untold nuclear weapons, does not agree to inspections by the IAEA, and is not part of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treating.
Shocking, considering the many in the U.S. want regime change in Iran so that a puppet Shah can be reinstalled.
Shocking . . .
29
"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"! Shakespeare
And, Mr. Brooks, your alternative is (See above)?
I notice toward the end of your eviscerating Mr. Khamenei's speech (At least we know where the guy stands. Almost a carbon copy of Senator Cotton) you finally mention something about "Republicans, after interventions".
Subtle but it seems the nuclear power that has "destabilized" the region is, as Jon Stewart put it, US! Iraq may have been under the sway of a really nasty dictator but, as we are sadly finding out after more than 4500 American lives lost and untold millions spent, he did manage to keep a lid on the population; sort of stability through repression. Now it seems all those unemployed fellows booted out by Mr. Bremer, the head of the occupation authority in Iraq in 2003, have found jobs directing DAESH.
Mr. Bush's plan was such a winner!
Now this mess is Mr. Obama's "fault" and negotiations, as indicated by your column, are useless. Pray tell, once more, what is your alternative? I'm sure Mr. Bremer can step up to the plate again and as soon as the "Iran Freedom" invasion is "over"; he can be installed as the leader of a new rebuilding attempt fully backed by Haliburton and the like.
This scenario is starting to look painfully familiar.
And, Mr. Brooks, your alternative is (See above)?
I notice toward the end of your eviscerating Mr. Khamenei's speech (At least we know where the guy stands. Almost a carbon copy of Senator Cotton) you finally mention something about "Republicans, after interventions".
Subtle but it seems the nuclear power that has "destabilized" the region is, as Jon Stewart put it, US! Iraq may have been under the sway of a really nasty dictator but, as we are sadly finding out after more than 4500 American lives lost and untold millions spent, he did manage to keep a lid on the population; sort of stability through repression. Now it seems all those unemployed fellows booted out by Mr. Bremer, the head of the occupation authority in Iraq in 2003, have found jobs directing DAESH.
Mr. Bush's plan was such a winner!
Now this mess is Mr. Obama's "fault" and negotiations, as indicated by your column, are useless. Pray tell, once more, what is your alternative? I'm sure Mr. Bremer can step up to the plate again and as soon as the "Iran Freedom" invasion is "over"; he can be installed as the leader of a new rebuilding attempt fully backed by Haliburton and the like.
This scenario is starting to look painfully familiar.
21
Dear Mr Brooks,
You and Mr Kissinger claim that the US and Iran have no "congruence of interests." I disagree completely -- avoiding a catastrophic, perhaps 3rd world war is in everyone's interest! We may have many disagreements with the Iranian government. But they have proved one thing since 1979: they are not suicidal. The first rule of power is self-preservation, is it not? For this reason alone we should trust them on this deal.
You and Mr Kissinger claim that the US and Iran have no "congruence of interests." I disagree completely -- avoiding a catastrophic, perhaps 3rd world war is in everyone's interest! We may have many disagreements with the Iranian government. But they have proved one thing since 1979: they are not suicidal. The first rule of power is self-preservation, is it not? For this reason alone we should trust them on this deal.
14
to anyone with a shred of humanity, allowing millions of peope to live normal lives by lifting the sanctions would be a shared interest.
A deal like this--in fact, any contract--is not based on trust. The reason you have to make a deal like this is because you don't trust the other party. There are plenty of reasons for us not to trust Iran, but there are also plenty of reasons for Iran not to trust us. If everybody trusted each other, handshakes would be enough, contracts would be unnecessary and there would be peace and harmony on the earth.
16
Ok, so if the Iranians refuse to adhere to the deal, or turn away the inspectors, then Netanyahu will probably get his war. But, before continuing down the road of bellicosity and sanctions, surely it makes sense to give the Iranians a chance to change things?
A refusal to try, simply makes the US look like a warmongering bully, that kills people and destroys their nations because our best bud Israel wants us to.
A refusal to try, simply makes the US look like a warmongering bully, that kills people and destroys their nations because our best bud Israel wants us to.
14
Brooks arises valid points but in a non-productive way. Why title and write the column as a pretty much conclusve opinion based on rank speculation? Why not instead write a serious analysis that is designed to encourage the administration to ensure issues are considered and adjudicated in the negotiations? My only guess is Brooks already knows that the administration understands all this and he is simply trying to queer the deal.
7
Fortunately for us, Mr. Obama does not believe in the luxury of behaving like an ideologue, in the way that opinion columnists can. Whether one takes Khamenei's statements at face value (as Mr. Brooks wants to do) or as "tactical positioning," one should bear in mind Mr. Obama's clear explanation of his strategy: given our overwhelming military superiority, we have little to lose in carefully pursuing a deal and then actively tracking the results -- and everything to gain in the long run.
It's easy to be a cynic; harder to make decisions about what to do in the real world. I suspect Mr. Brooks would change his tune if her were actually in office.
It's easy to be a cynic; harder to make decisions about what to do in the real world. I suspect Mr. Brooks would change his tune if her were actually in office.
19
A question mr Brooks is forgetting: why coming to the table then? If the whole point of the negotiation was to later deny and attack it, why bother doing all nighters? If there is no interest, even a feeble one, then I dont understand.
12
Then what's next if we accept Brooks' pessimism? More war? Another pointless Iraq?
14
If you want to get some more perspective on the history of the relationship between the USA and Iran, you could start with the book “All the Shah's Men: An American Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror” by Stephen Kinzer.
If you still don’t understand why the current leadership of Iran views the USA as its enemy, try to understand what happened in the 1980’s, when the USA supported Saddam Hussein in his war of aggression against Iran.
But then, the previous USA administration did something completely unconscionable, it removed Iran’s worst enemy from power and totally destroyed Iraq, giving Iran the best opportunity ever to establish itself as one the most important powers in the region.
So, by its own zigzagging foreign policy the USA has first laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and then more recently has supremely strengthened its position in the region.
And by the way, the presidents responsible for this mess where Eisenhower, Reagan and GW Bush, incidentally all Republican.
And what exactly would Mr. Brooks want to do next?
If you still don’t understand why the current leadership of Iran views the USA as its enemy, try to understand what happened in the 1980’s, when the USA supported Saddam Hussein in his war of aggression against Iran.
But then, the previous USA administration did something completely unconscionable, it removed Iran’s worst enemy from power and totally destroyed Iraq, giving Iran the best opportunity ever to establish itself as one the most important powers in the region.
So, by its own zigzagging foreign policy the USA has first laid the groundwork for the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and then more recently has supremely strengthened its position in the region.
And by the way, the presidents responsible for this mess where Eisenhower, Reagan and GW Bush, incidentally all Republican.
And what exactly would Mr. Brooks want to do next?
21
Mr. Brooks, what you have written is a bit scary. And you could be right, we could be setting America up to have more problems with Iran down the road.
What is the alternative? Surely not war. If not war, then how will be know what they are doing if we don't take this chance?
I wish you had given up both sides of the issue.
What is the alternative? Surely not war. If not war, then how will be know what they are doing if we don't take this chance?
I wish you had given up both sides of the issue.
10
SIDEBAR
There are reasons why Iran has little trust for the U. S. and the other Western imperialistic powers which few people acknowledge here or are even aware of.
During the early 1950s, Iran elected via a democratic election a president. At that time, the British had a relationship in which they received oil from the Persian state at a quite low cost.
The newly elected president intended to nationalize the petroleum industry and the U. K. would now have to pay full price. Great Britain asked President Truman to have the Iranian President gotten rid of but Truman didn't.
When Eisenhower became president, he was asked again and relented. So, the democratically elected President of Iran was done away with and replaced by a reluctant Shah.
The Shah westernized Iran but, also used brutal methods to stay in power. Carter went to Tehran and praised the Shah, Within a short time the (original)
Ayatollah held forth in France and made many tape recordings and ... well the rest is history.
The CIA has accomplished many immoral imperialistic as well as hegemony towards many nations in all parts of the world.
Now the alliance between our nation and Israel is seen as yet another attempt to meddle in the Middle East.
The past is the past and the future. I am in favor of the Obama/Kerry actions vis-à-vis Iran. But, most Americans don't fully understand the acrimony which Iran rightly holds to the U. S. Not that my comment is in any way an excuse for the holocaust deniers and...
There are reasons why Iran has little trust for the U. S. and the other Western imperialistic powers which few people acknowledge here or are even aware of.
During the early 1950s, Iran elected via a democratic election a president. At that time, the British had a relationship in which they received oil from the Persian state at a quite low cost.
The newly elected president intended to nationalize the petroleum industry and the U. K. would now have to pay full price. Great Britain asked President Truman to have the Iranian President gotten rid of but Truman didn't.
When Eisenhower became president, he was asked again and relented. So, the democratically elected President of Iran was done away with and replaced by a reluctant Shah.
The Shah westernized Iran but, also used brutal methods to stay in power. Carter went to Tehran and praised the Shah, Within a short time the (original)
Ayatollah held forth in France and made many tape recordings and ... well the rest is history.
The CIA has accomplished many immoral imperialistic as well as hegemony towards many nations in all parts of the world.
Now the alliance between our nation and Israel is seen as yet another attempt to meddle in the Middle East.
The past is the past and the future. I am in favor of the Obama/Kerry actions vis-à-vis Iran. But, most Americans don't fully understand the acrimony which Iran rightly holds to the U. S. Not that my comment is in any way an excuse for the holocaust deniers and...
11
"would they use their postsanctions wealth to export it and destabilize their region"
That has NOTHING to do with a nuclear deal, an entirely new reason for sanctions that were applied by our allies for nuclear reasons only. If we try to misuse their sanctions, our allies will walk away, and we will have no sanctions and no deal at all.
"He means he thinks the United States is the embodiment of evil." Brooks' entire column is that Iran is the embodiment of evil. "Mad mullah" talk. This is the sort of enemy with whom peace is made.
“I was never optimistic about negotiating with America,” he declared. Reading Brooks, he's right. If Brooks had his (Netanyahu's) way, their would be no possibility of talking, nor any reason to waste breath.
"Third, we learned that the ayatollah is demanding total trust from us while offering maximum contempt in return." While Brooks writes that he doesn't trust us, and offers him maximum contempt in return. Correct, he doesn't trust us. I don't trust the influence of Brooks' sort either. Trust but verify, that was Brooks' hero facing 30,000 nukes and the real Leninists.
Khamenei and the U.S. see terms differently? Brooks deliberately fails to understand. The disagreement is about details, like when exactly are sanctions lifted, who will be on the Commission to decide on visits to disputed sites?
Saudis? This isn't about Yemen.
It is Brooks who does not want to deal out of lack of trust, what he accuses the other side of thinking.
That has NOTHING to do with a nuclear deal, an entirely new reason for sanctions that were applied by our allies for nuclear reasons only. If we try to misuse their sanctions, our allies will walk away, and we will have no sanctions and no deal at all.
"He means he thinks the United States is the embodiment of evil." Brooks' entire column is that Iran is the embodiment of evil. "Mad mullah" talk. This is the sort of enemy with whom peace is made.
“I was never optimistic about negotiating with America,” he declared. Reading Brooks, he's right. If Brooks had his (Netanyahu's) way, their would be no possibility of talking, nor any reason to waste breath.
"Third, we learned that the ayatollah is demanding total trust from us while offering maximum contempt in return." While Brooks writes that he doesn't trust us, and offers him maximum contempt in return. Correct, he doesn't trust us. I don't trust the influence of Brooks' sort either. Trust but verify, that was Brooks' hero facing 30,000 nukes and the real Leninists.
Khamenei and the U.S. see terms differently? Brooks deliberately fails to understand. The disagreement is about details, like when exactly are sanctions lifted, who will be on the Commission to decide on visits to disputed sites?
Saudis? This isn't about Yemen.
It is Brooks who does not want to deal out of lack of trust, what he accuses the other side of thinking.
41
According to your fanciful logic, there is a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. get with the program, not all people want or need to be liked. In fact, many accept your distaste for them as a badge of honor. Anyone who goes around and accepts "Supreme Leader" as a moniker has a zero chance of being a respectable partner or counter-party to an agreement. I find it fascinating that so many comments applaud the idea of mutual acceptance when none exists.
Brooks is long on pea nut gallery criticism but short on suggestions for an effective alternative. He's not exactly neutral in this either since he's a long time Israeli propagandist and has a member of his family serving in the Israeli armed forces.
47
Uh --- the alternative is keep the sanctions and tighten them. It's not difficult.
Why does anything have to change, because obviously nothing will change ---- hmmmm, who knows better ---- Kissinger, Schultz ---- or Obama ?
Why does anything have to change, because obviously nothing will change ---- hmmmm, who knows better ---- Kissinger, Schultz ---- or Obama ?
brooks should print that disclaimer in every oped about the middle east.
When political hacks are in charge we end up needing an agreement with Iran more than Iran needs an agreement. The world turned upside down
5
If the sanctions approach will fall apart if the other parties in the negotiations endorse the agreement and the U.S. doesn't, if war against Iran is not a realistic option or one that will lead closer to resolution of issues in the Middle East, if Iran's leadership cannot be trusted (my concerns were triggered by the reports that we were pleasantly surprised by what Iran would agree to -- "If it sounds too good to be true ..." and all that), then where does that leave us? We are where we are in part as a result of our own contributions to Middle Eastern unrest. What can we learn from this?
I was appalled by the lack of realistic planning by us for Iraq after we toppled Saddam Hussein. But I also don't assume that we could have provided a long-term change of the sort we wanted if we had managed the aftermath better. Countries have their own internal dynamics, they are not clean slates on which we write. That point leads me here to suggest that the idea that we can pick a long-term outcome here and then put an action plan in place to accomplish it and succeed at that is probably misplaced.
Where do I think that leaves us? This is a comment to a David Brooks column, so I guess I would rest with the idea that the lesson is humility. And I would further add that the way I see it, Republicans are in this classroom just as much as anyone else.
I was appalled by the lack of realistic planning by us for Iraq after we toppled Saddam Hussein. But I also don't assume that we could have provided a long-term change of the sort we wanted if we had managed the aftermath better. Countries have their own internal dynamics, they are not clean slates on which we write. That point leads me here to suggest that the idea that we can pick a long-term outcome here and then put an action plan in place to accomplish it and succeed at that is probably misplaced.
Where do I think that leaves us? This is a comment to a David Brooks column, so I guess I would rest with the idea that the lesson is humility. And I would further add that the way I see it, Republicans are in this classroom just as much as anyone else.
15
It doth appear that Mr. Brooks has been seduced by Netanyahu and the "bomb Iran back to the stone age" Republicans. Is that your only alternative to what the President is attempting?
88
The only thing worse than war is defeat in war.
Brooks' crew led us to serial defeats. This would be another one.
We CAN'T bomb them so they are unable to make a bomb.
All we could do is delay it. We'd only make it certain they'd try, and they get it far sooner than the end of this deal.
No, going back to bomb again and again would not work. The second time around they'd be ready for that. Anyway, that is a recipe for Forever War.
Brooks' crew led us to serial defeats. This would be another one.
We CAN'T bomb them so they are unable to make a bomb.
All we could do is delay it. We'd only make it certain they'd try, and they get it far sooner than the end of this deal.
No, going back to bomb again and again would not work. The second time around they'd be ready for that. Anyway, that is a recipe for Forever War.
17
Brooks did not offer any alternative. He only commented on what might be the implications of the response to the deal by Khameini. Even those who are not fans of Brooks, should have the guts to admit that the ayatollah threw several buckets of cold water on the deal. My view is that the deal that the president and secretary of state are promoting is quite a bit less than what they were after in the first place. I was hopeful until the negotiations went into overtime and then the ayatollah told what he really thinks.
1
No, the alternative is to continue with sanctions, and ramp them up, so that enough pain is inflicted on the economy to force one of two things: 1) Iran to come to the table with a better deal for the world or 2) the Iranian people to tire of thirty plus years of being an international outcast and under the thumb of a fundamentalist theocracy so that they cause a change in government.
Maybe Brooks should reflect on the history of the US meddling in their internal affairs. Is it a wonder Iran doesn't like us? Look, if Iran backs a Shia group they are terrorists. If Saudi Arabia backs a Sunni group, they are for freedom or some other stupid remark. I am not saying Iran is even a good country, but at the same time, if we continue to treat them as a mortal enemy, then no progress will happen. The Iranian people are an educated and sophisticated society that can ultimately neutralize the religious zealots. If we court them with a show of honest humility, we all will win. If we continue to try to continually threaten them, they will not budge. This treaty wihile not perfect seems to be a step in the right direction.
94
It's too late. What the USA did in Iran has produced the results that should have been expected, once the world changed. The political leadership will never again trust the political leaders of the USA. Who can blame them for that.
Ok, yes Iran may not cooperate. But we have no options. Doing nothing - they get the bomb, attacking - a short delay and they get the bomb. When we were negotiating with the USSR, we were also arming surrogates in Afghanistan, and we both were arming surrogates in Africa. The world offers no easy choices.
36
No other options? Israel wouldn't agree. If we let them go, this issue would already be taken care of.
Are you sure he is the supreme leader? Or just a mouthpiece, apparently, on the same side as yourself?
43
"But with this guy?
But is it with this guy? Surely the question needs to be asked is how supreme the 'supreme leader' actually is. In the last two elections there seems to have been a slight majority against Khamenei, (in the first case blotted out by fraud and force). Are his words are swan-song of a dying regime or representative of the real power in Iran for the foreseeable future?
A further question needs to be asked is how any agreement or non-agreement will affect the balance of forces within Iran? Presumably how the West acts will have an affect as to what goes on in Iran - at least to some extent.
But is it with this guy? Surely the question needs to be asked is how supreme the 'supreme leader' actually is. In the last two elections there seems to have been a slight majority against Khamenei, (in the first case blotted out by fraud and force). Are his words are swan-song of a dying regime or representative of the real power in Iran for the foreseeable future?
A further question needs to be asked is how any agreement or non-agreement will affect the balance of forces within Iran? Presumably how the West acts will have an affect as to what goes on in Iran - at least to some extent.
23
David--this deal is worth a gamble. An imperfect diplomatic solution is much preferable to even a perfect war. We don't have a great record of predicting or influencing events in the Middle East, but negotiations have to start somewhere. Besides, it's not like Iran's Sunni neighbors are paragons of virtue. In one corner we've got our erstwhile ally Saudi Arabia which has a domestic record of abuse of human rights worse than Iran's. In another we have the nihilistic death worship cult of ISIS. In yet another we have the quasi failed state of Iraq into which we squandered hundreds of billions and thousands of American lives...
No, I'll take the preening and posturing of the Ayatollah over these any day. Iran is far from perfect, as is this deal, but it is a place to start--a foundation. It is something we can build upon, which is all but rare in the blood soaked Middle East.
No, I'll take the preening and posturing of the Ayatollah over these any day. Iran is far from perfect, as is this deal, but it is a place to start--a foundation. It is something we can build upon, which is all but rare in the blood soaked Middle East.
61
And we are far from perfect. How many Iraqis died or were driven from their homeland as a result of our military intervention? What did we do to Iraqi infrastructure, and to what end?
Yes, Saddam Hussein is gone. But was that the only way to effect 'regime change'?
Yes, Saddam Hussein is gone. But was that the only way to effect 'regime change'?
1
Saudi Arabia has exported terrorists not to mention exporting the entire extremist version of Islam that they terrorize their own population with, encouraging backward, female-hating men to roam the streets beating women and girls who wear the wrong clothes. This has done more to destabilize the region and the world than any regime, with the exception of Israel of course.
David Brooks would never call for sanctions against these two allies of the US however.
Trotting out the same the same childish, belligerent Neocon talking points as people like John Bolton, Brooks seems to think that the first negotiations should instantly erase all anti-US sentiment in Iran, or that our continued belligerence and even more economic sanctions would instantly turn the anti-US slogans into chants of praise for America.
This is foolishness and immaturity beyond belief.
David Brooks would never call for sanctions against these two allies of the US however.
Trotting out the same the same childish, belligerent Neocon talking points as people like John Bolton, Brooks seems to think that the first negotiations should instantly erase all anti-US sentiment in Iran, or that our continued belligerence and even more economic sanctions would instantly turn the anti-US slogans into chants of praise for America.
This is foolishness and immaturity beyond belief.
131
Let's be honest David, when it comes to foreign affairs your analyses come up short. Khameni's comments should be understood in terms of what he is trying to accomplish in his country and in the region. Your comments about his feelings and attitude are sophmoric. When did you become a mind reader?
Deal or war?
Young Senator Cotton believes it would take just a few days of bombing Iran. Easy, he suggests.
''They will greet us as liberators'' then VP Cheney promised us about our invasion of Iraq. Instead, we used our superior force to destabilize a region that will be in tumult for decades. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and well more than a trillion dollars.
To prevent development of a nuclear weapon, we can attack Iran if we need to, but the military outcome, as in any war, cannot be predicted. It seems certain, however, that a US attack on Iran would further harden the attitudes of the Iranian people against us for many more generations. Oh, by the way, Pew tells us there will be as many Muslims as Christians in the world in a generation or so.
Let us see what the negotiations can bring over the next few months. Far better to attempt a rational solution than to once again unleash the dogs of war.
Young Senator Cotton believes it would take just a few days of bombing Iran. Easy, he suggests.
''They will greet us as liberators'' then VP Cheney promised us about our invasion of Iraq. Instead, we used our superior force to destabilize a region that will be in tumult for decades. At a cost of hundreds of thousands of lives and well more than a trillion dollars.
To prevent development of a nuclear weapon, we can attack Iran if we need to, but the military outcome, as in any war, cannot be predicted. It seems certain, however, that a US attack on Iran would further harden the attitudes of the Iranian people against us for many more generations. Oh, by the way, Pew tells us there will be as many Muslims as Christians in the world in a generation or so.
Let us see what the negotiations can bring over the next few months. Far better to attempt a rational solution than to once again unleash the dogs of war.
97
The procreation race for control of this planet will kill it.
In 2003, Donald Rumsfeld said the US venture will take 6 days, or 6 weeks or 6 months, but no longer than that.
How many American sons and daughters are you will to sacrifice to declare "Mission Accomplished," and then settle in for the long war?
How many American sons and daughters are you will to sacrifice to declare "Mission Accomplished," and then settle in for the long war?
In 2003 Hosni Mubarek told us if we invaded Iraq it would create 10,000 Al Qaidas while the Neocons (including you & Netanyahu) said it would be cheap, easy & turn the entire Middle East into liberal democracies.
I've seen the salient features of the treaty. It is completely one sided in our favor. So much so that I worried that it constituted a form of humiliation and that humiliation might provoke a reaction against it later on - like the treaties Western powers implemented with Japan in the 1850s which eventually lead to revolution (Meiji restoration). So I'm not surprised by the political posturing and bluster in Iran.
Your whole position is predicated on an "IF": "If Iran still has revolutionary intent."
Kissinger and Shultz (the man who gave us Bush Jr) know (as do you) that the majority of Iran is young, well educated and bristling to get out from under 'revolutionary' Islamic regime. Like China after Tianamen Square, the regime seeks to remain in place through increased economic growth. This cannot be done under the current environment of sanctions. International economic growth takes on its own velocity. China can't act in a reactionary way without revolt by its increasingly middle class masses who would find easy common cause with the poor.
Not pursuing this deal would be a down payment on a near certain future war.
In truth Neocons are power junkies with a war fetish. I don't want to see American lives and treasure surrendered for the sake of their fetish.
I've seen the salient features of the treaty. It is completely one sided in our favor. So much so that I worried that it constituted a form of humiliation and that humiliation might provoke a reaction against it later on - like the treaties Western powers implemented with Japan in the 1850s which eventually lead to revolution (Meiji restoration). So I'm not surprised by the political posturing and bluster in Iran.
Your whole position is predicated on an "IF": "If Iran still has revolutionary intent."
Kissinger and Shultz (the man who gave us Bush Jr) know (as do you) that the majority of Iran is young, well educated and bristling to get out from under 'revolutionary' Islamic regime. Like China after Tianamen Square, the regime seeks to remain in place through increased economic growth. This cannot be done under the current environment of sanctions. International economic growth takes on its own velocity. China can't act in a reactionary way without revolt by its increasingly middle class masses who would find easy common cause with the poor.
Not pursuing this deal would be a down payment on a near certain future war.
In truth Neocons are power junkies with a war fetish. I don't want to see American lives and treasure surrendered for the sake of their fetish.
349
It was in 2002 that Hosni Mubarak said:
"If you invade Iraq, you will create 10,000 bin Laden's".
And we did.
"If you invade Iraq, you will create 10,000 bin Laden's".
And we did.
Some interesting ideas. But if I follow your logic, would not staying out of the agreement and retaining the sanctions be a better solution to create conditions where the middle class may in fact revolt and overthrow the regime? Right now the current Iranian regime influences events by subterfuge, terror proxies and the perhaps toothless threat of a standing army and navy. With a struggling economy, how long can this go on....well there is North Korea as an example.
David, I have to admit that Khamenei's comments yesterday were disturbing - and I support this deal.
That said, why should Iran trust the United States? After all, the Republicans in the Senate recently sent the Ayatollah a letter telling him that they regarded any agreement negotiated by President Obama as non-binding on the next President.
Moreover, why should Iran not be looking to bolster Shiites regimes and people throughout the region - when it is Shiites who are under attack from Salafist-Wahhabi extremists everywhere across the planet. Our good friends in Saudi Arabia are largely responsible for the hate that impels this genocidal movement, and the blood spilled in these attacks are therefore on their hands. But Saudi Arabia astonishingly remains our ally. If you were Iran, would you trust a nation allied with Saudi Arabia?
Finally, there's the persistent issue of the Republicans' role in the overthrow of Iran's fledgling republic in 1953 - and I say Republicans inasmuch as Harry Truman and Dean Acheson had been working tirelessly towards resolving the Anglo-Iranian crisis, rather than seeking to foment of coup d'etat overthrowing it, as a favor to rank imperialists like Churchill and Clement Atlee. And today these same Republicans position themselves as political extensions of imperialist Israelis - intent not a two state solution based on the '67 borders but instead a Jewish version of manifest destiny.
David, if you were the Ayatollah, would you trust us?
That said, why should Iran trust the United States? After all, the Republicans in the Senate recently sent the Ayatollah a letter telling him that they regarded any agreement negotiated by President Obama as non-binding on the next President.
Moreover, why should Iran not be looking to bolster Shiites regimes and people throughout the region - when it is Shiites who are under attack from Salafist-Wahhabi extremists everywhere across the planet. Our good friends in Saudi Arabia are largely responsible for the hate that impels this genocidal movement, and the blood spilled in these attacks are therefore on their hands. But Saudi Arabia astonishingly remains our ally. If you were Iran, would you trust a nation allied with Saudi Arabia?
Finally, there's the persistent issue of the Republicans' role in the overthrow of Iran's fledgling republic in 1953 - and I say Republicans inasmuch as Harry Truman and Dean Acheson had been working tirelessly towards resolving the Anglo-Iranian crisis, rather than seeking to foment of coup d'etat overthrowing it, as a favor to rank imperialists like Churchill and Clement Atlee. And today these same Republicans position themselves as political extensions of imperialist Israelis - intent not a two state solution based on the '67 borders but instead a Jewish version of manifest destiny.
David, if you were the Ayatollah, would you trust us?
298
Matthew, of course they have no reason to trust us: we're unalterably opposed to their intent to dominate the region. But that intent isn't going away, any more than our opposition to it is going away. This is why we have no business giving hostages to enemies. But we DO have an obligation to be honest about who our enemies ARE, and another to deny them the weapons they wish to use to secure their objectives and damage ours.
Brooks misstates the core question, which is: " Do we have a better chance of knowing what's going on in Iran if they are subject to inspection regimens and monitoring ? "
If the answer is ' no ', people like the foolish Arkansas Senator are deceived to be prattling about ' several days of bombing ' taking care of Iran:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/tom-cotton-iran-several-days_n_...
discounting the differences between Iran and Saddam's Iraq, remarks eerily similar to the boiler-plate espoused by Cheney and the other chicken hawks in the run up to invading Iraq.
It's sheer fantasy.
It's probably too late in Obama's presidency for the ' Hell, no ' caucus to change their stripes, and put forth serious alternatives when they oppose POTUS on purely political grounds, hoping we will not notice that Congress is so dysfunctional that it hopes we will not notice that with GOP'ers running both chambers, Congress can't get done it's basic task of coming up with an AUMF regarding ISIS/ISIL/Dash, devolving instead into a constant fund-raising machine.
GOP'ers are clearly showing us who/what Congress is; they're not capable of knowing a good Iran policy when they see it.
If the answer is ' no ', people like the foolish Arkansas Senator are deceived to be prattling about ' several days of bombing ' taking care of Iran:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/tom-cotton-iran-several-days_n_...
discounting the differences between Iran and Saddam's Iraq, remarks eerily similar to the boiler-plate espoused by Cheney and the other chicken hawks in the run up to invading Iraq.
It's sheer fantasy.
It's probably too late in Obama's presidency for the ' Hell, no ' caucus to change their stripes, and put forth serious alternatives when they oppose POTUS on purely political grounds, hoping we will not notice that Congress is so dysfunctional that it hopes we will not notice that with GOP'ers running both chambers, Congress can't get done it's basic task of coming up with an AUMF regarding ISIS/ISIL/Dash, devolving instead into a constant fund-raising machine.
GOP'ers are clearly showing us who/what Congress is; they're not capable of knowing a good Iran policy when they see it.
152
When negotiating with Russia, Ronald Reagan said "[Negotiate,] Trust, but verify."
We can't trust Iran? We certainly can't trust American necons nor Netanyahu!
We can't trust Iran? We certainly can't trust American necons nor Netanyahu!
David Brooks always wants to have it both ways. He writes a lengthy column, filled with exaggeration and outright misstatements of fact, excoriating the proposed nuclear treaty with Iran. Most of his argument is based upon a recent rabble-rousing speech by Ayatollah Khamenei not much different from dozens given over several years.
Mr. Brooks concludes his column, playing it safe in his typical CMA fashion by writing, “If President Obama is right and Iran is on the verge of change, the deal is a home run”.
If David Brooks were completely candid, he would write that (A) he is faithfully adopting the position espoused by Benjamin Netanyahu and the far right in Israel, (B) he realizes that all independent experts believe the deal with Iran strongly favors the American and international interests, (C) he has no idea what the alternative is to a treaty with Iran is except a long and costly war, and (D) above all, he does not want to offend the Republicans on Capitol Hill, even if they haven’t really thought this thing through either.
Mr. Brooks concludes his column, playing it safe in his typical CMA fashion by writing, “If President Obama is right and Iran is on the verge of change, the deal is a home run”.
If David Brooks were completely candid, he would write that (A) he is faithfully adopting the position espoused by Benjamin Netanyahu and the far right in Israel, (B) he realizes that all independent experts believe the deal with Iran strongly favors the American and international interests, (C) he has no idea what the alternative is to a treaty with Iran is except a long and costly war, and (D) above all, he does not want to offend the Republicans on Capitol Hill, even if they haven’t really thought this thing through either.
478
"...Benjamin Netanyahu and the far right in Israel..."
For your information, the entire State of Israel - left, right and center - stands in opposition to this very bad deal. This is NOT a right vs. left issue in Israel. This, for Jews, in and out of Israel, is an existential question. And, one is hard pressed to find a single informed person in Israel who can justify this "deal".
Indeed, one is not aware of any of America's allies in the region - Arabs and Jews alike - who think this "very good deal" as Mr. Obama describes it, is but a very bad one.
For your information, the entire State of Israel - left, right and center - stands in opposition to this very bad deal. This is NOT a right vs. left issue in Israel. This, for Jews, in and out of Israel, is an existential question. And, one is hard pressed to find a single informed person in Israel who can justify this "deal".
Indeed, one is not aware of any of America's allies in the region - Arabs and Jews alike - who think this "very good deal" as Mr. Obama describes it, is but a very bad one.
2
Please provide a set of links supporting your statement that "all independent experts believe the deal with Iran strongly favors the American and international interests."
I suspect that your list will be made up of people who are no more "independent" than you would consider Kissinger and Schultz to be.
I suspect that your list will be made up of people who are no more "independent" than you would consider Kissinger and Schultz to be.
1
What I cannot understand how certain politicians and the neo-cons are still getting by with pushing for war and that no one points out that the U.S. has not won any wars since WW 2.
2
I am amazed as to how many people view this nuclear deal as some kind of litmus test for support of Israel. While it is true that Israel is in Iran's target hairs, it is merely in their view a means to an end. Iran means to dominate the entire Middle East. They are implacable in this goal and its achievment will be to the extreme detriment of the people of the region and the entire West. Look beyond Israel! Do you want an Iranian hegemon bent on the destruction of human rights, that executes gays, that subjugates women? Do you want a nuclear armed Iran blackmailing the West at every turn? It is like North Korea on steroids. This deal is bad and unenforceble. And our strategic thinking is short sigthed and naive in the extreme. What is the alternative? A reimposition of sanctions, only stronger; a repositioning of naval forces closer to Iranian shores to show that the West has had enough. I am certain that policy makers can come up with a host of other ideas. The important factor is to realize we have been trapped by a mentality that views this deal as an end in itself and a kicking of the can down the road by ten years. It will not work. I may not have the best ideas for what will, but it starts with a recognition that this current one is not a solution at all.
44
I want to think your wrong, but I fear you're right.
Another commenter points out that Iran has a large population of young adults eager to get out from under hardline Islamic rule. Even if your premise is correct, that the agreement is
unenforceable, it buys time and establishes a basis for further rapprochement. This, coupled with internal pressures to liberalize, are worth waiting for and encouraging.
unenforceable, it buys time and establishes a basis for further rapprochement. This, coupled with internal pressures to liberalize, are worth waiting for and encouraging.
I thank God you're not responsible for our foreign policy. Bear in mind that Iran had 0 centrifuges at the onset of sanctions, but you're right: more sanctions will definitely do the trick. And naval forces in the Gulf? Is that really a credible threat? Many of Iran's facilities are impervious to bombing, which means attempting to coerce them with military force would entrench the issue even further unless you're willing to put boots in the ground and install new leadership in a country that threw off an American supported dictator within living memory. Not to mention the Islamist militants just across the border in Pakistan. What happens when that violence spill over?
Moreover, comparing Iran to North Korea is myopic in the extreme, and irrelevant throwback to the Bush Administration. The Axis of Evil existed only in W's mind. The DPRK has no civil society to speak of and doesn't even pay lip service to inclusion. Look at the responses to the prospect of a deal among the Iranian public: for the US to scuttle the deal now would embitter Iran's population and give Iranian hard-liners more influence.
Moreover, comparing Iran to North Korea is myopic in the extreme, and irrelevant throwback to the Bush Administration. The Axis of Evil existed only in W's mind. The DPRK has no civil society to speak of and doesn't even pay lip service to inclusion. Look at the responses to the prospect of a deal among the Iranian public: for the US to scuttle the deal now would embitter Iran's population and give Iranian hard-liners more influence.
One thing we know for sure is the Republican interventions failed miserably. What we don't know is how diplomacy and peace is gong to work. Funny, how the peaceful route is being judged on by David before a deal has even taken place.
Secondly, remind me to never take David to a negotiation. Obviously, he has been schooled on the art of garbage throwing during the proceedings.
Secondly, remind me to never take David to a negotiation. Obviously, he has been schooled on the art of garbage throwing during the proceedings.
105
or throwing people under the bus
Why not 'make the perfect the enemy of the good', Ambassador Brooks ?
Just say 'no' to diplomacy, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and bomb Iran; it's the perfect solution....and Bibi and Sheldon Adelson would be oh so pleased.
No one ever suggested dealing with Iran's two-headed government was going to be a walk in the park.
Any why pretend that it is only the Iranians who can't be trusted ?
Should Iran just forget that 1953 petroleum-based overthrow of their democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh in August 1953 masterminded by the United States and the American installation of the Shah of Iran who ruled the country as an absolute monarch with US support until his own overthrow in February 1979 ?
Iran has legitimate reasons to be suspicious of the United States, to put it meekly.
Perhaps a little historical perspective is in order instead of endless polarization.
Iran has 80 million people and a large, sanction-starved economy to consider --- it is not just a Middle Eastern version of the 'Great Satan' for America's and Israel's right-wing to froth at the mouth over in a perpetual lead-up to war-war-war!!! as the solution to everything.
We can always blow up the world later; it is simply not necessary to accelerate the process.
Why not give peace and diplomacy a rare chance ?
Do you really miss the joys and military-industrial profits of the Iraq War that much ?
Just say 'no' to diplomacy, snatch defeat from the jaws of victory and bomb Iran; it's the perfect solution....and Bibi and Sheldon Adelson would be oh so pleased.
No one ever suggested dealing with Iran's two-headed government was going to be a walk in the park.
Any why pretend that it is only the Iranians who can't be trusted ?
Should Iran just forget that 1953 petroleum-based overthrow of their democratically elected Prime Minister Mosaddegh in August 1953 masterminded by the United States and the American installation of the Shah of Iran who ruled the country as an absolute monarch with US support until his own overthrow in February 1979 ?
Iran has legitimate reasons to be suspicious of the United States, to put it meekly.
Perhaps a little historical perspective is in order instead of endless polarization.
Iran has 80 million people and a large, sanction-starved economy to consider --- it is not just a Middle Eastern version of the 'Great Satan' for America's and Israel's right-wing to froth at the mouth over in a perpetual lead-up to war-war-war!!! as the solution to everything.
We can always blow up the world later; it is simply not necessary to accelerate the process.
Why not give peace and diplomacy a rare chance ?
Do you really miss the joys and military-industrial profits of the Iraq War that much ?
594
Like that: we can always blow up the world later.
3
Furthermore, let's not forget the shooting down of Iran Air Flight 655 by the USS Vincennes with the loss of almost 300 lives. And the overtly duplicitous behavior of the US during the Iran-Contral scandal during which we demonstrated we would betray our own allies. And that the US has armies on the eastern and western borders of Iran.
None of this excuses Iran, but we (the US) need to understand our opponent during these critical negotiations. The old joke about "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you" may apply to Iran in this instance.
None of this excuses Iran, but we (the US) need to understand our opponent during these critical negotiations. The old joke about "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean that they're not out to get you" may apply to Iran in this instance.
4
WelI don't know about Mr. Brooks missing the joys and military-industrial profits from the Iraq War, but without a doubt certain people do, people such as John "despicable" Bolton, Dick "gone off the deep end" Cheney, Bill "always wrong, literally" Kristol, John "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" McCain, new boy on the block Tom "letter writer" Cotton certainly do. The frothing at the mouth to terrify Fox viewers is in full swing.
4
Thanks for pointing out that there are risks with giving peace a chance. We didn't know that.
133
I agree that negotiating is a bad option. The alternative is even worse.
31
"It will inevitably use nuclear weaponry, or even the threat of eventual nuclear weaponry, to advance its apocalyptic interests." This is bluster - a projection of inevitable worst case for us and best case for Iran. Never mind the listed inspections and penalties for subverting the agreement. Netanyahu could have ghost written this column - the only missing piece was the prime minister's description of Iranian ICBMs landing nukes on our East coast which he offered in his condemnation. Apocalyptic indeed.
This is an agreement built on Reagan's Holy Grail of "Trust but Verify." If a staunch Republican could take a risk with an enemy country that possessed the nuclear power to obliterate the entire US in minutes then there should be no intelligent opposition to an infinitely lower risk in this agreement with Iran.
This is an agreement built on Reagan's Holy Grail of "Trust but Verify." If a staunch Republican could take a risk with an enemy country that possessed the nuclear power to obliterate the entire US in minutes then there should be no intelligent opposition to an infinitely lower risk in this agreement with Iran.
115
Now we know Brooks is a Bibi fan. What a surprise!!
75
David, just read your columns for the Iraq war before you were against it.
Personally I try to learn from my mistakes.
Personally I try to learn from my mistakes.
236
Dude is a broken record.
3
Alternatively, bomb Iran now is what you're saying. Was, is Isreal too afraid to do it themselves. The Obama point is simply we have the resources to do it any time and striving for civilized means avoiding conflict is always best. If Israel see it differently, jump.
34
As usual, an opponent of the administration's policy offers no real alternative to Obama's approach. My guess is Brooks does not want to bomb Iran (surely the worst option), but wants to continue sanctions. As many people have pointed out, at the very least China and Russia will reject that idea if we veto a deal the rest of our partners find acceptable, simply because Iran demands compromises and its supreme leader calls us bad names.
28
"we have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Middle East.". we also have a terrible record of predicting trends in the Eastern Europe and in Asia. In fact, the use of the word Intelligence in the name of the U.S. Infornation gathering (and regime changing) agency is more of a hope than a fact since it consistently shows little ability to predict (or do anything about) any political changes occurring in the world.
14
Mr. Brooks, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that this deal a "gamble on the nature of the Iranian regime." This deal is a gamble on the nature of the Iranian people who, by and large, are very different than the "regime" as well as the caricature created of them within orthodox echo chambers. The "regime" is an isolated and aging holdout living in the fading light of a dying season. Betting on the divergent views of such a youthful population is a good gamble in my book.
329
Marie, that's like saying the population of China is not controlled by the central government. The Iranian people have very, very little control over the theocracy of their masters. Perhaps in a generation or two there might be change, but don't bet the farm on it.
2
as long as the regime is willing to intimidate and execute its divergent youthful population, they will continue to be subjugated. Show this new generation that the leadership is getting them nothing and that will foster regime change.
There is an alternative to a an agreement that leaves the iranians in a position to both benefit financially and keep their nuclear program in a ready to resume condition. Crank up the sanctions. Get the countries that are already participating to make it more difficult to keep exporting revolution and spending large sums on nuclear weapons programs. And get more countries to participate. While this is a different situation, sanctions have worked in the past, e.g. South Africa, and it can be done today. While the sanctions are given time to work, assemble an international coalition to create a real threat of a military response. It's time that we respond to the Ayatollah in language he might understand.
24
"Get the countries that are already participating to make it more difficult"
No, that is not an alternative. The sanctions are already starting to weaken. They won't let us use them for such wider purposes.
No, that is not an alternative. The sanctions are already starting to weaken. They won't let us use them for such wider purposes.
5
Sanctions in South Africa worked because there was widespread agreement around the world that apartheid was wrong - and this included many within South Africa as well.
Many people in Iran feel that it should have the right to have nuclear technology, and there is nothing inherently wrong about what they are doing. Rather than getting Iranians to back off, protracted sanctions, and continued demonization of the entire country might cause them to rally around their leader.
The real problem in Iran is the extremist ideology, and where is the evidence that an economy in ruins moderates that? How has it worked in North Korea, or for Israel in Gaza?
Many people in Iran feel that it should have the right to have nuclear technology, and there is nothing inherently wrong about what they are doing. Rather than getting Iranians to back off, protracted sanctions, and continued demonization of the entire country might cause them to rally around their leader.
The real problem in Iran is the extremist ideology, and where is the evidence that an economy in ruins moderates that? How has it worked in North Korea, or for Israel in Gaza?
1
Others in the negotiations will bail out and drop sanctions rather than ramping up sanctions indefinitely. Americans cannot be trusted.
Then where will Netanyahu and his American necons be? Happily at war with other people's kids.
Then where will Netanyahu and his American necons be? Happily at war with other people's kids.
3
Khamenei is under the same political constraints as we are. I don't hear any American politicians saying America has changed and this deal is ushering in a new era of good feeling. He doesn't have to love us and we don't have to love him. I keep waiting to hear the alternative policy and all I hear is John Bolton and Dick Cheney. I'll take my chances with Khamenei thank you very much.
385
GV of Wisconsin, that's what Khamenei likes to hear.
1
While you're taking your chances with Khamenei and rejecting any reliance on the geniuses that gave us Iraq 2003, don't forget Lyin' Hank, Henry The Kissinger "no we are not bombing the sovereign nations of Cambodia and Laos" (we were, too). Why does anyone listen to these guys who have been caught telling bald-faced lies but are still trotted out by the "liberal media" as being someone worth listening to?
5
gv.
While I strongly agree that we should take our chances on such a deal, the Bolton-Cheney alternative being totally unacceptable, the Supreme Leader is not really under political constraints as we understand them. He's the man in Iran, empowered to veto any measure he dislikes--and his veto can't be overridden. But, like you, I'm marginally hopeful that a mutually acceptable deal can be struck.
While I strongly agree that we should take our chances on such a deal, the Bolton-Cheney alternative being totally unacceptable, the Supreme Leader is not really under political constraints as we understand them. He's the man in Iran, empowered to veto any measure he dislikes--and his veto can't be overridden. But, like you, I'm marginally hopeful that a mutually acceptable deal can be struck.
The US has a bad history with Iran. We overturned their government and installed a 'shah' for them. As a result of our actions, Iran got this theocratic government and the enduring enmity of that nation. This agreement, for better or worse, will allow for the re-building of trust between our nations. This trust may or may not develop and build but we need to give it a chance. I will hope and pray that it does succeed.
41
I'm not sure what we should expect the Ayatollah to say. Considering our history in the region, we wouldn't expect him to 'friend' us on his Facebook page. We also send a lot of mixed signals, such as when the Reagan administration sold arms to Iran. Nevertheless, tensions in the Middle East have been high for decades, even though the previous Republican administration did its best to improve things with a couple of protracted, ruinous wars.
Internal political blustering from Ayatollahs notwithstanding, one way to look at the deal is to see who's for it and who's against it. Conservatives like to keep the fear level high. They color-code it to make sure even kindergarten children get the message. Various states, like Cuba, become permanent pariahs. Sanctions against Iran could conceivably go on forever. Eventually, though, people start to wonder if maintaining permanent enemies might be counterproductive.
Republicans in Congress, headed by our own brand of mini-Ayatollahs, hate the deal, almost as much as they hate Obamacare. They invited Netanyahu to speak, undermining Obama while negotiations with Iran were ongoing. Kissinger, who, like Cheney, is apparently immortal, isn't crazy about the Iran deal. And when the Architect of World Evil speaks, it pays to listen.
But the clincher is Brooks. He's the equivalent of a conservative mood-ring. If this deal puts him in a dark mood, then I'm probably for it.
Internal political blustering from Ayatollahs notwithstanding, one way to look at the deal is to see who's for it and who's against it. Conservatives like to keep the fear level high. They color-code it to make sure even kindergarten children get the message. Various states, like Cuba, become permanent pariahs. Sanctions against Iran could conceivably go on forever. Eventually, though, people start to wonder if maintaining permanent enemies might be counterproductive.
Republicans in Congress, headed by our own brand of mini-Ayatollahs, hate the deal, almost as much as they hate Obamacare. They invited Netanyahu to speak, undermining Obama while negotiations with Iran were ongoing. Kissinger, who, like Cheney, is apparently immortal, isn't crazy about the Iran deal. And when the Architect of World Evil speaks, it pays to listen.
But the clincher is Brooks. He's the equivalent of a conservative mood-ring. If this deal puts him in a dark mood, then I'm probably for it.
262
Brilliant! Thank you.
2
We can either take Iran's oil by force or we can negotiate for it. Isn't that what this is about?
29
What you say makes no sense. The Iranians want to sell their oil. Our sanctions mean we are refusing to buy it. The whole point of the deal is that Iran would be allowed to sell its oil again.
4
Right. Look at how we've taken Iraq's oil.
1
No Carol, in case you haven't kept up with then news, we no longer need mid-eastern oil.
4
At last a NY Times OP Ed column about Iran that actually dares to question what Iran's real intentions are before finalizing this dubious nuclear agreement. Brace yourself David--you're going to hear alot about how great it was that Iran signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (never mind that Iran has been circumventing the treaty for years) and about our misguided foreign policy venture in 1953 destroyed Iranian democracy when we put our guy the Shah in charge of Iran. Oh did I forget to mention all the comments that will inevitably accompany this article about how all those illegal Israeli nukes (the number of nukes Israel has varies from 200 to 2000) are going to destroy Planet Earth. I swear Times commenters are so predicable it's not even funny anymore. Still, I give David Brooks credit for at least making the attempt to expose the Iranian dog and pony nuclear show for the sham it really is. Now let the games begin.
9
Sharon writes of "finalizing this dubious nuclear agreement." This is an expression of ignorance. What was negotiated is a framework, not a nuclear agreement. There is no conclusion here. The details have not been discussed. Therefore, Sharon's conclusions are meaningless.
34
Yet nothing you say contradicts the points raised.
4
Dave, the similarities between your screed and Khamenei's are amazing. Did you write his text too?
55
Mr. Brook's extreme and uninformed prior propagandizing on behalf of Netanyahu rids anything he now writes of any credibility. President Obama has acted in the interests of America, not the fanatical expansionist Israeli settlers whom Brooks and Netanyahu are serving. The Iranian nuclear deal will stand or fall on its own merits, not based on pseudo history concocted to support partisan interests in Israel.
205
"President Obama has acted in the interests of America..." Indeed, this what Mr. Obama says;but, the facts demonstrate otherwise. If this "very good deal" could stand on its own merits, as any serious agreement should, why does the President need to use the most aggressive sales techniques and employ, in doing so, some of the administration biggest guns? The devil is always in the details, and the President refuses to share the details with the American people. Shouldn't this alert fact alert all....??
2
"Sales techniques" are the minimum that is needed when half the members of the US Congress are acting as traitors by being water carriers for foreign fanatics in the Mideast.
5
I agree. David Brooks has become a mouthpiece for Netanyahu and AIPAC. I feel the same way about CNN's Wolf Blitzer, who was formerly an AIPAC lobbyist. It is important that Americans understand and respond to the Israelis' point of view, and that any pact reached with Iran protect Israel's interests as well as our own. That goal is not achieved, however, by permitting lobbyists to pose as journalists. I find David Brooks' continual attempts to undermine negotiations extremely offensive, particularly since he is merely running Netanyahu's press releases under a NYT byline.
2
As a Jew, the son of a people of 4,000 years that has been hunted and haunted for much of this period by evil people and evil forces, I can't but take the words of the leadership of Iran - religious, political and military - seriously. And, I must assume that since the call for the annihilation of the State of Israel and the "cleansing" of my people's homeland of its Jews has been sounding for decades, backed by actions promoting this outcome, that the Islamists of Iran actually mean it, and intend to carry out their intention once they have the means to do so and the opportunity presents itself.
The means could well be the atomic bomb, and the opportunity to do so could well be when naive souls in the west assume that we, Jews, just imagine things and must not worry. Obama's handling of foreign affairs, sadly, radiates precisely that kind of opportunity.
I, therefore, don't trust that Mr. Obama will "have Israel's back" if it is attacked. No one has had the Jewish people's back throughout history when the chips have been down. Only Jewish hope and perseverance has enabled us, members of the Jewish people, to survive despite all odds. Therefore, I call upon America to reject the naivete radiating from Mr. Obama's approach to the Islamist warlords of Iran.
The means could well be the atomic bomb, and the opportunity to do so could well be when naive souls in the west assume that we, Jews, just imagine things and must not worry. Obama's handling of foreign affairs, sadly, radiates precisely that kind of opportunity.
I, therefore, don't trust that Mr. Obama will "have Israel's back" if it is attacked. No one has had the Jewish people's back throughout history when the chips have been down. Only Jewish hope and perseverance has enabled us, members of the Jewish people, to survive despite all odds. Therefore, I call upon America to reject the naivete radiating from Mr. Obama's approach to the Islamist warlords of Iran.
12
I'm sorry, but in my lifetime, we had your back - it wasn't your own who liberated the camps. (and trust me, it wasn't the rich man's son, either) I love Israel, but why is it, your people refuse to listen? I'm in the seventh day of no bread and I find this comment appalling.
49
rebecca1048,
We entered WWII after Pearl Harbor, not to save the Jews of Europe.
We entered WWII after Pearl Harbor, not to save the Jews of Europe.
9
Mr. Shriber, if "No one has had the jewish people's back throughout history". Why you "calling upon America to reject Obama's approach to the Islamist warlord of Iran". You don't acknoledge that the existence and survival of the State of Israel is depending on America and now you call America to reject Obama, why don't you call your prime minister to bomb Iran the same way he bombed Gaza.
16
He calls himself The Supreme Leader, i.e., Der Fuhrer. He controls all aspects of daily life and foreign policy in his country. He instigates and bankrolls terror throughout the Middle East and elsewhere. He openly calls for the elimination of Israel. He jails, tortures and murders his own people. He persecutes gays and women. He controls a Revolutionary Guard that reports only to him. He calls for Death to America and accuses us of lying, deception and having devilish intentions. He is attempting to develop nuclear weapons. Sound familiar?
12
Are you speaking of Saudi Arabia? Do you advocate war against them as well?
27
"He openly calls for the elimination of Israel. He jails, tortures and murders his own people."
Whereas your crew calls for elimination of Iran's regime with great bloodshed, and tortures and murders only Palestinians not all of the people it governs.
Whereas your crew calls for elimination of Iran's regime with great bloodshed, and tortures and murders only Palestinians not all of the people it governs.
14
One can easily imagine the same piece being written in Iran, but substituting "America's Republican lead Congress" in place of "Ayatollah Ali Khamenei", "Iran's supreme leader", etc., mutatis mutandis.
I suggest David Brooks read "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain, then maybe listen to "With God On Our Side", by Dylan. Then try an honest rewrite of this piece.
I suggest David Brooks read "The War Prayer" by Mark Twain, then maybe listen to "With God On Our Side", by Dylan. Then try an honest rewrite of this piece.
88
America has never called for the annihilation of Iran or Iran's ally countries!!
4
"America has never called for the annihilation of Iran or Iran's ally countries!!"
Yes, every possible effort has been made to communicate every possible threat, all of it "on the table" and all repeated in detail in our press.
Yes, every possible effort has been made to communicate every possible threat, all of it "on the table" and all repeated in detail in our press.
11
@N. L Shriber
Ever hear of John McCain?
Ever hear of John McCain?
14
Looking at this from outside the US, Iran's spiritual leader Khamenei appears to be a much better negotiator than President Obama.
1
how so? they have given up a lot, and were left with a fig leaf - an underground reactor facility that under the terms of the agreement can basically be used as a juice bar. leaving a rival with some dignity is a good idea.
2
I can't tell whether David Brooks is endorsing Obama's negotiating tactics or not. He concludes saying that if we can get a deal it's a home run, but that he doesn't trust the Iranians to actually sign the deal. This deal is only possible because sanctions are working. Most republican's believed sanctions would not work, but they have because almost all countries including China and Russian have enforced them. If the Iranians walk away from the deal keeping that coalition together will be easier. If the US walks away as many Republicans in congress and Netanyahu seem to want then the coalition will probably break apart. The satire piece that says McCain opposes the deal because it makes it harder to bomb Iran, will come to be viewed as prescient because that's all we will be able to do.
David Brooks is right, we didn't get everything we wanted, but despite what his column says the Iranian's most enriched uranium will actually be depleted though they will be able to continue to enrich to a lower level.
If you actually think about the content of this column and believe in reality based policy, you would strongly support the Presidents direction as the only sensible one.
David Brooks is right, we didn't get everything we wanted, but despite what his column says the Iranian's most enriched uranium will actually be depleted though they will be able to continue to enrich to a lower level.
If you actually think about the content of this column and believe in reality based policy, you would strongly support the Presidents direction as the only sensible one.
444
Rejecting a bad deal, which thie "very good deal" is, calls for increasing the efforts to achieve a good deal, or better yet, a very good deal. It is not entirely clear to me why, simplistically, some would assume that the alternative to a bad deal is military action, although as Mr. Obama has stated a number of times, correctly, that this option should never been taken off the table. What the President's negotiators produced is a bad deal and therefore the efforts must now be to take the issue back to the drawing board, perhaps with real negotiators.... and try to achieve better results. It was Mr. Kerry who stated: no deal at all is much better than having a bad deal. And, once again, this is a very bad deal!
3
Or, keep the sanctions in place.
2
So this guy is also a foreign policy expert? I don't think so, nothing in his previous writings suggest that. My guess is that the Iranian top honcho is saying a bunch of stuff that addresses some faction of his supporters. We don't like him and he doesn't like us.
18
Meanwhile just about every expert in the real World agrees this an excellent deal...
Have you no shame sir? At long last have you no shame?
Have you no shame sir? At long last have you no shame?
167
I find it intriguing, and frightening, that Brooks and most of his GOP (Go Obliterate Persia) cohorts are willing to take Khamenei at face value, when they're not willing to do the same for their own president.
When the president says a deal is in the best interests of the United States and the only way to avoid war, it's viewed as Kenyan treason and political posturing. When Khamenei gives a fiery, staged speech that's clearly political posturing, Brooks desperately wants to believe every word he utters.
It's no wonder Khamenei has harsh words on America's intent, given that half the Senate signed a letter to him that basically said "give up your nukes or we'll turn your country into a parking lot". If Obama and Kerry are in a precarious negotiating position, it's because Republicans and their supreme leader Bibi have put them there.
Brooks is fond of reminding us of the importance of actions, yet in this case he prefers to ignore actions and believe words. It's highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the framework was agreed to without a nod from Khameini; his actions in that regard speak louder than his words. The scintilla of evidence Brooks seeks is staring him in the face.
As usual, Republicans propose no better option. That, too, is an easily interpreted action; one that says loudly and proudly "bomb first, talk later".
When the president says a deal is in the best interests of the United States and the only way to avoid war, it's viewed as Kenyan treason and political posturing. When Khamenei gives a fiery, staged speech that's clearly political posturing, Brooks desperately wants to believe every word he utters.
It's no wonder Khamenei has harsh words on America's intent, given that half the Senate signed a letter to him that basically said "give up your nukes or we'll turn your country into a parking lot". If Obama and Kerry are in a precarious negotiating position, it's because Republicans and their supreme leader Bibi have put them there.
Brooks is fond of reminding us of the importance of actions, yet in this case he prefers to ignore actions and believe words. It's highly unlikely, if not impossible, that the framework was agreed to without a nod from Khameini; his actions in that regard speak louder than his words. The scintilla of evidence Brooks seeks is staring him in the face.
As usual, Republicans propose no better option. That, too, is an easily interpreted action; one that says loudly and proudly "bomb first, talk later".
446
What amazes me about the bomb, bomb, bomb Iran crowd is that they believe, or appear to, in any case, that Iran will not retaliate should the U.S. and Israel bomb their nuclear sites. The simplistic senator from Arkansas states that four days is all it will take! I doubt any one them could possibly believe that, public consumption empty rhetoric. The worst thing about the neo con cheer leaders is how unprepared they are for consequences, we should all review pre Iraq War predictions, they should be printed on the front page of newspapers here and in Israel.
5
When Khamenei says they will drive Israel into the sea and destroy the great Satan, America, Brooks and his party take it as gospel.
When he declares their interpretation of the Koran forbids nuclear weapons they all say he is lying.
Having things both ways is the republican way.
When he declares their interpretation of the Koran forbids nuclear weapons they all say he is lying.
Having things both ways is the republican way.
4
JUST TRUST ME? Of course we should not trust Khamenei. While I agree with David Brooks that there are many indications that the religious leader is sending out negative signals, the sanctions may have had a strong enough impact so that there will be a difference between Iranian rhetoric which, typically of that part of the world is always full of hyperbole and overly dramatic. What will happen if the deal is signed and we are allowed no access for inspections, is that the sanctions will remain in place and additional sanctions brought to bear. The will of the western leaders who wrote the agreement as well as that of other nations will be strengthened and a more unified front will be formed against Iran. The value of their currency will continue to plummet. Also, we were duly warned about invading Iraq based on lies. Now we're paying the price. We have ourselves to thank for that. Despite those facts, the previous administration has Teflon suits. Everything slides off and sticks to Obama. We need more unity and civility at home before we go lecturing anyone else about over-the-top rhetoric. On balance, I think that the agreement is worth pursuing, if only for the reason that sanctions will remain in place and the Iranian revolutionary old guard will eventually spread itself too thin and age itself out of relevancy. The young people who make up the majority of Iran's population have grown up with the Internet and want to rejoin the community of nations.
35
The alternative?
91
So Brooks sees no answer but War,
Like Netanyahu, what he's for,
No bargain, no deals
As Brooks now reveals
He's a chicken hawk at the core.
Whose predictive record is worse?
In Iraq's war who did immerse
Us in blood. death and cost
With countless lives lost,
A now ever widening curse?
Like Netanyahu, what he's for,
No bargain, no deals
As Brooks now reveals
He's a chicken hawk at the core.
Whose predictive record is worse?
In Iraq's war who did immerse
Us in blood. death and cost
With countless lives lost,
A now ever widening curse?
168
Dear Larry Eisenberg:
Nowhere in today's column does Mr. Brooks advocate....anything! His piece is analytical.
Nowhere in today's column does Mr. Brooks advocate....anything! His piece is analytical.
2
If Brooks were to read only one comment today, I wish it could be yours.
3
Khamani and the clerics still have power in Iran - too much power - but the struggle in that nation today is precisely between Khamani's generation and younger, more secular, practical leaders. There would not have been any nuclear treaty negotiations, had not this political struggle inside Iran been taking place.
The Obama administration and its allies have taken advantage of the divisions within Iran to negotiate a treaty that would limit Iran's nuclear program, undermine the mullahs' power, and bring Iran back into an international economy, and thus provide further incentives for change. That the right wing clerics are repudiating the treaty – and are denouncing the US and Israel once again – seems to me to be a sign that our strategy is succeeding. What we are hearing are the desperate cries from of dying generation of extremists and zealots..
Of course, we can given that group of reactionaries more air by rejecting negotiations. That is what David Brooks and his friends would like us to do. Perhaps Kissinger and Shutlts – whose op-Ed, by the way, I cannot read because the Wall Street Journal will not give nonsubscribers - are also old men whose time is over.